Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

[ned-kogar]

When it comes to the interaction of Special Effects, there's always the 'problem' over how far SFX make a difference to play before limitations or advantages become appropriate.

 

But I'm also interested in whether people have neatly delineated where the burden of effect lies with the 'attacker' or the 'defender' within their campaigns.

 

eg. Does fire have an innate vulnerabilty and susceptibility to water? Or does water have an innate drain vs. fire? Or can both options happily co-exist in a campaign?

 

eg 2. Does Dr Smoke's Smokey Darkness Power work in high winds (he's not put a limitation on the power), but not against Blowhard's superbreath Drain vs. Gas / Smoke powers?

 

Obviously, any decisions will depend on your own campaign's degree of realism.

 

I feel sure this has been tackled elsewhere, but I didn't find any recent yak about it. I've even an inkling that this was tackled in a supplement at some point, but I've put most of my prior edition books in storage.

 

Thanks for your thinks,

 

Ned

[JmOz]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I leave the burden on the GM (normaly me) but I tend to favor a almost 0 advantage/limitation for a power, all of the above examples I would favor no bonus or limitation (However in the case of the Fire/Water, I would say that it becomes seering steam instead of fire)

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I feel sure this has been tackled elsewhere' date=' but I didn't find any recent yak about it. I've even an inkling that this was tackled in a supplement at some point, but I've put most of my prior edition books in storage.[/quote']

 

It was in The Ultimate Energy Projector.

[Fearghus]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

when it comes to special effects I try not to over think things. Look at what the character spent points for and GM THOSE EFFECTS. To give you a better idea I will answer your questions one by one...

 

Does fire have an innate vulnerabilty and susceptibility to water?

 

No. No vulnerability paid for = No vulnerability

 

Or does water have an innate drain vs. fire?

 

No. No Drain paid for = No Drain

 

Or can both options happily co-exist in a campaign?

 

Only if they are paid for. If Burnerman has flame armor that is vulnerable to water attacks and hydroman has a water jet drain fire power then The both happen, but if they didn't buy the powers that way they don't get any special benefit just because the special effects are water and fire.

 

Does Dr Smoke's Smokey Darkness Power work in high winds (he's not put a limitation on the power)' date=' but not against Blowhard's superbreath Drain vs. Gas / Smoke powers?[/quote']

 

Yes. If Dr. Smoke didn't buy the power with "does not work in high wind" and Blowhard's super breath is specifically a drain against gas / smoke powers then YES because they spent the points on advantages and disadvantages that apply that way.

[torchwolf]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

When it comes to the interaction of Special Effects, there's always the 'problem' over how far SFX make a difference to play before limitations or advantages become appropriate.

 

But I'm also interested in whether people have neatly delineated where the burden of effect lies with the 'attacker' or the 'defender' within their campaigns.

I think "burden of effect" would generally apply to the defender, both for consistency and to avoid unnecessary arbitrary arguments.

IMHO, silk curtains catching fire accidentally might result from fire use in case of a really bad roll, Unluck, or special circumstances, but would generally occur mostly because of a defined Side Effect. A fire-user with precise control (no Side Effects) shouldn't really be penalized based on FX.

 

eg. Does fire have an innate vulnerabilty and susceptibility to water? Or does water have an innate drain vs. fire? Or can both options happily co-exist in a campaign?

As a GM, I'd encourage those kinds of builds, but not enforce them.

 

eg 2. Does Dr Smoke's Smokey Darkness Power work in high winds (he's not put a limitation on the power)' date=' but not against Blowhard's superbreath Drain vs. Gas / Smoke powers?[/quote']

Strictly speaking, that would be true, if no Limitation was put on it.

Personally, I might allow a PC to affect Dr Smoke that way, especially if it was a clever power stunt or specially-improvised gadget/spell to counter Dr Smoke's powers, regardless of if I remembered to give Dr Smoke that particular Limitation.

