Limitation punishment

[Guest Kolava]

I'm of the persuation that limitations do not need to be maliciously exploited by GMs in order to justify their point discounts. In fact, I often think of them merely as being there to flesh out a character and refine their powers within realism. Why should the GM feel motivated to have the samurai's katana snap every other adventure just because that -1 gave him extra points? And if it's an Independant Ancestral Heirloom, why should the GM feel the need to threaten its safety at every chance, dangling the prospect of "the points will be lost forever" over the honest player who just wanted to have an irreplacable ancestral blade?

 

Sorry if I seem a bit presumptious, but I have heard some GMs on these

boards express a quite opposite view. What do you think?

 

Also, while we're on the topic of Independant Focuses, have you ever actually found it necisary to take away the points forever? It seems strange that a character should be forever behind his comrades, even if he scrapes together enough points to buy a new blade (with a meaningful IC story, perhaps even a sidequest). I've been thinking that most applications of Independant would work better as the optional additional -1 for Focus described as "Extremely Difficult to Obtain New Focus".

[Gary]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

I'm of the persuation that limitations do not need to be maliciously exploited by GMs in order to justify their point discounts. In fact, I often think of them merely as being there to flesh out a character and refine their powers within realism. Why should the GM feel motivated to have the samurai's katana snap every other adventure just because that -1 gave him extra points? And if it's an Independant Ancestral Heirloom, why should the GM feel the need to threaten its safety at every chance, dangling the prospect of "the points will be lost forever" over the honest player who just wanted to have an irreplacable ancestral blade?

 

Sorry if I seem a bit presumptious, but I have heard some GMs on these

boards express a quite opposite view. What do you think?

 

If limitations don't occasionally come into play, it's not fair to the players who buy their powers straight. The person who saves 30 pts with OAF has 30 extra points to spend on stuff like Dex, Con, Defenses, or higher attacks compared to the person who buys his attacks straight. Therefore the OAF person should have his weaknesses exploited often enough to keep him honest and for Straight Power Dude to not feel ripped off.

 

 

Also, while we're on the topic of Independant Focuses, have you ever actually found it necisary to take away the points forever? It seems strange that a character should be forever behind his comrades, even if he scrapes together enough points to buy a new blade (with a meaningful IC story, perhaps even a sidequest). I've been thinking that most applications of Independant would work better as the optional additional -1 for Focus described as "Extremely Difficult to Obtain New Focus".

 

If the player chooses to take the Independent limitation, he must accept the consequences. Nobody is forcing him to take that limitation. He's merely doing so in order to have more power elsewhere. He's gaining more power at the beginning of the campaign, at the cost of less power later in the campaign.

[austenandrews]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

"Maliciously exploited" is bad. "Coming up in the game" is fair. In fact "never coming up in the game" is not really fair. The whole point is that character X gets more/better powers than character Y because he took Limitations. Therefore you're being unfair to Y if X's Limitations never come into play. A good GM will balance things, of course, so that everyone has fun (unless X is one of those players who complains when his Lim's kick in even once - boot that guy from your game, because he's no fun).

 

Concerning Independent, I agree with you. The only way it comes into play is for a character to lose his Independent item, thereby losing a pile of points. I don't like it and will never use it in my games

 

-AA

[Blue]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

In other words, if you can't live with a focus being "breakable" then don't take the points for it. To me it's that simple.

 

Why? Because rules are there for EVERYONE to follow in my campaign. If you took the limit and someone else didn't, and I never enforce it (equitably! not over-enforced) then the other guy who didn't take it got screwed!

 

I consider myself a pretty fair GM. But if you take "real weapon" (or some other such limitation that really isn't necessary) then I have to find ways to justify the extra points you got.

 

You could build Thor's hammer. Cool. If you put Real Weapon on it to munchkin the points, not only is it unrealistic, but now I have to make you take time out for maintenance, or have it decay when you crawl through the sewer with it on your belt or something.

 

Sounds mean, but I think it's in the interest of keeping thing fair to the people not munchkining their points.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

I generally don't allow things like Independent or Real Weapon in a super-heroic campaign.

