Oihid

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Well' date=' taking the whole paragraph in it's entirety, it answers the question for you. You'll note that it's not a warning against [i']all[/i] "sweeping" limitations. Instead it is a warning of certain types of "sweeping" lims: characters that will be useless a large portion of the time (daylight is far more frequent than intense electromagnetic fields) or players only playing that character in favorable conditions. If neither is likely to be the case with the OIHID character, I don't see the problem.

 

Again, so long as the GM shows a little foresight and willingness to enforce the Lim, there is no problem.

 

In any case, that a character can take OIHID on 300 CPs and it might be abusive, that doesn't mean OIHID needs to be chucked and replaced with a Physical Lim. It just means you need to be careful of what OIHID builds you allow. Just like anything else in the Hero System.

 

 

The paragraph says nothing of the sort. It simply warns against Power Limitations that are too sweeping and then uses Only Works in Darkness as an example.

 

There is no mention at all of "certain types" of sweeping limitations. The paragraph is a warning against people who are enormously powerful when the limit isn't active and worthless when the limit is active.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Something to consider about how often the lim comes up: It only matters that it is constent for that game:

 

If I as GM decide that -1/4 effects the charact 25% of the time, then any -1/4 lim should, be it IIF, Intence magnetic fields or OIHID. Another GM may choose that a -1/4 will come up once every 3-4 adventures, but again that is fine, as long as he is consistent and that higher lims happen more often than lower lims.

 

The big problem comes when the character with a IIF has it taken every session, but OIHID man has never had a problem...

 

 

How often the lim comes up is only a part of the story. How many points it affects is another part of the story. A character saving 2 pts on HRRP with a -1/4 is no problem. The same character placing it on 300 of his pts is a different story.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

I'm also a bit of a optimist, I would believe that most of the good games/campaigns running around out there DO use OIHID (and any limitation or disadvantage) enough to warrant its use as a limitation.

 

 

Actually, I find the opposite. 6 players each with 150 pts of disads and potentially limitations on hundreds of points of powers. The GM gets "limitation burnout" where it's simply impossible in practice to work in thousands of total points of disads and limitations to the extent they should.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Oihid

 

For someone who pretends to not care about my opinion, you've been awfully defensive throughout this entire thread. You've been posting lots of defenses of Zl'f, including detailed breakdowns of her points.

It's also pretty sad when someone can't tell the difference between "awfully defensive" postings of a character and using that character as an example to counter overbroad (might I say even utterly facetious?) arguments to prove an absurd point. I'm not arguing in this thread to change your opinion because you're apparently utterly incapable of ever admitting you're incorrect. I'm arguing to show other readers the fallacy of your thinking.

 

Your arrogance is absolutely mindblowing. I'm done here. The really pathetic thing is you've been done for well over 20 pages and still don't realize it.

.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

The paragraph says nothing of the sort. It simply warns against Power Limitations that are too sweeping and then uses Only Works in Darkness as an example.

 

There is no mention at all of "certain types" of sweeping limitations. The paragraph is a warning against people who are enormously powerful when the limit isn't active and worthless when the limit is active.

 

Yes it does and I will explain why: The first sentence says to "watch out for" limitations that are "too sweeping". That's a qualifier of sweeping Limitations in general. In other words, not all sweeping limitations are bad, only those that go overboard (i.e. a subset or 'type' of sweeping Limitation).

 

Now, let's examine the rest of that paragraph:

 

Going back to the fist sentence, "watch out for" is not "ban". It simply means that the GM should examine such builds closely. That is entirely consistent with everything I've posted in this thread and I'd bet that it's consistent with the postings of everyone you've argued against so far.

 

The paragraph then goes on to provide an example using Only Works in Darkness on all the character's powers. Two things here: First, 'all' is not 'most'. Second, this is a limitation specifically mentioned on the Limited Powers table. By its definition in that table, along with the 'Conditional Powers Table' on the facing page, defines its value as -1/2 and its frequency as roughly 1/3 the time. If this warning had been meant to apply to lesser Limitations, why would not one of the -1/4 Limited Power examples have been used? Perhaps its because while a -1/4 LP on (to use your number) 300 CPs would net a "gain" of around 75 points. On the other hand a -1/2 LP on 300 CPs would net a "gain" of around 150 points. That's about twice the points savings and a far bigger power differential (425 points vs. 500) when compared to the 350 point character. In addition, a -1/2 Lim would be occurring in about 1/3 of the time as opposed to 1/4.

 

Finally, the example is continued by warning against a very specific player behavior: A player who won't play the character when the Limitation would apply. Why make this specification if it doesn't matter?

 

So, what can we conclude form all this? We can conclude that Limitations need to be monitored by the GM for fairness. So, you could easily apply the following steps:

 

1. Does this character have all of their Powers bought with the same Limitation?

    If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable?

2. Is that Limitation worth -1/2 or more?

    If 'no', is the Limitation worth enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

3. Is the Limitation likely to occur 1/3 of the time or more?

    If 'no', is the Limitation frequent enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

4. Is the character significantly underpowered when the Limitation is in play?

5. Is the character significantly overpowered when the Limitation is not in play?

6. Is the player likely to avoid playing this character when the Limitation would apply?

 

If the answer is 'yes' to enough of these questions to make the GM uncomfortable (and that level will vary from GM to GM), then the GM is fully justified in going back to the player and suggesting they revise the build.

 

Now, can you tell me how any of that means that OIHID should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a Physical Limitation? As I recall, that was your original proposal and you haven't retracted it yet (though you have gone on to suggest things like Multiform), so I assume you still think that's a good idea.

 

As a complete side note to the above, the 'Conditional Powers Table' mentioned above makes for a perfectly good guideline on how often OIHID should affect the player (and I wish I'd remembered it was there). As a -1/4 Lim, that would be about 1/4 of the time that they change IDs. With three examples, you have enough to last you probably 8 to 12 games, which I would think would be enough time to come up with at least 3 more. It still doesn’t seem overly burdensome to the GM in my opinion.

