Game Play Concept: No Limitations

[incrdbil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

To have a good superh hero RPG thats fair to all players and equally enjoyable, one must diverge from the source material. Strict transaltions of comics make for lousy games.

 

To acknowledge rality, if you give no value for limitations, few players will ever take them. Doing so punishes those who stick to the spirit of the game and take them, and rewards the opposite style of play.

 

There is virtually nothing to be gained by not giving any value to limitations alone--if you go that way, dont use points. Just let peope make characetsr with whatever advantage or limitation they want, any way thry want, any amount of points they want, then let the GM sort out the horrible mish mash of characters trying to make a cohesive group he can through challenges at that wont kill 1/2 of the group while boring the other half.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

To acknowledge rality, if you give no value for limitations, few players will ever take them. Doing so punishes those who stick to the spirit of the game and take them, and rewards the opposite style of play.

How does it punish those guys?

 

I get how it rewards the others... they get what they want.

 

But how am i punished by being allowed to play the "limited character I want to run"?

 

If the Gm runs his game "well" then i am going to play a character with as much screen time, as much story relevence and as much impact as any other even if i prefer to play "flawed guy" and you prefer to play "captain cosmic perfection", right? So how am i punished if the challenges i face are the ones appropriate to the flaws I selected (by the flaws i chose) while yours are more external, more "the enemy" less "my problems"?

 

or do you really feel a player running a character with limitations should have his character get less sceen time, less story relevence etc on account of it?

 

the type of problem is like the sfx of your 12d6 Eb. its just sfx and flavor. My focus guys problem of the week is not having his armor while captain cosmic's is an invading alien with neutrino breath... we both get bad stuff happening.

 

There is virtually nothing to be gained by not giving any value to limitations alone--if you go that way, dont use points. Just let peope make characetsr with whatever advantage or limitation they want, any way thry want, any amount of points they want, then let the GM sort out the horrible mish mash of characters trying to make a cohesive group he can through challenges at that wont kill 1/2 of the group while boring the other half.

 

Actually, the issue i would take with the above paragraph is the false dichotomy.

 

Disregarding points does not equal having no standards for balance and fairness. Disregarding points for limitations does not equal dropping any and all metics. It does not necessarily lead to anything like a "horrible mish mash" of characters with balance problems.

 

Note that MOSt games of HERo in my experience do not just hand you a total point tally and say "go for it". The Gm hands out campaign standards expressed in some fashion (some use active points, some rule of x, some damage classes and cv ranges etc...) and its those "not total points" metrics that provide for the ever so precious balance much more than the total points do.

 

A Gm in a typical game probably recognizes that if his normal attack maximum is around 15d6 Eb, then he wont allow a 30d6 EB with 3xend cost even though he applied the limitation cost and they equal each other in RP. That they equal each other in RP is frankly irrelevent to "how balancing is this".

 

So the immediate jump from "not giving points off for lims" to "horrible mish mash" and "balance problems" seems vastly overstated.

 

I would argue that getting rid of all the other balancing metrics mentioned above and keeping "points off for lims" would be worse and more likely to produce horrible mish mash and balancing headaches than keeeping the other metrics and dropping the points of for lims would.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

If a player takes a character trait he wants to have for his character' date=' why should being allowed to do so be "rewarded" at all? In fact and in practice, every PC is going, over the course of a well run game, to be equally handed his share of good and bad, his share of the spotlight, and so forth... [/quote']

Again, you seem to be looking at limitations as solely an all-or-nothing proposition, ie - I'm either 100% or I'm useless. But most limitations reduce your effectiveness to some degree. If you have an OAF, you can be disarmed; if you have an Activation Roll, your powers won't work every time; if you have to Concentrate, you'll get hit more often; and so forth. So if a player has taken Lims that make him, say, 20%* less effective in combat compared to No Limits Man, he's likely going to be frustrated much of the time in combat. The system compensates for that by giving the player more points to play with to even out the difference. (In fact, "compensated" is probably a better term that "rewarded.")

 

Now I'm certainly not saying combat is the be all, end all of roleplaying. Limited Guy may very well still get as much "screen time" as No Limits Man. But combat is part of most of the genres we play, particularly superheroes. And having played the "underpowered sidekick" before, I find it gets real old real fast IMX.

 

* And no, I'm not saying it's possible to measure this out precisely. I'm just using a number for illustration purposes.

 

Ok so' date=' if we take it as true that you enjoy playing characters with limitations more than not, and we both know that I, as your GM, am not going to run a game where your character is "less involved", "less capable", "less relevent" then why should lyour taking limitations be "rewarded" in terms of " you get more points"?[/quote']

Well, what I said was that I prefer playing characters that are three-dimensional. To me, that doesn't mean they have to have Limitations as such, but it does typically mean they need to have some weaknesses of some kind. Typically, Hero represents such things most often with Limitations and Disads.

 

But to your question: if you as a GM are never ever going to take away my OAF: Magic Doohickey, then why would you let me take it as a Limitation in the first place? I can agree with you that if you're never going to enforce a Lim I shouldn't get extra points for it, but then it's not a Limitation -- it's just sfx: "I have a Magic Doohickey." Maybe it's a semantic distinction, but to me implicit in the name "Limitation" is the idea that it limits you somehow. If it doesn't limit you, I'd rather we called it something else. YMMV.

 

I'm curious if you feel the same way about Advantages, and if not why you feel they're different?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

I found that this experiment worked well in some ways and not so well in others. Some powers like HA or Regeneration rely on inbuilt limitations' date=' and figuring out how to construct and balance them without limitations was a pain.[/quote']

Personally, I would have treated HA and Regeneration as normal powers as opposed to Powers with Limitations (actually 4th Edition treated them this way). So built-in limitations aren't actually limitations, they are instead just part of the definition of the base power. Just like Leaping has the built-in limitation of Requires Solid Footing for the power to work (they can't leap while floating in the ocean nor while falling through the air).

 

But that is just my perspective.

 

If I were to do it again' date=' I would do it differently. I would not say limitations are worth -0; rather, I would still tell PCs up front not to take limitations on powers unless they were crucial for the character concept, but let them build their characters normally, and deal with possible character imbalances by giving more points to those who need them to remain competitive and/or by asking for overly limitation-heavy characters to be reworked.[/quote']

I thought this might be the more practical way of running such a game. Thanks for the information.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Well' date=' what I said was that I prefer playing characters that are three-dimensional. To me, that doesn't mean they have to have Limitations as such, but it does typically mean they need to have some weaknesses of some kind. Typically, Hero represents such things most often with Limitations and Disads.[/quote']

Sounds like you would get bored/frustrated playing a Superman type character, since most of his powers don't have Limitations on them. His only two Disadvantages would be Susceptibility/Vulnerability vs Kryptonite and Magic.

 

And I'm not implying that feeling this way is right or wrong, just an observation of your preference.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

How does it punish those guys?

 

I get how it rewards the others... they get what they want.

