Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

And if a campaign has power caps (ours doesn't)' date=' 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.[/quote']Maybe. A damage cap could be based on real points, rather than active points. (Which does not mean I think that would be a good idea.)

 

In short' date=' 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.[/quote']I'm not sure what "totally contradict" means in this case. He has his experience, you have yours - which I do not deny is impressive. From what you are saying, "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." didn't make any old scars ache for you. It did for me, and probably for some others. That could have a lot to do with our feelings and how we see foci.

 

The title of the thread is: "Focus = Too Great a Price Break?" I think it's OK to say "yes, in my experience" whether you have a solution ready or not.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

And if Plain Vanilla Man took less power but no limitation' date=' 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?[/quote']In my experience Limitations are usually used to provide a character with more versatility rather than simply a bigger attack. In other words, it often allows a character to purchase a Multipower, EC, or other ability they might not otherwise be able to afford as opposed to simply buying 50% more damage dice. And a broader range of abilities and skills are at least as beneficial to the GM's storytelling as to the player.

 

Nobody forced Plain Vanilla Man to take no Limitations. I assume he had good reason to do so; an aspect of his character concept that Focus Lass lacks and which will allow his Powers to work 100% of the time whereas Focus Lass will sometimes not be able to use hers. A Focus doesn't have to fail or break down to be useless, it just has to be unavailable. If their 747 to Miami is being hijacked by terrorists, it doesn't do Focus Lass much good if her foci are stored in the baggage compartment due to airport security restrictions while PVM is happily kicking terrorist tushies because his powers always work.

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

In my experience Limitations are usually used to provide a character with more versatility rather than simply a bigger attack. In other words' date=' it often allows a character to purchase a Multipower, EC, or other ability they might not otherwise be able to afford as opposed to simply buying 50% more damage dice. And a broader range of abilities and skills are at least as beneficial to the GM's storytelling as to the player.[/quote']So your experience is that the points that are gained are ... fun! Hence good for everyone.

 

Nobody forced Plain Vanilla Man to take no Limitations. I assume he had good reason to do so; an aspect of his character concept that Focus Lass lacks and which will allow his Powers to work 100% of the time whereas Focus Lass will sometimes not be able to use hers. A Focus doesn't have to fail or break down to be useless' date=' it just has to be unavailable. If their 747 to Miami is being hijacked by terrorists, it doesn't do Focus Lass much good if her foci are stored in the baggage compartment due to airport security restrictions while PVM is happily kicking terrorist tushies because his powers [i']always[/i] work.

Is it this simple: you're happy when with your players taking points from foci (or other limitations), because you know those points are spent in ways that will make the game more fun. And you're not cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy at all. Why should a character who's not as much fun be balanced against a character who is fun?

 

I think the ideal is to tweak the rules (or have the sense to leave them alone if they already work for you) so that they favour the same outcome as you do. It seems the current foci rules do produce outcomes you like, so logically you'd no more want them changed than I would want strength nerfed. I have no argument with that. (And I'd hate to see every character with foci need to be re-written.)

 

But for me, like Statikk HDM, foci limitations (not necessarily foci themselves but the floods of points associated with them) recall majorly no-fun experiences, and for me a complicated character sheet is a my-eyes-glaze-over moment, while something like the Doom Patrol Elastigirl, or a mid-sixties Marvel character, like Iceman when he was still covered in snow, sparks my imagination and starts me off in a good mood. I am cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy, or something quite a lot like him (like the Incredibles), and the rules aren't favouring what I do until building someone like Marvel Girl or the Thing is about as good an option as you can possibly achieve.

 

Q: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

A: Too great for who? Too great for what purpose? Nothing's too great a price break as long as all the extra points are spent in ways that improve the game for everyone.

 

Since I suspect I've now said everything I have to say on this topic, twice, I should bow out of this thread, assuming that there are no serious misunderstandings at this point.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

So your experience is that the points that are gained are ... fun! Hence good for everyone.

 

Is it this simple: you're happy when with your players taking points from foci (or other limitations), because you know those points are spent in ways that will make the game more fun. And you're not cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy at all. Why should a character who's not as much fun be balanced against a character who is fun?

