Help! Would You Allow This?

[Fnord23]

Got a very clever character and only the unrevised Hero System 5th edition book. Here's my problem:

 

It seems to me that buying the following limitaton

"Concentration only for activation -1/2" on a constant power and then buying the power to 0 end is a WEAK CHEAT. Heres what I mean:

 

CONCENTRATION ONLY FOR ACTIVATION FOR A 0 END POWER

EXAMPLE: USE THIS DISAD FOR ALL YOU POWERS: Concentrate in the morning to turn your powers on and then never turn them off. You bought them to 0 end, so why not? (Well IMHO because then you are never affected by the 0 dcv while concentrating except for that 1 phase a day that's why!) Mind you, the player has to concentrate again if they ever lose consciousness, but is that worth the or -1/2 disad?

 

The character in question bought Flight to 0 end and put the Concentration limitation on it. To make things worse she is parapalegic and cannot walk. (Who needs to walk when you can fly literally all day long?)

In a revamp of the char she put the same limit on her force field. (bought to 0 end of course.) I don't want to allow this but is my justification strong enough? BTW She is also trying to buy the "full phase only to activate -1/4" Disad on these as well. So it's obvious she will never turn the powers off once they are on.

 

Would you allow it??? I am squeamish about it myself.

 

Is there anything about this in the errata? How about the revised Fred?

[Steve Long]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Since this seems to be a "would you allow this" question rather than the sort of rules question the Questions board is generally intended for, I've moved it to the Discussion area so anyone who wants to can offer the benefit of his or her own experiences and opinions.

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Would you allow it??? I am squeamish about it myself.

 

Is there anything about this in the errata? How about the revised Fred?

 

No.

 

a) It's silly.

 

The rules state that any limit/disadvantage that isn't limiting isn't worth any points.

 

 

So unless you want to blast the character sleeping in it's bed ever other adventure, say NO.

[KA.]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Fnord23,

See Page 179.

 

That gives you all the justification you will ever need.

 

"Clever" limitations, that never limit the character, are worth no points.

 

Period.

 

This response can seem a bit harsh to some players, so please allow me to give you a bit of "philosophy" to back it up.

 

While there are some who choose to play it that way, Hero is not supposed to be "Player vs. GM". It is not supposed to be a legal contest based on the players trying to find ways to 'slip things past' you, and you trying to come up with ways to 'screw' them.

It is supposed to be a cooperative effort, in which the entire group, including the GM, has fun by using the rules to create a world they want to play in.

Part of that effort is maintaining balance.

Everyone should want a world that is 'fair'.

Your job as a GM is to be a combination of creator and referee.

And one of the referee's jobs is to make sure that the rules are followed.

A Limitation is not just a source of 'free' points so that you can have a stronger character.

It is meant to be a way of defining a character's abilities.

Example:

In a Golden Age campaign, a player wants to create "Jet Boy".

Jet Boy uses a cool-looking Jetpack to fly.

The Jetpack never seems to need fuel. It never breaks. It never gets lost or stolen.

It just looks cooler than sticking your arms up in the air.

Is the Jetpack a Focus?

NO!

It is just a Special Effect. (How the power looks.)

If Jet Boy's player says that they want to make the Jetpack an Obvious Accessible Focus, and take the -1 Limitation, it now becomes both your right and you duty as referee, to make sure that Jet Boy has some kind of problem due to it being a Focus about 50% of the time the Power is used.

Which means every other time Jet Boy uses the Jetpack, it may:

Get Grabbed in Combat

Need Fuel

Be Unusable because the Exhaust would set something on Fire

Have been Stolen by one of Jet Boy's enemies

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

Where did this crazy notion come from?

 

See Page 194 : Limited Power Guidelines

 

A Power with a -1 Limitation means that the Power loses about half its effectiveness.

 

Which means that if a Player takes a -1 Focus Limitation, then roughly half the time that Power should be either Limited, or completely Unavailable, simply because it is a Focus.

 

Not everyone enforces this as harshly as it is laid out here, but that is the way the rules read.

 

So, by now, I am sure you can see where this is going.

 

If a Player insists on taking some goofy Limitation on a Power, like:

"Does not work in Snowstorms, in July, in Tampa, Florida: -1/2"

All they have done is ensure that about one third of the time, their character will be in a Snowstorm, in July, in Tampa, Florida.

 

In a sense, Limitations don't reflect reality, they help create reality.