 

On another note, from what I've observed from your posts, it would seem that you've run into problems with OIHID. My guess would be that it's some combination of the players not playing the Lim and the GM not calling them on it. That is your experience and I'll not deny that it does happen in some games. On the other hand, your experience does not in any way invalidate the experiences of the hundreds of us who have seen OIHID played and adjudicated properly. So, explain to me why we should adopt your point of view on OIHID when it runs counter to our own experiences? What makes your experiences more valuable than ours?

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Well stated and thorough, Netzilla, rep given.

 

 

Hmmmm, I just saw a certain submariner running silent, running deep in here

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

It's also pretty sad when someone can't tell the difference between "awfully defensive" postings of a character and using that character as an example to counter overbroad (might I say even utterly facetious?) arguments to prove an absurd point. I'm not arguing in this thread to change your opinion because you're apparently utterly incapable of ever admitting you're incorrect. I'm arguing to show other readers the fallacy of your thinking.

 

Your arrogance is absolutely mindblowing. I'm done here. The really pathetic thing is you've been done for well over 20 pages and still don't realize it.

.

 

 

Good riddance again, although you've threatened to leave earlier in this thread and didn't.

 

Maybe you can return once you learn how to post with civility. Something nobody else on this thread seems to have a problem doing. Until then, I would suggest that you put me on Ignore if my posts aggravate you as much as they seem to. OTOH if you want a flamewar, take it to the NGD.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Oihid

 

Hmmmm' date=' I just saw a certain submariner running silent, running deep in here [/quote']Citizen. The sighting was false. Continue about your business. Thank you, and Have A Nice Day.

 

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Yes it does and I will explain why: The first sentence says to "watch out for" limitations that are "too sweeping". That's a qualifier of sweeping Limitations in general. In other words' date=' not all sweeping limitations are bad, only those that go overboard (i.e. a subset or 'type' of sweeping Limitation).[/quote']

 

 

I'd say a limitation placed on 300+ of a character's 350 pts would qualify as "too sweeping". What's your definition?

 

 

Now, let's examine the rest of that paragraph:

 

Going back to the fist sentence, "watch out for" is not "ban". It simply means that the GM should examine such builds closely. That is entirely consistent with everything I've posted in this thread and I'd bet that it's consistent with the postings of everyone you've argued against so far.

 

The paragraph then goes on to provide an example using Only Works in Darkness on all the character's powers. Two things here: First, 'all' is not 'most'. Second, this is a limitation specifically mentioned on the Limited Powers table. By its definition in that table, along with the 'Conditional Powers Table' on the facing page, defines its value as -1/2 and its frequency as roughly 1/3 the time. If this warning had been meant to apply to lesser Limitations, why would not one of the -1/4 Limited Power examples have been used? Perhaps its because while a -1/4 LP on (to use your number) 300 CPs would net a "gain" of around 75 points. On the other hand a -1/2 LP on 300 CPs would net a "gain" of around 150 points. That's about twice the points savings and a far bigger power differential (425 points vs. 500) when compared to the 350 point character. In addition, a -1/2 Lim would be occurring in about 1/3 of the time as opposed to 1/4.

 

1) 'all' and 'most' is just quibbling when you're talking about characters with 300+ of their points with the limitation.

 

2) They picked a random example. They could've picked a -1/4 lim, or even a -2 lim. The -1/2 by itself means nothing unless there is an explanation printed to explain why it was chosen. Until then, my guess is just as good as yours.

 

3) The paragraph also mentions something you left out. Fairness to other players. Why would a 500 vs a 350 be considered 'unfair' whereas a 425 vs 350 be considered 'fair'?

 

 

Finally, the example is continued by warning against a very specific player behavior: A player who won't play the character when the Limitation would apply. Why make this specification if it doesn't matter?

 

It also equally warns against a character terrifically powerful when the lim doesn't apply and worthless when the lim does apply.

 

 

So, what can we conclude form all this? We can conclude that Limitations need to be monitored by the GM for fairness. So, you could easily apply the following steps:

 

1. Does this character have all of their Powers bought with the same Limitation?

    If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable?

2. Is that Limitation worth -1/2 or more?

    If 'no', is the Limitation worth enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

3. Is the Limitation likely to occur 1/3 of the time or more?

    If 'no', is the Limitation frequent enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

4. Is the character significantly underpowered when the Limitation is in play?

5. Is the character significantly overpowered when the Limitation is not in play?

6. Is the player likely to avoid playing this character when the Limitation would apply?

 

If the answer is 'yes' to enough of these questions to make the GM uncomfortable (and that level will vary from GM to GM), then the GM is fully justified in going back to the player and suggesting they revise the build.

 

1) Again, minor quibbling with 'all' and 'most'.

 

2+3) I disagree that -1/2 must be the threshold. 75 extra points is huge.

 

4+5) For most OIHID that I've seen, absolutely. What about in your campaign?

 

6) It depends on what type of scenarios the GM sets up. The player doesn't usually know whether or not he'll be ambushed in normal ID. And if it's a situation where he can't change IDs and knows it beforehand, he's just as likely to not play the character as the person with 'Only in Darkness' to play his character in daylight. After all, if the character has accidental change into normal ID in unhallowed ground and the adventure will take place in a evil temple, the character would logically not show up and run a replacement character for this adventure.

 

The same thing would apply to the person with 'Only in Darkness'. The GM could easily set up an adventure vs him in daylight where he doesn't have a choice in whether he's involved or not. And in cases where he knows beforehand, he could choose to run a 50 pt character or not show up.

 

Now, can you tell me how any of that means that OIHID should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a Physical Limitation? As I recall, that was your original proposal and you haven't retracted it yet (though you have gone on to suggest things like Multiform), so I assume you still think that's a good idea.

 

It's an idea that can work. What you want to do in your campaign is up to you.