Different people have different ideas of what constitutes fun. Personally I enjoy playing relatively straight forward character concepts. Other players prefer extremely complicated character builds and personalities. I can't see any reason to penalize either type of player; they're both equally valuable. But I simply don't see combat as the sole arbiter of what constitutes being "useful" or "fun" in a campaign. Foci and other Limitations are simply tools; to be used or not used as the player sees fit. I believe I already pointed out earlier in this thread that our team's most powerful member, a mentalist with a 95 point VPP, does not use Foci except for his communicator. He's basically bought straight with Limitations on what type of Powers he can put in his VPP. Take away (Suppress, Drain) his mental powers and what you have left is a reasonably athletic normal with a somewhat unusual skillset (He's also 800 years old).

 

I think the ideal is to tweak the rules (or have the sense to leave them alone if they already work for you) so that they favour the same outcome as you do. It seems the current foci rules do produce outcomes you like, so logically you'd no more want them changed than I would want strength nerfed. I have no argument with that. (And I'd hate to see every character with foci need to be re-written.)

 

But for me, like Statikk HDM, foci limitations (not necessarily foci themselves but the floods of points associated with them) recall majorly no-fun experiences, and for me a complicated character sheet is a my-eyes-glaze-over moment, while something like the Doom Patrol Elastigirl, or a mid-sixties Marvel character, like Iceman when he was still covered in snow, sparks my imagination and starts me off in a good mood. I am cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy, or something quite a lot like him (like the Incredibles), and the rules aren't favouring what I do until building someone like Marvel Girl or the Thing is about as good an option as you can possibly achieve.

That's a campaign issue rather than a rules issue. There's nothing to prevent a GM from requiring all powers to be inherent rather than focused (as it apparently was in the world of The Incredibles) if that's the type of campaign he wants to run. I'd probably enjoy playing in such a campaign myself. But I can't see that it's fair for me to say as a player "Since I want to run Plain Vanilla Man, the rest of you also must run plain vanilla heroes so I won't be too ineffective."

[Statikk HDM]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I think foci are good, but to a point. OAF does get used, not a lot as the inaccessable stuff, but a lot. The main thing that people are bringing up is that the focus should be able to be screwed with but if people can't reach it they're in a world of hurt. If the weaponmaster with the flaming kendo stick of badassery is causing too many problems you mess with the stick.

If the guy with an implanted, force-fielded amulet in a pillbox is ticking you off your options are that much more limited.

Lots of cool superheros use focuses so banning them out of hand is out of order. You can't take away Green Lantern's ring or Spawn's suit and expect them to hang with Superman.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I think foci are good, but to a point. OAF does get used, not a lot as the inaccessable stuff, but a lot. The main thing that people are bringing up is that the focus should be able to be screwed with but if people can't reach it they're in a world of hurt. If the weaponmaster with the flaming kendo stick of badassery is causing too many problems you mess with the stick.

 

If the guy with an implanted, force-fielded amulet in a pillbox is ticking you off your options are that much more limited.

 

Lots of cool superheros use focuses so banning them out of hand is out of order. You can't take away Green Lantern's ring or Spawn's suit and expect them to hang with Superman.

If a "focus" can't be taken away without surgery then it doesn't qualify as a focus under the rules, so an "implanted force field amulet" probably won't pass that test. Wolverine's claws and adamanium skeleton would not be foci under Hero System rules but rather sfx.

 

The only hero in our campaign who uses an OAF is one of our martial artists, who has a multi-function staff/sticks/three-sectional-staff/bow weapon. However, since he's almost as bad without the staff as with it it's not all that important, and it's been taken from him or broken more than once. He most often uses it as a bow for ranged attacks.

 

Villains with OAF Omni-Gunsâ„¢ are far more common, as they are in the comics as well.

[Gary]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

In my experience Limitations are usually used to provide a character with more versatility rather than simply a bigger attack. In other words, it often allows a character to purchase a Multipower, EC, or other ability they might not otherwise be able to afford as opposed to simply buying 50% more damage dice. And a broader range of abilities and skills are at least as beneficial to the GM's storytelling as to the player.