If Dr Smoke was a PC, I'd have to consider beforehand if Blowhard would be able to affect the Smokey Darkness power, so I could describe it properly to the player. It would also depend on how the player of Dr Smoke defined his powers - if it was just regular smoke, I'd probably suggest adding a Limitation (or redefining the smoke) while revising the character.

 

Obviously, any decisions will depend on your own campaign's degree of realism.

 

I feel sure this has been tackled elsewhere, but I didn't find any recent yak about it. I've even an inkling that this was tackled in a supplement at some point, but I've put most of my prior edition books in storage.

 

Thanks for your thinks,

 

Ned

The supplement you're thinking of might be the Ultimate Energy Projector book, which goes into great depth on the interactions of special effects and suggests altering costs (mainly applicable to Offensive powers) based on how useful a particular effect is; using these rules changes the situation to making the FX user assume the benefits/burdens of a particular FX, both in the case of Offensive and Defensive.

 

I haven't yet used the UEP rules in practice, but will likely do so for an upcoming campaign.

 

Hope that's useful.

 

EDIT: Gosh, 3 other posts before I finished writing this one, including IndianaJoe3 who already mentioned the UEP.

EDIT 2: Re sfx vs sfx etc: Having run into many odd sfx definitions, I'd not automatically assume that Dr Smoke's Smokey powers were in fact true smoke, even if they appeared to be.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

Um, if the Darkness is a smoke SFX power, and the drain was bought to effect any one Smoke/Gas power then, yeah, it works. Otherwise, what would be the point of buying the SFX based version of drain?

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I'm with Fearghus on this one. SFX has very little impact on how powers work, and I've almost never seen it come up as far as granting bonuses based on the interaction. I've had SFX limited VPPs come up a great deal, where you justify what you are building, but that is not relevant to the OP.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I agree with most that, if no limitation, advantage, or other game mechanics construct indicate such an interaction, then no such interaction occurs.

 

However, it also depends on the realism of the setting / genre. In Champions or High Fantasy, no worries, things work exactly as written. In Heroic, pulp-y type games or low fantasy, then I apply a certain amount of common sense to adjudicating these interactions. But I don't give severe penalties - if a Fire Shield spell is not written to "not work underwater" then it works underwater, but wouldn't ignite anything. However, out of the water, it would certainly ignite any flammable material it came in contact with - which can both be a free way to get "uncontrolled" or it can be a "side effect" that doesn't save you points

 

Short answer: Burden is on the GM, the defender or attacker can of course state their case. Sometimes, SFX and descriptions of actions take precedence over "da rules", regardless of genre.

[torchwolf]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

eg 2. Does Dr Smoke's Smokey Darkness Power work in high winds (he's not put a limitation on the power)' date=' but not against Blowhard's superbreath Drain vs. Gas / Smoke powers?[/quote']

Just to clarify how I interpret this:

If Dr Smoke's Smokey Darkness power is defined as "illusory smoke" (perhaps that's why it works in high winds), then Blowhard's superbreath Drain wouldn't affect it at all.

If the Smokey Darkness is defined as "regular smoke" (probably non-transparent and/or reflective particles in the air), then Blowhard's superbreath Drain would affect it normally.

 

In that sense, it would depend on the defender's sfx, since the Drain was built to apply against sfx.

 

OTOH, if Blowhard's superbreath Drain consisted of inhaling the smoke, it could conceivably make him throw a coughing fit if the smoke particles were hazardous.

The more defined sfx are when designing a character, the more consistent the in-game rulings will be.

 

In a game with "superpower suppressors" that work by negating (by Drain or any other means) superpowers, any part of Characteristics that are supposed to be powered should be purchased separately from the unpowered Characteristics, whether Limitations are in place or not.

Example: The Acrobat has DEX 15/25, OCV 4/9, and DCV 6/11, since he was a fair circus acrobat even before his mutant powers manifested. If subjected to a Drain vs mutant Characteristics, his Characteristics won't drop below DEX 15, OCV 4, and DCV 6 from any such Adjustment sfx (though a Characteristic Drain that was independent of source of powers would still affect him fully).

