Limitation Boondoggles?

[Gary]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

To you maybe, but you're a pobibility junky. I don't let the math rule my game or my judgement.

 

To answer your question, I'd say as much or as often, whichever is appropriate to the character/power/campaign.

 

 

So you think Act 17- should be worth a -1/2? It does crop up more often than OIF after all.

 

It's not being a probability junkie to realize that you shouldn't save 20 or more points when you can counter it with a single 2-3 pt CSL.

[Just Joe]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

An FYI to you and Vorsch: I never said I do with with all rolls' date=' or even all Activation Rolls. I merely said I as GM have the right to.[/quote']I don't tend to view GMing in terms of rights, and I am agnostic on this matter.

 

Any GM worth of the title would agree with me.

I disagree vehemently. Good GM's can disagree about what rights they have regarding many matters, including this one.

[Just Joe]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Some combinations can really be a boondoggle--liek this little gem. For any one use power' date=' dont buy 1 charge. Buy 2 charges, with an 8- burnout. You get the power cheaper, and their is a small chance you get to use it twice.[/quote']And this is just the most blatant example of a more general problem: burnout is less disadvantageous the fewer charges a power has. And there are other related problems. For example,an 11- burnout on a 16 charge power is likely to be more disadvantageous than an 11- activation on the same power, but the system gives the latter a slightly larger limitation value. I don't know whether there is an elegant solution to these problems, but I'd like to think there is.

[Just Joe]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

The discounting of the real point value of multiple limitations came up earlier. I think this often produces more-or-less the right result. But sometimes it feels entirely wrong. Here's one example (based on my difficulty designing a termite spell that didn't seem too expensive, though I've simplified it for the sake of discussion).

 

Spell A: 4d6 RKA, straight up (60 real points)

Spell B: 4d6 RKA, only vs. wood (-2; 20 real points)

 

Seems reasonable enough to me. The termite spell costs only 1/3 as much as the flame bolt or whathaveyou. Now consider:

 

Spell C: 4d6 RKA, OAF, 4 charges, gest. & incant., gradual effect - 1 minute (-3; 15 real points)

Spell D: 4d6 RKA, OAF, 4 charges, gest. & incant., gradual effect - 1 minute, only vs. wood (-5; 10 real points)

 

This feels wrong to me. Now the termite spell costs 2/3 as much as the flame bolt or whathaveyou. I say it "feels" wrong because I'm not sure I can articulate what is bothering me here and I'm not certain it's worse than other examples of compounded limitations. However, I think the issue is roughly this: many limitations seem like less of a big deal when piled on top of others (e.g., extra END or concentrate on a spell with lots of extra time that you're only going to use in situations of relative leisure), but other limitations (e.g., only vs. wood) seem to limit a power more fundamentally, almost regardless of what other limitations are placed on it.

[Just Joe]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

One more related point with a couple of examples and then I'll shut up for the night. Some limitations seem (almost?) like they ought to affect the active points of a power and thus ought to be applied separately to the power. Arguably, the "only vs. wood" limitation on the RKA's above is such an example. I would also be tempted to put "Reduced Penetration" in this category. But particularly Clear examples are the entangle limitations "Entangle Has 1 BODY" and "No Defense". It's not that I think these limitations should be given larger values in general, it's that I think they should have a similar effect on the cost of powers regardless of what other limitations those powers have. (And, at least in the case of the entangle limitations, I'm inclined to think they should make the powers easier to dispel (suppress, drain, etc.).

 

Whaddaya think?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

One more related point with a couple of examples and then I'll shut up for the night. Some limitations seem (almost?) like they ought to affect the active points of a power and thus ought to be applied separately to the power. Arguably, the "only vs. wood" limitation on the RKA's above is such an example. I would also be tempted to put "Reduced Penetration" in this category. But particularly Clear examples are the entangle limitations "Entangle Has 1 BODY" and "No Defense". It's not that I think these limitations should be given larger values in general, it's that I think they should have a similar effect on the cost of powers regardless of what other limitations those powers have. (And, at least in the case of the entangle limitations, I'm inclined to think they should make the powers easier to dispel (suppress, drain, etc.).

 

Whaddaya think?

something on the order of reclassifying some limitations (maybe call 'em Modifiers") to be applied to the Base points either tha same way, or even at the same time as the Advantages are applied to find the Active Cost. This could also allow for a bit of modification of powers within a framework (ala the Something I Noticed and Disliked about Multipowers thread).

So if "Only vs Whatever" was considered a modifier, than it'd factor into the Base Points to Active Points calculation, and depneding on how you did it you'd either apply the (-2) "Modifier" to the 60 BP, dropping it to 20, then applying advantages, then limits... or you'd do the normal advantage calculation, but factoring in the (-2)... so if you made it Continous (+1) and thus your 60 BP 4d6 RKA ends up with a 60 pt active cost (60 x (1+ (-2) +1))

 

It could work.

[Trystan Laryssa]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Wow...

 

Guess I really came in late on this one. Lots of posts, and most were just skimmed, so, again... if I repeat, please forgive.

