How Limiting are your Limitations?

[KA.]

Here is the question:

"How limiting are limitations in your campaign?"

 

Before giving a knee-jerk answer, consider this:

"How many players in your campaign have the majority of their powers bought with no limitations at all?"

 

I know that some limitations may be "required" for a certain concept (Iron Man, Green Lantern), but, if limitations are being enforced correctly, and are not just "free points" then why don't many, if not most, players prefer their characters "unlimited"?

 

After all, if the limitations are enforced the way they should be, it should be just as effective, overall, to build a character without them.

 

I am not bringing this topic up to give justification for "player abuse", but I do find it interesting that the players I see never seem to even consider building characters without limitations on nearly every power they have.

 

Why?

 

KA

[Yamo]

I am not bringing this topic up to give justification for "player abuse", but I do find it interesting that the players I see never seem to even consider building characters without limitations on nearly every power they have.

 

Why?

 

It helps to not think in terms of superpowered characters.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of, say, a poor wizard in a low-mid power fantasy campaign trying to build an effective spell using an expensive Power like Transfer.

 

With no Limitations?

 

Not bloody likely.

[Tom McCarthy]

In my superheroic campaign, there are players who live with limitations, and those who want to be unfettered.

 

One guy built his character on 220 in a 100+150 campaign because he didn't want any vulnerabilities, susceptibilities, dependences, DNPCs, or physical limitations. His 'HERO fu' was strong, though, and he was very combat capable for 220 points.

 

Another guy came in with a colourful background, unusual powers, and was happy to take the appropriate limitations. He usually picked the ones that made the concept fit, and enjoyed the extra points as a bonus.

 

On the whole though, I'm not seeing any of the big limitations that affect the whole character and all his powers. No obvious foci, no OIHID, no 'only in darkness/only in daylight'. Just little things like increased END cost, reduced range, or no knockback. Only the GM PC (a rarely seen NPC who I use as a PC when a guest GM runs) has a blanket limitation, and it's a weak -1/4.

[Talon]

Because the first limitations get you more points than successive limitations.

 

Consider a 60 point power.

 

At -1/4, the cost is 48: 12 points saved.

At -1/2, the cost is 40: another 8 points saved.

At -3/4, the cost is 34: another 6 points saved.

At -1, the cost is 30: another 4 points saved.

 

Since the -1/4 Limitation that takes you from -3/4 to -1 is just as limiting as the one which takes you from 0 to -1/4, you clearly get more bang for your buck with the first limitation.

[tesuji]

Historically, i have experienced several types of character designs.

 

The experienced hero guy for whom there is a lot of effort spent in making the concept into something that hero works well, that hero's accounting favors. They don't "sacrifice concept" for the system, per se, instead they simply choose to play concepts they know the hero system will let them do well with and avoid concepts that hero disfavors. often these guys will have that -1/4 lim that rewards the most and by concept it will be one they hope they can avoid much in play.

 

Another type is the limitation monger. Everything is limited possibly by just OIF but many different lims are typically the way. This guy figures he wont feel the sting of all of these enough and may well feel that by designing it as an all-or-nothing (iron man, everything is in his suit) that the Gm will be "unable" to really inflict the lim because then it would be a "normal vs supers" which is not a scenario many GMs will relish running. (Same guy may also have disads like susceptable to mind control, 3d6 per segment, in the belief that getting something like 25+ points for "my character falls unconscious when he is taken out of my control" is a win-win situation for him.) Independent is frequently a preferred argument for these guys. First time with a GM they take independed and argue that the lose the points things should not apply. It seems like a rite of passage thing where they are testing the Gm to see how far they can go.

 

There may be some overlap between the experienced hero guy and the limitation monger.

 

The third type is the relative newbie who has been told "you can do anything" in HERo and did not even bother to question that obvious fallacy. So they come in and describe a character and usually within 15 minutes are staring blankly at the sheet anbd asking the GM to design it. After several back-n-forths, they realize that "you can do anything" has a sort of trailing "as long as you do it the way HERO wants you to" and are now going to either compromise a little or leave. A lot of the choice there is made by how good them GM is at working the system to mee the character, or rather, how willing he is. If he keeps her interested, the next step is explaining the combat and choices and if he keeps her through that one, she is probably staying.

