Find Weakness

[BNakagawa]

Life gets much simpler if you simply redefine FW as Ap with rsr and extra time.

 

As currently written, FW is rife with loopholes and inconsistencies that reek of cheese.

 

If FW was factored into active point costs, then if you aided an attack power, then you wouldn't get 1DC/5 points. Since it doesn't affect the base power, then you do.

 

You can't balance anyone who has FW with all attacks without affecting the entire campaign world. If PC 1 has FW with all attacks and PC 2 hands him his max DC weapon, then all bets are off. What are you going to do, limit PC2 because PC1 has FW?

 

FW doesn't work against things it should. If I'm facing multiple identical opponents. (manufactured automatons, identically prepared turtle armor, etc) then making one FW roll ought to work against all of them. It doesn't. If you simply defined it as AP with the appropriate limitations, then it would.

 

FW works against things it shouldn't. If you make a FW roll against me, and after that, somebody hands me a BPV, then its defense is halved. What's up with that?

 

Or if I have some fully invisible defenses, they are halved, even if you have no idea they're there. ???

 

I made my Find Weakness roll against the Hero System and it detected Find Weakness...

[Killer Shrike]

Technically, if you use an appropriate Analyze in conjunction with FW (and you'd be a fool not to -- talk about 'sin'-ergy (sic)), if you Analyzed a type of Construct or Armor Suit, etc, the Analyze bonus should apply to multiple opponents that share that in common, making the FW much easier to get off.

 

Thats how I would adjudicate it anyhoo, depending on how the Analyze was defined.

[KnightShade]

All this discussion seems to be turning it more into armor piercing with more restrictions, but the concept is still being missed.

 

Other than find weakness, I can't find a way in the game to construct a power that accurately describes what find weakness does. How else could you describe watching your opponent to see that there's a soft spot under his arm that's exposed every tmie they swing, or that hinge in they're armor that looks rusty. What other power (regardless of what it's mechanics are) simulates that type of behavior? I can't think of anything. It's not just limiting an overpowering feature, it's removing a concept from the game. I would suggest just having find weakness apply to OCV (not quite as accurate, but good enough) but being able to at points and points to OCV is can be far more unbalancing than halving damage.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by KnightShade

All this discussion seems to be turning it more into armor piercing with more restrictions, but the concept is still being missed.

 

Other than find weakness, I can't find a way in the game to construct a power that accurately describes what find weakness does. How else could you describe watching your opponent to see that there's a soft spot under his arm that's exposed every tmie they swing, or that hinge in they're armor that looks rusty. What other power (regardless of what it's mechanics are) simulates that type of behavior? I can't think of anything. It's not just limiting an overpowering feature, it's removing a concept from the game. I would suggest just having find weakness apply to OCV (not quite as accurate, but good enough) but being able to at points and points to OCV is can be far more unbalancing than halving damage.

I agree that they are simply ripping a concept out of the game. This strikes me as odd as the selling point to the Hero System is the flexibility of the system, the ability to mimic virtually any concept. There are more balanced systems out there and they are much less exciting.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by KnightShade

All this discussion seems to be turning it more into armor piercing with more restrictions, but the concept is still being missed.

 

Other than find weakness, I can't find a way in the game to construct a power that accurately describes what find weakness does. How else could you describe watching your opponent to see that there's a soft spot under his arm that's exposed every tmie they swing, or that hinge in they're armor that looks rusty. What other power (regardless of what it's mechanics are) simulates that type of behavior? I can't think of anything. It's not just limiting an overpowering feature, it's removing a concept from the game. I would suggest just having find weakness apply to OCV (not quite as accurate, but good enough) but being able to at points and points to OCV is can be far more unbalancing than halving damage.

 

You can do it, but not as cost effectively.

 

Double damage linked to PER and/or Deduction and/or Analyze.

 

Analyze and VPP acivated with appropriate Drain of Defenses based on Analyze.

 

Same arrangements, penetrating and/or piercing.

 

Etc.

