Alas, no more Independent!

[Alcamtar]

Hm, so the Independent limitation is gone.

 

How then do you make magic items that can be lost? I really dislike the idea that some items are somehow "special" and unlosable, unbreakable, etc, just because you paid points for it. It's not rational, and it means not all equipment is created equal. (It could work for a cursed item that is permanently welded to you hand, though...)

 

Naturally items that you find or purchase can be lost, because you never paid for them. The question is how can PCs create items now?

 

I guess one option would be to forbid characters from spending their own CP to make magic items. Magic items can only be made by NPCs, or by obtaining points externally.

 

Odd thought: maybe villains sacrifice victims in order to harvest CP for enchantment...!

[Panpiper]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I have no idea why the independent limitation was removed. And I have no idea how to resolve the question of how do we now make magic items. Nor is it at all clear how if a magic sword bought by a player "without' an independent limitation, is stolen away by a goblin and carried off to a distant land, what that means for the character. So your question is a darn good one and I hope there are folks with more of a clue around.

 

Odd thought: maybe villains sacrifice victims in order to harvest CP for enchantment...!

I have long conjectured that this would indeed be one of the ways particularly nasty and evil items get paid for. Or at least items created by particularly nasty mages, as the resulting items might in fact be quite neutral. I have also often thought that a nicer mage might offer to pay money to a large number of poor people to siphon off one point from each of them so as to create items. I suppose that is still a morally grey area, but it's a hell of a lot nicer than the mage who kills in order to steal that potential.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I really dislike the idea that some items are somehow "special" and unlosable' date=' unbreakable, etc, just because you paid points for it. It's not rational, and it means not all equipment is created equal. (It could work for a cursed item that is permanently welded to you hand, though...)[/quote']

 

It's funny. I came from the other direction. I disliked the idea that CP could just be arbitrarily "lost". If you've laid out CP for something, then you've made it a part of the character.

 

Basically my issue with Independant was that it was a huge point break that only allowed two options - give the PC a point break with no penalty (which is an unfair advantage) or dock the PC their earned CP (which is an excessive penalty). If I'm going to take something away from a PC that's a big enough deal to have been worth purchasing via points, then I'd rather do it in the context of a negotiated change to the character (like the superhero genre "radiation accident" technique).

[Ice9]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Items can still be stolen - it just means that now the player would get their CP back, and be able to make/obtain a new item within a reasonable amount of time.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Perhaps Steve saw the Independent Limitation as only being practical for certain genres. If so, it may re-appear in appropriate genre books such as Fantasy Hero.

[Curufea]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Otherwise - who spent the CP to populate any of the stores in any setting?

[Panpiper]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Otherwise - who spent the CP to populate any of the stores in any setting?

I am standing by my theory of mages paying desperate people to come in and donate. The magical equivalent of homeless people donating blood. Of course if someone donates too often...

 

I suppose that would be the old standby of a transform, likely an area effect to contain several homeless/poor people at once, to siphon the character points off, and put them onto an object such that the object could then 'spend them' with the help of the mage.

[Curufea]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

You could also just expand the definition of CP/XP to include things like labour, materials, time.

[Ragnarok]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Hmm, I like the idea of the "CP drain" from people's "magical essence," I suppose. Would fit in well with dark fantasy. Makes the players think, "Hmm, is this magical sword I want worth the life essence of innocents?"

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

It's funny. I came from the other direction. I disliked the idea that CP could just be arbitrarily "lost". If you've laid out CP for something, then you've made it a part of the character.

 

Basically my issue with Independant was that it was a huge point break that only allowed two options - give the PC a point break with no penalty (which is an unfair advantage) or dock the PC their earned CP (which is an excessive penalty). If I'm going to take something away from a PC that's a big enough deal to have been worth purchasing via points, then I'd rather do it in the context of a negotiated change to the character (like the superhero genre "radiation accident" technique).

 

You could also just expand the definition of CP/XP to include things like labour' date=' materials, time.[/quote']

 

After years of playing, my game had already effectively phased out the use of the Independent limitation, and mainly for the reasons Karmakaze mentioned. The system that I worked up to replace it originally assumed the spending of CP/XP in a manner similar to Curufea's suggestion. A wizard might spend a month to craft a wand, for example, but only if he has the correct skills to actually carve it, and the proper type of wood and other materials from which to build it. By the same token, one of the PCs in the last game had a set of magical bracers, which could become damaged, and stop functioning. His character would then have to spend time (and materials) to repair them.

 

Magic items were still relatively rare in the campaign; few wizards really want to spend a month (or longer) and materials crafting an item for someone else.

 

JoeG

[Panpiper]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Hmm' date=' I like the idea of the "CP drain" from people's "magical essence," I suppose. Would fit in well with dark fantasy. Makes the players think, "Hmm, is this magical sword I want worth the life essence of innocents?"[/quote']

I can just see someone taking a psych complication something like; "Refuses to use magic items on moral grounds" It would be worth a lot in most campaigns I expect.