 

**************************

 

Towards the end of my hero runs, i was talking about turning all HERO mimitations into "severioty and frequency"... because except for a few cases (like activation roll) the "impact" of a lim is set more by scenario design than any mechanical aspect?

 

Example: Something as MECHANICAL as six charges. If the typical fight in the campaign lasts one turn and if the campaign rarely has more than one fight a day or rather, between times to run home and reload, this is a basically non-limiting flaw. If the campaign typically features two-three turn fights and the typical scenario involves an initial dustup followed by rapid response and a second or even thrd fight in succession, this is a crippling flaw.

 

I thinkk that if players thought of a limitation in temrs of not "hey, i can avoid this" but instead as expressing it in terms of "how many sessions in 10 do you want this flaw to actually hinder you and get in the way?" and "how much do you want this flaw to hinder you when it does" and they understood that by taking the points they are committing not to the threat or possibility of these situations coming up but to the REALITY and INTENTIONAL design of scenarios which make these limitations come up, that you would see much fewer limitations and much smaller limitations used.

 

Consider the following...

 

FREQUENCY

-1/4 = 1 session in 5

-1/2 = every other session

-1 = every session

 

SEVERITY

-0 = minor (costs you a few phases dealing with it)

-1/4 = major (costs you a turn or maybe even a combat)

-1/2 = total (takes you out of the session)

-1 (total and with external problems that your teammates will have to deal with)

 

Lost actions are just one example.

 

Your player describes a flaw on a power in dramatic terms. You and he discuss some of the forms of the flaw in play, its SFX if you will, and then you let him assign severity and frequency and, if you approve, you go with it.

 

In play, he expects those problems and knows he will have to deal with them.

 

EXAMPLE:

The player says "my powers are in a battle suit like iron man's."

 

Now you and he discuss the various problems that will be the FX for the flaw biuting him, including it sometimes gets hit hard and powers shut down or get broken and need fixing, sometimes i wont have it with me, sometimes enemies can override my systems and i might lose control, sometimes i might be unable to get back to base to reload or recharge, etc etc...

 

Then the player decides how severe he wants thses flaws to be when they appear and how frequently.

 

You then also cover that, on occasion, for dramatic purposes, there might be some exceptional circimstances and so the severity of frequency might vary a bit.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Since the -1/4 Limitation that takes you from -3/4 to -1 is just as limiting as the one which takes you from 0 to -1/4, you clearly get more bang for your buck with the first limitation.

 

Yeah i forget which thread i was in but i discussed the failure of the HERo multiplier system

 

I think i used FULL PHASE as an example...

 

Two lightning twins each have a 60 ap 12d6 energy bolt.

Fast Shot has 12d6 eb lightning with no lims for 60 points.

Slow shot has the same bolt with 12d6 and full phase for 40 points AND to compensate him for his slow shot he also has tw overall levels (+2 for any action/check etc) costing 20 points or to make it simple to see lets say +20 stun. Thats where the syetem says "its balanced. All other things being identical, the system says that full phase on that attack and 2 overall levels or +20 stun is fair.

 

Same characters but they are guntoters and their 12d6 attacks are from OAF guns. Now the gun costs the FAST SHOOTER 30 points. THe gun cost the SLOW shooter 24 points. So now, the slow shooter is told "you dont get any overall levels to compensate" and you don't get +20 stun to compensate" and has only 6 points to spend.

 

"How does +6 stun sound?"

 

Now, since both guys took OAF, we should expect that they will both suffer loss of gun, breakage of gun, unable to get gun past security systems fairly evenly. Matter of fact, as twins operating together, they are likely to have just as many focus issues as the other.

 

The importance of the lost phase vs half phase WHEN they have the gun is just as severe as it is above.

 

But now, instead of +2 overall levels or +20 stun our slow guy is limited to some lesser skill levels or +6 stun.

 

Now, it might be me but this rather simple example with slow (full phase) and gun (OAF) being neither complex things in the system nor unknown rare things in comics (heck, i often use slow and oaf to represent a high recoil gun you have to get ready for like a PGMP-12) seems to show a glaring discrepancy between cost and effect by valuing the savings differently even though the effect is the same.