 

But none of these have the cumulative halving, though you could clumsily build that in. And this list is only off the top of my head.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree, FW is unique and it's unique with good reason. For those who don't like "orphan mechanics", though, an approach with piercing or penetrating would be preferable.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

I agree that they are simply ripping a concept out of the game. This strikes me as odd as the selling point to the Hero System is the flexibility of the system, the ability to mimic virtually any concept. There are more balanced systems out there and they are much less exciting.

 

Complete tangent, but what system(s) would you name that fit this description? Do they all fall into that sort of diceless or similarly determinist mode?

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

FW in a Multipower must be kept on to retain its effect-- check the Rules FAQ.

 

A very good point KS! Also note the following from the FAQ regarding countering range penalties for FW:

 

Q: If a character has Enhanced Perception that applies to all Sense Groups, does it improve Find Weakness rolls? If not, can he use them to cancel the Range Modifier for Find Weakness?

 

A: No, and no. Since Find Weakness has a specific, defined way of buying bonuses to the roll, buy those. If the character just wants the bonuses to cancel the Range Modifier, he can apply a -1 Limitation to the purchased bonus

 

Q: Can the Advantage No Range Modifier be applied to Find Weakness?

 

A: Yes.

 

These answser some earlier questions posed about how to negate range penalties for FW.

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by KnightShade

All this discussion seems to be turning it more into armor piercing with more restrictions, but the concept is still being missed.

 

Other than find weakness, I can't find a way in the game to construct a power that accurately describes what find weakness does. How else could you describe watching your opponent to see that there's a soft spot under his arm that's exposed every tmie they swing, or that hinge in they're armor that looks rusty. What other power (regardless of what it's mechanics are) simulates that type of behavior? I can't think of anything. It's not just limiting an overpowering feature, it's removing a concept from the game. I would suggest just having find weakness apply to OCV (not quite as accurate, but good enough) but being able to at points and points to OCV is can be far more unbalancing than halving damage.

 

An interesting point, but that's NOT what FW does.

 

FW cuts down defenses. It has nothing to do with looking for weak spots. I can find weakness in defenses that aren't even there when I look. Even if something is defined as having no hit locations or discernable structure, if it has defenses, I can find a spot that is only a fraction as tough. I can find weakness on your SID, wait for you to change into your hero ID and still know where you're weak. I can find weakness on one of your multiforms, wait for you to change into something I've never seen before and still know where to hit it.

 

If what you actually want is to study an opponent and figure out how to do damage better, buy extra DC rsr analyze. Buy levels vs activation rolls. You can't justify sticking your sword in a weak spot against a sphere of solid titanium with no holes in it. But with a decent FW roll, you can find a thin spot where there wasn't one before. And you can hit it every time you connect.

 

FW forces weak points on characters that didn't previously have any. FW halves or quarters your defenses everywhere you get hit. Head, chest, toe, ankle, it doesn't matter. Your defenses now suck. Spend XP on LoW.

 

If you survive.

[Lightray]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

An interesting point, but that's NOT what FW does...

 

*snipped because you can just read the post above*

I think that this is forgetting the role that Lack of Weakness plays in all this -- if your character is defined as having no hit locations or discernable structure or flaws in defenses, then they'd better buy Lack of Weakness.

 

You don't get the benefit of Lack of Weakness (i.e., no weak spots for Find Weakness to find) from special effects, any more than you'd get resistant defenses because you defined a Focus as "armor" without buying Armor or the like.

 

And if your defenses are invisible or something, that does not mean that there are no clues as to their weak points. Perhaps the character's body language itself gives the clue?

 

Also, Find Weakness has a chart of modifiers to the roll. One of those modifiers is "Unusual or alien physique, totally unknown structure". Certainly something to apply in any of the above circumstances.