 

Disadvantages work in a similar way.

 

If you think about it, is Lois Lane just plain stupid, or the unluckiest woman on Earth?

Why is she always the one to be taken hostage, caught in landslides, discovered by mobsters while searching their warehouses, chosen for space missions, etc. etc. ?

Not because of any flaw in her own character.

But because Superman chose her as a DNPC, 14 or less.

She is doomed to constantly be in trouble because of his decision.

 

So when your player complains about being constantly Knocked Out, or forced by circumstance to turn off her Powers with extreme regularity, remind her that this is what she chose when she took the Limitation.

 

If she prefers another choice, now is the time to make it.

 

KA.

[Zed-F]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Concentration, Extra Time, Gestures, Incantations, etc (i.e. limitations that occur on startup) can be very in-genre for powers that are constant and bought down to 0 END, depending on the character type and the setting. Supermages often have these sorts of limitations on their powers, for instance.

 

Firstly, I would make sure she knows that these powers will not be up all the time. Powers of this sort are not maintained between scene changes. So if they are talking to the mayor about the big menace, and then the scene changes to the big fight, she will need to spend time to activate any powers like that at the beginning of the big fight before engaging.

 

Secondly, the other aspect of the fact that these powers are not up all the time is that if the character ever gets ambushed, she's potentially in big trouble. Because part of your job as GM is to make sure limitations are enforced, make sure the player knows that this WILL happen. Corollary: If you are not willing to enforce the limitation because it doesn't fit your GMing style -- just say no to the power.

 

In this case it seems like she's buying flight to replace walking. That's something that she would want up literally all the time. I would not allow concentration to start on that particular power.

[tesuji]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

 

Got a very clever character and only the unrevised Hero System 5th edition book. Here's my problem:

Actually, no offense to the player, but this doesn't come close to the bar set by HERo guys for clever. This is run of the mill, beginners level rules warfare, not something to garner praise for. :-)

It seems to me that buying the following limitaton

"Concentration only for activation -1/2" on a constant power and then buying the power to 0 end is a WEAK CHEAT. Heres what I mean:

 

Ok to do the obligatory... "a lim which doesn't lim is not worth any..." yahhdee yahhdee", HERo is a toolkit which depends on the GM saying "no" when he feels that... "yahhdee yahhdee. "The reason there is a Gm character approval stage is..." yahhdee yahhdee.

 

But, frankly, this IS a limitation that can limit the character quite a bit. Note that the cost of concentration is reduced for constant powers "only at startup" precisely because the power can be started safely off screen and kept going during combat.

 

Its easy for the Gm to say "no", but IMX its better for the Gm to find ways to say "yes".

 

The usual SFX for force fields require them to be down for eating, drinking, and the biological final outcomes of those two events. So, he will have to drop the FF multiple times during the day. Lord knows i have had a hero "on the jonh" when an attack took place.

 

Also, FF qare obviously visible. Sometimes keeping that going "all day" is a bit tough.

 

Also, i don't know if you have run many combats, but heroes get stunned and get knocked out and recover from those BUT each one of those drops non-persistent powers, such as flight and FF. So, whenever one of those happens, he now is looking at being 0 DCV IN COMBAt to turn these back on.

 

Similarly, again not knowing how many combats, dispels vs flight or FF are not uncommon powers depending on SFX. Drains too but drain would not be relevent here. Whether its Windstorm's Windshear Dispel Flight or Dr Payback's Energy Disruptor, the powers that are limited can be turned off in combat and then, ESPECIALLY in the world of "RAPID SHOT vs 0 DCV supers" 5e is, he pays for that in a big way.

 

So, the obvious tools at your disposal are:

1. fight initiated at a time when the powers are down.

2. Character CON stunned or even Koed (to between -1 to -9 stun) turning off powers.

3. Active dispels of FF or flight in combat.

 

Now, of course, your job as Gm is to make use of these tools and others you can devise ("The alien you are trying to save is allergic to force fields") to skirt the line between "that lim is just free points" and "I am so hosed my character is useless and no fun to play" and make the points you charged wind up looking about right while everyone has fun.

 

is it "unfortunate" that some of the villains playing a major role in your story have dispel flight? Well, yeah of course, but the justification for it is right there on his sheet... he took -1/2 and saved X points and thats priced at

-1/2 because Windstorm shows up so much.