 

just my 2 cents.

[jtelson]

While I'm hesitant to argue that Hero Characters balance perfectly - The full phase example doesn't really work. Since we're looking at a single attack power it shouldn't be 2 overall skill levels as these will help the character in a good many other situations, it should be 10 2pt levels with a single attack. So now it's a choice of 1 attack per phase at base ocv or 1 attack per turn that will almost certainly hit every time. This doesn't seem like an unfair exchange although the higher the average speed in a campaign the more limiting full phase can become. The gun example works the same we're not looking at +6 stun we're looking at +3 to hit.

Trying to compare stun to EB is like trying to compare fish to bicycles.

[tesuji]

First, its the difference between a full phase to make the attack and a half phase, not a full turn.

 

Second, the stun vs Eb comparison is just an example i thought was easy to highlight. Its not whether 20 stun matches upvs the EB but rather how does 20 stun match up vs 6 stun. You get one of those beneifts as compensation for the full phase, but which one you get depends on the other limitations involved.

 

That is the problem, that the rewards vary while the penalties remain relatively the same.

 

But, even if i accept your notion, which is correct?

 

Does taking a full phase vs a half phase work out against +3 OCv from specific skill levels or vs +10 OCv from specific skill levels? It seems to me that one or the other should be right, or maybe somewhere in between but surely both cannot be right?

 

Simply put, its not about "did i get good stuff for my 20 points" or "duid i get good stuff for my 6 points" but rather should i get 20 points or 6 points for taking a full phase instead of a half phase on a 12d6 attack?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by jtelson

While I'm hesitant to argue that Hero Characters balance perfectly - The full phase example doesn't really work. Since we're looking at a single attack power it shouldn't be 2 overall skill levels as these will help the character in a good many other situations, it should be 10 2pt levels with a single attack. So now it's a choice of 1 attack per phase at base ocv or 1 attack per turn that will almost certainly hit every time. This doesn't seem like an unfair exchange although the higher the average speed in a campaign the more limiting full phase can become. The gun example works the same we're not looking at +6 stun we're looking at +3 to hit.

Trying to compare stun to EB is like trying to compare fish to bicycles.

[coach]

You know, I have noticed this same thing over the years, that limitations are not particularly limiting. I tend to play gadget-flled heroes. I just like building things. And the focus limitation is nice to have. I doubt if I lose my focii one in ten games. But other people in the group don't necessarily take any or many limitations. And somehow I always end up with the weakest combat character. Probably because I spend all my extra points on non-combat skills. I would consider myself an "Experienced Hero Guy" according to the above definitions.

 

I, as a GM, am guilty of the same crime of not enforcing limitations very well. I'm starting a new game soon, so I am going to try it and see.

 

I do tend to agree that the limitation points do not seem particularly well-balanced. Using the fast-shot and slow-shot example from above, rather than compare it to Stun or CV, since that seems to be unpopular, let's just tack on some extra dice to see how it comes out.

Version 1: Natural Blasters

Fast-Shot: Half-Phase, 12d6 EB = 60 Real Points.

Slow-Shot: Full-Phase, 18d6 EB = 60 Real Points.

Version 2: Gun Blasters

Fast-Shot: Half-Phase, OAF, 12d6 EB = 30 Real Points.

Slow-Shot: Full-Phase, OAF, 15d6 EB = 30 Real Points.

In the second version, Slow-Shot seems to be penalized 3d6 for no apparant reason. As was pointed out, since they both have OAF and are otherwise identical, that Limitation should affect them both equally. But Slow-Shot lost 3d6 off his Full-Phase Limition in the second version. Does it limit him any less in this case? I wouldn't think so. Well, except that he wouldn't have to worry about that extra phase if somebody took his OAF, but then he'd have worse things to worry about.

 

What I have noticed, though, is that in most cases, as long as people build to a concept that they like, the limitation issue doesn't seem to come up. Nobody ever seems to care that I usually have "more" points because I have taken lots of limitations. I guess we don't try to compete with each other, but see it more as a team. So, if one of us is a little more powerful, so much the better! As long as you don't have any Munchkins playing, it rarely seems to be a big deal.