 

 

As a complete side note to the above, the 'Conditional Powers Table' mentioned above makes for a perfectly good guideline on how often OIHID should affect the player (and I wish I'd remembered it was there). As a -1/4 Lim, that would be about 1/4 of the time that they change IDs. With three examples, you have enough to last you probably 8 to 12 games, which I would think would be enough time to come up with at least 3 more. It still doesn’t seem overly burdensome to the GM in my opinion.

 

Do your characters with OIHID have it crop up 1/4 of the time? It seems from the postings of most people on this thread that it crops up 5-10% of the time. What's your personal experience?

 

 

On another note, from what I've observed from your posts, it would seem that you've run into problems with OIHID. My guess would be that it's some combination of the players not playing the Lim and the GM not calling them on it. That is your experience and I'll not deny that it does happen in some games. On the other hand, your experience does not in any way invalidate the experiences of the hundreds of us who have seen OIHID played and adjudicated properly. So, explain to me why we should adopt your point of view on OIHID when it runs counter to our own experiences? What makes your experiences more valuable than ours?

 

Did I ever say that my experiences were more valuable than yours? Please point to a post where I said it. It's up to each individual GM to run his world. I don't really know how you can speak for 'hundreds' of other people though.

 

Incidentally, the biggest problem with sweeping limitations that I've found are powered armor/focus users who don't put 'no figured characteristics' on their stats bought through the focus. The epitome of terrifyingly powerful most of the time and extremely weak some of the time.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Oihid

 

The only way to balance Duplicate Boy with a regular character is to limit the max points that each form is allowed. That way he can pull out a 275 pt brick, mage, EB, etc and not step on the toes of people with regular 350 pt characters.

 

No, it is not the ONLY way. It is a _good_ way, however, and one I often apply. (Specifically, instituting a -1/2 "each form must pay the cost of MF" limitation)

 

However, it is possible to balance them while letting DB have 16 350pt forms. Something like saying "remember, the Base Form is just that", and requiring them to usually be in the form that paid the points for the other powers, for example, can balance it out.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

I'd say a limitation placed on 300+ of a character's 350 pts would qualify as "too sweeping". What's your definition?

 

First, are you conceding that the paragraph in question does, indeed, talk about a subset of sweeping limitations rather than all sweeping lims? You claimed that it didn't and I want to make we're as close to being on the same page as possible.

 

Now, on the definition of "too sweeping". The term "sweeping", by itself, implies to me a Lim that already covers a significant majority (or 'most') of the character's powers. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "sweeping". So, pure points percentages is not enough to distinguish between "sweeping" and "too sweeping". That's why an example with additional qualifications is included.

 

As to what criteria I do use to define as "too sweeping", that's going to depend on the situation (campaign type & power level, players involved, etc), so there's not one pat answer I can give you. However, I'll attempt to outline my thinking on such things as I go through the rest of this message.

 

1) 'all' and 'most' is just quibbling when you're talking about characters with 300+ of their points with the limitation.

 

Well, just to be clear, 'most' is only >50% of powers/points. All is 100%. There's a lot of wiggle room in between. What you're talking about is well over 80% of the character's points and is certainly something that would send up warning flags to me as a GM. I'm pretty sure I've said something to that effect before. In any case, this, by itself, is not enough for me to automatically send the character back for revision for the reasons I've outlined above plus what I'll go into below.

 

2) They picked a random example. They could've picked a -1/4 lim, or even a -2 lim. The -1/2 by itself means nothing unless there is an explanation printed to explain why it was chosen. Until then, my guess is just as good as yours.

 

Actually, it's not a "they", it's Steve Long that picked the example. Given his clarifications in the FAQ and on the 'Rules Questions' board, it's pretty clear to me that Steve Long did not pick his examples randomly, but rather to be as representative as possible. Now, there is a chance that he did pick it randomly, but I doubt it. Still, neither of us has an iron clad case on this, so I'll let it go.

 

3) The paragraph also mentions something you left out. Fairness to other players. Why would a 500 vs a 350 be considered 'unfair' whereas a 425 vs 350 be considered 'fair'?

 

Actually, I didn't leave it out as it was covered by points 4 & 5 in my list of steps for checking the fairness of Limitations. Because I did not explicitly mention it in this paragraph does not mean I missed it or ignored it. It just wasn't germane to the point of that particular paragraph of mine.

 

As to your question, it again depends on circumstances. Not all balance is about points. Do I know this player & can I trust him to not take advantage of the "extra" points? Have the other players built their characters with comparable levels of savings? Etc. Those extra 75 points could be taken up with just background skills & talents that are unlikely to come up in the game but add more flavor. They might even be put into rarely used powers that might only come up once or twice in a campaign.

 

It also equally warns against a character terrifically powerful when the lim doesn't apply and worthless when the lim does apply.

 

Which did get covered in step 5 of my 'fairness checklist'.

 

1) Again, minor quibbling with 'all' and 'most'.

 

Not at all. You'll notice that Step 1 had a substep: "If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable?" That's to account for the situation in which the GM wishes to set the limit below "all". I thought that was straightforward.

 

2+3) I disagree that -1/2 must be the threshold. 75 extra points is huge.

 

Steps 2 & 3 contained substeps equivalent to the substep in Step 1. In addition, weather or not 75 extra points is huge depends on how those 75 points are spent (as mentioned above).

 

4+5) For most OIHID that I've seen, absolutely. What about in your campaign?

 

Not in mine. But then, builds placing 80+% of their points under OIHID seem pretty rare to me. In most of the games I've run and played in, the players built their characters with a pretty even mix of stats, skills & powers; so I doubt many (if any) reached 50% of their points.

 

6) It depends on what type of scenarios the GM sets up. The player doesn't usually know whether or not he'll be ambushed in normal ID. And if it's a situation where he can't change IDs and knows it beforehand, he's just as likely to not play the character as the person with 'Only in Darkness' to play his character in daylight. After all, if the character has accidental change into normal ID in unhallowed ground and the adventure will take place in a evil temple, the character would logically not show up and run a replacement character for this adventure.