 

But how am i punished by being allowed to play the "limited character I want to run"?

 

If the Gm runs his game "well" then i am going to play a character with as much screen time, as much story relevence and as much impact as any other even if i prefer to play "flawed guy" and you prefer to play "captain cosmic perfection", right? So how am i punished if the challenges i face are the ones appropriate to the flaws I selected (by the flaws i chose) while yours are more external, more "the enemy" less "my problems"?

 

or do you really feel a player running a character with limitations should have his character get less sceen time, less story relevence etc on account of it?

 

the type of problem is like the sfx of your 12d6 Eb. its just sfx and flavor. My focus guys problem of the week is not having his armor while captain cosmic's is an invading alien with neutrino breath... we both get bad stuff happening.

 

 

 

Actually, the issue i would take with the above paragraph is the false dichotomy.

 

Disregarding points does not equal having no standards for balance and fairness. Disregarding points for limitations does not equal dropping any and all metics. It does not necessarily lead to anything like a "horrible mish mash" of characters with balance problems.

 

Note that MOSt games of HERo in my experience do not just hand you a total point tally and say "go for it". The Gm hands out campaign standards expressed in some fashion (some use active points, some rule of x, some damage classes and cv ranges etc...) and its those "not total points" metrics that provide for the ever so precious balance much more than the total points do.

 

A Gm in a typical game probably recognizes that if his normal attack maximum is around 15d6 Eb, then he wont allow a 30d6 EB with 3xend cost even though he applied the limitation cost and they equal each other in RP. That they equal each other in RP is frankly irrelevent to "how balancing is this".

 

So the immediate jump from "not giving points off for lims" to "horrible mish mash" and "balance problems" seems vastly overstated.

 

I would argue that getting rid of all the other balancing metrics mentioned above and keeping "points off for lims" would be worse and more likely to produce horrible mish mash and balancing headaches than keeeping the other metrics and dropping the points of for lims would.

One thing to bear in mind, some characters are deliberately more problematic in combat, and limitations ideally represent that. The character in battle who has no limitations has ceded no control over his powers to the GM/environment, so his problems will be his versus the enemy, as opposed to his versus himself. The storyline that lims create is a different one, ideally, and the notion of reducing the value reflects that the character will either bolster non-combat abilities to compensate for his combat weakness or alter his combat approach so that he can do some things better than others (perhaps total attack power) while other things are worse. As you say, it's not an issue of screen time or such, but it should be an issue of combat effectiveness, at least for some desired play experiences. In theory, a heavily limited character will actually have more problems in combat and actually be less capable, or perhaps less generally capable in some situations while in certain situations his combat shines when the points "gained" from the limitations come back into play. Fundamentally, the more-limited character has problematic powers as part of his storyline, having ceded control to the GM, while the less/non-limited character has few/no problematic powers and his control is not ceded - but in return, he has fewer options for keeping more control over his character.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Sounds like you would get bored/frustrated playing a Superman type character, since most of his powers don't have Limitations on them. His only two Disadvantages would be Susceptibility/Vulnerability vs Kryptonite and Magic.

 

And I'm not implying that feeling this way is right or wrong, just an observation of your preference.

Yep, you called it. And as you say: a style preferance, not a value judgement. While I have played such characters for the occassional one-off, I find they get very boring very quickly. Even more boring (to me) would be playing in a campaign full of superman types, where everyone's Energy Blast acts just like everyone else's Energy Blast. Limitations (like Disads) add color and flavor to a character.

 

And here's where the frustration part comes in (for me). Because I find "flawless" characters boring, I'm much more likely to impose restrictions on myself to make the character more interesting (again, to me). So now my heat vision doesn't affect the color yellow, my super-speed is reduced at night, my webshooters only have 8 charges... you get the idea. But if I don't get any "compensation" for those limitations, I'm going to be a significantly less powerful character than the guy in the next chair, even tho we're supposedly built on the same number of points.

 

This happens to me a lot in d20: I create characters that are interesting to me, but they wind up being effectively a couple levels weaker than "normal" because that system doesn't compensate you for limiting your character.

 

Again, not saying my way is the only way, or in any way "better." Just trying to explain why I feel the way I do.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

If a player takes a character trait he wants to have for his character' date=' why should being allowed to do so be "rewarded" at all? In fact and in practice, every PC is going, over the course of a well run game, to be equally handed his share of good and bad, his share of the spotlight, and so forth... so in terms of "how effective am I" the simple truth is, barring PLAYER differences, Your guy with lims is going to be as good as my guy without lims with or without those lims being a part of the accounting and power side of the math.[/quote']

 

By the same logic, why should they pay for advantages (whether Advantage mechanics, or powers or skills, or characteristics, or whatever, that will give them an advantage)? You're going to make sure each character gets his share of the good and the bad, his share of the spotlight and so forth.

 

Just let the players write up their characters in narrative form - no need to stat anything out - and give them each their share of the spotlight based on these narrative descriptions.

 

Sure, we don't need Limitations, but we really don't really NEED any mechanics. We can just sit down and jointly tell a story without any mechanics, character sheets or dice. But we often WANT those mechanics to add structure to our imaginary friends who undertake these great adventures.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Hugh pretty much summed my thoughts exactly.

 

If you remove one mechanic, might as well remove them all if you're not going to consider the points worth anything.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

And here's where the frustration part comes in (for me). Because I find "flawless" characters boring' date=' I'm much more likely to impose restrictions on myself to make the character more interesting (again, to me). So now my heat vision doesn't affect the color yellow, my super-speed is reduced at night, my webshooters only have 8 charges... you get the idea. But if I don't get any "compensation" for those limitations, I'm going to be a significantly less powerful character than the guy in the next chair, even tho we're supposedly built on the same number of points.[/quote']

I think you've highlighted two key ideas which is what I was really pondering about and why I created this thread.

 

1) Since you would prefer playing "highly flavored" characters, you should be rewarded due to the roleplaying of these traits, not the fact that you list them on the character sheet. This would equate to getting extra experience points for good roleplaying.

2) "No compensation" does not equal "Significantly less powerful" when comparing characters. Even now with two characters that have spent the same number of points with no limitations on either may end up with one being "Significantly less powerful" than the other. The true compensating factor is the GM and if the GM is doing this compensating anyway, then regardless of the differences the gameplay should be equally "fun" for everyone involved.

 

This then begs the question, "Should every character be considered truely equal for game play, especially if the character concepts that want to be played are in truth not equal in power?"

 

If one character is 250 Points (No limitations, No Disads), and another character is 150 Points (No Limitations, No Disads), should the second be less powerful than the first, and should this affect actual game play accordingly?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Robyn]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

If one character is 250 Points (No limitations' date=' No Disads), and another character is 150 Points (No Limitations, No Disads), should the second be less powerful than the first,[/quote']

 

I think the players should be allowed to tailor their characters for strength or flexibility. If the 150-point character spends all his points on two 75-point powers, and the 250-point character diversifies into ten 25-point powers, which is less powerful?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

I think the players should be allowed to tailor their characters for strength or flexibility. If the 150-point character spends all his points on two 75-point powers' date=' and the 250-point character diversifies into ten 25-point powers, which is less powerful?[/quote']

Exactly! Do the numbers actually represent the utility or effectiveness of the character?