[Gary]

This decreasing marginal value for each additional limitation is necessary for game balance. If all limitations had the same value, the 5th (-1/4) limitation or the 2nd (-1) limitation would mean a free power!

[tesuji]

Or one could consider expressing these things in a way other than 1/4 of the power and so forth.

 

certainly if you use the limitations as they are defined now, you must use them with the system they are designer for. Thats obvious.

 

Whats being said is... but look, that way doesn't work. it produces inconsistent or maybe even nonsensical results. (depends on how seriously you take the +10 ocv vs +3 ocv or +20 stun vs +6 stun examples.

 

Consider, if the math fails in this relatively simple case, to produce results that look reaqsonable or even seem to hold balance, why should you trust the same mechanical model to work in all those cases where its not as obvious?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Gary

This decreasing marginal value for each additional limitation is necessary for game balance. If all limitations had the same value, the 5th (-1/4) limitation or the 2nd (-1) limitation would mean a free power!

[MarkusDark]

Usually, I decide if a limitation will be limiting in my world or not. Also, I look at the way the power would be limiting. For example, I do not let someone use the limitation "Does not work underwater" unless that character can survive underwater without the use of additional equipment AND if I plan on running underwater adventures. I had one player who was adamant about the "Does not work in intense magnetic fields" since it "Was in the book!". Suddenly, most non 'super' hi-tech seemed to generate magnetic fields. If someone demands a limitation, instead of arguing till I'm blue in the face, I just make it limiting.

 

I remember in the beginning of my gaming, I had a player who took the disad of 'goes bezerk if he sees catsup on a hotdog.' It was amazing how, just about everytime there was a fight - there was a hotdog vendor nearby. And, if anyone was knocked back into the vending machine, almost always catsup hit a hotdog. It was fun watching him plan, and try to direct others, so that situation wouldn't occur.

[tesuji]

Early on i has a lady take "enraged by country and western music" and it was about the third session when the fleeing villain cut through a bar during his run to escape... and the juke box had tammy wynette playing stand by your man...

 

the player was just plain dumbfounded as she watched he character wreck the jukebox and start a bar fight as the villain escaped.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

Or one could consider expressing these things in a way other than 1/4 of the power and so forth.

 

certainly if you use the limitations as they are defined now, you must use them with the system they are designer for. Thats obvious.

 

Whats being said is... but look, that way doesn't work. it produces inconsistent or maybe even nonsensical results. (depends on how seriously you take the +10 ocv vs +3 ocv or +20 stun vs +6 stun examples.

 

Consider, if the math fails in this relatively simple case, to produce results that look reaqsonable or even seem to hold balance, why should you trust the same mechanical model to work in all those cases where its not as obvious?

 

The trouble with any linear limitation system is that you have to put a cap on how many limitations you can take. At a certain point, each additional limitation would be worth 0. Gurps uses a linear system, where each limitation takes off a fixed percentage of the cost, but it's capped at 75% I think. There are some problems with the Gurps approach as well.

 

On a theoretical level, it's possible that each additional limitation could be worth less. For example, an OAF gun that will be taken away every 2nd adventure, and with an additional (-1) limitation that should affect the power every 2nd adventure. Since the gun will be taken away 1/2 the time, the second limitation has no effect those times, and will only effect the 50% of the time that the gun isn't taken away. Therefore, it will only take effect 1/4 of the time and shouldn't be worth as many points as the first -1 limitation.

[Castaigne]

My group tends to use limitations as a way to model characters and powers with little regard for point-saving or balance. It's not uncommon for PCs to have limitations on powers that have no effect on real point cost.

 

Even so, we strictly enforce the idea that a limitation that doesn't limit the use of a power in-game isn't a limitation, and any character who buys powers or characteristics OIHID or through a Focus will eventually have to face a villain without them

[jtelson]

Simply put, its not about "did i get good stuff for my 20 points" or "duid i get good stuff for my 6 points" but rather should i get 20 points or 6 points for taking a full phase instead of a half phase on a 12d6 attack?

 

My bad - I misunderstood what you were talking about and I see your point - Never really noticed it before and I'll have to give it some thought.