 

On the same note, i'm not malicious but i will (at one point or another) step on every limitation or disadvantage a player has. They aren't weaknesses if they never hinder you.

[devlin1]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

And if it's an Independant Ancestral Heirloom' date=' why should the GM feel the need to threaten its safety at every chance, dangling the prospect of "the points will be lost forever" over the honest player who just wanted to have an irreplacable ancestral blade?[/quote']

If he just wants a family heirloom that he doesn't expect his character to ever lose, he should buy it as OAF, period. Buying a power with Independent really is asking the GM to remove it permanently at some point, because that's what Independent means: it's not connected to the character, and points spent on it are lost forever. If the samurai's OAF familial katana ends up being broken, he can turn the points he spent on it into a new katana (in a reasonable manner-- e.g., between gaming sessions, during a gaming session, etc.). Yes, the old one's gone, but the points are still there, and can still be used. Combine it with some XP and he can make an even better sword, which is nice and dramatic.

 

It seems strange that a character should be forever behind his comrades, even if he scrapes together enough points to buy a new blade (with a meaningful IC story, perhaps even a sidequest).

Really? And who was behind when the game started, and he bought a 1d6 HKA for 5 points? As someone else already said, Independent is effectively a short-term advantage.

 

I've been thinking that most applications of Independant would work better as the optional additional -1 for Focus described as "Extremely Difficult to Obtain New Focus".

Personally, I think this particular Focus option is usually unfairly exploited in the interest of min-maxing. IMO, it's not intended for superheroic (or even most heroic) games, and is best suited to a fantasy/magical environment.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

If limitations don't occasionally come into play' date=' it's not fair to the players who buy their powers straight. The person who saves 30 pts with OAF has 30 extra points to spend on stuff like Dex, Con, Defenses, or higher attacks compared to the person who buys his attacks straight. Therefore the OAF person should have his weaknesses exploited often enough to keep him honest and for Straight Power Dude to not feel ripped off.[/quote']I agree with Gary. It's totally unfair to the other players if Limitations never come into play. However, a Limitation doesn't have to be applied full force every time you decide it's time to use it. In my game we have a powered armor PC named CyberKNight with his armor bought as an OIF. I've done everything from not giving him quick access to a place to change into the armor to kidnapping him in his Secret ID (He's a billionaire) and having the kidnappers leave the briefcase with his armor in his helicopter when they carried him away. He had to escape neo-Nazis without any of his Powers at all from a trawler in the North Sea. Fortunately he didn't neglect Skills.

 

A little imagination goes a long way. I'm really a very nice GM. Honest.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

I generally don't allow things like Independent or Real Weapon in a super-heroic campaign.

 

On the same note, i'm not malicious but i will (at one point or another) step on every limitation or disadvantage a player has. They aren't weaknesses if they never hinder you.

 

My expectation is that the player expects and wants everything on his character sheet to come into focus in play at some time. If he has regeneration, he expects to take Body. If he has a limitation, it should crop up at some time.

 

Not "be maliciously exploited to punish him for saving points", but not "ignored so it is always as effective as an unlimited power" either.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Good points. I wasn't trying to imply that limitations should be for decoration; I was trying to express my distaste for GMs who look at every "-" as an invitation for misfortune. Ideally, no one would feel cheated because each would have bought thier own limitations for their own powers. In a sense, I was aiming for a zen-like "limitation without limitation" effect, where the sheer risk of being deprived of a hard to replace item would keep the players on their toes.

[KA.]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Good points. I wasn't trying to imply that limitations should be for decoration; I was trying to express my distaste for GMs who look at every "-" as an invitation for misfortune. Ideally' date=' no one would feel cheated because each would have bought thier own limitations for their own powers. In a sense, I was aiming for a zen-like "limitation without limitation" effect, where the sheer [i']risk[/i] of being deprived of a hard to replace item would keep the players on their toes.

 

Not trying to argue here, but I have a couple of comments.

 

1) If everyone has Limitations that are rarely enforced, then nothing is being screwed but the game itself.

As a GM, I feel that I have some responsibilites to the game itself.

