"Understanding limitations and advantages"

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "Understaning limitations and advantages"

 

If it's a Campaign Feature then I would say it's not a Disad you get points back for - like NCM in a Heroic Game. In which case I could agree with you. But if you get points for the Disadvantage then I disagree.

 

The points for the disadvantage of being susceptible to kryptonite is not really the issue though is it?

 

What Sean is saying is that, if every major villain will have a susceptibility/vulnerability to a particular SFX then surely choosing that SFX for an attacking power should cost more than the same power with a less effective SFX. No?

 

I can see the argument, even if it does stray from the central Hero tenet of divorcing SFX from mechanics etc.

 

Doc

[Ganesh]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

This only really becomes a problem when you're mixing PC and NPC vulnerabilities.

 

For an NPC flaw example, imagine our hypothetical "Invasion from Krypton" campaign, where most of the high-level baddies have problems with little green rocks. In this case, such attacks should be purchased as normal attacks, with an "Only affects Kryptonians" limitation of appropriate value for the campaign world.

 

For a PC flaw example, we have Superman, who takes a vulnerability, or a susceptability, or both, and thus keels over whenever exposed to chunks of his exploded home planet.

 

Now the difficulty arises when you have an "Invasion from Krypton" campaign, and someone wants to play the noble Superman, who has gone native and sided with the earthlings against his brothers.

 

Using susceptabilities and vulnerabilities and whatnot leads to math that doesn't work out...he winds up either taking set amounts of damage when other kryptonians are taking damae based on the powers his friends have bought, or taking more damage than other kryptonians, or other such problems.

 

I'd imagine, as long as Supes is the exception, that the best way to handle him in that case is to give the character the Physical Limitation "Kryptonian Physiology" -- with frequency and severity based on how often his teammates have the opportunity to use kryptonite-based weaponry (and either do, causing him problems, or don't, causing them problems) and just have him be damaged/affected by things that only affect kryptonians, as normal.

 

Now, if it's a band of kryptonian rebels and one guy is playing the human, you might not have kryptonite-based attacks be limited, or not as much, not allow Kryptonians to take a Physical Limitation, and just have humans all buy enough armor, or desolid, or something, limited to only protect them from kryptonite-sfx effects (other than being beaned by actual chunks of mineral).

 

I don't know what one would do if one were running an "Invasion from Krypton" campaign and about half your life-forms were kryptonians and half weren't. Use GM discretion and pick something, I guess.

[Maur]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

Would the other kryptonians really be susceptible to kryptonite given that they are only just arriving on Earth? Unlike Superman they have spent their lives exposed to things made from their homeworld whereas Kal'el was not.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

Would the other kryptonians really be susceptible to kryptonite given that they are only just arriving on Earth? Unlike Superman they have spent their lives exposed to things made from their homeworld whereas Kal'el was not.

 

Well if they are not vulnerable to Kryptonite then we don't have anything to argue about, so THAT can't be right

 

Doc Democracy make my point better than me: if Supermen take double damage from Kryptonite EBs, then that 12d6 EB is really more like a 24d6 EB, with the extra points rolling in for free. If you KNOW that the campaign features many Supermen as villains then you chose the sfx not (just) for colour and interest, but for pure utility, and THAT is what I think ought to be paid for.

 

I'm not suggesting that, as a general rule, we should start costing sfx into point totals, just that there are some situations where that would be appropriate.

 

Normally sfx utility is balanced by the GM, and it would be hard to do in an IotS (Invasion of the Supermen) game, unless you had a second race of villains who were all bought with absorbtion (Kryptonite EB to Strength). Even then the chances are that it is the whole team who will suffer for the sfx choice of one character, rather than (necessarily) that individual. Especially if they had the foresight to buy plenty of movement powers.

 

Perhaps Maur's approach is the best of all - make sure that the situation does not arise. Mind you, the game choices about sfx cost are then dictating the sort of games we play. Can't win, can you?

 

One situation where this sort of thing is likely to come up is sonic weapons in a space campaign. The main limitation of sonics is that it is less effective in low pressure and ineffective in vaccuum. In a space campaign those things are hard to avoid, and you'd need a pretty cunning GM to avoid the pitfalls.

