Game Play Concept: No Limitations

[incrdbil]

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?

 

 

Exactamundo, as the Fonz would say. Heck, you may as well not make them pay for advantages, as long as its in concepts. Or have points.

 

which isnt unworkable--but just throwing out limitations and keeping everythign else just doesn't make any sense.

[incrdbil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

How does it punish those guys?

 

thats simple--one way or another, those who take limitations, yet get no points for it, ultimately run into points based limits, the same as the non-limitation taking character. Mybe its not combat effectign stuff, but still notable. Less skills; no perks, for example.

 

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

 

By not getting any thign in exchange for those limitations; paying full cost for a power thats rarely used, and very narrow focused cna be cost prohibitive if no limitation value is given. To be honest, it can't work if you bother counting points at all.

 

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?

 

Maybe-scree time may be the same, but impact can be diminished by the effects of a limitation. thats part of what you accept by taking a limitation--knowledge that the limitation may reduce your effectiveness and ability to accompish certain goals, or the influence you can bring on a scenario. you hopefulyl gain in other areas by the savings, for a long term nuetral balance. to the unlimited baseline.

 

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?

 

Screen Time--players should recieve the due screen time needed. Sometimes characters due take the forefront by player actions, or having abilities that make them the specialist in the scenario; and, likewise, there could be occasions where a limitation limits a character to a secondary role. A good player realizes this.

 

 

 

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.

 

If you disregard limitations, but pay for advantages, and keep frameworks, there's little point in monitoring point balances really. You just have to eyeball balance everyone, and hope you are close.

 

 

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

 

Umm, nope.

 

Take 12d6 eb, 0 End =90 points.

vs

9d6 EB, 0 End, AP, only vs Magic creatures, 4 uses, costs end x4, full phase action, OAF, ....with no reduction for limitations for limits =90 points.

 

Paying the same cost for those 2 powers is a balance problem; you have to allow different point totals and base values--but its just easier to ignore the points all together at that point, then you are reduced to guessing that you have Pc's balanced.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

thats simple--one way or another, those who take limitations, yet get no points for it, ultimately run into points based limits, the same as the non-limitation taking character. Mybe its not combat effectign stuff, but still notable. Less skills; no perks, for example.

perhaps we have a different definition of the word "punish" cuz to me having your guy meet the same total point limits as everyone else isn't punishing you, its treating you the same. To my definition, allowing you to limit your own character is not punishing you, its letting you have what you want.

 

As long as the character is within acceptable campaign specs, and you obey the same rules as everyone else, and I don't force you to take a disadvantage... i am not punishing you by saying "yes" to your request.

 

Let me put it another way...

 

if a player wanted in a game of yours to write down 0 pt disads because he was "over the per type limit" or to come in with 325 instead of 350, would YOU be PUNISHING him by allowing it?

 

By not getting any thign in exchange for those limitations; paying full cost for a power thats rarely used, and very narrow focused cna be cost prohibitive if no limitation value is given. To be honest, it can't work if you bother counting points at all.

Getting to do what i want, as long as it meets campaign specs, is not me being punished. Being punished is either not being allowed to do what I want or being forced to do something I don't want to do.

 

this is neither of those cases.

 

If a player wants to come in with a character who is under-max, is that "GM PUNISHES PLAY, film at 11" material?

 

Maybe-scree time may be the same, but impact can be diminished by the effects of a limitation.

"Can be" not equal to "will be" and is dependent on the GM and his choices of story and plot. if "combat" is not where you want your character to shine and you reflect this by taking combat lims, then in order to give you your equitable relevent impact then i need to plot in greater impact for your other traits. That doesn't require you to be BETTER at those other traits, merely for them to play a bigger role, have a bigger impact.

 

Example: your combat guy has 3x end on his main attack and so wears out more quickly in long bettles. Depending on how frequent those occur, The Gm makes more plots which emphasize your computer 12- skill, which is no more expensive than Joe's character's "medical 12-" or tammy's "driving 12-" or billy bob's "demolitions 12-" or Peggy Sues "investigation 12-" but since your guy needs a little more "impact" to make up for his wearing out in combat there are more "impactful" computer rolls scenes.

 

 

thats part of what you accept by taking a limitation--knowledge that the limitation may reduce your effectiveness and ability to accompish certain goals, or the influence you can bring on a scenario.

yes and you get that without extra points back for it.

you hopefulyl gain in other areas by the savings, for a long term nuetral balance. to the unlimited baseline.

of course, but not necessarily in terms of points. you gain in terms of relevence and impact... and you don't need points for that.

Screen Time--players should recieve the due screen time needed. Sometimes characters due take the forefront by player actions, or having abilities that make them the specialist in the scenario; and, likewise, there could be occasions where a limitation limits a character to a secondary role. A good player realizes this.

which is all well and good but doesn't address the question...

 

yes screen time should be appropriate to the scene and the nature of the characters, but the characters should in the big picture get even screen time, or close to it, which is part of what directs the Gms choice of "what are the scenes."

 

The "due screen time" is "as much as everyone else". the flavor/style/sfx of the given scene determines who gets what this time, but overall, it should even out.

 

If you disregard limitations, but pay for advantages, and keep frameworks, there's little point in monitoring point balances really. You just have to eyeball balance everyone, and hope you are close.

i have to evaluate and balance everyone anyway... total points... real points... do not serve me in any real serious way to preserve meaningful balance and definitely not on the power specific levels being used here to dismiss the notion.

 

Take 12d6 eb, 0 End =90 points.

vs

9d6 EB, 0 End, AP, only vs Magic creatures, 4 uses, costs end x4, full phase action, OAF, ....with no reduction for limitations for limits =90 points.

 

Paying the same cost for those 2 powers is a balance problem; you have to allow different point totals and base values--but its just easier to ignore the points all together at that point, then you are reduced to guessing that you have Pc's balanced.

 

Again the overly extreme example. In my exp[erience, its not common for such a highly limited power to be chosen by players for PCs as their attack power.

 

See, the amusing and baffling (well not really but definitely amusing) notion is the dual complaint that removing lims will result in unlimited PCs but the challenge being put forth is "what if i cripple my character with limitations" when thats the last thing that will happen. it doesn't happen now, when you get points for it, and its not more likely to happen then when its "just for fun, not for points".

 

if a character that weak in combat were acceptable to the campaign... not knowing his other stats but assuming the overall character is within campaign specs, then why say NO YOU CANNOT DO THIS and FORCE HIm to take more stuff? What does that serve other then the letter of the law as put forth by hero?

 

If you say "give me 350 pt characters within these paramaters" and i hand you a 275 pt character thats within the specs (both upper max and lower mins), would you say NO? Would you force me to take more stuff? Would you be punishing me if you said "OK, but you realize you can have more"? Should i expect by bringin in a 275er that I will be getting OVERALL less screen time, less scene relevence and less overall impact and be a "second tier character" or "second tier player"?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

I asked this question earlier and no one answered, but it seems that it is still the crux of the difference in opinion.

 

From earlier post:

...

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

[incrdbil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

perhaps we have a different definition of the word "punish" cuz to me having your guy meet the same total point limits as everyone else isn't punishing you, its treating you the same. To my definition, allowing you to limit your own character is not punishing you, its letting you have what you want.

 

And not letting them have anythign else they may want in exchange to those limitations. All it does is encourage non-limited characters--if the Pc's are ok with playing characters who, in terms of power and ability are unequal, thats fine. That player of the lesser powered character shouldn't expect to always be as effective--they may get equal screen time, in roleplaying terms, but in terms of combat or conflict resolution, they may always be second fiddle.

 

As long as the character is within acceptable campaign specs, and you obey the same rules as everyone else, and I don't force you to take a disadvantage... i am not punishing you by saying "yes" to your request.

 

You make them pay the same points for a less effective power. If you dont want to call it punishi, then call it another name--as a player, I'd call it unfair. But, if I thought the game might have merit, I'd remedy the unfairness by not playing a character with limitations--after all, there are all sorts of characters anyone could want to play.

 

 

 

if a player wanted in a game of yours to write down 0 pt disads because he was "over the per type limit" or to come in with 325 instead of 350, would YOU be PUNISHING him by allowing it?

 

If he wants to take zero point disadantages, I have no problem allowing that--though I do, mercuifully, sometimes alter how much of an imapct that disadvantage has.

 

But thats apples and oranges. Just because a character takes a limitation doesn't mean they want to play a a less effective character--it just means that particualr facet is not as useful as an unlimited one--bbut usually the savings are applied to let the player get other stuff he wants.

 

 

 

 

Example: your combat guy has 3x end on his main attack and so wears out more quickly in long bettles. Depending on how frequent those occur, The Gm makes more plots which emphasize your computer 12- skill, which is no more expensive than Joe's character's "medical 12-" or tammy's "driving 12-" or billy bob's "demolitions 12-" or Peggy Sues "investigation 12-" but since your guy needs a little more "impact" to make up for his wearing out in combat there are more "impactful" computer rolls scenes.

 

Just because a character tqkes a limitation doesnt mean I have to tailor adventures catering to them to make up for it. They took a limitation, live with it. Since hsi medical skill isnt any more important, valuable, or expensive that anyone elses skill, why should I cater to that skill?

 

 

 

i have to evaluate and balance everyone anyway... total points... real points... do not serve me in any real serious way to preserve meaningful balance and definitely not on the power specific levels being used here to dismiss the notion.

 

 

Frankly, I disbelelieve that statement. total and real points are guidelines, and serviceavble ones--not the only guidelines, but I really doubt they cant serve you. If you choose to ignore them-well, thats your decision, advisable or not.

 

 

Again the overly extreme example. In my exp[erience, its not common for such a highly limited power to be chosen by players for PCs as their attack power.

 

That highly limited power may nto be the maint attack power--it may represent an occasionally used gimmick, or somethign incidental they picked up. Without valuing limitations, this rarely used gimmick is as costly as someones main attack power though. Without limitation values, the 'just because' powers taken for flair, style, or a sense of completeness become burdens players will probably avoid--leading to fairly less detailed or unique characters. No matter how you may want to imagine the selfless player who just embraces no value limitations, the reality is players try to get the most bang for the buck, and if limits give no bang..you wont see them--not because the players don't want them, but they percieve only being penalized buy your campaign rule.

 

See, the amusing and baffling (well not really but definitely amusing) notion is the dual complaint that removing lims will result in unlimited PCs but the challenge being put forth is "what if i cripple my character with limitations" when thats the last thing that will happen. it doesn't happen now, when you get points for it, and its not more likely to happen then when its "just for fun, not for points".

 

Most Pc's arent crippled with limitations-those limitations are aprt of a trade off that strengthens them in more areas than they could without limitations---the plainly obvious point you are struggling to avoid.

 

 

 

If you say "give me 350 pt characters within these paramaters" and i hand you a 275 pt character thats within the specs (both upper max and lower mins), would you say NO? Would you force me to take more stuff?

 

This is a differnt argument--choosing to deliberately play a weaker character is not the same as not giving players fair compensation for taking a weaker component of a character.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

A few comments but i really have limited time and want to respond to Hugh and Zornwil.

