Alas, no more Independent!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

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.

 

That, or their expectation is to have lots more power while the items last, after which it's time for a new character (with a bunch more Independent items).

[Karmakaze]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

As a GM' date=' I treated Independent as much like a DNPC-- the item [b']will[/b] 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?

 

Huh. To me, what you're describing sounds more like the Focus limitation rather than the Independent limitation. Here's what the limitation says, as written: (Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book, page 193; Revised, page 297-298) "...and a character can lose the points he spent on an Independent Power forever." Whereas something with an 8- activation roll isn't erased off the character sheet if you fail the activation in one instance. It's the permanent CP loss that's adversarial, not that the character sometimes loses the use of the power.

 

Also consider that if you're not taking the character points away forever and still considering the limitation to be equivalent to an 8- less activation, that means the character should not have the use of the power in three out of four instances. By my GMing style (and yes, YMMV) anything that's going to be stolen that often is a plot device more than a power.

 

That' date=' or their expectation is to have lots more power while the items last, after which it's time for a new character (with a bunch more Independent items).[/quote']

 

Yeah, I don't think I'd allow that unless all of the players were doing it on an equal footing. (Which, granted, could be an interesting game for a while. You'd have an odd dynamic where PCs become less powerful over time.)

[teh bunneh]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

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' date=' or learn that before they spend the points? And how much does it cost to make my sword glow? ;-)[/quote']

 

1. No. They get the first power for free. If you find a magic ring of defense that gives you a +1 DCV, you get that 4 point power (5 active, IIF -1/4) for free.

2. Yes, within reason. If they've got a Ring of Protection, it will only grant defensive powers. It won't suddenly develop the power to fire bolts of energy at enemies.

2a. Or, they can have the GM (me) build the powers for them and tell them what they can get. This is the case with my players who don't really know the system all that well.

3. Sight Group Images, +4 to PER Rolls, Area Of Effect (1m Radius; +¼) (27 Active Points); OAF (-1), Only To Create Light (-1), No Range (-½). Total cost: 8 points.

 

[Panpiper]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

1. No. They get the first power for free. If you find a magic ring of defense that gives you a +1 DCV, you get that 4 point power (5 active, IIF -1/4) for free.

2. Yes, within reason. If they've got a Ring of Protection, it will only grant defensive powers. It won't suddenly develop the power to fire bolts of energy at enemies.

2a. Or, they can have the GM (me) build the powers for them and tell them what they can get. This is the case with my players who don't really know the system all that well.

3. Sight Group Images, +4 to PER Rolls, Area Of Effect (1m Radius; +¼) (27 Active Points); OAF (-1), Only To Create Light (-1), No Range (-½). Total cost: 8 points.

 

I really like your approach Teh Bunneh, as I feel it allows me to give out magical treasure occassionally without fear that I am going to completely blow the balance of my campaign out the window.

 

A question; I have a player who for roleplaying reasons (good player) has equipped himself with a lowly shortsword rather than the big bastard sword his character should normally be able to wield. He is at a disadvantage facing lowly goblins, let alone anything scarier, solely due to his choice to stay in character. I want to conspire to have him find or otherwise aquire a shortsword that will both compensate for his lack of melee power and reward him for being such a dedicated roleplayer.

 

If I have him find a +1 shortsword, how aught I handle that? Give him a 25AP KA for free (that would be a +1 DC bonus over a regular shortsword) and let him buy more than that with points if he wants, adding to the base 25AP? Would it be too much if I also included a +1 OCV in the free build, or aught I have him pay for that?

[teh bunneh]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

If I have him find a +1 shortsword' date=' how aught I handle that? Give him a 25AP KA for free (that would be a +1 DC bonus over a regular shortsword) and let him buy more than that with points if he wants, adding to the base 25AP? [/quote']

 

That's pretty much what I would do. Under the assumption that anyone can walk out of a blacksmith's shop with a 20 AP HKA shortsword without paying points, giving him a slightly better one (25 AP) for free would not be a problem with me.