 

You could have a not so underground movement, gaining strength, that campaigns for the banning of magic items. And a magician's alliance hiring a public relations firm to spread the message that as long as all persons involved have consented of their own free will, there is no foul. The players get hired by that magician's alliance to track down some rogue mage cult that is creating items, draining against people's wills, which of course plays right into the hands of the abolitionists. And the playrs are left to stew in the moral quandary.

[Ragnarok]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I can just see someone taking a psych complication something like; "Refuses to use magic items on moral grounds" It would be worth a lot in most campaigns I expect.

 

You could have a not so underground movement, gaining strength, that campaigns for the banning of magic items. And a magician's alliance hiring a public relations firm to spread the message that as long as all persons involved have consented of their own free will, there is no foul. The players get hired by that magician's alliance to track down some rogue mage cult that is creating items, draining against people's wills, which of course plays right into the hands of the abolitionists. And the playrs are left to stew in the moral quandary.

 

Mages turning up dead in major cities, assassinated by a brotherhood of extremist mage-killers.

 

Maybe some of the spiritual energy leaks out of the equipment once in a while (spectres, ghosts, etc).

[Panpiper]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

The players manage to foil the evil cult's 'boss' just as he is doing a dastardly ritual that will drain the beautiful love interest of one of the players and several of her friends. The innocents have been saved, but the ritual triggers anyway and drains the whole life from the evil mage and channels it into this absolutely magnificent looking bastard sword. A fitting end for such an evil.

 

Inevitably of course, one of the players will grasp that amazing looking sword. And the sword grabs him! He is unable to let go of the sword! It is cursed! Just then several of the evil mage's henchmen rush in, not realizing their master has already perished and a fight happens. The player who has grasped the sword has no choice but to use the sword in combat, and discovers two things, it is a tremendously powerful magical sword, slaying opponents with a single strike, and every time it slays an opponent, it gets ever so slightly stronger, the player can feel it swallowing souls, just like the evil mage was doing. Worse however, every time the player slays an opponent with the sword, the sword drains a character point from the player as well!

 

The group must find a way to free the player from the sword. Ultimately they must embark on a quest to destroy the sword, before it grows so powerful that it destroys the player's character. They can only hope that when the sword is finally destroyed, that the souls it has stolen, as well as the life force it has drained from the player's character, will be restored.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

That sounds like a good way to handle it. I want the point cost to still mean something. Converting points into some "rule of X" combination of time and money should work, especially since I am already basing the cost of normal weapons and armor on the AP+RP cost.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

In my fantasy game, the world itself has certain rules about magic items (known as the Laws of Magic), which makes it easy for me to give and/or take away magic items without the use of Independent.

 

When a person gets a magic item, it comes with one or two simple, basic functions. It might give you a +1 DCV, or an extra +1 DC. No more than 5 or 8 Active Points worth of power. You get that for free. At this point, I can take the item away from you at any time. It can get lost, stolen, broken, whatever.

 

However, a person can "attune" himself to the item by spending XPs on it. As he does so, he discovers more powers. Maybe the sword now glows in the presence of enemies. Maybe the shield can now reflect arrows back at the archers. Whatevs. At this point, the item is now a part of the character; I can't take it away from him permanently because it is spiritually/psychically bonded with him. Even if he loses it, he can sense its location, or the guy who stole it will drop it (because it's trying to get back to its owner), or whatever. Getting it back can be an adventure, but the points aren't lost forever.

[DusterBoy]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Sounds like a Barbara Hambly novel. She tends to write books where wizards are feared and persecuted.

[Markdoc]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I can see why Independant was dropped: it's a limitation that was useful in only a limited number of cases, and mostly useful only in one genre: Fantasy.

 

That said, in those case, it was useful. I've never used it much, and in general I discouraged (though did not forbid) it in PCs. However, I don't really miss it: it's extremely easy to add in as a custom limitation called "Independant" - and that's what I'll be doing.

 

cheers, Mark

[Beast]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

in the case of a found item the points cost is non issue(the GM giveth and the GM taketh away)

if the character wants to create or have created item then they need to pay points for it

if it gets lost or stolen the the character can either find and retrive it or spend the points on something else(this is called a radiation accident in the super hero genre)

there is the focus limitation of " extremely hard to replace -1"

this means the GM can make it really hard to get the item back

 

Independent means the item if lost is gone forever and so are the points you paid for it

you get what you pay for

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I never had a real problem with the whole idea of "Independent means you can lose your hard-earned points" unless someone was twisting your arm (ie, _requiring) that you take Independent. In non-compulsory situations, you _chose_ to take Independent, knowing up front that it could happen. It's a gamble in exchange for a coupon. Like any gamble, sometimes you lose.

