Duplication

[Lucius]

I always thought Multipower was the cheesy one, simply because it didn't require any significant correlation of powers; it was just a random discount.

 

Which goes back to my earlier comment about the possibility that points themselves have no hard value: I can get a discount for having no tight conception whatsoever. Okay, I'll put my Kryptonian Powers into a Multipower." Or I can simply buy them one at a time, for full price.

 

Same exact results, game wise. Massive difference price-wise. Where's the consistent value?

You are of course correct when you say "Massie difference price-wise." However, you are in error when you state "Same exact results, game wise."

 

I can simply buy them one at a time, for full price = I AM (at all times) Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!

 

I'll put my Kryptonian Powers into a Multipower = I CAN BE Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - but NOT ever all at the same time.

 

They cost different because they ARE different.'

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Variable Palindromedary Pool

[Duke Bushido]

Point taken.

 

 

It's simply that most of the times I've seen multi-powers, they tend to be built in such a way that the character can do pretty much everything the player actually _wants_ him to be able to do (I see very few ultras). The "unavailable while doing this, this, and this" parts aren't too terribly limiting to the concept.

 

Though you are correct: they technically _are_ limiting: he _can't_ do everything on the sheet all at once.

 

(Wow! Did you actually read through _all_ that?! Thank you. Many times, thank you. )

[Mister E]

I find "dead duplicates are gone forever" very much an orphan rule. CP are typically never lost or destroyed (Steve even ditched the Independent limitation on foci in 6e). Your focus gets destroyed? You get another one eventually. You can Summon an infinite number of creatures (and you can build Duplication as Summoning pretty easily), so why does Duplication need a "dead is dead" rule?

If Duplication is based on a Focus extras can be gained from the equipment doubling rule.

 

e.g. multiple "Rings of Duplication".

 

What is the rule for possessing multiple Duplication powers?

[Hugh Neilson]

your stance seeks to remove a tool from the GM's toolbox -- that tool being loss of XP/CP. I like my GM's to have tools ... and to wisely use them to enhance the game ... to make it feel more real.

Please cite the RAW rule, from any edition, which supports removal of xp (rather than awarding of less xp) or cp from a character in general. To my knowledge, there is not and has never been one. There have been occasional mechanics which, by RAW, provided the potential for the mechanic purchased to be lost. Over the editions, these have steadily been reduced.

 

It's the munchkinny types that tend not to be able to handle losses.

Application of derogatory terms to those who disagree with your playstyle (or, frankly, any of your other opinions) does not in any way persuade me to your way of thinking.

 

And you also find out who among your players IS munchkinny -- i.e. those who cannot handle losses and are in it only for power advancement, level advancement, and/or XP/CP ... when you see who won't risk XP/CP on the table ... or who don't want to suffer permanent XP/CP loss.

“Stab your buddies in the back and grab the loot” is a classic Munchkin description. I can design characters who are well suited for Danger Room scenarios, and characters who are not. In a game where I choose the former so I can leech xp from the other players, I would consider myself exhibiting munchkin behaviour.

 

Munchkins tend also to view the game as a competitive exercise (player vs player, or PVP) rather than a cooperative exercise.

 

And here is where we have a problem caused by two sets of rules being treated as the latest/greatest 6e rules ... both of which are considered accurate and complete. Why? Because, if PDF searches of Champions Complete are to be believed, the sentence above which I emphasized using red ... appears nowhere within Champions Complete -- which is the only available in-print version of the 6e rules, today, and is considered as valid as 6e V1 & V2 at the insistence of certain vocal people on these very forums, despite it being shown to be missing things.

I went looking for an old post by Jason S. Walters where he addressed this, but did not find it. I suspect it did not survive a forum update. I know from posts by the CC author that, with the sole exception of removing classes of mind, he neither intended nor believed that CC made any changes to the 6e Hero rules, but presented them in a more concise manner, with less examples and elaborations. By definition, presenting the rules in a smaller package removes considerable word count, so examples, rulings, corner cases, etc. in the 2 volume 6e rules will not appear in CC.

 

It’s unfortunate you have such difficulty with that concept, but the reality as I understand it is that the 2 volume set expands on the rules presented in the more concise “Complete” volumes. I assume that is why the .pdf’s remain on sale, and that is clearly why Steve Long uses them as the reference source in the Rules Questions in this forum. When 5e expanded to 5er, Steve stopped referencing 5e in fairly short order. Ditto when 6e replaced 5er. The fact that he continues to use 6e, on Hero’s site, in his own private Rules Question forum, is clear enough to me that the two volume 6e is considered “the same” as the Complete books.