 

Captain SpaceZap's Player: Hey, I've finished working on my character. He has a SpacePlane and a SonicBlaster.

 

GM: Cool. The SpacePlane crashes.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I'd say it depends on how common the substance is. If the Kryptonians have taken Susceptibility to Kryptonite (Very Common), then everyone and their brother can fling Kryptonite at them, and a Kryptonite Blast shouldn't cost any more points. If it's Uncommon, and it takes some effort to find, I'd say go ahead and charge extra for it. That's just my opinion.

[caris]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I've always found the Superman example to be a little too specific too translate well. Here is my preferred. All vampires in a given Fantasy Campaign world must have Susceptibility: Sunlight 3D6 per turn. Now, player Fred wants to build a priest of the sun god, and have a gift from said god to produce sunlight. The base power is bought as Images (or Change Environment, if you prefer). When if at all would the PC have to add on some sort of Damaging Attack power to reflect the fact that the vampires can take damage from the light of this spell (assume that the GM agrees that this is appropriate for the campaign in general, i.e. that it is "true" sunlight in relation to the SFX of the Susceptibility)?

 

I tend to not consider the points from Disadvantages to NPCs as being meaningful (to be honest, I do not usually bother to get too worried about the real points with NPCs at all), so I base my decision on how common vampires are going to be in the campaign. If the major villains that I've planned for the campaign are going to be vampires, than the PC is going to have to pay points for some sort of attack power, or the PC will have to accept that the light they are producing is not quite "true" enough to affect the vampires.

 

On the other hand, if Vampires are only going to show up in once in a blue moon, than I do not see the need to require the extra attack power.

 

Getting back to the NPC issue, I do tend to look at SFXs that will negatively impact PCs do to Disadvantages or Limitations as part of balancing. For example, if one of the PCs has a Vulnerability to a specific SFX, I'll treat attack powers of that SFX as being in a higher category (low, medium, or high) than the straight dice would reflect. That of course, gets in to the fine art of balancing.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I've always found the Superman example to be a little too specific too translate well. Here is my preferred. All vampires in a given Fantasy Campaign world must have Susceptibility: Sunlight 3D6 per turn. Now' date=' player Fred wants to build a priest of the sun god, and have a gift from said god to produce sunlight. The base power is bought as Images (or Change Environment, if you prefer). When if at all would the PC have to add on some sort of Damaging Attack power to reflect the fact that the vampires can take damage from the light of this spell (assume that the GM agrees that this is appropriate for the campaign in general, i.e. that it is "true" sunlight in relation to the SFX of the Susceptibility)?[/quote']

 

I see. I would say build it as something like a 3d6 NND with Continuous and a Once Per Turn type Limitation on it. Essentially, you're building a Power that has the same effect on the target as the Susceptibility.

 

That's all assuming that you don't just give it to him on SFX; because he's a priest of the sun god, his light spells have the power of not just the sun, but the God of the Sun behind them. (Actually this might be justification for building the NND plus allowing it to trigger the Susceptibility; it's not just sunlight, but Holy Sunlight , thus doubling (or more -- maybe you just build the Power as a Continuous NND, every Phase).)

[caris]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

That's all assuming that you don't just give it to him on SFX; because he's a priest of the sun god' date=' his light spells have the power of not just the sun, but the God of the Sun behind them. (Actually this might be justification for building the NND plus allowing it to trigger the Susceptibility; it's not just sunlight, but Holy Sunlight , thus doubling (or more -- maybe you just build the Power as a Continuous NND, every Phase).)[/quote']

 

As I said, it is a matter of GM call, but there should come a point where a PC should not be allowed to try to get around the points by playing the system, anymore than they should be forced to pay for every little thing.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I think that I would do my level best to avoid the situation in the first place.

 

In the invasion of the supermen example I think that I would point out to the player that if I were the commander of an invasion force and one suprhuman on the planet was able to shoot kryptonite rays from their eyes then it would be my firs task to ensure that clear and present danger was removed.