That player of the lesser powered character shouldn't expect to always be as effective--they may get equal screen time, in roleplaying terms, but in terms of combat or conflict resolution, they may always be second fiddle.

In a game i run, which I run well, it is untrue that any PC i approve should "always be second fiddle". If i am doing my job, then when it comes to impact and relevence and such, they are equal, overall in the big scheme of things, while understanding that at times one will play a more prominent role and at others others will.

 

You make them pay the same points for a less effective power.

I don't "make them pay"... they chose to pay, to take, that less effective power.

If he wants to take zero point disadantages, I have no problem allowing that--though I do, mercuifully, sometimes alter how much of an imapct that disadvantage has.

So him taking limitations on powers without compensation by choice is wrong for a GM to allow but him taking disadvanmtages without compensation for the character is Ok for the GM to allow?

 

Is there a relevent difference between the two other than the fact that the latter is actually printed in the rules and the former isn't?

 

But thats apples and oranges. Just because a character takes a limitation doesn't mean they want to play a a less effective character--it just means that particualr facet is not as useful as an unlimited one--bbut usually the savings are applied to let the player get other stuff he wants.

the "character" doesn't take the lim... the player chooses to run the character with the lim, to build the character with the lim, presumably because thats what he wants to play.

 

and again, any character approved by me for a game is not go0ing to be a "less effective character" in the overall picture. Like any other character, he will have strong points and weak points and have moments he shines and moments he doesn't, but not more or less than any other character overall.

 

 

Since hsi medical skill isnt any more important, valuable, or expensive that anyone elses skill, why should I cater to that skill?

A difference in style.

 

90% of my game and adversaries and plots are designed after the heroes are submitted, are wrapped and entertwined in the character traits and background almost completely. I do not run campaigns about the adventures of "insert interchangeable superteam here" but about "this specific set of heroes... ther story... specific to them" and so medical skill will play or role or not depending on whether or not its a PC trait, computer skill, etc...

 

 

Frankly, I disbelelieve that statement. total and real points are guidelines, and serviceavble ones--not the only guidelines, but I really doubt they cant serve you. If you choose to ignore them-well, thats your decision, advisable or not.

Again, for the power balance and combat balance being emphasized here in these examples, I do not use RP. A 250 pt character can easily whoop up on a 350 pt character... unless they were given different expected balance levels for combat. Balance of powers and combat is done by me using a variety of metrics... and RP is not one of them.

 

Similarly, i have seen numerous cases of imbalance in terms of "overall power" when RP are used. The easiest example would be to compare two builds one using frameworks well, one not or one using breakpoints well, the other not, or one simply built with more experience and knowing to look at things like con-stun levels and expected damage and the other not.

 

RP is IMO an incredibly poor balance guide, particularly down to the specifics of attack powers and combat powers being thrown about here. Again, I suspect that realization is why so many threads asking for "how do i balance and comapre" (often combat) don't see "use real points" as a common response.

 

Without limitation values, the 'just because' powers taken for flair, style, or a sense of completeness become burdens players will probably avoid--leading to fairly less detailed or unique characters.

I think I may see a source of disagreement here.

 

Without limitations, some character types may be less appealing to some player types due to the percieved "not as effective"-ness and as such those character types may be discouraged.

 

I agree with that statement.

 

Why don't i see that as a problem?

 

because... the same thing happens when i have limitations as well. Any system, particularly complex ones, will have different things to different players which they see as too good or as too bad or as not as good or as not as bad and as such the players preferences and perceptions will guide his choices as to what to play.

 

thats to me a given.

 

 

 

No matter how you may want to imagine the selfless player who just embraces no value limitations, the reality is players try to get the most bang for the buck, and if limits give no bang..you wont see them--not because the players don't want them, but they percieve only being penalized buy your campaign rule.

You didn't say "all" players and didn't say "some players...

 

Ok so lets say thats true for "some" players (I know its not true for all players because i have run games without limitations give you points and seen players take limitations and be fine with it.)

 

So what?

 

If they don't want to play a character with lims for the fun and challenge of it, why should i try and coax, cajole, bribe them into it? My game isn't BETTER if they take traits they don't like because they see "they need to for the points." Its actually worse cuz they take something they don't want and actively work to avoid it becoming an issue.

 

Its not my job to encourage limitations. its my job to encourage playing stuff you enjoy and bribing you with "MORE POWER" to take potential hindrances you don't want in the first place isn't gaining me squat!!!

Most Pc's arent crippled with limitations-those limitations are aprt of a trade off that strengthens them in more areas than they could without limitations---the plainly obvious point you are struggling to avoid.

Actually i have been strggling here trying to point out that most PCs dont have these cockeyed overly crippeled strawman examples... but they keep coming.

 

But as to your specific point... Its not my job to encourage players to take limitations in order to get more points for what they want to play.

 

They should take limitations because they want to play them and have those problems... not to save points for other stuff.

 

or is this now advocacy thread for "take 'em for the points" chargen styles?

 

This is a differnt argument--choosing to deliberately play a weaker character is not the same as not giving players fair compensation for taking a weaker component of a character.

 

if the player knows the setup, knows the costs, and gets to choose and build his character, unless i switch up the rules or costs on him... it is exactly a player "chosing to deliberately play"...

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

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.

Which is fine but is not at all related to the section quoted. total cp, real points, is not a good or useful model for comparison in terms of combat power and balancing factors... much more thought is used and other metrics.

 

Ok let me spell out the fallacy as I see it.

 

1: Real point cost is an incredibly poor measure of combat effectiveness for individual powers. It is recommended hardly ever if at all when the question of assessing and comparing is asked.

2. As noted, by others, combat resolution plays a significant role in many genres and gaming stylkes this system is used for.

3. In fact, its not uncommon for the majority of a characters "total real points" to be spent on stuff intended for use in or purchased with an eye towards combat situations. Say 60% as a conservative figure. (Some genres, some exceptions)

 

So, from a reasonable standpoint, if the majority of total cp real cp is spent into a pile that is not all that good at being balanced by real points, I cannot reasonably or even with a straight face buy into the notion that real points plays a significant or effective or accurate role in balance on the whole.

 

two 350 pt pcs can both spent 200 RPs on COMBAT stuff and 150 RPs on non-combat stuff and even if by some miracle the 150 each spent is amazingly equally effective, then the 200 pts spent on an area where RPs don't accurately measure effectiveness well means we don't know squat about the overall character balance.

 

So again, the notion that ditching RPs leads to whacky crazy mish mashes of imbalanced mayhem... don't see the logic there.

 

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

never said anything was wrong with it. Nor is it prevented by "no points for lims" mechanics. Whenther the "less effective" or "more versatile" parts fit within a given campaign specs (a measure of extremes) is for the Gm and his game.

 

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.

actually, i think the case i am refuting is that it will be worse if you remove lims... that we wiol get whacky crazy out of balance issues and so forth... that removing lims will be a problem.

 

The good side, the area which is improved... a player will not take traits he doesn't want to "gain points". HE wont take a lim and then do all he can to avoid it simply because he felt he had to earn more points for something he wanted.

 

thats a plus, IMO.

 

I use judgment.

as do i and that judgement never considers RP COST as a factor for acceptability of an attack within campaign guidelines. The only time i look at RP cost is for judging the merits of the system... and for combat capabilities... rp is found wanting.

 

 

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

 

 

Agreed!!!

[tesuji]

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.

I disagree. the issue is not the principle... its the application. In principle, we accept that everything works as promised... in principle players don't buy powers with lims they dont want because "they want more points"... in principle ral points serve as a useful tool for balance comparison on combat powers... but the issue being put forth is that REMOVING REAL POINT by not paying back for lims in the accounting will wreck or otherwise destroy game balance and the practical examples are combat oriented.

 

that notion and argument is hinged on the assumption that real points does accurately measure combat effectiveness.

 

yet in thead after thread when combat comparison and balance questions are asked... the hero veterans here have almost to a man not lined up to say "compare real point costs for combat". RThe rulebooks don't either. The campaign guidelines do not say "typical attacks at 45 rp and typical defense at 30 rp" but use DCS, use active points and so on.

 

the recommended by many here fan speadsheets use a host of other notions for "combat effectiveness rating"...

 

WHY?

 

If "real points spent" on comat stuff is a good measure of "combat effectiveness" why don't they all just use those very simple and already calculated figures?

 

gotta run... more later.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Which is fine but is not at all related to the section quoted. total cp' date=' real points, is not a good or useful model for comparison in terms of combat power and balancing factors... much more thought is used and other metrics. [/quote']

 

Agreed. However, your statement that experienced Hero players never use real points as a measure of effectieness at all is not correct since virtually all set a limit on total real points for each character (and rarely, if ever, does any character weigh in at less than that total) and consider allowing some characters "extra real points" is considered to favour that character.

 

So again' date=' the notion that ditching RPs leads to whacky crazy mish mashes of imbalanced mayhem... don't see the logic there.[/quote']

 

I don't see the game descending into chaos if limitations are removed. However, I also don't see any great difference in this regard between removing any points for limitations, removing points for disadvantages, removing total character point restrictions, setting powers and advantages based on character concept, not points, or removal of any or all other point-based metrics. If the GM can balance the game without any or all of these, their absence won't be felt.

 

In many heroic games, there is no point balance for attacks and defenses as they are commonly purchased with money, not points. If, however, an unbalanced weapon, armor or other gadget is added to the game (especially if access to this device is restricted to only some characters), balance can easily be lost.

 

In other words, removing limitations may not result in a lack of balance (or it may - especially in a game where limitations are enforced in a manner that makes them "worth their points"), but it won't correct any balance problems either.

 

The good side' date=' the area which is improved... a player will not take traits he doesn't want to "gain points". HE wont take a lim and then do all he can to avoid it simply because he felt he had to earn more points for something he wanted. [/quote']

 

If you still award points for disadvantages, some players will feel they are forced to take traits they don't want in order to earn points. By capping the maximum total points, the player may be forced to sacrifice some positive traits in order to afford the other positive traits he desires. Is there really a big difference between, say, a limitation ["power does not function in intense magnetic fields"], a disadvantage ["cannot leap or run"] and selling back positive default abilities ["-6" running; -2" leaping]?

 

By the way, I'm interested in your answer on the Frameworks isssue. If limitations gain no points, should frameworks similarly be disallowed? EC's impose the "drain one, drain all" limitation which would be awarded no points outside an EC, and Multipowers impose Lockout, which would similarly be awarded no savings if limitation-based point reductions are removed.

 

Not in this post, but the question of whether a player/character is "punished" when he takes a limitation and gets no points is one of semantics. One can view a lack of any "reward" for taking such limitations as being "punished". Imagine we work for the same business, in the same area, and perform equally valuable work at the same speed. You work 60 hours a week and I work 30 hours a week, but we both get paid the same. Are you being "punished" by the fact that you receive no reward for your extra work? Does the fact you get extra "screen time" by being thanked regularly by the boss and awarded "Employee of the Month" make up for the discrepancy?