 

Nobody forced Plain Vanilla Man to take no Limitations. I assume he had good reason to do so; an aspect of his character concept that Focus Lass lacks and which will allow his Powers to work 100% of the time whereas Focus Lass will sometimes not be able to use hers. A Focus doesn't have to fail or break down to be useless, it just has to be unavailable. If their 747 to Miami is being hijacked by terrorists, it doesn't do Focus Lass much good if her foci are stored in the baggage compartment due to airport security restrictions while PVM is happily kicking terrorist tushies because his powers always work.

 

 

Well it depends. If Limitations are very rarely/never applied, then PVM is almost forced to take some in order to remain competitive. As an example, Champsguy has posted some sample characters in the past that had gigantic use of frameworks and limitations (some would argue munchkined and illegal) which most GMs wouldn't allow. However the point is that his GM does allow it and a PVM type character would be crushed quickly in such a campaign.

 

Limitations are sorta like Steroids in sports. If everyone takes steroids, no single athlete dominates or has a competitive advantage over another. However if you have a mixed group of steroid users and clean athletes, there are going to be problems unless the GM is diligent about enforcing the drawbacks of steroids. And the frequency that those drawbacks are enforced have a direct correlation on whether PVM is a viable concept.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

If a "focus" can't be taken away without surgery then it doesn't qualify as a focus under the rules' date=' so an "implanted force field amulet" probably won't pass that test. Wolverine's claws and adamanium skeleton would not be foci under Hero System rules but rather sfx.[/quote']

 

The claws could be restrainable. Of course, that would mean an Entangled Wolverine has a problem (which is why you get that -1/2 limitation - you may sit the occaisonal fight out because SpiderGuy gets you in Ph 12). In the comics, he seems to carve through entangles, so the claws in question appear not to be Restrainable.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

[quote=David Blue

Q: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

A: Too great for who? Too great for what purpose? Nothing's too great a price break as long as all the extra points are spent in ways that improve the game for everyone.

 

Since I suspect I've now said everything I have to say on this topic, twice, I should bow out of this thread, assuming that there are no serious misunderstandings at this point.

 

Oh we can always manufacture a serious misunderstanding

 

Interested in your use of the Incredibles as examples: of course Syndrome was the ultimate 'Focus' villain in some ways: look what happened to him when the focii went wrong!

 

I do think though that there is a general consensus forming summed up in your question and answer: not so much what you've got, more how you use it!

[Kristopher]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting, again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...

 

 

Oh, and I think there were quite a few foci in The Increadibles. Frozone's boots, Syndrome's bracers and boots, and several mentioned in the DVD's profiles of the other supers.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting' date=' again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...[/quote']

 

Well, yes and no. The "Stan Lee Woman" archetype (looks good, semi-useless powers, gets captured and used as a hostage a lot) isn't the character most players have in mind when they go to RPG Supers (or any other genre).

 

I like to look at all the character sheets for the team and ask myself "one on one, who wins eash fight?" If one character would pretty much clean up each of the others, I have to ask why he's so uniquely superior.

 

We have two characters in game we're currently playing where first shot should logically end the combat. My character normally has a Flash available, but 10 Ego and no mental defense. The other is a mentalist. If she gets flashed, count her out. If she moves first...well, tell the Fat Lady she should be on stage!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Well, yes and no. The "Stan Lee Woman" archetype (looks good, semi-useless powers, gets captured and used as a hostage a lot) isn't the character most players have in mind when they go to RPG Supers (or any other genre).

 

I like to look at all the character sheets for the team and ask myself "one on one, who wins eash fight?" If one character would pretty much clean up each of the others, I have to ask why he's so uniquely superior.

 

We have two characters in game we're currently playing where first shot should logically end the combat. My character normally has a Flash available, but 10 Ego and no mental defense. The other is a mentalist. If she gets flashed, count her out. If she moves first...well, tell the Fat Lady she should be on stage!

 

I think this is a good test: I like every one of the players' characters to be (at least statistically) likely to lose to at least one of the other PCs in a straight fight. Similarly, I design villains that can probably walk all over one or two Heroes and then get taken down by one or more of the others - so long as you can rotate the ones taking a pounding, you're probably doing something right.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting, again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...