 

Again, my rather cavalier attitude about Independent applies only to those situations where it isn't _forced_ onto you.

[Panpiper]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

In my fantasy game, the world itself has certain rules about magic items (known as the Laws of Magic), which makes it easy for me to give and/or take away magic items without the use of Independent.

 

When a person gets a magic item, it comes with one or two simple, basic functions. It might give you a +1 DCV, or an extra +1 DC. No more than 5 or 8 Active Points worth of power. You get that for free. At this point, I can take the item away from you at any time. It can get lost, stolen, broken, whatever.

 

However, a person can "attune" himself to the item by spending XPs on it. As he does so, he discovers more powers. Maybe the sword now glows in the presence of enemies. Maybe the shield can now reflect arrows back at the archers. Whatevs. At this point, the item is now a part of the character; I can't take it away from him permanently because it is spiritually/psychically bonded with him. Even if he loses it, he can sense its location, or the guy who stole it will drop it (because it's trying to get back to its owner), or whatever. Getting it back can be an adventure, but the points aren't lost forever.

Do you require them at that point to pay full points for the item if they wish to 'bind' to it? Do they get to decide what powers it has? And do they decide that, or learn that before they spend the points? And how much does it cost to make my sword glow? ;-)

[Vondy]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I never allowed the independent limitation. I required the item creator to have the time, materials, knowledge, and skill to create the item. This generally requires relevant background skills and if need be, the appropriate spells. At that point the character has already invested character points. The difference: if the item is lost or destroyed they can make another one without having to spend MORE points. It also provides an opportunity for adventure because they may have to acquire said knowledge and materials to do it. This always proved sufficient in terms of limiting willy nilly item creation.

[Curufea]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Now that I think about it, Fantasy shouldn't actually have the Independent limitation.

Limitations are things that are applied to points values to reduce their costs. They are used to differentiate a grouping of powers and abilities from similar groupings that don't have that limitation.

Ergo - a setting that has Independent must have dependent as the default. Which is fine as the vast majority of groupings will be for characteristics, skills and skill-like powers, talents and talent-like powers.

 

If weapons and armour are never bought with a PC's character points - there is no reason to use the limitation of independent.

 

The only time you'd want to include limitation is if you created or summoned an item and wanted to specify it could be taken away from the PC. However - as creation/summoning is based on ACTIVE points there is no reason to have a limitation on it.

 

Ergo - Independent is a genre setting rule worth NO points, but is equally applied to all items.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I never had a real problem with the whole idea of "Independent means you can lose your hard-earned points" unless someone was twisting your arm (ie, _requiring) that you take Independent. In non-compulsory situations, you _chose_ to take Independent, knowing up front that it could happen. It's a gamble in exchange for a coupon. Like any gamble, sometimes you lose.

 

Again, my rather cavalier attitude about Independent applies only to those situations where it isn't _forced_ onto you.

 

The thing is, role-playing games aren't really games of chance. A player taking Independent isn't gambling on some random outcome, like a poker deck or slot machine, he's gambling on the GM's goodwill. I realize that this will vary quite a bit according to game mastering styles, but generally (as a GM) I have enough control of the game universe that I am the one who decides whether a plot element that could take something away exists in the first place, and whether or not to enforce it should the players invoke that element. So from the perspective of the PC, it's the randomness of the universe at play, but from the perspective of the GM (and probably the player), it's an active decision on the part of the person running the story.

 

Taken that way, a player taking Independent is gambling that the GM won't punish him for doing so, which lends an antagonistic element that I don't care for.

[BubbaDave]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Odd thought: maybe villains sacrifice victims in order to harvest CP for enchantment...!

 

In Joel Rosenberg's Paladins books, the main characters are knights who carry powerful swords that were enchanted through human sacrifice, both voluntary by holy men and women who were willing to delay their entry to Paradise in the name of fighting evil on Earth (the "White" swords) and involuntary by condemned criminals (the "Red" swords). But the secret of creating those weapons is lost in the distant past... or is it?

 

As a GM, I treated Independent as much like a DNPC-- the item will be stolen from you/attacked at some point every few adventures, and you're going to spend the adventure trying to get it back. I mean, the value of the Independent limitation was the same as an 8- Activation roll; if a character bought all his spells with an 8- Activation roll would you hold off on rolling activations because it felt adversarial?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

As a GM, I treated Independent as much like a DNPC-- the item will be stolen from you/attacked at some point every few adventures, and you're going to spend the adventure trying to get it back.

 

I never took it that far, but I don't have an issue with that point of view. It works as well as any other. As Karmakazee points out, it can set up an adversarial situation, but if the player knows _beforehand_ just how Independent is handled in your game--- well, at least I've never had any issue with it, even back when it was just an OAF (before Independent existed as such).

 

In my own games, it simply meant that players needed to be a bit more vigilant with regard to the item. I have had items lost or stolen, but not with any degree of regularity.