If not, then it is left to the GM to decide which is more powerful, correct?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

Again, you seem to be looking at limitations as solely an all-or-nothing proposition, ie - I'm either 100% or I'm useless. But most limitations reduce your effectiveness to some degree.

So, if the example i had put forth was a triple end cost guy getting tired beforre fights end and the various challenges he faced being his "flavor of problem", would i now be accused of "seeing all limitations solely as a partial effectiveness loss when some are all or nothing"? :-)

 

If you have an OAF, you can be disarmed; if you have an Activation Roll, your powers won't work every time; if you have to Concentrate, you'll get hit more often; and so forth.

Yes... the lim you take will influence the flavor of troubles you encounter. Thats what they do.

So if a player has taken Lims that make him, say, 20%* less effective in combat compared to No Limits Man, he's likely going to be frustrated much of the time in combat.

Why?

 

Why is there the assumption that getting "exactly what I wanted" is a road to frustration?

 

If he wanted a guy more capable in combat, he would have built said character, since obviously, the other more capable guy is an option by your example.

 

If your set of four PCs build supers who are very skill and versatility focused and not maxing the combat numbers, then do you expect their Gms to provide heavy combat monster level challenges at them regardless of and ignoring what they built and what their characters are clearly geared for?

 

No?

 

You expect the GM to have a clue, right, and give them appropriate threats suited to their power level and their traits and their focus and interests?

 

right?

 

unless of course the "lack of combat uber-osity" comes from limitations in which case you expect the Gm to frustrate them?

 

Why?

Now I'm certainly not saying combat is the be all, end all of roleplaying. Limited Guy may very well still get as much "screen time" as No Limits Man. But combat is part of most of the genres we play, particularly superheroes. And having played the "underpowered sidekick" before, I find it gets real old real fast IMX.

If playing the character you chose gets "old real quick" then to me that doesn't say beans about the system, but says a lot about either your own wiseness of choices or the quality of your GM, or both. A Gm should not allow a character he believes he will run a boring campaign for, whether that means under-combated for a smashem game or combat ubermonster for a non-combat intrigue game or any other mismatch. "the player is not having fun" isn't a sign of system error, IMO.

 

But to your question: if you as a GM are never ever going to take away my OAF: Magic Doohickey, then why would you let me take it as a Limitation in the first place?

if you chose to have the flavor of your "challenges" be " sometimes I lose my staff" then thats what i would give you.

 

Now, turn it around, if i choose "magic spells" as my powers, without any lims, are you telling me I will never have an encounter where I lose my powers, no anti-magic shields, no suppressions, etc?

 

IMX, both mr staff of power guy and mr magic man can have, and likely will have, to deal with "loss of my powers" situations, or at least, cannot easily use my powers situations, cuz they are classic elements of the genre.

 

I can agree with you that if you're never going to enforce a Lim I shouldn't get extra points for it, but then it's not a Limitation -- it's just sfx: "I have a Magic Doohickey." Maybe it's a semantic distinction, but to me implicit in the name "Limitation" is the idea that it limits you somehow. If it doesn't limit you, I'd rather we called it something else. YMMV.

the point is not that the issue never comes up, that the crude and overt "doesn't limit you". The behind the scenes truth of the matter is, the Gm balances his encounters to the heroes and he wont be throwing the same killer combat monster enemies at the gang of mostly investigators as he would the gang of combat smashers. Your "combat limitations" are taken into account when the Gm chooses the threats and treat levels for his game.

 

CRUDE EXAMPLE: all membersof a super team are protected by defenses that don't work well against magic. The Gm wants to throw them a challenging combat scenario. if he chooses mutants, the force he throws will almost certainly be more potent (in general sense) than it would be if he decided to use a group of mages for that day, because (being brighter than a door post) the Gm knows a group of mages of equal strength to the challenging mutants will mop the floor with the PCs.

 

The "limit" of a limitation is, especially in combat terms, a limit on the capability of the combat challenges. If your combat capabilities are heavily limited, your enemies will be of sufficient threat level and the circumstances will be such that its challenging... and you know, if you weren't combat limited, the same would be true.

 

I'm curious if you feel the same way about Advantages, and if not why you feel they're different?

 

haven't given it much thought, as advantages don't have the drawback of "provide extra points which must be punished for later" loan shark syndrome. They seem to require less care and feeding, and are often just ways to buy different flavor of same effectiveness... an 8d6 AP EB costing the same as a 12d6 EB and more easily shown as effective while the difference between 12d6 Eb and 12d6 EB (2xend) and +10 PD and +10 ED is IMX a little more of a headache. I guess the primary difference is you never really get more out of your advantages than what you pay for, while with limitations, you often do, and thats a significant difference..

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

One thing to bear in mind' date=' some characters are deliberately more problematic in combat, and limitations ideally represent that. [/quote']

 

etc...

 

and the Gm will take the combat effectiveness, overall and in detail, into account when he chooses appropriate challenges and adversaries?

 

or do I have this terribly wrong?

 

Lets ask...

 

You have one group of heavy combat oriented heroes (near your campaign max bang) who have few lims and most all their points into combat stuff... you select a group to go against them in combat for the evening. Done.

 

You have a group of more investigative and skill based guys with lesser combat effectiveness (near to you campaign's minimum bang) and you have an enemy set for them for that evening for a combat fight.

 

You have a third set of rookie heroes who again have gotten near the low end of your campaign bang level minimum but didso by taking limitations on their powers. they may have 15d6 Ebs with activation rolls instead of 10d6ers, or with other lims such as increased end and such. You have to choose bad guys for a combat scenario.

 

Would your bad guys be more or less equal to the first group or the second?

 

My guess is they would be more similar to the second group with a few sfx or circumstances keyed to bring the limitations into play more often than they would be the first group simply there to squash the heroes with their obvious superiority.

 

am i wrong?

 

You focus on combat effectiveness and thus the need for payback points... but in fact does combat effectiveness loss do anything more than flavor the scenarios and lower the adversa4y level choice?

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

This happens to me a lot in d20: I create characters that are interesting to me, but they wind up being effectively a couple levels weaker than "normal" because that system doesn't compensate you for limiting your character.

 

if the Gm is failing to provide challenges and storylines and circumstances and situations to give each character relatively even aportions of screen time and story relevence (or "effectiveness" in a broad sense) then that isn't a system problem to my way of looking at things.