 

 

Oh, and I think there were quite a few foci in The Increadibles. Frozone's boots, Syndrome's bracers and boots, and several mentioned in the DVD's profiles of the other supers.

 

OK, you have a point: the PCs are not up against each other BUT I find that it is good for group harmony if they don't feel that one of their number is supreme over all the others. Moreover, if there is one, and they get mind controlled....

 

RE: Frozone - I didn't get the impression that his boots did anything other that keep his feet warm, and his ice slides were a manifestation of his power - like X-Men's IceMan. I could be wrong though: it happens

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting' date=' again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...[/quote']Amen. An excellent point, Kristopher, and one which often seems to get lost in these "game balance" threads. I don't give a damn if my character can beat any one or all of her teammates; I only care that I have an interesting and challenging character to play and that other players enjoy playing alongside her. And a character is far more than just a row of numbers on a sheet of paper.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Amen. An excellent point' date=' Kristopher, and one which often seems to get lost in these "game balance" threads. I don't give a damn if my character can beat any one or all of her teammates; I only care that I have an interesting and challenging character to play and that other players enjoy playing alongside her. And a character is far more than just a row of numbers on a sheet of paper.[/quote']

 

It's not so much how the fair against each other... as how much they dominate the combat and make the others feel ineffectual. It's not an all-or-nothing issue, either. A character can be fine 75% of the time... but after a while, that other 25% of the time when they are just "better" at what they do than others, begins to become annoying... or when a challenge for the rest of the team is much more easily handled by OIHID Man, because he's got "that much more flexibility, power, defenses, etc." The others at the table start grumbling... and what seemed fine, is suddenly an issue.

 

The idea about "review characters before play" is great... but often the things that are clear problems early, are not the issue. Things are fine at the beginning and in concept... but over time, indications of imbalance and group disgruntlement and an unconscious tendency to predominate characters with these "not so limiting limitations" that this stuff surfaces. Focus Lims... specifically Inaccessible Foci of which OIHID is practically the same... are one of these subtle problems... IMO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

It's not so much how the fair against each other... as how much they dominate the combat and make the others feel ineffectual. It's not an all-or-nothing issue' date=' either. A character can be fine 75% of the time... but after a while, that other 25% of the time when they are just "better" at what they do than others, begins to become annoying... or when a challenge for the rest of the team is much more easily handled by OIHID Man, because he's got "that much more flexibility, power, defenses, etc." The others at the table start grumbling... and what seemed fine, is suddenly an issue.[/quote']

 

Stepping on toes is a similar issue. If the Brick is clearly superior in combat, the EP is likely to get disgruntled if the Brick can also effectively do everything the EP can do by throwing objects of opportunity that are available in virtually all battles.

 

If the game is "Mighty Man and his Amazing Sidekicks", how many players want to play a Sidekick?

[tesuji]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

not to harp...

 

but this is where scripting balance comes in.

 

its not "how do we fare in fights vs each other" (even though those do happen enough to be in genre) or even "how do we fare in fights vs a generic average foe" but very specifically "how do we fare against the actual enemies the Gm throws at us in the circumstances he uses as the setting".

 

The more the Gm focuses his script and the myriad setting decisions he makes on "how do i highlight the PCs ups and downs" and on providing "balance" thru syncing "scenario needs" and "PC abilities", the less important for his game PC vs PC comparability becomes.

 

Of course, for some players, the notion of "me vs bob", even if only theoretical, can be something they care about. i find that, for most of those, all it takes is keeping them playing for a while and seeing "script balance" in play for that to quickly take a backseat.

 

Once they ACTUALLY SEE that "numbers balance" and "play balance" aren't the same thing, I find they calm down on it quite a bit.