 

That's not been my experience at all. I'd suggest that players who do things like that are powergaming at the least and more likely pulling munchkin tricks. I, personally, and several of the groups I've played with now and in the past have played our characters in disadvantageous situations; sometimes deliberately. Overcoming adversity is, after all, part of the fun.

 

So, why is the GM allowing this player to switch characters every time one of their Limitations would come up? If the player does this kind of thing repeatedly, why doesn't the GM talk to the player about their behavior and let them know it's unacceptable? If the player refuses to comply by the campaign standards, why do they keep getting asked back?

 

This is not a problem with OIHID. This is a problem with the GM & Players. I could swear I've pointed this out before (as have others).

 

The same thing would apply to the person with 'Only in Darkness'. The GM could easily set up an adventure vs him in daylight where he doesn't have a choice in whether he's involved or not. And in cases where he knows beforehand, he could choose to run a 50 pt character or not show up.

 

So, why, exactly is the GM allowing this? What exactly is it that's preventing the GM from "going back to the player and suggesting they revise the build", which I suggested last message and in other messages before? Why does this mean that OIHID needs to be singled out and changed when it can just as easily apply to almost any other Limitation or Disadvantage?

 

Do your characters with OIHID have it crop up 1/4 of the time? It seems from the postings of most people on this thread that it crops up 5-10% of the time. What's your personal experience?

 

I haven't run a hard statistical analysis of exactly how often this particular Lim shows up. I do know that it's been often & severely enough that the points saved were certainly paid for. In fact, I know I've said that before.

 

In any case, why does there have to be one set number? Why can't it vary from campaign to campaign so long as all the players feel they're being treated fairly? If you're uncomfortable with 5-10% feel free to up the frequency (as I've repeatedly suggested before). It's your campaign. Why are others wrong for keeping theirs at 5-10%?

 

Did I ever say that my experiences were more valuable than yours? Please point to a post where I said it. It's up to each individual GM to run his world.

 

You're the one telling all of us that OIHID is broken. When we explain to you why we think its not, and cite our experiences with it, you continue to insist that it is broken in spite of our explanations. You've repeatedly accused myself and others of misreading the rules, "screwing with the players", advocating unfair character building and the like. While it may not be your intent, you certainly come across as trying to tell us that we're playing the game wrong.

 

I don't really know how you can speak for 'hundreds' of other people though.

 

If OIHID were the problem you think it is, then I think quite a few more people would be complaining. After all, people don't seem shy about enumerating the Hero System's other faults. So, with a fan base measured in the thousands, only a handful (I'm not sure it's even in double-digits) of which complain about OIHID, I'd say its safe to say that there's at least hundreds who think it's fine as is.

 

Incidentally, the biggest problem with sweeping limitations that I've found are powered armor/focus users who don't put 'no figured characteristics' on their stats bought through the focus. The epitome of terrifyingly powerful most of the time and extremely weak some of the time.

 

So why is the GM allowing this? Do you suggest that this means that the Focus rules need to be scrapped altogether (like you do with OIHID)?

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

No, it is not the ONLY way. It is a _good_ way, however, and one I often apply. (Specifically, instituting a -1/2 "each form must pay the cost of MF" limitation)

 

However, it is possible to balance them while letting DB have 16 350pt forms. Something like saying "remember, the Base Form is just that", and requiring them to usually be in the form that paid the points for the other powers, for example, can balance it out.

 

 

DB pays 95 pts for 16 350 pt forms and Instant Change on his multiform. He may spend most of his time in the base form, but the base form is still 255 pts and it takes him a 0 phase action to change into any of the other 16 forms.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

First, are you conceding that the paragraph in question does, indeed, talk about a subset of sweeping limitations rather than all sweeping lims? You claimed that it didn't and I want to make we're as close to being on the same page as possible.

 

Now, on the definition of "too sweeping". The term "sweeping", by itself, implies to me a Lim that already covers a significant majority (or 'most') of the character's powers. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "sweeping". So, pure points percentages is not enough to distinguish between "sweeping" and "too sweeping". That's why an example with additional qualifications is included.

 

As to what criteria I do use to define as "too sweeping", that's going to depend on the situation (campaign type & power level, players involved, etc), so there's not one pat answer I can give you. However, I'll attempt to outline my thinking on such things as I go through the rest of this message.

 

"Sweeping" in the context of that paragraph is very vague. It could be anywhere from the majority of the character's powers (possibly less than 1/4 of his points if he has 1/2 his points in powers) to almost all of his points (Up to 80% or more of his points).

 

 

Well, just to be clear, 'most' is only >50% of powers/points. All is 100%. There's a lot of wiggle room in between. What you're talking about is well over 80% of the character's points and is certainly something that would send up warning flags to me as a GM. I'm pretty sure I've said something to that effect before. In any case, this, by itself, is not enough for me to automatically send the character back for revision for the reasons I've outlined above plus what I'll go into below.

 

Thorn in CKC has it on roughly 80% of his points. Various characters posted on these boards also have it on roughly that many points. I don't want to single anyone out, but I can give you examples if you wish.

 

 

 

Actually, it's not a "they", it's Steve Long that picked the example. Given his clarifications in the FAQ and on the 'Rules Questions' board, it's pretty clear to me that Steve Long did not pick his examples randomly, but rather to be as representative as possible. Now, there is a chance that he did pick it randomly, but I doubt it. Still, neither of us has an iron clad case on this, so I'll let it go.

 

This example was actually in 4th edition before Steve took over. So Steve actually had nothing to do with it.

 

Actually, I didn't leave it out as it was covered by points 4 & 5 in my list of steps for checking the fairness of Limitations. Because I did not explicitly mention it in this paragraph does not mean I missed it or ignored it. It just wasn't germane to the point of that particular paragraph of mine.