 

Anyway, the point I am trying to get across is, its not as much about the points being right or about saying "no" anytime the lim seems a little less than optimally scored.

 

The points don't just turn out right for most things... they prove to be right when you make them play that big a role and not too big a role.

 

So, look at a lim or character writeup and ask yourself "can i make this play a big enough role in in actual play to be worth those points and to not be worth too much more or less?"

 

Compare -1/2 for your concentration, with the notes given above to the following...

 

How often is MR Power ring, the Green lantern clone, gonna lose his power ring or have it break down in combat? (OIF -1/2)

 

How often is MR Erratic Blaster gonna have his EB fail at ACt 14- (basically 10% chance of wasted beam)? (Act 14- -1/2 too)

 

I wouldn't have a problem or hesitate to allow this power combo you describe in. its priced IMO about right and i see no problem in bringing it to the forefront often enough to make it a worthwhile lim. A hero going to 0 dcv in combat is SERIOUS in 5e due to the rapid fire possibilities. It would be even more so if you used hit locations and called shots.

 

But it really is gonna come down to "do you see enough opportunity for you in play to show this as a lim causing trouble worth its points.?"

 

Also, definitely let the player know that this will be a limit, that if he is seeing this as getting around or free points that he needs to know that limitations wil play a role.

 

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

 

Now, one last thing. The area where i would have said "whoa" is the physical lim. "Cannot walk" is not as limiting for a guy with 0 end flight as it is for a normal guy, so i would not have given it the full impairment thingy. I think it said something about this in the physical lim writeup, like about "no hands" but "has TK" not being worth as much. Unless this guy has a secret id, which he obviously doesn't, then "can't walk" would be IMo something like "barely limiting" and "infrequent" for maybe 5 cp - 10 cp as a disad. Don't give him "major limiting" and "all the time" for this lim, as it doesn't cause him problems that often.

[austenandrews]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

I'd have no problem with the construct if the character has a Secret Identity, or the Flight has Side Effects, or some other Limitation that shuts it off, or some other circumstance exists to make certain it's not going to be on all the time.

 

tesuji's point about the Phys Lim is more pressing, I'd say.

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

But' date=' frankly, this IS a limitation that can limit the character quite a bit.[/quote']

 

Almost all this is from the mindset of playing the game mechanics instead of playing the game itself.

 

It would be a silly comic read indeed to see this stuff going on. What do you want in your game? Cool Superhero action, or rule driven events that belong in a parody comic at best?

 

The first rule of GM character approval- if it results in stuff you don't want to see in your game- disallow it.

 

You don't need a rule giving you permission to say 'No".

[tesuji]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

 

Almost all this is from the mindset of playing the game mechanics instead of playing the game itself.

Actually, i would say its from the perspective of RUNNING the game. A GM, imo, needs to understand that the vast majority of the "points" and their impact coming out "feeling right" comes from him choosing situations and scripts that make them "feel right" as opposed to believeing the numbers somehow magically anticipate his choices.

 

Now, i personally don't feel villains with powers that prevent/counter flight, that disrupt force fields, or villains that can stun or even barely knock out heroes (who then recover and rejoin the fight), or scenes where villains attack while the hero is eating/drinking with friends (Spidey 2 anyone?) make for a silly comic when used in moderation (enough to make a -1/2 lim work out feeling right.)

 

YMMV.

It would be a silly comic read indeed to see this stuff going on. What do you want in your game? Cool Superhero action, or rule driven events that belong in a parody comic at best?

Well, if you cannot use any of these types of setups or villains without having it come off silly in your games, you probably should not try this and should stick to the simpler techniques of just saying no.

The first rule of GM character approval- if it results in stuff you don't want to see in your game- disallow it.

My first rule is "say yes to things your players want, unless there is a compelling rewason to say no."

 

Perhaps the difference in our styles is showing a bit!

 

An aside: I will point out that the "Players vs GM" notion of ahcracter development/process can also come from a Gm who approaches player characters as something to be feared, to be watched out for, to be in essence made to fit his game, as opposed to being the core focus and driving elements of his game, or who sees "adapting the player character to his game" as somehow "the right way" as opposed to "adapting his game to his player characters." its not necessarily coming from "players trying to pull one over on the GM."

 

You can say "yes" and not let them "pull a fast one."

You don't need a rule giving you permission to say 'No".

then why do you have exactly such a rule as your self-proclaimed "first rule of Gm character approval"???