 

That’s more verbiage than this topic merits here, so hopefully that sidecar issue can now die.

 

To the more specific issue:

 

Unlike Skills, Perks are inherently transitory in nature. A character can gain Perks during the course of the campaign and later lose them just as easily. If a character loses a Perk he typically get the Character Points he spent on it back, unless the rules for a specific Perk note otherwise. However, the final decision is up to the GM, since it may depend on the situation, the special effects of the Perk, common sense, dramatic sense, and other factors.

 

One item the CC author stated he did was remove the frequent references to the GM varying the rules, allowing things to work differently in some cases, and applying common sense, dramatic sense, game balance, etc. etc. in favour of a single overview in this regard, which I expect is near the front of the CC book. I'm also uncertain whether CC refers to the full 6e volumes in any way.

 

 

There's no indication, whatsoever, within Champions Complete's RAW that CP will be returned if a Perk or other character ability entails transient loss.

Absent a clear indication that the points are permanently lost, I am of the view that this is a clarification which did not make its way into CC. Where the full volumes contain more details, I consider them to be the official clarification. I have yet to see a clear contradiction between the two, outside the aforementioned Classes of Mind, although I have not pored over the two seeking to locate one.

[Hugh Neilson]

1. I'm not entirely certain that is a core philosophy behind this rules set.

Nor am I, but given the clear evolution, it seems a reasonable conclusion that this is the direction the rules have evolved in, so make it clear and avoid exceptions would be my approach.

 

2. Limitations such as "Independent," if left in the game, and perhaps the inclusion of similar Limitations--- this would make the-- what have we got? Three builds now with "points are lost?"-- at any rate, it would make them less outlier, would it not?

I view their removal as evidence of the evolution. Had we added a few more, it would be clear this was not the vision.

 

I ask this because so many things in the game: Energy Blast, Mind Control, etc, all come at 5pt / D6. Yet Killing Attack does not. It's the only one that doesn't. It's the only one that applies it's pips total directly against a Character as damage.

Mental Blast has been 10 points for 1d6 since 1e, just as KA has been 15 points for 1d6. Over the editions, the concept has evolved to a cost of 5 points for 1 DC, IMO. A normal attack applies its pips directly against a character as STUN damage, and adjustment powers as CP damage.

 

The volatile Stun Multiple is more an outlier, and the link to STR the most significant outlier (as it breaks the principal of getting what you pay for – nothing more and nothing less).

 

I agree completely. But, like dead duplicates, I treat it as a _risk_. I don't guarantee it. Just like I don't guarantee that your duplicate will be killed.

The key difference in Duplication, IMO, is that the character does not choose the potential of permanent loss of the ability, nor can he alter this by altering the cost. For the Independent power, either the character gets the huge benefit of a highly discounted ability, or he loses it entirely. If it is never lost, he gets to stay overpowered. If not, he gets to limp along, underpowered (or make a new character, with more Independent devices). Charges Never Recover allows him an overpowered ability a few times in the campaign. Try 256 charges (+1 advantage) that never recover (-2) and Cost END (-0.5), and see who tracks them…when they run out, it`s probably time for a new character anyway. In the meantime, you can pay 34 points for the same power someone else spent 60 on.

 

Modern game design seems to lean against the disparity in PC power model.

 

I think perhaps my games are way more casual than yours. I don't care if players want to buy certain bits of equipment with points. To me, it just means that it's something they won't lose. If they buy it as a Focus, then it's something they won't lose forever.

THAT is what they have paid for – they have removed the Independent nature of the gear, and made it something inherent to their character. Much like paying CP for a base rather than meeting in a boardroom provided by a government agency or corporate sponsor, and a vehicle rather than flying commercial or relying on someone else`s handouts.

 

This character will not lose this rifle. He may have it taken away, but it won't be for long:

Sure – because he paid points for it. So why should anything else he paid points for be different? Why should he pay the full points for the rifle, rather than only buying off the independent limitation and paying money for the part that everyone else can get without spending CP?

