Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

[Black Omega]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I'm with RDU on this. There is a difference between enforcing a limitation and making sure the PC is a liability.

 

I'm currently playing a gadgeteet, so might be biased, but my power level is pretty even with the rest of the group. I don't try to be too terribly efficient, the character is more artistic than efficient.

 

I don't mind running around without most of my powers since the foci is a limitation. But if the GM felt obligated to also nullify my ability to think on my feat, my tactics skill, etc, also because I bought a foci I'd be pretty annoyed. My characters don't need the powers to be useful.

[Gary]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

A GM's decision on a specific application is not a "house rule" for one thing. A "house rule" is a formal or semiformal list of changes or additions to the official rules in a particular campaign. "No attacks above 60 AP" is a house rule. "I won't allow you to have that Power/Advantage combination" is a GM's ruling.

 

In our campaign a player who presented such a character would be banned not because he'd figured out a clever way to abuse the rules, but rather because he tried to actually use it in our game. We don't need that kind of player. We would never invite such a player into our game in the first place, and if one did somehow slip through the cracks he would be swiftly uninvited. We've played with quite enough rules rapists and powergamers, thank you.

 

 

Nobody's campaign allows for such a construct. That's my point. This specific rule, that each new charge refreshes an End Reserve completely, is too good. It's a rule that's broken, so most if not all GMs would alter the rule and not allow it.

[Gary]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I view the GM role in maintaining campaign balance and the requirement that SFX and concept be solidly integrated into the campaign as covered and defined by the rules to ameliorate and compensate for those rules which might be perceived as broken out in theoretical limbo, not as as external to the rules.

 

We really do just have an honest difference in perception, Gary. My interest in theoretical mathematics has always been nil, but applied to astronomy or physics in a concrete and applicable function, I always have risen to the challenge and become adept at its practical utility. The abstract concepts are simply less relevant to me, and mathematics is far more absolute than a gaming system.

 

I am not saying that either approach is necessarily wrong, just that we are coming from to very different viewpoints.

 

Umm, it's not just your campaign that requires SFX and concept. It's most campaigns. And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. You apparently have difficulty acknowleding that the rule is broken even though you're fixing it anyway.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Umm' date=' it's not just your campaign that requires SFX and concept. It's most campaigns. And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. You apparently have difficulty acknowleding that the rule is broken even though you're fixing it anyway.[/quote']

Dude! Gary! LOL.

 

Hmm. Sometimes I think of Limitations the way I think of Disadvantages. Are they limiting? Yes. Do they always have to be, and is that all they are? No. They help to define the way the Power works. They help to flesh it out and define its concept.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Nobody's campaign allows for such a construct. That's my point. This specific rule' date=' that each new charge refreshes an End Reserve completely, is too good. It's a rule that's broken, so most if not all GMs would alter the rule and not allow it.[/quote']In this particular case you may be correct. I don't recall if it worked the same way in 4th Edition, but I don't think so. Guess I'll dig out my BBB this weekend and check.

[Seenar]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

...And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. ....

 

This is a key point on being a good GM.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Dude! Gary! LOL.

 

Hmm. Sometimes I think of Limitations the way I think of Disadvantages. Are they limiting? Yes. Do they always have to be, and is that all they are? No. They help to define the way the Power works. They help to flesh it out and define its concept.

 

For disadvantages this is fine... exactly how I do look at them... and I can do that because EVERY CHARACTER HAS THE SAME AMOUNT! Base builds for beginning characters in my campaign are 150+150... so every character has 150 in disads to be used as plot hooks and character bits and occasionally to make things really hard for them.

 

If everyone had just enough limitations to, say, save them 50 points... then I could run Limitations the same way, because nobody is getting a bigger cost savings than anyone else.

 

Unfortunately that isn't the case... and the whole point of this thread is pointing out where I feel some Limitations are really not worth the price break they bring (as per the canon limitations).

 

good point, though. This helped me clarify in my own mind why I don't treat Lims the same as Disads.