 

I might not charge extra for the power but might indicate tot he player that the nature of the power would attract disadvantages such as 'Hunted: Super-Assassins 14-, seek to kill character' and 'Phys Lim: Kryptonite signature - easy to detect'

 

That might put a not so subtle note to the player that I, as GM, dont really want you to have that power though, under these extreme circumstances that I am prepared to allow it.

 

In the case of the vampires I might indicate that the power of the gods may wane when in ground controlled by other dieties. The powers granted by the god of the sun may be limited in the Land of the Vampires where the Night Lady holds sway. I would allow the images to cause damage and to trigger susceptibilities but might tack on things like activation rolls or Phys Lim - Avatar of the Light. One means that the power cannot be relied upon and the other that anyone seeking you out would get a fix on you whenever you used the powers....

 

 

Hmm. Is there a limitation that would do that? Something like Beacon where you radiate some quality that others might use to track you or find you when you dont necessarily want to be seen or found? Does Phys Lim cover that???

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

Doc, I agree with your game logic but if the power itself attracts 'free' disadvantages, then you are making it cost more, albeit from a different direction.

 

As to the vampire point, if the entire game is called: BuffyHero, then the ability to cheaply produce an attack effective against the villain you will most often encounter is unfair tot hose concept players who do not take the power.

 

If you build it as a Change Environment or images, it is VERY cheap and AoE, and you only KNOW to buy it because that is the sort of thing you will be fighting. In DnD all clerics have turn undead, but a given cleric might go through their entire career and never so much as meet a zombie. My point is that in a balanced campaign where you meet a variety of villains with mixed disadvantages, then no one power or sfx will be overly advantageous BUT in a campaign where you effectively KNOW what you are going to be facing, then more useful sfx/powers should cost more.

 

In the BuffyHero game, if you buy the 'sunlight' thing as a NND, you would get very little limitation from 'only v vampires' because vampires will be ubiquitous (-1/2 or worse). In fact it is almost an advantage - it gives you a sort of automatic 'selective target combined with a 'detect vampire'. In a standard superhero or space game (for example), vampires are likely to be rare and so you get a larger limtiation value (-2 or better).

 

This means that we are ALREADY changing cost based on sfx. We might as well admit it and deal with it in a structured manner.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

As you might have guessed - I am sympathetic to the making things cost more, I was just working through ways that you might alter the attractiveness of a power in game without reducing the portability of the character between campaigns.

 

Obviously it would be far more work to apply varied costs to powers as the players would have to be aware of that (and remember to apply it) when they were building their characters.

 

All in all it is more work for the GM before and after character submissions which is already the mountain as far as getting a Hero game going.

 

Not saying it isn't worth it, just makes things more complex.

 

If you are saying that the formula for working out costs of powers should be changed then that also makes it more complex.

 

To give you a starting point

 

actual cost = real points = ((active points * advantages)/(1+limitations)) * SFX modifier

 

Now in all current campaigns the SFX modifier is 1.

 

I would suggest that the lowest modifier should be 1 or else you are simply making the modifier another type of limitation. You could assign larger modifiers to SFX that would have campaign benefits.

 

So in Invasion of the Supermen a kryptonite based attack might have a modifier of 2 or 3 while a magic based power might have a modifier of 3 or 4.

 

I would not suggest modifiers larger than 4.

 

The GM could then simply produce a list of those SFX that would not be 1 for his campaign.

 

 

Better?

 

 

Doc

[SteveZilla]

Re: "Understaning limitations and advantages"

 

Well, if the campaign is called 'Invasion of the Supermen' then a Kryptonite EB is going to be far more useful and effective than a 'Yellow Sun EB'.

 

The lack of any cost consequences to sfx assumes a campaign where, over time, one sfx is no more useful than another. That is rarely true.

 

Roll on The Ultimate Blaster, eh?

 

A player should not have to pay more for one F/X vs another (presuming they don't involve *required* Advantages or Limitations).

 

A power's point cost should be determined by mechanics, and any change in effectiveness based upon that power's F/X should be because of Disadvantages in the target.