Hyperman, in particular, has put some effort into defining this in his writeups.

 

I disagree that sfx have little impact on how powers work; that depends on how much impact any particular GM wants them to have in a game, nothing else.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I would argue that if Dr. Smoke's Darkness is defined as actual smoke, then not only does Blowhard's Drain affect it, but so does "normal" wind, even if he didn't take the limitation for it. BUT as GM I would not expose Dr. Smoke to conditions sufficiently windy to affect his power if he didn't take the limitation, except in unusual circumstances (death-trap or somesuch specifically designed to challenge the character by denying him use of his powers). For Dr. Smoke, wind is just an enviromental hazard, just like heatstroke could be an environmental hazard for any character battling in Washington DC this week where the temperature is hitting triple-digits. But it isn't one that should come up much if he didn't take the limitation. If he did take the limitation, then any thug with a large box fan could dispel his Darkness, and periodically I would rule that there was enough wind to inhibit or prevent its use. In a similar vein, heroes get Complication points for DNPC's, but not necessarily for the random citizens that they save on a daily basis. The difference is just a matter of degree. SFX should play a part because they add flavor to powers, but that part should be fairly small unless the character takes a limitation for it.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I think the burden is on the GM to figure these interactions for certain FX ahead of time and make sure they are properly written up in the character write ups. If something comes up not anticipated then fairly deal with it according to the logic of his/her world.

[dmjalund]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

IMO - if it was defined as actual smoke then not only would a strong wind blow it away, but it might slightly affect people (CON roll to avoid -per rolls for people without eye covers) Smoke doesn't just have SFX base limitations but also SFX based advantages

[jtelson]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I see special effects as things that give you advantages or limitations based on the environment - these will be trumped always by powers purchased to create or prevent the effect you're hoping to achieve but as for SFX vs. SFX interactions I tend to try to reason them out fairly and acccept input from the players about how things might play out.

 

So the firey film fanatic Crowded Theatre has been on the run from Davey Joan the mistress of maratime manipulations and has gone to ground in an old abandoned barn. He scans around and sees dry hay on the floors and old dry wooden boards making up the whole of the structure. Also various farm impliments and the like but not being Ferodyne doesn't concernn himself overly with the metal bits. Davey Joan catches up with him and also surveys the scene - neither character is complex so they don't have any powers other than the basic Attack, Defence and Movement - plus some protections against their chosen environment. They both consider their options and Joan opens with spreading her blast to fill as many hexes (meters, sorry, meters now) as she can with a 1d6 Water Blast - to dampen everything and take the environment out of the equation...or Crowded Theatre goes first and spreads his blast to fill as many meters as he can with a slightly larger blast to start the building burning.

[dmjalund]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I think in the Fire example, the fire should take the limitation, as many thiings can be used to smother fire, not just water.

[Tasha]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

In my mind when things like this come up it's never about defender vs attacker, but PC vs NPC. Hero is even set up that way with .5 "Hero rounding" where the PC gets the rounding in their favor (whether up or down). So when this comes up I tend to rule in favor of the Player Characters as they are the protagonists of the story and this is one of many way that they get a break. Also for me if the Player has an inventive way to use one of the PC's abilities I let them. If they want to continue to use the power in that way then they need to see about buying a power that fills that need.

[ned-kogar]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

In my mind when things like this come up it's never about defender vs attacker' date=' but PC vs NPC.[/quote']

 

I think that's a healthy starting point, but PC failings are such an important part of our campaign that we like everyone on an even footing. Heh.

 

Overall, there's quite a range of opinions offered, thanks. I think, given the mildly more realistic nature of our supes campaign, I'm going to mark up some rough interaction rules for powers.. as much as a guide to constructing powers. And I may buy a PDF of The Ultimate Energy Projector as a starting point.