 

Of course, if the Gm soends a lot of time on "numbers balance", or emphasizes that with rules and chargen, thats sending them a different message and so they ought to be hung up on "points balance". After all, he seems to be and he's in charge.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

It's not so much how the fair against each other... as how much they dominate the combat and make the others feel ineffectual. It's not an all-or-nothing issue' date=' either. A character can be fine 75% of the time... but after a while, that other 25% of the time when they are just "better" at what they do than others, begins to become annoying... or when a challenge for the rest of the team is much more easily handled by OIHID Man, because he's got "that much more flexibility, power, defenses, etc." The others at the table start grumbling... and what seemed fine, is suddenly an issue.[/quote']I agree to a large extent, but this is an issue that to my mind needs to be addressed by the players as well as the GM. And I don't just mean the players who may feel their own characters are being overshadowed, but also by each individual player of the potentially dominating PC. Players need to be certain that their characters aren't stepping on each other's schticks too much. And that requires a certain level of trust and communication between the players about these issues. In our group before we purchase a new Power or Skill that with XP which might step on another player's toes we ask the player in question if that would be a problem. And of course it's also incumbent that GMs try to design scenarios that allow each individual character to shine on his own. If that means the ninja character has to sneak into the villain's base while the other PCs wait for the main door to be opened by said PC then so be it.

 

If our primary brick has a 75 STR, then another 60 STR brick isn't going to overshadow the first even if he has other useful abilities. And while my own character is at least 50% faster than any other member of our team, she also does the least damage, has the fewest odd attacks and unusual defenses, and is by far more fragile than any other PC. While the temptation to buy her defenses up has been pretty high at times, she's stuck with her original 12 PD/12 ED and 18 CON, and I think it's accurate to state that no other member of our team has been KO'd or Stunned even half as often as Zl'f has.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

not to harp...

 

but this is where scripting balance comes in.

 

its not "how do we fare in fights vs each other" (even though those do happen enough to be in genre) or even "how do we fare in fights vs a generic average foe" but very specifically "how do we fare against the actual enemies the Gm throws at us in the circumstances he uses as the setting".

 

The more the Gm focuses his script and the myriad setting decisions he makes on "how do i highlight the PCs ups and downs" and on providing "balance" thru syncing "scenario needs" and "PC abilities", the less important for his game PC vs PC comparability becomes.

 

Of course, for some players, the notion of "me vs bob", even if only theoretical, can be something they care about. i find that, for most of those, all it takes is keeping them playing for a while and seeing "script balance" in play for that to quickly take a backseat.

 

Once they ACTUALLY SEE that "numbers balance" and "play balance" aren't the same thing, I find they calm down on it quite a bit.

 

Of course, if the Gm soends a lot of time on "numbers balance", or emphasizes that with rules and chargen, thats sending them a different message and so they ought to be hung up on "points balance". After all, he seems to be and he's in charge.

Precisely my point.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Stepping on toes is a similar issue. If the Brick is clearly superior in combat, the EP is likely to get disgruntled if the Brick can also effectively do everything the EP can do by throwing objects of opportunity that are available in virtually all battles.

 

If the game is "Mighty Man and his Amazing Sidekicks", how many players want to play a Sidekick?

 

Exactly... and often those extra points for OIF or OIHID allow that character to be "omni-competent" and do all the toe-stepping.

 

Funny you should use the brick vs. EP example... because in my current campaign, it is the EP with IIF and a MP of attacks that is doing everything the brick can do, only better. Move faster, farther more. Blast at range and with many different advantages. Hit harder with a Hand Attack in a MP slot, etc. Even has better defenses than the Brick... with an EC for movement and defense powers.

 

This is a standard build for a EP type character, to make them compatible with a brick... but with an IIF cost break, the EP in this case is just fundamentally better than the brick (or anyone else in the game for that matter) and nothing is really munchkined or breaking concept at all.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I agree to a large extent' date=' but this is an issue that to my mind needs to be addressed by the players as well as the GM. And I don't just mean the players who may feel their own characters are being overshadowed, but also by each individual player of the potentially dominating PC. Players need to be certain that their characters aren't stepping on each other's [i']schticks[/i] too much. And that requires a certain level of trust and communication between the players about these issues. In our group before we purchase a new Power or Skill that with XP which might step on another player's toes we ask the player in question if that would be a problem. And of course it's also incumbent that GMs try to design scenarios that allow each individual character to shine on his own. If that means the ninja character has to sneak into the villain's base while the other PCs wait for the main door to be opened by said PC then so be it.