Not that I am The Holy Avenger of the Hero System, but if my players, especially the ones that I teach the system to, go elsewhere to play some day, I would like them to be able to fit in with a group that follows the rules.

For that reason, rather than let them take Limitations that I never enforce, I would rather bump up their starting points. (Explaining, of course, that I was doing it that way in my campaign and that most people use the standard points.)

At least that way, they would still have respect for Limitations, and not take them when they don't expect them to be enforced.

(Yes, I could just say "I am easier about Limitations than many GM's." but I think that is a harder habit to break later than being used to a higher point total.)

 

2) As far as the "threat" vs. the "actual Limitation".

I think it is unfair for a GM to torture every player with Limitations, but I do think that they should be enforced based on their value.

However, none of my players would ever assume that just because they don't have a Limitation on something that it is "safe".

In the comics, characters without Limitations and Disadvantages get messed with all the time.

Just because it is not bought as a OAF, it doesn't mean that your Power Sword will never be broken or stolen, it just means that it is going to be rare.

Just because you don't have "Code vs. Killing", you can't just go around wasting everyone that gets in your way.

And just because you don't have DNPC, don't think you will never have to protect an NPC character.

 

In other words, something like the threat of your ancestral sword being stolen would be part of the campaign anyway.

There wouldn't be ninja death-squads constantly hunting you down to take it, but it would still be an attractive target for thieves and rival families, even with no Limitations.

 

3) Planning a campaign is like writing the outline for a story.

You don't fill in all the details, because the players do that, and you don't know the ending until it happens.

But just like a story, if there is no conflict there is no plot.

How many movies have you watched where none of the main characters were risking any sort of loss?

Not just loss of life, but loss of love, loss of honor, loss of position, loss of faith, loss of wealth, loss of health, loss of family?

 

Risk of loss is the basis of conflict.

 

If everyone knows that nothing bad can happen to them, or anything or anyone they care about, why would they care about the outcome?

 

These elements must be present in a campaign even if there are no Limitations or Disadvantages.

 

Limitations and Disadvantages give the player the ability to "steer" these elements into the directions that they find interesting.

 

KA.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Here's a discussion point: Disadvantages on Summons.

 

It's not really relevant, but it sort of is. Regardless, I've also wondered about this one and wouldn't mind having it explained. Afterall, shouldn't the ice golems who take double BODY from fire cost less then the stone golems who don't?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

As a GM, I don't hunt down and exploit the Limitations on my player's Powers. I do, however, arange for some rather likely situations where several Limitation might come into play...such an any combat.

 

Foci can be disarmed or struck or even dropped, though I don't go out of my way to do such things. Any Power with concentration is probably out of the question in combat. OIHID is simply enforced by role-playing situations in which the character is in his normal life. Other's might be tricky (such a "not in a vaccuum") but if the situation isn't likely to come up, you whouldn't have allowed the Limitation.

 

Independent is a sticky situation. I agree that the only way to make the Limitation work for it's bonus is to at least threaten to take it away or break it. As long as the character is taking steps to keep this from happening, the Limitation is limiting the character's actions. If it does get taken away, the character should go after it. If not, well it was his points.

 

Personally, I don't allow Independent. Then again, I run a supers game. If I were to run a Fantasy game, I might allow it, but I'd definately discourage it.

[tesuji]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

In fact' date=' I often think of them merely as being there to flesh out a character and refine their powers within realism. [/quote']

 

If its just a refinement of the power, and its not going to impact performance in meaningful ways, then its not a limitation thats worth points. I have no problem with -0 limitations, defined for flavor and feel, that produce as many good as bad effects.

 

I do have a problem with someone wanting "points back" and expecting to not see it impact within the game or who thinks that the GM scripting an encounter to "bring out" the downside as "malicious" or somehow wrong.

 

Of course, while i could stop there, i wont.

 

When I put the players thru a somewhat complex mathematical chargen process, full of calculations and trade offs, with every single thing an assigned cost vs total cost, I darn sure better make it worth it. In order for it to be worth it, and for their agonizing over +1 OCV or water breathing not a waste of their precious time, then I am obliged to make the points mean something.