 

Would it be too much if I also included a +1 OCV in the free build, or aught I have him pay for that?

 

It's your game, and you know it better than I do. But for me, I would not include anything above and beyond the first freebie. If he wants a higher OCV (or any other powers) built into it, have him pay character points.

 

The other idea I thought of is... is he a combat-oriented character? If not, you might consider giving him a sword that does something other than help him in combat. Is he a thief? Give him a sword that gives him a +3 bonus to his Stealth checks. Is he a wizard? How about a sword (or wand, or whatever) that adds +1 DC to his favorite attack spell? He might appreciate that more than "Oh, now I can do almost as much damage as the warrior."

[Panpiper]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

The other idea I thought of is... is he a combat-oriented character? If not' date=' you might consider giving him a sword that does something other than help him in combat.[/quote']

He's a bit of a multiclass, stealthy secret agent, concealed weapons, and the like. Bonuses to being sneaky would certainly do the trick. For 'regular' combat while in a party, he is more likely to stand off and fire a crossbow. He carries a shortsword because it is something he can conceal. He even has a special sheath bought with points that gives him bonuses to concealment with a shortsword.

 

So your suggestion would be to give him a 20AP KA with two or three levels of stealth (I'd give him +2 to stealth 'and' concealment), and let him buy extra KA and combat levels if he wants to spend points?

 

Conceptually I have a hard time with a 'normal' sword conferring stealth bonuses unless there was something swordlike on it to help make it more thief like. An item conferring stealth bonuses solely would be more like a cloak or footwear for my mind to really be accepting of it. Were I to make it a sword, I suppose I could call it 'Back Biter' or something and give it a +1 DC 'Only usable when attacking by surprise'. That's not the same as a full DC, so it makes it easier to stack with a stealth bonus, and it is conducive to merging well with a stealth bonus on the blade.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Sure, a magic cloak or magic boots would work really well for the stealth bonuses. And he could spend XPs to buy Invisibility or Teleport or other sneaky things later.

[BubbaDave]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Huh. To me' date=' what you're describing sounds more like the Focus limitation rather than the Independent limitation. [....'] It's the permanent CP loss that's adversarial, not that the character sometimes loses the use of the power.

 

Also consider that if you're not taking the character points away forever

 

I wasn't as clear there as I'd hoped to be. The item would be stolen or attacked (with frequency and strength of attack depending on the item's obviousness) on a regular basis, and the character would have a chance to get it back-- but losing it (and the points) forever would be a very real possibility. The more secretive the character was, and the more subtle the item's effect, the better the chance the character had to hold onto the item. My players with Independent probably had the items in their possession 3/4 of the time, but the other 1/4 was a desperate scramble to reclaim it, and almost every character with an Independent item lost it eventually.

 

That said, I also enforced strict limits on Independent items. Max 30 AP, max 5 real points. I'd also let characters buy off the Independent limitation later, as they "attuned" to the item, but players rarely chose to spend points on "item insurance" when they could pick up skills and spells instead.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

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.

 

There is a random element in the game dependent on the interaction between the player and the GM.

 

Character walks into a bar where it is known a thieves guild frequents

Character proceeds to show off his shinny new sword

Thieves try to steal the item by the good natured story teller has the pick pocket fail

(after all, the player might have been looking for just that)

Character decides to pick a fight with everyone in the bar and ends up tossed in the alley without his sword.

But wait! there's a chance to recover the sword and there's the adventure

but only if there is a chance of failure

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

One of many reasons I'm not quite ready to move to 6E yet.

 

In campaigns with equipment, this is much less of an issue - anything "independent" should be bought as equipment, not CP, though I suppose character creation for some characters might require them to buy an independent power (I use "Independent" for all my God-granted powers - The Priest/Cleric/Paladin/Shaman is not the source of the power, merely the recipient / instrument.

 

Now, in Champs games, not having independent for your brick's Ancient Arcane Battle Armor that grants all his powers is going to be a bit of a problem...

[Ice9]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Now, in Champs games, not having independent for your brick's Ancient Arcane Battle Armor that grants all his powers is going to be a bit of a problem...

