Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

[tesuji]

Is the explanation of "its cheaper this way" enough for you to approve a power's build even though "by all rights" the power "makes more sense" or "emulates genre" better with another build thats more expensive?

 

Is it Ok to not buy (either with limitations or by not purchasing advantages) traits of a power that should be there just so it comes out cheaper?

 

Example #1: My 12d6 Eb does not work on tuesdays, so i take a "does not work on tuesday limitation. I don't have any reasonable excuse for why it doesn't work on tuesday, but its cheaper this way and so thats what i want to spend. Sure, you can schedule game events on tuesdays and i wont have the blaster but thats fine.

 

Now many Gms would likely balk at this blatant "shave concept to shave off points".

 

But what about one more "published."

 

How many teleporters who can in their source carry more people along for the ride (NightCrawler, Star Trek Transporter, etc) REQUIRE someone being ported to be willing? The answer from almost if not every source I have read is NONE. So, all these teleports would need the version of teleport in HERO that doesn't worry about willing target or not... the useable as attack option which costs more points.

 

I mean, how often have we seen transporters in Star trek where if the klingon thinks "i dont wanna go" real hard the transporter fails even if he is standing on the platform surrounded by redshirts? But how many HERO game transporter platforms have just that problem?

 

Shouldn't, for the same reason you would likely say "No" to the not-on-tuesday blaster (its blatant point mongering and makes no sense given SFX), MOST teleporters wind up with the much moire expensive "even if unwilling" teleport instead of the more normal and far more widely used "only willing targets" we see all the time in HERO.

 

If you would say "no" to the blaster or insist that powers be spec'ed out appropriate to the SFX but you have allowed the cheaper teleport fairly freely... WHY?

 

What is the difference between "my transporter platform won't work if you are unwilling, but If I knock you out I can 'port you anyway" and "my blaster doesn't work on tuesdays" that makes the former acceptable as the norm and the latter as an example of point mongering?

 

is it nothing more than the former is the default teleport rule and doesn't require a lim to "save you points" while the latter does and so is subject to more scrutiny? is "saving points by not buying an advantage thats "needed" for SFX" just more acceptable than "saving points by taking a limitation that loses an ability needed for SFX"?

 

thoughts?

 

In your games, were the majority of teleporters able to take only willing guys along for the ride or able to take them against their will?

 

BTW, if I am wrong and the majority of teleporters and such used in HERO published characters ARE built with the UAA to allow beaming even unwilling characters... let me know that too. I don't recall it being so.

 

Additionally, if i am wrong and a multitude of teleporters and transporter devices in comics, film, books, etc are seen as having a willing only limit on passengers, then let me know that too.

[Robyn]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Game balance and a good story. Neither of those are answers, properly speaking, but each is a factor.

[David Johnston]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

 

In your games, were the majority of teleporters able to take only willing guys along for the ride or able to take them against their will?

 

 

I have never seen a teleporter with that limitation and without an explanation of why it existed I would deny it.

[incrdbil]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

In your games, were the majority of teleporters able to take only willing guys along for the ride or able to take them against their will?

 

Without the appropriate advantage, the target has to be 'willing'. I have, at times, expanded upon this to 'not actively resisting"--IE, the target doesn't want to go, but he's tied up, helpless, can't move, use a power, or do anything other than think "I don't wann go!". It's tantamount to being unconscious dead weight. I won't let suprise teleports do this, and the only declaration an potential passenger able to resist (even if not doing so) needs to make is a statement to the GM that "No, I don't go with them".

 

This has been derived from FX; a spell that specifies it teleports 'the caster and ally' may very well have to render an opponent unconscious to have them transport.

[tesuji]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

I have never seen a teleporter with that limitation and without an explanation of why it existed I would deny it.

 

Just to be clear and we are on the same page, you are aware thats the default rules for HERO teleports and most HERo published teleporters have that by default? The basic "buy extra mass to take people" rules requires willing, if you want unwilling, you have to buy UAA, and very very few writeups bother with it.

[tesuji]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Game balance and a good story. Neither of those are answers' date=' properly speaking, but each is a factor.[/quote']

 

Interesting... so how does "willing only teleport" make for a better story than the other in your experience?

[casualplayer]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

How does your blaster know that it's Tuesday? Smart gun.

 

Teleport is one of those powers that gets insanely expensive to duplicate effects shown a gazillion times in the genre source material. Reduce the cost and no one will walk anywhere just Bamf Bamf Bamf all day. Generally the GM has to scrutinize the power build and handwave the AP restrictions.