 

but in fact, i ao agree with your underlying point, if not your characterization... if you cannot see how in the world you can run the game and have the lim play out fine with scripting, then thats a clear sign of something you should either disallow or more to the point, adjust the cost of.

 

EXAMPLE: your game is set in Phoenix arizona and someone wants "doesn't work in seawater" at -1/2... then you might need to say "the lim is fine for concept but since we are gonna be in arizona most of the time the lim will be only worth -0, a bit of flavor once in a very great while."

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Actually' date=' i would say its from the perspective of RUNNING the game.[/quote']

 

There's more than one way of running a game. Yours is allowing mechanical limits to determine style instead of style determining mechanical limits.

 

You play the game first, and run a superhero campaign second. I do it in reverse order.

 

That is the primary difference between us, not the following:

 

My first rule is "say yes to things your players want, unless there is a compelling rewason to say no."

 

Perhaps the difference in our styles is showing a bit!

 

I think there's a great deal of difference in our styles. But this is only a outcome result, there are far more important underlying causes.

 

 

An aside: I will point out that the "Players vs GM" notion of ahcracter development/process can also come from a Gm who approaches player characters as something to be feared

 

There is no Players vs GM notion underlying my suggestions. Instead there is the concept of different areas of ownship.

 

For but one example:

 

One of my areas of ownship is to determine what does and does not exist in my campaign world.

 

The Player's area of ownership is character decisions- after their concept/selection has been approved by myself for existing in my campaign world.

 

then why do you have exactly such a rule as your self-proclaimed "first rule of Gm character approval"???

 

They are the same thing, and anyone with reading ability should have been able to understand that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

"A limitation which is not limiting is worth no points"

 

As a GM, I would approach this from the other perspective, however. I would tell the player, straight out, that when he puts a -1/2 limitation on a power, he is giving me carte blanche as GM to make sure that limitation c0omes into play often enough to justify the -1/2 he has taken.

 

When will this limitation come into play? I can think of the following:

 

- the character is caught unawareswith the powers not yet activated

 

- the character is KO'd (HIGHLIGHT: Being 0 DCV when you only have half a dozen STUN is quite disadvantageous - almost as much a drawback as being unable to move, and having your main defenses down.

 

- the character is STUNNed - unless the character has also paid for Persistent, the cost of which will largely reverse ths "Concentrate" savings. BTW, that makes Stunned = "falls to the ground and can't move" for the character described

 

- the character wishes to be stealthy. Sorry, your force field and flight are visible to three sense groups.

 

- the character wishes to be unrecognized - see above

 

- Powers are drained, suppressed, dispelled or shut off in any other fashion

 

So, I would likely allow it, but the player would find that a -1/2 limitation causes problems meriting the level of point savings selected.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

In a sense, Limitations don't reflect reality, they help create reality.

 

Disadvantages work in a similar way.

 

If you think about it, is Lois Lane just plain stupid, or the unluckiest woman on Earth?

Why is she always the one to be taken hostage, caught in landslides, discovered by mobsters while searching their warehouses, chosen for space missions, etc. etc. ?

Not because of any flaw in her own character.

But because Superman chose her as a DNPC, 14 or less.

She is doomed to constantly be in trouble because of his decision.

Wow. Excellent observations, KA.! On my "to rep" list you go...

[tesuji]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

 

There's more than one way of running a game. Yours is allowing mechanical limits to determine style instead of style determining mechanical limits.

See, this is where your re-characterization of my style goes astray.

 

I base a lot of my campaign design, scripts and scenes (easily 75% or more) on the characters the players choose to play and the traits they give those characters. The "stars of the story" and their traits give me direction as to the style of game i will be running, as shown in the scenes and challenges i present to them.

 

I do maybe 20% of my campaign development BEFORE i see characters, very broad brush stuff and all the detail and serious down to it kind of stuff only happens after i see the characters and their specific traits and stories.

 

That all applies to both their good parts and their bad parts.

 

If a guy submitted to me a character with "Orbital base" for 20 cp, i would usually make space stuff play a role of note in the campaign. if a guy submitted me a character with "XDM to/from microverses" for 30 cp, i would make microverses play a role of note in the campaign.