[Mentor]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I've always found the Superman example to be a little too specific too translate well. Here is my preferred. All vampires in a given Fantasy Campaign world must have Susceptibility: Sunlight 3D6 per turn. Now, player Fred wants to build a priest of the sun god, and have a gift from said god to produce sunlight. The base power is bought as Images (or Change Environment, if you prefer). When if at all would the PC have to add on some sort of Damaging Attack power to reflect the fact that the vampires can take damage from the light of this spell (assume that the GM agrees that this is appropriate for the campaign in general, i.e. that it is "true" sunlight in relation to the SFX of the Susceptibility)?

 

I tend to not consider the points from Disadvantages to NPCs as being meaningful (to be honest, I do not usually bother to get too worried about the real points with NPCs at all), so I base my decision on how common vampires are going to be in the campaign. If the major villains that I've planned for the campaign are going to be vampires, than the PC is going to have to pay points for some sort of attack power, or the PC will have to accept that the light they are producing is not quite "true" enough to affect the vampires.

 

On the other hand, if Vampires are only going to show up in once in a blue moon, than I do not see the need to require the extra attack power.

 

Getting back to the NPC issue, I do tend to look at SFXs that will negatively impact PCs do to Disadvantages or Limitations as part of balancing. For example, if one of the PCs has a Vulnerability to a specific SFX, I'll treat attack powers of that SFX as being in a higher category (low, medium, or high) than the straight dice would reflect. That of course, gets in to the fine art of balancing.

Great point. If a GM tells players that the campaign is a Vampire Hunter campaign, then designing a sunlight guy should indeed require buying the vampire affecting powers and not just assuming the SFX is applicable.

 

OTOH, Solar Guy as a hero in a generic campaign should receive appropriate SFX bonuses and minuses if appropriate, when the occasional vampre shows up.

 

"One size fits all" SFX rules always seem to have exceptions anyway

[SteveZilla]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

Hmm. Is there a limitation that would do that? Something like Beacon where you radiate some quality that others might use to track you or find you when you dont necessarily want to be seen or found? Does Phys Lim cover that???

 

Distinctive Features comes to mind...

[eternal_sage]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

the only time i would even consider sfx to require a cost would be supers, because of the intrensic "only get what you pay for" mentality. however, i would only consider it, then say "nope" and give it for free. sfx do not cost points.

 

if there was system where you had to purchase the ability to create a certain sfx period, then yes, it would make sense. however, sense it doesn't (thank god), then it is my belief that OBVIOUSLY they shouldn't cost points. if a villian has a weakness, well its there to be exploited, which is the reasoning for kryptonite to begin with, as well as sunlight/crosses/running water/garlic/wooden stakes for vampires. to make the player suffer because it makes things easy is not fair nor correct rules wise.

 

for example, my last group of supers had an ice(wo)man clone, and a pyro clone. they both took Susceptibility to each other, basically, and had clashing personalities to boot. twice there were friendly fire incidents that caused full out battle that nearly killed them both. i also ran several villians to exploit these weaknesses. if a lim is not limiting, then it is worth nothing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

As you might have guessed - I am sympathetic to the making things cost more, I was just working through ways that you might alter the attractiveness of a power in game without reducing the portability of the character between campaigns.

 

Obviously it would be far more work to apply varied costs to powers as the players would have to be aware of that (and remember to apply it) when they were building their characters.

 

All in all it is more work for the GM before and after character submissions which is already the mountain as far as getting a Hero game going.

 

Not saying it isn't worth it, just makes things more complex.

 

If you are saying that the formula for working out costs of powers should be changed then that also makes it more complex.

 

To give you a starting point

 

actual cost = real points = ((active points * advantages)/(1+limitations)) * SFX modifier

 

Now in all current campaigns the SFX modifier is 1.

 

I would suggest that the lowest modifier should be 1 or else you are simply making the modifier another type of limitation. You could assign larger modifiers to SFX that would have campaign benefits.

 

So in Invasion of the Supermen a kryptonite based attack might have a modifier of 2 or 3 while a magic based power might have a modifier of 3 or 4.

 

I would not suggest modifiers larger than 4.

 

The GM could then simply produce a list of those SFX that would not be 1 for his campaign.