 

I have run plenty of DND 3.0 with mixes of both combat monster build-to-the-max veterans with rank newbies who just do whats fun with widely different "degrewess of power building" and yet I did not have anyone who felt cheated or unhappy by their choices.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

By the same logic, why should they pay for advantages (whether Advantage mechanics, or powers or skills, or characteristics, or whatever, that will give them an advantage)? You're going to make sure each character gets his share of the good and the bad, his share of the spotlight and so forth.

Noting that you broadened this into basically any positive trait...to provide a common shorthand for "what are my strengths weaknesses and focuses" and give everyone a frame of reference for expectations. Thats what mechanics do for us. the purpose of chargenm is to provide differentiation and choice. usually the purpose of points is to get most people near the same maximum level of capability.

 

Just let the players write up their characters in narrative form - no need to stat anything out - and give them each their share of the spotlight based on these narrative descriptions.

 

Sure, we don't need Limitations, but we really don't really NEED any mechanics. We can just sit down and jointly tell a story without any mechanics, character sheets or dice. But we often WANT those mechanics to add structure to our imaginary friends who undertake these great adventures.

 

to me the "why not just get rid of it all then" radical swing is rather dull and simplistic, something akin to pouting. Surely you can understand there are huge expanses of workable models for chargen and play between "total narrativism" and "full scale on board point everything HERO proper"?

 

can't you?

 

if you can, why yank out the "just dump it all and make believe" club so often?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Noting that you broadened this into basically any positive trait...to provide a common shorthand for "what are my strengths weaknesses and focuses" and give everyone a frame of reference for expectations. Thats what mechanics do for us. the purpose of chargenm is to provide differentiation and choice. usually the purpose of points is to get most people near the same maximum level of capability.

 

First off, I like your terminology, and you are correct that I broaden "advantage" into any positive trait. Similarly, if we want to divest of Limitations as a machanic, why not eliminate points for all drawbacks, including disadvantages and any other negative traits, as well? Surely if players will appropriately limit their powers despite any mechanical reward, they will also voluntarily accept those disadvantages that are logical to their character concepts. It seems odd that Manphibian would receive no point benefit for his many abilities that Only work in Water, but would still get points for his Dependence on Immersion in Seawater.

 

Your comment about the same maximum level of capability is interesting. Are you saying that we need to set a maximum level of capability, but that there is no similar need for a minimum level of capability? While I agree with your comments elsewhere that the GM should be trying to provide a balanced game where all characters have a chance to shine, I also think the broader the range of character capability, the more difficult this is to successfully achieve.

 

From the d20 area, try planning eight encounters for a party of four characters, one at 1st level, one at 7th, one at 14th and the last at 20th level. Each should shine in a couple of encounters, and:

 

(a) survive

( contribute in, and

© not eliminate the challenge

 

of the other six. Perhaps it's fair to say they only need to contribute in four of the other six - sometimes your abilities aren't relevant to the task at hand, even if power levels are equal.

 

If you set a maximum level of, say, 12 DC's of damage which can be consistently applied throughout a combat encounter, and reliable defenses of, say, 25, and one character comes in with effectively 8 DC's and 15 defenses, is this any easier to balance than if one of the four has 16 DC's and 35 defenses? In the former case, one character has chosen not to hit the maxima, and in the other, one has chosen to exceed them. The latter could just as easily imply the maximum set was 16 DC and 35 defenses, but three players chose to build characters below the maximums.

 

to me the "why not just get rid of it all then" radical swing is rather dull and simplistic' date=' something akin to pouting. Surely you can understand there are huge expanses of workable models for chargen and play between "total narrativism" and "full scale on board point everything HERO proper"? [/quote']

 

Certainly you can take any approach desired. However, I find it odd to say that limitations which make sense based on the character's writeup and back story would be taken, and save no points, but advantages which are just as logical still cost points. If my character "effortlessly manipulates metallic objects through his command of magnetic forces", why is the limitation "only metal" on his TK applied automatically with no impact on points, but the advantage 0 END required to be paid for. Both are equally implicit in the description of the character's ability.

 

if you can' date=' why yank out the "just dump it all and make believe" club so often?[/quote']

 

Ultimately, all the rules do is provide a framework for our game of "make believe". My simplistic question is what makes the mechanics other than limitations superior, in that you would propose to retain these, and dump only the limitations mechanic.

 

Similarly, one might ask why we should use points at all - just build the character mechanically in accordance with his concept, don't bother working out the costs and balancing the points, and rely on the GM balancing things in his choice of opposition and challenges. Under this model, we would simply dump points, but retain the system mechanics, stats, powers, etc. - so if my character is "the world's most powerful telepath" and therefore has 20d6 of Telepathy, he doesn't pay for that TP, but we would also not expect to see anyone else with more than 19d6 of TP.

[CourtFool]

Yeah, but...

 

In my humble experience GMs have enough trouble trying to run three dimensional NPCs much less balance every encounter perfectly to everyone's character and/or make sure everyone gets their fair share of the spotlight. It has also been my humble experience that at least one player will min/max every half point out of their character until they outshine everyone else.

 

Obviously, this is not an argument for nor against whether Limitations should be worth points. This is just my own 'real world' experience which makes a lot of these arguments merely academic exercises.

 

Yes, I realize I have been playing with the wrong people. No, I have nothing against academic exercises. This is just my two cents worth that no one asked for.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

First, I like ignoring the costs and letting the GM decide if characters are balanced for the game.

 

Second, in the spirit of the OP, how about granting -0 Lims to everything but rewarding players with extra XP if a lim comes into play? The amount of the reward could be something like

 

+Fractional XP - less than 1, after a few of these the GM will grant 1 bonus XP

 

+1 XP - moderately hindering (lost a phase with a serious bad guy, something like that)

 

+2 XP - serious hindrance, like being out of your powered armor

 

I haven't tried it, but if you trust your GM it sounds like it would work.

 

Similarly, and a bigger problem IMO, are Disadvantages.

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

etc...

 

and the Gm will take the combat effectiveness, overall and in detail, into account when he chooses appropriate challenges and adversaries?

 

or do I have this terribly wrong?

 

Lets ask...

 

You have one group of heavy combat oriented heroes (near your campaign max bang) who have few lims and most all their points into combat stuff... you select a group to go against them in combat for the evening. Done.

 

You have a group of more investigative and skill based guys with lesser combat effectiveness (near to you campaign's minimum bang) and you have an enemy set for them for that evening for a combat fight.

 

You have a third set of rookie heroes who again have gotten near the low end of your campaign bang level minimum but didso by taking limitations on their powers. they may have 15d6 Ebs with activation rolls instead of 10d6ers, or with other lims such as increased end and such. You have to choose bad guys for a combat scenario.

 

Would your bad guys be more or less equal to the first group or the second?

 

My guess is they would be more similar to the second group with a few sfx or circumstances keyed to bring the limitations into play more often than they would be the first group simply there to squash the heroes with their obvious superiority.

 

am i wrong?

 

You focus on combat effectiveness and thus the need for payback points... but in fact does combat effectiveness loss do anything more than flavor the scenarios and lower the adversa4y level choice?