 

By the exact same token, if a player submits a character who saves 20-30 cp from "concentration" lims on his force field and his flight, then I will make that concetration play a role of note in my game. if a player submits "vuln to sonic" for 20 cp on his character, I will make that play a role with either sonic villains being addfed or maybe the nefarious bad guy's minions use sonic blasters instead of the electric blasters now i had jotted on my initial notes?

 

Thats how i do it, and its not "mechanics" driving the campaign but the characters and traits of those characters the players wanted to play (as in the ones they CHOOSE to add to their character) driving the campaign

You play the game first, and run a superhero campaign second. I do it in reverse order.

Nope, i put the player characters first, and the initial notion of a campaign i had second.

that is the primary difference between us, not the following:

Actually, in my experience, the "say yes" vs "say no" thing is one of the most fundamental differences in GMs. Which one is their "first rule" says a whole lot about their style.

 

YMMV.

I think there's a great deal of difference in our styles. But this is only a outcome result, there are far more important underlying causes.

Not how i see it, but thats ok.

There is no Players vs GM notion underlying my suggestions. Instead there is the concept of different areas of ownship.

I actually did not say there was. But, just pointing out that the adversarial p[erception can stem as much from GM putting campaign before character as much as the reverse view from the player side..

One of my areas of ownship is to determine what does and does not exist in my campaign world.

 

The Player's area of ownership is character decisions- after their concept/selection has been approved by myself for existing in my campaign world.

 

Well, it sounds like we differ here, in degree if not in event. While i obviously, as Gm, have say-so over what exists in my world, my "say yes unless" principle leads me to not even want to make much of this until i see the characters and to use the characters as a fundamental and predominat influence on or even a guideline for "what exists in my world."

 

Like i said, the campaign design is made to fit to the player characters in my games much more than i make their character fit my world.

 

Just a choice i have made and found useful. Certainly not the only way, any more than your "say no" is.

 

 

to each his own, of course.

 

However, on a fundamental note: IMO and IMX if a Gm thinks that pre-assigned point values will work out without ongoing scripting controls, he is asking for trouble. Fortunately, with the "say yes" and "conform campaign to characters" style, scripting controls are a normally occuring thing. Two birds, one stone, you know.

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

If a guy submitted to me a character with "Orbital base" for 20 cp, i would usually make space stuff play a role of note in the campaign. if a guy submitted me a character with "XDM to/from microverses" for 30 cp, i would make microverses play a role of note in the campaign.

 

And yet it is very possible that other players have no desire to have space stuff in the game. They didn't put it on their sheets and have no desire to see it.

 

This has more solid effects than the rather innocent example you provided.

 

Player 1: I have Psy Lim "Casual Killer"

 

GM: But this was supposed to be 4-color avengers...

 

Player 2: I'm running Captain America, I don't want to have endless fights with Mr. Psycho here. Either he drops that idea or I need to run a different character if I'm to have any fun.

 

 

Everyone (even you) have to draw lines somewhere. I'm very upfront with mine.

 

1. No stupid characters. No joke characters. I.e. characters must fit the campaign concept and style.

 

1. No min/max power gamer construction characters.

 

It's highly likely the character at the start of the thread broke both of these rules.

 

Beyond that I'm rather open in practice.

[lazarus]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

My preferred style of interpretting Limitations is this:

 

The number that they put on the Limitation is how often they want to see it come into play. That's mostly for the non-book Lims, though.

 

I have a hybrid of the two views we're seeing playing a part here: the numbers create reality, to an extent, and I reserve the right to say "no" to a power build. I determine what exists in the game world, as GM, and my responses on the "yes" or "no" will show that. My default is "yes", however, and use the numbers to guide my plot.

 

When faced with something odd, like one player buying an orbital space station ... often they can buy it and it won't come into play at all. It's only the Limitations that I see needing to apply.

 

That said: the character sheet is a kind of "contract" between player and GM, on how frequently things are available and whatnot.

 

Laz

[Guest taustin]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

The old cliche is that a limitation that doesn't limit isn't worth points. Since the character got points, it must be limiting in some way.

 

If I were the GM, there would be regular events in which the character ran in to someone who could turn off the power in some way. Like, every game.

 

(Also, don't non-persistant powers turn off automatically when you go to sleep? Or am I smoking dope on that?)

[tesuji]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

 

 

And yet it is very possible that other players have no desire to have space stuff in the game. They didn't put it on their sheets and have no desire to see it.

uhhh... most of my players get the difference between telling me what they want to see, in their characters, and telling me what they dont want others to have.

