Is Punisher the problem?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Also' date=' the way we've built military characters up to now, they are FREAKIN' EXPENSIVE concepts! Stealth skills, martial art skill, WE, trans fams, combat skills, appropriate KS's... etc, etc. etc. Often these characters are stretched too thin, too far compared to equivalent pt non-equipment users.[/quote']

 

Perhaps the explosion of skills and skill costs over the last few editions is the real issue? Maybe it's not the fact that Punisher's GM makes him pay 20pts for his rifle, it's the fact that he has to put 60pts into KS's, WF, Systems Ops, etc etc etc?

[Constantine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Jeez, the way some are carrying on, its like someone took away their favorite toy or something...

 

To point: I don't really have a problem with an experiment like this, and would be interested in hearing about the results. It IS tough to build an effective gun-guy/special ops guy in a superheroic game and give him all the skills he should have and still be an effective character. It is not for everyone, though, and will require careful GM attention to the weapons the characters want, and would reasonably have access to. Really unique things, like the blaster rifle from alpha centary, should be paid for though. But if you pay for a weapons with points, its automatically better than any weapons you don't pay points for, even if the effects are the same. For example, the example I remember where two weapons with the same effect, one an assault rifle, another, a unique blaster paid for with points. As a GM, I'm going to make sure that the person who paid points for there blaster gets there points worth. Maybe these two characters will be caught in an area of effect blast, and the assault rifle will be reduced to a pile of twisted metal, while the blaster rifle came through unscathed! The cops are going to have a hard time tracing a blaster rifle's effects, but have lots of experience with ballistics on assault rifles, etc. You'll get your points worth, believe it!!!

[sbarron]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

What an excellent thread. I feel like I should write Dust Raven's post down somewhere...I need to remember his definitions. Awesome!

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Jeez, the way some are carrying on, its like someone took away their favorite toy or something...

 

To point: I don't really have a problem with an experiment like this, and would be interested in hearing about the results. It IS tough to build an effective gun-guy/special ops guy in a superheroic game and give him all the skills he should have and still be an effective character. It is not for everyone, though, and will require careful GM attention to the weapons the characters want, and would reasonably have access to. Really unique things, like the blaster rifle from alpha centary, should be paid for though. But if you pay for a weapons with points, its automatically better than any weapons you don't pay points for, even if the effects are the same. For example, the example I remember where two weapons with the same effect, one an assault rifle, another, a unique blaster paid for with points. As a GM, I'm going to make sure that the person who paid points for there blaster gets there points worth. Maybe these two characters will be caught in an area of effect blast, and the assault rifle will be reduced to a pile of twisted metal, while the blaster rifle came through unscathed! The cops are going to have a hard time tracing a blaster rifle's effects, but have lots of experience with ballistics on assault rifles, etc. You'll get your points worth, believe it!!!

 

THANK YOU!

 

I'll rep you when I can. I'm all out right now.

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

If you playing a Hero, then why are the cops trying to track down your weapons? And paying points for the weapons doesn't mean they can't traced unless the gm chooses to make that an affect to balance out that you actually paid points for them. You could role play and use appropriate channels to get untraceable from free pointwise. People do it all the time in real life.

 

There's already rules in Hero for Foci breaking if hit with attacks. Because you say "If you paid for it, its immune" is not a "fix" its a house rule made up to "balance" the free equipment. You could always (AFAIK) choose to make your foci unbreakable.

 

I still think its kind of punishing someone for a special effect.

 

Nobody answered my question on if you're going to keep "Punishing" the character for carrying real weapons by hitting them with the real life implications (Which Real Weapon does anyway) or denying them the gear outright if they get inappropriate things without paying points, whats the big deal about insisting that all weapons are paid for with points and just getting on the with story at hand instead of quibbling over some abstract idea of realism?

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Actually, what am I going on about? RDU's got it working for his game and I don't play in it and its not like he's ranting that it the One True Way to run a supers game or anything.

 

I need coffee.

[Storn]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Nobody answered my question on if you're going to keep "Punishing" the character for carrying real weapons by hitting them with the real life implications (Which Real Weapon does anyway) or denying them the gear outright if they get inappropriate things without paying points, whats the big deal about insisting that all weapons are paid for with points and just getting on the with story at hand instead of quibbling over some abstract idea of realism?