This depends on the play group and desired experiences. Some are hard-core simulation gamers and will throw the same villains against any group, wit the idea being that the PCs should know enough (if they are the investigator type you refer to) to run away.

 

But since that's not how I do things, I won't really address that approach, aside from noting that it exists.

 

More to your point, you're talking about groups in aggregate. That doesn't really address this at all - if all the PCs have similar mix of limitations and power levels, yes, of course the overall level of the competition will be so levelled give or take.

 

But in your groups above, let's take the investigators. Let's say I have 3 of them (just to keep this simple), and they have the following mix of abilities/powers (again, simplifying):

 

A - no lims, max attack 6 DCs of "whatever"

B - lots of lims, 8- Activations on everything, max attack 14 DCs

C - no combat abilities to speak of, put it all into DCV and Running

 

Player B expects that most of his combats will results in him not being able to get an attack off. If we gave no points for his limitation, he would ALSO be challenged that if and when an attack goes off, it's of no additional value. So his limitation effectively grants points back. He could have done like player C and simply demoted his overall combat effectiveness, but instead he wants to have it so that when he happens to hit it is pivotal. Regardless, at the end of the day, his combat effectiveness is absolutely "different," not better or worse exactly, but shaped so that he is in fact disadvantaged most of the time and those rare times he hits it's massive. The limitation mechanism is directly supportive of this sort of decision-making, and while of course we can do anything with or without points, if we use points but ignore lims, this player would have been unduly challenged and simply remain almost as limited as player C effectively.

 

Player C doesn't use lims but in a combat simply isn't going to fight. Instead, his points are in avoiding damage and some non-combat skills to find lateral solutions.

 

The point being, they all will face the same villain. If Player C wishes to throw himself into the combat, he is simply going to get creamed - that's his choice, without limitations even. Player B will struggle in every combat with his heavy limitations and 8- Activation; if we use points (obviously, if we don't, the entire dynamic changes), then he has a way to compensate, otherwise he's simply screwed as well. Player A is combat-strong, and in every combat he basically will have to carry the team. His lack of limitations but lack of any boosted powers comes into play just as actively as the other players' choices.

 

As to specific combat planning, I generally do not plan "in detail" against the character's specific sets of powers and limitations and advantages. Rather, I concentrate on the following factors (in no particular order):

 

1 - which villains will go against which heroes? this is necessarily shaped as well by the heroes; the lesser-known and weaker will generally get disregarded - unless they stand out by their own choice, in which case, if they are significantly weaker or an achilles heel sort of limitation is invoked by circumstances or random chance (e.g., a Force Field w/14- Activation failling), they will in fact get KOd in a single shot and be out the rest of the fight unless there's some healing opportunity. In any case, some heroes will be entirely ignored unless they make themselves too visible/disconcerting, some heroes will be hammered on because they have chosen to be out in front in combat (this is especially bad if the PC didn't build their character to be especially combat-capable, but again it's a player, not GM, choice there, and so they will be pounded on), and others may get a single villain dedicated against them. The overall villain mix does get affected in terms of power level, but the specifics of the villain team's powers have more to do with #3 below; in the case the villain goals are specific against the heroes, their ability to hone specifically against detailed character abilities is driven not by GM knowledge but by what those villains can figure out reasonably

 

2 - of course, how challenging is the battle, which dictates general power level and capabilities

 

3 - villain goals, so they may have a set of skills for a specific task, which may be completely independent of the heroes (and I will likely plan so with near-complete ignoring of the PCs' abilities aside from what might stand out as an ongoing risk), especially if neither the villains nor heroes are planning on the encounter with each other

 

4 - screen time and players' opportunities; while I don't really look at or memorize all the little details of a PC after initial creation and until/unless there's an issue, if a PC has lacked opportunities I will once in a while try to leave in elements for that PC to shine; but this is not something I'm doing for each combat; again, if a player chose "doesn't work in cold" then during winter they have to deal with that, not me (though of course unless the value is especially high at some point I have to be cognizant that there's been "too many" times the PC's been disadvantaged, yes)

 

And whatever else I've forgotten...

 

So back to your question, "You focus on combat effectiveness and thus the need for payback points... but in fact does combat effectiveness loss do anything more than flavor the scenarios and lower the adversa4y level choice?"

 

- yes, because a low combat effectiveness character will simply not be as successful in combat - he's chosen not to be. In return, he can either be more effective in non-combat or have ways to avoid combat entirely. That said, if the ENTIRE GROUP chooses the same strategy of character design, then, sure, the net effect is nil.

 

But what I am missing in your argument is why that flavoring, even if we "just" leave it at that, shouldn't have some way to balance the inabilities with compensatory abilities? If we don't use points, that's fine, but if we do use points, why shouldn't a character who has 8- Activation on everything be able to have stronger attacks as part of that flavoring? Otherwise, there is no effective way to initiate that flavor, if we use all other points structures except limitations.

 

Or you could switch non-combat and combat above, if the Lims are being taken on non-combat abilities.

 

I think some of the problem is we are mixing "hard" limitations with the softer ones as if they were comparable. A circumstantial limitation (such as Focus or environmental ("works only in cold")) has a very different impact than a necessary, random/absolute limitation (such as Activation or Charges). I could imagine not giving limitations for circumstantial abilities IF we assume we will play in a game where those will not "unduly" impair a PC, since it is just flavor then and has no real mechanical impact except when we decide we want the story to go there. But having hard limitations is a constant combat limit that the PC is taking on and in theory given the HERO balance philosophy (however illusory balance may be, at least the attempt is heavily embedded into HERO) should have some compensation (not necessarily in combat of course - could be in intelligence, skills, contacts, lateral powers such as Summon, whatever).

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

First off, I like your terminology, and you are correct that I broaden "advantage" into any positive trait. Similarly, if we want to divest of Limitations as a machanic, why not eliminate points for all drawbacks, including disadvantages and any other negative traits, as well?

Well, as i have already edited during creation some of my examples cuz i was using vulnerability (a disad) and not a lim, yeah, I agree. In my experience, the less disads are a part of the "accounting" the better the results I get in terms of chargen and balance.

Your comment about the same maximum level of capability is interesting. Are you saying that we need to set a maximum level of capability, but that there is no similar need for a minimum level of capability?

No but IMX points back for limitations don't have much to do with establishing such a baseline.

 

In talking about ditching up front costs for limitations you are not talking about suddenly having to permit inappropriate characters or crippling weak guys or removing the score of other "play balance metrics" a decent Gm uses.

 

What vital part of HERo do you lose by removing limitations? You lose REAL POINTS. You still have ACTIVE POINTS. you still have DAMAGE CLASSES. You still have CV ranges, defense ranges, rule of x and whatever other metrics you want to use for determining "this character is too good" and "that character is too weak" in combat senses.