[David Johnston]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Just to be clear and we are on the same page' date=' you are aware thats the default rules for HERO teleports and most HERo published teleporters have that by default? The basic "buy extra mass to take people" rules requires willing, if you want unwilling, you have to buy UAA, and very very few writeups bother with it.[/quote']

 

 

Hunh. My mistake then. I always did it as "You can take unwilling targets with you if you had them grappled.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

The line for me is, is this Limitation a sufficiently limiting factor to warrent a cost break, or is the extra cost because of required Advantages giving the Power enough extra oomph to warrent the extra points spent?

 

In the case of shaving points just to make something cheaper, I usually tell the player, "hey, if you can't afford it, don't take it." I also go the other way with expensive builds. "Hey, you are way overcomplicating this. This simpler, cheaper, build is all you need for that effect."

 

Concerning the Teleporting others issue, I've always considered the default extra mass to allow the teleporting of unwilling targets as long as they have been grabbed. The reasoning is simple: You don't have to buy Flight UAA to swoop down from the sky and snatch someone off the ground against their will, nor with Leaping, Running, ect. if you want to grab-and-go with an unwilling target. Teleport, just another Movement Power, is no different. The special ruling made in 5th edition is wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

[Robyn]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Interesting... so how does "willing only teleport" make for a better story than the other in your experience?

 

I wasn't thinking of your question (the abstract), just of your examples (the concrete). In the Star Trek case, the comics aren't built by the HERO system, they're just concerned with telling a good story. In the power construction case, some abilities have to cost additional points because this maintains game balance.

 

Keep in mind that with the wide and varied SFX possible for a "Teleport" power, it won't always be appropriate to have it "not require target's permission". If it would be appropriate, then the power should be more expensive to reflect this. On the other hand, with the Star Trek teleporters, it can be argued that anyone who either steps onto the transport pad or is wrestled there and forced to keep still is "consenting" or having someone consent for them.

 

I say "keep still" because the people that are being transported nearly always stand there and wait for it. I think it might interfere with the beam's ability to "lock on" if they were doing the hokey-pokey. You don't see them doing that on the pad, do you? Of course, this might be simply because those Federation types take themselves too seriously . . .

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Is the explanation of "its cheaper this way" enough for you to approve a power's build even though "by all rights" the power "makes more sense" or "emulates genre" better with another build thats more expensive?

 

Is it Ok to not buy (either with limitations or by not purchasing advantages) traits of a power that should be there just so it comes out cheaper?

 

Example #1: My 12d6 Eb does not work on tuesdays, so i take a "does not work on tuesday limitation. I don't have any reasonable excuse for why it doesn't work on tuesday, but its cheaper this way and so thats what i want to spend. Sure, you can schedule game events on tuesdays and i wont have the blaster but thats fine.

 

Now many Gms would likely balk at this blatant "shave concept to shave off points".

 

My reaction would be "give me a instory technobabble reason why and I'll let you"

[KA.]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

A few thoughts:

 

As to the general question, no, I don't allow Limitations just to save points.

Actually, to be completely accurate, it is not that I would not 'allow' them, it is that I would enforce them.

Which means that if you expect a -1/2 for "Does not work on Tuesday", then expect your adventures to take place on Tuesday 'about one third of the time'.

 

I think the question, as you set it up, is based on the idea that you would not let a player save points by adding a Limitation that isn't actually going to limit anything, so why would you let them buy a cheaper version of a Power, and then basically 'give' them the full functionality of the most expensive build.

 

I wouldn't. Either way.

 

If they choose to save points by not buying the appropriate Advantages, then they aren't going to get those advantages.

I might let someone try to do it once as a Power Stunt (if they had the Power Skill for that Power), but if they want to do it all the time, they are going to have to pay the points.

 

Now it is possible that I might look at a specific power and say:

"That is just too expensive for the good you will get out of it in my game.

I am going to reduce the cost to X, or I am going to give you Advantage Y for free."

But that would be on a case by case basis.

 

On the side topic of enforcing the limitations (small "l", meaning either a Limitation or the lack of an Advantage) on a Power, there is one shining example that every GM can point to:

Early Hal Jordan Green Lantern stories.

 

I don't know what kind of point saving he got for "Not vs. Yellow", but unless it was -2, his GM was a ruthless bastard.

 

Everything Hal fought was yellow in those days.

 

Gangsters who just happen to be wearing a yellow suit.

Monsters that just happen to shoot yellow death rays from their eyes.

Aliens who just happen to paint all their ships yellow.

 

Now that is enforcing a Limitation!

 

I bet the next character that guy built payed full price for everything!

