Is this technique now considered legal?

[Hawksmoor]

All right I pasted this from the Hero Pic thread it describes a guy named Sentinel.

 

 

Mk IV CAVALIER ARMOR, all slots: Extra Time 1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), Only to Activate Constant or Persistent Power (-3/4), OIF Durable Expendable (Difficult to obtain new Focus; -3/4), Only In Heroic Identity (-1/4)

 

 

 

My question is that this was how we used to build power armors at New World in OKC in the late eighties and early nineties. But the build was always considered a twinkish despite the fact that when the GM deigns to use it against the PC it can be devastating.

 

So again my question is: Is this a broken build? Or is it vaguely twinkish depending on who the GM is and how God Smacking he is on Lims and Disads?

 

Hawksmoor

[TheEmerged]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Mk IV CAVALIER ARMOR, all slots: Extra Time 1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), Only to Activate Constant or Persistent Power (-3/4), OIF Durable Expendable (Difficult to obtain new Focus; -3/4), Only In Heroic Identity (-1/4)

 

So again my question is: Is this a broken build? Or is it vaguely twinkish depending on who the GM is and how God Smacking he is on Lims and Disads?

 

Hawksmoor

 

I'd have to see some of the slots to make a final judgement, because I think I'm missing what it is you're trying to do. For one thing, is this an EC or MP (I assume MP)?

 

I can however see one more-than-merely-"vaguely" twinkish aspect -- it's bad form to stack OIHID (Only in Heroic ID) with Focus. It says this under OIHID's description on FREd pg 197, although the wording there isn't strong enough for my taste. For all practical purposes you're getting two sets of points for what is really one limitation.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

The character isn't mine. It is just strongly reminincent of a technique we used way back when...like Champs 2 being converted to BBB.

 

The issue is can you do the following and not get looked at oddly.

 

Focus

Only need to set up the power not activate it each time you use it

Only in Hero ID

possibly DCV penalty while you are setting it up

 

We called the 1 3/4 limitation Armored Hero. Goes into a closet at the beginning of combat returns one turn later and gets all Superman on the remaining foes.

 

Hawksmoor

[Stray Cat]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

My question is that this was how we used to build power armors at New World in OKC in the late eighties and early nineties. But the build was always considered a twinkish despite the fact that when the GM deigns to use it against the PC it can be devastating.

 

Hawksmoor

 

I snipped all the ON-TOPIC stuff... The early nineties was probably about when I started going to New World or playing Champs. Although I spent more time at The Otherside. Cool to know there are more than just my gang who know the joint!

 

Cat

[sbarron]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

The issue is can you do the following and not get looked at oddly.

 

Focus

Only need to set up the power not activate it each time you use it

Only in Hero ID

possibly DCV penalty while you are setting it up

 

No, you can't. And here's me looking at you oddly.

[JmOz]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Focus and OIHID is usaly a no no (However I would allow it on a thor type character who has a OAF and OIHID, The accesability makes a big difference to me, but I digress)

 

Legally yes you could take your powers via a focus with extra time and concentration, I would look at you sideways, but it is legal.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

This is where Hero System needs to set down the law, IMO.

 

There needs to be big bold print on every page of the book that says,

 

"If any limitation or disadvantage that provides point breaks or extra points to spend can be plausibly and regularly avoided in game play, the GM has the right to smack the player really f***ing hard and scream "POINT WHORE!"."

 

The biggest flaw in Hero is "stacked limitations" IMO. At least in character building. It encourages the gamist tendency to look for loopholes, rather than create a character with a meaningful story.

 

It's a matter of philosophy. Do you take limitations on powers to get points... or do you take them, because you want the story to reflect that the power isn't as reliable (or whatever) as it could be.

 

The main question a GM should ask is, "Are you going to be frustrated when your limitation screws you in the game? If so, don't take it." Some players like to build in weaknesses, becasue they enjoy the struggle and pathos that creates in the story.

 

I don't see that being the issue here.

 

"Smack!"

[Zed-F]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

I agree with RDU Neil on this one. You do not get any extra points for specifying the amount of time it takes to put on your armour; that's inherently part of the OIF limitation. You do not get extra points for Only in Hero ID when you put on your Hero's armour -- again, that's covered by the OIF limitation.

 

I don't like expendable on foci either. Expendable is supposed to be used for *charges*, not foci. Unless you've bought your focus as an OIF -- object of convenience, or unbreakable, it's automatically going to take you some time to rebuild a focus that gets lost or destroyed. If you buy expendable on a focus, you'd better believe that I as a GM *am* going to destroy that focus at some point; if I don't, it's not limiting, and is basically free points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

This is where Hero System needs to set down the law, IMO.

 

There needs to be big bold print on every page of the book that says,

 

"If any limitation or disadvantage that provides point breaks or extra points to spend can be plausibly and regularly avoided in game play, the GM has the right to smack the player really f***ing hard and scream "POINT WHORE!"."

 

Isn't that why FREd is big and only printed in hardcover?