[Mentor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Umm' date=' it's not just your campaign that requires SFX and concept. It's most campaigns. And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. You apparently have difficulty acknowleding that the rule is broken even though you're fixing it anyway.[/quote']

Gary, I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules ad absurdium to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

 

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules ad absurdium to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules' date=' but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.[/quote']Bravo!

 

[Seenar]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Gary' date=' I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules [i']ad absurdium[/i] to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

 

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.

 

That is a good way to put it

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Gary' date=' I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules [i']ad absurdium[/i] to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

 

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.

 

 

Good point... but I don't think it is either or...

 

Gary's way: If the rule allows absurdity, the rule is the problem.

 

Mentor's way: If the player pushes for the absurd because he can, the player is the problem.

 

I think BOTH are correct... no either or. It's a continuum kind of thing.

 

If the rule is constantly being abused, even unintentionally because the simple use of the power is unbalancing... this tends more towards Gary's way. (IMO, Hand Attack is a good example.)

 

If the rule is is "legal" but rarely abused except by those really looking for loopholes, the it tends towards Mentor's way. (The "END Reserve w/Charges" would have been a good example until Steve's ruling.)

 

The point being... if something is causing balance issues in a game BOTH questsions have to be asked. "Is it a fundamentally flawed rule... or is it just a munchkin player?" The answer may be different, depending on play groups and play styles.

 

So... you both are right.

 

(Sorry for trying to be a peacemaker. I'll go find another burning thread and dump some gasoline over there. )

[Gary]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Gary' date=' I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules [i']ad absurdium[/i] to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

 

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.

 

 

Very bad analogy. Your example is a roleplaying/adventuring issue, not a mechanical issue. A better example would be a 1st level spell in D&D that does 100d6 damage and can be cast by a first level mage. Yeah any responsible GM would house rule it away, but it doesn't change the fact that such a spell would be broken. It's the same way with Charges of End Reserve. It's broken no matter how much in denial you are over this fact.

 

Despite your protestations, the rules are not perfect and never will be. There are things that any reasonable GM must change to maintain stability and balance. This happens to be one of them.

[Mentor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Very bad analogy. Your example is a roleplaying/adventuring issue' date=' not a mechanical issue. A better example would be a 1st level spell in D&D that does 100d6 damage and can be cast by a first level mage. Yeah any responsible GM would house rule it away, but it doesn't change the fact that such a spell would be [b']broken[/b]. It's the same way with Charges of End Reserve. It's broken no matter how much in denial you are over this fact.

 

Despite your protestations, the rules are not perfect and never will be. There are things that any reasonable GM must change to maintain stability and balance. This happens to be one of them.

If the whole point of your is that the rules are not perfect, I readily concede. Except I never contended that they were perfect. I do contend that they are not perfectable.

 

My point is that no system or rules in an RPG are perfect as a stand alone set without the game play itself considered.

 

War games are a comparison of mathematical ratios with formation, terrain and distance, among other completely quatifiable variables, mitigating the predictable outcome. Dice are often used as randomizers to represent the unknown, but the ratios still lead to relatively consistent and predictable patterns.

 

RPG rules are a relatively consistent set of comparisons arranged to reflect certain genre driven rather than real world physics driven effects for the characters and in the campaign in which they will be played. Hopefully, character concept and campaign choices will lead to PC individuality and differentiation.

 

Neither absolute incremental granularity, mathematical/physical consistency, or perpetual logarithmic expansion of cost to supposedly prevent abuse will replace the role of the good will of the players and DM in not being abusive. Role playing by definition assumes the human factor as being equal in importance to the mathematical balance in the construction.

 

No amount of control of power construction will predict the actions of the players in a game of role playing, at least in one which involves non combat situations and other than one on one arena battles.

 

Judging PC success only by hitting the most opponents the most often for the most damage while taking the least damage to ones own charater is, IMO, about one of the least interesting and fun criteria I could imagine.

[Gary]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

If the whole point of your is that the rules are not perfect' date=' I readily concede. Except I never contended that they were perfect. I do contend that they are not perfectable.[/quote']

 

Except that you weren't even conceding that there was a problem.

