Extra time, only to change multipower slots?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

...MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. I have more faith in my players than that.

RIght on man! Keep faith in those players! If you see something questionable, ask them why they did it, and watch how they play it in game. Intention is a major part of the experience. Loosen up your system to the degree that the intentions deserve. If it turns out some player is trying to cheese points, limit them more heavily in how they construct things, or give them a harder time of it in play. Otherwise, don't stress so much! Just do what makes sense.

 

Origianally posted by tesuji

As i expected, it seems your answer is that you will not allow difficult to change slots as a lim unless it also piggynacks in startup problems that will occur in play.

 

Thats fine, if thats how limited you want your games to be.

I believe that there are two ways you have go about things:

1. Decide how you would like things to work in game, and apply Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc. to make it happen.
2. Look at how something is constructed in terms of Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc., and decide how they work in game.

Players have to do the former. GMs have to do both, and their conclusions may not necessarily match the expectations that the players had when creating their characters/powers.

 

Keeping in mind the faith I have in my players, I tend to give them a lot of leeway in how they create their characters (though this does not mean I will not correct something which really does not go along with the intent of the system--like recreating an existing Power). Let them use their imaginations! That's the fun of the system, not its shortcoming. There may be two equally valid ways of doing something, so explore the ramifications of the one the player chose. If my conclusions do not match the expectations of a player when they create a power, or I think things are imbalanced (in terms of points or otherwise), I will change the way things work in-game. If the player doesn't like how their powers work based on my ruling, I will allow (and help) them to reconstruct their characters in a way that does match their expectations. This may cost more points, or it may cost less. It may be too expensive for the character, so they might have to work up to it through experience (and creative roleplaying if they want to get bonus experience for this purpose). If player A finds a cheap way to do things, and it is just as valid as player B's more expensive way, let player B know (s)he could be doing it cheaper ("You mean that my power isn't limited, so for a slightly limited Multipower, I could also have a Damage Shield for about the same price? Cool. Let's do it!").

 

Hero may be a beautiful system, have a lot built into it, and take care of a lot of the mechanics for you, but that doesn't change the part that makes it one of the greatest experiences in the world: the element of human judgement and human interaction. We're not playing Warhammer here.

[tesuji]

("You mean that my power isn't limited, so for a slightly limited Multipower, I could also have a Damage Shield for about the same price? Cool. Let's do it!")"

 

To me, and i may be reading your example wrong, this sounds way too much like taking a limitation for the points and not because it fits the character or power concept. I don't normally try and encourage this in my games. YMMV.

 

In general i don't disagree with much you said. I do not, howver, like or allow intention to be an element in the ACCOUNTING system. Power A is worth X and that value should stay a constant regardless of what i think or imagine or divine the player's INTENTIOn is. It should remain constant whether the player is doing things i like (IE i have divined his intent and stamped it with a gold star for "I like you!") or whether the player's preferences in gaming differ enough from mine tha i don't want to give him a gold star. i tend to promise fairness to my players and i don't normally view that as including different values for you depening on intent.

 

i like cost ~ value, not cost ~ intent.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I suspect the same argument would apply from Tesuji's perspective. I think he's suffering from one of two hangups on this. First, he doesn't see the limit of extra time on the basis an underhanded player could use it to buy a power using a multipower, get it cheaper than just buying the one power, and always keep the points in that power, so he never suffers a limitation. If you assume he can simply buy a two slop MP (say a 12d6 EB and a 2d6 flash; 67 points), apply the "1/2 ph to change slots" limit (down to 54 points) and have the reserve always default to EB, the player gets 6 points back for nothing. However, if you deny "default allocation of points", the limitation comes back, at least IMO. It's actually even worse (in a real MP) since the character will not be able to turn on his EB, fire it, then use another attack and come back to EB later - he shifts the points, so he has to spend extra time to shift them back. That's fine - he got a point break for the limit and the MP.