 

Cheers,

 

Ned

[prestidigitator]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

In my mind when things like this come up it's never about defender vs attacker' date=' but PC vs NPC.[/quote']

Funny, I've never interpreted it that way. I round halves in favor of whomever's power or effect is being halved (or whomever's power is causing the halving when appropriate). I've never noticed a bias toward PCs in the rules. Now as a GM I'm often willing to fudge or round a little for the PCs' benefit in many cases (or, if they're being arrogant, unheroic, and overstepping boundaries I might do the opposite), but that's a personal choice.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

As for the OP, I generally prefer to see it handled with Limitations, not with a bunch of extra Drains and such tacked on (though if someone wants to link in a Drain or something for extra bang, that's fine). That means neither attacker nor defender, but the character with the losing power which could be either. Now in some cases I might use common sense (no, that fire power isn't going to work underwater) even though a Limitation hasn't been added, most often I'll then offer to re-evaluate the power and allow a Limitation to be added in for some cost rebate. In some cases (such as pre-built fantasy spells) however, I might just rule that they're subject to environmental common sense and the "inherent rules of magic" or some such thing (I'm a big proponent of a Spell (-1/4) type limitation to cover things like that, BTW).

[JmOz]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

As for the OP' date=' I generally prefer to see it handled with Limitations, not with a bunch of extra Drains and such tacked on (though if someone [i']wants[/i] to link in a Drain or something for extra bang, that's fine). That means neither attacker nor defender, but the character with the losing power which could be either. Now in some cases I might use common sense (no, that fire power isn't going to work underwater) even though a Limitation hasn't been added, most often I'll then offer to re-evaluate the power and allow a Limitation to be added in for some cost rebate. In some cases (such as pre-built fantasy spells) however, I might just rule that they're subject to environmental common sense and the "inherent rules of magic" or some such thing (I'm a big proponent of a Spell (-1/4) type limitation to cover things like that, BTW).

 

We tend to call it "Real" so "real Fire" or such. normaly -1/4, ocasionaly -1/2 if I feel it is limiting enough (Fire is normaly -1/4 but if the player wants it at -1/2 I will allow it with the understanding that he will get hosed more often...pun was intented btw)

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

You might want to read the thread When SFX lie started by Sean Waters - a detailed discussion on SFX and their game effects....

[Utech]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I'd much rather play in a game where special effects are special than one in which special effects are just window dressing. I think it's impossible to write up all the possible Advantages, Limitations, Side Effects and what-not that many special effects would logically "gain" in different environments and/or interactions with other Powers. So it's important to make rulings that are logical, dramatic, and fun on the fly.

 

Example:

Fire Guy has lots of fire powers. These include Flight. A particular encounter occurs during a torrential rainstorm. Though the rainstorm has not been specifically written up as a Drain Fire Powers dohickey, everyone agrees that Fire Guy ought to fly slower and a bit more awkwardly through the downpour. Fire Guy's Player is thrilled that people are really thinking about his character and how he interacts with the world -- even though it means he loses a little bit of raw power in this instance.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

The player typically will, and reasonably should, expect that the drawbacks and bonuses even out. For example, perhaps Fire Guy is able to produce a bit of light in a dark environment, heat an area when the team is stranded in the arctic or otherwise produce effects that are consistent with his SFX on a rudimentary basis without paying for the ability.

 

One of the drawbacks to the growth in powers definition is that it tends to be easier to point to a specific power construct if the player/character should gain an advantage from his SFX, and only impose negative results in different environments.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

They get what they pay for. SFX never equate to a combat specific effect, particularly to the level of simulating another power.

 

If a player wants their fire character to be "innately" disadvantaged by water they can use limitations and complications to model the effect that THEY desire for their character. If they don't model their fire character to be disadvantaged by water (or cold, or vaccum, etc), then they simply are not. If they want their fire guy to be "innately" better vs water or cold or whatever they can buy one or more abilities with the applicable limitation.

 

The exception is hard environmental effects that the GM chooses to impose on their campaign at the universal level (such as a GM choosing to assert the real-world reality of fire requiring oxygen and thus not working in a vacuum), but that's not a factor of two or more characters, thats a factor of the settings "reality".