 

Finally, Find Weakness itself notes that any weakness found applies for that particular battle. The "next time the character sees the target he'll have to make his Find Weakness roll all over again. It would seem that if you've changed into a Multiform or into Heroic ID, then that would be a next time you saw that character. Go read the FAQ about Find Weakness:

Q: Suppose a character has used Find Weakness to locate a weakness on a target character. If the target changes his form with Multiform, does that “break the lock� If the weakness was found in a Duplicate, and that Duplicate recombines with the character or another Duplicate, does that “break the lock� If the character changes his physical form using Shape Shift (Sight or Touch Groups), does that “break the lock�

A: The answer in each case is yes, the target character “breaks the lock.†However, the GM might grant the character with Find Weakness a bonus to Find Weakness rolls in that combat (or within a defined time period, such as 4 Segments) after the “change.â€

 

Q: If a character Finds Weakness in a Duplicate, does the halving of defense automatically carry over to all other Duplicates and/or the original form?

A: No.

 

Q: Can Find Weakness locate the weaknesses in defenses that are not visible (either inherently, or because they have the Advantage Invisible Power Effects)?

A: Yes — otherwise it wouldn’t work against, for example, Armor. As always, the GM can make an exception in the interest of common sense, dramatic sense, or game balance.

Now, granted, I've always thought there should be some sort of PER requirement involved with a Find Weakness roll, but the rest seems well accounted for.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Man this exchange looks familiar.

 

My take is that Gary likes absolutes. Either the power is allowed in any form the player wishes (subject to character conception) or the power must be banned outright (or changed in some fashion to change the point cost).

 

Would you allow the rocket punch? Or a 10 pt multipower with megascale movements usable as attack in each slot? If the answer is no, then welcome to the "outright ban" club.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Agent X, on the other hand, is a "holistic character" type of guy. Look at the character as a whole, then look at the team as a whole, to assess whether there's a problem, or whether we can allow this particular character construct.

 

As an example, assume that we have a campaign where damage is expected to range from 12d6 to 15d6, Defenses will be in the 25/25 range, and a 12" movement rate is the norm. Player X presents us with his character, a Brick with 60 STR, average defenses, and +30 STR which costs 2x END. His STR doesn't contribute to Leaping - he jumps like a normal human and has 7" total running. Reactions?

 

GARY: I expect Gary will just say "NO. The campaign max is 15 DC, so bring your STR maximum down to 75. Oh, and you better buy up your movement or you'll never be able to attack anyone anyway."

 

AGENT X, like me, is probably going to look at the character and say "OK, he's way over on damage. Is it workable?" How much can he use it with that 2x END? Will that make it rare? We'll compare him to the Energy Projector with the 75 point attacks multipower and 6 different attacks and think "well, the Brick has sacrificed versatility for higher power on one attack. Plus, he has no range and a slow movement rate, which mitigates his potential somewhat." Then, we'll make a decision one way or the other whether to allow him as is or require some changes. Maybe the change is to tone him down to 80 STR max. Maybe it's to require a higher END multiple on that extra STR.

 

I would be inclined to allow more dice for single powers vs a multipower. But you have to be careful. Each marginal die is effectively a NND die since the basic attack will cover the target's defenses. And that extra NND die represents far more than just 3.5 stun. It dramatically increases con stunning chances.

 

Let's take your example. Assume average defenses are 35 and average cons are 23 in a 75 pt attack limit campaign. Here are con stunning chances:

 

15d6 18.38%

16d6 35.84%

17d6 55.60%

18d6 73.13%

 

As you can see, because of the bell curve nature of rolling lots of d6, each die is extremely important.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Either style can work. But I obviously agree with Agent X - I'd rather stick to a review of the character than impose blanket rules. Sometimes, those blanket rules veto a reasonable character. Sometimes, they let an overpowered character slip through, as he's within the hard and fast rules. I'd rather assess each character for reasonableness. Some GM's may not be comfortable with that approach.

 

If a GM imposes a host of restrictions, I may decide it's not worth it and he can find players who prefer the more mechanical approach. Or I may just build a character that works under his model. or maybe I negotiate with the GM to get the concept I'm looking for to work under his rules set.