Hugh, in this paragraph you seemed to start to understand what Tesuji (and Gary and I) were saying. We're talking about allowing what you're calling the "default allocation of points." The default being whichever slot was used most recently. You might simply say, "but you can't do that," which you're entitled to do in your games, but it doesn't answer the initial question: Assuming a fair GM *does* allow players to do that, how much should is cost? How does one determine the value of a "difficult to switch" limitation, and what should that limitation be applied to. Because of the "default allocation," tesuji, Gary, and I have all said that the limitation should only apply to the slots and not the reserve points. Otherwise, you could wind up with a more useful construct for fewer points.

 

If you can't get past the "you can't do that" reflex, then you won't be able to contribute anything useful to this discussion. You've done an excellent job of explaining your point about the fair cost of denying the default allocation, and I agree with you, but that isn't the question tesuji raised.

 

IMO, "you can't do that" is not appropriate in the HERO System. That's something I would expect from that other system I've heard so much about. HERO is based on the idea that you can do anything if you pay the fair price for it. The only question is what is, or how do you determine, the fair price?

[prestidigitator]

Origianally posted by tesuji

As i expected, it seems your answer is that you will not allow difficult to change slots as a lim unless it also piggynacks in startup problems that will occur in play.

 

Thats fine, if thats how limited you want your games to be.

Originally posted by prestidigitator

I believe that there are two ways you have go about things:

1. Decide how you would like things to work in game, and apply Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc. to make it happen.
2. Look at how something is constructed in terms of Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc., and decide how they work in game.

I just realized that I distracted myself a bit in my post. I meant to make the following point: the GM has to (at times) look at things from the opposite vantage point as players. Players think of what they want to do in-game, and construct powers based upon this. A GM has to look at how a power is constructed, and figure out how it should behave in play. As a GM, why not look at an EC with a -1/4 Limitation on the pool, and think of how to really make that a -1/4 Limitation? If you look at things this way, it doesn't matter if the player bought it in the first place. Let them. Think of what that Limitation merits, based on its value.

 

Instead of thinking "effect -> what points?", think "points -> what effect?"

 

I don't see this as limiting the game any. I see it as the opposite.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

Instead of thinking "effect -> what points?", think "points -> what effect?"

 

I don't see this as limiting the game any. I see it as the opposite.

Uh, I don't know about you, but I like to know what I'm getting when I buy it. First I decide what I want, then I find out how much it costs, and finally I decide if I want to pay that price. The question tesuji originally asked was NOT "How should I limit a power construct bought with X limitation/discount?" but rather "How much of a limit/discount is it worth to have X effect?" If you don't have a good answer, that's fine, but don't tell him he shouldn't ask the question.

 

If a player comes to you and says, "I want this effect, how much does it cost?" Do you say, "well, how much are you willing to spend?" like a used car salesman? "I'll tell you what: you pay however much you want, and then I'll surprise you with how much it actually winds up limiting you in play."

 

I don't know too many players who'd respond favorably to that policy.

 

That's the beauty of the HERO System, IMO: You build exactly the character you want.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Uh, I don't know about you, but I like to know what I'm getting when I buy it. First I decide what I want, then I find out how much it costs, and finally I decide if I want to pay that price. The question tesuji originally asked was NOT "How should I limit a power construct bought with X limitation/discount?" but rather "How much of a limit/discount is it worth to have X effect?" If you don't have a good answer, that's fine, but don't tell him he shouldn't ask the question.

 

If a player comes to you and says, "I want this effect, how much does it cost?" Do you say, "well, how much are you willing to spend?" like a used car salesman? "I'll tell you what: you pay however much you want, and then I'll surprise you with how much it actually winds up limiting you in play."

 

I don't know too many players who'd respond favorably to that policy.

 

That's the beauty of the HERO System, IMO: You build exactly the character you want.