 

As to your question, it again depends on circumstances. Not all balance is about points. Do I know this player & can I trust him to not take advantage of the "extra" points? Have the other players built their characters with comparable levels of savings? Etc. Those extra 75 points could be taken up with just background skills & talents that are unlikely to come up in the game but add more flavor. They might even be put into rarely used powers that might only come up once or twice in a campaign.

 

 

A character built straight would also like lots of background skills and talents. If you want one character to have more points than another, you can just give him the extra points with the restriction that he must spend them on background skills/talents. Also, your argument applies to 150 extra points from a -1/2 limitation, so it's not just an OIHID argument.

 

 

Not at all. You'll notice that Step 1 had a substep: "If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable?" That's to account for the situation in which the GM wishes to set the limit below "all". I thought that was straightforward.

 

Ok.

 

 

Steps 2 & 3 contained substeps equivalent to the substep in Step 1. In addition, weather or not 75 extra points is huge depends on how those 75 points are spent (as mentioned above).

 

I'm assuming those points aren't spent in Tiddlywinks 84-. Let's take an official published character and see how he would meet your guidelines.

 

Thorn from CKC has 16 pts in background skills and 46 pts without OIHID. Would you ok him?

 

 

Not in mine. But then, builds placing 80+% of their points under OIHID seem pretty rare to me. In most of the games I've run and played in, the players built their characters with a pretty even mix of stats, skills & powers; so I doubt many (if any) reached 50% of their points.

 

 

Just look at many characters posted to these boards. And let's stick to our sample character Thorn who doesn't have it on 46 of his 350 pts. This is an official published character.

 

That's not been my experience at all. I'd suggest that players who do things like that are powergaming at the least and more likely pulling munchkin tricks. I, personally, and several of the groups I've played with now and in the past have played our characters in disadvantageous situations; sometimes deliberately. Overcoming adversity is, after all, part of the fun.

 

So, why is the GM allowing this player to switch characters every time one of their Limitations would come up? If the player does this kind of thing repeatedly, why doesn't the GM talk to the player about their behavior and let them know it's unacceptable? If the player refuses to comply by the campaign standards, why do they keep getting asked back?

 

This is not a problem with OIHID. This is a problem with the GM & Players. I could swear I've pointed this out before (as have others).

 

So, why, exactly is the GM allowing this? What exactly is it that's preventing the GM from "going back to the player and suggesting they revise the build", which I suggested last message and in other messages before? Why does this mean that OIHID needs to be singled out and changed when it can just as easily apply to almost any other Limitation or Disadvantage?

 

 

OIHID isn't singled out. It's exactly the same situation as the character with Only at Night on his powers except the magnitude is less. I'm merely pointing out that the OIHID character has the same opportunity to duck his limitation as the example character on page 194-195 if he really wanted to.

 

Would you allow the 'only at night' character if he promised to use his 50 pt version in daytime? He still runs into the same problem that the book warns against; powerful at sometimes and weak other times. It's the same with OIHID except the frequency and magnitude is somewhat less.

 

 

 

I haven't run a hard statistical analysis of exactly how often this particular Lim shows up. I do know that it's been often & severely enough that the points saved were certainly paid for. In fact, I know I've said that before.

 

In any case, why does there have to be one set number? Why can't it vary from campaign to campaign so long as all the players feel they're being treated fairly? If you're uncomfortable with 5-10% feel free to up the frequency (as I've repeatedly suggested before). It's your campaign. Why are others wrong for keeping theirs at 5-10%?

 

You're the one who brought up the 25% number.

 

One problem with enforcing it at the 25% number is the 'limitation burnout' syndrome that I brought up earlier.

 

 

 

You're the one telling all of us that OIHID is broken. When we explain to you why we think its not, and cite our experiences with it, you continue to insist that it is broken in spite of our explanations. You've repeatedly accused myself and others of misreading the rules, "screwing with the players", advocating unfair character building and the like. While it may not be your intent, you certainly come across as trying to tell us that we're playing the game wrong.

 

I'd say your just as guilty of this as me. Accusing me of 'lack of imagination', putting words in my mouth, etc. Also, where did I ever advocate "unfair character building"?

 

 

If OIHID were the problem you think it is, then I think quite a few more people would be complaining. After all, people don't seem shy about enumerating the Hero System's other faults. So, with a fan base measured in the thousands, only a handful (I'm not sure it's even in double-digits) of which complain about OIHID, I'd say its safe to say that there's at least hundreds who think it's fine as is.

 

People have been compaining about this. You can do a search of old threads on these boards.

 

So why is the GM allowing this? Do you suggest that this means that the Focus rules need to be scrapped altogether (like you do with OIHID)?

 

I already gave a suggested good fix. Stats bought through foci must take the no figured characteristics limitation. It's amazing how you ignored what I've said several times already.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oihid

 

3) The paragraph also mentions something you left out. Fairness to other players. Why would a 500 vs a 350 be considered 'unfair' whereas a 425 vs 350 be considered 'fair'?

 

Valid point. However, you have singled out only OIHID. Why would 425 vs 350 be considered unfair and 500 vs 350 is considered fair?

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Valid point. However' date=' you have singled out only OIHID. Why would 425 vs 350 be considered unfair and 500 vs 350 is considered fair?[/quote']

 

 

Where did I ever say that 500 vs 350 was fair?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oihid

 

Where did I ever say that 500 vs 350 was fair?

 

Said? No. Implied. Yes. You have proposed to change OIHID, and indicated other limitations should be left alone.

 

You have proposed to change OIHID, but leave all other limitations the same. A character with 300 points having a -1/2 limitation has 450 points vs 350. One with 300 points having a -1 limitation has 500 points available vs 350.

 

This implies that the above constructions are somehow "more fair" than the OIHID character with 425 effective points.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Said? No. Implied. Yes. You have proposed to change OIHID, and indicated other limitations should be left alone.