 

Obviously even with campaign limits, you have to study each character carefully. Otherwise you'll find yourself allowing the mentallist with tunnelling and n-ray vision. However, campaign limits do give a level playing field between all the PCs. And without limits, you'll wind up with a situation where character A is con stunning the foe 73% of the time, vs character b at 18% of the time.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

An interesting point, but that's NOT what FW does.

 

FW cuts down defenses. It has nothing to do with looking for weak spots. I can find weakness in defenses that aren't even there when I look. Even if something is defined as having no hit locations or discernable structure, if it has defenses, I can find a spot that is only a fraction as tough. I can find weakness on your SID, wait for you to change into your hero ID and still know where you're weak. I can find weakness on one of your multiforms, wait for you to change into something I've never seen before and still know where to hit it.

 

If what you actually want is to study an opponent and figure out how to do damage better, buy extra DC rsr analyze. Buy levels vs activation rolls. You can't justify sticking your sword in a weak spot against a sphere of solid titanium with no holes in it. But with a decent FW roll, you can find a thin spot where there wasn't one before. And you can hit it every time you connect.

 

FW forces weak points on characters that didn't previously have any. FW halves or quarters your defenses everywhere you get hit. Head, chest, toe, ankle, it doesn't matter. Your defenses now suck. Spend XP on LoW.

 

If you survive.

Shouldn't you have to buy the attribute of no weak points... a la Lack of Weakness?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

Would you allow the rocket punch? Or a 10 pt multipower with megascale movements usable as attack in each slot? If the answer is no, then welcome to the "outright ban" club.

 

 

 

I would be inclined to allow more dice for single powers vs a multipower. But you have to be careful. Each marginal die is effectively a NND die since the basic attack will cover the target's defenses. And that extra NND die represents far more than just 3.5 stun. It dramatically increases con stunning chances.

 

Let's take your example. Assume average defenses are 35 and average cons are 23 in a 75 pt attack limit campaign. Here are con stunning chances:

 

15d6 18.38%

16d6 35.84%

17d6 55.60%

18d6 73.13%

 

As you can see, because of the bell curve nature of rolling lots of d6, each die is extremely important.

 

 

 

 

Obviously even with campaign limits, you have to study each character carefully. Otherwise you'll find yourself allowing the mentallist with tunnelling and n-ray vision. However, campaign limits do give a level playing field between all the PCs. And without limits, you'll wind up with a situation where character A is con stunning the foe 73% of the time, vs character b at 18% of the time.

If all you are going to do is work it out so that everyone is effectively the same with different special effects, blech. I would not want to play in that game. Do you think the Fantastic Four are balanced in this fashion?

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

I can find weakness on your SID, wait for you to change into your hero ID and still know where you're weak. I can find weakness on one of your multiforms, wait for you to change into something I've never seen before and still know where to hit it.

Not quite. Check the FAQ, if the target changes forms, you lose the weak spot. You may be able to reacquire it, and the GM might give you a bonus to do so (say, enough to counteract the automatic -2 for using FW again) but you still have to make the roll.

 

As far as your games are concerned, of course, the point is moot, since you don't like/allow FW to begin with.

 

EDIT: I see someone else already beat me to this point.

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Gary

Would you allow the rocket punch? Or a 10 pt multipower with megascale movements usable as attack in each slot? If the answer is no, then welcome to the "outright ban" club.

 

Gary, is it too much to ask to simply put a caveat on it to consider the power in context? If someone is playing in a ultra-power game where everyone is running around with EDM attacks and the like, what's a simple rocket punch? I'll agree that in 99% of all games, it wouldn't be allowed. I think Agent X and Hugh would agree too. All Agent X is saying is you should not make blanket statements, but instead make allowances for games where it might be ok. What's so hard to understand about that? It's a trivial point to give up, since in practice it doesn't matter, at least where a rocket punch is concerned, as there are very few circumstances where it might be allowable. It's more important in cases like FW, where the line between what is and what is not acceptable is much closer to the bulk of all campaigns.