 

 

Better?

 

 

Doc

 

This is a nice point. SFX are assumed to have zero cost impact because they are assumed to even out over time. In some games that would simply not be the case and, to be fair to ALL players, they either all have to take the 'advantageous sfx' or there has to be a cost to the sfx. To do otherwise woudl be to undermine the basis of using points to balance characters - if one of two attacks is markedly more effective on a regular basis thant he other, why should they cost the same?

 

That cost can be applied to the power cost OR to the character as a whole in terms of 'free' disadvantages. It is clearly better from the point of view of 'character portability' to apply the cost as 'free' disadvantages, because in a campaign where there is no overall advantage to that particular sfx, the 'free' disadvantages can just go away - you are not going to be hunted down by half the world's villains' or always targetted first in combat.

[caris]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

the only time i would even consider sfx to require a cost would be supers, because of the intrensic "only get what you pay for" mentality. however, i would only consider it, then say "nope" and give it for free. sfx do not cost points.

 

if there was system where you had to purchase the ability to create a certain sfx period, then yes, it would make sense. however, sense it doesn't (thank god), then it is my belief that OBVIOUSLY they shouldn't cost points. if a villian has a weakness, well its there to be exploited, which is the reasoning for kryptonite to begin with, as well as sunlight/crosses/running water/garlic/wooden stakes for vampires. to make the player suffer because it makes things easy is not fair nor correct rules wise.

 

for example, my last group of supers had an ice(wo)man clone, and a pyro clone. they both took Susceptibility to each other, basically, and had clashing personalities to boot. twice there were friendly fire incidents that caused full out battle that nearly killed them both. i also ran several villians to exploit these weaknesses. if a lim is not limiting, then it is worth nothing.

 

Ok, lets look at a somewhat different set of examples related to SFX:

 

I have a fire based character concept with the Limitation "Not in water" should the value of the limitation be the same for a campaign based in the Sahara as one based in an underwater city?

 

The cost of things can and should be influenced by the nature of the campaign. The primary antagosts of a campaign seems to me to be a legitame factor to consider as any other factor when costing powers.

 

Another way to look at it is that one should be building a power to properly model a given special effect appropriately for the world it is in(e.g. combustion should not happen without the presence of oxygen, electricity should be attracted to the path of lowest resistance, etc.). Usually, this is a matter of a 0 Adder, Advantage or Limitation. Some times this can be frequent enough to warrant some sort of modifier to the attack. If a power isn't going to work half the time, because the SFX says it shouldn't work due to the environmental conditions, most GMs do not have a problem assigning a limitation to the power. On the other hand if the SFX says that a power should be consistently and frequently doing something, and the Player expect the power to do so, the Player should be willing to pay the cost. In a Buffy style Vampire Hunting game, I will not allow the player to buy a "ball of sunligt" spell as just Images, they would have to have an appropriately built damaging power built with it. I'd explain to the PC without the other element the light produced is just light. Otherwise, I am giving them much more than a minor advantage which is all that SFX should be providing for free.

[archermoo]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

Ok, lets look at a somewhat different set of examples related to SFX:

 

I have a fire based character concept with the Limitation "Not in water" should the value of the limitation be the same for a campaign based in the Sahara as one based in an underwater city?

 

The cost of things can and should be influenced by the nature of the campaign. The primary antagosts of a campaign seems to me to be a legitame factor to consider as any other factor when costing powers.

 

Another way to look at it is that one should be building a power to properly model a given special effect appropriately for the world it is in(e.g. combustion should not happen without the presence of oxygen, electricity should be attracted to the path of lowest resistance, etc.). Usually, this is a matter of a 0 Adder, Advantage or Limitation. Some times this can be frequent enough to warrant some sort of modifier to the attack. If a power isn't going to work half the time, because the SFX says it shouldn't work due to the environmental conditions, most GMs do not have a problem assigning a limitation to the power. On the other hand if the SFX says that a power should be consistently and frequently doing something, and the Player expect the power to do so, the Player should be willing to pay the cost. In a Buffy style Vampire Hunting game, I will not allow the player to buy a "ball of sunligt" spell as just Images, they would have to have an appropriately built damaging power built with it. I'd explain to the PC without the other element the light produced is just light. Otherwise, I am giving them much more than a minor advantage which is all that SFX should be providing for free.