 

You have proposed to change OIHID, but leave all other limitations the same. A character with 300 points having a -1/2 limitation has 450 points vs 350. One with 300 points having a -1 limitation has 500 points available vs 350.

 

This implies that the above constructions are somehow "more fair" than the OIHID character with 425 effective points.

 

 

First of all, I also suggested this for various "Not In" limitations. So I'm not just singling out OIHID. Secondly, most other limitations don't affect 300+ of a character's points. I'm a lot less worried about a limitation that affects a characters attacks only rather than his attacks, defenses, movements, and stats. In cases of limitations that do affect everything, I believe that I've made my feelings for them clear.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

The problem with a disad as opposed to a lim is that it is not scalable.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

The problem with a disad as opposed to a lim is that it is not scalable.

 

 

I did suggest in the first post of this thread that the value of the Disad should depend on how many points are affected by it.

[Kristopher]

Re: Oihid

 

Quoting myself:

 

Personally, my main concern when running a game isn't making sure that -1/4 limitations are coming up at least 20% of the time.

 

I really don't see players looking back and saying to each other,

 

"Man, that was a good campaign. All the characters were perfectly balanced and no one got away with anything on their Disads or Limitations."

 

"Yeah, it sure was awesome the way my OIHID came up in exactly 20% of all sessions."

 

and...

 

 

I love the HERO system, but the mechanics seem to overshadow everything else terribly sometimes.

 

Just some things to consider...

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

I did suggest in the first post of this thread that the value of the Disad should depend on how many points are affected by it.

But how do you really do that without inventing a brand new scalable disad class? I think that opens a whole new pandora's box.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Quoting myself:

 

 

 

and...

 

 

 

 

Just some things to consider...

You seem worth quoting.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

"Sweeping" in the context of that paragraph is very vague. It could be anywhere from the majority of the character's powers (possibly less than 1/4 of his points if he has 1/2 his points in powers) to almost all of his points (Up to 80% or more of his points).

 

Actually, the paragraph only mentions Powers. It never once mentions Points. However, since the paragraph also talks about the example build being helpless when under the effects of the Lim, it seems to me that it's assuming that most of this character's Points are tied up in Powers. Considering the fact that 'sweeping' is generally applied to 'across the board' type situations, that suggests that they're starting from a point at which a considerable majority (at least 'most') of the character's points are covered by the Lim. At that point, they apply the modifier 'too', which generally indicates 'more of' or 'excessive' amounts. It could mean that they're only referring to characters in which over, say 85% of the character's points are covered, but I really think they're talking about more than just points percentages. Besides which, it still doesn't say to outright reject such a build. It warns that you should examine such builds carefully.

 

Thorn in CKC has it on roughly 80% of his points. Various characters posted on these boards also have it on roughly that many points. I don't want to single anyone out, but I can give you examples if you wish.

 

So? What does that have to do with the wiggle room occurring between 'most' and 'all' or my statement that I need more to go on than just an 80% of points ratio in rendering a judgment as a GM? Or was this not meant to be responsive to the paragraph of mine you quoted right before it?

 

This example was actually in 4th edition before Steve took over. So Steve actually had nothing to do with it.

 

You're right. That's my goof. Still, I'm not convinced that it was a random selection of examples. In any case, it's not a point worth debating over as I already said I was letting it go.

 

A character built straight would also like lots of background skills and talents. If you want one character to have more points than another, you can just give him the extra points with the restriction that he must spend them on background skills/talents. Also, your argument applies to 150 extra points from a -1/2 limitation, so it's not just an OIHID argument.

 

That's a viable option, so long as you give all characters the same option. Of course, they also all have the same option of building their characters with Limitations and Frameworks and using the points savings on background skills/talents. Seems like 6 of 1 and a half-dozen of the other to me.

 

I'm assuming those points aren't spent in Tiddlywinks 84-. Let's take an official published character and see how he would meet your guidelines.

 

Thorn from CKC has 16 pts in background skills and 46 pts without OIHID. Would you ok him?

 

If he were submitted to me as a PC? No, and I'm a little surprised you'd ask that question. What have I said that made you think I might? Heck, I probably wouldn't approve him without the OIHID because of having so few points in background skills. You're treading into combat-monster territory there. In any case, Thorn's a villain NPC and not subject to the same building rules as a PC anyway.

 

Just look at many characters posted to these boards. And let's stick to our sample character Thorn who doesn't have it on 46 of his 350 pts. This is an official published character.

 

It's an official published NPC villain. What makes you think Thorn has to adhere to, or be considered representative of, the standards for building PCs?

 

As for characters posted to these boards, are you contending that a significant portion of the ones that are posted as PC write-ups make use of OIHID on 80+% of their points? I somehow doubt it but you're welcome to prove it to me.

 

OIHID isn't singled out. It's exactly the same situation as the character with Only at Night on his powers except the magnitude is less. I'm merely pointing out that the OIHID character has the same opportunity to duck his limitation as the example character on page 194-195 if he really wanted to.

 

Okay. I figured OIHID was your main bone of contention since it's what you titled the thread, your first post was all about suggesting we get rid of it altogether and it's the main thing that's been argued about in this thread.

 

Sould we also get rid of Gestures & Incantations since not all GMs faithfully enforce those? How about Restrainable? Your arguments can still be applied to most, if not all Limitations and quite a few Dissads. Why don't we just get rid of all of them rather than just OIHID and Conditional Powers?

 

Would you allow the 'only at night' character if he promised to use his 50 pt version in daytime?

 

No, since that would violate at least questions 1-4 of my 'fairness check steps'. Did you ever have any doubt about that?

 

He still runs into the same problem that the book warns against; powerful at sometimes and weak other times. It's the same with OIHID except the frequency and magnitude is somewhat less.

 

Quite possibly. Of course, I've already repeatedly stated that a character built with 80+% (actually my threshold would be lower, but 80+% was your example) of their points in OIHID is already going under the microscope.

 

You're the one who brought up the 25% number.