 

So the onus is on me as a Gm to make sure that they guy who i told "that sonic boom 6d6 3"r AOE Eb is worth 60 pts" to and the guy i told "that 15d6 firestorm with reduced penetration is worth 60 pts" will both get the same value out of their powers. Sure, that may well mean i throw some automatons with 7 ED who ignore stun but who have a vulnerabilityx2 to area of effect attacks or maybe sonics and that i Did so DELIBERSTELY AND WITH INTENT to exploit the reduced penetration... but IMO thats the obligation i took when i approve the characters and the limitations.

 

In fact, this does not stop at limitations. It actually applies to every advantage and every base power cost. Back to the earlier mention... if i say +1 OCV is 5 pts and water breathing is 5 pts then I am obliged to have enough cases where water breathing is useful enough to make up for the +1 to hit the other guy gets every combat.

 

and in conclusion, we have my sig...

[tesuji]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Independent...

 

IMO an independent focus WILL be taken away at some point and WILL be gone, probably for good.

 

I treat independent foci as RENTED POWERS... for a time you will have more than you should, by dint of paying about 1/4 the real cost... -2 ind and -1 focus... 15 pts say for a rod of 12d6 lightning with 16 uses per day. But eventually, it will be lost or taken and, sure, you might recover it the first time after a long ordeal, but eventually, you will lose it for good.

 

I approve items with the independent limitation very rarely. Most of the time, the issue is just a focus. The most common use i have for it is for a fantasy game starting character magic item... where you pay next to nothing for a "legacy item".

 

I never approve it when it looks like someone is just using it to squeak points. of course, when you tell them up front "you do realize that you WILL lose this and not get it back at some point?" the point mongers drop IND as fast as they can say "what?!?".

[mr_azrad]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Think about how useful a 2d6 KA with no limitations on it would be compared to a 2d6 KA OAF sword..... the sword can be taken away, grappled, entangled, you can't use it when your tied up, can't bring it on an airplace, maybe they won't let you bring it into the "kings chambers" or the police station, while the 2d6 KA could be used in just about all these circumstances. A nice GM might even let you use it to attack your bonds if your tied up or (and if it was an RKA you might be able to even attack people while you are tied up!).

 

If you can't live with the limitation, don't take it.

 

Of course I recommend most powers have limitations. Think how boring the game would be if everyone was walking around with generic KA's and Armor...

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Think how boring the game would be if everyone was walking around with generic KA's and Armor...

:lol:

 

Oh wait, you said "game"... my mistake.

[Vondy]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

1) disadvantages:

 

I consider these "GM's option." I use them if they advance the story, or if they give me a chance to push development in terms of roll playing. I don't let my players disads dictate my games to me. I do pick a character on a rotating basis and glance at them to see if there's something there I want to use - but that's about it.

 

2) limitations

 

I also consider these "GM's option." I had a GM who was a sadistic bastard in terms of limitations (the whole group got up and walked out, hence my launch into GMing champs) so I tend to tread lightly. I do have them come up now and again, but only when its convenient.

[Mentor]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

1) disadvantages:

 

I consider these "GM's option." I use them if they advance the story, or if they give me a chance to push development in terms of roll playing. I don't let my players disads dictate my games to me. I do pick a character on a rotating basis and glance at them to see if there's something there I want to use - but that's about it.

 

2) limitations

 

I also consider these "GM's option." I had a GM who was a sadistic bastard in terms of limitations (the whole group got up and walked out, hence my launch into GMing champs) so I tend to tread lightly. I do have them come up now and again, but only when its convenient.

Hopefully both Disads and Limitations are bought with the idea of defining the character and not just to come up with those last few points to be invincible.

 

Spiderman without Aunt May or Mary Jane showing up and becoming hostages would destroy the concept of the character. The X Men without the goggles and the wheelchair and the negative reactions to mutants would be a generic arena battle. Cap loses his shield sometimes and Mjolner has to be hidden from the bad guys and innocents in secret ID. The Joker, the Riddler and the Penguin are supposed to mess with the Batmobile and get into Wayne manor or the Batcave.

