Is Punisher the problem?

[Fox1]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

If you're talking about a game where significant' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

I'd have to say that was one strange game.

 

"Hi guys, we're going to play a Superheroes game. Our damage cap is 4d6 so you can do the same damage as a handgun and..."

 

It would take me a while to think of a setting that would be as you describe. Perhaps you would help me out some as I'm coming up blank.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

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.

 

 

Good question: IMO... for a power to be "significant and meaningful" it needs to be

a) more powerful than readily available equipment

have significant advantages to use that equipment doesn't

c) have a truly unique effect not easily replicated by equipment

 

 

So, yes, I'm saying that paying points to have an 8d6 EB power does make you special... but not really all that super. It's nice and effective and can't be taken away from you and is naturally concealed, etc. But in dishing out damage, you are in line with the SWAT guy and his M-4... maybe a touch better in the knocking out department.

 

Start scaling that EB up to 12-14 dice... now we are talking super!

 

Is Batman or Daredevil "less super" because of guns. I think so. They are certainly playable charaters, but they aren't Martian Manhunter or Thor.

 

Is the Punisher more effective in raw damage dealt to a bunch of thugs than Daredevil is? Well... yeah!

 

I'm not interested in "every concept is equal in power" as a game rule. Green Arrow is NOT the same as Superman... and shouldn't really be able to keep up. I have no desire to replicate that genre element.

 

Players choose to play a certain concept because that is what they want. Some concepts are more powerful than others. If I turn out to have a player who is a munchkin who isn't really role playing... he's simply trying to maximize effectiveness.

 

THAT is where I draw the line. I simply don't play with players who are about "maximizing effectiveness" and instead, play with those who "role play concept" or whatever you want to call it. That is an old argument... and another argument altogether.

[JmOz]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I have not read the whole thread. The following are my opinions, and of course are only really relevant to certain campeign types (I usualy try to play in 32 Color games, similar to 4 colors but with more depth)

 

The problem is not the one time individual, it is the everytime individual.

 

Let's pretend that I have a Captain America like character named Patriot in my campeign. Patriot has a lot of contacts (That he has paid for) in the US Military (of coniderable high levels, like the Secretary of Defence, Chiefs of Staff, PotUS, etc...), he does NOT have a problem with guns or other military weapons, and while he is reluctant to kill he does not have a CvK, and has done so as a soldier before. He also has the appropriate WF's.

 

Now let say the senario involves him and his team breaking into the Island of Dr Destroyer, where he knows he will have a virtual army of agents trying to kill him, to him killing is autherised in this mission. If he wanted to try to get a hold of an assualt chopper, a M-16, some grenades, etc... because he feels he will need it for this mission I would let him try his contacts and depending on the RPing I would probably permit the weapons and a chance on the copter

 

During the adventure we will assume his gun was taken away from him (Maybe it ran out of bullets, maybe a lucky agent shot it, maybe he got captured and escaped). Now he has downed a Destroyer agent and took his blaster rifle. He can use the rifle untill it runs out of ammo, if he finds more ammo cool

 

Destroyer is defeated he heads home. He returns the equipment he borrowed, the president calls him to see how it went, etc...

 

Next adventure comes around he will not have the weapons (the blaster is evidence or what ever). Now he can try his contacts but I would apply a modifier to the rolls, a modifier that would keep getting harder the more he used it. The idea here is he is not being penalised for having access to these things but it would be wrong to allow it to constantly be used as well.

 

NOTE: That if it is a normal adventure getting the bigger hardware will be harder as well.

 

Another Player is called "Gun-Bunny" she dresses like a Playboy Bunny but carries BFG's. She has a Armory VPP. She can choose what weapons she uses with no limitations (Except based on the rules of a VPP).

 

If Patriot tries constantly he will find he has no access and will need to buy an Armory similar to "Gun-Bunny"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Again' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

"Once in a while" is very different from "real world equipment doesn't cost points". I have no problem with Supers gaining access to time travel technology once in a while if it furthers the plot. That's not gear, that's a plot device. I do have a problem with them then deciding to retain the time machine (hey, it's obviously available) and using it every time something doesn't play out their way (now it's gear).