[JmOz]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

I agree with RDU Neil on this one. You do not get any extra points for specifying the amount of time it takes to put on your armour; that's inherently part of the OIF limitation. You do not get extra points for Only in Hero ID when you put on your Hero's armour -- again, that's covered by the OIF limitation.

 

I don't like expendable on foci either. Expendable is supposed to be used for *charges*, not foci. Unless you've bought your focus as an OIF -- object of convenience, or unbreakable, it's automatically going to take you some time to rebuild a focus that gets lost or destroyed. If you buy expendable on a focus, you'd better believe that I as a GM *am* going to destroy that focus at some point; if I don't, it's not limiting, and is basically free points.

 

Devil's Advocate: So you see NO difference in a character who has a ring that glows brightly when in use to a character that has to spend a turn putting on his armor? You don't think armor boy is getting the short end of the stick between the two different F/X's, all other things being equal? (both would qualify for OIF)

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Great Guys!!

 

This is exactly what I thought. I now subscribe to a limitation that is not a limitation is not a limitation camp. I just wanted to make certain that this [veiw of limitations] and not powergaming like the example I posted had become the *standard* for character creation.

 

Really, if we were going to build ridiculous characters. Why not just get the GM to up the point total to 500. I had a friend that would not build a PC unless he could be assured a -1 overall limitation for his PCs, just so he could have a 500 Active point PC, and each and every power and Major Characteristic was in a Framework (STR DEX CON SPEED). Not of course that he ever expected to see any of his limitations called in a game.

 

"I know the Power Ring is bought Independent! You just can't take it away from me." :sulk: :pout: :Throw Dice: "I hate you and I am never playing in your game again!"

the next day

"Here is my new PC. He is so cool!"

wash rinse repeat

 

Hawksmoor

[devlin1]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Great Guys!!

 

This is exactly what I thought. I now subscribe to a limitation that is not a limitation is not a limitation camp.

 

That's good, since that concept is kinda integral to the whole power-building process. Hasn't that always been in boldface somewhere in every edition?

 

Really, if we were going to build ridiculous characters. Why not just get the GM to up the point total to 500. I had a friend that would not build a PC unless he could be assured a -1 overall limitation for his PCs, just so he could have a 500 Active point PC, and each and every power and Major Characteristic was in a Framework (STR DEX CON SPEED).

 

Of course, Limitations don't reduce the Active Points of a power. A 60 AP power with -2 in Limitations is still 60 AP. You guys were letting him get away with murder....

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Please! I was refering to how we used to build PCs. The trend really was limitations and Disads really do not matter, take all you want. Not cool now or to me now, but it was a city of powergamers and that was how we played.

 

As to the AP. We had point caps on powers, the trick was you could pay less than half on everything and get more of everything else. I even had a friend build a Superman clone on 300 points.

 

I now dislike that style, but it is like the food you grew up with...it seems familiar and fun even though it is clogging up your arteries and killing you.

[devlin1]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

A city of powergamers? My God! Imagine that! It sounds like a pulp-style "lost continent" kinda thing. Cut off from society and reasonable gaming logic for generations, only to be discovered in the '20s by an intrepid band of explorers.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

A city of powergamers? My God! Imagine that! It sounds like a pulp-style "lost continent" kinda thing. Cut off from society and reasonable gaming logic for generations' date=' only to be discovered in the '20s by an intrepid band of explorers.[/quote']

GAH!!! Get Out Of My Head!!!!!!

 

How do you always know what Im thinking? Its weird!

[devlin1]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

GAH!!! Get Out Of My Head!!!!!!

 

How do you always know what Im thinking? Its weird!

It's because we've never met and rarely communicate. Obviously!

[Gary]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

I would rule that extra time to turn on a constant power (the power armor) means that everytime you're Stunned or Knocked Out, you have to spend a turn activating the power again. And I wouldn't allow that limitation for persistent powers.

 

So yeah, you can get an extra -3/4 limitation by taking a full turn to activate. But you'd better not ever get Stunned or KO'd in combat.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

In the end, this discussion is just one more example of a difference in Creative Agendas.

 

What do people want out of a game?

 

The gamist tendency, often slighted, but very legitimate, is "to win" For the most part, gamists by definition are all about using the rules to their advantage.

 

The simulationist tendency is to "create a world/events/adventures that ring true..." and this can take the role of genre fiends (Heroes just don't do that!) or experimenters in world building, whatever.

 

The biggest clashes come between these two, not because of the rules... but because the social agenda, the agreement between humans involved in the game, is not clear. You have those who want "to win" being called munchkins by those who want to "explore for explorations sake."

 

Rules will never fix this (because, remember, by definition, rules just feed a gamists desire to figure out how to maximise them for their own effect.)

 

A quote on another board summed it up. "The rules bloat in the '80s..." referring to RPG game design, can be summed up as Simulationists trying to enforce their vision of the "right way to role play" on gamists.

 

I'm as much a product of those days as anyone. The real issue is not what game, and what rules are "legal" but "Are we compatible gamers? Do we want the same thing?"