 

For the record, I don't have a problem with either the rules-oriented or the holistic approach. If I want to ban FW for the Legions of Steel campaign, because IMO I think it will unbalance what I am trying to do for that campaign, and I don't see any acceptable way to "fix" it, then all well and good. But, if a player wants FW, I should have some alternative suggestions, and if he *really* wants it, we should discuss why it is not allowed. Maybe he can come up with a workaround I haven't thought of. If not, however, the GM has the final say.

[Supreme Serpent]

I don't have a big problem with FW in general, but I do look at it closely in a "whole character" context.

 

However, if you do have a problem with it, but don't want to ban it altogether, here's another limiting suggestion. Allow the reduced defenses to apply for only one hit. Once you have taken advantage of the weak spot, you must find another one (ie more phases & rolls) to take advantage of it again.

 

Example: Sureshot has FW 13- with his pistol. He is fighting CinderBlock, a big tough brick. Sureshot spends several actions using FW on CinderBlock, making two rolls (13- and 11-), bringing him down to 1/4 defenses. Now he fires at the cracked area he noticed, taking advantage of the 1/4 defenses. Next phase, he starts over again with CinderBlock at full defenses, and can start trying to FW again starting at 13-.

[J4y]

Other than find weakness, I can't find a way in the game to construct a power that accurately describes what find weakness does. How else could you describe watching your opponent to see that there's a soft spot under his arm that's exposed every tmie they swing, or that hinge in they're armor that looks rusty.

 

FW takes 0.5 seconds though, you're not "observing" the enemy, and once exploited the enemy can't then compensate by not exposing that soft spot when they swing.

 

In low power games, FW is too expensive to get used much if at all. In mid power games, it's similar to AP although the ability to apply it multiple times can be a bit abuseive, but compare it to an NND and I don't think it's too bad. It should still be factored into the overall power cost though if you're using maximum DC or the like. In high power games it becomes too cheap for it's benefit and the counter to it being that the defense for it is even cheaper is silly as you're basically saying everyone must buy lack of weakness.

 

I think it probably should have more limitations on it like only applying for one attack each time and successive rolls being half instead of -2, and it should be a modifier instead of a flat 10 points which would let it be used in low power games and more balanced in high power games.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X

If all you are going to do is work it out so that everyone is effectively the same with different special effects, blech. I would not want to play in that game. Do you think the Fantastic Four are balanced in this fashion?

 

Do you think that the typical superhero team is workable in a Champions setting? Would you have fun playing Robin in a team with Superman, Green Lantern, and Martian Manhunter on it? Would you play a character with a 8d6 attack in the same group as someone with a 20d6 attack?

 

Caps are there to ensure that everyone has fun and can contribute in a combat. You can have a sliding scale where someone who does more damage pays for it by having less CV or defenses, but I firmly believe that all characters on a team should be relatively equal.

[Lightray]

Originally posted by Gary

Do you think that the typical superhero team is workable in a Champions setting? Would you have fun playing Robin in a team with Superman, Green Lantern, and Martian Manhunter on it? Would you play a character with a 8d6 attack in the same group as someone with a 20d6 attack?

 

Caps are there to ensure that everyone has fun and can contribute in a combat. You can have a sliding scale where someone who does more damage pays for it by having less CV or defenses, but I firmly believe that all characters on a team should be relatively equal.

I have been running a campaign where everyone has several characters -- at 300 pts. and 600 pts. DC/Active Pts. are roughly equivalent, but the 600 pt. characters have the advantage.

 

I sometimes run them mixed, high pointers with low pointers. This has not been a problem, because although all of the characters are not relatively equal, every character has his or her own niche where he or she excels.

 

So I guess I firmly believe that characters on a team can be relatively unequal, if you're willing to take the effort to make it work.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F

Gary, is it too much to ask to simply put a caveat on it to consider the power in context? If someone is playing in a ultra-power game where everyone is running around with EDM attacks and the like, what's a simple rocket punch? I'll agree that in 99% of all games, it wouldn't be allowed. I think Agent X and Hugh would agree too. All Agent X is saying is you should not make blanket statements, but instead make allowances for games where it might be ok. What's so hard to understand about that? It's a trivial point to give up, since in practice it doesn't matter, at least where a rocket punch is concerned, as there are very few circumstances where it might be allowable. It's more important in cases like FW, where the line between what is and what is not acceptable is much closer to the bulk of all campaigns.