 

I would assume then that if the PCs are buying their sunlight spells as damaging attacks in and of themselves that the vampires don't get to take a Susceptability to sunlight for points. Or if they do that the damage is on top of the damage from the attack. Is that accurate?

 

My personal take is that if you want the Ref to control what your abilities do, just buy whatever power seems reasonable with the SFX and let the Ref do their thing. You want to buy a sunlight spell? If you buy it with just images then it only does the damage dealt by the Susceptability. If you buy it as an actual attack as well, it does that damage too, and would represent a more concentrated sunlight.

 

As far as Vulnerabilities go, if you only bought the bad guys Vulnerability as Uncommon, but then all of the PCs buy attacks based on that SFX, up it to Very Common and spend the extra points on something cool.

[caris]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I would assume then that if the PCs are buying their sunlight spells as damaging attacks in and of themselves that the vampires don't get to take a Susceptability to sunlight for points. Or if they do that the damage is on top of the damage from the attack. Is that accurate?

 

Which vampires, PC or NPC ones? The Susceptability would still exist, but would only be for actually being exposed to "environmental" Sunlight. Just like fire burns, but you can not use Images to represent fire's ability to illuminate a room and still expect it to do Damage. In this case, targets that take Damage from Sunlight are too common to allow it as a "freebie" of SFX, just like it would be for fire as an SFX to a light spell.

 

My personal take is that if you want the Ref to control what your abilities do' date=' just buy whatever power seems reasonable with the SFX and let the Ref do their thing. You want to buy a sunlight spell? If you buy it with just images then it only does the damage dealt by the Susceptability. If you buy it as an actual attack as well, it does that damage too, and would represent a more concentrated sunlight.[/quote']

 

The question, is though, is the cost of the Light Spell now balanced with the other things that point have been spent on in the game? Triggering the Disads of a small number of hostile NPCs is one thing. Triggering the Disads of 80%+ of the hostile NPCs is a different thing entirely.

 

As far as Vulnerabilities go' date=' if you only bought the bad guys Vulnerability as Uncommon, but then all of the PCs buy attacks based on that SFX, up it to Very Common and spend the extra points on something cool. [/quote']

 

Except, the NPCs have all the points I want them to have. Point totals are pretty meaningless for NPCs beyond meeting caps, which they can be assumed to have GM permission to violate if the GM uses them with those violations.

[archermoo]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

Which vampires' date=' PC or NPC ones? The Susceptability would still exist, but would only be for actually being exposed to "environmental" Sunlight. Just like fire burns, but you can not use Images to represent fire's ability to illuminate a room and still expect it to do Damage. In this case, targets that take Damage from Sunlight are too common to allow it as a "freebie" of SFX, just like it would be for fire as an SFX to a light spell. [/quote']

 

It doesn't matter which vampires, the rules should treat them the same. And I'd personally disagree with seperating "environmental" sunlight from "power based" sunlight. Sunlight is sunlight. If someone is vulnerable/susceptable to it they are susceptable to it.

 

The question' date=' is though, is the cost of the Light Spell now balanced with the other things that point have been spent on in the game? Triggering the Disads of a small number of hostile NPCs is one thing. Triggering the Disads of 80%+ of the hostile NPCs is a different thing entirely. [/quote']

 

Not from my perspective. They get points for those disads because they are disadvantageous. It seems pretty cheesy to me to say "Well, since a lot of the NPCs have a particular disad, I'm going to make you pay extra to have a power that would take advantage of that". Obviously YMMV.