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

Agreed. However, your statement that experienced Hero players never use real points as a measure of effectieness at all is not correct

Hugh, i have ttried to be very precise in my claims and did not claim that. I claim RP are not used IMX by experienced players for combat effectiveness.

 

i hope i didn't misspeak at some point to lead you to the broader conclusion.

 

since virtually all set a limit on total real points for each character (and rarely, if ever, does any character weigh in at less than that total) and consider allowing some characters "extra real points" is considered to favour that character.

as pointed out earlier, if the bulk (or majority or even significant portion) of your "spent points" go into an area where we know RP <> balance, then assuming the total points spent everywhere somehow turns everything around and results in RP ~ balance seems an illogical conclusion.

 

I don't see the game descending into chaos if limitations are removed. However, I also don't see any great difference in this regard between removing any points for limitations,

removing points for lims, to me, is not intended to promote better balance tho i do see some cases where it does as judging "how good you are at your best" is often to me a better model than the "at your average" rp model seems.

 

Its not going to make balance worse IMO but will remove other negatives that come along with points back for lims... mainly the temptation (or some seem to maybe believe god-given right) to use limitations one really doesn't want in order to "get more points" for stuff you do want and then turn around and try to prevent those lims from being an actual play thing... again cuz you really didn't want them in the first place.

 

 

In many heroic games, there is no point balance for attacks and defenses as they are commonly purchased with money, not points. If, however, an unbalanced weapon, armor or other gadget is added to the game (especially if access to this device is restricted to only some characters), balance can easily be lost.

the notion of the obvious conflict between "balance will crash if we dont use RP for powers" and the fact that many games, heroic ones, don't use rp for weapons and defenses and gadgets and the like... has not escaped me.

 

Is there really a big difference between, say, a limitation ["power does not function in intense magnetic fields"], a disadvantage ["cannot leap or run"] and selling back positive default abilities ["-6" running; -2" leaping]?

nope... which is why IMo dropping "points for disads" would be consistent with dropping points for lims.

By the way, I'm interested in your answer on the Frameworks isssue. If limitations gain no points, should frameworks similarly be disallowed?

it depends on the role you want frameworks to play. I never saw the EC as a "limitation you get paid for" as much as i saw it as a reward for certain types of character types. Depending on which edition of hero you believe the fluff text on... it may be an award for "tight concepts" or the more current "make it a limitation" due to the possible drain and MPA issues (assuming anyone uses MPAs as written.)

 

if your game uses frameworks as LIMITATION aliases... then yes by all means, drop them too.

if your games use frameworks as tools to encourage certain types of characters, then dropping them "as if they were lims" is likely not the way to go.

if your game uses frameworks as a "point balancer" for the amazing bonuses of "figured characteristics" and see them as bonus points to keep blasters competitive with characteristic hounds like bricks... then again, dropping them "as if they were lims" is likely not a good idea.

 

One can view a lack of any "reward" for taking such limitations as being "punished". Imagine we work for the same business, in the same area, and perform equally valuable work at the same speed. You work 60 hours a week and I work 30 hours a week, but we both get paid the same.

FLAW in the logic of the comparison. if you work 60 hours a week and i work 30 and our SPEED is the same then you are producing more work than I.

 

the two PCs are both producing in a well run game similar if not equal impact and relevence on the resolutions.

 

A better model is... two pople work for me and both produce 60 crates of doodads a week. Their quality is the same. One works 40 hours a week and gets his 60 crates done while the other works 50 hours a week to produce the same result.

 

should the slower worker get paid more for the same production?

 

unless you believe that taking limitations earns a player less screen time, less scene relevence and less impact than other playerds as an acceptable matter of course... then you cannot assume "same speed" and "more hours" as a part of the analogy.

 

for any player whose character i approve in a game... he will get equal screen time, equal scene relevence and equal story impact as the other PCs do... the stories we run will be as much "about him" as the others.

 

the difference will be that the "expectations" and thus the challenges will be less than they would have been had different, more powerful pcs, used.

 

Are you being "punished" by the fact that you receive no reward for your extra work? Does the fact you get extra "screen time" by being thanked regularly by the boss and awarded "Employee of the Month" make up for the discrepancy?

 

Again, if as Gm both player get equal "production" in terms of screen time, scene relevence and impact... then there is no justification for more pay. I should not get paid more for producing the same results only slower.

 

Although, certainly, some business models do use the "time time payrate" for pay but many also use the "pay on comission" which is in effect what we are discussing.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

What do you mean?

well, when i built eneies groups for the campaigns and wanted to achieve a certain level of challenge, i made thos eestimates based on "the conj wont be there for some of the fight." I basically balance the scenario for say 3.5 heroes instead of 4. If the scene required his particular abilities, i knew its like those would not be available late in the fight but likely would be available early... so if they were critical path level items... i made sure they came up early.

 

Much the same way if a PC had vuln to fire in a big way, i would take that into account when scripting the INFERNO twins scenes.

 

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 you may be the first i have heard of that this worked for to that extent. its certainly not the typical response for "how to judge combat balance" given for hero.

 

Did you suggest it frequently in the many various "how to balance threads"?

if so, i may have missed it.

 

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.

thats why i use a wide variety of metrics along with simple analysis. RP just never served me much in that comparisons. So, I dont see the connection between losing rp and losing balance altogether.

 

In each conflict? I wouldn't.

some Gms may have a higher tolerance for boring their players than I do. IMX a player being bored is a GM problem... now that problem might be "i let the wrong guy into a game thats not his style" but its still a Gm problem.

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.

its not irrelevent.

if the challenge level is going to be X, as in "the PCs +Y power" then the fact that one PC has this problem and another PC doesn't mainly lowers the adversary level. As a Gm i am simply not going to be throwing the same "abstractly determined" challenges and ignoring the PC traits. Thats a recipe for disaster of the TPK magnitude whether they got points back for "vuln to fire" or not.

 

if you run a game where the challenges are not determined or influenced using the PC stats at all, then the notion of dropping lims is probably a bad idea.

 

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.

Why do you get the idea that using likely interaction of powers isn't a balancing mechanism at all?

 

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.

again, this is probably why we have such divergent views. Do you recommend such approaches when people chime into these boards with "how to balance combat" style questions?

 

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.

thats not a more moderate example, as the severity of the lim is very high, higher than you will often see used by PCs in typical play.

 

At the 80- level, as his primary attack, in a combat focused game, i would likely not allow the character... any more than i would allow a character with only a 3d6 attack in an 8d6 expected game... since both would be below campaign standards so much as to produce balance issues.

 

More to the point of RP and combat balance, I would not allow, in an 8d6 is OK but 9d6 is not campaign, someone to have a... divide by... 24d6 Eb at 8- (or more likely submitted a 16d6 at 3xend and 11-) due to the way hero scales damage.

 

Easy math here...

if an 8d6 Eb is "competitive... competitive meaning 2-3 hits will drop a typical foe, then a 165d6 Eb is basically a one-shot KO barring a very specific kind of build (ie lots of damage reduction.)

 

for sake of argument use speed 4 and a 50/50 CV chance to hit as baseline.

 

Mr 8d6 needs 4-6 attack phases to drop a foe.

Mr 24 d6 8- spreads for +8, meaning he doesn't miss, and a single 16dice hit Kos the foe. So all he needs is to have his 25% activation kick in... which means he needs 4 attack phases on average to drop hgis foe.

 

As far as being "a good scene", the odds are incredibly low that mr 8d6 will get lucky and KO his enemy early... the mechanics make the likelihood of an ongoing fight for several phases very likely, while mr one-shot has a rather decent chance of turning this fight into a quickie done and over with the other teammates just getting warmed up when he hits the 25% jackpot.

 

the RP approach doesn't work or produce better results for balance in that and many other examples. I dont think many people would agree that allowing 24d6 2 clips of 3 charges into a 12d6 Ok 13d6 not game is a reasonable idea... for most play groups.

 

Would you?

 

thats part and parcel to why RP isn't emphasized all that much as a specific tool for balancing combat and setting reasonable combat expectations.

 

 

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?

it is not just principle but also practice. in principle, the 12d6 team with the 24d6 4 clips of two charges works fine but in practice it doesn't.

 

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?

I am saying that regardless of lims, every player whose character is approved for my game is going to get the same "production"... same screen time, same scene relevence and same impact on story... overall not in every scene micromanaging... and that this will be true whether i let them have bonus points for lims or not. All pre-defined lims do is set the flavor for many of the "classic challenges" they will encounter.

 

In the meantime, droping points back for lims eliminates entirely the bad side of the process... the "i take something i DO NOT WANT as a lim because i want more points over here and now as a player i do everything i can to avoid having that negative trait apply to me."

 

When the limitations are "just for fun" they aren't something the player avoids.

 

think back to DnD. Ever build a DND character with a "surly demeanor" and play him that way? Did you get points for it? No? But surely, sometimes the surly disposition did not help... yet you still played it because you chose it because you thought "this is fun." you don't have to avoid having it come into play because... you wanted it in the firt place. I am not "obligated" to make you PAY FOR IT with hardships.

 

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.

what he should get is the same screen time, same scene relevence and same story impact as every other player... regardless of character build. giving points for lims or not doesn't alter that at all.

 

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?

because evrryone is going to have some problems but be equally playable, relevent and impactful... all he did was choose the flavor of his problems.

 

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.

if the worry is that PCs would not take limitations... which doesn't seem to me to be a problem... if they don't want to take limitations why is that a problem... then the repeated examples of seriously crippled powers seems a bit off.

 

So lets be clear...

 

if a player doesn't want to play a limited character, he shouldn't be forced, coerced or encouraged to. Giving no points back for lims avoids all of these.

 

If a player wants to play a limited character that is still within the campaign acceptable ranges, then he should and thats perfectly doable without points back for lims. (for sake of argument, the campaign acceptable ranges" are assumed to be set at values where the Gm can provide equal screen time, scene relevence and story impact for each PC.)

 

 

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,

Example: Conjurer's failed skill roll side effect results in him ebing teleported to a "random" disension where he is stuck for a while until he can get back out. The practical result of this is while in combat his teammates will see him vanish from time to time and lose his assistance.

 

IF the Gm does not take this into account when building combat challenges... who should get the points for "compensation"? Is conjurer, now sitting on a beach somewhere in jungleland for an hour or two trying to unravel the mystery of "where am I this week" the guy who deserves compensation or is it his teammates, who suddenly are a man down and facing a suddenly mor uphill fight?

 

if the systemic answer is "reward conjurer" then i think the compensation methodology is flawed there. The one's "paying the price" are his teammates.

 

On the other hand, if the Gm scales the combat challnges to take this "man dwn syndrome" into account, so the fight is overall "as challenging" as it would have been if conjurer never had taken that lim, then I argue that no compensation is due, as the "compensation" was already assessed in terms of "lowered combat challnge levels".

 

 

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.

in order for me to "monkey" with a scenario, there is the assumption that there was some neutral, generic, scenario to start with that I am changing, some standard i am monkeying around with...

 

thats incorrect.

 

In my games and in most cases i would wager, scenarios in rpgs dont achieve balance with random generic challenge determination.