 

Hey, do you determine acceptable combat power for your games using TOTAL CP in attacks? In a game where 12d6 Eb is "top notch" would you allow a 24d6 EB with act 14- and 2xend?

 

REAL POINTS has never played a role in any hero game i ever ran in terms of "here are the campaign combat ranges". Active points, DCs,RoX... etc sure.

 

So, this is where i get all amused over the hue and cry over "if you remove lims you lose balance. "no points mean anything" or "might as well go play make believe without system" etc... real points are the least useful tool for power and balance HERO has to offer, IMO.

 

If the HERO vets round here want to start answering the "how do i balance encounters" with "just even out the total points" then i will give a second thought as to how important to balance they are.

 

So, sorry but nothing about not awarding points for lims equates to and in so doing lose all minimal GMing ability" when it comes to approving characters or assessing power levels. you don't end up with 7th and 20th level guys... unless you as Gm said "hey thats fine".

 

If you set a maximum level of, say, 12 DC's of damage which can be consistently applied throughout a combat encounter, and reliable defenses of, say, 25, and one character comes in with effectively 8 DC's and 15 defenses, is this any easier to balance than if one of the four has 16 DC's and 35 defenses? In the former case, one character has chosen not to hit the maxima, and in the other, one has chosen to exceed them. The latter could just as easily imply the maximum set was 16 DC and 35 defenses, but three players chose to build characters below the maximums.

notice that not one of your benchmarks for assessing power balance there used REAL POINTS at all. they all used metrics still available if you drop "points after limitations" but keep the others.

 

Both are equally implicit in the description of the character's ability.

yes both are but that doesn't mean both play the same role in assessing balance. IMX assessing characters based on "their best performance" is a fairly good means of assessment for play balance, and in no small part due to the fact that the player/character will be working to do everything he can to mitigate the limitation from playing a key role.

 

As such, IMX two characters who have equitable DCs and CVs and defenses are much more likely to play relatively balanced and be equally challengable and provide less headaches even if one is limited while the other isn't THAN two characters whose DCs CVs and DEFs are notably different but have the same RP cost after limitations are applied.

 

Do you hand out "effectiveness limits" on attacks, defenses and the like using total real Cps spent in your games or do you use DCs, Active points, rule of x or some other "ignores real points" method?

 

Ultimately, all the rules do is provide a framework for our game of "make believe". My simplistic question is what makes the mechanics other than limitations superior, in that you would propose to retain these, and dump only the limitations mechanic.

see practically every edition of HERo that provides "campaign balance" info and you see lots of talk about active points, about damage classes and even if one looks elsewhere one can find excel spread sheets and rule of x's which don't as a rule use total cp as a major means of balance assessment or combat effectiveness.

 

look at any thread where the hero vets here answer "how do i balance encounters" or "how do i judge combat effectiveness" and what you will almost certainly NOT SEE is many people saying "just compare real points" but you will see active points, damage classes, the excel combat effectiveness sheet and so on.

 

its not ME that thinks all or some of these other metrics is more valuable than real points for assessing balance... its practically every hero veteran.

 

 

Similarly, one might ask why we should use points at all - just build the character mechanically in accordance with his concept, don't bother working out the costs and balancing the points, and rely on the GM balancing things in his choice of opposition and challenges. Under this model, we would simply dump points, but retain the system mechanics, stats, powers, etc. - so if my character is "the world's most powerful telepath" and therefore has 20d6 of Telepathy, he doesn't pay for that TP, but we would also not expect to see anyone else with more than 19d6 of TP.

 

again, it isn't necessary to go from "dont use real points" to "dump all the other metrics" but certainly, one could replace the use of total points with a list of "relevent ranges" or "rule of X" and so forth and produce the desired degree of balance. Thats basically how non-point-driven systems do it.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

More to your point, you're talking about groups in aggregate. That doesn't really address this at all - if all the PCs have similar mix of limitations and power levels, yes, of course the overall level of the competition will be so levelled give or take.

it also applies in the specific, the singular, within the group.

 

Example from play: the conjurer in a two and a half year champions game had skill roll and side effects. on practically all his magical powers. As he evolved he actually increased these lims as he moved from EC/MP to VPP. The result was that in practically every serious combat, he failed a roll and was either taken out of the fight prematurely (to great story effect but thats another story) or seriously weakened for a rather long period. The other members of the team often observed that THEY SHOULD GET POINTS for his lim as losing a member of their group hurt them, interfered with their clever plans etc.

 

When i chose enemies, it was with the knowledge and assessment that conj would likely not make it thru the fight unscathed by his lims and the enemies, while appearing to be "tougher" were scaled for that very event to occur.

His lack of limitations but lack of any boosted powers comes into play just as actively as the other players' choices.

I know of now HERo game i have ever seen played or supplement which recommends as a "balanced approach" having a straight up standard level of 6dc but also allowing a 14dc heavily limited attack.

 

Do you in your games use "real point cost" for attack powers as your metric for "acceptable"? Would you (in a game where a straight 12d6 Eb is fine but s straight 13d6 Eb is not) also approach a 24d6 EB with 2xend and act 14-? Would you approve a 24 d6 Eb with "only 4 charges a day"?

 

Nope?

 

then please, since we all use metrics other than "real point cost" to assess combat balance get rid of the strawman of the difficulty in balancing the whacky way-off dc builds?

 

- yes, because a low combat effectiveness character will simply not be as successful in combat - he's chosen not to be. In return, he can either be more effective in non-combat or have ways to avoid combat entirely. That said, if the ENTIRE GROUP chooses the same strategy of character design, then, sure, the net effect is nil.

that the one character is not better in combat and so avoids them or looks for other things to do is flavor... as GM i will provide him challenges and not leave him sitting bored.

 

That as a whole they only have three effective combatants is setting for me the adversary levels. it doesn't matter for adversary level overall whether they are at so-n-so strength due to having three combat mnsters and one non-combatent or four moderately dcombative guys or the other permutations.

 

But what I am missing in your argument is why that flavoring, even if we "just" leave it at that, shouldn't have some way to balance the inabilities with compensatory abilities? If we don't use points, that's fine, but if we do use points, why shouldn't a character who has 8- Activation on everything be able to have stronger attacks as part of that flavoring?

According to EVERY SINGLE HERO GAME OR BALANCE METHODOLOGY i have ever seen in play or in print...NO!!!

 

Not one of them recommended balancing attacks with total cp, with real points. All have used or recommended more useful and informative metrics such as active points, damage classes, rule of x and so on for this purpose.

 

Would you in your game for a character, if 12d6 Eb straight up were acceptable but 13d6 Eb straight up was not, allow 24d6 Eb with 4 charges or with 3xend and act 14-?

 

No?

 

 

Otherwise, there is no effective way to initiate that flavor, if we use all other points structures except limitations.

if your flavor is "more powerful attacks than the others" that can be reached with group agreement and without limitations.