 

Except' date=' the NPCs have all the points I want them to have. Point totals are pretty meaningless for NPCs beyond meeting caps, which they can be assumed to have GM permission to violate if the GM uses them with those violations. [/quote']

 

Then why use disads at all? Oooh, I know, to flesh out the characters. But if you are then going to restrict the PCs from being able to take advantage of those weaknesses, what is the point?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

In the two examples provided:

 

- Attack of the Kryptonians and someone builds a Kryptonite-based character? DENIED

 

OR

 

Approve the character, but the invading Kryptonians soon realize they are placed at a disadvantage and take steps to mitigate this. Steps such as designing special combat gear which filters out K-rads, anti-Kryptonite vaccines, etc. Unlike lonely Kal-El, there are many Kryptonians, some with vastly superior scientific knowledge, who have time to engage in systematic research to eliminate this problem. You paid nothing for the advantage, so you have no grounds for complaint if the advantage goes away.

 

- Buffy - sorry, but this is a Vampire game. If I let you have sunlight SFX, the game is thrown off balance. DENIED

 

OR

 

Sunlight doing damage to vampires is so common that you must buy any Sunlight attack as an actual attack power that is Xd6 NND, does BOD, only vs Vampires (-1/2 because vampires are common opponents and fairly easy to ID). And Vampires get a Susceptibility to "ambient sunlight", which is likely about as common as you would normally expect "sunlight" to be even including sunlight-based attacks.

[caris]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

It doesn't matter which vampires' date=' the rules should treat them the same. And I'd personally disagree with seperating "environmental" sunlight from "power based" sunlight. Sunlight is sunlight. If someone is vulnerable/susceptable to it they are susceptable to it.[/quote']

 

While I won't make claims for before fourth edition, I will say that since I've been playing the game the rules have never treated NPCs the same as PCs, and they shouldn't. The NPCs are there as a tool for the GM to make an enjoyable game out of. If that means having "mooks" be drop in one shot, because that is what you and your players enjoy that is what it should be. If I villain needs to be built on 5 times the number of points as any of the PCs to make it a challenge for the PCs that is what the villain should be built on.

 

Not from my perspective. They get points for those disads because they are disadvantageous. It seems pretty cheesy to me to say "Well' date=' since a lot of the NPCs have a particular disad, I'm going to make you pay extra to have a power that would take advantage of that". Obviously YMMV.[/quote']

 

Except, the NPCs do not get any points for that Disadvantage. How cheesey would you find it, if your PC had a Disadvantage and every game session there was a character who was able to trigger it just by hitting your Hex with a 10 Active Point attack? How cheesey is it to allow one character, because of their SFX to overwhelm the game by letting them cheaply buy a power that will/can devaste the opposition, when the other players did not choose concepts that allow them to do the same.

 

As Hugh elegently states, there are only three choices that don't upset game balance:

Deny the character or power concept.

Alter the NPCs not to have the Disadvantage

Charge a cost for the power equal to it's actual utility

 

Then why use disads at all? Oooh' date=' I know, to flesh out the characters. But if you are then going to restrict the PCs from being able to take advantage of those weaknesses, what is the point?[/quote']

 

Because, I wish the players to still be able to exploit the weakness, I just do not want them to be able to do it with a power, unless the cost is truly balanced with the effect within the specific campaign. As far as I am concerned, within the kind of campaign we are discussing exposure to sunlight is for vampires much the same as suffication is for humans. Something that can be created without the use of powers, but if it is done with powers, it is done with attack powers built to model the effect, not with Change Environment: Unbreathable Air.

[caris]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I'm going to go a bit further. There is another fine point to be addressed. It is obvious that the examples (Kryptonian Invasion and Vampire Hunters) are campaigns that are going for very specific things. If not everyone in the group is on board for those specific things than something should be changed. What needs to change would vary from group to group. Maybe, the player that wants to play Kryptonite Man should bow out. Perhaps, I should shelve the idea of a vampire hunter game and make it a monster hunter game. Maybe the slug like aliens invading the planet shouldn't have a Susceptibility to salt. Ultimately, it is up to the group to work out the best solution.

[ghost-angel]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

I'm going to go a bit further. There is another fine point to be addressed. It is obvious that the examples (Kryptonian Invasion and Vampire Hunters) are campaigns that are going for very specific things. If not everyone in the group is on board for those specific things than something should be changed. What needs to change would vary from group to group. Maybe' date=' the player that wants to play Kryptonite Man should bow out. Perhaps, I should shelve the idea of a vampire hunter game and make it a monster hunter game. Maybe the slug like aliens invading the planet shouldn't have a Susceptibility to salt. Ultimately, it is up to the group to work out the best solution.[/quote']

 

This plays into what a few people have said.

