Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

[Supreme Serpent]

Edit: doh! Forgot an m in Transform!

 

On another thread, I made the following comment:

 

Off topic, but:

 

For some time, I've toyed with the notion of upping the base points I give characters, getting rid of Limitations entirely and turning them into Disadvantages instead, with values based on how much of your abilities are tied to the "limit" and how often it will come into play. Something like "The Human Torch - flames can be put out in variety of ways - Common, Greatly Limiting" or "Vision powers/flash def based on goggles - uncommon, minor". Not an ideal solution to be true, many "neat" high AP powers that only become cost-effective via limits, etc. but now and then seeing "straight-up man" 's sheet next to "OIF man" 's sheet...

Which prompted the following response:

 

I'm totally with you on this, and would completely grok on whatever guidelines you came up with. I think a lot of playtesting would be involved... but I think it is eminently do-able.

 

If you want to start hashing out some basic crunch of this here on the boards, I'd be happy to offer ideas and comments in such a thread.

Now, I don't have a framework in mind for exactly how this would work, and where the problems would be in practice. My basic ideas are revolving around:

 

1) Limitations and Disadvantages serve the same (or at least, very similar) meta-function - they allow characters more points while providing story hooks, plot points, and "off switches" - but do so through different mechanics - Limitations by making the abilities less expensive, Disadvantages by providing a larger pool of points to work with.

 

1a) Limitations are centered around the ability/power itself. Disadvantages are centered around the whole character and the world they exist in. This is not necessarily a problem, would just need a new category of Disad to represent.

 

2) Whatever guidelines result, point levels for the Disads would be the result of an understanding/discussion between the player and the GM. "Fire powers don't work without suitable atmosphere" would be a smaller disad for Thumb Ignition Lad than it would be for the Human Torch. "Fire powers don't work without suitable atmosphere" would be a larger disad than "Fire powers don't work if underwater at intense pressure on Tuesdays and he has the flu". Also, GMs would need to look out for players trying to get multiple disads in for various aspects of a character - "goggles", "gloves", "boots", "belt", "tieclip" all as disads worth more than one "gear" disad.

 

2a) Disadvantages would not trump special effect, they should be used as a way to help classify them. The disads should not be considered an all-inclusive definition of the special effect.

 

2b) Some nifty, cool, neato but seldomly used powers might become unreasonably expensive without the use of Limitations. It might be advisable to work with a hybrid system of sorts - use Disadvantages to reflect big, important parts of the character - Iron Man needs his armor for most of his abilities, Zatanna needs to say her spells backwards - while certain individual powers could be done seperately with the use of Limitations - such as the Human Torch's "Nova Flame". GMs should watch such exceptions carefully, limiting the # that are used with any given character, and might consider placing a minimum Limitation value - ie if you want such a "special" power, it must have (for example) at least -1 1/2 in Limitations.

 

3) Since the system and recommended point levels were balanced based on Limitations, Base Points and Allowable Pts from Disadvantages will likely need to be adjusted.

 

3a) It is possible that different point-level games might want to use different scales for values. Limitations scale easily with power level, Disadvantages do not on their own.

 

4) My basic thought was to start using something like the Physical Limitation chart as a framework - compare Limitation values to infrequently limiting, frequently, (almost) all the time and the amount of the character's abilities that are affected by it to slightly limiting, greatly, and (almost) totally. As a rough example, Iron Man without his armor is rare (infrequent), but contains a ton of powers, enhanced stats, defenses, etc. - without it in a superverse he is reduced to highly-skilled agent level (almost totally limiting - given the leagues he plays in).

 

 

With that sort of thing in mind, thoughts? Things you'd change? Any rough guidelines you'd propose for what level of Limitation would translate to what Frequency level? What % of a character's pts that are affected that might translate to what Severity level?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Dead tired... out seeing bands all night, but saw this post and wanted to respond.

 

I really like the idea of this approach because I think it is more honest. A lot of "power" gets hidden with limitation so that 350 point characters rarely even approximate because players skim points with limitations that are often difficult to enforce.

 

I also like that this is a wholistic approach to limitations... looking at the powers as a whole character... not parsing each power. This would likely tend to drive concept and story more than efficiency of build... which suits my style of play.

 

One simplistic way to think about it is to provide a structure like...

 

Level 1 - 25 Extra Points, Players powers have certain SFX limitation but player maintains majority control over use of powers and situations that could effect the powers.

