Help! Would You Allow This?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

I generally agree with Hugh, some posts above. That *is* a limitation, for all the reasons he specified. There are ways to make the player regret taking that point-break, so it's good.

[TheRealVector]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

I want to take this opportunity to personally thank Fox1!

 

These boards wouldn't be nearly as exciting (or full) if not for your ability (and/or desire?) to get into an argument on most any thread you post to. You ROCK my friend!

 

I sincerely love reading the debates and arguments on these boards. Fox1, I owe you big time rep for making the day go faster. Thanks again.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Would I allow it? Sure. Would I allow the character to keep it on all the time to avoid the Limitation? Suuuuure. The thing is, if a player actually does this, they are going to find that:

• It is impossible to keep a Secret ID.
  
• Even if you don't want to keep a Secret ID, you are going to have or quickly develop a Public ID (meaning everyone is going to wonder who that wierd glowing guy is). That means constant press, constant harrassment about getting kittens out of trees, and constant attempts for unheroic, "help," through con jobs, simple ignorance, and evil intent. Not to mention that all the villains are just about always going to know how to find the character.
  
• If the Powers are non-Persistent, they are going to find it to be tiring trying to keep them up all the time, even if they cost zero End. That is a lot of concentration, even if it would normally be no problem over the duration of a combat (or maybe even significantly longer, but that's a far cry from all day every day). Think Long Term End penalties, irritability, roll penalties, missing things without even the benefit of a Per roll, etc.
  
• If the Powers are Persistent, I would probably take the total of all Limitations that only apply to activating them and halve the value. Persistent Powers just don't have to be activated very often.

EDIT: Oh, and I'd like to add that a paraplegic character who uses Flight to get around all the time is going to get no Diadvantage points from me!

[tesuji]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Honestly?

 

No.

 

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

 

Well, then not much more constructive to be said between us on this.

 

enjoy your games.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

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?

 

I haven't read all of the responses, so I don't know if this has been covered...

 

I would definately allow it. This is still limiting to the character in most games and genres. The nifty thing about non-persistant powers is that by having them on, you aren't resting. Having them on means always being at your full (per circumstances) CV, ready for anything and constantly active. Sure, you aren't using any END to power this, but you likely using END for other things, and over the course of the day you're gonna find a time when you just need to sit down and get off your feet for a moment or two. Maybe you need to relax for something, like talking to a friend or eating lunch. But if you do, the Power shuts off immediately. You'll constantly have to restart it to maintain it all day.

 

In games where stuff like this isn't an issue in the first place, then it wouldn't be a Limitation, but in most campaigns I've run and played in, there are times you need to relax and recouperate. The Limitation here would mean that the character is extra vulnerable during those times.

 

All this is in adddition to the obvious drawback of being Stunned or KOed in combat.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

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.

 

I kinda though he was just asking whether or not his example was truly limiting, or just cheese. I might be wrong, but I kinda assumed that Fnord23 knows what to do with cheese, or as he put it, a "weak cheat". Of course, it also looks like he might just be looking to see if such a construct is legal. In either case, neither of these two basic types of advice seems to be what he's looking for.

 

Specifically about this part of your post though, I'm not sure what the difference between the two are. 1 looks like it basically says "don't allow unbalanced Powers" and 2 looks like "allow balanced Powers"... they're the same, it's just each are phrased somewhat condesendingly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

The nifty thing about non-persistant powers is that by having them on' date=' you aren't resting.[/quote']

 

An excellent point - the character must shut down all non-persistent powers to take a recovery outside PS 12. So, when the villain falls in Ph 6, do you shut off your flight and force field to get your STUN and END back quicker, and risk an ambush? Or do you stay at 1 rec per 12 seconds, and have only one REC before action starts again in, say, a turn?

[Vondy]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

I would allow it. The character can't recover normally with it on and that can be a critical draw-back when it hits the fan. I also wouldn't sweat it, because I'd ask the player what their intent for the power was and hold them to it, clarifying things I considered abusive in advance.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

An excellent point - the character must shut down all non-persistent powers to take a recovery outside PS 12. So' date=' when the villain falls in Ph 6, do you shut off your flight and force field to get your STUN and END back quicker, and risk an ambush? Or do you stay at 1 rec per 12 seconds, and have only one REC before action starts again in, say, a turn?[/quote']

Huh. I though you just had to spend no End and take no damage to take a Recovery. Are you sure the distinction is based on Persistent?

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Specifically about this part of your post though' date=' I'm not sure what the difference between the two are. 1 looks like it basically says "don't allow unbalanced Powers" and 2 looks like "allow balanced Powers"... they're the same, it's just each are phrased somewhat condesendingly.[/quote']

 

The first is a direct player to player request. The second is an attempt to manage the problem through game mechanics.

 

Depending upon the expectations of the player, both can cause a serious disagreement.

 

The advantage of the first method is that the disagreement would be immediate and open.

 

The disadvantage of the second is that it would likely be more serious as they player would feel like the GM is undermining him in the game for reasons of his own, i.e. enforcing unexpected limit/disad outcomes (from the player PoV). Many players (typically the powergaming crowd) react very badly to things like that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Huh. I though you just had to spend no End and take no damage to take a Recovery. Are you sure the distinction is based on Persistent?

 

I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm going from memory, but I believe non-persistent powers cannot be maintained while taking a recovery. Anyone out there got a page reference handy one way or the other?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Huh. I though you just had to spend no End and take no damage to take a Recovery. Are you sure the distinction is based on Persistent?