 

I think it's generally agood idea to discuss unusual limitations (or disad's) with the player. "Well, based on my understanding which is XYZ this is what I would give you as a limit", or "based on the level you've indicated on your character sheet, this is how I interpret the limit/disad". Get it out in the open up front so the player can say "no, I see it as only this (or more limiting, if that's the case). That way, player and GM are on the same page as to value and what impact the limit/disad will have, rather than having it come up and be debated in game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Hugh, in this paragraph you seemed to start to understand what Tesuji (and Gary and I) were saying. We're talking about allowing what you're calling the "default allocation of points."

 

That's been the probelm from the outset. I (and some others) are going by the FAQ, which says multipower slots do not default, and the points go "back to base" if the character is KO'd. On that basis, "Extra Time to change" should be worth the limit on the pool, since it's like applying "extra time to activate" to all the powers.

 

The player can still, in theory, start with an allocation. He spent the extra time before "game time" - for example, while changing into costume, he slapped his EB Clip into the gun. We now get into silliness about the clip falling out if he's KO'd, so one has to invoke SFX - the tradeoff if the player wants the limit on the whole pool is that there will be times when he starts with an unloaded, or the non-desired clip.

 

If he wants a "default allocation", he should get a limit on the non-default slots, the limit being "extra time to start up or shut down". The default slot should not be limited and, since we lack a common limit on all slots, the pool also gets no limit. This gets around the standard rule that any limit applying to all slots also applies to the pool (although the OIF Weapons multipower example in FREd seems to violate that rule anyway).

 

I wonder how the original poster actually expected the power to work, and what limit his GM ultimately gave him

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I think it's generally agood idea to discuss unusual limitations (or disad's) with the player. "Well, based on my understanding which is XYZ this is what I would give you as a limit", or "based on the level you've indicated on your character sheet, this is how I interpret the limit/disad". Get it out in the open up front so the player can say "no, I see it as only this (or more limiting, if that's the case). That way, player and GM are on the same page as to value and what impact the limit/disad will have, rather than having it come up and be debated in game.

Yes! And I think it is an iterative process. You can't always, as GM, decide exactly how you want everything to behave or be bought up front. There are literally an infinite number of possibilities, so you can't decide exactly how all of them work or should be done. Additionally, some things have to be playtested; sometimes powergaming players need to show you that you really shouldn't allow some construct, or should make a particular construct work differently (and thus change what is needed to get the effect the player wanted).

 

If a player creates a character without consulting me, then some perfectly standard construct (s)he has may work a bit differently in my game than it would with another GM. That doesn't necessarily mean that if the player has an EC with a -1/4 Extra Time Limitation on the pool I am going to tell him/her that (s)he needs to change it. I may, however, need to say, "This is the way that construct will work in my game. If you are looking for a different effect, let me know and I can help you build it in another fashion (it may cost more points)."

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If he wants a "default allocation", he should get a limit on the non-default slots, the limit being "extra time to start up or shut down". The default slot should not be limited and, since we lack a common limit on all slots, the pool also gets no limit. This gets around the standard rule that any limit applying to all slots also applies to the pool (although the OIF Weapons multipower example in FREd seems to violate that rule anyway).

Thank you! I think we're on the home stretch. Now, what if there is no one "default slot"? i.e., what if the default slot is whatever slot was most recently allocated? Each slot requires extra time (or some other limitation) to switch to. And yes, in some cases the lims might not be the same for all slots:

 

Slot A requires a full phase to switch to.

Slot B requires a full turn to switch to.

Slot C costs END to switch to.

Slot D requires Concentration to switch to.

Slot E has possible Side Effects when switched to!

Slot F has an 11- Activation roll to switch to.

Slot G requires an expendible focus to switch to.

Slot H has no limitation to switch to (but it's not the "default").

Slot I requires a full phase and concentration to switch to.

Slot J can only be switched to a limited number of times per day (charges).

 

The policy I recommend (and have been this whole time) is that half the normal value of the limitation be applied to each slot cost. For example, Slot F would receive a -1/2 limitation, since 11- Activation is normally -1.