[Blue Angel]

When you take a limitation think of it as a probability that the limiting facter will occur. Thus a limitation (A) which limits one session in two has a 50% chance of occuring. Say you have another such limitation ( which also limits 50% of the time. Thus the following statictical breakdown will occur.

 

A Limits Alone, 25%

B Limits Alone, 25%

A and B Limits, 25%

No limits Occur, 25%

 

The limiting percentage (going form one limitation to two) has gone from 50% to 75%, not double. Therefore the multiplying limitation system of HERO makes more sense than an additive one. There should be a diminishing return on your limitations due to overlapping occurances. If one of the limitations negates the power, who cares if the other does at the same time.

 

PS: full phase to use is quite limiting. If you need to move to attack then it takes two phase to do so.

[pinecone]

I've been useing the same explanation of limits since the early eightys..."You decide how limiting a limit is ,if you say your powers don't work when canadian geese fly overhead,and you say that is common...then canadian geese will fly overhead commonly...even if you're on an alien planet,a exobiology lab will be nearby because you took it as a limit.I.e.; limits do limit characters,so when I run a game limits mostly fall into the called for by conception catagory,despite this foci are not all that rare but users make sure they can get by without them!...Cons are a differant story...at cons most lims are just free points...

[FTJoshua]

Aren't most limitations self-policing anyway? Activation, Costs END, Always On, Concentrate, etc. A lot of them, if not most, are just there, no matter what the GM or player wants to do. An activation is always going to require activation, Costs END is always going to cost END. Those do limit the power, regardless. A focus, on the other hand, must be actively removed by the GM; preventing a PC from entering his Hero I.D. is the GM's job.

In our campaign we take limits to both reduce cost and add depth, but we don't take them just for giggles.

[tesuji]

Just as an aside for all those... it CANNOT work this way, it cannot be linear and that its just plain silly to expect that applying full phase to a 12d6 Eb to produce a CONSISTENT change in the points returned regardless of other limitations...

 

I would like to point out that in HERO ADVANTAGES work that way.

 

The value of AP +1/2 applied to a 12d6 Eb is 30 points, and that 30 points remains 30 points whether it is also 0 END, or also Invisible, or also Indirect.

 

Doesn't it seem inherently flawed to make enhancementsor improvements to a power linear and of consistent value based on power level but make restrictions and reductions in a power follow a radically different method of value assignment?

 

*******************

 

Second note, for the issue of cannot do linear because after a while you still reach a point where the costs have to vary or you get to 0.

 

Indeed you are correct.

 

However, the lack of a perfect solution, one which never results in skews, does not mean that all the solutions left are good ones.

 

For example... try wrapping your brain around this version:

 

Limitations:

Each -1/4 worth limitation reduces the powers cost by 10% of the cost ignoring any limitation. So a -1/2 will remove 12 points from the cost of a 60 ap power regardless of whether it is limited by other lims.

Exception: No power can have its cost reduced below 20% of its original value without Gm approval.

 

So, in this case the 60 ap power, the 12d6 Eb, would have each and every -1/4 worth of lims reduce his power by 6 points UNTIL you reached -2.

 

Now, in my experience, MOST powers chosen by players have FEWER than -2 worth of limitations. I think, just a suspicion but we can easily look this up and do some math, that even if i look in crooks, conquerors and killers, and champions universe for all the limited powers there that probably 95% of them will fall into the "-2 or less worth of lims" category and very few, maybe 1 in 20 tops, will go more than -2 in lims.

 

The current system, begins producing inconsistent results as soon as a second limitation, regardless of the severity of the limitations, is applied. This skew thus begins affecting many more characters right off the bat, most every gun with ammo will feel the skew.

 

The linear method which only starts skewing the cost after the limitations have mounted up IN SEVERITY, not in numeral counting, to beyond the point of "mostly useless" at -2 will mean you keep a consistent cost structure for most characters with lims AND that you really wont start mucking the costs until after you go beyond "mostly useless."

 

Consistent costs for lims over 95% of the cases and skewed costs over the remaining 5% seems like a better system than one which begins skewing almost immediately and affects more guys.