 

If Gear,whether weaponry or not, is inappropriate, then the Player is going to have to jump through a lot of hoops to obtain said Gear.

 

It is NOT punishment. It is the "Yes... but.". Yes, you can have Barret .50 cal sniper rifle. It is commercially available (recent 60 minutes piece on the company, in fact) BUT! How are you going to get it to Poland where the adventure is taking place? {hint: good place to spend pts, contacts... underworld smuggler}.

 

Or it can be the focus of an entire adventure; Steal the Tresselaine silicoln Laser rifle from the scientists who are studying the dang thang. Yes, you can have the rifle, BUT there is going to be an entire ep devoted to getting it. Heck, that is the plotline of 50% of most CRPG fantasy games it seems.

 

Again, let me state this; it is not Punishment. And because the utilization of Gear can be woven into the weft and woof of the episode. It can be as much part of the adventure problem solving as the main core of the ep. I'm a co-gm in Neil's game, I would have no problem with someone with the right resources getting their hands on equipment. But I will expect them to roleplay getting around the obstacles that would exist. I'm confident in my own GMing skills (and Neils) that it will be interesting. I know this, because I've done it.

 

It goes directly to "character". Does Bryan Fury load up on lots of obvious weaponry when he goes to Poland, despite being on probation by UNTIL/InterPol? Or does he carry only a handgun, concealable and rely on his martial arts and cybernetics? Whatever decision teh player makes, it says something about the character. For the record, Fury carried only a pistol into the Raven underworld bar, but did capitilize on contacts within East German Police (and corruption) to arrange for heavier ordinance to follow the PCs. A rented van did hold more weaponry.

 

 

An aside, Handcuffs are not inappropriate, anyone could buy them. And they are horribly expensive to buy with points. Yet they are reasonable thing to carry for law enforcement super types. I've always hated trying to wrestle Hero mechanics for Handcuffs.

[Fox1]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

We don't really have the Capt. America type who is "defined" by the shield he carried.

 

 

To go slightly off subject...

 

There was an entire storyline in the published comic on that very concept- Captain America without his shield.

 

One of the major panels in it was one when Cap was beating the stuffings out of the bad guy with a quote something like "The Shield isn't Captain America, I am!".

 

I've run and played-in (shared GMs) a Marvel based campaign for years now.

 

Checking my write up of the good Captain (one of two characters I often play in fact)...

 

I see 730 total points.

 

218 in characteristics.

433 in Skills and talents.

79 in the Shield (which is a multi-power construct)

 

Looks like he's not defined by his gear/powers to me

 

 

 

 

As far as this whole debate on paying points for equipment goes... I just don't think the points are all that important.

 

For me the points just don't matter. That's right, the points are like a role-player in a D&D game

 

Since it's a Marvel based game, I build the characters to concept. If I run a team who's concepts work well together- i.e. each character has a niche that's useful in battle, the result is still balanced even if there are hundreds of points different between them.

 

And because the characters are built to fit a concept, there isn't XP to hand out which makes things easier.

 

So I work under rather special conditions, but the core idea applies in more general mainstream Superhero games as well.

 

 

Build the character to concept, and pay the points for it. If you've done the character right- any little gear they may pick up along the way is perfectly ok as the Character's Operating Concept as already been paid for.

 

Cell phones don't define the hero, flashlights don't define the hero, grabbing a gun once on a adventure and blowing away a single bad guy (as Cap did in one issue of his a while back) doesn't define the hero (although the action may say a lot about him personally).

 

If the gear gets out of hand and he's using it all the time for important things- then it has started defining him. Pay the points for it.

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

If Gear,whether weaponry or not, is inappropriate, then the Player is going to have to jump through a lot of hoops to obtain said Gear.

 

It is NOT punishment. It is the "Yes... but.". Yes, you can have Barret .50 cal sniper rifle. It is commercially available (recent 60 minutes piece on the company, in fact) BUT! How are you going to get it to Poland where the adventure is taking place? {hint: good place to spend pts, contacts... underworld smuggler}.

 

Or it can be the focus of an entire adventure; Steal the Tresselaine silicoln Laser rifle from the scientists who are studying the dang thang. Yes, you can have the rifle, BUT there is going to be an entire ep devoted to getting it. Heck, that is the plotline of 50% of most CRPG fantasy games it seems.