 

Joe understands, or i try and make clear, that if he wants magic and billy wants space, that doesn't mean joe can tell me not to have magic.

 

Regardless, in any shared activity, people need to work together to work thru their differences.

 

This has more solid effects than the rather innocent example you provided.

 

Player 1: I have Psy Lim "Casual Killer"

 

GM: But this was supposed to be 4-color avengers...

 

Player 2: I'm running Captain America, I don't want to have endless fights with Mr. Psycho here. Either he drops that idea or I need to run a different character if I'm to have any fun.

at which point he Gm makes the differences in character known and people hold a reasonable discussion and work out how to handle it. Nothing new here, and certainly not something unique to "things the Gm doesn't want."

 

the same two players in an XMAN game could have one character who is a racist gulf war vet and another who is an Iraqui and they could not want to be at odds with each other.

 

Two people can submit incompatable characters, at which point there becomes a "compelling reason" not to say yes to them both.

 

Everyone (even you) have to draw lines somewhere. I'm very upfront with mine.

of course i draw lines.

 

I did not say "say yes all the time to anything." did I?

 

if your fuss is with "you have to say no too" then your are arguing with a figment of your own imagination.

 

1. No stupid characters. No joke characters. I.e. characters must fit the campaign concept and style.

 

1. No min/max power gamer construction characters.

 

It's highly likely the character at the start of the thread broke both of these rules.

 

Beyond that I'm rather open in practice.

Seeing how quick you are to characterize the character/gamer based on very little info, i can imagine.

 

Certainly, different styles.

[tesuji]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

When faced with something odd, like one player buying an orbital space station ... often they can buy it and it won't come into play at all. It's only the Limitations that I see needing to apply.

 

let me ask a question... if a player did spend 20 cp or so on the space station and from the get go you decided "thats not going to play a role" and that you weren't going to write into "your story" ways that it plays a role, would you tell him "hey, keep the station but make it cost 0 cp, since it wont come into play except as a flavor piece or SFX justification"?

 

I mean, if its not going to be worth anything, why do you charge him 20 cp on it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

let me ask a question... if a player did spend 20 cp or so on the space station and from the get go you decided "thats not going to play a role" and that you weren't going to write into "your story" ways that it plays a role, would you tell him "hey, keep the station but make it cost 0 cp, since it wont come into play except as a flavor piece or SFX justification"?

 

I mean, if its not going to be worth anything, why do you charge him 20 cp on it?

 

This is an important issue, IMO. To me, "a limitation that's not limiting saves no points" has to be balanced with "an ability that provides no advantage costs no points".

[lazarus]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

let me ask a question... if a player did spend 20 cp or so on the space station and from the get go you decided "thats not going to play a role" and that you weren't going to write into "your story" ways that it plays a role, would you tell him "hey, keep the station but make it cost 0 cp, since it wont come into play except as a flavor piece or SFX justification"?

 

I mean, if its not going to be worth anything, why do you charge him 20 cp on it?

I'd certainly let him know that the space station may not come into play. If he wants to spend 20 cp on it _anyway_, then he's going to spend 20 cp on it.

 

With a newer player, I'd let them know about the SFX route, but someone who's been playing HERO for a while should know to be able to do that.

 

This is all hypothetical, as I have no HERO group

 

Laz

[KA.]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Wow. Excellent observations' date=' KA.! On my "to rep" list you go...[/quote']

 

Thanks, Dr. A!

 

KA.

 

(Hmmm. Both of our last names are "A". Perhaps we are related? )

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Seeing how quick you are to characterize the character/gamer based on very little info, i can imagine.

 

Certainly, different styles.

 

Everything we do on this board is done with very little information, including everything you've done in this thread.

 

For me, I think the fact that you have a GM wanting a quote from the rules to overturn a character presented to him is just about the only facts needed. If the player was dealing in good faith with him, that player would have pointed out how those limits cause them real problems.

 

For this issue he's gotten two basic types of advice.

 

1. Overule the character if you don't like it. Give your reasons. Point out that there are better ways of making a character.

 

2. Run the limits into the ground and make the player pay for taking them. This will show them there's no way around the rules.

 

 

Frankly, they're both negative actions. Yours is passive aggressive. My is up front confrontation. Yours allows new story elements to enter and alter the campaign in ways possibly not desired, my doesn't.

 

Give and take both ways. I sure either would work better depending upon the exact people involved.