 

 

The Ultimate Blaster provided a game mechanic structure to express interactions between different SFX in an Advantage / Limitation context (thus adhering to the mechanical "what did you pay for?" philosophy). It's interesting and can be made to work, but it always seemed to complex for casual play for me - an extra level of detail to keep track of and constantly cross-reference. For some games / some groups the structure it provides could be very useful.

 

 

SFX "freebies" are best as out-of-combat who-cares-anyway stunts, like an ice guy chilling a drink or a fire guy lighting a cigarette, and so forth. I've also allowed such effects to be integrated into a PRE Attack in some scenarios...incorporating a SFX stunt as a "show of power" for a bonus if the player can "sell" the idea. That's about it. I never allow SFX to proxy for an actual paid for ability in a situation where it actually matters.

[Ice9]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

I don't think the question is just about "freebies" though. Let's say the GM is running a relatively realistic campaign, and makes it a requirement that powers have the limitations and advantages that their SFX would realistically imply. In that situation, which makes more sense:

 

A) A smoke bomb is built as Darkness, no limitations. A large fan is built as (among other things) Drain Smoke/Gas powers. Environmental wind may be considered to have this ability, in the same way that environmental fire burns people without them taking a Vulnerability to it.

A smoke bomb is built as Darkness, with a "Dissipated by wind" limitation. A large fan is built as just a change Environment (if it's strong enough to hinder people) or even a 1-pt perk, if all it does is count as a wind source.

 

 

Saying that both the smoke bomb and the fan need to take the limitations/powers to create an effect on the other one seems like double-dipping - similar to everyone with a flame blast needing to take an extra "Blast +Xd6, Only vs People Vulnerable to Fire".

[薔薇語]

Re: Special Effects Interactions: Burden on the defender or the attacker?

 

In my mind when things like this come up it's never about defender vs attacker' date=' but PC vs NPC.[/quote']

 

This is generally my view. When in doubt, favor the PC.

 

Hero is even set up that way with .5 "Hero rounding" where the PC gets the rounding in their favor (whether up or down).

 

Funny' date=' I've never interpreted it that way. I round halves in favor of whomever's power or effect is being halved (or whomever's power is causing the halving when appropriate).[/quote']

 

Same, I've always halved in favor of who's power, ability, etc., it is. If it is Dr. Death using his Death Ray, then it it rounds in Dr. Death's favor. But if it is a matter of how someone's else's defense work against Dr. Death's Death Ray, I favor the defender. For example: Dr. Death has "AP" on his Death Ray because it is really good Death Ray (I just like saying Death Ray). He shoots a PC with 21 ED. Well, since it is the PC's power that is being affected, it seems best for the AP to to drop the defenses to 11, not 10.

 

 

I'd much rather play in a game where special effects are special than one in which special effects are just window dressing. I think it's impossible to write up all the possible Advantages, Limitations, Side Effects and what-not that many special effects would logically "gain" in different environments and/or interactions with other Powers. So it's important to make rulings that are logical, dramatic, and fun on the fly.

 

Example:

Fire Guy has lots of fire powers. These include Flight. A particular encounter occurs during a torrential rainstorm. Though the rainstorm has not been specifically written up as a Drain Fire Powers dohickey, everyone agrees that Fire Guy ought to fly slower and a bit more awkwardly through the downpour. Fire Guy's Player is thrilled that people are really thinking about his character and how he interacts with the world -- even though it means he loses a little bit of raw power in this instance.

 

 

Yeah, this is generally my take on Special effects. I like to know quite well how PCs interpret their powers working. If they think it is normal fire, then I'm going to treat it as normal fire. That said, few things are ever "normal" when it comes to PCs. If someone had a fire like ability that wasn't real fire, then I'd treat it differently than I would normal fire but I would also not feel bad if something comes up in the course of the game that would have negative effects on their power. Likewise, the PC with a shield of fire that surrounds them should not expect it to work when they go for a swim unless they have checked with me about that ahead of time. Not that it is an automatic no-go but rather something I'd have to think about and rationalize to myself.

 

La Rose.