 

 

My point is that no system or rules in an RPG are perfect as a stand alone set without the game play itself considered.

 

Who ever said otherwise?

 

 

War games are a comparison of mathematical ratios with formation, terrain and distance, among other completely quatifiable variables, mitigating the predictable outcome. Dice are often used as randomizers to represent the unknown, but the ratios still lead to relatively consistent and predictable patterns.

 

Maybe you should play more wargames. Wargames just like RPGs have something that mitigates consistency and predictability, an opponent. Math is the least of your considerations in a wargame.

 

 

RPG rules are a relatively consistent set of comparisons arranged to reflect certain genre driven rather than real world physics driven effects for the characters and in the campaign in which they will be played. Hopefully, character concept and campaign choices will lead to PC individuality and differentiation.

 

Neither absolute incremental granularity, mathematical/physical consistency, or perpetual logarithmic expansion of cost to supposedly prevent abuse will replace the role of the good will of the players and DM in not being abusive. Role playing by definition assumes the human factor as being equal in importance to the mathematical balance in the construction.

 

No amount of control of power construction will predict the actions of the players in a game of role playing, at least in one which involves non combat situations and other than one on one arena battles.

 

Judging PC success only by hitting the most opponents the most often for the most damage while taking the least damage to ones own charater is, IMO, about one of the least interesting and fun criteria I could imagine.

 

 

May I ask you who out there judges success by who hits most often for most damage? You don't seem to be describing anyone here at all, so I must assume you're creating a strawman.

[Statikk HDM]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Yes, Focus is definately far too big a price break. The fact that a GM has to always keep thinking "Gee, if the ring/gauntlet/staff/headband/belt of PWNAGE that only costs 50 points but really ought to cost 100 points is too much of a problem how can I screw with it?" shows it is broken. And the limited use example is perfect. Not even using your power 20 times: Half price. Unlimited use but everyone knows what is whupping their arse: Half price.

[Seenar]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

OAF is pretty darn limiting. Let me give a case in point:

 

I had a character with lots of OAF foci, which included a nasty rifle. He had a cool helmet with lots of bonus to hit. The works. He was doing great.

 

Well, great until I hit him with a one hex AOE RKA. Suddenly, all his OAF devices took body and broke (too bad a multipower is only one power). Even is OIF armor was penetrated, and lost its ability to fly. He was not in good shape at all.

 

Meanwhile, his buddy standing next to him, with powers all natural, turned and just kept fighting.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Yes' date=' Focus is definately far too big a price break. The fact that a GM has to always keep thinking "Gee, if the ring/gauntlet/staff/headband/belt of PWNAGE that only costs 50 points but really ought to cost 100 points is too much of a problem how can I screw with it?" shows it is broken. And the limited use example is perfect. Not even using your power 20 times: Half price. Unlimited use but everyone knows what is whupping their arse: Half price.[/quote']If it's too much of a price break, how would you propose to change it to bring it back in line? Seems to me if a character is too powerful compared to his teammates or opponentsthen there's a game balance problem, not a Focus problem.

 

None of the three most powerful members of our PC team in our campaign even use Foci (except for our identical team communicators); much less abuse them. And fewer than half the members of our team use Foci at all except for those communicators. So tell us again how Focuses are too unbalancing?

[Statikk HDM]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Its somewhat unbalancing because it gives a plethora of powers to one object all at half cost. It can break a game in 2 ways

The Object just dominates everything. Its no fun seeing a guy with a ring showing up 2 or 3 superhumans and in some cases demigods.

The only real solution is stealing or destroying the object. Unfortunately, that usually neuters a player or at the very least severely cripples the player. Using the 75 point power cap and essentially bumping it to 150 can result in game-breaking things happening.

[incrdbil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Yes' date=' Focus is definately far too big a price break. The fact that a GM has to always keep thinking "Gee, if the ring/gauntlet/staff/headband/belt of PWNAGE that only costs 50 points but really ought to cost 100 points is too much of a problem how can I screw with it?" shows it is broken. [/quote']

 

So, if you haver a limitation, and the GM has to think about how to make the limitation have an effect, the limitation is broken?