 

Level 2 - 50 Extra Points, power set have SFX limitations that are recognizable and exploitable on a regular basis, but don't render the character powerless... just reduced effectiveness or reliability.

 

Level 3 - 75 Extra Points, power set has SFX limitations that are recognizable and exploitable, and can cause severe hardship for the character in fulfilling their missions.

 

Level 4 - 100 Extra Points, power set has SFX limitations that are extremely easy to take advantage of, and/or can completely disable the character when exploited.

 

In some ways... thinking along the lines of a Physical Limitation style disad... but one that speaks to the playability of the character's powers.

 

(More later when I have a brain again.)

[schir1964]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Disadvantage: Character Trait

Character Trait is a type of limitation or restriction that affects the character in major way.

 

Coverage

Minor: +5 Points (30% or less of Total Active Points are affected by Trait)

Major: +10 Points (60% or less of Total Active Points are affected by Trait)

Total: +20 Points (More than 60% of Total Active Points are affected by Trait)

 

Frequency

Rarely: +0

Occasionally: +5

Frequently: +10

 

Severity

Nuisance: +0

Annoying: +5

Crippling: +10

 

I liked your concept so I thought I would try to help out. Feel free to change anything you like. The following is the noparse of the above if you want to copy-paste-change it.

 

[noparse]

Disadvantage: Character Trait

Character Trait is a type of limitation or restriction that affects the character in major way.

 

Coverage

Minor: +5 Points (30% or less of Total Active Points are affected by Trait)

Major: +10 Points (60% or less of Total Active Points are affected by Trait)

Total: +20 Points (More than 60% of Total Active Points are affected by Trait)

 

Frequency

Rarely: +0

Occasionally: +5

Frequently: +10

 

Severity

Nuisance: +0

Annoying: +5

Crippling: +10

[/noparse]

[OddHat]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Well, quick thought:

 

A 350 point character using limits at all will, rough estimate, have about 80 "hidden" points (assumes something like a -1 limit on a few major powers or a -1/4 on almost everything).

 

So, set the new Disad Max at 250 points, up to 100 of which can come from Limitations.

 

Limitations themselves are now priced as either Phys Limits (if there are no rolls involved), Psych Limits (for requires a skill roll), or Hunteds (for activation rolls). To be nice, you might want to double these point values.

 

So, looking at Focus and OIHID:

 

Tony Stark has almost all of his powers OIHID. He almost never loses his armor (Infrequently), but if he does he's screwed (Fully). His armor is worth a (15x2)=30 point limitation.

 

Bruce Wayne has a ton of gadgets that sometimes (Frequently) get taken away from him. On the other hand, even without them, he's a major butt kicker(slightly impairing). So, (10x2)=20 point disad covering all his bat loot.

 

Something like this maybe?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Interesting ideas folks!

 

I like Oddhat's estimate (350pt char will have about 80pts of pts saved from limits). So, at that level, a character has about 1/5 (20%) extra from Limitations. My guess is that as power level goes up, the amount of power covered by Limitations goes up as well. A 400pt character won't have too much more "limit free" power than a 200pt character, unless he's built as skill-guy or no-limit man. So perhaps work with a rough percentage and make a sliding scale based on power level? 350=75pts, 400=90pts, 600=200pts or whatever.

 

Perhaps work out a split between increasing base points and allowable disads, so that "no-limit" characters won't feel obligated? Like for today's 350pt character, if we are going to bump up 75pts, say +25 base pts and +50 Disads to allow for "Limits"?

[OddHat]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Interesting ideas folks!

 

I like Oddhat's estimate (350pt char will have about 80pts of pts saved from limits). So, at that level, a character has about 1/5 (20%) extra from Limitations. My guess is that as power level goes up, the amount of power covered by Limitations goes up as well. A 400pt character won't have too much more "limit free" power than a 200pt character, unless he's built as skill-guy or no-limit man. So perhaps work with a rough percentage and make a sliding scale based on power level? 350=75pts, 400=90pts, 600=200pts or whatever.

 

Perhaps work out a split between increasing base points and allowable disads, so that "no-limit" characters won't feel obligated? Like for today's 350pt character, if we are going to bump up 75pts, say +25 base pts and +50 Disads to allow for "Limits"?

 

That's kind of how I'd do it.