 

"But it's right there in our trophy room" whines the player "why wouldn't my character use it to go back in time and prevent his girlfirend, Penny Pane, from catching him changing into his SuperSuit? It's the logical thing for him to do!" Really? Why doesn't the FF wheel out Doom's time platform and erase every mistake they've ever made, prevent real-world tragedies, etc. etc. etc. There's no logical reason.

 

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

 

Do they get a benefit from these in-game? That's my litmus test. You want a car that gets you from place to place? Fine. You want a Batmobile, Sherman Tank, or an Assault Copter, rather than the usual "breaks when Grond stomps on it" car? Pay the points.

 

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

 

Aren't most comics "real world with powers"? It's only the powers that differentiate Marvel Manhattan from the real one.

[OddHat]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Aren't most comics "real world with powers"? It's only the powers that differentiate Marvel Manhattan from the real one.

 

Well that, and the constant Alien invasions. And Kitty Pryde staying 14 for something like 30 years. And the insane and random politics. And the massive property damage that has no effect on the economy whatsoever. And people were really tough to kill or even seriously injure until fairly recently, and no one has noticed the change. And the legal system is completely strange. And the rest of the genre conventions.

 

So, no, most comics are not real-world-with-powers. A few try to be, for a while, with varying success. Wild Cards tried to be real-world with powers and did a fair job for a while, except that their demographics were screwy, but then that wasn't a comic.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Well that, and the constant Alien invasions. And Kitty Pryde staying 14 for something like 30 years. And the insane and random politics. And the massive property damage that has no effect on the economy whatsoever. And people were really tough to kill or even seriously injure until fairly recently, and no one has noticed the change. And the legal system is completely strange. And the rest of the genre conventions.

 

So, no, most comics are not real-world-with-powers. A few try to be, for a while, with varying success. Wild Cards tried to be real-world with powers and did a fair job for a while, except that their demographics were screwy, but then that wasn't a comic.

I read the first few Wild Cards, I"m not sure what you mean by "their demographics were screwy"?

[incrdbil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

 

I'm not interested in "every concept is equal in power" as a game rule. Green Arrow is NOT the same as Superman... and shouldn't really be able to keep up. I have no desire to replicate that genre element.

 

In a comic, not every concept is equal in power. But no matter how much we want to simulate a comic, many conventions just don't work out.

 

In a game filled with ordinary humans simulating comic hereoes, there's a very good reason for those characters to be in the same ball park of powers and effectiveness, albeit with their own unique areas of expertise, even dominanace. It does promote fairness, aids in preventing anyone from feeling their character really doesn't contribute anything.

 

Genre often yields to game balance--if you have players you can trust, or even assume, will adhere to genre always despite very available and tempting ways to boost their power/effectiveness being right in front of them, more power to you. The same if your players have no problem with uneven balances of powers between PC's.

 

If you have a group that good that you can move away from some basic safeguard rules, I'm happy for you, and I really hope it makes your game more enjoyable for your PC's. In the end, that's all a GM really has to worry about--trying to make sure everyone leaves with a smile on their face, as often as humanly possible.

[OddHat]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I read the first few Wild Cards' date=' I"m not sure what you mean by "their demographics were screwy"?[/quote']

 

Based on the numbers given in the faux-articles in the back of the first book, they had far too many Jokers, especially when you saw that other cities in the US had Jokertowns. It came from using anti-Joker prejudice as a metaphor for racism. I'd have to look it up, but according to the numbers they were using New York in the 80s should have had less than 2000 Jokers; not nearly enough to maintain a large, commercially viable Joker Town. You can fudge the numbers by claiming that Jokers came from all over the country to live in NY, and by claiming that the vast majority of money moving through Jokertown came from the tourist trade and other non-Jokers, but it's a stretch.

[tesuji]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Haven't read the whole thing, skipping whole pages in the middle...

 

I really don't think its all that much an issue of the potency of equipment, though of course, impotent equipment isn't worth worrying over.