 

Supers without science guy(s)... comics or rpgs... they somehow... hard to imagine... dont seem to run into "need science to save the day or the world is doomed" scenarios as often as supers with "science guys" do?

 

How many times has BATMAN used forensics and criminal investigation when it was vital to the outcome... a lot.

How many times has the incredible HULK?

 

do you think those were just by accident?

 

Choosing challenges to make the PCs relevent and impactful and such is not "monkeying with the scenarios" its designing them. In part, it is a difference between running an RPG and referreeing a wargame.

 

While the upcoming Rocky Balboa film may not be much, I betcha the plot will not hinge on Balboa's computer savvy but on his boxing ability.

 

Again... not by accident.

[incrdbil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

In a game i run, which I run well, it is untrue that any PC i approve should "always be second fiddle".

 

Maybe you should read the full post.

 

 

"That player of the lesser powered character shouldn't expect to always be as effective--they may get equal screen time, in roleplaying terms, but in terms of combat or conflict resolution, they may always be second fiddle. "

 

That that the PC is forever a second fiddle in the game, but simply not a prime combatant or source of sheer power. the dumb bricks goign to be a paperweight during an investigatory scene..you get the picture.

 

If i am doing my job, then when it comes to impact and relevence and such, they are equal, overall in the big scheme of things, while understanding that at times one will play a more prominent role and at others others will.

 

Which Is what I've always said--and perhaps mentioned in this thread.

 

 

 

 

I don't "make them pay"... they chose to pay, to take, that less effective power.

 

and they pay the same for a les useful powe. they pay the same for a gimick as a mainstream power--now, if you just give the players unlimited points, and build to concept, this will work. If you keep an ultimate point caps, make them pay for advantages, you have by default, discouraged players from taking limitations--they can choose to play a character with no limitations, not deal with the burden, and be just as effective as a character with limitations. This is fine if you wish to discourage players from taking limitations.

 

If you wan to toss out limitations reducing RP cost, its very workable--just go by campaign settings for powers, attacks, and defenses, and just make sure those players who claim to have a limitation overall suffer no more hindrance than those who dont.

 

 

 

So him taking limitations on powers without compensation by choice is wrong for a GM to allow but him taking disadvanmtages without compensation for the character is Ok for the GM to allow?

 

Notice I said I limit the impact--taking limitationns on powers without compensation by the GM's choice in a game with a finite real point cap for characters (that charges normally for everythign else) is wrong for a GM who is claiming to have an all-builds/concepts treated equally cmpaign, instead of outright stating a preference and built in campign favoritism for certain builds.

 

 

 

 

the "character" doesn't take the lim... the player chooses to run the character with the lim, to build the character with the lim, presumably because thats what he wants to play.

 

and, as you neatly avoided, presumably wishes to do somethign else with those points spent on a less effective power, if he's playing with a total real point limit, paying for his advantages, and otherwise complying with campaign power level limits.

 

 

 

 

RP is IMO an incredibly poor balance guide, particularly down to the specifics of attack powers and combat powers being thrown about here. Again, I suspect that realization is why so many threads asking for "how do i balance and comapre" (often combat) don't see "use real points" as a common response.

 

This idea that RP is the prime balancing tool is an invention of your creation--the point I'm making that its fine not to give a cost break for limitations--but if you do so, toss out points all together--set a rough DC/Active point guideline, individually review all characters, and hope you striek a balance--and dont be suprised that the ' self taken player limitations are, inthe players POV, rarely to be enforced unless they recieve some compensation over and above what an unlimited character would get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't say "all" players and didn't say "some players...

 

Ok so lets say thats true for "some" players (I know its not true for all players because i have run games without limitations give you points and seen players take limitations and be fine with it.)

 

So what?

 

Hey--if it works for a certain group of exceptional players, more power to you. As a general idea or guideline for typical games and typical players, its not very effective.

 

 

 

Actually i have been strggling here trying to point out that most PCs dont have these cockeyed overly crippeled strawman examples... but they keep coming.

 

And I havent been giving any cockeyed examples--the one build I gave was comparing a main attack power, and a 'gimmick' occasional use power--of course, just looking at the cost paid, theres no way to tell the difference is there?

 

But as to your specific point... Its not my job to encourage players to take limitations in order to get more points for what they want to play.

 

but you've taken it as your jjob to discourage them from taking limitations that actually take effect. Oh, you might get a power armor character, but the set up will encourage the 'my armor teleports to me and can never be taken away" type.

 

They should take limitations because they want to play them and have those problems... not to save points for other stuff.

 

and they should get a fair and balanced treatment for the overal reduced capability they take for accepting those limitations.

 

 

 

 

if the player knows the setup, knows the costs, and gets to choose and build his character, unless i switch up the rules or costs on him... it is exactly a player "chosing to deliberately play"...

 

Well, yes, if a pleyer wants to be hosed, I'd expect them to not object to being hosed. This diminishingly small subset of gamer is not a sizeable portion of any gaming circle thats ever been described to me.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Just for the record, I am an experience HERO player. I've been playing since 1st Edition and GMing since 2nd.

 

And I use Real Points as an important balancing metric. I believe it to be important in combat effectiveness. I believe it to be the single most important metric. Notice that I make no claim that it is the only important metric, or that it can be used effectively without other metrics as well.

 

My advice on balancing encounters would be to look at Real Points first. Not Real Points only, but that's the place to start.

 

And the rules-as-written would seem to agree with this position, since the bottom line for character creation is Real Points, and the bottom line for the cost of each power/skill/characteristic/etc. is Real Points.

 

The "rule of X" that tesuji mentions several times in this thread IIRC, as not and has never been part of the HERO System. I believe it comes from Fuzion.

 

Let's say we have two characters with the following combat powers:

 

12d6 EB - 60 Active Points

15 PD/15 ED Force Field - 30 Active Points

 

One of them has 2x END on these two powers, reducing their Real Point costs to 40 and 20, respectively. These two characters are otherwise identical.

 

Are they balanced? If you don't give discounts for limitations, both characters will cost the same, and each of their powers will cost the same. But the 2xEND guy will get tired twice as fast in combat. This makes a difference in combat effectiveness. Using Active Points, DC's, etc., as the only metrics will not indicate the difference in effectiveness of these two characters. Using the Real Points metric will.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

It has been mentioned several times that if one were to get rid of Limitation values, that you might as well get rid of Disadvantage values (as if they had identical effects).

 

There is a significant difference in effect as to what Limitations do vs what Disadvantages do.

 

1) Both Limitations and Disadvantages primary function is to restrict the character in some way. In this aspect they are identical in effect.

2) Total Real Points: Limitations do not increase the total number of real points that can be spent. Disadvantages increase the total number of real points that can be spent. In this aspect they are drastically different in effect.

 

Just wanted to bring this difference to the forfront.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

That that the PC is forever a second fiddle in the game, but simply not a prime combatant or source of sheer power. the dumb bricks goign to be a paperweight during an investigatory scene..you get the picture.

this is where it gets to be confusing for me cuz I thought you were trying to show something about the underpowered character... an expectation that player should have that is because his character has less points.

 

Every character, IMX and IMG, should expect to sometimes "be the paperweight" (stronger than i would normally state but it works) and at other times "be "the man"". Thats an inherent part of a team or group social event.

 

So we seem to be agreeing... the supposedly "underpowered character" is like everyone else going to have his "high points" (where he is the center and prime mover), his "low points" (where he is the paperweight), and plenty of middles but overall he willl be on equal footing in terms of screen time, scene relevence and story impact... so in fact how is he really underpowered at all?

 

All being "underpowered" accomplished was to pick the flavor of his "low points" ahead of time. Its like chosing vuln to fire over vuln to cold.

 

Which Is what I've always said--and perhaps mentioned in this thread.

 

Well 9if we both agree that the alleged "underpowered" character should recieve equal screen time, scene relevence and story impact as the other characters... then can we not agree also that in fact then he is not really an underpowered character at all?

 

How many points back is the limitation "gets the same as everyone else" worth?

 

 

 

 

This is fine if you wish to discourage players from taking limitations.

I absolutely want to discourage players from taking limitations they do not want to play.

 

just make sure those players who claim to have a limitation overall suffer no more hindrance than those who dont.

I think we just both agreed earlier that we give our PCs equal ... to avoid repeating the triumvirate of screen time, scene relevence and story impaqct... lets call it "weight" cuz i don't like gravitas... so if we are both giving each player and character equal weight then we aren't by definition providing them with more hindrance than the others.

 

Thats my point... the percieved "limitation" isn't.

is wrong for a GM who is claiming to have an all-builds/concepts treated equally cmpaign, instead of outright stating a preference and built in campign favoritism for certain builds.

I dont believe in unicorns, nor do i believe in the myth of the "all builds/allconcepts treated equally" system. HERo has its "this works better than thats" as does every other system and certainly between campaigns differences in "what works well" will apply.

 

 

and, as you neatly avoided, presumably wishes to do somethign else with those points spent on a less effective power, if he's playing with a total real point limit, paying for his advantages, and otherwise complying with campaign power level limits.

Avoided.. hell no.. its a core premise.. i don't want or find it beneficial for my games for a player to take a limitation he doesn't want for fun "FOR THE POINTS."

 

"I want the points to spend elsewhere" is NOT IMO/IMX a good reason or doesn't produce good results (for chargen and game play) for taking a limitation, for accepting a hindrance you don't want in the first place.

 

If it something you want, this limitation and scenes involving those flavor problems, then you should be allowed to take it but it should not be something you expect reward for... you are after all getting what you want.

 

If it is something you don't want, then you shouldn't be being compelled to accept it anyway, to be coerced or encouraged into playing it for however long the campaign will run or what have you, by dint of bribery.

 

In games i have run without "bribes for limitations or disadvantages" the limitations and disadvantages chosen by players were ones they wanted, ones they enjoyed and ones which grew and flowed and evolved and resolved naturally and smoothly and the player didn't work "against" their occurance and were just overall more beneficial than the vast majority of "limitations" and "disadvantages" taken in "bribes for limitation and disadvantages" games which were taken "for the points".

 

but you've taken it as your jjob to discourage them from taking limitations that actually take effect. Oh, you might get a power armor character, but the set up will encourage the 'my armor teleports to me and can never be taken away" type.

Its my job to encourage you to not take things you don't want to see in play. if you prefer to play the teleporting magic powered armor... thats fine. If you prefer to play the "sometimes the armor is in the trunk and so i have to survive on wits" guy, thats fine too.

 

But, again there seems to be a disconnect here...

 

What I have to get across is the point both of us seem to agree on... that whichever you choose and whichever flavor of challenges come into play... it wont matter to you, the player, in terms of WEIGHT.

 

The player who thinks as you describe that the "real powered armor guy is getting hosed" is failing to see what we both agreed to already... that he wont be any less WEIGHTY in the campaign than the teleporting armor guy.

 

The only difference between the armor in trunk guy and the teleporting armor guy in play is not "one hosed, one not" but "one will have armor in the trunk issues" while the other guy has "other issues as of yet unspecified." "Armor in trunk guy" knows he will have some scenes out of armor while "teleporting armor guy" wont and since trunk-boy's player WANTED to run "out of armor scenes" he is getting what he wanted and BOTH PLAYERS and character will have equal weight.