 

**********************************

 

just a thought

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

Just as an aside for all those... it CANNOT work this way, it cannot be linear and that its just plain silly to expect that applying full phase to a 12d6 Eb to produce a CONSISTENT change in the points returned regardless of other limitations...

 

I would like to point out that in HERO ADVANTAGES work that way.

 

The value of AP +1/2 applied to a 12d6 Eb is 30 points, and that 30 points remains 30 points whether it is also 0 END, or also Invisible, or also Indirect.

 

Doesn't it seem inherently flawed to make enhancementsor improvements to a power linear and of consistent value based on power level but make restrictions and reductions in a power follow a radically different method of value assignment?

 

Not flawed at all. All advantages work all the time, thus they have equal value. Limitations don't necessarily work the same way. As pointed out earlier, one limitation can easily reduce the effects of another limitation.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Second note, for the issue of cannot do linear because after a while you still reach a point where the costs have to vary or you get to 0.

 

Indeed you are correct.

 

However, the lack of a perfect solution, one which never results in skews, does not mean that all the solutions left are good ones.

 

For example... try wrapping your brain around this version:

 

Limitations:

Each -1/4 worth limitation reduces the powers cost by 10% of the cost ignoring any limitation. So a -1/2 will remove 12 points from the cost of a 60 ap power regardless of whether it is limited by other lims.

Exception: No power can have its cost reduced below 20% of its original value without Gm approval.

 

So, in this case the 60 ap power, the 12d6 Eb, would have each and every -1/4 worth of lims reduce his power by 6 points UNTIL you reached -2.

 

Now, in my experience, MOST powers chosen by players have FEWER than -2 worth of limitations. I think, just a suspicion but we can easily look this up and do some math, that even if i look in crooks, conquerors and killers, and champions universe for all the limited powers there that probably 95% of them will fall into the "-2 or less worth of lims" category and very few, maybe 1 in 20 tops, will go more than -2 in lims.

 

The current system, begins producing inconsistent results as soon as a second limitation, regardless of the severity of the limitations, is applied. This skew thus begins affecting many more characters right off the bat, most every gun with ammo will feel the skew.

 

The linear method which only starts skewing the cost after the limitations have mounted up IN SEVERITY, not in numeral counting, to beyond the point of "mostly useless" at -2 will mean you keep a consistent cost structure for most characters with lims AND that you really wont start mucking the costs until after you go beyond "mostly useless."

 

Consistent costs for lims over 95% of the cases and skewed costs over the remaining 5% seems like a better system than one which begins skewing almost immediately and affects more guys.

 

**********************************

 

just a thought

 

You've just described Gurps.

 

What you described may possibly work for superheroic campaigns, but it completely breaks down for fantasy hero or other campaigns where there are usually lots more than -2 in limitations. For Fantasy Hero especially, it would really make it difficult to afford or to differentiate between spells and magic items.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Gary

Not flawed at all. All advantages work all the time, thus they have equal value. Limitations don't necessarily work the same way. As pointed out earlier, one limitation can easily reduce the effects of another limitation.

 

Well, however, looking at advantages as the inverse of limitations, we can see that advantages can and do in many cases magnify each other. In much the same way you want limitations to skew their costs in order to reflect them getting in each other's way, why shouldn't advantages skew upwards to show that they are helping each other?

 

For instance...

 

12d6EB is 60 ap and costs 6 end

For 30 points 1 add 0 end and now every shot i save 6 end.

then...

For 50 points i add AOE and now the end thing saves me 9 end per use but it still only costing me 30 ap for the 0 end thing. The area is 9" radius.

then...

I add NND for 60 points. Now the 0 end thing which only cost 30 points is saving me 15 end per shot... over twice what i originally paid for. The radius has now gone up to 15" instead of 9.

 

Now, in a more down to earth example, does anyone at all doubt that 6d6 AOE 3" r for 60 ap is LESS EFFECTIVE than 4d6 NND AOE 4" radius in a mythically average superheroes game? The fact that advantages used in certain combos provide a self-improving synergy is OBVIOUS. It is at least as obvious as the stepping on themselves downside for limitations is.