 

Looking at the way I build characters (noting that sample=1), I think the percentage of points covered by limitations goes down as my characters get more points to play with. Using disads to replace limits would work the same way but more so. If you use the 20% model, 350 point characters could take up to 70 more points in limitations, 500 point characters up to 100 more points, and so on. However, unlike limitations as they now stand, the limitations as disads value would not increase as the active points of powers went up. I think you'd find very few 700 point characters who'd take their full 140 points of Limitations under the new system.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

As Oddhat noted (and WhammeWhamme concurred) in the original thread... this idea of Limitation as Disads... calling them Complications... was Fuzion concept.

 

If so... I'd say that Fuzion had one good idea, then. I never got past how they changed the powers and stats and damage... so never got to the Complications piece.

 

That being said... I still think this is a good idea to pursue. I actually like the fact that limitations/complications you take as a starting character would not continually give you benefit as the character progresses.

 

Example: 30 pts "I'm screwed if caught out of my armor" Lim-Comp is a flat 30 points at the beginning, done.

 

Currently: A -1/2 Limitation OIF on armor continues to save more and more points as more and more powers are put into the armor with experience. Not only do Lim characters get more to start with... they can advance faster in power with equal EXP being dished out compared to Full Cost guy.

 

Under the Lim-Comp style of Disad system... everybody pays full price all the time. A major shift in thinking and style of character building... but I'd really like this.

 

 

Things to consider...

1) GM allowing change/addition of Lim-Comp Disads as game progresses

2) Lim-Comp is an "adder" on top of a Physical Limitation... so while Iron Man would come out to a 30 Phys Lim... double this as a Lim-Comp because 60 extra points is closer to an appropriate benefit.

3) I don't have an answer to this one, but there would have to be guidelines on number of Lim-Comps and/or defining broad Lim-Comps vs. multiple narrow Lim-Comps. That is where I see conflicting interpretations coming up.

[schir1964]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

What I really liked about this concept is that those characters whose identity/powers/concept is centralized around a restriction can be built easily.

 

The character can grow and add more powers without having to manage all the limitations every time since the Disadvantage automatically affects the item in question as needed.

 

It also makes buying off the Disadvantage easier and no messing around with all the items affected.

 

Character concepts of this type using the current Hero method of limitations become more difficult to buy off thier restrictions the more they invest points into the character. So if the player intends to remove the restriction later for the character this would be valuable option for building as opposed to the current method.

 

On the flip side, this method is less granular for buy off restrictions for a single power/characteristic and adjustments to the disadvantage have to be calculated for each buy down to see if there is any effect on the disadvantage value.

 

Therefore, I see this method as an optional mechanic to enhance flexibility of the system so that certain character concepts can be cleanly and easily built.

 

Just Some Thoughts

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

I have liked the idea ever since fuazion and think it does some very good things.

 

the main one is it starts the player and Gm on the same page, describing and DISCUSSING the issues in terms of frequency and severity from the get go.

 

The second one is it diffuses some of the items down a bit, moving away from pre-defined into "what makes sense." By this i mean if we take a disad for "its power armor and sometimes gets broken, stolen, not available and so forth" the main issue is "how often" and "how severe" and "the flavor or SFX of the problems". After that, its up to the Gm and the player and imagination. If the focus magic medallion goes haywire because of someone else in town really botching a summon, and not becasue its def was exceeded by the body of an attack, thats just fine as long as it keeps to the agreed upon levels of severity and frequency.

 

One issue to consider is how to gauge the "all the time part of the power" limitations like say "no range" or "activation roll". These affect the mechanical uses of the power, and aren't as readiy imaginable by some in terms of frequency and severity.

 

one option is to still think of them as "frequency" issues and assign that as "how often the scenario shows it to e a problem"

 

Examples

 

- no range on your fireball wont be a problem if there are plenty of reachable opponents. The frequency tells us how often you will be finding yourself without targets in reach?

 

- double end on your attacks wont be a problem in short engagements. the frequency tells us how often you encounter long battles or suffer drains and the like so that you are indeed sucking wind *before* the fight is over.

 

Alternatively, you could drop the specificity of those lims altogether and allow "extra end" to mean "you get fatigued by end of fight and have to burn stun" or some other sort of "effect" rather than just accounting for end by segments.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

I have liked the idea ever since fuazion and think it does some very good things.

 

the main one is it starts the player and Gm on the same page, describing and DISCUSSING the issues in terms of frequency and severity from the get go.