 

Now, for perhaps new rpgers or players new to a given GM... anyone who doesn't believe their Gm is going to give all his players and PCs equal weight... who are afraid some players will be given more screen time, more scene relevence and more story impact... who are afriad the Gm will play favorites and such... those people will somewhat understandably be just like you say... discouraged from taking limitations for fun alone... believeing them to be "screwing themselves" but its my job as Gm to work to get the notion across that this is not going to happen by showing in play its not true and watching them turn around.

 

 

and they should get a fair and balanced treatment for the overal reduced capability they take for accepting those limitations.

If i choose SFX fire fr my EB... I know that there will be the occasional problem with my power. I know it wont be as effective in some cases at certain situations as say "electricity" or "sonics". I don't get "points back for fire" because regardless of which sfx i choose the net effect will balance out... in theory... and i won't be in the big picture less "capable" at all.

 

The same is true of limitations if the Gm is doing what we both agree we do... making sure all PCs are given equal weight... given equal portions of screen time, scene relevence and story impact.

 

The fact that armor in trunk guy has scenes where he has to get buy without his suit is nothing more than the flavor of his challenges for this week much like "dang i had better not use my fire powers here among the fuel refinery" affects "fire sfx boy" but not "sonic SFX"" boy.

 

You don't get points back, even by hero terms, if its not limiting if its only flavoring the challenges... and if your character is going to recieve equal WEIGHT (as we both seem to agree) then its not limiting.

Well, yes, if a pleyer wants to be hosed, I'd expect them to not object to being hosed. This diminishingly small subset of gamer is not a sizeable portion of any gaming circle thats ever been described to me.

 

if the player sees in fact his character getting equal weight to the others, he is not getting hosed, is he? once your players get the notion of being hosed out of the way, games run really well IMX.

 

perhaps a problem inherent with bribes for limitations and disadvantages is fostering and encouraging the very notion that you are getting hosed by having problems in the first place.

 

All of the following were taken and played significant roles in games where there were no bribes for limitations or disadvantages given to "compensate...

1. Mage who believes his magic was holy in origin and who did prayers and tiruals and followed a fairly strict code of conduct even tho it wasn't true.

2. mage who saw his spells as songs and sung every one ofnthem even when, by the book, there were not verbal requirements.

3. elf who had whacky totally way off propoganda level misconceptions about the culture she was now in including "knowing" that horses were vile dangerous carnivourous beasts. (Which when applied to a character with a knowledge of toxins and poisons... well the stories just write themselves sometimes)

4 barbarian who is lost child of noble family in exile devoted to reclaiming her family honor.

5. warrior devoted... well maybe obsessed is a better word.. with finding the killer of his family and who is also severly prejudiced against abou 1/3 of the populace.

 

All were chosen... for fun... not because they needed or wanted more points.

All played well and played out and were FUN when it came up. The players did not work to avoid them occuring while the Gm set himself to force them to occur.

 

No one felt HOSED.

 

I honestly don't think, from having seen many groups over the years as well as the same group multiple times, that its so alien a concept as you may think it is. It certainly may be among some groups if they have been taught, by system or by GMs, to EXPECT to be hosed if they don't get paid back.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

The "rule of X" that tesuji mentions several times in this thread IIRC, as not and has never been part of the HERO System. I believe it comes from Fuzion.

he excel spead sheet i mention is also never a part of the hero system. I list it and the others because many different mechanics for juding combat balance are used... not just the ones in the books.

 

RoX is used in other systems, not just the favorite punching bag of fuzion. IIRC MnM 2e uses it too, tho they dont call it that.

 

One of them has 2x END on these two powers, reducing their Real Point costs to 40 and 20, respectively. These two characters are otherwise identical.

Its the "otherwise identical" combined with the limitation that causes the problem..

 

A reasonable GM is not going to allow two "otherwise identical" characters with this difference into a campaign. There is next to no ability to differentiate them in play except for the downside which means, looking at them, the Gm says "hmmm... i cannot give these two characters equal weight" and says no to one or both in part or in whole.

 

Now if they are not "otherwise identical" and the Gm looks at them and says "hmm.. i can give these guys equal weight... and this guy will have tiring out problems as part of his "flavor"" then allowing them is not a problem without giving bribe points to the one.

 

Are they balanced?

if the Gm can provide them equal weight... equal screen time, equal scene relevence and equal story impact... sure.

 

the "otherwise identical" coupled with the limitation... that pair might make them unacceptable.

 

If you don't give discounts for limitations, both characters will cost the same, and each of their powers will cost the same. But the 2xEND guy will get tired twice as fast in combat.

Which may or may not be an actual problem depending on the typical length of campaign fights and other character traits. thats as of yet... undetermined... but really not at the core here.

 

This makes a difference in combat effectiveness. Using Active Points, DC's, etc., as the only metrics will not indicate the difference in effectiveness of these two characters. Using the Real Points metric will.

 

but on the other hand, if you remove the "otherwise identical" you get back to "real characters comparisons" with real being "like you might actually face in play... and there the issue is will the Gm in his game be able to play out these two characters as of equal weight? if so, if all the limitation does is "preset your flavor of common combat challenges" then they are not "less effective" if fact... but rather "long combats" becomes the one hero's "time for you to be a paperweight" while the other guy has different "paperweight" times.

 

Whether you give bribes for (un)wanted lims or not, it will be ture that some pairings of characters will be unacceptable or problematic for a given game. In almost no case would i allow two "otherwise identical" characters into the same game unless the "not identical parts" served well enough to differentiate the two and allow them equal weight.

 

As for the a=value of RPs... having seen the gross difference in "build to rps" between veterans and novices or even between veterans in different campaigns... I just cannot take seriously the notion that it serves as any valuable balancing metric.

 

Saying "he is built on 250"or "he is built on 350" gives me next to nothing to go on as to "combat power" and definitely saying "they are both built on 350 doesn't tell me they are even close to being balanced enough to play in the same game.

 

if by "starting point" you mean "well if one is three times as much as the other he is likely to be more powerful" then yeah i can give you that but that isn't useful to me.

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

 

well, when i built eneies groups for the campaigns and wanted to achieve a certain level of challenge, i made thos eestimates based on "the conj wont be there for some of the fight." I basically balance the scenario for say 3.5 heroes instead of 4. If the scene required his particular abilities, i knew its like those would not be available late in the fight but likely would be available early... so if they were critical path level items... i made sure they came up early.

 

Much the same way if a PC had vuln to fire in a big way, i would take that into account when scripting the INFERNO twins scenes.

 

Okay, thanks - more on this below.

 

then you may be the first i have heard of that this worked for to that extent. its certainly not the typical response for "how to judge combat balance" given for hero.

 

Did you suggest it frequently in the many various "how to balance threads"?

if so, i may have missed it.

 

Someone always advocates using common sense and looking at the qualities of the powers, whether it's me or someone else. That's the only methodology here. Did I specifically state "it's okay for one guy to have a 14d6 EB if he's willing to live with 8 or less activation adn 4 charges while the campaign maxima might normally be 8d6"? I'm sure not. Nor would I, per se, as it's too specific an example, but if the point came up and depending on the campaign I imagine I would - I just don't know how often such a situation is going to come up. I don't see many players who'd want to play that, but if someone were happy doing so, then that's fine with me.

 

thats why i use a wide variety of metrics along with simple analysis. RP just never served me much in that comparisons. So, I dont see the connection between losing rp and losing balance altogether.

 

And I don't think anyone is arguing that it's an all-or-nothing proposition either way.

 

some Gms may have a higher tolerance for boring their players than I do. IMX a player being bored is a GM problem... now that problem might be "i let the wrong guy into a game thats not his style" but its still a Gm problem.

 

This doesn't seem to be what you've said elsewhere, if you're actually responding to what I was saying - you said above you count on the conj being out of the fight earlier than others. He is therefore bored. So are you letting him out of the fight earlier or contriving something for him to stay in? I suspect in reality we're agreeing - if the player WANTS to play this combat-ineffective character, he's by definition not bored. Assuming he's not disrupting others, there's no issue. I'm not suggesting any more than you are with the conjurer to "bore" someone - we're talking about enabling the story the player wants to tell. In these cases the player wants to sit back and enjoy the others playing, apparently, during combat.

 

its not irrelevent.

if the challenge level is going to be X, as in "the PCs +Y power" then the fact that one PC has this problem and another PC doesn't mainly lowers the adversary level. As a Gm i am simply not going to be throwing the same "abstractly determined" challenges and ignoring the PC traits. Thats a recipe for disaster of the TPK magnitude whether they got points back for "vuln to fire" or not.

 

if you run a game where the challenges are not determined or influenced using the PC stats at all, then the notion of dropping lims is probably a bad idea.

 

But it's irrelevant to the notion of whether an INDIVIDUAL PC should have a compensatory mechanic for voluntarily greatly limiting his abilities. If we're treating all of the players in aggregate, we aren't addressing this problem.

 

Why do you get the idea that using likely interaction of powers isn't a balancing mechanism at all?

 

HUH!??! Tesuji, THAT IS MY POINT - that this IS a balancing mechanism. YOU are the one who claimed all the balancing mechanisms were RoX and so on - all formulaic. I know you know better, and was pointing this out.

 

again, this is probably why we have such divergent views. Do you recommend such approaches when people chime into these boards with "how to balance combat" style questions?

 

 

thats not a more moderate example, as the severity of the lim is very high, higher than you will often see used by PCs in typical play.

 

First "often" is hardly much of a qualifier. If it happens "less than often", this implies it is coming up with some regularity.

 

At the 80- level, as his primary attack, in a combat focused game, i would likely not allow the character... any more than i would allow a character with only a 3d6 attack in an 8d6 expected game... since both would be below campaign standards so much as to produce balance issues.

 

More to the point of RP and combat balance, I would not allow, in an 8d6 is OK but 9d6 is not campaign, someone to have a... divide by... 24d6 Eb at 8- (or more likely submitted a 16d6 at 3xend and 11-) due to the way hero scales damage.

 

Easy math here...

if an 8d6 Eb is "competitive... competitive meaning 2-3 hits will drop a typical foe, then a 165d6 Eb is basically a one-shot KO barring a very specific kind of build (ie lots of damage reduction.)

 

for sake of argument use speed 4 and a 50/50 CV chance to hit as baseline.

 

Mr 8d6 needs 4-6 attack phases to drop a foe.

Mr 24 d6 8- spreads for +8, meaning he doesn't miss, and a single 16dice hit Kos the foe. So all he needs is to have his 25% activation kick in... which means he needs 4 attack phases on average to drop hgis foe.

 

As far as being "a good scene", the odds are incredibly low that mr 8d6 will get lucky and KO his enemy early... the mechanics make the likelihood of an ongoing fight for several phases very likely, while mr one-shot has a rather decent chance of turning this fight into a quickie done and over with the other teammates just getting warmed up when he hits the 25% jackpot.