 

KA.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Everything Hal fought was yellow in those days.

 

I bet the next character that guy built payed full price for everything!

 

KA.

 

 

Naw, he just got tired of it, and decided to let the GM have the character, who made him into a villian. Then after a while he wanted to play him again with a radiation accident, and played him as a mystic. Then he realized he could build the character without the limitation, and asked for the GM to bring him back from the dead, without the limitation.

 

[incrdbil]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

A few thoughts:

 

I bet the next character that guy built payed full price for everything!

 

KA.

 

Ok, a what would you the GM do question.

 

The PC starts out with the 'doesn't work versus X" limit. Initially, you use few attacks using X. But then, in a spectacualr fashion, X is used to take out the PC is a very public fashion. Anyone with KS: Superhuman world can soon determine that problem. X is somethign not to hard to work into gadgets or weapon--as simple as something you get at a hardware store.

 

What do you, the GM, do? Not use the attack more than you have? Use it more and keep the limit the same? Use it more, and increase the limit? What do you tell the PC about your choice?

[Frenchman]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

As several others have stated, I would allow a teleporter to teleport a grappled opponent, as long as he's 'in control' of the grapple. I had thought this was the default rule, but after closer inspection I see it isn't...for some reason.

It seems to me that if you buy teleport UAA then you can teleport someone wherever you feel like it, WITHOUT GOING WITH THEM.

I always assumed that was why UAA was so damned expensive. If you can teleport the guy who just socked you 30" straight up, you damn well better be paying out the nose for that!

So then wouldn't the requirement that You Go With Them be a limitation on the power, thus making it cost less? I might place it as high as -3/4 since it negates the huge advantage/opportunity of teleporting foes into dangerous places (in the air, middle of the street, into a jail cell, whatever)

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Forget Transporter beams; What about elevators? If you stand on the elevator but you don't want to move up or down, you go anyway! Does this mean that elevators must be bought with their movement UAA? And what about vehicles? If you aren't the driver/pilot/navigator, you have no say in where you go! Therefore all vehicle movement must be bought UAA!

 

Re: The gun that gets Tuesdays off, even if you allow it, it's not even worth a -1/4 limitation. If you allow smaller Lims (as I do on rare occasions), I'd say it's worth no more than -0.1.

[Frenchman]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Re: The gun that gets Tuesdays off' date=' even if you allow it, it's not even worth a -1/4 limitation. If you allow smaller Lims (as I do on rare occasions), I'd say it's worth no more than -0.1.[/quote']

 

Don't be silly. It's worth -1/7, simple as rhinocerous pie:idjit:

[Robyn]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

As to the general question, no, I don't allow Limitations just to save points.

Actually, to be completely accurate, it is not that I would not 'allow' them, it is that I would enforce them.

Which means that if you expect a -1/2 for "Does not work on Tuesday", then expect your adventures to take place on Tuesday 'about one third of the time'.

 

I think the question, as you set it up, is based on the idea that you would not let a player save points by adding a Limitation that isn't actually going to limit anything,

 

I think this is summed up in the first page of the section on Power Limitations:

 

A Limitation that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

[caris]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

I’m just not seeing the dilemma.

 

I’ve never considered Star Trek a super heroic genre. The only telporters really available to PCs in it are pieces of equipment. Usually built into a vehicle or a base. The characters do not pay points for it, and just like on the TV show it acts as a plot device. If the GM wants it to work, it works. If the GM doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. “Oh, sorry, the planet has an odd energy field no one can teleport up or down.†“I’m sorry, the Klingon saboteur in engineering has constructed a jamming device that is prevent the teleporters from getting a lockâ€. Even assuming that I am charging the characters for their equipment, once again these teleporters are part of bases and/or vehicles. Can you say 1 character point gets a vehicle or base 5 character points?

 

Nightcrawler, when I was reading the comics, never really had extra mass on his teleport. He had teleport, and a teleport UAA with at the very least a limitation that he had to be one of the targets, and extra END cost. I would have been seriously tempted to put Side Effect on it as well, if I were building him.

 

I can not really think of a time that Lockjaw teleported an unwilling target that wasn’t unconscious. Cloak wasn’t really so much a teleport as an attack as he was an NND with a funky sfx. Vanisher was usually a villain, and pretty much too cowardly to teleport a hostile opponent with him anywhere. Never read Ambush Bug enough to say. Warp was a villain, point costs didn’t really apply to him and a good example of why Teleport UAA at Range should be very expensive. I can not remember a time when Raven teleported someone against their will (it may have happened, but not enough for me to treat it as anything other than a use of the Power Skill).