Wait, did you mean having Independent would be a problem? Because a character who put a majority of their points into Independent powers is a disaster waiting to happen. For anything as major as power armor, I'd build it as a Focus - that way the character will at least get their points back and not be totally useless if it gets destroyed. And actually, for some characters I'd build it as OIHID.

[dmjalund]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

each time I see this thread, I think of this song

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTyn6qkwo7Y

 

my apologies

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

God am I glad I don't listen to radio; I've never heard a single Kelly Clarkson song that I'm aware of

 

Generally, only *good* music gets stuck in my head, unless I spontaneously channel something from my childhood days of watching MTV in the 80's.

[ajackson]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Now' date=' in Champs games, not having independent for your brick's Ancient Arcane Battle Armor that grants all his powers is going to be a bit of a problem...[/quote']

By which you mean 'improves the game balance enormously?'. There's no way I'd allow Independent on that; it's just an indestructible (and thus unique) focus.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Please

[Alcamtar]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

As a GM' date=' I treated Independent as much like a DNPC-- the item [b']will[/b] 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?

...

The item would be stolen or attacked (with frequency and strength of attack depending on the item's obviousness) on a regular basis, and the character would have a chance to get it back-- but losing it (and the points) forever would be a very real possibility. The more secretive the character was, and the more subtle the item's effect, the better the chance the character had to hold onto the item. My players with Independent probably had the items in their possession 3/4 of the time, but the other 1/4 was a desperate scramble to reclaim it, and almost every character with an Independent item lost it eventually.

 

That said, I also enforced strict limits on Independent items. Max 30 AP, max 5 real points. I'd also let characters buy off the Independent limitation later, as they "attuned" to the item, but players rarely chose to spend points on "item insurance" when they could pick up skills and spells instead.

This sounds like an excellent way to handle it. I have generally considered the paranoia/nuisance factor to be justification for the limitation but maybe not enough for a -2 limitation. I really like the idea that you will lose it, and that it is unavailable part of the time... but that you also have an opportunity to (attempt to) reclaim it. That greatly increases the nuisance factor and better justifies the -2.

 

In addition to theft or loss, another possibility would be damage. A damaged item could be repaired but you'd have to find a competent smith/enchanter. Or for indestructible items, it could be magically rendered inert by a curse and have to be reactivated somehow.

 

Great idea, thanks!

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

In 6E, 13-16 Charges that Never Recover is -2. Seems to me that an Independent Power at the same value could get approximately that many uses before going away forever. Bonus: It really is "somewhere between 13 and 16, GM decides."

[Alcamtar]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

Good observation Chris. I never noticed the equivalence between Independent and non-recoverable Charges.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

There is a random element in the game dependent on the interaction between the player and the GM.

 

Character walks into a bar where it is known a thieves guild frequents

Character proceeds to show off his shinny new sword

Thieves try to steal the item by the good natured story teller has the pick pocket fail

(after all, the player might have been looking for just that)

Character decides to pick a fight with everyone in the bar and ends up tossed in the alley without his sword.

But wait! there's a chance to recover the sword and there's the adventure

but only if there is a chance of failure

 

There is actually more of a "game of chance" than just what the characters themselves choose to do.

 

Consider the limitaions Requires a Skill Roll, Activation, Burnout, and (if anyone still uses it) Jammed. There are likely more, if we stop to think about it. Linked, for example: you are taking a gamble there. Should you run into someone with an ability to dispell or suppress power A, then you no longer have power B.

 

There is a great deal of "chance gaming," right down to rolling to hit or rolling for damage. Many of those gambles cost you the power for a short time.

 

Going from that, I just never had a big quibble with Independent.

 

I could segue into a side discussion of Normal Characteristics Maxima, but that's another one that either you are fine with it, or you hate it, and there's really no odds of changing anyone's view either way.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

there is not a great amount of variance when 12d6 are rolled

[zemblack]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I'm just going to "talk aloud" to work this out for myself. If it helps anyone, great. Forgive the ramblings...