 

A lot has been said here on what is worth what, even getting to the point of how often things are dictated and what a Limitation really symbolizes. I have always tried to think conceptually when creating characters... and I'm one of those messed-up players who like to fail every once in a while. I'm not perfect, and would have a very hard time playing somebody who was. I can only assume with all the intelligent conversationalists here that I am far from alone in this.

 

The worth of limitations, ultimately, depends on what happens in the game, and this is largely in the hands of the GM. Game Master is not a title to be tossed lightly by. In all seriousness (and, yes, in somewhat biased if also well-deserved defense of my own GM Dust Raven), when we as players sign on for a game, one-shot, campaign, etc., the most important thing we have to have in place is trust.

 

As a Game Master, Dust Raven trusts that we will play intelligently, fairly, and with characters that have a certain amount of detail, and are well-thought-out. He trusts that our concept of what a character is and is not capable of, and how often, is the most important thing to us.

 

We as players trust that no one of our characters is more or less useful, powerful, or important than any other. We trust that if one character gets the spotlight in an adventure, that spotlight will be duly passed on in adventures to come. We trust that the modifiers we place on the powers have been charged accordingly with respect to how they will affect the character in the game, and that the powers - and Limitations - as we have bought them will leap off the sheet and come to life having the effect we envisioned them to have once the game is being played.

 

We create characters by describing them in non-mechanical terms, and then we trust our GM to help us construct them to our liking, knowing that he understands both what we want, and what his story will allow for. If the character is a crack driver, we expect that that character will almost always lose the tail, escape the collision, and head off the bad guys in whatever he or she is driving. We also trust that if, for some reason, that character fails, something BIG is going to happen, and we had best be alert and ready.

 

As it usually works out, if a player thinks that something is not worth the points paid, or the GM thinks it's worth too little, the only thing that will help resolve the issue is trust. Everybody has to be willing to communicate honestly, or the game will fail. I have been in several of Dust Raven's campaigns that fell apart, and in several that were an overwhelming success. The main factor in either case has always been communication.

 

Where fairness is concerned... in our games, the goal of the players has always been the quality of the interactive story. If a situation arises where a roll is dictated, we all have to trust that there is a VERY good reason for it, or else it would not have been so. In turn, the GM has to prove worthy of that kind of trust by delivering the best game possible, and making sure not to blatantly abuse "GM fiat". (I have played in games where GMs have destroyed the morale of players for "dramatic purposes", and I do not stay long in such groups.) Not everybody likes to play our style of game, and if a tactical and mor logical or mathematical approach suits all players, then we are talking about a different type of game entirely. (And, yes, those GMs who run such games can disagree with this philosophy and still be good GMs. If there's one fault Dust raven has, in my experience, it's that he sometimes makes broad statements.) It depends, again, on what players and GMs want.

 

Bottom line... if something does not appear to be fair, we as adults should be able to discuss it and fix it. Limitations are no different. I rarely have seen a power or situation that is worth exactly what it says it should be in the book 100% of the time. It is entirely dependent on how things happen in the game, and a good GM should be able to know when something is out of whack, or be willing to work to fix it.

 

Just my humble opinion, of course.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

The discounting of the real point value of multiple limitations came up earlier. I think this often produces more-or-less the right result. But sometimes it feels entirely wrong.

 

One alternative approach would be to perhaps change advantages and limitations to a percentage of cost (the present is in 25% increments for advantages, but differs for limitations) and take a geometric approach.

 

For example, and assuming we keep using 25% increments for disadvantages and 20% for limitations (based on the base -1/4 impact), we get:

 

Spell A: 4d6 RKA, straight up - (60 real points)

 

Spell B: 4d6 RKA, only vs. wood (-67%; 60 x 33% = 20 real points)

 

Spell C: 4d6 RKA, OAF (50%), 4 charges (50%), gest. (20%) & incant. (20%), gradual effect - 1 minute (-33%) 60 x 50% x 50% x 80% x 80% x 67% = 6 real points

 

Spell D: 4d6 RKA, OAF (50%), 4 charges (50%), gest. (20%) & incant. (20%), gradual effect - 1 minute (-33%) , only vs. wood (-67%) ; 60 x 50% x 50% x 80% x 80% x 67% x 33% = 2 real points

 

Spell E: 2d6 RKA, AP (+50%) Penetrating (+50%) Area Effect Radius (+100%) - 30 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 2 = 135 points

 

Spell F: 2d6 RKA, AP (+50%) Penetrating (+50%) Area Effect Radius (+100%), 30 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 2 = 135 points - OAF (50%), 4 charges (50%), gest. (20%) & incant. (20%), gradual effect - 1 minute (-33%) 135 x 50% x 50% x 80% x 80% x 67% = 14 real points

 

While this would eliminate the concern that advantage stacking is overly effective, it also deepens the discount of multiple limitations considerably.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

So you think Act 17- should be worth a -1/2? It does crop up more often than OIF after all.

So does the color blue, big deal.

 

It's not how often it crops up, but how often it affects the game. a 14- Activation may only have a 9% chance of failure, but that chance of failure affects the judgement of whether or not to use the Power in the first place.