 

I don't know about 5ER, but 5E only says "may take no actions". Since maintaining a Constant Power isn't an action, I guess he can still keep it going during his Recovery. Weird...

 

In addition, it also says he can't take any actions that take no time, which would include talking. This is something I never realized. Another thing I never realized is that you get the Recovery at the end of the Segment your Phase is in, not at the end of your Phase like I'd been assuming. So you can take a Recover in Segment 3, then get blasted in Segment 4 and still get the Recovery.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

The first is a direct player to player request. The second is an attempt to manage the problem through game mechanics.

 

Depending upon the expectations of the player, both can cause a serious disagreement.

 

The advantage of the first method is that the disagreement would be immediate and open.

 

The disadvantage of the second is that it would likely be more serious as they player would feel like the GM is undermining him in the game for reasons of his own, i.e. enforcing unexpected limit/disad outcomes (from the player PoV). Many players (typically the powergaming crowd) react very badly to things like that.

 

I'm of the philosophy that a GM that not telling a player he can't have a particular Power because it's unbalancing is part of the GM's job. I'm also of the philosophy that a GM that doesn't normally (not always, just normally) enforce the full extent of the rules isn't doing his job as GM, and is just giving away free points and allowing unbalanced characters. Thus, both of those bits of advice are the same: Do your job as GM. There really isn't a disadvantage to either, and actually a major disadvantage to ignoring the second.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

I don't know about 5ER, but 5E only says "may take no actions". Since maintaining a Constant Power isn't an action, I guess he can still keep it going during his Recovery. Weird...

 

In addition, it also says he can't take any actions that take no time, which would include talking. This is something I never realized. Another thing I never realized is that you get the Recovery at the end of the Segment your Phase is in, not at the end of your Phase like I'd been assuming. So you can take a Recover in Segment 3, then get blasted in Segment 4 and still get the Recovery.

 

OK, I found a reference from the old faq, which is presumably stated explicitly in 5er:

 

Recovery

 

Q: Can a character maintain a Constant Power and still take a Recovery on one of his Phases? Can he do so if the Constant Power costs no END, or if it’s Persistent?

 

Can a character turn off or deactivate a power in the same Phase when he takes a Recovery?

 

A: As described on 5E 285, a character who chooses to take a Recovery as an Action may do nothing else that Phase — not even Actions that take no time, or Actions that cost no END. Therefore he cannot maintain a Constant power and take a Recovery, even if the power costs no END. However, if the power is Persistent, he can maintain it and still take a Recovery.

 

A character may take a Zero-Phase Action to turn a power off (either consciously or by stopping paying END) at the beginning of a Phase in which he declares that he will take a Recovery; that’s an exception to the rule that he cannot take any Actions, and of course represents the fact that he’s “relaxing†completely for a Phase. He could then, on his next Phase, use a Zero-Phase Action to activate the power again.

 

So that 0 END powers that require concentration to activate must be shut down in order to take a recovery. Of course, he could make them Persistent, but that eats up a lot more points, and probabloy brings the validity of any "only to activate" limitation into (more) question.

[Ehreval]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

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.

 

This is absolute garbage on your fault, Fox. He has a different policy as a gm than you do. That doesn't make his style wrong or yours right. It makes you different people.

 

My policy along those lines has remained essentially unchanged for approximately 20 years of gm'ing in a variety of systems:

 

If a player wants something that doesn't detract from others' enjoyment of the game (including my own) then it's my job as gm to find a way to make it happen. If I can't, that's not my player's fault. It's a limitation on my skills as a gm that I should work on.

 

Now, I could go on and on right now about how your inability to properly accommodate your players is the true gm'ing weakness here, which from what I've seen of your posts is almost certainly what you'd do, but I won't, because I don't believe that's necessarily true.

 

You run your games the way you see fit, and if your players keep coming back, then you're clearly doing enough things right that you deserve some sort of atta-boy. It's entirely possible that, within the bounds of your group's play style, your policy decision in this matter is one of the virtues that makes your games fun for you and your players.

 

But it's wrong for you to tell Tesuji his play style is wrong and weak just because it differs from yours. Grow up.

 

-- Ehreval

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

This is absolute garbage on your fault' date='[/quote']

 

So, is your main hobby found in digging up and commenting on old conflicts done and gone for days, or is this just a special event?

[Ehreval]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

So' date=' is your main hobby found in digging up and commenting on old conflicts done and gone for days, or is this just a special event?[/quote']

 

Nope. My hobby is reading this board every few days and throwing in my 2 cents on the occasional issue. You were being a jerk, so I called you on it.

 

-- Ehreval

[Fox1]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Nope. My hobby is reading this board every few days and throwing in my 2 cents on the occasional issue. You were being a jerk, so I called you on it.

 

-- Ehreval

 

Issue done and close. Reopening it is without doubt a jerk action.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Whew! That could certainly have been more tactful, but I would agree that different GMs (and different gaming groups, and different players) can certainly have their own styles. It is also clearly the GM's job to help balance the game when the need arises, either due to a conflict between players or something that will generally unbalance the story or setting. Depending on the type of campaign and the personalities of the players, this could be more or less important. You are all right, and there is no need to set your points of view so at odds with each other.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Help! Would You Allow This?

 

Nope. My hobby is reading this board every few days and throwing in my 2 cents on the occasional issue. You were being a jerk, so I called you on it.

 

-- Ehreval

 

I wasn't aware that Fox1's accused "jerkness" was the topic of this thread. All this time I thought we were talking about a 0 END Continuous Power that required some slow start up time... Silly me.

 

And FYI... Fox1 is an a$$hole, not a jerk. :D:D:D