 

The second one is it diffuses some of the items down a bit, moving away from pre-defined into "what makes sense." By this i mean if we take a disad for "its power armor and sometimes gets broken, stolen, not available and so forth" the main issue is "how often" and "how severe" and "the flavor or SFX of the problems". After that, its up to the Gm and the player and imagination. If the focus magic medallion goes haywire because of someone else in town really botching a summon, and not becasue its def was exceeded by the body of an attack, thats just fine as long as it keeps to the agreed upon levels of severity and frequency.

 

One issue to consider is how to gauge the "all the time part of the power" limitations like say "no range" or "activation roll". These affect the mechanical uses of the power, and aren't as readiy imaginable by some in terms of frequency and severity.

 

one option is to still think of them as "frequency" issues and assign that as "how often the scenario shows it to e a problem"

 

Examples

 

- no range on your fireball wont be a problem if there are plenty of reachable opponents. The frequency tells us how often you will be finding yourself without targets in reach?

 

- double end on your attacks wont be a problem in short engagements. the frequency tells us how often you encounter long battles or suffer drains and the like so that you are indeed sucking wind *before* the fight is over.

 

Alternatively, you could drop the specificity of those lims altogether and allow "extra end" to mean "you get fatigued by end of fight and have to burn stun" or some other sort of "effect" rather than just accounting for end by segments.

 

Yes, yes and yes... to all of the above. This is exactly what I mean about wholistic and flexible. This style of Lim-Comp as Disad works for me because the discussion is about the "end result in play" not about "how many points can I scratch out durning character construction."

 

Basically the player and GM are coming to a negotiated agreement that says...

 

"For 75 extra points during charcter construction, the following type of issues and events will challenge your character's power set during play."

 

I love this... and I think it would encourage players to be more concept creative rather than number crunching... and I think it makes the game more honest... because it puts expectations and extra points right out in the open, rather than hiding them in vague nuance and discounts.

 

The characteristics could be

 

Severity - How greatly the power is reduced/countered/broken.

 

Frequency - How often the power will be reduced/countered/broken.

 

Challenge - How difficult the situation will be to overcome when the limitation occurs.

 

 

I throw the last one in because I've found it a very important and often overlooked (or munchkined) aspect of the game.

 

Some players, when their power fails, assume defeat. "What? My TK won't work... well obviously the GM intends for us to get beat... so I'm not going to even try."

 

This mentality is the flip side of the "never let the limitation actually come into play" thought process... because both see the limitation as defeat, not as interesting plot point or role playing or challenge.

 

If GM and player discuss the "Challenge Level" right from the beginning then there is less antagonism and fear in play. Character has "Moderate Challenge" on their limitation... means that even if their power doesn't work, the GM still expects them to have a good chance to succeed, they just have to come up with something different. If they have High Challenge, then the GM is indicating that failure of the power could really mean defeat unless the players are very resourceful. "Nigh Impossible" level means... power shuts down, better hope for a miracle 'cause you are HOSED!"

 

Some players actually LIKE the latter part... as long as they understand that it is part of the game that they have agreed to have happen. I could see a player taking High Severity, High Frequency and Impossible Challenge in some games... if they enjoy playing the "Bad Luck Schlep-rock" type of character. I wouldn't advise it in most games... but neither would I advise characters taking -2 Independent on all their powers to get a huge price break, either.

[schir1964]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Disadvantage: Character Trait

Character Trait is a type of limitation or restriction that affects the whole character in major way.

 

Three areas define a Character Trait: Severity, Frequency, and Challenge

Severity: Measure of how much a character's effectiveness is reduced/countered/broken.

Frequency: Measure of how often a character's effectiveness is reduced/countered/broken.

Challenge: Measure of how difficult a situation will be to overcome for the character when effectiveness is reduced/countered/broken.

 

Severity

Nuisance: +5 Points

Annoying: +10 Points

Crippling: +20 Points

 

Frequency

Rarely: +5 Points

Occasionally: +10 Points

Frequently: +20 Points

 

Challenge

Moderate: +5 Points

Major: +10 Points

Impossible: +20 Points

 

Reworked Character Trait to be more in line with RDU Neils ideas.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

The characteristics could be

 

Severity - How greatly the power is reduced/countered/broken.

 

Frequency - How often the power will be reduced/countered/broken.

 

Challenge - How difficult the situation will be to overcome when the limitation occurs.