 

Again, let me state this; it is not Punishment. And because the utilization of Gear can be woven into the weft and woof of the episode. It can be as much part of the adventure problem solving as the main core of the ep. I'm a co-gm in Neil's game, I would have no problem with someone with the right resources getting their hands on equipment. But I will expect them to roleplay getting around the obstacles that would exist. I'm confident in my own GMing skills (and Neils) that it will be interesting. I know this, because I've done it.

 

It goes directly to "character". Does Bryan Fury load up on lots of obvious weaponry when he goes to Poland, despite being on probation by UNTIL/InterPol? Or does he carry only a handgun, concealable and rely on his martial arts and cybernetics? Whatever decision teh player makes, it says something about the character. For the record, Fury carried only a pistol into the Raven underworld bar, but did capitilize on contacts within East German Police (and corruption) to arrange for heavier ordinance to follow the PCs. A rented van did hold more weaponry.

 

 

An aside, Handcuffs are not inappropriate, anyone could buy them. And they are horribly expensive to buy with points. Yet they are reasonable thing to carry for law enforcement super types. I've always hated trying to wrestle Hero mechanics for Handcuffs.

 

That's all well and good if you're playing a gritty high tech spies sort of game (which I imagine you are), but there are gms that aren't going to, or aren't willing to deal with that sort of thing. Or its not the focus they want to have in their game. So, everyone pays points for their gear and this sort of thing is assumed or it just the occasional plot device. Even if you paid points for the gun, its not going to magically go threw customs. It doesn't make the GM "less skilled" or anything. makes the game different. Personally, for the games I want to run I don't think it would work. But if it works in you two guy universe and with you group, that's cool.

 

You're right though, maybe "punishing" is the wrong word. The real problems have been sited as something that would balance real world weaponry and such for free. I'm not really sure what a better world would be, but there probably is one.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I think in most Heroic campaigns there are balances to keep players from simply picking up every piece of equipment they like. There is money to think about, and encumberance (even if you were to use the encumberance rules in a Superheroic campaign, there is usually no Characteristic Maxima to keep that cheap Strength from going high enough to account for any equipment). This means that for Heroic characters, there are more constraints than just the number of Character Points you have to spend, and at the same time character creation is easier, because all you have to worry about is the character’s basic Characteristics and Skills (with maybe a few other things thrown in, like “racial packages,†or what have you).

 

So as a player in a Heroic campaign, you usually don’t have to worry about putting together a bunch of powers. But as a GM in a Heroic campaign, you do! As you indicated, this does give you some control over what advantages and limitations a power “should†have, and it helps you create realistic special effects (e.g., “Sorry, if you want to do 3d6 points of damage, you are going to have to use a shotgun, not a revolverâ€). It also gives the players less power, which some might be okay with, and some might not.

 

In a Superherioc game, I don’t think there is anything wrong with defining “Everyman Powers,†such as giving every character a cell phone if they want one. As a genre thing, there is also usually nothing wrong with a character grabbing something nearby in the scene and using it. However, the idea is that the episodic nature of comic-book superheros really doesn’t leave much room for acquiring equipment and loot (unless it doesn’t have much effect on the story). Instead, you want to be able to compare characters by how many points they have, what the biggest defense they have is, etc. Superheros tend to keep the same capabilities for long periods of time, although they may go through dramatic transformations “now and then.â€

 

There is also probably nothing wrong with playing a “Heroic†campaign in which characters start out with 350 points. It just means the characters are all likely to have really high Characteristics and lots and lots of Skills/Skill Levels. It could mean that characters are going to look a lot the same because, lets face it, without having to buy expensive powers, that’s a lot of points to spend in relatively few places!

Just to chime in, this is also why I thought the equipment pool and costs versus points things all were in place.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

And would you consider it a problem to say "the line ends here"?

 

The problem becomes drawing that line. Start with a 9mm handgun as "real world equipment" available to any character for free (provided he doesn't have disadvantages like "criminal record" making it harder to come by).

 

Now, we get a character with established military connections and backing - by the same logic, he should be able to lay his hands on an assault rifle, shouldn't he?

 

Surely a guy like Captain America, who the president looks up to, and who has connections with numerous military and param,ilitary organizations, should be able to "borrow" military hardware like a tank, an F15 or an attck chopper, right? It's real world equipment, and "Cap's saved the world more times than we can count - we owe him every co-operation", right?