 

All of the examples are really BAD examples to use when trying to charge players more. Because they are Campaign Centric - meaning the game is going to focus on those weaknesses at some point.

 

And giving players those Powers to take advantage of those weaknesses right off the bat shouldn't be a matter of charging more - it should be as Hugh said total Denial. They are campaign breaking points.

 

If there is no specific focus to a game - i.e. Sunlight Guy will get some extra stage time when the arc focuses on vampires, but once the arc focuses on something else he's just shooting bright beams of light.

 

He should no more be charged for that privilege than anyone else who can shoot various kinds of beams of light. Just because one villains has a Vulnerability to it; ESPECIALLY because of that actually.

 

If vampires are showing up a lot how is that the Players fault? That's a GM Game call. The GM should have considered that before introducing so many Vampires or even allowing the player in.

 

I go back to my statement - SFX are SFX are SFX. The total utility is up to the GM and how he runs the game. If he thinks it'll break his plans, deny them.

 

Don't force the Player to pay more because you put an inherent weakness into your villains. That's bad GMing IMO.

[eternal_sage]

Re: "Understanding limitations and advantages"

 

Ok, lets look at a somewhat different set of examples related to SFX:

 

I have a fire based character concept with the Limitation "Not in water" should the value of the limitation be the same for a campaign based in the Sahara as one based in an underwater city?

 

The cost of things can and should be influenced by the nature of the campaign. The primary antagosts of a campaign seems to me to be a legitame factor to consider as any other factor when costing powers.

 

Another way to look at it is that one should be building a power to properly model a given special effect appropriately for the world it is in(e.g. combustion should not happen without the presence of oxygen, electricity should be attracted to the path of lowest resistance, etc.). Usually, this is a matter of a 0 Adder, Advantage or Limitation. Some times this can be frequent enough to warrant some sort of modifier to the attack. If a power isn't going to work half the time, because the SFX says it shouldn't work due to the environmental conditions, most GMs do not have a problem assigning a limitation to the power. On the other hand if the SFX says that a power should be consistently and frequently doing something, and the Player expect the power to do so, the Player should be willing to pay the cost. In a Buffy style Vampire Hunting game, I will not allow the player to buy a "ball of sunligt" spell as just Images, they would have to have an appropriately built damaging power built with it. I'd explain to the PC without the other element the light produced is just light. Otherwise, I am giving them much more than a minor advantage which is all that SFX should be providing for free.

 

i think that yes, in all cases, if a power should have a limitation or advantage (an actual in game rules, honest to Hexman advantage or limitation) then it should have it, and not get it for free. for example, the Pyro character i talked about, Cinder. he wanted an ability to make things actually catch on fire. i would not just say "ok, its an energy blast with fire sfx," i instead had him make it continous, sticky (only flammable things) and uncontrolled. but if he just wanted a fire beam, he would have an EB with fire SFX. it is only a puff of heat, tough, and could only set something on fire with a power skill roll.

 

and i would consider water still common the world over (if it was) regardless of the general location the majority of the campaign took place in. otherwise, to use the character again later, you would have to rebuild him, maybe from scratch, just to make him work correctly in another location. also, i often make any severe disadvantage as bad as it should be. powers don't work in water? you will get submerged at least once. afraid of clowns? crazy carnival of death, coming up (just as the a certain Texan Mastigos from my Mage Seattle setting). your lims will get you eventually.

 

that, at least, is my logic, and the way games are run at my house. obviously, things may work differently for you. i also do not see npc and pcs as inherently different creatures, as to do so means that things do not balance out in this reality. 350 points is 350 points. to say that either should get an advantage or limitation just because of their place in the cosmic hierarchy of story, i think, means that there is something wrong with the set up. then again, i like my characters to be well challenged, not smacking goblins on the nose room after room (for example, in DnD, my pcs usually level after 4-6 encounters, not the 13 that the DMG recommends.)