 

 

I throw the last one in because I've found it a very important and often overlooked (or munchkined) aspect of the game.

 

Some players, when their power fails, assume defeat. "What? My TK won't work... well obviously the GM intends for us to get beat... so I'm not going to even try."

 

This mentality is the flip side of the "never let the limitation actually come into play" thought process... because both see the limitation as defeat, not as interesting plot point or role playing or challenge.

 

If GM and player discuss the "Challenge Level" right from the beginning then there is less antagonism and fear in play. Character has "Moderate Challenge" on their limitation... means that even if their power doesn't work, the GM still expects them to have a good chance to succeed, they just have to come up with something different. If they have High Challenge, then the GM is indicating that failure of the power could really mean defeat unless the players are very resourceful. "Nigh Impossible" level means... power shuts down, better hope for a miracle 'cause you are HOSED!"

 

Hmm. I wouldn't think making three categories as being necessary.

 

I think having a "Severity" that reflects both effect on the powers and how much power is affected would be enough. Someone who has a lot of powers reduced to half power could be rated at the same level as someone with fewer powers that turn off altogether, for example - I think that "Severity" would already include "Challenge" as you present it.

 

Maybe include "Challenge" as - "How hard is it to overcome when it does come into play?" - the disadvantage itself, not the scenario. The Human Torch can often overcome being wet by spending a few phases towelling off or steaming the water off, but if Iron Man loses his armor, he's usually got to go home to get another set or in some cases rebuild one, so IM gets a higher value.

[tesuji]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

There are of course as many different ways to codify risk, which is what we are getting at with freqxseverity, as you have people.

 

My particular flavors might be...

 

Express severity in already existing terms, stealing from hunted and DNPC

 

Severity: when flaws manifest, character becomes:

Slightly weaker than comparable supers +5

Competent normal/normal with useful skills +10

Normal +15

Incompetent+20

 

that can pretty much subsume any sort of "all powers reduced a little" or "a few powers reduced a lot" into the various categories.

 

thats the severity, basically boiled down to how potent you are when the flaw(s) bites you.

 

Frequency: about the only change i would make is to mention a relative number for frequency expressed as "how many sessions in 10 should the flaws play a significant role?"

 

Infrequent +5 1-2 sessions in 10

Frequently+10 3-5 sessions in 10

Commonly+15 6-8 sessions in 10

Always+20 9-10 sessions in 10

 

Now, obviously , some of the more extreme values won't be applicable/approvable often.

 

I also confess to being fond of making frequency a multiplier, not an adder like maybe x1 x2 x3 x4 for the different frequencies.

[schir1964]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

...I also confess to being fond of making frequency a multiplier' date=' not an adder like maybe x1 x2 x3 x4 for the different frequencies.[/quote']

I thought about doing this with the framework, but I wasn't sure how well it would be received.

 

If this gets hashed out to were most agree with the result, I'll post a nice neat framework for it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[RDU Neil]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Disadvantage: Character Trait

Character Trait is a type of limitation or restriction that affects the whole character in major way.

 

Three areas define a Character Trait: Severity, Frequency, and Challenge

Severity: Measure of how much a character's effectiveness is reduced/countered/broken.

Frequency: Measure of how often a character's effectiveness is reduced/countered/broken.

Challenge: Measure of how difficult a situation will be to overcome for the character when effectiveness is reduced/countered/broken.

 

Severity

Nuisance: +5 Points

Annoying: +10 Points

Crippling: +20 Points

 

Frequency

Rarely: +5 Points

Occasionally: +10 Points

Frequently: +20 Points

 

Challenge

Moderate: +5 Points

Major: +10 Points

Impossiblel: +20 Points

 

Reworked Character Trait to be more in line with RDU Neils ideas.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Interesting... and very close to what I was thinking.

 

Even more so... with such defined ranks... the GM can assign whatever values she thinks are appropriate for the game, as well. If a Frequently, Crippling, Impossible is worth 100 point instead of 60... good to go.

 

Nice.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Hmm. I wouldn't think making three categories as being necessary.

 

I think having a "Severity" that reflects both effect on the powers and how much power is affected would be enough. Someone who has a lot of powers reduced to half power could be rated at the same level as someone with fewer powers that turn off altogether, for example - I think that "Severity" would already include "Challenge" as you present it.