 

Magik could teleport unwilling and willing, but the writers did realize just how powerful that ability was. It became a real Deus Ex Machina. How do they beat this person? Have Magik send it to Limbo. I’ve noticed that a lot of Teleports or Extra Dimensional Movement in comics tend to the following:

 

They are usually plot device/Deus Ex Machina solutions. (How do Thor and the New Warrior defeat Juggernaut, since none of them have psychic powers? Thors sends him to another dimension.)

 

They are possessed by characters with a reasonable justification for a VPP.

 

So my answer is that I generally would not allow either build the cheaper teleport or the sword that doesn’t work on Tuesday.

[tesuji]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

 

I think the question, as you set it up, is based on the idea that you would not let a player save points by adding a Limitation that isn't actually going to limit anything, so why would you let them buy a cheaper version of a Power, and then basically 'give' them the full functionality of the most expensive build.

KA.

 

Actually no thats specifically not it. I mentioned the games will have tuesdays and it will come up OK" thing in the example.

 

its more "would you allow "stupid" or "unexplained" or "unjustified" limits that don't really fit the SFX just to save points" which to me includes both the teleport that requires willing for many of the SFX i have seen for it as well as the blaster not on tuesday thing.

 

Other general responses...

 

yes, a "must go with them" limitation could apply to a Teleport UAA and would move it to somewhere between "only willing" and "without going" costs.

 

Also i find it interesting that so many responses basically decide to ignore the willing requirement if there is a grapple.

[Robyn]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Also i find it interesting that so many responses basically decide to ignore the willing requirement if there is a grapple.

 

I didn't even understand the question, so I just pointed out that you might be comparing apples and oranges.

[Blue]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Limitations for the sake of limitations are always disallowed by me. There are rare exceptions and those the players KNOW I will get them for.

 

A prime example is "Real" Equipment (Real Armor, Real weapon). If someone is going to shave points off their sword or blaster by taking this then I'm going to make certain that when they are dropped into a sewere that the blade becomes rusty over the course of the game when the player forgets to take care of it, and that the blaster stops working properly when he hits the sewage.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Don't be silly. It's worth -1/7' date=' simple as rhinocerous pie:idjit:[/quote']

"I'm sorry, but you're going to have to come up with 0.1428571429 points in Limitations. May I suggest Susceptibility to standing at the South Pole during an eclipse. While eating a banana?"

 

Keith "And while singing Gilbert and Sullivan" Curtis

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Just to be clear and we are on the same page' date=' you are aware thats the default rules for HERO teleports and most HERo published teleporters have that by default? The basic "buy extra mass to take people" rules requires willing, if you want unwilling, you have to buy UAA, and very very few writeups bother with it.[/quote']

 

Which makes zero sense. UAA would be if you want to teleport someone without teleporting yourself. If you were to grab someone and teleport, they'd go with you, just as you don't need to buy UAA in order to pick someone up and fly with them.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

 

Which makes zero sense. UAA would be if you want to teleport someone without teleporting yourself. If you were to grab someone and teleport' date=' they'd go with you, just as you don't need to buy UAA in order to pick someone up and fly with them.[/quote']

 

Pretty much my view on it.

 

Now, limitations for the sake of limitations, I don't like. It's been a pretty longstanding rule of mine that, at any given time, I should be able to point at any line on a character sheet and ask "Why is that here?" and get a logical IC answer, whether it's a Power, Skill, or Disadvantage.

 

Now, in the right game, for the right character, 'Not on Tuesdays' might work. For example, there's a villain in Arcane Adversaries who's gotten power from the Planetary Demons. If someone else tried that, but didn't manage to get power from whichever is the Tuesday Demon, well, that would explain an EB that can't be used on Tuesdays.

 

On the other hand, I don't have that problem often because I'm the only person in the group who can really build characters, so generally the players give me a broad overview, I put together a framework/rough draft, then we tweak to taste. In the past, with a more rules-savvy group where they could make their own characters sans supervision, I occassionally got a little vindictive when I felt someone was giving themselves too big of a Limitation.

 

Big example: Guy with electrical powers, most of which were bought 'Not in water', which is a perfectly viable limitation. But at -1, which means he has to encounter enough water to short himself out every other game. So ... he did. It was a weird philosophy I was on at the time ... if a character sheet said that, say, Lasers were Common, then they were. If they said Magnetic Fields were very common, they were ... generally by redefining the quantity of the substance in question. For example, 'not in water' at a -1/4 meant immersion or getting totally wet. -1/2 meant knee deep. -1 meant you shorted out if you got spit on, etc.