 

For me, the issue isn't about whether a character loses points or not. As a DM I give points for Perks and RP gifted powers all the time, and I don't have a problem taking them away. Same goes for Perks and Disads a character pays for. If you spend points to be mayor, then lose or give up the next election, then you lose the perk. I don't give him a few points to spend elsewhere just because he decided not to run. No. Those points are lost.

 

No, for me, it was about concept. How do I create an item that has power(s) in it? As a player, if I purchase a wand of fireballs, then really, the power is with me. I'm just using the wand as a focus. If it's stolen, the thief can't cast the fireball spell or use my power because he doesn't know it. If he does, and my wand is a suitable focus for his version of the spell/power, then he's more than welcome to use it. Now I know that some of you are simply pointing to the Applicability of a focus; personal or universal. The wand of fireballs is built as a personal focus, but it could easily serve someone else who has the same power. If it's built as a universal focus, then anyone could try to use it. If they know the gestures, incantations, and can make the skill check, then it'll work for them. But for how long?

 

If a thief takes my universal focus Wand of Fireballs, how long does it work for him? 1 day? 1 week? Until I make a new wand? Forever? If it's forever, well, let just say that's overpowered and easily abused if not Independent and leave it at that. If it's not Independent then nothing else makes sense. If he steals one and it works for a while, sure you can excuse your way around anything, but you have to jury rig the home rules to some extent to make it work.

 

And the GM can bite the other way, too. What if _you're_ the thief and you steal a mage's Wand of Fireball (universal, not Independent) so you can use it on your enemies? How long does it work for you? GM's whim, says I. I suppose it could be some set limit. current gaming session, til the end of the adventure, 1 week, 1 day. It could gain some form of activation roll as time goes on and once it fails, it no longer functions.

 

Perhaps it's all about having to purchase magic items with points but not having to purchase a sword... If I treat foci like weapons, then if you steal someone's focus and try to use it for your own, you take a -3 penalty for not knowing how to wield it. Perhaps, any focus deemed universal is by default Independent. If that's the case, then I'm tempted to offer a bit of a limit for Universal to compensate for the loss of the power, though perhaps I shouldn't since there is some innate advantage to spreading the wealth of your powers. After all, if you want someone else to be able to use your power, then it's normally an advantage. With that thought, if you lose the focus (and all the powers it is universal for) then you could just make a new one, but would you have to spend points to relearn the powers with the new focus? I suppose, you've already learned the power before, now you just need to spend the points, reweave the power into the device. You wouldn't need to spend all the time, just the part about making/buying the appropriate focus. Hmmm, that might work and it would not necessitate the reintroduction of the Independent limitation.

 

Now, what about potions or one use items like scrolls or grenade-like items? In the past I've used Focus, Independent, and Charges (typically 1 that did not recover) to represent them. What I really want is something that an alchemist could produce without costing any CP. Perhaps all of this is pointless, just make it different magic systems. Alchemy would require knowledge, equipment, supplies, and time to make them. Once learned, an alchemist could make as many potions of any given type as he had charges for. If he used one or gave it away (someone out of the party) he could make more to replenish his supply.

 

Perhaps this is the way to handle all "Independent" items. Learning the power of an Independent item isn't about buying the item but about buying the ability to make one. As an alchemist, I'm not buying a spell I can toss around willy nilly, I'm purchasing the knowledge of how to brew a potion. Brewing the potion should be difficult to do (skill roll), and cost time (Extra Time) and coin (difficult/expensive to recover) to create but shouldn't cost more CP to make again and again. Time (and some good sense) should be the order of the day. Extra Time should apply to how long it takes to brew a batch and should be at least measured in days or weeks. The same would apply to an "Independent" or Universal Wand of Fireballs. I didn't purchase the wand but rather the ability to make a new one. it should be expensive and take time... Of course none of this should apply to the power other than the Focus limitation...

 

I think I can make that work. Thanx for listening.

[Hierax]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I like Independent and for more than just items (as mentioned earlier). It worked just fine for those of us that used it, removing it from the system was a mistake.