 

It's not being a probability junkie to realize that you shouldn't save 20 or more points when you can counter it with a single 2-3 pt CSL.

 

Correct. That's being a munchkin.

 

As you of all people should well know, Gary, it's possible to abuse the rules in a number of ways. What's one more?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I don't tend to view GMing in terms of rights, and I am agnostic on this matter.

 

I disagree vehemently. Good GM's can disagree about what rights they have regarding many matters, including this one.

 

Good point there, and I appologize for the generalization. There are many types of gamer and just as many types and styles of GM. I was specifically referring to the style that puts drama and story over tactics and rules mechanics. Other types of GMs sould certainly have a different idea of what is best, but still be just as good at what they do.

[Markdoc]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

One alternative approach would be to perhaps change advantages and limitations to a percentage of cost (the present is in 25% increments for advantages, but differs for limitations) and take a geometric approach.

 

SNIPPAGE

 

While this would eliminate the concern that advantage stacking is overly effective, it also deepens the discount of multiple limitations considerably.

 

We actually tried this back in the day - but as you note, it makes powers extremely cheap if they have several limitations: too cheap, as it turned out. That particular experiment was rapidly abandoned.

 

cheers, Mark

[Gary]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

So does the color blue, big deal.

 

It's not how often it crops up, but how often it affects the game. a 14- Activation may only have a 9% chance of failure, but that chance of failure affects the judgement of whether or not to use the Power in the first place.

 

A 15- Act affects judgement. So does a 16- or 17-.

 

 

Correct. That's being a munchkin.

 

As you of all people should well know, Gary, it's possible to abuse the rules in a number of ways. What's one more?

 

Buying 1 CSL is being a munchkin?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

A 15- Act affects judgement. So does a 16- or 17-.

A 16- or 17- doesn't affect judgement as much, but there's no such thing as a -1/8 Limitation.

 

 

 

 

Buying 1 CSL is being a munchkin?

 

It is if you are buying it just to compensate for having an Activation Roll.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

One more related point with a couple of examples and then I'll shut up for the night. Some limitations seem (almost?) like they ought to affect the active points of a power and thus ought to be applied separately to the power. Arguably, the "only vs. wood" limitation on the RKA's above is such an example. I would also be tempted to put "Reduced Penetration" in this category. But particularly Clear examples are the entangle limitations "Entangle Has 1 BODY" and "No Defense". It's not that I think these limitations should be given larger values in general, it's that I think they should have a similar effect on the cost of powers regardless of what other limitations those powers have. (And, at least in the case of the entangle limitations, I'm inclined to think they should make the powers easier to dispel (suppress, drain, etc.).

 

Whaddaya think?

Thank you!

Where were you when I needed you in the Multipower Active Points thread?

[Gary]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

A 16- or 17- doesn't affect judgement as much, but there's no such thing as a -1/8 Limitation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is if you are buying it just to compensate for having an Activation Roll.

 

 

A CSL is something you would buy anyway. And now you have 17+ pts for other stuff.

[Just Joe]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

One alternative approach would be to perhaps change advantages and limitations to a percentage of cost (the present is in 25% increments for advantages, but differs for limitations) and take a geometric approach. . .

 

 

. . . While this would eliminate the concern that advantage stacking is overly effective, it also deepens the discount of multiple limitations considerably.

Since I think the rules as written work pretty well most of the time, and consider the problem to arise only with regard to a limited number of limitations, I would not want to apply your approach in general. However, for "special" limitations and advantages, I would want to take something like your approach (see below).

 

something on the order of reclassifying some limitations (maybe call 'em Modifiers") to be applied to the Base points either tha same way' date=' or even at the same time as the Advantages are applied to find the Active Cost. This could also allow for a bit of modification of powers within a framework (ala the Something I Noticed and Disliked about Multipowers thread).[/quote']If one were to take an approach along these lines (and because it adds another layer of complexity, I'm not sure one should) I would call them something like "special limitations" (and "special advantages" -- see below). Each special limitation (or advantage) would be applied separately, according to the standard rules except as if it were the only limitation (advantage) on the power. Then ordinary modifiers would be applied to the result.

 

Special limitations would be few in number (reduced penetration and the entangle limitations I mentioned earlier would be good candidates), but the GM could rule others into that category. So, for example, I wouldn't want "only vs. wood" to be declared a special limitation generally, but in games with few wood golems, wood elementals, etc., a GM might reasonably rule it in.

 

Special advantages could include NND. (Why should an invisible 4d6 NND be cheaper than an invisible 8d6 eb?)

 

Mind you, I'm not sure any of this is worth the trouble. At least some of these problems can be solved on more of a case-by-case basis (e.g., remove the entangle limitations, change entangle DEF and/or BODY costs so that the former is more expensive than the latter, and remove restrictions on the DEF:BODY ratio). I guess it might make a nice optional rule for those who are willing to put up with the added complexity.

[Just Joe]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Thank you!

Where were you when I needed you in the Multipower Active Points thread?

You're welcome. When I first skimmed that thread, I wasn't clever enough to see the applicability of this issue to it, and I just never got sucked into reading very far.