 

But I Sorry, you don't get the high ground of "But I always say 'Yes', I'm such a nice guy and anyone who says 'No' is just a mean GM vs. Players. That's crap feel good PC management, and I've seen it cause more damage than just about anything else.

 

GM need backbones, especially with HERO System. They need to learn to say 'No'. It's a word everyone needs to hear now and then.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

...snip...

 

If a Player insists on taking some goofy Limitation on a Power, like:

"Does not work in Snowstorms, in July, in Tampa, Florida: -1/2"

All they have done is ensure that about one third of the time, their character will be in a Snowstorm, in July, in Tampa, Florida.

 

In a sense, Limitations don't reflect reality, they help create reality.

 

...snip...

 

KA.

If it snows here in 2 months I'm holding you personaly responsible!

 

HM

[tesuji]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

 

Everything we do on this board is done with very little information, including everything you've done in this thread.

right, but thats why i am not making characterizations of the player who has yet to provide any input. I'm not theorizing about how much of a power gamer minmaxer he is, given i have so little info.

 

See the difference?

For me, I think the fact that you have a GM wanting a quote from the rules to overturn a character presented to him is just about the only facts needed. If the player was dealing in good faith with him, that player would have pointed out how those limits cause them real problems.

Did the GM say he had talked to the player about it and gotten any input? i did not see any such reference. It sounds to me like the Gm is currently worrying about the talk with the player.

 

So, i don't draw any conclusion from "the player hasn't sat down and tolf the Gm how to use the lims" to mean anything more than "the Gm hasn't discussed his problems with the player." That says a lot more about the GM, who we have here commenting, than the player who has yet to be heard from.

 

I am more willing to draw conclusions about people when i have their own comments and participation, than when i have someone second hand referencing them indirectly.

 

again, perhaps differences in us.

For this issue he's gotten two basic types of advice.

 

1. Overule the character if you don't like it. Give your reasons. Point out that there are better ways of making a character.

 

2. Run the limits into the ground and make the player pay for taking them. This will show them there's no way around the rules.

Actually, maybe a difference, but you phrased @2 as very adversarila.

 

I would say some of the advice has been "just play the lims, here are some ways, and make them comparably limiting to others of the same value." Which doesn't sound very adversarial at all.

 

 

Frankly, they're both negative actions.

I dont see fairly enforicng a lim as negative. I certainly dont see what i have been saying, tailor the campaign to the traits your players chose" to be a negative thing at all.

 

I do see a lot of what you have positioned yourself around, a lot of the say no, not in my game, etc as coming off maybe more negative than you intend.

 

Yours is passive aggressive. My is up front confrontation. Yours allows new story elements to enter and alter the campaign in ways possibly not desired, my doesn't.

Wow, you really do have a fairly negative take on player input like i am describing.

 

For the record, i don't consider tailoring the campaign to the characters the players asked for to be passive aggressive.

For the record, the way i suffest could result in adding elements NOT EXPECTED or not already planned.

But I Sorry, you don't get the high ground of "But I always say 'Yes', I'm such a nice guy and anyone who says 'No' is just a mean GM vs. Players. That's crap feel good PC management, and I've seen it cause more damage than just about anything else.

Ok lets talk crap for a moment.

 

I am fairly certain i have said very specifically that i am NOT saying that you should never say no or anything about never say no, so... while you seem to be having a high old time trying to paint this as if i am saying anything about "anyone who says no", thats just the crap you seem to enjoy saying.

 

GM need backbones, especially with HERO System. They need to learn to say 'No'. It's a word everyone needs to hear now and then.

 

You know, some people may actually think "saying no" and "having a backbone" are somehow related, one proof of or related to the other.

 

IMX having a backbone as it relates to GMing is as much shown by how much you allow and how much you empower the player and their characters as in how much you say no. Its really to me much more about your confidence in how much you can allow and manage and handle, not about limiting beforehand how much you have to handle.

 

In the case in question, i know i can allow the concentration limit described and manage the game and have it play out fine with fairness and balance and fun for all, and not need a "confrontation" where i get to flex my "ownership" muscles. i have the backbone enough to say "yes" and still run a fine game people enjoy.

 

I get enough of an ownership/boss fix at work, i really don't need it in my game all that much.

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

See the difference?

 

Honestly?

 

No.

 

All I see is someone who wants the warm and fuzzy high ground. Nothing more.