 

I prefer the theory espoused by Katherine and some others that, rather than try to draw the line based on "is this real-world tech that this character could reasonably lay his hands on", we consider drawing the line at "is this tech sufficiently useful that a character who gets it for free will have an advantage over a character who buys his powers with points". If you want a 1d6 KA handgun, who cares - it won't be effective in Supers battles (when's the last time Dr. Doom actually unholstered that luger? Not in combat with the FF, that's for sure!).

 

A key difference between Heroic and Superheroic is that Heroic characters are generally constrained by money, skills such as weapon familiarities, encumbrance and other issues not commonly monitored in Supers games because it's out of genre. Another is that the characters rely on their equipment, and all have similar restrictions on equipment available.

 

About the only heroic genre I can think of where some characters buy attacks and defenses with points, and others with cash, is fantasy (spells vs equipment). The current Hero system for "high fantasy", where warriors and wizards have comparablke combat punch, is to let the wizards cut the cost of their "supoerpowers" by 2/3.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Nobody answered my question on if you're going to keep "Punishing" the character for carrying real weapons by hitting them with the real life implications (Which Real Weapon does anyway) or denying them the gear outright if they get inappropriate things without paying points, whats the big deal about insisting that all weapons are paid for with points and just getting on the with story at hand instead of quibbling over some abstract idea of realism?

 

Good question... but you are making assumptions that PCs can have any kind of power they want, and define the SFX however they want. Not true, as if someone tried to claim that "what makes me a superhero is this laser rifle I found" would be hard pressed to get that approved. I look at the gun and say, "It does nothing more than a regular assault rifle would do... just with a laser... how does this justify you being a hero any more than if you picked up a HK94?" There would need to be something else that made the character special, for them to be considered super.

 

A classic example is the fact that Laser and Blowtorch of Classic Enemies fame... well, they always struck me as "thug with gizmo" and not really a super threat, at all. Laser was a hyped up Air-Cav VIPER agent, for the most part. Blowtorch was a psycho mook with a flame thrower. Clear examples of how the genre convention of "equipment defines the character" doesn't always work very well.

 

And for your last question... it is an issue of verisimilitude. The fact is it disrupts the game MORE to say, "YOu can't have it 'cause you didn't pay points" when a soldier character tries to slip a 9mm into his jacket. I'd rather let him have it and adjudicate the guns effectiveness through actual role play.

 

The fact that FOCI go undamaged by AE attacks is a game rule. Allowing equipment weapons to be damaged this way... lost... etc,... that is a major issue in super-fights.

 

Basically treating guns and equipment as tools, rather than "character defining icons" is a big deal. It goes a long way to setting the tone and feel of the game world. I'm willing to risk some balance issues (none of which seem to be any greater than other balance issues in Hero) for a play experience closer to what "feels right" for my game world.

 

If it doesn't work... it is hardly an issue to go back to the old rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

It is NOT punishment. It is the "Yes... but.". Yes' date=' you can have Barret .50 cal sniper rifle. It is commercially available (recent 60 minutes piece on the company, in fact) BUT! How are you going to get it to Poland where the adventure is taking place? {hint: good place to spend pts, contacts... underworld smuggler}. [/quote']

 

So, would this same problem not be faced by Captain Spaceman, who has a laser beam weapon with identical stats, also made of metal and the same size as the sinper rifle? If one is free, why should the other cost points? Or, why should one character concept get freebies that are denied to another concept?

 

This is not dissimilar from the "how much do you get for SFX" question. IceBoy can cool his drink and FireLad can heat his soup - no charge. If IceBoy wants to dump freezing rain on a 20 block radius, or Fire Lad wants to keep his comrades safe and warm in Antarctica, there's a point cost. The former examples are color, and the latter have utility.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

And for your last question... it is an issue of verisimilitude. The fact is it disrupts the game MORE to say, "YOu can't have it 'cause you didn't pay points" when a soldier character tries to slip a 9mm into his jacket. I'd rather let him have it and adjudicate the guns effectiveness through actual role play.

 

The fact that FOCI go undamaged by AE attacks is a game rule. Allowing equipment weapons to be damaged this way... lost... etc,... that is a major issue in super-fights.