 

By pointing out that the 'Conditional Powers Guidelines' table can serve as a possible guideline for OIHID frequency. I've also suggested other numbers. I've actually been trying to find out what percentage you think wouldn't be too great a strain on the GM. So, since you already seemed to reject 20% as not frequent enough and 25% (from what you say below) as being too frequent, is there a frequency you consider fair to the GM?

 

One problem with enforcing it at the 25% number is the 'limitation burnout' syndrome that I brought up earlier.

 

So, is it your contention that any Limitation that would apply 25% or more of the time should be stricken from the rules? What about Disadvantages that come up 25% or more of the time (8- roll)? Do those suffer from 'Disadvantage Burnout'? What does that mean for Dissads that show up 63% (11-) or even 90% (14-) of the time?

 

I'd say your just as guilty of this as me.

 

If I've given you the impression that I thought my experiences were more valid than yours or that the way you play your game is wrong, I apologize. My sole intent in this thread is to support the idea that OIHID isn't broken. It may be subject to abuse, but not any more so than any other Limitation. That's all I've tried to do here.

 

Accusing me of 'lack of imagination',

 

Actually, what I said was "If the only ways you can think of to limit OIHID are combat-related, your lack of imagination is the problem, not OIHID." (msg 229) Were you seriously unable to come up with any examples that didn't involve combat? Still, since you took personal offence to that statement, I apologize for it.

 

putting words in my mouth, etc.

 

When did I ever put words in your mouth? I honestly don't recall it.

 

Also, where did I ever advocate "unfair character building"?

 

Actually, I wasn't saying you were an advocate of unfair character building. I was saying that you've all but accused us of being advocates of unfair character building. In this very message you seem to imply that I would approve of a character like Thorn as a PC. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, but it does look that way to me.

 

Anyway, I acknowledged in the last message that accusing us of playing the game wrong might not be your intent. You just come across that way some times. You really don't need to take that as a personal insult. It's just an observation of your posting style and not a comment on your personal character.

 

People have been compaining about this. You can do a search of old threads on these boards.

 

Well, I've been a registered member of these boards for about a year now (and lurked a good half-year or so before), been a member of the Champions Mailing List since the mid-90s and have participated on rec.games.frp.super-heroes since before then. I've also been a player of this game since the mid-80s and this is the first time I've come across a discussion of how OIHID needs to be scrapped. If it were that big of a problem, I'm sure I'd have seen it before now. Perhaps you can give me a few thread titles to search for so I can observe for myself just how common a complaint it is.

 

I already gave a suggested good fix. Stats bought through foci must take the no figured characteristics limitation. It's amazing how you ignored what I've said several times already.

 

I haven't ignored it. You and I haven't really been discussing the Focus Limitation. You may have been discussing it with someone else in this thread, but I'm not sure. In any case, why do you suggest keeping the Focus Limitation (with a fairly minor modification) while simultaneously suggesting we throw out OIHID and replace it with a Physical Limitation. Why can't OIHID be fixed with a similar fairly minor house rule? Why a complete paradigm shift that blurs the lines between Limitations and Disadvantages for the sake of OIHID?

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Actually' date=' the paragraph only mentions Powers. It never once mentions Points. However, since the paragraph also talks about the example build being helpless when under the effects of the Lim, it seems to me that it's assuming that most of this character's Points are tied up in Powers. Considering the fact that 'sweeping' is generally applied to 'across the board' type situations, that suggests that they're starting from a point at which a considerable majority (at least 'most') of the character's points are covered by the Lim. At that point, they apply the modifier 'too', which generally indicates 'more of' or 'excessive' amounts. It could mean that they're only referring to characters in which over, say 85% of the character's points are covered, but I really think they're talking about more than just points percentages. Besides which, it still doesn't say to outright reject such a build. It warns that you should examine such builds carefully.[/quote']

 

 

We're just quibbling at this point. We both agree that there is a problem with a certain amount of their points in one overarching limitation. The only thing we're quibbling about now is what percentage constitutes 'too sweeping'

 

 

So? What does that have to do with the wiggle room occurring between 'most' and 'all' or my statement that I need more to go on than just an 80% of points ratio in rendering a judgment as a GM? Or was this not meant to be responsive to the paragraph of mine you quoted right before it?

 

Again, we're just quibbling about percentages now with 'most' and 'all'.

 

You're right. That's my goof. Still, I'm not convinced that it was a random selection of examples. In any case, it's not a point worth debating over as I already said I was letting it go.

 

Ok.

 

That's a viable option, so long as you give all characters the same option. Of course, they also all have the same option of building their characters with Limitations and Frameworks and using the points savings on background skills/talents. Seems like 6 of 1 and a half-dozen of the other to me.

 

As I said before, giving everyone the same option doesn't make it fair. An example would be a Cosmic VPP if the control cost was 0. Even if everyone has access to it and spent the rest of their points on background skills, it still wouldn't be balanced or fair.

 

 

If he were submitted to me as a PC? No, and I'm a little surprised you'd ask that question. What have I said that made you think I might? Heck, I probably wouldn't approve him without the OIHID because of having so few points in background skills. You're treading into combat-monster territory there. In any case, Thorn's a villain NPC and not subject to the same building rules as a PC anyway.

 

How many pts in background skills do you require? Not that I thought you would approve him, but just pointing him out as an example of a character with the vast majority of his points with OIHID.

 

An example of an official hero with OIHID is Stalwart. He is 489 pts of which 134 pts are not subject to OIHID and 365 pts are subject to OIHID. He has 57 pts worth of perks and noncombat skills. The rest of the 134 pts are in 3 3 pt CSLs and enough stats to make him a decent agent level.

 

 

 

It's an official published NPC villain. What makes you think Thorn has to adhere to, or be considered representative of, the standards for building PCs?

 

Stalwart is a hero. And he has roughly 75% of his points (after factoring in the OIHID savings) subject to OIHID.