 

If our primary brick has a 75 STR, then another 60 STR brick isn't going to overshadow the first even if he has other useful abilities. And while my own character is at least 50% faster than any other member of our team, she also does the least damage, has the fewest odd attacks and unusual defenses, and is by far more fragile than any other PC. While the temptation to buy her defenses up has been pretty high at times, she's stuck with her original 12 PD/12 ED and 18 CON, and I think it's accurate to state that no other member of our team has been KO'd or Stunned even half as often as Zl'f has.

 

Totally agree. GM and Player decision making and play compatibility trumps all... but I will say that much of this stuff is not obvious until... over time, during play... balance seems to be out of whack. It is the rare player that will recognize that they are overshadowing the others in subtle ways... it may be a rare group that realizes some underlying tension coming from these things that can be easily brought to light. Then... when examined... what I'm saying here... is that often the root cause being exposed can be traced back to some fundamental/core rules... like OIHID, OIF/IIF, or Hand Attack.

 

Hence... my original question here was... is anybody else noticing a tendency (not an absolute... a tendency) for Inaccessible Focus characters to tip the scales, cause some friction in game play, etc? The answer to me seems to be "Yes..." or "Yes, but..." or "No, unless..." A qualified yes all around.

 

Now, how should this issue be addressed? I dunno, but looking at point costs is one way, especially when the same mechanics tend to be behind a lot of the issues. Looking at play styles and compatibility is another, but pointless to discuss on the boards, because it is about a unique play group dynamic which only exists at the table.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Totally agree. GM and Player decision making and play compatibility trumps all... but I will say that much of this stuff is not obvious until... over time, during play... balance seems to be out of whack. It is the rare player that will recognize that they are overshadowing the others in subtle ways... it may be a rare group that realizes some underlying tension coming from these things that can be easily brought to light. Then... when examined... what I'm saying here... is that often the root cause being exposed can be traced back to some fundamental/core rules... like OIHID, OIF/IIF, or Hand Attack.

 

Hence... my original question here was... is anybody else noticing a tendency (not an absolute... a tendency) for Inaccessible Focus characters to tip the scales, cause some friction in game play, etc? The answer to me seems to be "Yes..." or "Yes, but..." or "No, unless..." A qualified yes all around.

 

Now, how should this issue be addressed? I dunno, but looking at point costs is one way, especially when the same mechanics tend to be behind a lot of the issues. Looking at play styles and compatibility is another, but pointless to discuss on the boards, because it is about a unique play group dynamic which only exists at the table.

The difficulty comes not only because each play group is unique with their own dynamics so blanket "solutions" are seldom universal, but because what individual players desire also varies just as much. Not everyone wants to be most powerful or toughest or whatever.

 

As an example, my oft-discussed character Zl'f saves about 35 CP by using OIHID on a large percenttage of her Powers. I could quite easily have bought off that Limitation by now with the 54 XP she's earned in her career, but to be honest I don't want to. Not because it would make her less marginally powerful, but because I want her to have the vulnerability that comes with not having superpowers all the time. It's an important part of her character concept that she not be super when she's going about her daily mundane job, running out to go shopping, or hanging around with her normal friends and family, nor if she's sick or drugged. And I frankly don't know how to represent that fairly, so that the GM has control over it and not me, without building it as a Limitation. And the Limitation that fit best this idea was OIHID, although I looked seriously at Extra Time to Activate as a possible option.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

First' date=' Has anyone out there "rewritten" the standard limitations in the book to better reflect the actual worth of the limitation in their games?[/quote']

 

No.

 

Second' date=' specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break?[/quote']

 

Yes. I feel that way about Elemental Controls, as well. Why give a character a 50% cost break just because their powers all have roughly the same number of points? (All characters should have unifying special effects, so that's an irrelevant qualification for the cost break.)

 

Obvious Focus -1/2

Inobvious Focus -1/4

Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff.

 

I think that would be a profound improvement.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I think it should be the other way around' date=' actually. I think the obviousness should be ditched while accessability stays as the determining factor.[/quote']

 

I'd cut it down to just Only In Hero ID (-1/4) and Focus (-1/2), personally.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Yes' date=' Focus is definately far too big a price break. ... Not even using your power 20 times: Half price. Unlimited use but everyone knows what is whupping their arse: Half price.[/quote']

 

That's a fun example.