 

Maybe include "Challenge" as - "How hard is it to overcome when it does come into play?" - the disadvantage itself, not the scenario. The Human Torch can often overcome being wet by spending a few phases towelling off or steaming the water off, but if Iron Man loses his armor, he's usually got to go home to get another set or in some cases rebuild one, so IM gets a higher value.

 

 

I agree Challenge is very close to Severity in scope... I was tossing out ideas to approach an issue I've seen come up in the past... basically where the GM is just trying to challenge the player to move out of their comfort zone... but the player sees it as being totally hosed and perceives no encouragement to think outside the box.

 

Granted... Challenge as I put it seems to limit greatly how the Lim-Comp could come into play... and I didn't mean to put it that way.

 

I like your "Challenge refers to overcoming the loss... getting the power back... more than overcoming the scenario." That is a cool way of doing it. I just want players to be encouraged to think "story without my power" rather than "I have to get my power back to win" kind of thing.

 

The adventures of Tony Start or Steve Rogers sans armor/shield can be just as interesting as fully powered guys.

 

I also want the Lim-Comp Disad idea to reflect... "Hey... if you don't want your powers shutting down a lot... don't take a Limitation/Complication." As an example, in certain styles of games, I'd have no problem with a gun weilding character to not have a focus limitation as long as the over the top storyline made for wacky situation where no matter what... he always seemed to get a gun... unless the player found it fun to role play scenes where he couldn't find one. Granted, this feel wouldn't fit a grittier, more realistic game... but I can think of all kinds of Anime style games where this schtick could be cool. A gun character whose power is as reliable as an inborn energy blasters... fine... just don't take a limitation/complication and we are good to go!

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Arise, thread, arise!!!!

 

Another recent thread about limitations made me want to revisit this. Don't have a lot to add at the moment, but welcome any thoughts about it that may have percolated over the last few months.

 

One thought I did have, was seperating "SFX" type limitations (Focus, OIHID, doesn't work in X) in one category as Disadvantages as we're discussing here, and leaving the purely game-mechanic limitations (activation roll, increased END) as Limitations. With them there is instant effect when the power is used/attempted, no meta-thought or GM intervention/interpretation necessary.

 

So, for example Human Torch would have "Fire Powers need combustible atmosphere" as a Disadvantage, but could still apply "1 Charge, costs end, 3xEND" to his Nova Flame power.

[Robyn]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

2) Whatever guidelines result, point levels for the Disads would be the result of an understanding/discussion between the player and the GM. "Fire powers don't work without suitable atmosphere" would be a smaller disad for Thumb Ignition Lad than it would be for the Human Torch. "Fire powers don't work without suitable atmosphere" would be a larger disad than "Fire powers don't work if underwater at intense pressure on Tuesdays and he has the flu". Also, GMs would need to look out for players trying to get multiple disads in for various aspects of a character - "goggles", "gloves", "boots", "belt", "tieclip" all as disads worth more than one "gear" disad.

 

2a) Disadvantages would not trump special effect, they should be used as a way to help classify them. The disads should not be considered an all-inclusive definition of the special effect.

 

I like the way this looks - it could vastly simplify all those "unforeseen cases" that (otherwise) we'd try to account for in advance, by specifically referring all such questions to "common sense of the moment".

[zornwil]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

How would you do Activations, Charges, those sorts of mechanical things in this schema? I like the idea a lot and we're kicking around ways to justify uber-powers in a galactic game, things that PCs can do that are spectacular but rarely seen. One idea was to tie those to Disads that are invoked when those occur, along these lines. But I also like this idea as a general one.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

How would you do Activations' date=' Charges, those sorts of mechanical things in this schema? I like the idea a lot and we're kicking around ways to justify uber-powers in a galactic game, things that PCs can do that are spectacular but rarely seen. One idea was to tie those to Disads that are invoked when those occur, along these lines. But I also like this idea as a general one.[/quote']

 

I've recently been thinking that:

 

One thought I did have, was seperating "SFX" type limitations (Focus, OIHID, doesn't work in X) in one category as Disadvantages as we're discussing here, and leaving the purely game-mechanic limitations (activation roll, increased END) as Limitations. With them there is instant effect when the power is used/attempted, no meta-thought or GM intervention/interpretation necessary.

 

So, for example Human Torch would have "Fire Powers need combustible atmosphere" as a Disadvantage, but could still apply "1 Charge, costs end, 3xEND" to his Nova Flame power.