 

This sounds like you're saying that 99+% of campaigns would have a blanket ban on megascale movements usable as an attack.

 

The fact is that there are legal but highly abusive rules constructs that should have a blanket ban on them. Here are a couple off the top of my head:

 

1) Buy 1 googol plex charges that never recover. Not only do you never worry about end, but you get a net -1 limitation on every power you have.

 

2) If your character spends 20 end per phase or less, then buy 1 googleplex charges of 20 end reserve. Active cost of 2 with a +1 advantage for 4 total points and you never have to worry about end again. If you want to get even more abusive, buy 1 googolplex charges of 200 end reserve that never recovers. Net cost of 10 pts, and now you can slap on X10 end cost for a -4 limitation on every single power that you have.

 

I frankly wouldn't want to play in a campaign where the GM would consider allowing these constructs. I can't imagine any GM ever allowing stuff like this, and I wouldn't hesitate in putting a blanket ban on anything resembling these constructs. I consider stuff like rocket punch to be in the same category, since for 3 active points, you can wipe out virtually everybody.

 

If someone feels that FW is abusive, it's his right and I wouldn't think any less of him if he chose to not allow it for multiple attacks.

 

Everybody has some form of blanket ban. The only question is the degree.

 

Originally posted by Zed-F

For the record, I don't have a problem with either the rules-oriented or the holistic approach. If I want to ban FW for the Legions of Steel campaign, because IMO I think it will unbalance what I am trying to do for that campaign, and I don't see any acceptable way to "fix" it, then all well and good. But, if a player wants FW, I should have some alternative suggestions, and if he *really* wants it, we should discuss why it is not allowed. Maybe he can come up with a workaround I haven't thought of. If not, however, the GM has the final say.

 

Exactly. The GM has the final say, even though he has to work with the player. And if the player doesn't want to follow the GM's ground rules in building characters, maybe he shouldn't play in the campaign.

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Gary

This sounds like you're saying that 99+% of campaigns would have a blanket ban on megascale movements usable as an attack.

 

I frankly wouldn't want to play in a campaign where the GM would consider allowing these constructs. I can't imagine any GM ever allowing stuff like this, and I wouldn't hesitate in putting a blanket ban on anything resembling these constructs.

 

You're not using the same terminology that Agent X is. To Agent X, something like "I would never allow X, no matter what the circumstances" is a blanket ban. Saying "I can't conceive of any campaign where I would allow X", or "I would likely not be interested in a campaign where such grossly abusive powers as X are allowed" is a slightly different matter. In both of the latter cases, there is room to be convinced if a sufficiently compelling argument can be brought forward; in the former case, there is not. How hard it would be to come up with that compelling argument would depend on how far off of center the power construct in question was.

 

Really, what Agent X was decrying has nothing to do with whether a ridiculous power is allowed. I know you brought out those absurd examples to try and illustrate a point, but I don't think they are helping your case any; straw man arguments rarely do, they just distract from the real issues. What he's against is absolutist language and an inflexible mindset that prevents any dialogue from occurring -- a "my way or the highway!" approach, with no explanations or discussion.

 

The GM has the final say, even though he has to work with the player.

 

The comments in bold indicate to me that you are not inherently in disagreement with him on this point. I don't think AgentX would disagree that the GM has the final say; what his point is that that final say should not be the opening words of the conversation. If player Y comes up with a "really cool" but ultimately abusive power construct, the GM should try to work the problem with the player, rather than just say no at the outset. If player Y wants to build a rocket punch, unless you know he understands the system well enough to grasp the implications and is deliberately doing it to tweak you, wouldn't you try to educate him on some of the basics of campaign balance so that he understands why it's a bad idea?