 

I thinks its more a matter of "is there equitable equipment for everyone?"

 

In a heroic campaign, mostly, everyone relies on equipment. Sometimes its mundane, sometimes its special, but most everyone uses equipment and there is equipment thats helpful for everyone.

 

In a supers game, some character types wont really, NECESSARILY, benefit from mundane equipment while others will. That can cause the imbalance issues.

 

So, my recommendation for a Gm thinking about free major stuff camp[aigns is to make sure everyone knows it ahead of time and be prepared to work equipment even oddball equipment for everyone into the story.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

In a supers game, some character types wont really, NECESSARILY, benefit from mundane equipment while others will. That can cause the imbalance issues.

 

So, my recommendation for a Gm thinking about free major stuff camp[aigns is to make sure everyone knows it ahead of time and be prepared to work equipment even oddball equipment for everyone into the story.

 

Good point, and something I already do. In my UNITE game, all PCs have Equipment Pools (since I haven't switched to the "no points" thing yet) and they use them for very different things.

 

The soldier does use it for guns and stuff... all of them for standard radio headsets... and the big rocky guy who gets really hot after taking EB hits... he carries kevlar oven mits and blankets so he can still rescue people without burning them. I loved the idea when the player came up with it... and have no desire to charge the PC points for it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

We're just moving further up the line of "tough to lay your hands on". Once we say "Real world equipment costs no points"' date=' the next obvious question becomes where that line ends. All of the items above are real world tech. If it doesn't cost points, only $$, then the classic "super-rich millionaire playboy" should be able to lay his hands on it, shouldn't he? Just like Joe Military can get that assault rifle and Johnny Streetpunk can have a Saturday night special. "It's consistent with my concept".[/quote']

LOL. Dang right! Ah, my character carries nukes. Good thing I bought my defenses up!

 

Edit: Or, rather, Desolidification.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Good point, and something I already do. In my UNITE game, all PCs have Equipment Pools (since I haven't switched to the "no points" thing yet) and they use them for very different things.

 

The soldier does use it for guns and stuff... all of them for standard radio headsets... and the big rocky guy who gets really hot after taking EB hits... he carries kevlar oven mits and blankets so he can still rescue people without burning them. I loved the idea when the player came up with it... and have no desire to charge the PC points for it.

 

Doesn't he therefore have "less points" of equipment? I see Equipment Pools as an allotment of extra points with restricted aplication. Of course, I'm assuming everyone's pool is equal.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

By the way, this topic runs slightly parallel to another problem I once had. My group was playing a rotating-GM superhero game, and one of the players decided to buy all of his powers through an Independent power suit (one of those Limitations we forgot to put into the guidelines document). I never would have allowed this myself, but it was a pretty loose game, and no one really made a stink.

 

So the character had lots and lots of big powers, a bunch of Perks and Skills, and like 10 Overall Skill Levels. He could do anything to beat any scenario. (Okay, mine was a little over-the-top as well with a 100 point phsychic VPP, but at least I could only do one or two big swiss army knife operations at a time.)

 

So when it was my turn to GM, I of course took away the power suit. But that was the adventure hook. I could have done it with a Focus power suit too. No one is REALLY going to have the heart to take away a significant amount of a hero's powers.

 

Conclusion: no Independent. No unlimited "real world" items.

[Storn]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Conclusion: no Independent. No unlimited "real world" items.

 

That is kinda Apples to Oranges.

 

The independent was a Power suit with tons of abilities and powers. In NO way a REAL WORLD item.

 

The equipment than Neil is talking about is Real World stuff. And the next guy who says 'my guy is going to carry nukes.'.... yeah, sure. What nation would allow that guy to live more than 5 secs? What GM is going to say ..."suuuure!"

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

That is kinda Apples to Oranges.

 

The independent was a Power suit with tons of abilities and powers. In NO way a REAL WORLD item.

Not really. It still amounts to getting a bunch of powers for very little or no cost.

 

The equipment than Neil is talking about is Real World stuff. And the next guy who says 'my guy is going to carry nukes.'.... yeah, sure. What nation would allow that guy to live more than 5 secs? What GM is going to say ..."suuuure!"