 

That is the hard question to ask, because many groups may break up over this.

 

But until the issue here, or in the Sniper Syndrome thread are addressed head on, as people with differences of desire, no rules argument or in game GM fiats or punishments, will ever resolve them.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

In the end, this discussion is just one more example of a difference in Creative Agendas.

 

What do people want out of a game?

 

The gamist tendency, often slighted, but very legitimate, is "to win" For the most part, gamists by definition are all about using the rules to their advantage.

 

The simulationist tendency is to "create a world/events/adventures that ring true..." and this can take the role of genre fiends (Heroes just don't do that!) or experimenters in world building, whatever.

 

The biggest clashes come between these two, not because of the rules... but because the social agenda, the agreement between humans involved in the game, is not clear. You have those who want "to win" being called munchkins by those who want to "explore for explorations sake."

 

Rules will never fix this (because, remember, by definition, rules just feed a gamists desire to figure out how to maximise them for their own effect.)

 

A quote on another board summed it up. "The rules bloat in the '80s..." referring to RPG game design, can be summed up as Simulationists trying to enforce their vision of the "right way to role play" on gamists.

 

I'm as much a product of those days as anyone. The real issue is not what game, and what rules are "legal" but "Are we compatible gamers? Do we want the same thing?"

 

That is the hard question to ask, because many groups may break up over this.

 

But until the issue here, or in the Sniper Syndrome thread are addressed head on, as people with differences of desire, no rules argument or in game GM fiats or punishments, will ever resolve them.

Well said.

 

However I think in this case we have a gamist who has come in from the cold and is "checking himself" to see if his gamist tendencies and past are poisoning his best attempts to not be a rule-bending point whore.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Interesting. But, alas we have to have a line in the sand as it were. I will state that in Champions I play like an old Battletech Veteran. I am a gamist. I will be at the Board, non stop, watching what other characters do, noting the surroundings for use and waiting until my phase/segment, then I am going to use my ultra efficient PC to destroy the opposition.

 

I will also sit down and Roleplay your @$$ off. You wanna plumb out a PC? I got your fully fleshed out 'reality immersed' oh my god my new friend (not a DNPC mind you!) is being fed to sharks! PC right here.

 

But again even gamists must have a metaphorical line in the rules that say

 

"This far in the name of point efficiency and no further!"

 

The Extra Time Limitation with continuing effects for all powers on a Focus that is only usable in Hero ID is mine.

 

I have had it explained to me. I have used it. But it is a broken thing to do. It ruins the conception of limitations, because it is really never ever going to be used against a PC.

 

Hawksmoor

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Well said.

 

However I think in this case we have a gamist who has come in from the cold and is "checking himself" to see if his gamist tendencies and past are poisoning his best attempts to not be a rule-bending point whore.

 

 

Well that is one way to say it. But in general yeah I am am a recovering rule bending whore with Fred marks on my face to prove it. And I need help!

 

Hawksmoor

[JmOz]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

I think it also comes down to what the group is like. While I know dozens ways to bend the rules before I break them if the power armor guy in the group only has taken OIF or OIHID with nothing else I will probably not do it...

 

HOWEVER if everycharacter has OIF, Alblative (Body Only), 1 minute to start, 0 DCV to activate, gestures, then I will do the same

[megaplayboy]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

From a GMing standpoint, treat limitations on powers as cumulative--that is, if a power has -2 in total limitations on it, it's pretty heavily hampered, and this should be made evident in most sessions. No free points.

A typical abuse is the Act.15-/SE(full) combo, which yields a whopping -1.25 in limitations. It only comes up about once every 20 rolls, but once it does it should be appropriately devastating; IIRC, SE effectively do NND damage to the PC.

 

The extra time limitation should not give that much value to the PC, maybe a -1/2 on top of the OIF(at most), for a -3/4 to -1 in total overall limitations. I might even suggest that it be a physical lim disad(takes one turn to put on suit--frequent, major) on the PC instead of a power limitation.

[Gary]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

The extra time limitation should not give that much value to the PC' date=' maybe a -1/2 on top of the OIF(at most), for a -3/4 to -1 in total overall limitations. I might even suggest that it be a physical lim disad(takes one turn to put on suit--frequent, major) on the PC instead of a power limitation.[/quote']

 

Extra time is only a non-limitation for Persistent powers. For Constant powers, it's a serious limitation since the power has to be restarted each time the character is Stunned or KO'd. Would you really want to spend a turn activating your Force Field after you've been Stunned?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Is this technique now considered legal?

 

Extra time is only a non-limitation for Persistent powers. For Constant powers' date=' it's a serious limitation since the power has to be restarted each time the character is Stunned or KO'd. Would you really want to spend a turn activating your Force Field after you've been Stunned?[/quote']

 

In this instance, it clearly isn't what the player intended. If it were a "power up energy armor" type of construct, I could see that, but the way it was presented, it clearly wasn't intended to represent a power set that turns off when the PC is stunned.