 

the RP approach doesn't work or produce better results for balance in that and many other examples. I dont think many people would agree that allowing 24d6 2 clips of 3 charges into a 12d6 Ok 13d6 not game is a reasonable idea... for most play groups.

 

Would you?

 

This has nothing to do with the point, and I don't know what you mean when you keep saying "RP approach". I only see you saying 2 things: a) "I won't allow it" and "if I do allow it, it means it's good enough that there's no point in receiving a limitation for it."

 

The magnitude of the examples is irrelevant - you must assume that the magnitude is something acceptable to the campaign, of course, otherwise the rest is moot. If you're not assuming that, in other words assuming that no such situation exists, you have by definition killed the need for limitations in general directly by killing player choices that would call on them. That's acceptable - but it doesn't make sense as the standard way for a HERO game to run to me anymore than some of the whackier stuff I've done.

 

Let's stick to the basic - I want an 8- or 4 charges or whatever - some significant limitation that is going to come into play every time (readjust 4 charges to 2 or 1 if you run a campaign with battles lasting half a Turn). Some "hard" limitation.

 

Are you saying that if I wish to run this way in your campaign, you basically are going to say "Okay, too bad that you'll suck in combat, I know you wanted to have more skills but I'm not going to allow that," or "nope, I won't allow you to have a power that's only 50% (or whatever) effective"

 

thats part and parcel to why RP isn't emphasized all that much as a specific tool for balancing combat and setting reasonable combat expectations.

 

 

 

it is not just principle but also practice. in principle, the 12d6 team with the 24d6 4 clips of two charges works fine but in practice it doesn't. [

/quote]

 

Huh? What do 24d6 4 clips have to do with anything?

 

I am talking about a very specific and simple example - all players have 12d6 attacks that are unlmiited, except one player whose 12d6 he can only fire 4 times a day (of course, we're assuming that's a meaningful limitation in the sense that he will often be wanting to fire more than 4 times in a day). I don't know what you're talking about 24d6 4 clips all of a sudden for. That is completely beside the point.

 

I am saying that regardless of lims, every player whose character is approved for my game is going to get the same "production"... same screen time, same scene relevence and same impact on story... overall not in every scene micromanaging... and that this will be true whether i let them have bonus points for lims or not. All pre-defined lims do is set the flavor for many of the "classic challenges" they will encounter.

 

In the meantime, droping points back for lims eliminates entirely the bad side of the process... the "i take something i DO NOT WANT as a lim because i want more points over here and now as a player i do everything i can to avoid having that negative trait apply to me."

 

When the limitations are "just for fun" they aren't something the player avoids.

 

think back to DnD. Ever build a DND character with a "surly demeanor" and play him that way? Did you get points for it? No? But surely, sometimes the surly disposition did not help... yet you still played it because you chose it because you thought "this is fun." you don't have to avoid having it come into play because... you wanted it in the firt place. I am not "obligated" to make you PAY FOR IT with hardships.

 

And we play characters with surly dispositions in HERO for no points - so what?

 

You refer to players gleaming limitations for the sake of gaining efficiency for lims they don't intend to use - why are you assuming such mal-intent from the player? Regardless, setting that aside and not giving any points, why are you shortchanging a player who voluntarily wants his combat powers all limited? I don't see why he shouldn't be able to build up his non-combat powers, personally, if that's what he wants, and whether you use points or ignore points, I think you need some method to assist that player. What seems odd to me is singling out lims as opposed to disads (I would sooner elminate those, btw, as they stand outside the mechanics of powers and half the time entirely outside of mechanics), and assuming that all other points constructions are entirely valid and useful.

 

what he should get is the same screen time, same scene relevence and same story impact as every other player... regardless of character build. giving points for lims or not doesn't alter that at all.

 

 

because evrryone is going to have some problems but be equally playable, relevent and impactful... all he did was choose the flavor of his problems.

 

So, in other words, you will work to make sure he has a slight advantage otherwise in combat to compensate? But not give him the option to build up non-combat skills or build up some other expertise?

 

if the worry is that PCs would not take limitations... which doesn't seem to me to be a problem... if they don't want to take limitations why is that a problem... then the repeated examples of seriously crippled powers seems a bit off.

 

So lets be clear...

 

if a player doesn't want to play a limited character, he shouldn't be forced, coerced or encouraged to. Giving no points back for lims avoids all of these.

 

If a player wants to play a limited character that is still within the campaign acceptable ranges, then he should and thats perfectly doable without points back for lims. (for sake of argument, the campaign acceptable ranges" are assumed to be set at values where the Gm can provide equal screen time, scene relevence and story impact for each PC.)

 

What I don't understand here is how a character who wants to be offensively weak and therefore has limitations on all his attacks gets "equal screen time, scene relevance, and story impact" given he's unable to boost anything else, defenses or skills. OR you're basically enforcing such strict standards that basically nothing below a -1/4 or -1/2 (roughly) lim level can ever be attained because it doesn't fit the standards, so you basically are enforcing all characters to have a certain combat effectiveness level, even if they don't want that. That's okay - it's your game. I am just trying to be clear as well. So is that it? If so, then let's be equally clear this isn't advice that's going to work in probably even a substantial majority of games, but is useful for many situations.

 

Example: Conjurer's failed skill roll side effect results in him ebing teleported to a "random" disension where he is stuck for a while until he can get back out. The practical result of this is while in combat his teammates will see him vanish from time to time and lose his assistance.

 

IF the Gm does not take this into account when building combat challenges... who should get the points for "compensation"? Is conjurer, now sitting on a beach somewhere in jungleland for an hour or two trying to unravel the mystery of "where am I this week" the guy who deserves compensation or is it his teammates, who suddenly are a man down and facing a suddenly mor uphill fight?

 

if the systemic answer is "reward conjurer" then i think the compensation methodology is flawed there. The one's "paying the price" are his teammates.

 

But you just said you design the scenarios with that in mind? As would I - assuming the conjurer player is quite happy to be out of combat.

 

So isn't it really the conjurer who needs the boost in screen time somewhere else?

 

Of course this is again a fairly extreme example - but I could imagine it at many different scales and my answer would be about the same therefore.

 

On the other hand, if the Gm scales the combat challnges to take this "man dwn syndrome" into account, so the fight is overall "as challenging" as it would have been if conjurer never had taken that lim, then I argue that no compensation is due, as the "compensation" was already assessed in terms of "lowered combat challnge levels".

 

Not for those who actually have to fight the combat. And we're not talking about them - and that's why your continued aggregation makes no sense to me. We're talking about the individual PC and HIS screen time.

 

in order for me to "monkey" with a scenario, there is the assumption that there was some neutral, generic, scenario to start with that I am changing, some standard i am monkeying around with...

 

thats incorrect.

 

In my games and in most cases i would wager, scenarios in rpgs dont achieve balance with random generic challenge determination.

 

Supers without science guy(s)... comics or rpgs... they somehow... hard to imagine... dont seem to run into "need science to save the day or the world is doomed" scenarios as often as supers with "science guys" do?

 

How many times has BATMAN used forensics and criminal investigation when it was vital to the outcome... a lot.

How many times has the incredible HULK?

 

do you think those were just by accident?

 

Choosing challenges to make the PCs relevent and impactful and such is not "monkeying with the scenarios" its designing them. In part, it is a difference between running an RPG and referreeing a wargame.

 

While the upcoming Rocky Balboa film may not be much, I betcha the plot will not hinge on Balboa's computer savvy but on his boxing ability.

 

Again... not by accident.

 

Not my point.

 

If you are letting "Mr. I can't fight" and "Mr. fighter" in combats and you are turning around and arranging the combat so "Mr. I can't fight" suddenly can do things or is always "lucky enough" or some-such that he is effective, then you are just basically giving him points in play. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but you're compensating him all the same, just in a different manner than using points.

 

I think it's more common to allow "Mr. I can't fight" to be "Mr. I have hellacious skills," whether we use Limitation values to regain points or we just say "here, have 50 extra points since you suck in combat and I'm not counting lims," and not because the points/mechanical balance on paper is so important as much as because to many of us it feels less arbitrary than the GM having to contrive incidents continually beacuse "Mr. I can't fight" is also "I didn't have enough points for skill, either." As I say, "feels," because after all in the hands of a good GM and a play group that is invested and interested, anything is possible.

 

This all boils down to just what I closed with and you snipped - "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?"

 

I am still confused on this point - I do not see why Lims are the only thing singled out. Regarding your problem statement, "players shouldn't be coerced into buying lims," in general players shouldn't be coerced into buying anything except for some essentials to the campaign world. All I can see in your solution is you are moving the points from up-front to virtual points in play that you are assigning in a qualitative manner to assure that the guy who misfires, for example, 10% of the time has some other leg up that he has no control over - and back to the other snipped point, that's a deviation from the normal way we assign control in HERO, as when the player abdicates control he normally gets points back to define control elsewhere/in some other manner. So your underlying issue is really that you don't want people to feel forced to abdicate control. You need to resolve that with Disads and with the trade-offs between combat and non-combat effectiveness, and so on, and in individual power builds where control is intrinsically abdicated without additional abiliites being purchased. Essentially, you are redefiining the nature of balance. Nothing wrong with that - but I don't see how this narrow focus on lims does much nor do I see how it amounts to any more than you boosting PCs (in my view) artificially during play, making them combat-effective where they were not (instead of for example giving the player the control to be combat-less-effective and non-combat-more-effective).

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

...but I'd also argue then that why are we stopping at Lims' date=' 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?"[/quote']

As far a Disadvantages go, he has already stated that he allows for zero point Disadvantages also. If he hasn't expressed it more thoroughly, it might be because my intial post only specified limitations and not disadvantages.

 

Just A Possible Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

This doesn't seem to be what you've said elsewhere, if you're actually responding to what I was saying - you said above you count on the conj being out of the fight earlier than others. He is therefore bored. So are you letting him out of the fight earlier or contriving something for him to stay in? I suspect in reality we're agreeing - if the player WANTS to play this combat-ineffective character, he's by definition not bored. Assuming he's not disrupting others, there's no issue. I'm not suggesting any more than you are with the conjurer to "bore" someone - we're talking about enabling the story the player wants to tell. In these cases the player wants to sit back and enjoy the others playing, apparently, during combat.

 

The conj player was far from bored... every odd location he popped to started off with a bang and that went on while the other battle did too. Reach a good break point.. cut to conj for a moment... run a cool scene...cut back to the gang for a while...etc... basic simple GMing 101.

 

fact of the mtter is... the plights of the conjurer and his "oh boy" moments, while it did cause several players to half-heatedly request "i want points for his disadvantages" was great fun for all and is one of the high spots of that three year ongoing hero campaign.

 

bored... nah.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

Someone always advocates using common sense and looking at the qualities of the powers, whether it's me or someone else. That's the only methodology here.

I don't have a problem with the "use common sense" methodology for balance except that its not particularly useful advice to give someone who doesn't already have the basis for judging down pat. if he doesn't already know "how to compare and asses" telling him "make reasonable assessments" isn't useful but telling him what items to compare and what things to watch out for may well be what he needs to get started.

