An outside of the box notion

[tesuji]

for your consideration...

 

Ponder using hero with the following variant rules in a superhero game...

 

1. limitations do not give you back character points by reducing the powers cost. All powers cost in RP = their active point cost.

 

2. All character disads do not give you back points either.

 

3. Start with 350 base points.

 

4. Characters still define flaws and disads as they would normally, with whatever specifics they desire as long as the Gm approves.

 

5. At the end of any scene in which a character was adversely affected by his chosen power limitations or disadvantages to a significant level (say 20% reduction or more in effectiveness) the Gm will reward that player with a LUCK POINT. (A luck point is just like a point of luck rolled that you hold onto and use when you see fit for things like rerolls and the like.) The amount of luck points will vary based on the degree of impact it had on the character for that scene, probably between 1-3 luck points.

 

Under this system there is no "loan shark" system (you get points up front to spend but the GM hurts your character later on to may you pay for the points you got extra) of pay then pay. There is no foresight or predictability or even guesswork in limitation values... no wondering how often intense magnetic fields will appear... the gain from the limitation or disadvantage is related directly with HINDSIGHT to the problems the trait CREATED (past tense as in "we just saw this happen.")

 

Charges rewards you with luck points when you actually run out of charges in a combat and have to go without for a scene or part of a scene. (heck, even then if all it does is make you switch t your AP arrows instead of your EB arrows, maybe not worth much then.)

 

Extra time doesn't gain you anything on a power you always use out of combat sitting in an easy chair. It will reward you if and only if that extra time actually causes you trouble in a game.

 

just a wierd though. i call it "no pain, no gain flaws"

[DoctorItron]

This is a very intriguing idea. You seem to have covered all the bases. Considering how many disads and limitations a standard superhero has, though, prepare to hand out a lot of luck points.

 

Also try awarding extra experience points instead of luck points.

[Snarf]

Reminds me of Nobilis. You could even try being really precise in the number of luck points you award. Perhaps there could even be a table like this:

 

-1/4 or 5 pt disadv: 1/2 Luck Point

-1/2 or 10 pt disadv: 1 Luck Point

etc.

 

But it sounds like you're not basing the point awards on the disadvantage values, so much as the actual difficulty the character experienced in that particular scene, so maybe something like this would be good:

 

Power loses about 1/3 of it's effectiveness or Limitation impairs slightly: 1 point

Power loses about 1/2 of it's effectiveness or Limitation impairs greatly: 2 point

Power loses almost all of it's effectivenss or Limitation impairs fully: 3 point

[Lupus]

It's also how the TORG pulp hero powers worked. I think the rules were mostly in the Terra sourcebook. Some were in the Nile Empire book too, but mainly they were in Terra. It encouraged people to take limitations that totally killed their powers (like Superman).

 

Also, in Torg, the rewards were Possibility points, which were essentially like Luck crossed with Character Points (ie, they could be spent in-game to improve rolls, but they were also what you used to improve your character. So a really limited superhero who never used his powers would suck, but would get real good real fast at everything else

 

I never played with it, so I'm not sure how it really would have worked in gameplay. Just thought it might be handy to check out the suggestions in that book, if you know anyone with a copy. Torg's well out of print, so isn't available at many places.

[zornwil]

Sounds interesting, it wouldn't "bother" me to play in such a game. I'm not interested in trying it out only because I don't have any issues with the current methods that would motivate me to change anything just now. But it sounds valid.

[tesuji]

Actually, my thought was to base the rewards on the overall assessment of the reduction in effectiveness of the character in the scene. One power may be completely shut down but how bad did that impact his ability to affect the enemy? if my firebolt is useless but i use my lightning bolt ultra slot instead to full effect, there was little if any detriment.

 

A fairly broad assessment... character performance reduced by 25-33%, character performance cut in half by half, character nearly useless, eyc for 1-3 points.

 

Maybe a couple of examples...

 

HawkLad has just finished wiping out the guards on the roof and knows the battle has just proceeded downstaira as he can hear the telltale explosions that typically follow his teammates. He could fly down the elevator shaft and be there in 2 actions but because he is claustrophobix he flies around the side of the building and down and in through the window, which ends up taking four phases. At the end of the combat the Gm looks at it, sees the whole combat lasted 12 phases and figures 2 extra lost phases out of of 10 possible combat phases is about 20% so he gives HawkLad 1 luck point.

 

In another battle, Hawklad's flaming sword (ED HKA) is broken early in the conflict. So he has to resort to using his own claws. (PD HKA) for the majority of the fight. Since the claws are noticeably weaker (#d6K vs 4d6K) and the bad guys have more PD than ED and the scenario was basically solved by beating up he super villains, hawklad did not do well at all, eyeballing him as half as effective as the other characters or easily half as effective as he normally is... so he awards two luck points.

 

***************

 

By basing it on in game impact that was just witnessed, the GM avoids having to guess/decide.commit to the frequency and severity of these things beofre play begins, and can simply look at what has already occured and give out appropriate rewards.