So I was being facetious.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

 

 

Conclusion: no Independent. No unlimited "real world" items.

 

I know you were being facetious, but this does seem to be the general sticking point, if I interpret arguments correctly.

 

I say "free" and it is interpreted as "unlimited, without control, anything you want at any time"

 

The two are NOT the same thing.

 

Free still has many, many controls... the primary one being "Only if the GM allows it..." In fact, it really is about "control" in a way.

 

If the character wants to have the majority (say 60% or more of the time) of control over the power/ability... they pay points. If the GM has 99% of control... they don't pay points.

 

In fact, the more points spent, real cost... the more control the player has. i.e. A focus limitation that reduces the cost is really about giving up some control over the use of the power, where a non-limited power has a great deal more player control.

 

This is actually getting into concepts of Actor Stance, Director Stance and Writer Stance in terms of play styles. Not that we have to go there, but it is interesting.

 

I wonder if you might say that a core Axiom of Hero (or any point based system) is "The more real cost points you pay for a character ability, the more player control over that ability."

 

Hmmmm...

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Based on the numbers given in the faux-articles in the back of the first book' date=' they had far too many Jokers, especially when you saw that other cities in the US had Jokertowns. It came from using anti-Joker prejudice as a metaphor for racism. I'd have to look it up, but according to the numbers they were using New York in the 80s should have had less than 2000 Jokers; not nearly enough to maintain a large, commercially viable Joker Town. You can fudge the numbers by claiming that Jokers came from all over the country to live in NY, and by claiming that the vast majority of money moving through Jokertown came from the tourist trade and other non-Jokers, but it's a stretch.[/quote']

Ah, I see, okay, thx.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I know you were being facetious, but this does seem to be the general sticking point, if I interpret arguments correctly.

 

I say "free" and it is interpreted as "unlimited, without control, anything you want at any time"

 

The two are NOT the same thing.

 

Free still has many, many controls... the primary one being "Only if the GM allows it..." In fact, it really is about "control" in a way.

 

If the character wants to have the majority (say 60% or more of the time) of control over the power/ability... they pay points. If the GM has 99% of control... they don't pay points.

 

In fact, the more points spent, real cost... the more control the player has. i.e. A focus limitation that reduces the cost is really about giving up some control over the use of the power, where a non-limited power has a great deal more player control.

 

This is actually getting into concepts of Actor Stance, Director Stance and Writer Stance in terms of play styles. Not that we have to go there, but it is interesting.

 

I wonder if you might say that a core Axiom of Hero (or any point based system) is "The more real cost points you pay for a character ability, the more player control over that ability."

 

Hmmmm...

Good point. That's pretty much what the "No Conscious Control" Limitation is about, after all. Maybe you could just have them take a modified form of that Limitation on their powers or power frameworks, so that you can better arbitrate how they are limited or the Special Effects they should have. Just an idea.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I know you were being facetious, but this does seem to be the general sticking point, if I interpret arguments correctly.

 

I say "free" and it is interpreted as "unlimited, without control, anything you want at any time"

 

The two are NOT the same thing.

 

Free still has many, many controls... the primary one being "Only if the GM allows it..." In fact, it really is about "control" in a way.

 

If the character wants to have the majority (say 60% or more of the time) of control over the power/ability... they pay points. If the GM has 99% of control... they don't pay points.

 

In fact, the more points spent, real cost... the more control the player has. i.e. A focus limitation that reduces the cost is really about giving up some control over the use of the power, where a non-limited power has a great deal more player control.

 

This is actually getting into concepts of Actor Stance, Director Stance and Writer Stance in terms of play styles. Not that we have to go there, but it is interesting.

 

I wonder if you might say that a core Axiom of Hero (or any point based system) is "The more real cost points you pay for a character ability, the more player control over that ability."

 

Hmmmm...