 

 

As for characters posted to these boards, are you contending that a significant portion of the ones that are posted as PC write-ups make use of OIHID on 80+% of their points? I somehow doubt it but you're welcome to prove it to me.

 

A significant number who have OIHID at all have it on a majority of their points (Obviously most characters posted on these boards don't have OIHID at all). As an example off the top of my head, there's Hyperman posted by Hyperman in another thread who saves about 70 pts on a 350 character. Athenian, posted by Oddhat, has it on slightly more than half of her points and saves 40-45 pts on a 350 character using this limitation. And the 2 official characters that I managed to find both had it on the majority of their points. They're not all 80+% of their points, but the worst offenders such as Thorn are significantly over 80%.

 

Hyperman and Oddhat, I hope you don't take offense at bringing your characters in this discussion.

 

Okay. I figured OIHID was your main bone of contention since it's what you titled the thread, your first post was all about suggesting we get rid of it altogether and it's the main thing that's been argued about in this thread.

 

Sould we also get rid of Gestures & Incantations since not all GMs faithfully enforce those? How about Restrainable? Your arguments can still be applied to most, if not all Limitations and quite a few Dissads. Why don't we just get rid of all of them rather than just OIHID and Conditional Powers?

 

Gestures and Restrainable are easy to deal with since grabs and entangles are fairly common. And the rulebook does suggest that Gestures and Incantations should primarily be for heroic campaigns.

 

Also, most of these limitations and disads do not apply to the majority of a character's points. They're not as sweeping as OIHID or many conditionals.

 

 

No, since that would violate at least questions 1-4 of my 'fairness check steps'. Did you ever have any doubt about that?

 

A blanket no even if he spends the 150 extra points on background skills, talents, and perks?

 

Quite possibly. Of course, I've already repeatedly stated that a character built with 80+% (actually my threshold would be lower, but 80+% was your example) of their points in OIHID is already going under the microscope.

 

Actually my threshold was majority of a character's points. 80+% was for the worst offenders like Thorn. Although Stalwart is roughly 75%.

 

 

By pointing out that the 'Conditional Powers Guidelines' table can serve as a possible guideline for OIHID frequency. I've also suggested other numbers. I've actually been trying to find out what percentage you think wouldn't be too great a strain on the GM. So, since you already seemed to reject 20% as not frequent enough and 25% (from what you say below) as being too frequent, is there a frequency you consider fair to the GM?

 

I actually don't like any threshold. I dislike the limitations where one character is significantly more powerful than his comrades most of the time but worthless some of the time. For solo campaigns that's fine, but not when there are other people involved.

 

 

So, is it your contention that any Limitation that would apply 25% or more of the time should be stricken from the rules? What about Disadvantages that come up 25% or more of the time (8- roll)? Do those suffer from 'Disadvantage Burnout'? What does that mean for Dissads that show up 63% (11-) or even 90% (14-) of the time?

 

It's a sliding scale. I would never allow a 14- hunted or DNPC for example, in a 6 party group. It takes too much airtime away from the rest of the players. In a solo campaign, 11- or 14- would be perfectly ok. And yes, 6 characters each with 11- or 14- hunteds and DNPCs would suffer 'disadvantage burnout'.

 

 

If I've given you the impression that I thought my experiences were more valid than yours or that the way you play your game is wrong, I apologize. My sole intent in this thread is to support the idea that OIHID isn't broken. It may be subject to abuse, but not any more so than any other Limitation. That's all I've tried to do here.

 

Actually, what I said was "If the only ways you can think of to limit OIHID are combat-related, your lack of imagination is the problem, not OIHID." (msg 229) Were you seriously unable to come up with any examples that didn't involve combat? Still, since you took personal offence to that statement, I apologize for it.

 

 

 

When did I ever put words in your mouth? I honestly don't recall it.

 

 

 

Actually, I wasn't saying you were an advocate of unfair character building. I was saying that you've all but accused us of being advocates of unfair character building. In this very message you seem to imply that I would approve of a character like Thorn as a PC. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, but it does look that way to me.

 

Anyway, I acknowledged in the last message that accusing us of playing the game wrong might not be your intent. You just come across that way some times. You really don't need to take that as a personal insult. It's just an observation of your posting style and not a comment on your personal character.

 

Ok, I apologize at taking offense if that wasn't your intent. And I apologize if my posting style gave you offense.

 

 

 

Well, I've been a registered member of these boards for about a year now (and lurked a good half-year or so before), been a member of the Champions Mailing List since the mid-90s and have participated on rec.games.frp.super-heroes since before then. I've also been a player of this game since the mid-80s and this is the first time I've come across a discussion of how OIHID needs to be scrapped. If it were that big of a problem, I'm sure I'd have seen it before now. Perhaps you can give me a few thread titles to search for so I can observe for myself just how common a complaint it is.

 

I'll try a search later. It's late.

 

 

I haven't ignored it. You and I haven't really been discussing the Focus Limitation. You may have been discussing it with someone else in this thread, but I'm not sure. In any case, why do you suggest keeping the Focus Limitation (with a fairly minor modification) while simultaneously suggesting we throw out OIHID and replace it with a Physical Limitation. Why can't OIHID be fixed with a similar fairly minor house rule? Why a complete paradigm shift that blurs the lines between Limitations and Disadvantages for the sake of OIHID?

 

Ok. I've been responding to a lot of people in this thread, so I apologize if I mixed you up with someone else.

 

There are a few reasons.

 

1) Foci are easier to deal with.

 

2) Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points. It's not worth junking the foci system for the rare situations where foci is placed on the majority of a character's points. This is unlike OIHID where it's rarely not on the majority of a character's points.

 

3) Foci are deeply ingrained into the Hero psyche. Far more so than OIHID. It's already taking far too much of my time writing only about OIHID, let alone if I brought Foci into the discussion.

[Kristopher]

Re: Oihid

 

This forum needs a smiley for use when a thread has jumped the shark.

 

Hmmm...

 

 

 

 

Don't with ?