 

Having disads and limitations is part of the genre and it is incumbent upon the GM to give players their glory and advantages to being a hero as well as to use (and they should use ) the limitations. They should never be used to screw the player nor as random happenstance to make the heroes look stupid. Overcoming obstacles is what makes them even more heroic.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

To clarify: I never suggested getting rid of foci. I only feel that GMs should not look at each limitation's value and say "-1", that means half as effective, then make the power useless half the time. The power should be useless half the time, I know, that is the whole point of having the limitation, but GMs shouldn't have to go out of their way to have this happen. Most limitations, in theory, are balanced enough so that natural situations will tend to be as limiting as they should be.

 

Also, I wasn't trying to come across as a point grabbing min-maxer. My example with the samurai was supposing that the character was already pretty much finished, and did not need to "shave any point". I was trying to get across that the player shouldn't have to actually consider buying "cannot be replaced" as a -0, just so the GM won't smack his lips and spout things like "others paid full price for their powers, so you're going to pay later" when he sees it.

[Vorsch]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

To give an example of uselfulness, if Caps OAF shield is disarmed or whatever and the he gets hit by the the 4d6RKA hes dead, cos he dosent have the shiled no missile deflect/ armour the consequense are severe, cap is portrayed as a character that is not immune to normal weapons hence the shield. ( if he was, he wouldnt dodge so much ). So the point is if he loses his OAF defence shield he stands a good chance of dying if hit. This will seriously affect some players even if it never happens, instant cowardise if OAF taken.

 

Cap being a hero, fight on regardless. Brings a tear to my eye.

 

So -1 dosent have to mean screw the player every 2nd game, i mean how often is OIF Powerarmour actually a limitation. The character is so weak out of it he would die istantly if hit with a super attack ( even if he had reasonable stats) so the GM cant do this cos its being "unfair".

[mr_azrad]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

maybe Cap should say he is an expert at keeping his shield or maybe it is strapped to his arm and he should buy it OIF. If you want access to the points all the time, don't buy the disadvantage.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

maybe Cap should say he is an expert at keeping his shield or maybe it is strapped to his arm and he should buy it OIF. If you want access to the points all the time' date=' don't buy the disadvantage.[/quote']

FREd does mention buying an accesible focus as inaccesible to simulate skill at keeping one's grasp, so this is not unreasonable.

[Vorsch]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

So could Caps shield be built as OIHID or with no lim at all?

 

I just presumed that it would be OAF or OIF . After all if hes unconcious it could be taken.

 

Cap is a expert at keeping his shield DEX 36 spd 8 ,12 combat skill levels, pre 35 breakfall acrobatict MA ..... it just never ends.

 

Hes just paid so many points for combat abilities/skills that very few people can actually disarm him, this does not justify reducing the OAF/OIF lim ( Crossbones disarms him by grabbing the shield an just taking it cos hes bigger and stronger than cap)

[Sean]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

Keep in mind the authors of comic books don't base their decisions upon Hero rules. The context of a point based RPG is different than creative decisions made by writers. Though should a GM and players agree they're free to do so.

 

Most limitations, in theory, are balanced enough so that natural situations will tend to be as limiting as they should be.

 

With due respect, this strikes me as a disingeniuous opinion. This is an RPG not a physics lab. There's no natural law in operation that causes a limitation to manifest itself. Either a GM enacts a situation where it becomes so, or in rarer circumstance a player voluntarily takes a penalty to remain true to character concept. This is even moreso the case when by Hero rules special effects are clearly open to individual interpretation, i.e. you are free in this game to buy a 1d6 HKA without limitations and define it as an ancestral sword, yadda yadda and you can talk as much about details as you care to do so. Buying limitations means that you're accepting some IN GAME limit on how useful that ability will be and get handed back a chunk of points to spend elsewhere.

 

How a GM handles these matters is their own choice. But a GM that never enforces limitations is going to end up with a lot of focus using, limitation ridden heroes in the long run. That or if only some of the players do this then in essence he's handed those individuals a bonus set of points. If you would be comfortable playing a game where people generated characters with different start up points: 1 person with a 300+150 char, 1 with 200+150, 1 with 100+150, etc. then that's fine. However if that would be upsetting to you then consider the implications of limitations without real IN GAME consequence.