 

If the ring above actually grants 100 points of power for 50 points (assuming 100 point powers are allowed in the game), then it is apparently an OAF. Well, a player who relies on an OAF for his main source of powers is just asking for the obvious when villains take away the ring. Just like 'doesn't work in magnetics field guy' realizes its time to pay the piper when he wakes up in such a field, or when Firedude finfds himself tossed into an airless environment where his powers don't work. Of course, those guys have much lesser limitations, so those situations are harder to do, and a bit more rare. But they do take some thought..so are they broken?

 

Of course not.

[incrdbil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Its somewhat unbalancing because it gives a plethora of powers to one object all at half cost. It can break a game in 2 ways

The Object just dominates everything. Its no fun seeing a guy with a ring showing up 2 or 3 superhumans and in some cases demigods.

 

Um, how? Assuming the GM actually looks at characters or sets limits, ring guy is going to have prtetty much the same level of powers. What abotu characters with other limitatiosn that grant the same, or close to the same disadvantage level? Are they tearign up the game as well?

 

 

The only real solution is stealing or destroying the object. Unfortunately, that usually neuters a player or at the very least severely cripples the player.

 

Limitations. They do, indeed, occasionally limit a player. Oh dear.

 

 

Using the 75 point power cap and essentially bumping it to 150 can result in game-breaking things happening.

 

Well, yes, and when a GM turns off their brain and not paying attention to the campaign or characters, not settign standard attacks and limits, game breaking things will happen with or without Focus limitations being used.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Its somewhat unbalancing because it gives a plethora of powers to one object all at half cost. It can break a game in 2 ways

The Object just dominates everything. Its no fun seeing a guy with a ring showing up 2 or 3 superhumans and in some cases demigods.

The only real solution is stealing or destroying the object. Unfortunately, that usually neuters a player or at the very least severely cripples the player. Using the 75 point power cap and essentially bumping it to 150 can result in game-breaking things happening.

Your assumptions seem to be based entirely on OAF, which in my 22+ years of Hero experience is used far less often than OIF or OIHID. Obvous Accessible Foci are far too easy to take away; that's why they provide a 50% discount in the first place.

 

And if a campaign has power caps (ours doesn't), then it would be a violation of campaign rules to have a 150 point power if the cap is 75 points, in which case that particular Focus would be illegal anyway. Out of 392 CP our most Focus-based PC, Cyberknight, a powered-armor type, has 117 points in Characteristics outside his suit and 75 points in Skills and Perks. And while Cyberknight is fairly powerful, he is by no means the most powerful member of our team. His armor is highly versatile and has excellent Senses and a wide array of attacks and stout defenses, but he's no match for either our totally unfocused mentalist or for either our non-focus-using brick or Energy projector.

 

In short, my experience with Foci seems to totally contradict yours. And you have still failed to provide even a single concrete example of how you would "fix" the Focus rules.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

A couple of points, linked by a single example:

 

1. Catch the problem early, and

2. Bear in mind other balancing factors

 

I was thinking about this again, and reading through the posts. A lot of the posts seem to be giving examples and/or solutions for focus being a problem in play.

 

One option, in many cases, is simply to look at the character carefully before allowing it into play. If the power suited hero is better than everyone else at everything else, speak to the player and either tell them they can't play the character as it is written or make it very clear that you will be enforcing focus limitations very strictly and that the focus will be unavailable or underpowered or some other problem a significant number of times. If they are a known whiner, write it down and both sign and date it.

 

ALSO bear in mind that other constructs can make a character as or more powerful than a focus based character.

 

The example: if you've still got the BBB go look atthe Champions, specifically Quantum and Defender.

 

I've heard plenty of criticisms of the design of this incarnation of the Champions, but I like them: they are flawed, they are not minimaxed. There's plenty of room for character development and improvement, but they are still effective and viable characters.

 

Anyway compare these two. Defender uses focii, Quantum uses frameworks. There powers are not the same but Quantum, can fly faster and has better total physical/energy defences, and Defender has a slightly higher attack, but it is based on strength so is not ranged. In a straight fight. I'd expect honours to be reasonably even with a slight edge to Quantum.

