Independent vs. Non-Recoverable Charges

[Alcamtar]

Independent has long been the subject of impassioned debate. The general argument against it seems to go like this:

• if you don't take the item away, then it's not a limitation and thus not worth any points
  
• if you don't take the item away, the character is overpowered, but if you do, then the character is underpowered, so no matter what you do it's never fair or balanced
  

It was recently pointed out in the Fantasy Hero forum that Independent has the same value as 13-16 Non Recoverable Charges. On reflection, they have exactly the same effect: a big cost break followed by permanent loss. The only real difference is that NRC is quantified with a specific number of uses, while Independent is left to GM discretion.

 

Strangely, for all the passion expended on Independent, I have not seen any complaints about non-recoverable charges.

 

That raises a question: Why is Independent unacceptable but Non-Recoverable Charges are acceptable?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Independent vs. Non-Recoverable Charges

 

That raises a question: Why is Independent unacceptable but Non-Recoverable Charges are acceptable?

 

Hmmm. Having thought about it a bit more, they do fall into the same sort of general category. They make me a bit less uncomfortable than Independent, primarily because of the extent to which Independent is tied to and specifies a very particular special effect, not to mention the whole "it is the only way to stop assembly lines of wizards!" thing.

 

Non-Recoverable Charges give a bit more control to the player. I can decide whether to use a charge or not. If the Independent item is gone, it's gone, and I have to suck it up.

 

I am curious about something. Of those who do use Independent, have you ever actually taken an item away from a character who has paid points? What was the reaction?

[Naanomi]

Re: Independent vs. Non-Recoverable Charges

 

But what of the potion with non-recovering charges that is *also* independent? hehe

 

All kidding aside, the difference is all in player control. Non-recoverable charges can come and go at the players whim, and can be saved for a rainy day. Independent powers disappear at the GM's decision... which is the whole point. Independent powers, however, tend to be more 'recoverable' in the sense that if stolen you can likely get it back... where your focus with non-recoverable charges is probably never going to be seen again.

 

I had an independent power (or rather... my base did) that was destroyed when my base was attacked once. I spent the points and had my teleportation gate rebuilt. Even if it happened another time, I still came out ahead in the Independent point game.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Independent vs. Non-Recoverable Charges

 

Hmmm. Having thought about it a bit more, they do fall into the same sort of general category. They make me a bit less uncomfortable than Independent, primarily because of the extent to which Independent is tied to and specifies a very particular special effect, not to mention the whole "it is the only way to stop assembly lines of wizards!" thing.

 

Non-Recoverable Charges give a bit more control to the player. I can decide whether to use a charge or not. If the Independent item is gone, it's gone, and I have to suck it up.

 

I am curious about something. Of those who do use Independent, have you ever actually taken an item away from a character who has paid points? What was the reaction?

 

Oh, yes.

 

In my 4E Fantasy Hero campaign, it became extremely common for non-mages to purchase with points a defensive item that provided a Force Field effect. After several game sessions, the local criminal element got fed up with the PCs, and bought some alchemic potions to even the score. The next game session the players were confused as some of the criminals attempted to splash them with a weird glowing liquid, to no effect (it was keyed to destroy magical armor). The session after that, one of the players reacted with shock as a different-colored liquid hit him full in the chest--and started to eat the magic out of the item. He pouted for the rest of the game session, and the other folks at the table started to realize that their cheap magical protections were likely next. The first step became adding "Difficult to Dispel" to a lot of items, followed by moving most items away from Independent, and more toward a Universal Focus model. Magic items could then be repaired or rebuilt with the proper skills and materials.

 

JoeG

[Lucius]

Re: Independent vs. Non-Recoverable Charges

 

Hmmm. Having thought about it a bit more, they do fall into the same sort of general category. They make me a bit less uncomfortable than Independent, primarily because of the extent to which Independent is tied to and specifies a very particular special effect,

 

It is?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Is the palindromedary a Dependent Non Player Character, or an Independent Non Player Character?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Independent vs. Non-Recoverable Charges

 

{shrug} No great insight to me; there's a reason why I base the distinction between permanent and non-permanent magic items on Independent vs Non-Recoverable Charges.