(NB - major tangent warning)

 

That's interesting, it's certainly an implied value underlying the system, particularly in terms of the distinction among terms such as DNPC versus Follower. It underlies the notion of Disadvantages, and is a much more eloquent statement, at least in brief, than any other I've seen for Disads. I say this because we're all familiar with the conundrum that realistically Disads aren't so often truly disadvantageous, precisely, as they are both plot hooks and elements that (in Worldmaker's fine document on this which I always refer to) strongly influence the play of the character, forcing the PC to make certain kinds of choices, thereby inhibiting the PC's freedom, as it were. This really ties very strongly into your comment, RDU Neil. If we view Disads as those things that not only does the PC not have control over but those things which are outside of his control and in fact impinge on his ability to exert control over some situations, then we see a much clearer and elegant rational basis for Disadvantages than I have frankly ever seen expressed in any HERO/Champions rules edition!

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

(NB - major tangent warning)

 

That's interesting, it's certainly an implied value underlying the system, particularly in terms of the distinction among terms such as DNPC versus Follower. It underlies the notion of Disadvantages, and is a much more eloquent statement, at least in brief, than any other I've seen for Disads. I say this because we're all familiar with the conundrum that realistically Disads aren't so often truly disadvantageous, precisely, as they are both plot hooks and elements that (in Worldmaker's fine document on this which I always refer to) strongly influence the play of the character, forcing the PC to make certain kinds of choices, thereby inhibiting the PC's freedom, as it were. This really ties very strongly into your comment, RDU Neil. If we view Disads as those things that not only does the PC not have control over but those things which are outside of his control and in fact impinge on his ability to exert control over some situations, then we see a much clearer and elegant rational basis for Disadvantages than I have frankly ever seen expressed in any HERO/Champions rules edition!

PS - I must say more on this!

 

This is very important stuff, because it illustrates exactly what I've been trying to say about why it is so important to explicate the system. If in fact we can state authoritatively* that the core value underlying points assignment** is a factor of PC control*** then GMs and players alike, understanding this value, can have a consistent framework for "what is a disad" and "when do things cost points". And a much stronger and better framework than what we have now, which is diluted a bit as it is simply expressed as a rule without reference to an axiom or even really any specific mechanic. And by explicating the axiom, we could even build specific mechanics around this - in fact the footnotes below demonstrate those specific mechanics (I removed them from the direct commentary as it became cluttered).

 

This is why game design and philosophy matters, this is proof of the importance it has for pragmatic execution!

 

*which of course neither RDU Neil or I can really do but the owners of HERO can

** positive, negative, or zero

***positive = player control, negative = PC and player lack control with GM/environment/psyche having over-riding control, and zero = GM control with benign player effects

 

(PS - if anyone is interested/perplexed as to why I quoted myself, it was simply because I knew it would take time to write this follow-up post and I didn't want a post in the middle interrupting it, nor did I want to edit the original post and have someone reacting to that but miss this)

[incrdbil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

(reads stuff about axios, philosophy in gaming)

 

::zzzzzz::

 

huh what, boobies?

 

::zzzzzz::

 

ok, seriously now--RDU eil, make some form of sticky tab/note--6 months from now, I'd love to hear how this worked for your group.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

The equipment than Neil is talking about is Real World stuff. And the next guy who says 'my guy is going to carry nukes.'.... yeah' date=' sure. What nation would allow that guy to live more than 5 secs? What GM is going to say ..."suuuure!"[/quote']

 

At one end of the scale, we have that 9 mm handgun. At the other end of the scale lies the tactical nuclear devices. There's a lot of ground between those two items - assault rifles; SAM launchers; tanks; assault choppers.

 

Off the scale, we seem to agree, lie non-standard tech (eg. powered armor) and items of negligible utility (eg. a 1 pip HKA, -5 OCV pocket knife). But the extremes of the scale have a lot of middle ground between them.

[Vanguard]

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.

 

 

And you won't because it's based on individual preferances. And, technically, this has been said through-out the thread.

 

If the players don't mind, then it's ok. It's only game breaking when a player begins to have a problem with it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

PS - I must say more on this!