 

I'm curious how "you must pay points for equipment you carry" costs more verisimilitude than "Everyone's 9 mm melts in the firestorm. Oh, except for SuperSoldier's, since he paid points for his."

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Regarding the general issue of designing and executing skill-and-weapon human "supers" and making that fit to points, I don't see it as a challenge unique only to this particular character set, there are many other character sets (robots./automotons come to mind) that are also challenging to make fit against the more typical characters.

 

There are two fundamental issues - do we care about points as a controlling factor is the first. That's a whole other discussion. I'll just point out that by going "points-less" one can dismiss a lot of issues. I have been really seriously considering embracing doing so but have just not quite made the leap mentally, since in other aspects I like points as an objective if arbitrary guidepost.

 

The other issue here, more directly, to me, is the age-old one of what's appropriate in terms of handling the non-powers in terms of frameworks and limitations. There's an understandable prohibition against skills and equipment being done in frameworks and of being limited. And I entirely admit/understand we're getting into munchkin territory. But ultimately characters like Punisher really are VPP-based in terms of equipment. Skills are trickier, but I do think there's reasonable groundwork for some combination of powers-written-as-skills plus skills being put into MPs or even VPPs, even thiough I haven't ever felt the need to go there.

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Good question... but you are making assumptions that PCs can have any kind of power they want, and define the SFX however they want. Not true, as if someone tried to claim that "what makes me a superhero is this laser rifle I found" would be hard pressed to get that approved. I look at the gun and say, "It does nothing more than a regular assault rifle would do... just with a laser... how does this justify you being a hero any more than if you picked up a HK94?" There would need to be something else that made the character special, for them to be considered super.

 

Then that is why this works in your game. Not everyone does that though.

 

A classic example is the fact that Laser and Blowtorch of Classic Enemies fame... well, they always struck me as "thug with gizmo" and not really a super threat, at all. Laser was a hyped up Air-Cav VIPER agent, for the most part. Blowtorch was a psycho mook with a flame thrower. Clear examples of how the genre convention of "equipment defines the character" doesn't always work very well

 

It does work if you're into the genre. If you're going for "real world with super powers" it possibly doesn't.

 

And for your last question... it is an issue of verisimilitude. The fact is it disrupts the game MORE to say, "YOu can't have it 'cause you didn't pay points" when a soldier character tries to slip a 9mm into his jacket. I'd rather let him have it and adjudicate the guns effectiveness through actual role play.

 

It does? I've never had a problem with it beyond one of my group that whined about when we switched from Aberrant. Its not a fact. Its a preference and an opinion.....IMO.

 

The fact that FOCI go undamaged by AE attacks is a game rule. Allowing equipment weapons to be damaged this way... lost... etc,... that is a major issue in super-fights.

 

Weapons and gear are basically foci, IMO. A poster mentioned that one of the perks of paying points for your weapon would be it proably wouldn't be damaged if it was caught in an AOE attack. I was pointing out that purchased foci can be damaged that way too so its messing with the rules to balance out the free equipment.

 

Basically treating guns and equipment as tools, rather than "character defining icons" is a big deal. It goes a long way to setting the tone and feel of the game world. I'm willing to risk some balance issues (none of which seem to be any greater than other balance issues in Hero) for a play experience closer to what "feels right" for my game world.

 

If it doesn't work... it is hardly an issue to go back to the old rules.

 

As I said earlier, if you're talking about your game world and what you're trying to do in it, go for it.

[OddHat]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

The problem becomes drawing that line. Start with a 9mm handgun as "real world equipment" available to any character for free (provided he doesn't have disadvantages like "criminal record" making it harder to come by).

 

Now, we get a character with established military connections and backing - by the same logic, he should be able to lay his hands on an assault rifle, shouldn't he?

 

If the GM doesn't mind, why not? His game, his call. In many of my campaigns that would not be a balance issue.

 

Surely a guy like Captain America, who the president looks up to, and who has connections with numerous military and param,ilitary organizations, should be able to "borrow" military hardware like a tank, an F15 or an attck chopper, right? It's real world equipment, and "Cap's saved the world more times than we can count - we owe him every co-operation", right?

 

Again, GMs call. If it furthers the plot, I have no trouble giving my players access to an F16 once in a while. If it doesn't, I'd say "no". If they wanted an F16 that they could get access to at any time, I'd charge points for it, but I have no problem with the idea that another GM might not. I also have no problem with a GM who would always charge points, even if the F16 was only going to show up once in a campaign, though I wouldn't want to play in a campaign like that.