 

So, why, if you believe the mutal step-on effect for limitations SHOULD produce the mutliple limitation cost slow down as it does now would you also support advantages working linearly when their "synergistic" or "multiplicative" effects are just as evident?

 

What justification is there for having one work linearly and the other multiplicatively?

 

Originally posted by Gary

What you described may possibly work for superheroic campaigns, but it completely breaks down for fantasy hero or other campaigns where there are usually lots more than -2 in limitations. For Fantasy Hero especially, it would really make it difficult to afford or to differentiate between spells and magic items.

 

So, you seem to be saying that a single approach for both fabntasy and supers is not necessarily the best choice?

 

Should a supers game be built to make a separate fantasy game work the way it is supposed to?

 

Why not build a supers game to work as a supers game should and a fantasy game to work as a fantasy game should?

 

Now, if you are hung up on making the same mechanic work for both, then you could set a dial.

 

The value for each -1/4 is...

10% to a max of 80 for supers campaigns.

5% to a max of 80 for "heroic" campaigns.

 

this way fantasy games would be able to run up as far as -4 before running into the wall. There are already many differences defined for heroic vs superheroic already in the system.

 

of course, the notion that -2 is considered something akin to nearly useless in superheroes but considered inadequately limited in fantasy games may well say something about the value of limitations in itself.

 

It appears again to me that both advantages and limitations both have synergistic (or anti synergists) impacts when multiples are applied to the same base power and it seems obvious that both should work the same, either linbearly or multiplicatively in terms of assessing their cost in order to produce consistent costs for effects.

 

I mean, isn't saving 15 end or even 9 end per shot worth more than saving 6 end? isn't this just as significant a cost vs effect thing as "when he doesn't have his gun he never encounters the full phase problem?"

 

Why should saving 15 end a shot cost maybe 30 points for one power, maybe 50 for another, and maybe as high as 75 points for a third, all depending on how many different advantages are applied to the power?

 

 

[tesuji]

Hmmm... some jargon might be helpful...

 

LINEAR modifiers: the points required for applying a modifier (whether they increase the cost or reduce it) is set solely by the base power and the "size" of the individual modifier and ignores (for the most part) the presence of other modifiers of the same type. (The way advantages currently work.)

 

LUMP SUM modifiers: The points required for applying a modifier is determined by the total of all modifiers and the presence of other modifiers will change the points for specific individual ones. (The way limitations work now.)

[tesuji]

Actually, most all limitations are NOT self-enforcing.

 

Activation roll IS self-enforcing. Every time you want to use the power you make a roll.

 

ENDURANCE? Not self enforcing at all. How often do you get hit with attacks powerful enough to con stun you and take you out? Well, that depends entirely on the basic offense and defense levels the GM sets, how often you meet 'equal power villain teams" as opposed to "uber single villains", and what are the acceptable norms for CON as the GM defined them.

 

INCREASED ENDURANCE: Even up to say 3-4 times. Are your typical combats 1 turn or less in length or are they 3 turns or maybe 5 turn marathons?

 

Now, sure, endurance and even increased endurance will make the PLAYER do some additional bookkeeping while the turns progress, but they won't necessarily influence or limit his character's actions UNLESS the Gm has a scenario setup so that it will come up.

 

CHARGES: Again it adds bookkeeping but the severity of it again varies with the length of combat as well as the breaks time between combats. Some campaigns feature typically one big combat (not necessarily long in turns) a day and then downtime... so in those charges may not even be a limit at all.

Another campaign might see a series of combats in rapid succession, classic "DND style", and so for those charges might be severe.

 

Most limitations are not self-limiting but rather vary incredibly from no problem at all (save maybe from bookkeeping demands on the player) to minor nuisance to crippling flaw and these are all dependent much more on the scenario and campaign styles than the actual value of the limitation.

 

Originally posted by FTJoshua

Aren't most limitations self-policing anyway? Activation, Costs END, Always On, Concentrate, etc. A lot of them, if not most, are just there, no matter what the GM or player wants to do. An activation is always going to require activation, Costs END is always going to cost END. Those do limit the power, regardless. A focus, on the other hand, must be actively removed by the GM; preventing a PC from entering his Hero I.D. is the GM's job.

