Persuasion Restrainable?

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

This sounds like the guy who had a character with one hand... then bought a physical limitation for each missing finger.

[Vondy]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

The correct answer is, of course, that Skills should never get Limitations.

 

I can think of several reasonable applications of "limited power" that could realistically be applied to skills. Forgery (Only to Detect -1), +3 Levels "History" (Medieval Only -1), are good examples. On the other hand, most limitations should never be applied to skills, though there may be an occasional exception to that rule.

[Loxly]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

I can think of several reasonable applications of "limited power" that could realistically be applied to skills. Forgery (Only to Detect -1)' date=' +3 Levels "History" (Medieval Only -1), are good examples. On the other hand, most limitations should never be applied to skills, though there may be an occasional exception to that rule.[/quote']

 

While I can see the Forgery Limitation ... "History" (Medieval Only) I see as a bit dubious.

 

I'd go, KS: History and KS: Medieval History and use KS: MH as a complimantary roll to KS: H as appropriate.

 

 

But that's just me.

[Comic]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

I apply them to 3 point skill levels (not CSL's) all the time

 

Mostly, I'm just a huge fan of pointing, laughing and ridicule.

 

Supposing the player had asked something reasonable, the GM had made some obscure error of judgment or misreading, my stance would of course be wrong and make a fool of the GM and myself. As long as we're all laughing, we can get over it.

 

But we're not wrong, and I'm hoping that the players and GM are all friendly and the laughter, pointing and ridicule were good-natured and well-meaning, to indicate "I can't believe you'd go there."

 

It's a chance for the player to save face, laugh at the situation, and move on without clinging to the munchkiness of the moment.

 

Any effort to sound reasonably accomodating, such as finding a rule, or making a house rule, that helps save face can go far. Thus the '5-pt. skill minimum' on limitations. I'm sure it existed in some version or edition, and even if not, doesn't seem like such an unreasonable statement applied to this situation.

 

Of course, if the reason the player asked the question in the first place was that he looked at some other guy's character sheet, saw 30 skills bought for 1 pt each on a focus that takes 0 DCV Concentration.. there's a good chance he's merely responding to a confusing situation going on in the campaign and wondering how far he could push it.

 

Which.. with that question.. was too far.

[CourtFool]

More Munchkin Skills!

 

The correct answer is' date=' of course, that Skills should never get Limitations.[/quote']

 

I know you later backed down from this sentiment, but I thought it would be a fun exercise.

 

Resident Wealth of Useless Information - Knowledge Skill (All Trivia): 20-, Activation (8-)

One Hit Wonder - +5 w/All Combat, 1 Charge

Natural, Likable Guy - Seduction 18-, No Concious Control

Teach the Rocks to Sing - PS Singing 11-, Usable by Other, Requires a PS Teacher Roll

Together, We Can Convince Anyone - Persuasion 13-, Requires Multiple Users

Character Actor - Acting 13-, Side Effects (Acquire Psychological Limitation Appropriate to Portrayed Character)

[Doc Samson]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

I'll start by saying as a GM I would not allow Restrainable on a skill, I agree that it is inherent to most skills. I also would quickly bounce a player who was disruptive to my game...BUT!

 

I'm goin to risk a beating and play Devil's Advocate for a sec. Would any GM here allow someone to use Persuasion without being able to move or speak? If you answered "yes", then shouldn't Restrainable be a viable limitation? It's only 1 single point after all. If you answered "no" please read on.

 

Now suppose I had the cutest puppy dog eyes ever (think the cat from Shrek) and could get people to feel sorry for me with just a look (regardless of whether I was bound and gagged). Would I get to roll my persuasion then? If you answered "no" again then please explain why. For another example, how much talking Brad Pitt or Carmen Elektra would have to do to persuade you to do something (ok I know this may be Seduction but you get my point)? If you changed your answer to "yes", isn't the limitation now viable as this particluar character needs his body and/ or mouth free to be persuasive?

 

I'm not condoning powergaming, I'm only trying to keep an open mind.

[Edsel]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

Technically speaking virtually every skill is Restrainable, but this is a universal condition for most characters, player or NPC, therefore it is not really a limitation but a fact of life. So no, I'd never allow this.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

Technically speaking virtually every skill is Restrainable' date=' but this is a universal condition for most characters, player or NPC, therefore it is not really a limitation but a fact of life. So no, I'd never allow this.[/quote']

 

Are you sure? If I am Grabbed I can't use my KS: Superviallains to try to recognize who it is? I think I might want a point back for that (again just playing Devil's Advocate).