 

I don't charge them points for their cars or apartments either. Amazingly, this has never caused any player to demand his right to play Monster-Truck Man.

 

I prefer the theory espoused by Katherine and some others that, rather than try to draw the line based on "is this real-world tech that this character could reasonably lay his hands on", we consider drawing the line at "is this tech sufficiently useful that a character who gets it for free will have an advantage over a character who buys his powers with points". If you want a 1d6 KA handgun, who cares - it won't be effective in Supers battles (when's the last time Dr. Doom actually unholstered that luger? Not in combat with the FF, that's for sure!).

 

I don't have a problem with that line either, but I can see why someone else would want to place the line elsewhere.

 

A key difference between Heroic and Superheroic is that Heroic characters are generally constrained by money, skills such as weapon familiarities, encumbrance and other issues not commonly monitored in Supers games because it's out of genre. Another is that the characters rely on their equipment, and all have similar restrictions on equipment available.

 

So would you class a Real-World-With-Powers game as Heroic with Superheroic Elements?

 

About the only heroic genre I can think of where some characters buy attacks and defenses with points, and others with cash, is fantasy (spells vs equipment). The current Hero system for "high fantasy", where warriors and wizards have comparablke combat punch, is to let the wizards cut the cost of their "supoerpowers" by 2/3.

 

I remember reading at the time that the 1/3 cost optional rule is mainly for campaigns where frameworks were not being used, and that it was meant to allow spells with active point costs that would have been prohibitive if Frameworks were in place. I'm sure "free equipment" played into it, but it was not the main justification for the rule.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

The problem becomes drawing that line. Start with a 9mm handgun as "real world equipment" available to any character for free (provided he doesn't have disadvantages like "criminal record" making it harder to come by).

 

Now, we get a character with established military connections and backing - by the same logic, he should be able to lay his hands on an assault rifle, shouldn't he?

 

Surely a guy like Captain America, who the president looks up to, and who has connections with numerous military and param,ilitary organizations, should be able to "borrow" military hardware like a tank, an F15 or an attck chopper, right? It's real world equipment, and "Cap's saved the world more times than we can count - we owe him every co-operation", right?

 

I prefer the theory espoused by Katherine and some others that, rather than try to draw the line based on "is this real-world tech that this character could reasonably lay his hands on", we consider drawing the line at "is this tech sufficiently useful that a character who gets it for free will have an advantage over a character who buys his powers with points". If you want a 1d6 KA handgun, who cares - it won't be effective in Supers battles (when's the last time Dr. Doom actually unholstered that luger? Not in combat with the FF, that's for sure!).

 

A key difference between Heroic and Superheroic is that Heroic characters are generally constrained by money, skills such as weapon familiarities, encumbrance and other issues not commonly monitored in Supers games because it's out of genre. Another is that the characters rely on their equipment, and all have similar restrictions on equipment available.

 

About the only heroic genre I can think of where some characters buy attacks and defenses with points, and others with cash, is fantasy (spells vs equipment). The current Hero system for "high fantasy", where warriors and wizards have comparablke combat punch, is to let the wizards cut the cost of their "supoerpowers" by 2/3.

Maybe my last message was too askew.

 

Anyway, as to this issue, in a supers game I don't care if a character gets a gun or other mundane equipment. As you indicate, it isn't that useful in a super fight. The times I've seen a PC do this has been where the PC's strengths are not in offense at all and he needs something "to get by".

 

Obviously the danger comes in exactly as you indicate, Hugh, that a PC could easily show up with a hand-held SAM or such and now we're talking serious power. I've seen that happen in just very limited scenarios, and it's been appropriate, such as situations where characters are, for example, invading a base and they grab something lying around and don't go on using it beyond a point in time. I haven't been subject to someone wanting to abuse this. I guess if someone were, I'd probably say, "Hey, that's a clever idea, a "VPP of opportunity", let's write that up and rearrange your points to accomodate this as an ongoing concern."

[OddHat]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Maybe my last message was too askew.

 

Anyway, as to this issue, in a supers game I don't care if a character gets a gun or other mundane equipment. As you indicate, it isn't that useful in a super fight. The times I've seen a PC do this has been where the PC's strengths are not in offense at all and he needs something "to get by".