 

But it's irrelevant to the notion of whether an INDIVIDUAL PC should have a compensatory mechanic for voluntarily greatly limiting his abilities. If we're treating all of the players in aggregate, we aren't addressing this problem.

if we are talking about one individual PC and his powers, then the issue of limitations or not and balance is irrelevent almost totally... as there is nothing for his costs to compare against. he gets 100% of the screen time, 100% of th scene relevence and 100% of the story impact... all the time.

 

If we are talking about more than one PC, then we are talking about more than one PC, and so the impact on adversary levels, which applies to both PCs, is relevent.

 

 

HUH!??! Tesuji, THAT IS MY POINT - that this IS a balancing mechanism. YOU are the one who claimed all the balancing mechanisms were RoX and so on - all formulaic. I know you know better, and was pointing this out.

No i did not.

Do not mistake a list of the common balancing metrics i see mentioned around here as somehow being supposed to be a list of the only ones ever used.

 

Now, maybe i misunderstood you... maybe you are not in the USE RP AS COMBAT BALANCE camp. maybe you talk about allowing the high dice low activation (the 12d6 ok, 13d6 not Ok, 24 d6 with lims OK too example you agreed with earlier) but are approving it NOT BECAUSE OF EQUAL RP but because it meets other criteria?

 

Is that true?

 

In that case, if the approval was NOT BASED ON RP, then we don't have a disagreement... we are both saying RP not used to determine balance/acceptability... It might not be a case i would agree with in my games, and so your other method might not be acceptable to me either, but if "they were equal in RP" was not the reason for the approval, we are not in disagreement.

 

Are you saying that if I wish to run this way in your campaign, you basically are going to say "Okay, too bad that you'll suck in combat, I know you wanted to have more skills but I'm not going to allow that," or "nope, I won't allow you to have a power that's only 50% (or whatever) effective"

I am saying there are two basic cases...

 

if the character is so far outside of "reasonable campaign expectations" that i feel it will be too difficult or impossible to give you equal screen time, equal scene relevence, and equal story impact... whether that means you are too good at something, too weak at something, too narrowly focused, too broad, or any number of other reasons... then i will not approve the character.

 

if the character is within reasonable campaign expectations so that i can give you equal... weight... then i will likely allow the character (there are compatability issues other than weight but thats another thread) and you don't need "points back" becuase you won't be "limited" compared to everyone else... you will get even WEIGHT even though you may have chosen that "combat" is one of your weaknesses.

 

 

Huh? What do 24d6 4 clips have to do with anything?

again this may be a misunderstanding.

 

If one, you, are of the opinion that RP equal is a valid approval criteria for two powers, then the example showing two RP equal powers is relevent. I thought you were in that camp by your earlier agreement to allow the high dice Eb with activation. I thought you were agreeing with the "use RP" position.

 

Now if instead you meant "decide based on other factors than RP" and those other factors happen to make these RP equal power acceptable... then I was mistaken and the example is not relevent.

 

but i do seem to recall someone claiming a more restricted power ought to be more powerful. too many posts all sloshing together.

I am talking about a very specific and simple example - all players have 12d6 attacks that are unlmiited, except one player whose 12d6 he can only fire 4 times a day (of course, we're assuming that's a meaningful limitation in the sense that he will often be wanting to fire more than 4 times in a day). I don't know what you're talking about 24d6 4 clips all of a sudden for. That is completely beside the point.

its not beside the point if the reason for approval is RP equal.

Its not beside the point if the claim is that more limited powers should be allowed to be more powerful, based on rp.

 

You refer to players gleaming limitations for the sake of gaining efficiency for lims they don't intend to use - why are you assuming such mal-intent from the player?

because it has been often stated that a reason other than wanting to take the lim for its own sake that I have to recognize is that they want the points.

 

if a player is taking a lim because he wants it for its own sake and he wants to play those kinds of challenges... thats great I don't see why in that case he or anyone should expect a reward for getting what he wanted.

 

If a player's reason for taking a lim is NOT that he wants it but that he somehow "has to" or "needs the points" for something else, then I don't want him taking that lim. "I need the points elsewhere" is not IMO or IMG a valid reason for taking a lim... as too often it results in worse play... for one very simple reason... the player took a trait he didn't want, he doesn't prefer to play etc.

 

Regardless, setting that aside and not giving any points, why are you shortchanging a player who voluntarily wants his combat powers all limited?

I'm not.

If all players characters are getting equal weight, then i am not shortchaging any of them.

What seems odd to me is singling out lims as opposed to disads (I would sooner elminate those, btw, as they stand outside the mechanics of powers and half the time entirely outside of mechanics), and assuming that all other points constructions are entirely valid and useful.

Well as i have said several times already that I don't single out limitations and i include examples of disads too... i suggest a solution to your confusion is to read some of my other posts. I even responded to hugh that *IF* the campaign uses frameworks as "alternative forms of limitations" then those too shouldn't pay back points.

So, in other words, you will work to make sure he has a slight advantage otherwise in combat to compensate? But not give him the option to build up non-combat skills or build up some other expertise?

didn't say that. its perfectly acceptable for characters to be weaker in combat (within reasonable standards) and stronger elsewhere. matter of fact, its unlikely any two characters will be equal in either category.

 

What I don't understand here is how a character who wants to be offensively weak and therefore has limitations on all his attacks gets "equal screen time, scene relevance, and story impact" given he's unable to boost anything else, defenses or skills.

because most screen time, scene relevence and story impact is not controlled by points, by REAL POINTS especially. These are determined primarily for any given game by the choices of "type of challenge" and details the Gm puts into his scenario choices. you do not need to have your computer skill at 15- costing 6 more cp than my medicne skill at 12- for your computer skill to give you more screne time, scene relevence or story impact to a given challenge. A computer 12- can do that just fine.

 

RP <> Weight

 

so you basically are enforcing all characters to have a certain combat effectiveness level, even if they don't want that.

For a game which featured a lot of combat, sur e i would require the PCs to meet a certain level of "danger worthy". if a player didn't want to run a combat character that strong, i would likely tell him "this is not the game for you then, because it will be a combat heavy game."

 

For sure there are minimum levels not just maximum levels of effectiveness in play, based on the type of game being planned.

If so, then let's be equally clear this isn't advice that's going to work in probably even a substantial majority of games, but is useful for many situations.

IIRC HERo commonly refers to ranges of attack strengths and ranges of defenses and speeds and the notion that something being "too weak for good play" isn't something foreign to hero. I think the "majority" of heroes supers games would indeed have some, perhaps unstated, minimum levels. As others have stated combat plays a huge role in some genres.

 

 

But you just said you design the scenarios with that in mind? As would I - assuming the conjurer player is quite happy to be out of combat.

 

So isn't it really the conjurer who needs the boost in screen time somewhere else?

which he gets... he just doesn't need more RP for it to occur

Not for those who actually have to fight the combat. And we're not talking about them - and that's why your continued aggregation makes no sense to me. We're talking about the individual PC and HIS screen time.

 

in order for this to have meaning we are talking about comparison between multiple PCs.

 

One pc alone gets 100% screen time, scene relevence and story impact. Thus no discussion.

 

Once we have more than one PC... then we have to start looking at aggregates and effects.

 

Who is lhindered by the "conj vanishes again"? the team left fighting the villains? the conj off alone under possibly dire circumstances? Both?

 

If you believe hindrance deserves payback... then who should get compensation for that limitation?

 

My answer is simple... all of them do and that compensation was delivered already in terms of challenge level selection. They all got "weaker foes" than they would have otherwise.

 

 

If you are letting "Mr. I can't fight" and "Mr. fighter" in combats and you are turning around and arranging the combat so "Mr. I can't fight" suddenly can do things or is always "lucky enough" or some-such that he is effective, then you are just basically giving him points in play. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but you're compensating him all the same, just in a different manner than using points.

if one is weaker than the other in fights thats fine. I do not have to balance "equal time" etc on a per scene basis but on the over-all level.

Everyone should expect their opportunities to "be the man", to "be the paperweight" and to be typical etc to even out in total, not in specific.

 

and not because the points/mechanical balance on paper is so important as much as because to many of us it feels less arbitrary than the GM having to contrive incidents continually beacuse "Mr. I can't fight" is also "I didn't have enough points for skill, either." As I say, "feels," because after all in the hands of a good GM and a play group that is invested and interested, anything is possible.

"contrive" and "arbitrary" seems to be the issue... less derogatory than "monkey around with" but the same basic fundamental difference exists.

 

I dont believe in the generic scenario. there is no onbjective scenario standard from which games "should be run."

 

I expect my Gm to run scenarios, to create scenarios with us in mind, with balance and fairness in mind, and i dont expect equality to occur just because but specifically because he makes it happen by his choices.

 

Whether its called "contiving" scenarios, "monkeying around" with scenarios, or just, my choie of term, "designing" scenarios... its what i expect and I dont expect RPG balance to occur without it.

 

I think having a designed series of encounters produce balance in play by design and intent is infinitely less ARBITRARY than some series of challenges chosen for some other purpose.

 

This all boils down to just what I closed with and you snipped - "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?"

as stated above, two things...

 

1. more RPs are not needed to give equal screen time, scene relevence and story impact. the impact on the scene is more determined by the way the trait meets the need, by the "flavor" if you will. In culinary terms, cheese and chocolate might cost the same but one is much better on your pastrami sandwhich than the other.

 

2. Compensation for many of these is already assessed in terms of adversary and challenge levels taking the limitations into account. You already reaped benefit when you met four supervillains instead of five.

 

I am still confused on this point - I do not see why Lims are the only thing singled out.

again, as stated sevearl times... i feel it also applies to disadvantages AND would not object to it being applied to frameworks when their role in the campaign were as limitations packages (tho if frameworks are used for other reasons... thats another matter altogether.)

 

I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying "lims only"

 

that's a deviation from the normal way we assign control in HERO, as when the player abdicates control he normally gets points back to define control elsewhere/in some other manner.

it goes without saying,or maybe not, that a fundamental change like this is going to be a marked deviation from "how we normally do things in HERO"

So your underlying issue is really that you don't want people to feel forced to abdicate control.

I dont see a reason to try and reconstrue what my problem is.

 

IMX games i have run where players chose negative traits (lims and disads) "for fun" resulted in those negative traits being better in play, being more fun for everyone involved, and being more able to flow and evolve naturally WITHOUT any noticeable increase in balance problems than in games where such negative traits were made a direct part of the accounting system using the loan shark (payoff up front and hurt for it later) model (which also IMX had bigger balance problems in part due to the payoff methodology.) The number gained from the loan shark method... real points... hasn;t proved to me to have any significant value in determining, assessing or controlling balance.

 

 

 

 

 

but I don't see how this narrow focus on lims does much

see above

nor do I see how it amounts to any more than you boosting PCs (in my view) artificially during play, making them combat-effective where they were not (instead of for example giving the player the control to be combat-less-effective and non-combat-more-effective).

 

Again you seem to be misconstruing something...

if a player wants to be limitedin combat he can be and i don't have to do anything to change that. I do not have to equalize his combat power to equalize his screen time, his scene relevence or his story impact (unless, of course, it is a very combat centric game.)