[Mantis]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

I'm goin to risk a beating and play Devil's Advocate for a sec. Would any GM here allow someone to use Persuasion without being able to move or speak? If you answered "yes"' date=' then shouldn't Restrainable be a viable limitation? It's only 1 single point after all. If you answered "no" please read on.[/quote']My position on such matters is that there will be circumstances in a game where the effectiveness of player's Powers and Skills will vary (and this is usually related to the special effect of the power). This can work for or against the character. But unless such circumstances will be regular occurrences in the campaign, they aren't worth any points as Limitations, nor do they cost anything as Advantages.

 

So in this case, my question to the Player would be: does the Character plan on getting bound and gagged a lot? If the answer is "Yes", then sure, he can have the Limitation, but he can expect his character will spend the requisite amount of time in the campaign sporting a ball gag or scold's bridle in order to enforce this Limitation. On the other hand, if the answer is "No", that doesn't mean he won't ever be rendered speechless by some means, but it will mean that it will be rare if it happens. Put another way, if his team gets captured, they'll all end up bound and gagged in the Villian's Hideout. He won't be able to claim immunity from gagging because his Persuasion Skill wasn't bought Restrainable, any more than anyone could claim their feet should remain unbound because their Running wasn't bought as Restrainable.

[Markdoc]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

Can I put "Not while sleeping: -1/2" on all my Martial Arts skills?

 

I see a lot of point savings from this approach. Let's hear it for munchkinism!

 

 

Heck, why stop there - you can also get it on all your movement, any other attacks as well as your other skills. And how about DEX? I could live with having a zero DEX while asleep.

 

The correct answer is' date=' of course, that Skills should never get Limitations.[/quote']

 

I'd disagree with just the last sentence - there are times when skills can (I think, legitimately) take limitations - an AK: bought as an interactive computer map, an interrogation skill bought as a "truth serum" and so on.

 

It's just that this particular attempt is wrong on multiple levels.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

No' date=' the issues are can a player abuse the rules with Limitations on skills and should he be allowed to? Yes, and no.[/quote']

 

Treb, I would restate this as "The issues are can a player abuse the rules with Limitations and should he be allowed to? Yes, and no." This would be just as problematic if the player wanted "Energy Blast - not when asleep" (which is about 1/3 of the time), or Restrainable on his running because he can't run when he's grabbed. The fact that he selected a skill, rather than a power, to apply an inappropriate limitation shouldn't be the focus.

 

There are undoubtedly legitimate applications for Limitations on some Skills. Let's just remember the First Law of Limitations: A Limitation which provides no limitation is worth no points.

 

This, again, applies to all abilities, not just skills. As to whether Limitations can apply to skills, if a magic using character has Gestures and Incantations on all his spells, I see no reason that he can't purchase any number of "skills" as spells. he doesn't actually know how to pick locks, but he can cast a spell that can allow him to pick locks, for example. Perhaps he can also cast a spell to commune with a spirit who has extensive knowledge of chemistry (so his spell is KS: Chemistry). I believe the book gives an example of Martial Arts skills granted through an OIF: Amulet.

 

Most Skills require the ability to move freely and/or interact' date=' and I think it's a reasonable assumption that that requirement is already accounted for in the costs. Hands tied behind your back? Your Climbing probably won't work.[/quote']

 

Or there should be a penalty to climbing. It seems like this is something that a cinematic game might allow a character with a spectacular climbing roll to accomplish. Isn't there a suggested penalty for accomplishing a virtually impossible task?

 

You can't see at all in the dark? Then you probably can't read the ancient inscription on the tomb's wall.

 

But you can read it just fine if you're tied up in the tomb. Does that mean Restrainable is a valid limitation on a Language skill? Perhaps a better example - is "written form only" a valid language skill limitation? The character knows how to read and write latin, but has never encountered the spoken form. This is pretty useful if transported to 50 BC Rome, but not near as useful as being able to speak Latin as well. OTOH, in a modern campaign, utility of spoken latin is reduced (mind you, so is written latin, but not as much).

 

A player trying this sort of munchkin stunt in my campaign after I'd told him no would probably be disinvited from the game.

 

I find the player's uncooperativeness to be potentially the much more significant issue. I find the "player won't stop without a ruling" aspect much more of a concern than the "player tried to take a limitation I find inapppropriate", especially not knowing how experienced the player is with the Hero system.

[CourtFool]

Sure, I would allow 'doe' eyes.

 

Would any GM here allow someone to use Persuasion without being able to move or speak?

 

If the player came up with a plausible situation where they could attempt Persuasion without speaking, I would probably allow it with the penalty for 'Poor Conditions' or 'Lacks the Proper Equipment' as I mentioned earlier. I view Skills as having built in or implicit Limitations. You do not get a cost savings for this anymore than you get points for Dependence Air, Water and Food just because you are 'human'.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sure, I would allow 'doe' eyes.