 

Obviously the danger comes in exactly as you indicate, Hugh, that a PC could easily show up with a hand-held SAM or such and now we're talking serious power. I've seen that happen in just very limited scenarios, and it's been appropriate, such as situations where characters are, for example, invading a base and they grab something lying around and don't go on using it beyond a point in time. I haven't been subject to someone wanting to abuse this. I guess if someone were, I'd probably say, "Hey, that's a clever idea, a "VPP of opportunity", let's write that up and rearrange your points to accomodate this as an ongoing concern."

 

I'd probably do exactly the same thing if it became a problem, though I might allow a slightly cheaper Multipower structure with limitations and advantages to make it work out.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

So, would this same problem not be faced by Captain Spaceman, who has a laser beam weapon with identical stats, also made of metal and the same size as the sinper rifle? If one is free, why should the other cost points? Or, why should one character concept get freebies that are denied to another concept?

 

This is not dissimilar from the "how much do you get for SFX" question. IceBoy can cool his drink and FireLad can heat his soup - no charge. If IceBoy wants to dump freezing rain on a 20 block radius, or Fire Lad wants to keep his comrades safe and warm in Antarctica, there's a point cost. The former examples are color, and the latter have utility.

Tangent alert...

 

If Fire Lad wants to keep his buddies warm in Antarctica, I'm generally fine with that.

 

When the Justice Squad invaded Kingpin's base (the second time, to rescue a teammate) and they found the place freezing cold as a way to limit one of the PCs, Sammy, another PC, Neumann, used his Steam Blast ability (though I should point out he also has a Change Environment power that accompanies this) to keep Sammy warmed enough for basic action. Sammy had to stay within a couple hexes of Neumann, but I was fine with allowing that. The CE presence makes it more clearly in concept, sure, but even if Neumann "only" had his Steam Blast my ruling would have been the same.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I'd probably do exactly the same thing if it became a problem' date=' though I might allow a slightly cheaper Multipower structure with limitations and advantages to make it work out.[/quote']

Sure, I'd be open to that, too.

[Constantine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I'm curious how "you must pay points for equipment you carry" costs more verisimilitude than "Everyone's 9 mm melts in the firestorm. Oh' date=' except for SuperSoldier's, since he paid points for his."[/quote']

 

For example, I would say "everyones 9mm are damaged in the firestorm, except SuperSoldiers, since its better made, and of a superior alloy" Or, I would simply make sure SuperSoldier came across another one before the other pc's who didn't pay for it, or any other number of fixes that simply require a little imagination....

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

All these posts have been great, and have really helped to clarify the various sides... but...

 

... from a strictly "does it cause the game to break" POV, there just doesn't seem to be evidence.

 

Every argument has been about preference. Preference for a certain genre... preference for a certain style of play... preference for "where to draw the line," etc.

 

My preference is to open up the can of worms that is "Free equipment" and see what happens. My basic GM metarule for this being, "Paying points makes it highly dependable and "easy" for the player... free equipment is a great deal less so, and comes with all kinds of difficult role playing baggage"

 

That should be enough for my game... but again, we'll see.

[Fox1]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

... from a strictly "does it cause the game to break" POV, there just doesn't seem to be evidence.

 

You won't find real evidence.

 

If I can run games with 400 point differences in character totals and they work just fine as far as balance goes... you just won't find real proof that something like free real world gear breaks things.

 

What you will find are people who don't like it. For them, it is a game breaker. But only because they made it one.

 

Such is life in the rpg world.

[incrdbil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

... from a strictly "does it cause the game to break" POV, there just doesn't seem to be evidence.

 

what type of game are you talking about?

 

If you're talking about a game where significant, meaningful powers are available for purchase, and the 'real world' equipment available in the campaign appraoches the utility of powers that would be purchased, then yes, I'd say that would break the game. A SFX would tun into a huge gain for equipment using characters, and a huge penalty for those that didn't.

 

Pretend I'm Joe Schmo, the average player. I'll just make super gun bunny with wealth and perks, and poor those points jot used on offensive powers into levels, or abilities like find weakness, or max out every other aspect of my character, and pity the poor guy tring to buy his attacks. thats the default reaction you would see--those being nice and not trying to abuse the benefit would be the exception, not the rule.