[tesuji]

Re: Limitation punishment

 

 

 

So could Caps shield be built as OIHID or with no lim at all?

Absolutely. If the player sees the character and item as de facto "inseperable" he can have it with no limitations.

 

I just presumed that it would be OAF or OIF . After all if hes unconcious it could be taken.

IMO, and i think from the rules perspective, HERo is not about what might happen or what could happen.

 

When you take a limitation, you GET POINTS. Its not "you might get points" or "you could get points"... you get points for any limitation other than -0. From one scenario to the next you retain those bonus points... not "well last week i had +12 pts but this week i am back to on par."

 

By the exact same token, your limitations problems should be something that WILL occur, that DOES occur, not something that might or might not occur.

 

and this will in MOST cases require deliberate and intentional GM scripting to make it work right... ie right as in neither too onerous or too trivial for the points. MOST lim itations wont balance themselves, any more than most traits will.

Cap is a expert at keeping his shield DEX 36 spd 8 ,12 combat skill levels, pre 35 breakfall acrobatict MA ..... it just never ends.

 

Hes just paid so many points for combat abilities/skills that very few people can actually disarm him, this does not justify reducing the OAF/OIF lim ( Crossbones disarms him by grabbing the shield an just taking it cos hes bigger and stronger than cap)

 

The key is, even if cap cannot be disarmed, he can still lose the shield. He can wake up in the morning, walk downstairs, get coffee and when he suits up stare in amazement at the empty spot where his shield was last night. At this point, an adventure begins where he tries to figure out where it is, who took it, and how to get it back... all the while trying to deal with other more normal superheroic things.

 

Simply put, i dont give a rats behind how many points you spent on trying to make your foci "GM proof"... if you took the points for the focus lim, you will feel the payback. I look at it as you paid me to make these types of problems "sometimes he is deprived of the shield or powered armor" a part of your character's in game story... and i will do so.

 

In my current game, my wizard player was thrilled when early in the session i described an enormous wave of chaotic magic sweeping across the city, disrupting his magics and everyone elses. While this eventually led him to a cult and a botched summoning which loosed a demon run amok and a plot involving another shadowy force behind the scenes who gave the cult the flawed scrolls and rituals... one thing he f8igured out immediately was that while magi would recover almost immediately, magic items and other basically standing spells would be corrupted and unstable until "cleansed." This meant his own "amulet of power" was at best unstable and dangerous to use.

 

In the first scene, he saw a magic layman who uses a magic staff get blown up when she used her magic staff. He avoided opportunities to use his amulet for the entire run until he did so in a fit of desperation, getting lucky on a roll and getting the effect he wanted but also bad side effects. (lucky as in it was possibly for several worse things to occur too.)

 

of course, all the while his demonic pursuit was underway, his butler kepty calling him in peril explaining that the mage's home mystic defenses and mystic servants had gone amok, rampaging uncontrollably, smashing the china, burning the library, drinking the wine, melting his DVD collection, and trying to do bodily harm to the butler. The wizard realized he would need to cleanse his stately warlock manor and reset all of his wards and really wished he could help his butler out, but with a balrog strolling down main street... he was busy.

 

i was able to cut every few minutes to give a "cut scene" of Dyffud the butler going thru several "Die Hard" moments trying to deal with the "mystic mansion gone wild"

 

This was all brought about by my saying to myself ... "Self, lets do a warlock gadget flaw bites him scene this week!" about 2 hoursa before the session began.

 

It was deliberate. It was intentional. it was not naturally occuring. and it was loads of fun.

 

Whether its an unknown force overrides the gadgeteers control of his powered armor (you really should not have fired that brilliant researcher who helped with the design for such a trivial thing as mental instability...), yous shield just up and vanishing while you are making waffles, or a botched balrog summoning... your focus lim (or gadget flaw or whatever) WILL bite you, not might bite you, not could bite you... WILL bite you... not naturally, not accidentally, not "ooops a bad die roll"... deliberate, with intent, and without a spec of malice.

 

All the above... IMO and IMX.