 

If the player came up with a plausible situation where they could attempt Persuasion without speaking' date=' I would probably allow it with the penalty for 'Poor Conditions' or 'Lacks the Proper Equipment' as I mentioned earlier. I view Skills as having built in or implicit Limitations. You do not get a cost savings for this anymore than you get points for Dependence Air, Water and Food just because you are 'human'.[/quote']

 

If you view the default as being "persuasion requires the ability to move and speak freely, and to communicate in a language the target understands", shouldn't a character who is able to freely circumvent one or more of these requirements (as opposed to occasionally being able to get around them due to a specific situation) pay more for having eliminated that limitation?

 

This may also be the answer to the original question - "No, Restrainable is already inherent to the Persuasion skill. If you want it to be Not Restrainable, you must apply a +1/2 advantage. Similarly, an Energy Blast costs END by default, and making it 0 END costs a +1/2 advantage".

[CourtFool]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

I would probably allow it.

[Comic]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

Maybe we're looking through the wrong end of this telescope, a bit.

 

-1/2 is a pretty significant level of limitation on a power. It's more than -0, which recognizes a limitation for the sake of clarifying and defining, but one not rising to the level of being worth points. It's more than -1/4, which reading down the list of limitations worth that much can limit significantly from time to time.

 

Not all limitations of the same name are made equal. For example, Flight, Restrainable (-1/2) represents very little difference on bare reading from being grabbed or entangled while flying, which can happen to anyone, and is not very commonplace. Except that you fall out of the sky -- a pretty severe price to pay. And Restrainable also allows the GM to impose some other restrictions or limitations than just 'stops working if grabbed or entangled,' from not allowing it to work in confined spaces or requiring extra maneuvers or Dex checks to do some things unRestrained flight allows. Superman, for example, can hold up an elevator from inside it. Hawkman can't.

 

Making Restrainable worth points at the same level as for Flight, every time a grab comes up, in my view overpays and skews the balance of the grab maneuver in a campaign. The example of Restrainable the player proposed -- grabbed and his mouth covered -- is very different from and much less common than the commonplace one for Restrainable I've seen to describe winged Flight. Not all grabs cover mouths, and there are countless other impositions on Persuasion in the environment that also restrict its use which are worth no points to the character as severe - loud noise, distractions, hearing flash, unwillingness of target to listen.

 

Odds are, if someone's grabbed you and covered your mouth, your Persuasion's already at a penalty from them being a hostile audience. Which is much less of an increased liability between taking no damage and falling for 30d6 at terminal velocity.

 

And yes, all the language-dependent skills (and powers) depend on the ability to employ the language of the listener. They don't work while unconscious, when the language of the listener is unknown, when the mouth is covered, or even when others are denied the chance to overhear what is said. Mind Control requires the +1/4 advantage 'Telepathic' to be used without speaking. Suddenly getting +1/2 on Mind Control for something that is an intrinsic element of that power would be much more than a 1 point munch.

 

Wouldn't it have been easier just to point and laugh?

[Doc Samson]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

My position on such matters is that there will be circumstances in a game where the effectiveness of player's Powers and Skills will vary (and this is usually related to the special effect of the power). This can work for or against the character. But unless such circumstances will be regular occurrences in the campaign, they aren't worth any points as Limitations, nor do they cost anything as Advantages.

 

So in this case, my question to the Player would be: does the Character plan on getting bound and gagged a lot? If the answer is "Yes", then sure, he can have the Limitation, but he can expect his character will spend the requisite amount of time in the campaign sporting a ball gag or scold's bridle in order to enforce this Limitation. On the other hand, if the answer is "No", that doesn't mean he won't ever be rendered speechless by some means, but it will mean that it will be rare if it happens. Put another way, if his team gets captured, they'll all end up bound and gagged in the Villian's Hideout. He won't be able to claim immunity from gagging because his Persuasion Skill wasn't bought Restrainable, any more than anyone could claim their feet should remain unbound because their Running wasn't bought as Restrainable.

 

Hmm...this line of thinking concerns me a bit. Skills aside, are you saying that you base the whether to allow limitations such as gestures and restrainable purely on how many bad guys you plan on giving a Grab or Entangle attack? Also, please note that movement and actions (like running and attacking) are specifically covered under the description of entangle and grab and I think are different than what we are discussing here.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Sure, I would allow 'doe' eyes.

 

If you view the default as being "persuasion requires the ability to move and speak freely, and to communicate in a language the target understands", shouldn't a character who is able to freely circumvent one or more of these requirements (as opposed to occasionally being able to get around them due to a specific situation) pay more for having eliminated that limitation?