 

Universal Focus is a bigger problem than Independent letting other people use the power without paying for it -- that should be an Advantage like Usable By Others. Personal and Universal focus should have different values IMO.

 

This could be especially abusive with the Hero rule of +5 points for a 2nd of the same power, why not have a wand of fireballs for everyone in the party and hit the opposition with a bloody artillery barrage!

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

It all boils down to one thing:

 

We require someone to pay points for things.

 

That doesn't always work, particularly not if your group plays to zero-balance on points.

 

If you have a battleship, someone has to pay for it. If you give it away-- and realistically, there is no good reason that you shouldn't be able to give away something that you actually own, that's fine.

 

But the system doesn't really have a way of dealing with that. It's worse if you play to zero-balance, then the previous owner is going to want his points back, and if he gets them back, then the new owner should be required to pay points for the ship.

 

Independant didn't really fix that. I like Independant; I feel it's an important half-step, if nothing else, but really: this is something that HERO is simply _not_ good at.

 

I think either folks getting over the need for a zero-sum total or the system developing a mechanic for it is really the only thing that is going to make a lot of folks happy.

 

For me personally, I just figure that's part of the GM's job: working out the details when the system breaks down.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

I'm just going to "talk aloud" to work this out for myself. If it helps anyone, great. Forgive the ramblings...

 

For me, the issue isn't about whether a character loses points or not. As a DM I give points for Perks and RP gifted powers all the time, and I don't have a problem taking them away. Same goes for Perks and Disads a character pays for. If you spend points to be mayor, then lose or give up the next election, then you lose the perk. I don't give him a few points to spend elsewhere just because he decided not to run. No. Those points are lost.

 

No, for me, it was about concept. How do I create an item that has power(s) in it? As a player, if I purchase a wand of fireballs, then really, the power is with me. I'm just using the wand as a focus. If it's stolen, the thief can't cast the fireball spell or use my power because he doesn't know it. If he does, and my wand is a suitable focus for his version of the spell/power, then he's more than welcome to use it. Now I know that some of you are simply pointing to the Applicability of a focus; personal or universal. The wand of fireballs is built as a personal focus, but it could easily serve someone else who has the same power. If it's built as a universal focus, then anyone could try to use it. If they know the gestures, incantations, and can make the skill check, then it'll work for them. But for how long?

 

If a thief takes my universal focus Wand of Fireballs, how long does it work for him? 1 day? 1 week? Until I make a new wand? Forever? If it's forever, well, let just say that's overpowered and easily abused if not Independent and leave it at that. If it's not Independent then nothing else makes sense. If he steals one and it works for a while, sure you can excuse your way around anything, but you have to jury rig the home rules to some extent to make it work.

 

How is that different from this:

 

No, for me, it was about concept. How do I create an item that has power(s) in it? As a player, if I purchase a blaster pistol, then really, the power is with me. I'm just using the blaster as a focus. If it's stolen, the thief can't use the blaster or use my power because he doesn't know it. If he does, and my blaster is a suitable focus for his version of the spell/power, then he's more than welcome to use it. Now I know that some of you are simply pointing to the Applicability of a focus; personal or universal. The blaster pistol is built as a personal focus, but it could easily serve someone else who has the same power. If it's built as a universal focus, then anyone could try to use it. If they know the gestures, incantations, and can make the skill check, then it'll work for them. But for how long?

 

If a thief takes my universal focus blaster pistol, how long does it work for him? 1 day? 1 week? Until I make a new blaster? Forever? If it's forever, well, let just say that's overpowered and easily abused if not Independent and leave it at that. If it's not Independent then nothing else makes sense. If he steals one and it works for a while, sure you can excuse your way around anything, but you have to jury rig the home rules to some extent to make it work.

 

And the GM can bite the other way, too. What if _you're_ the thief and you steal a gadgeteer's blaster pistol (universal, not Independent) so you can use it on your enemies? How long does it work for you? GM's whim, says I. I suppose it could be some set limit. current gaming session, til the end of the adventure, 1 week, 1 day. It could gain some form of activation roll as time goes on and once it fails, it no longer functions.