 

The point is that the character designs are effective and appropriate and that the focus limitation does not make a character all-powerful. Frameworks can hugely increase a character's power if they are not watched, and so can any number of other limitations or advantages or combinations thereof.

 

Now my logic is flawed in that you could build a power armoured character with frameworks and be twice as beefy, but the flaw isn't really there is you take into account the first part: that is not an appropriate character.

 

Now I GM Champions more than I play Champions, and I always make it a point to look at the characters before I start. I'm not looking to stifle creativity and I'm not looking to prevent intelligent use of the rules, but I am making sure no one is (whether on purpose or not) taking the piss.

 

Taking the time to look at the characters beforehand, compare and contrast and discuss any concerns with the player really does work wonders.

 

If you are already in a campaign when you begin to realise just what a monster you have on your hands, FIRST see whether it is spoiling the enjoyment of the other players. If not, you might want to just leave it.

 

If it is, discuss it with the player and try to reach a compromise. They can always have a radiation accident and become fused with their suit (so it is no longer a focus) and a number of the systems just plain won't function anymore (to equalise the points). There's always a way around it.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Good post, Sean.

 

It seems to me that as long as Limitations are applied evenhandedly across the board that the actual numerical value of the Limitation(s) is largely irrelevant. In other words, if Plasma Babe has OIHID on all of her Powers for a -¼ Limitation and all of her Powers are also Not Underwater for an additional -¼, then if her Powers fail approximately as often as Powered Armor Dude's at -½ then we're on the right track. It doesn't really matter if they fail 1 out of 3 adventures or 1 out of 10 as long as it's applied roughly the same to all, heroes and villains alike.

 

Also in our campaign, and I suspect in many others, SFX can have a considerable and uncounted value as a Limitation. As an example our Champions campaign is currently in a multisession space based story arc. Thunderbird, at least arguably our team's most powerful member, is the avatar of the Apache weather diety. Consequently, because large portions of this adventure are taking place in outer space or in spacecraft or spacestations many of his best Powers are totally non-functionnal or severely hampered. How do you call up a 1 KM radius thunderstorm in a 20 meter room on a spacecraft? You don't. Similarly our earth-Powers character Vesuvius can normally Desolidify right through ordinary dirt and rock, but not through refined metals or plastics. Guess what the bulkheads of starships are made out of? The several GMs in this story arc are in fact taking extra measures to provide at least some scenarios where T'bird's and Vesuvius' powers work at full efficiency because it's unfair for them to go through more than a half dozen game runs where their powers are not working properly simply because they have tight concepts and we're in a long story arc that effects their characters far more than our powered armor character or our martial artists.

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

It seems to me that as long as Limitations are applied evenhandedly across the board that the actual numerical value of the Limitation(s) is largely irrelevant. In other words' date=' if Plasma Babe has OIHID on all of her Powers for a -¼ Limitation and all of her Powers are also Not Underwater for an additional -¼, then if her Powers fail approximately as often as Powered Armor Dude's at -½ then we're on the right track. It doesn't really matter if they fail 1 out of 3 adventures or 1 out of 10 as long as it's applied roughly the same to all, heroes and villains alike.[/quote']And if Plain Vanilla Man took less power but no limitation, is it irrelevant whether he is competing against a power that is 1.5 times as powerful as what he has but which fails a third of the time, or whether he is competing against a power 1.5 times as powerful as what he has and that fails only one time in ten?

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Now my logic is flawed in that you could build a power armoured character with frameworks and be twice as beefy' date=' but the flaw isn't really there is you take into account the first part: that is not an appropriate character.[/quote']I will agree that if the gamemaster successfully applies a rule never to allow an inappropriate character, then the +1.5 limitation for an obvious inaccessible focus ready to be tacked onto any power build is not a problem, as if it doesn't result in an inappropriate character, that's all right, and if it does result in an inappropriate character, by our hypothesis it wouldn't be allowed and there's also no problem.