[zornwil]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

I've recently been thinking that:

One problem/issue I have with Charges and even Activation and other such things is that their values are not suggestive of actual effect, especially in consideration of a group's play style. If your combats last 1 Turn, 4 Charges has an entirely different meaning than when your combats last 4 Turns.

 

I see potential in the Disad/holistic approach to overcome this - such as "Major power might run out mid-battle" (with severities/frequencies as above) or "All powers of (x type) might run out towards the end of the battle."

 

Hence my question. But I didn't beg that explicitly, sorry.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

One problem/issue I have with Charges and even Activation and other such things is that their values are not suggestive of actual effect, especially in consideration of a group's play style. If your combats last 1 Turn, 4 Charges has an entirely different meaning than when your combats last 4 Turns.

 

I see potential in the Disad/holistic approach to overcome this - such as "Major power might run out mid-battle" (with severities/frequencies as above) or "All powers of (x type) might run out towards the end of the battle."

 

Hence my question. But I didn't beg that explicitly, sorry.

 

And if you roll well, Activation isn't much of a limitation either.

 

I could see doing things like Charges as a Disadvantage, though I personally wouldn't want to do it that way. Something countable like that, as a player I wouldn't want that to be just GM fiat as a Disad.

 

Player: "MegaGun recharges his Particle Cannon before heading out."

GM: "OK."

later...

Player: "MegaGun shoots his Particle Cannon at TargetMan."

GM: "OK."

next phase...

Player: "MegaGun shoots his Particle Cannon at TargetMan again."

GM: "Doesn't work, out of charges!"

Player: "After *TWO* shots? I took the 'rarely' level! He just recharged, he normally gets at least ten shots off on a full charge!"

GM: "Yeah, but he didn't run out at all the last fight, so he runs out now."

 

 

Again, I think I'd rather keep the mechanical type Limits as Limits. Grenade Man can physically count how many grenades he has on him - some outside arbitrary "they're gone now" would be frustrating to many I would think, much more so than "It's too hot in the steel foundry for your ice powers to work." However, with some Charges depending on how defined, it would be easy for the GM to have some issues come up - Grenade Man losing a grenade after being knocked back, etc.

 

In a larger sense, if you as the GM think that X level of charges isn't limiting enough for its value in your campaign, two easy solutions - change the value of the Limitation, or introduce situations that have the player running out.

[Robyn]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Grenade Man can physically count how many grenades he has on him - some outside arbitrary "they're gone now" would be frustrating to many I would think' date=' much more so than "It's too hot in the steel foundry for your ice powers to work."[/quote']

 

I dislike that phrasing for several reasons. It's more of a "telling the player why their character's powers won't work" than "showing the character what happens when they try to use their powers".

 

"You reach through the air to gather together nearby water vapor, and notice right away that the air here is very dry. As the small amount coalesces, you can feel another force acting on the water, pressuring it to return to its gaseous state rather than become a solid."

 

What the PC makes of this is up to them. Is there a villain nearby, Dispelling or Suppressing their powers? Is a fire elemental (or a family of salamanders) living in the steel foundry? Is it just too hot? There is room for coming up with an original idea, independently, and taking appropriate actions (such as asking the team cleric to cast Banishment on the room by sanctifying the place).

 

Whether that idea works may depend on what the GM was thinking, or perhaps the GM will reward them for the effort and clever ideas (locate the spiritual "center" of the building so they can sanctify it, so the ice powers can be used to cool what is in their way and safely get past it).

 

Narration can also maintain focus on the character's perspective, which is important.

[schir1964]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

Arise!

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Transfor: Limitation into Disadvantage

 

my thoughts on this are quite simple...

 

two factors need to be determined for every disadvantage...

 

how often does it occur, expressed simply as "how many session in ten will it play a significant role and impeed the character?" this generates a value of 1-10

 

How reduced is the character when this occurws, expressed in 10% incrementsw. "cut to half strength would be 5, for 5 10% losses for 505 loss. this also generates a value between 1-10.

 

multiply those two numbers to get the value of the disad.

 

once the player and gmm agree on the value, they can then discuss the sfx or flavor of the disad. bt the speccofocs are very widely varied within the sfx. skip all the arguments over whether wings are foci or restrainaqble... just decide the issue comes up 2 times in 10 and is moderaqtely troublesome for a 30% and go for it.

 

the total points from thesd disads is obviously 100, because once the character is out 10 sessions in 10 and completely out during them, he ccannot get much worse.