 

This may also be the answer to the original question - "No, Restrainable is already inherent to the Persuasion skill. If you want it to be Not Restrainable, you must apply a +1/2 advantage. Similarly, an Energy Blast costs END by default, and making it 0 END costs a +1/2 advantage".

 

This is an interesting point. Based on the rules as presented this seems out of place too. I don't think social skills are inherently Restrainable or Entangle-able any more than a Knowledge Skill would be. Here is another "what if". Would you allow a Vampire-like character to buy Seduction with the Requires Eye Contact limitation? Why? How is this different from a Restrainable Persuasion?

[CourtFool]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

Hmm...this line of thinking concerns me a bit. Skills aside' date=' are you saying that you base the whether to allow limitations such as gestures and restrainable purely on how many bad guys you plan on giving a Grab or Entangle attack?[/quote']

 

I base Disadvantages and Limitations on how often I expect them to be a factor in my campaign. I also sometimes reduce the cost of Skills (Languages being a good example) and Powers based on how often I expect them to be a factor as well.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

I base Disadvantages and Limitations on how often I expect them to be a factor in my campaign. I also sometimes reduce the cost of Skills (Languages being a good example) and Powers based on how often I expect them to be a factor as well.

 

This sounds like alot of extra work to me. What do you do if you change your mind and an attack type become more common? Do you then allow the player that wanted the limitation to change his build? What if another player has a limitation that doesn't get used as frequently as you planned? Do you remove it from him? If not, is that fair to the player whose limitation you didn't allow? To be honest, I think the system works pretty well as is.

[Checkmate]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

Heck, why stop there - you can also get it on all your movement, any other attacks as well as your other skills. And how about DEX? I could live with having a zero DEX while asleep.

Yeah, then you can buy L.S. No need to sleep!

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

I'll start by saying as a GM I would not allow Restrainable on a skill, I agree that it is inherent to most skills. I also would quickly bounce a player who was disruptive to my game...BUT!

 

I'm goin to risk a beating and play Devil's Advocate for a sec. Would any GM here allow someone to use Persuasion without being able to move or speak? If you answered "yes", then shouldn't Restrainable be a viable limitation? It's only 1 single point after all. If you answered "no" please read on.

 

Now suppose I had the cutest puppy dog eyes ever (think the cat from Shrek) and could get people to feel sorry for me with just a look (regardless of whether I was bound and gagged). Would I get to roll my persuasion then? If you answered "no" again then please explain why. For another example, how much talking Brad Pitt or Carmen Elektra would have to do to persuade you to do something (ok I know this may be Seduction but you get my point)? If you changed your answer to "yes", isn't the limitation now viable as this particluar character needs his body and/ or mouth free to be persuasive?

 

I'm not condoning powergaming, I'm only trying to keep an open mind.

 

(A) Puppy dog eyes of that nature would use the Extraordinary Skills rule, and

 

( are every bit as Restrainable as the mouth and

 

© have nothing to do with the OP's player being an asshat.

 

Side question: how are you going to Persuade someone if you can tell them what you want them to do!

 

Ultimately: all of the Skills are inherently Restrainable by default

[Doc Samson]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

(A) Puppy dog eyes of that nature would use the Extraordinary Skills rule, and

 

( are every bit as Restrainable as the mouth and

 

© have nothing to do with the OP's player being an asshat.

 

Side question: how are you going to Persuade someone if you can tell them what you want them to do!

 

Ultimately: all of the Skills are inherently Restrainable by default

 

Side question: My cat seems to have this one down when it's dinner time.

Ultimately: Ok, how do you restrain a knowledge skill?

[CourtFool]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

To be honest' date=' I think the system works pretty well as is.[/quote']

 

It is extra work, but it has never been overwhelming for me. I do not expect to know the exact percentage of times a particular thing is or is not going to be a factor. Plus, I only really need to get to within 25%, right?

 

I am willing to listen any time one of my players has concerns about the game. This includes, but is not limited to, the player feeling they paid too much for any ability which may not be as useful as originally thought. I also reserve the right to request changes to the character which I see as appropriate, including additional costs for something that has been more useful than I originally thought.

 

Yes, the system works pretty well as is. I am still not going to give points for Hunted in a one shot where I have no intention of that Hunted showing up. Why am I going to penalize the players who have to play their Psychological Limitations?

[Steve]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

And how about DEX? I could live with having a zero DEX while asleep.

 

I can think of at least one instance where a character was able to Dodge while still asleep. Levels in DCV (Only While Sleeping)?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Persuasion Restrainable?

 

Ultimately: Ok, how do you restrain a knowledge skill?

 

Okay, you may have me there.

 

Still, if I'm the GM, and I tell you you can't do something, and you throw a fit and insist that I go to the designer and get permission, I'll throw you out of my game, then come here to the Hero boards and point and laugh at you.