 

This is very important stuff, because it illustrates exactly what I've been trying to say about why it is so important to explicate the system. If in fact we can state authoritatively* that the core value underlying points assignment** is a factor of PC control*** then GMs and players alike, understanding this value, can have a consistent framework for "what is a disad" and "when do things cost points". And a much stronger and better framework than what we have now, which is diluted a bit as it is simply expressed as a rule without reference to an axiom or even really any specific mechanic. And by explicating the axiom, we could even build specific mechanics around this - in fact the footnotes below demonstrate those specific mechanics (I removed them from the direct commentary as it became cluttered).

 

This is why game design and philosophy matters, this is proof of the importance it has for pragmatic execution!

 

*which of course neither RDU Neil or I can really do but the owners of HERO can

** positive, negative, or zero

***positive = player control, negative = PC and player lack control with GM/environment/psyche having over-riding control, and zero = GM control with benign player effects

 

(PS - if anyone is interested/perplexed as to why I quoted myself, it was simply because I knew it would take time to write this follow-up post and I didn't want a post in the middle interrupting it, nor did I want to edit the original post and have someone reacting to that but miss this)

 

Very nice extrapolations, Zornwil. If I could ever find New Galapagos, I'd say we should get together and bullshit about games for hours on end.

 

Seriously though... I'm accepting the Axiom of "Points spent is in direct correlation to Player Control" or some such for all my games, now. It is almost a perfect litmus tests for player compatibility, in a way. If players "get it" and understand that their influence on the game is focused through how they spend their points, it goes a long way toward laying the groundwork for a compatible play style. "It's on my sheet with points spent and no limitations" has a lot more weight than "I always carry a back-up pistol, 'cause you said we could for free!"

 

Heck... this really opens up the flexibility for GMs and players. Characters may not have stuff "written down and paid for" but they can still try it. What they are in effect saying is "I know it is a long shot to succeed, but I want to do this and effectiveness is totally up to you, Mr. GM!"

 

It takes away the "Didn't pay for it... can't do it!" mantra and replaces it with "Didn't pay for it... then you are placing your fate in the hands of the GM"

 

Yes, this puts more onus on the GM to have a critical, analytical, ability to make decisions that are fairly adjudicated and consistent and supportive of the shared imaginary space and social contract... but I'd say that is the Platonic ideal of what a GM does, anyway.

 

Sorry... getting highly abstract and theoretical there , but it will actually see practical application as I apply this "free equipment" rule, starting in my game this week.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Very nice extrapolations' date=' Zornwil. If I could ever find New Galapagos, I'd say we should get together and bullshit about games for hours on end.[/quote']

 

If you get out this way, my other abode is Portland, Oregon.

 

BTW, I'll be in GenCon this year, if there's any chance you'll be down there (sorry if I asked this already, bad memory), it's not too terribly far from Michigan. I should be booking that trip this weekend (yay!).

 

Seriously though... I'm accepting the Axiom of "Points spent is in direct correlation to Player Control" or some such for all my games, now. It is almost a perfect litmus tests for player compatibility, in a way. If players "get it" and understand that their influence on the game is focused through how they spend their points, it goes a long way toward laying the groundwork for a compatible play style. "It's on my sheet with points spent and no limitations" has a lot more weight than "I always carry a back-up pistol, 'cause you said we could for free!"

 

Heck... this really opens up the flexibility for GMs and players. Characters may not have stuff "written down and paid for" but they can still try it. What they are in effect saying is "I know it is a long shot to succeed, but I want to do this and effectiveness is totally up to you, Mr. GM!"

 

It takes away the "Didn't pay for it... can't do it!" mantra and replaces it with "Didn't pay for it... then you are placing your fate in the hands of the GM"

 

Yes, this puts more onus on the GM to have a critical, analytical, ability to make decisions that are fairly adjudicated and consistent and supportive of the shared imaginary space and social contract... but I'd say that is the Platonic ideal of what a GM does, anyway.

 

Sorry... getting highly abstract and theoretical there , but it will actually see practical application as I apply this "free equipment" rule, starting in my game this week.

 

It's cool stuff, and for me pretty exciting, too. Unfortunately, I should be working, but you can't have everything! (well, apparently, my employer can't have everything... )