[Killer Shrike]

Personally I am of the same school of thought as Agent X, but on the other hand I do blanket ban FOCI Buster attacks and unlimited Movement UAA so there you go.

 

On topic however I have never had any problem with FW per se, and certainly not enough to warrant banning it or nerfing it in my campaigns.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Do you think that the typical superhero team is workable in a Champions setting? Would you have fun playing Robin in a team with Superman, Green Lantern, and Martian Manhunter on it? Would you play a character with a 8d6 attack in the same group as someone with a 20d6 attack?

 

Caps are there to ensure that everyone has fun and can contribute in a combat. You can have a sliding scale where someone who does more damage pays for it by having less CV or defenses, but I firmly believe that all characters on a team should be relatively equal.

 

But he didn't refer to Robin with the JL. He referred to the F4, a team with variations but all around equivalent. Perhaps even built on the same points. Use the early X-Men if you prefer.

 

I can't speak for how AgentX feels about caps, but I don't think he was referring to that so much as varying constructs for which you have to apply some thought on how the powers work out (not to imply Gary that you don't want to apply that thought).

 

Personally, I don't even like caps. I think they inhibit character design and encourage players to play up to the cap. The points are as far as I'm willing to go.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F

You're not using the same terminology that Agent X is. To Agent X, something like "I would never allow X, no matter what the circumstances" is a blanket ban. Saying "I can't conceive of any campaign where I would allow X", or "I would likely not be interested in a campaign where such grossly abusive powers as X are allowed" is a slightly different matter. In both of the latter cases, there is room to be convinced if a sufficiently compelling argument can be brought forward; in the former case, there is not. How hard it would be to come up with that compelling argument would depend on how far off of center the power construct in question was.

 

Really, what Agent X was decrying has nothing to do with whether a ridiculous power is allowed. I know you brought out those absurd examples to try and illustrate a point, but I don't think they are helping your case any; straw man arguments rarely do, they just distract from the real issues. What he's against is absolutist language and an inflexible mindset that prevents any dialogue from occurring -- a "my way or the highway!" approach, with no explanations or discussion.

 

Actually, AgentX used stronger language than this. He stated flatly that he wouldn't play in a campaign where FW with more than 1 attack was banned.

 

 

Originally posted by Zed-F

The comments in bold indicate to me that you are not inherently in disagreement with him on this point. I don't think AgentX would disagree that the GM has the final say; what his point is that that final say should not be the opening words of the conversation. If player Y comes up with a "really cool" but ultimately abusive power construct, the GM should try to work the problem with the player, rather than just say no at the outset. If player Y wants to build a rocket punch, unless you know he understands the system well enough to grasp the implications and is deliberately doing it to tweak you, wouldn't you try to educate him on some of the basics of campaign balance so that he understands why it's a bad idea?

 

Yep, but at a certain point I would just state that the power was banned. Obviously the rocket punch was an extreme example, but the person who bans FW for multiple attacks has the perfect right to just say no. Negotiations can only take you so far before the GM has to enforce his own campaign rules.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

Personally, I don't even like caps. I think they inhibit character design and encourage players to play up to the cap. The points are as far as I'm willing to go.

 

But then you get players who are far better than other players in building characters. And you might even end up with Robin and Superman on the same team if you get a novice playing alongside an experienced player.

 

Anyway, how would caps inhibit character design? Why wouldn't someone with 60 pt powers be just as "conceptual" as someone with 90 pt powers?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

But then you get players who are far better than other players in building characters. And you might even end up with Robin and Superman on the same team if you get a novice playing alongside an experienced player.

 

Anyway, how would caps inhibit character design? Why wouldn't someone with 60 pt powers be just as "conceptual" as someone with 90 pt powers?

 

Because many people will design to the cap, rather than not worrying that their attack is lower than everyone else's.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the impact affects everyone, but I've seen many people react to caps that way. I don't like it. I want to see YOUR idea without knowing some ideal state (other than total points - and I've liked playing in some games where even the points aren't spelt out, though personally I haven't GMed that yet).