In our campaign we take limits to both reduce cost and add depth, but we don't take them just for giggles.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tesuji

Well, however, looking at advantages as the inverse of limitations, we can see that advantages can and do in many cases magnify each other. In much the same way you want limitations to skew their costs in order to reflect them getting in each other's way, why shouldn't advantages skew upwards to show that they are helping each other?

 

For instance...

 

12d6EB is 60 ap and costs 6 end

For 30 points 1 add 0 end and now every shot i save 6 end.

then...

For 50 points i add AOE and now the end thing saves me 9 end per use but it still only costing me 30 ap for the 0 end thing. The area is 9" radius.

then...

I add NND for 60 points. Now the 0 end thing which only cost 30 points is saving me 15 end per shot... over twice what i originally paid for. The radius has now gone up to 15" instead of 9.

 

Now, in a more down to earth example, does anyone at all doubt that 6d6 AOE 3" r for 60 ap is LESS EFFECTIVE than 4d6 NND AOE 4" radius in a mythically average superheroes game? The fact that advantages used in certain combos provide a self-improving synergy is OBVIOUS. It is at least as obvious as the stepping on themselves downside for limitations is.

 

So, why, if you believe the mutal step-on effect for limitations SHOULD produce the mutliple limitation cost slow down as it does now would you also support advantages working linearly when their "synergistic" or "multiplicative" effects are just as evident?

 

What justification is there for having one work linearly and the other multiplicatively?

 

Simplicity. How many gamers would be turned off if they had to multiply by 1.25*1.5*2.5, for example?

 

Besides, not all advantages are multiplicative, so using a multiplicative method for advantages means that you would have to divide advantages into 2 types, linear and multiplicative. A linear advantage may be extra stun multiples for killing attacks. Adding +1 stun multiple for a 4D6 killing attack costs 15 pts and adds 14 stun on average. If you make advantages multiplicative, adding +1 stun multiple to a 1D6 killing attack with +6 stun multiples bought already would cost 14 pts and add 3.5 stun on average to the attack.

 

Splitting advantages into 2 types, and limitations into 2 types, and working out how they interact with each other is too much work for what you gain.

 

 

Originally posted by tesuji

So, you seem to be saying that a single approach for both fabntasy and supers is not necessarily the best choice?

 

Should a supers game be built to make a separate fantasy game work the way it is supposed to?

 

Why not build a supers game to work as a supers game should and a fantasy game to work as a fantasy game should?

 

Now, if you are hung up on making the same mechanic work for both, then you could set a dial.

 

The value for each -1/4 is...

10% to a max of 80 for supers campaigns.

5% to a max of 80 for "heroic" campaigns.

 

this way fantasy games would be able to run up as far as -4 before running into the wall. There are already many differences defined for heroic vs superheroic already in the system.

 

of course, the notion that -2 is considered something akin to nearly useless in superheroes but considered inadequately limited in fantasy games may well say something about the value of limitations in itself.

 

Hero is supposed to be an universal system, thus the rules should be consistent between a fantasy hero and a supers campaign. A super should be able to be dropped in a fantasy world and function without having to be rewritten and vice versa.

 

Besides, at 5% reduction per 1/4, limitations don't provide nearly enough point savings to be worth it unless you pile on lots of them. Would anybody ever take a reduced by range limitation on a 60 pt power if it only saves 3 pts? It's better to "frontload" the value of limitations and have a diminishing returns effect rather than people either taking no limitations or lots of limitations with no in between.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

It appears again to me that both advantages and limitations both have synergistic (or anti synergists) impacts when multiples are applied to the same base power and it seems obvious that both should work the same, either linbearly or multiplicatively in terms of assessing their cost in order to produce consistent costs for effects.

 

I mean, isn't saving 15 end or even 9 end per shot worth more than saving 6 end? isn't this just as significant a cost vs effect thing as "when he doesn't have his gun he never encounters the full phase problem?"

 

Why should saving 15 end a shot cost maybe 30 points for one power, maybe 50 for another, and maybe as high as 75 points for a third, all depending on how many different advantages are applied to the power?

 

Again, you would have to split both advantages and limitations into 2 types, work out how they interact, and have much more complex math. Just not worth it IMO.