 

[sbarron]

Seems like a valid idea. However, I think it would tend to make players choose limitations which were significant, and shy away from those which were merely inconvenient. Not that this is neccesarly bad, but a lot of the -1/4 limitations that provide some flavor and save some points wouldn't be of much use any more, so players wouldn't bother with them. -1/4 limitations by definition don't have much impact on overall character effectivness. I don't think this damns the whole idea, but it is an element to think about.

[Talon]

I would see a lot of arguments over Psych Lims.

 

Also, it would be funny to see the arguments about Hunteds showing up. "Darnit, that's not fair -- his Hunted showed up AGAIN! Why won't anybody ever come after me?"

[Tom McCarthy]

I've certainly considered starting players with 350 points and not giving points for disads. I hadn't really considered what the reward would be when those "free" disadvantages came into play.

 

The notion of dropping limitations is one I'm less sanguine about; I often find that the limitations, more than the advantages, define the power's SFX and utility. Still, there's already examples of limitations that don't change the cost in ways that adequately reflect value, so I'd have to let this one percolate a bit.

[Fireg0lem]

I for one see a major problem. What about limitations and disadvantages that by definition ALWAYS come up? I think that you should give point breaks for limitations that directly reduce effectiveness, and for disadvantages that always apply. For example:

 

RKA, Reduced Stun Multiplier

 

Disadvantage: Physical Limitation: Big (-2 DCV)

 

Both these would otherwise rack up luck points every single battle. Getting less stun through is always limiting, and so is -2 DCV.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Fireg0lem

I for one see a major problem. What about limitations and disadvantages that by definition ALWAYS come up? I think that you should give point breaks for limitations that directly reduce effectiveness,

My observation would be that there is a difference between a limitation always applying and it always producing significant impact, providing a significant reduction.

 

Firstly, i rarely see PCs taking these "always applies" drawbacks, though of course some do. Secondly, in many cases, the drawback is is part counteredby something else.

 

For example, it is not uncommon to see a character with a reduced stun multiplier (although that itself is rare) have a second attack that is just fine, like maybe an EB, and use the RKA against targets that don't take stun... wall busting, entangle busting, and the like, while reserving the Eb for the guys subject to stun.

 

An RKA that does less stun would only be a drawback when it dropped the enemy slower, taking more shots, not everytime it was fired. There is a big difference in the two.

 

The big size and DCV is more often going to be a problem, and in cases where that matters, it should award points, luck points in this system. There will obviously be cases where it really doesn't matter, with enemies using area attacks or if he just simply did not become a target that got hit a lot. Against PSi for example, his DCV would likely be of little import, depending on who were the opposition.

 

It shouldn't be any more difficult to assess these limitations using hindsight than the less frequent ones, and there are still going to be cases where these don't provide meaningful problems, so these just seem to me to be possibly the high frequency end of the curve and not really a cause for exception.

 

YMMV

Originally posted by Fireg0lem

Both these would otherwise rack up luck points every single battle. Getting less stun through is always limiting, and so is -2 DCV.

 

Getting less stun thru is not limiting if you take out the enemy withy body loss as quickly as you would for stun loss, its not against entangles, force walls, constructs, vehicles, or any character with high stun low body, and so on. It wont be limiting much at all if the character has an EB alongside it in a MP slot that gives him one preferred shot for "stun guys" and another "preferred shot" for immune to stun guys. (I have seen people try the Eb slot and RKA does no stun for -3/4 (is that right?) before to give themselves a cheap body buster.

 

The DCV and size one is going to be more often a factor, though i see this rarely for PCs. However, again, its not going to reduce the effectiveness in every scenario significantly. Against mentalists, against area guys, or in scenarios where he simply is not a target this wont necessarily be an issue of significance at all. It will occur more often than other flaws, and the luck point rewards being more frequent might well make this particular flavor of limitation more popular.

 

Personally, i would not be upset at all if the "major concern" for this notion remains "players too often taking flaws that come up very often" as a departure from the other end more normally encountered "players too often hunting for and taking lims they hope wont ever seriously impact them in play."

 

If it makes meaningful limitations more appealing to players than trivial ones, thats not a bad thing IMO.

 

YMMV

 

:-)

[Captain Obvious]

Sounds like an interesting idea. None of my campaigns have had Luck as a huge factor (although many characters had a die or two of it for the really bad times), and this system seems like it would bring Luck more into play. Firegolem's point seems pretty valid, ie players trying to milk the system by taking lots of always limiting limitations, but it's nothing that can't be worked around with appropriate GM control ;-)

 

Can I take a limitation on my RKA that I just don't have an RKA? That will get me extra points every game, right?

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

Sounds like an interesting idea. None of my campaigns have had Luck as a huge factor (although many characters had a die or two of it for the really bad times), and this system seems like it would bring Luck more into play. Firegolem's point seems pretty valid, ie players trying to milk the system by taking lots of always limiting limitations, but it's nothing that can't be worked around with appropriate GM control ;-)

 

Can I take a limitation on my RKA that I just don't have an RKA? That will get me extra points every game, right?

 

Only if your character was noticably and significantly less effective in that scene because he did not have an RKA. The notion that his RKA did not work... is not sufficient... his RKA not working AND that causing him to be less successful is required.