 

Why is there such a difference?

 

I don't understand the whole idea that "if something exists someone has to have paid points for it". What about all of the cars on the roads, all of the fire hydrants, all of the computers in offices and in people's homes? What about people's homes? I probably come out to a 300+ point character just based on stuff (two cars, a fairly nice though not overly spacious house, two computers, Internet access).

 

If someone makes a magic item (gadget), then there's a magic item (gadget) there. If someone pays the points for it, then they get to keep it. If not, then how long they can keep it and use it for is up to the GM. If a character loses a (non-Independent) item for which he has paid points, and he can't or doesn't get the item back (it's destroyed or something), he gets the points back to use on something else. If he picks up a villain's Focus (for which that villain has presumably paid points) and uses it, he might get one use out of it in a scene -- unless he pays points for it. (What happens then? Presumably the villain gets those points back to spend on something else.)

 

Independent breaks the concept of paying points for items. It's a non-solution to a non-problem. I pulled hard for it to be gone, and I'm glad Steve listened to me.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alas, no more Independent!

 

How is that different from this:

 

 

 

Why is there such a difference?

 

I don't understand the whole idea that "if something exists someone has to have paid points for it". What about all of the cars on the roads, all of the fire hydrants, all of the computers in offices and in people's homes? What about people's homes? I probably come out to a 300+ point character just based on stuff (two cars, a fairly nice though not overly spacious house, two computers, Internet access).

 

If someone makes a magic item (gadget), then there's a magic item (gadget) there. If someone pays the points for it, then they get to keep it. If not, then how long they can keep it and use it for is up to the GM. If a character loses a (non-Independent) item for which he has paid points, and he can't or doesn't get the item back (it's destroyed or something), he gets the points back to use on something else. If he picks up a villain's Focus (for which that villain has presumably paid points) and uses it, he might get one use out of it in a scene -- unless he pays points for it. (What happens then? Presumably the villain gets those points back to spend on something else.)

 

Independent breaks the concept of paying points for items. It's a non-solution to a non-problem. I pulled hard for it to be gone, and I'm glad Steve listened to me.

 

Long ago, when setting up a Star Hero (First Edition) game, I came to the realization that I could either spend a huge amount of my time writing up basic equipment, or I could "black box"* it, and just say what the stuff did and spend that time actually writing the background information that I needed. I chose the latter, and it worked fine. For some reason, however, it took me a longer time to accept that the same could be done in Fantasy Hero with various bits of magic. While I still wrote up things that had a direct game effect, I never charged anyone points for the stuff. If someone wanted a Healing Potion, for example, I knew the availability and the cost, and worked it accordingly. And even for PC-generated items, it made more sense to me to make the construction process more story-driven, with time and expertise trading off for points.

 

What if a wizard wants to make a Wand of Fireballs? Well, he or she needs to have certain crafting skills, and access to appropriate materials. It then takes time. Weeks, months, or perhaps, even seasons would be required to craft and enchant. Really, given those limitations, the "magic item assembly lines" aren't a risk. And controlling NPC creation of magic items was always in my control as GM, so that, too, wasn't an issue. I even toyed around with the idea of a Create power, where the creator of the item doesn't actually spend points for each copy, but rather spends points in the Create power, whose effect is the creation of the item. Items so created are like Instant effects. They linger until it is reasonable that the effects are gone, and are no longer linked to the original character. I had experimented with using the first edition FH idea of defining the cost of the Create power as the Real Cost of the item, with required limitations representing the creation ritual, and this worked reasonably well.

 

JoeG

*Borrowed from computer science. Given specific inputs, a "black box" would produce specific outputs. As far as the user is concerned, so long as this relationship holds, the actual workings inside the "black box" could be anything. This is what allows modern, modular programs to make function calls from DLLs, for example, without the programmer really knowing how the functions were actually coded within that library. Extending this to gaming, is there really any need to calculate the points of, say, a cell phone for a character? All that's important is that it functions a specific way in the setting.