I think some of the problem is we are mixing "hard" limitations with the softer ones as if they were comparable. A circumstantial limitation (such as Focus or environmental ("works only in cold")) has a very different impact than a necessary, random/absolute limitation (such as Activation or Charges).

certainlty there are differences but most of the HARD limitations are rather subjective as well. As asked above, answerring my own question, i would not allow 24d6 Eb 4 charges per day as an attack power in a game where i would say no to 13d6 Eb but yes to 12d6 eb. the fact that they are the same cost... have the same total real points..is irrelevent and IMO distracting to their combat assessment.

 

and depdning on the game, 4 charges a day might be onerous and huge or be nearly trivial. Same with incresed end cost. sme with practically everything except activation roll but throw in some luck dice and well... even that can get "dicey"... pun intended.

 

IMX, even with "serious savings" from points back for limitations, the whacky 8-0 on everything PCs simply don't exist. Players do not gravitate towards them even with the savings because the Gm wont allow equally whacky high dice levels above campaign max as you and the others examples seem to cry out for... but dont allow yourselves i bet.

 

and since i see no reason that saying "no points back for lims" would create a rush to create overly crippled 9- activation on everything PCs, i fail to see why defending against that mythical beastie is so necessary.

 

run a game for one year or more where you do use real cp cost for attacks as your primary balance method, where 24 d6 act 14- and 2xend is fine like 13s6 is but 13d6 is not acceptable... and then i will be glad to discuss why in my many years of running HERO using everything but "real costs for attack powers" as a balancing tool has been so wrong and how necessary "real cp for attacks " is as a balance savior.

 

But having hard limitations is a constant combat limit that the PC is taking on and in theory given the HERO balance philosophy (however illusory balance may be, at least the attempt is heavily embedded into HERO) should have some compensation (not necessarily in combat of course - could be in intelligence, skills, contacts, lateral powers such as Summon, whatever).

 

It goes without saying that any notion of making a fundamental change to HERO accounting is going to clash with existing hero philosophy. the key to your point here is that in order for the balance to workas you describe, the Gm must provide different challenges, ones that emphasize or utilize the other abilities than combat of the "weaker in combat guy". If his combat power is lacking but his investigation skills are high then the Gm must provide scenes and scenarios and plots which have those skills play a significant role.

 

you can do this anyway, without him getting extra points and certainly without somehow deciding a 24d6 Eb act 14- and 2xend is OK cuz its real points balance out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

REAL POINTS has never played a role in any hero game i ever ran in terms of "here are the campaign combat ranges". Active points' date=' DCs,RoX... etc sure.[/quote']

 

Every game I have played in has set a real point limit in terms of total character points. We ALL start with 200 + 150, or 75 + 75, or what have you.

 

So' date=' this is where i get all amused over the hue and cry over "if you remove lims you lose balance. "no points mean anything" or "might as well go play make believe without system" etc... real points are the least useful tool for power and balance HERO has to offer, IMO. [/quote']

 

What's wrong with the concept that a character whose abilities are less reliable might also have abilities which are more versatile?

 

If the HERO vets round here want to start answering the "how do i balance encounters" with "just even out the total points" then i will give a second thought as to how important to balance they are.

 

Just even out AP or just even out DC's doesn't work any better. The system requires judgment regardless, and removing limitations, while it won't make that situation any worse, doesn't really make it any better either.

 

Do you hand out "effectiveness limits" on attacks' date=' defenses and the like using total real Cps spent in your games or do you use DCs, Active points, rule of x or some other "ignores real points" method?[/quote']

 

I use judgment. The guy who has a larger attack and poorer defenses, or has a better attack and defenses, but poor CV, or perhaps has everything equal, except for a couple d6 more in his attack, which sometimes fails to work (say 14- Activation) may very well be acceptable and workable.

 

look at any thread where the hero vets here answer "how do i balance encounters" or "how do i judge combat effectiveness" and what you will almost certainly NOT SEE is many people saying "just compare real points" but you will see active points' date=' damage classes, the excel combat effectiveness sheet and so on.[/quote']

 

I think you'll see the consensus of "there's no easy measure" emerge from Hero vets far more often than not.

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

First, before we get lost in the difference in my play style, let's just be clear - it's not the magnitude of my examples, it's the principle. You can easily just subsitute 8d6 for the 14d6-vs-6d6 example and the point is precisely the same.

 

it also applies in the specific, the singular, within the group.

 

Example from play: the conjurer in a two and a half year champions game had skill roll and side effects. on practically all his magical powers. As he evolved he actually increased these lims as he moved from EC/MP to VPP. The result was that in practically every serious combat, he failed a roll and was either taken out of the fight prematurely (to great story effect but thats another story) or seriously weakened for a rather long period. The other members of the team often observed that THEY SHOULD GET POINTS for his lim as losing a member of their group hurt them, interfered with their clever plans etc.

 

When i chose enemies, it was with the knowledge and assessment that conj would likely not make it thru the fight unscathed by his lims and the enemies, while appearing to be "tougher" were scaled for that very event to occur.

 

What do you mean?

 

I know of now HERo game i have ever seen played or supplement which recommends as a "balanced approach" having a straight up standard level of 6dc but also allowing a 14dc heavily limited attack.

 

Do you in your games use "real point cost" for attack powers as your metric for "acceptable"? Would you (in a game where a straight 12d6 Eb is fine but s straight 13d6 Eb is not) also approach a 24d6 EB with 2xend and act 14-? Would you approve a 24 d6 Eb with "only 4 charges a day"?

 

Nope?

 

Yes, in fact, I have, and in some situations it works great. It depends on the play group. Recently as our game became very high-powered (10 DCs being too low) this has needed a change, but for 2 decades of play with power levels at around 500 and less XP this very approach is how I have run games and had no issues.

 

then please, since we all use metrics other than "real point cost" to assess combat balance get rid of the strawman of the difficulty in balancing the whacky way-off dc builds?

 

I don't see 6 DC non-limited guy with 14 DC ultra-limited guy as "whacky way-off" whatsoever, as per above. I'm not sure why I shouldn't allow a guy who has an 8- Activation, 4 Charges, to have an absurdly high smack given he's so unlikely to hit in a combat. Of course, the player has to be conscious of what he's designed and the consequences.

 

And that has nothing to do with using "real point cost" balancing. I agree that is not going to produce balance, either. I argue NO mechanical approach (AP, RoX, etc.) will produce balance, even if some come closer.

 

that the one character is not better in combat and so avoids them or looks for other things to do is flavor... as GM i will provide him challenges and not leave him sitting bored.

 

In each conflict? I wouldn't. Players are also responsible for self-motivation. If you know there will be combats and you choose a non-combat character, I am absolutely not going to design each combat to give you a chance. Instead, I will design non-combat opportunities. But in some combats, you have made the choice already. It is a player control and intent statement. It is not implicit that I have to somehow design each conflict for each player to do well when some players have made a conscious decision to under-perform or be required to perform laterally.