 

if 12d6 Eb is fine for my game and you want a 12d6 Eb at doublle end cost so you will experience "tired and have to hold back" style challenges... thats likely as not fine. you will still get equal scree time, scene relevence, and story impact some other way... which doesn't mean you need or deserve RP for it. if its significant, you will also see weaker enemies than you would have seen had that power been full strength.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

RoX is used in other systems' date=' not just the favorite punching bag of fuzion. IIRC MnM 2e uses it too, tho they dont call it that.[/quote']

I wasn't "punching" Fuzion. I know very little about it. In fact, I'm not even sure what the "Rule of X" even means.

 

Its the "otherwise identical" combined with the limitation that causes the problem..

 

A reasonable GM is not going to allow two "otherwise identical" characters with this difference into a campaign.

Whether the two characters are used in the same game or not is beside the point. You should still be able to compare their combat effectiveness rationally.

 

Now if they are not "otherwise identical" and the Gm looks at them and says "hmm.. i can give these guys equal weight... and this guy will have tiring out problems as part of his "flavor"" then allowing them is not a problem without giving bribe points to the one.

 

if the Gm can provide them equal weight... equal screen time, equal scene relevence and equal story impact... sure.

 

the "otherwise identical" coupled with the limitation... that pair might make them unacceptable.

You keep switching back and forth between "weight" and "combat effectiveness." I am not making any claim that the example characters can't have equal weight. And if the "otherwise identical" thing bothers you, consider them to have two completely different SFX's for their powers. Or we could say that their *combat abilities only* are otherwise identical, but their non-combat abilities are different. In any event, in my games, since I use the standard limitations rules, they wouldn't ever be completely identical, because the 2xEND guy would have 30 points worth of other stuff that the normal END guy doesn't have. Those 30 points might be spent on combat stuff or non-combat stuff, or some on each. This is exactly why real points *helps* game balance.

 

Which may or may not be an actual problem depending on the typical length of campaign fights and other character traits. thats as of yet... undetermined... but really not at the core here.

It is at least partially, because the length of fights can be greatly influenced by the tactics used by the combattants. If the opponent sees or figures out that the guy is burning END faster, he can do more Dodges, Blocks, retreating and charging, etc., to drag out the fight and tire the guy out. This is not an especially brilliant tactic that only the greatest strategist villains would use. Any reasonably intelligent opponent might do this, as would a PC if he saw that the villain was getting tired. I would expect players to think strategically and creatively in combat and take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses, be they Power Limitations, Disadvantages, or simply the lack of some specific power or ability. And this is true for almost any Limitation:

 

Increased END - Drag out the fight so your opponent gets tired

Focus - Take away or break the focus

Concentration - Attack while he's concentrating

Gestures - Grab/Entangle his hands

No Range/limited range - Stay far away

etc.

 

If a villain has limitations, I expect players will take advantage of them. This makes the villain weaker. That weakness is reflected in the Real Points of his powers, but not in the Active Points. And the same holds true for the PCs.

 

I just cannot take seriously the notion that it serves as any valuable balancing metric.

And I cannot take seriously the notion that Real Points do not have any value as a balancing metric.

 

Saying "he is built on 250"or "he is built on 350" gives me next to nothing to go on as to "combat power" and definitely saying "they are both built on 350 doesn't tell me they are even close to being balanced enough to play in the same game.

Again, you're switching between "weight" and "combat effectiveness." What if I told you that character X has 150 Real Points total worth of "combat stuff" and character Y has 250 Real Points total worth of "combat stuff". Does that give you anything to go on in terms of combat power? Notice how Active Points of the combat stuff of the example characters I gave in my last post does not indicate their very real difference in combat effectiveness.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

PhilFleischmann and tesuji,

 

You both seem to be talking past each as far as I can tell. Each is talking about something very specific which are actually different and neither seems to be addressing the subject being discussed by the other.

 

I will try to sum up the differences of the discussions as I understand them (which doesn't mean I really understand what each is talking about).

 

tesuji viewpoints:

1) Real Points: By itself, and as a number given for the whole character, not of a single power or item but the whole character, does not convey the actual effectiveness of a character, combat or otherwise. Example: The character cost 250 Real Points. This statement doesn't convey anything about the effectiveness of the character. (I don't think PhilFleishmann disagrees with this, but this is not what he was discussing)

2) Combat Powers: Even if given the Real Points of two combat powers, the points themselves do not convey their effectiveness without other information such as the specific Advantages/Limitations applied the power.

3) Compensation: Regardless of how unbalanced one character may be compared to another, the GM has the "power/capability" to compensate for the difference in the campaign and thus allow both to be balanced vs one another during the game. How successful this is will be dependent on the GM and Players.

 

PhilFleischmann:

1) Real Points: When comparing two characters, the total Real Points of all combat powers can be used to get general idea of combat effectiveness. Thus a character who spent 200 Points in Combat Powers vs a character who spent 100 Points in Combat Powers, one may presume that the one with more points will be more effective in combat in general. (I don't think tesuji disagrees with this, but this isn't what he has been discussing)

2) Combat Powers: When comparing two identical power types (EB vs EB, RKA vs RKA), Real Points can convey the effectiveness of one power vs another, since it is presumed that the specific Advantages/Limitations are known. This also presumes the characters will be played in various campaign types which in total would represent what would be considered an "average" campaign.

3) Compensation: The characters should need as little compensation from the GM since the limitations purchased allowed the player to invest them elsewhere and thus compensation is already taken care of. Without those points for compensation, the GM may find that running a campaign not geared specifically for the characters in question, that a severely limited character may not have as large an impact on affecting the story of the campaign as another character who is not as limited.

 

Not Sure If This Helps But I Tried

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Opinion Follows:

 

This thread was to find out if anyone had run a game where Limitations were used at zero value and what the effect of such a game might have.

 

One person said that they had tried this and found they ran into some problems with balance and would have to compensate some things mechanically if they tried it again.

 

One person said that they do run thier games this way and say they had no problems with balance since they geared the campaign around the characters built.

 

I do not doubt that the first person had problems with balance. Whether this stems from the style of play or expectations of both the GM and Players, I don't know. But I could see this easily happening with many styles of play.

 

I do not doubt that the second person had no problems with balance. Based on the explanations of the style of play used and the methods for evaluation, I can understand how this might work.

 

In either case, I would not imply or suggest that either is lying or that what they claim isn't possible as they described it. However, some of the posts here do seem to come across that way, to me at least, even if the posters never intended them to come across that way.

 

Regardless, I am thankful that the posts have remained civil, in spite of being passionate, in the manner that the opinions have been expressed so far. I hope this continues.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Its the "otherwise identical" combined with the limitation that causes the problem..

 

A reasonable GM is not going to allow two "otherwise identical" characters with this difference into a campaign. There is next to no ability to differentiate them in play except for the downside which means, looking at them, the Gm says "hmmm... i cannot give these two characters equal weight" and says no to one or both in part or in whole.

 

Now if they are not "otherwise identical" and the Gm looks at them and says "hmm.. i can give these guys equal weight... and this guy will have tiring out problems as part of his "flavor"" then allowing them is not a problem without giving bribe points to the one.

 

If they are mechanically identical, but have different SFX, personalities, backgrounds, etc., they might very well fit nicely in the same game. Now, with no points for limitations, one character tires out faster in combat, and that's the only mechanical differentiation between them.

 

But in a game where limitations result in point savings, one character shines in extended combats, since he doesn't tire as easily, while the other shines in whatever area he spent that 30 points he saved by being more limited in combat.

 

In the "no points for limitations" game, the GM says "no, you guys can't both play the characters you want". In the "points for limitations" game, both characters may be equally viable.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

 

 

Whether the two characters are used in the same game or not is beside the point. You should still be able to compare their combat effectiveness rationally.

well, imx the game you are in gives a very solid and needed baseline for assessing any effectiveness. the relative value of an 8d6 eb and a 12d6 eb is grossly altered by whether the typicadversary defense range is 15-25 or 25-35 for example. two characters not appearing in the same game do not have to be balanced againat each other and gain no benefit from being so.

 

 

You keep switching back and forth between "weight" and "combat effectiveness." I am not making any claim that the example characters can't have equal weight.

i got confused then by your switching terms.

 

when you asked "are they balanced?" i did not put words in to turn that into "are they balanced in terms of combat effectiveness alone?" i did not make that assumption because i have never claimed characters have to be balanced in terms of combat alone, so it seems odd to argue that point.

 

So the answer is "nope, those two characters are not balanced in terms of combat effectiveness alone" and thats just fine. if i can give them equal weight, they can be different in combat effectiveness and be just fine and balanced for the campaign.

 

no problem.

 

 

 

And I cannot take seriously the notion that Real Points do not have any value as a balancing metric.

then we disagree. IMX its wrong as often or more as it is right.

 

is 12d6 eb equal in combat effectiveness acompared to a 24d6 14- act 3xend eb which has identical RP cost? not even close in any game i have ever seen played.

 

 

 

 

Again, you're switching between "weight" and "combat effectiveness." What if I told you that character X has 150 Real Points total worth of "combat stuff" and character Y has 250 Real Points total worth of "combat stuff". Does that give you anything to go on in terms of combat power? Notice how Active Points of the combat stuff of the example characters I gave

 

 

 

telling me 150 rp vs 250 rp in combat stuff doesn't matter beans

 

lets run with characteristcs of 20 for each in primary and figureds as they fall from that speed 4 etc...

 

250 guy has

 

20/20 force field 1/2 end for 50

10d6 firebolt for 50

10d6 earth bolt for 50

10d6 windblaast for 50

10d6 waterbolt for 50

he can fire all four at once using MPA!!! for end 20

 

150 guy has

 

30/30 force field for 60

20d6 eb 2xend for 67 costs 20 end.

 

in a duel, the 150 guy will cream the 250 guy since his defenses being higher make the lesser attacks even in mpa basasically nuisances while a single hit from his 2-d6 blast Kos the other guy.

 

but they aren't necessarily dueling.. in this case the choices the gm makes in enemy statistics will determine whether or not the 250 guy is better (lots of lower defense enemies and/or enemies with varied weaknesses so his multi-sfx proves beneficial), whether the 127 guy is better (plenty of guys with defenses of 30+, not too many sfx vulnerable enemies, etc) or whether they play out as balanced.

 

ignoring differences in system-fu on the part of chargen, ignoring frameworks, whether that 150 guy is better at combat effectiveness than that 250 guy ibs not determined by the gross RP difference at all but by the choices the GM makes in terms of challenges presented to them.

 

so, no, telling me 250 rp in combat stuff vs 150 rp in combat stuff doesn't tell me beans about their relative combat effectiveness. it especially doesn't tell me beans coming from the guy who suggests "are they for the same game " isn't relevent and suggests rational comparison ignores that.

 

 

 

to clear up a misconception... i do not advocate using ap as a metric either, particularly not solo. its better than rp but not by much. there are plenty of methods to employ but the one i typically employ is to use a sampling of typical enemies and look at values such as DAD, CON#, KO#, and HTK to assess combat effectiveness and campaign standards.