 

As to why the difference in drama levels, my personal theory is that I think most HERO gamers have only a limited understanding of the system as a whole, and have knee-jerk reactions based on their misconceptions / lack of clarity. An unpopular theory likely, but there you have it.

 

The main hate for Independent seems to resolve around most people's conception that if an ability has Independent applied to it then the GM must take it away for the lim to have any value. Personally, I don't agree with that; it's enough that the item can be lost via events in play, but if a character takes reasonable efforts to retain their "stuff" they might manage to prevent it. I'll divest them of the item(s) if events in play indicate that it is appropriate, but I'm not going to warp my game or jump through hoops or engage awkward or adversarial practices to do so just because I feel as if I have to in order to justify the lim.

 

All that aside, I think that Independent is best suited to Fantasy, and is a mechanic best implemented by the GM in a consistent and campaign-wide way as part of an overarching system or groundrules rather than something individual players should opt to apply or not apply to their abilities. If a player comes to me and says I want to apply Independent to this random ability, I'll likely shoot it down unless they have a very compelling reason as to why that makes sense. On the other hand if I as a GM want to institute a mechanism for dealing with a game artifiact in a portable way such that points invested in something are distinct and separate from the character that brought the thing into being to model some concept applicable to a given setting, then I'll certainly consider Independent.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Independent vs. Non-Recoverable Charges

 

I don't like either limitation, personally, although I think there is a lot of sense in what Naanomi says that there is less fuss about non-recovering charges because it is the player who controls when they are used and so when the power goes away. That sense of control matters to a lot of people, and even if you might well get more use out of an item that is Independent than an item that can only be used 16 times, KNOWING you are in control can ease the pain. Makes no sense to me, but there you have it...

 

Fist let me set one parameter for what I have to say: neither limitation matters a fig if the points for the power are not coming from a character, i.e when the limitations are used to model something bought with money. My comments only apply when characters are going to lose points when they lose, or use the power.

 

I think it is perfectly acceptable to use Independent/NRC to limit character experience progress - if you want characters that start off at around 200 points and take a LONG time to get to 300, let them buy - and use - Independent/NRC items. In fact actively encourage it.

 

The trouble is that you can not guarantee they will, no matter how attractive you make it, so you could get round that by handing out less XP and I/NRC items as 'bonus XP'.

 

Some while back I was modeling a City of Heroes game and that is how I did Inspirations - effectively bonus XP you HAD to spend on a particular short term benefit.

 

So, they have their place for modeling a certain type of concept - but I think you need to decide whether this is something that you want in your game or not.

 

There are not many things that you can not get another of: you could model healing potions as 'Charges never Recover', but if you do, it means you can not have any more without spending experience - they are not to be had for any price in the game.

 

Now Healing Potions and such are relatively cheap, and players are only likely to spend a few points on several, so no major problem with differing power levels when they are gone: if one PC is 248 character points and another is 256, it is unlikely to make a great deal of difference. Of course if it KEEPS happening that one character uses I/NRC items and another doesn't, the point will come when the XP difference is significant and even the bonus given by the I/NRC items does not make it up. That could be something of a campaign spoiler in the long term.

 

More of a problem is when someone spends a lot of points on an item with these limitations: once they are gone they are gone, and the gulf is there immediately, so it can magnify the problems I mentioned above (and, conversely, UNTIL the items are gone, because they give 3x as much raw power as the cost implies, the character with them will be significantly more useful than his companions).

 

You might decide more power then less power evens out on average but it doesn't - you are simply swinging from one difficult manage situation to another, different one.

 

Then there is the question of where these things come from - if someone actually has to invest XP (obviously a metagame concept, but bear with me) in producing something then, in a very real sense that is part of them. It would mean, for example, that a given mage could only ever, in his lifetime, produce a (pretty limtied) number of potions, in exchange for not progressing so much - if at all - with other magical studies - and it would also mean that people producing these things would not be inclined to give them away - if they parted with them it woul be for fortunes.

 

I'm not against having them available as limitations in the game - we should be able to model everything - but I don't think anyone in their right mind should ever use them - unless that is a 'standard' for the particular game they are playing in.