 

That as a whole they only have three effective combatants is setting for me the adversary levels. it doesn't matter for adversary level overall whether they are at so-n-so strength due to having three combat mnsters and one non-combatent or four moderately dcombative guys or the other permutations.

 

OVERALL, but again that is a fairly irrelevant argument - the issue here is why one individual would get a discount if he has what equates to mechanical (as opposed to SFX) limitations in his power.

 

According to EVERY SINGLE HERO GAME OR BALANCE METHODOLOGY i have ever seen in play or in print...NO!!!

 

Not one of them recommended balancing attacks with total cp, with real points. All have used or recommended more useful and informative metrics such as active points, damage classes, rule of x and so on for this purpose.

 

You are ignoring that many people do not use any specific balancing mechanisms, instead looking at the LIKELY INTERACTION of the powers. That is well-documented on these boards.

 

Would you in your game for a character, if 12d6 Eb straight up were acceptable but 13d6 Eb straight up was not, allow 24d6 Eb with 4 charges or with 3xend and act 14-?

 

No?

 

Yes, if the players were okay with it, and I have found in <500 XP games people ARE okay with it - with THREE DIFFERENT PLAY GROUPS in THREE DIFFERENT REGIONS, only one of which I shared early RP experiences with, the other 2 groups having formed well before my time, havnig met them later in life.

 

if your flavor is "more powerful attacks than the others" that can be reached with group agreement and without limitations.

 

I don't understand this. Taking a more moderate example, I just don't understand why you're insisting that in a campaign where everyone has 8d6 attacks and one guy voluntarily makes his 8- that he shouldn't have a mechanical structure to trade off those points, whereas you are suggesting all other points structures stay intact.

 

certainlty there are differences but most of the HARD limitations are rather subjective as well. As asked above, answerring my own question, i would not allow 24d6 Eb 4 charges per day as an attack power in a game where i would say no to 13d6 Eb but yes to 12d6 eb. the fact that they are the same cost... have the same total real points..is irrelevent and IMO distracting to their combat assessment.

 

Yes, but, setting aside the magnitude of my examples (which, btw, is simply for principle - just dial them down as you prefer, the principle is exactly the same), why insist that one guy gets nothing for taking 4 charges a day whereas everyone else in his group is freely using as many charges as they wish - all for the same exact 12d6?

 

If you are saying you'd give the guy with 4 charges some indeterminate bump in power according to what you deem as appropriate, then I think it renders your entire argument that we can just ignore lims as irrelevent - because you are simply doing the same thing with differently-rationalized points arbitration. You are basically applying your own "-x", it just isn't the book value and isn't documented.

 

So what are you saying here?

 

and depdning on the game, 4 charges a day might be onerous and huge or be nearly trivial. Same with incresed end cost. sme with practically everything except activation roll but throw in some luck dice and well... even that can get "dicey"... pun intended.

 

Of course. I think we all know balance <> numbers.

 

That isn't the same as saying that a guy who takes 4 charges where that IS a limitation should get absolutely no other benefits compared to everyone else with unlimited use.

 

IMX, even with "serious savings" from points back for limitations, the whacky 8-0 on everything PCs simply don't exist. Players do not gravitate towards them even with the savings because the Gm wont allow equally whacky high dice levels above campaign max as you and the others examples seem to cry out for... but dont allow yourselves i bet.

 

I would - but again we're talking principle here. Just say 14- instead of 8-...again, why does the guy who will absolutely fail around 10% or whatever not be allowed some trade-off?

 

and since i see no reason that saying "no points back for lims" would create a rush to create overly crippled 9- activation on everything PCs, i fail to see why defending against that mythical beastie is so necessary.

 

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying about a rush to create such characters. I think the concern for some is that many would not choose any lims, and the other concern is that it means that someone who does want a character severely limited in combat gets no ability to compensate by shining in non-combat, as he has no points to play with.

 

run a game for one year or more where you do use real cp cost for attacks as your primary balance method, where 24 d6 act 14- and 2xend is fine like 13s6 is but 13d6 is not acceptable... and then i will be glad to discuss why in my many years of running HERO using everything but "real costs for attack powers" as a balancing tool has been so wrong and how necessary "real cp for attacks " is as a balance savior.

 

You're ignoring a fundamental question - what is balance and what do we want?

 

That varies by play group.

 

Anyway, I agree that no mechanical method will balance things, but that's not the issue here. We''re not talking about balance, per se, on the whole, we're talking about a single aspect of it. We're talking about the trade-offs of voluntarily limiting a power and wishing to compensate elsewhere - a very common trope in many many games and source material. Even non-points-based systems provide a mechanism (well, usually!) for this,

 

It goes without saying that any notion of making a fundamental change to HERO accounting is going to clash with existing hero philosophy. the key to your point here is that in order for the balance to workas you describe, the Gm must provide different challenges, ones that emphasize or utilize the other abilities than combat of the "weaker in combat guy". If his combat power is lacking but his investigation skills are high then the Gm must provide scenes and scenarios and plots which have those skills play a significant role.

 

you can do this anyway, without him getting extra points and certainly without somehow deciding a 24d6 Eb act 14- and 2xend is OK cuz its real points balance out.

 

But unless you are granting him some ability elsewhere, IF you use points BUT you disallow Limitations as having value, in some cases those with "-0" Limitations that are hard and real are losing the ability to be stronger in other areas, to one degree or another. IF all you are going to do is monkey with scenarios to "make" them more powerful in some situations than they have points for, all you are doing is virtually giving them points.

 

I would say that most players I have seen just won't take Lims per se in that scenario, mostly, they will just take some flavor items but use Disads more for those things that are important to them ("Physical Lim - Loses his foci a lot.") in order to leverage that aspect of player vs. GM control.

 

I also would say that you are distorting the nature of player vs. GM control, because the player, in 0 Lim games, has essentially lost a very clear ceding of control to the GM. This isn't bad at all, but it changes the nature of how the environment and character control play out, creating a stronger GM arbitration, on paper. However, to the general point in this thread, the valid counter-argument is that if the Lims are not played particularly rigorously, we're already doing that . If all Lims were circumstantial, I'd tend to agree more with this, but given some Lims are very hard and "pure", I'd say it flounders on those and more clearly requires a compensating ability - whether you do it with points, by play opportunities, or by granting compensating abilities w/o points outright. It's fine to compensate by the latter two, but I'd also argue then that why are we stopping at Lims, why not take a more holistic approach with Advs, Disads, etc., instead of leaving Lims as some sort of odd exception compared to all the others?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

A further thought: if no points are recovered through limitations, should frameworks alsso be eliminated? The character would save no points from buying a power which is drained whenever a second power is drained, so why should he get savings for that limitation by using an Elemental Control?

 

Similarly, Lockout won't generate any point savings, nor will "Only one of Power A, Power B and Power C can be used at the same time", so a Multipower, which imposes these limitations in a different fashion, shouldn't allow for point savings, should it?