 

To Normal Char Maximum:

 

I totally agree with you that this was not a "Limitation" in the classic sense. However, it _was_ a Limitation. In my own experience, I only saw it used as a literal "loan" of points, repaid by buying it off before it became an issue. However, it _was_ limiting, but only if your Character was going to buy his Stats up above the levels described. If he wasn't, it was "free points." That part I didn't like. By the same token, I had similar issues with "Package Deals."

Package deals also lost their discount, and simply became examples of what a character of this type would have. You and I share the same dislike – it in no way limits, disadvantages or complicates the character who will not buy his stats up past those limits.

 

Why can't your brick buy mental powers?

Mechanically? Because he took the disadvantage Can Not Buy Mental Powers (maybe that should be Must Pay Double for Mental Powers, actually). In game? Because his BODY is super, but his BRAIN is not, just like the guy you gave 20 points to for NCM lacks superhuman characteristics without his suit of powered armor. And either of us can buy it off and develop a Super Brain or Body.

 

But I agree. If you don't run afoul of it during Character Generation, then it's hardly going to be Limiting at all. That's why I only use it in Heroic level stuff, as a "must have" at 0 value.

At that point it is a campaign setting. But it also justifies the GM not letting a player just pay the double points for a 30 DEX.

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh, one more comment. I had forgotten about that tagline (still like it, though). But there is no question that SETAC was Steve's sounding board. He was clear up front that he was calling the shots, he would set the agenda and when or if he said topic done, it was done. SETAC members were just as surprised as anyone else by some 6e changes, and I'm sure there were others discussed that SETAC as a group would have resolved differently.

 

But the game needs a designer, not a committee.

 

As I recall, CC also lists SETAC as contributors (which is generous for both books for my contributions - some others definitely deserved credit). That's another indicator that CC is 6e Repackaged, not even 6e Revised. At the furthest extreme, I could possibly even say the Completes are prototypes of games Powered by Hero, but I think something like Narosia really deserves the credit for pioneering such a game, as it contains (or so I understand) much more than just the mechanics applied to a genre.

[Surrealone]

 

Please cite the RAW rule, from any edition, which supports removal of xp (rather than awarding of less xp) or cp from a character in general. To my knowledge, there is not and has never been one. There have been occasional mechanics which, by RAW, provided the potential for the mechanic purchased to be lost.

You know as well as I do that no such rule exists.  However, you also know as well as I do that the removal of a mechanic that cost CP ... without a refund or the CP or a replacement mechanic ... translates directly to the loss of the CP that was spent on the mechanic -- which is effectively the same as removing CP.  And last, you know as well as I do that current RAW entails mechanics that can be lost .. with no RAW mention of a return or refund of the CP back to the character.  (See my CC citation, above.)

To wit:

• Permanent death of a character after 25 CP was gained as XP on top of the starting CP total... followed by the player commencing a new character at the starting CP total (i.e. without the 25 XP earned by the dead character) ... translates to 25 CP lost.
• Destruction of a 25 CP vehicle translates to loss of 25 CP ... at least under CC rules, it does, since there's no RAW in CC indicating a refund is in order.
• Destruction of a 75 CP base translates to loss of 75 CP... at least under CC rules, it does, since there's no RAW in CC indicating a refund is in order.
• Use of a favor for which a character paid 1 CP translates to loss of that CP.  The character could do something to upset the individual who owes the facor, too, causing the Favor to simply vanish due to game-appropriate reasons and also translating to loss of that 1 CP paid for it ... at least under CC rules, it does, since there's no RAW in CC indicating a refund is in order.
• Permanent death of one of a character's twin Duplicates translates to no loss of CP but partial loss of an ability ... unless the GM allows the character to pay 5 CP to double the number of Duplicates (from 1 to 2, again) to get the Duplicate back -- in which case the translation is to a loss of 5 CP.

So let's not be deliberately dense, here -- the GM clearly has loss/risk of CP to use as a tool in RAW ... at least RAW as it stands today.

 

 

Over the editions, these have steadily been reduced.

But not eliminated -- meaning they're still there and are still tools for GMs to leverage.

Personally, I perceive your observation of a reduction trend, here, to be self-serving and cyclical logic.  Past elimination of such things just isn't evidence of future intent to do so -- because if you really intended for such things to be removed, you'd have handled it the first time around.  And if you didn't know about or recognize a need for additional changes when making past changes, then you can't reasonably attribute future intent ... to something you didn't know about or recognize.

 

 

 

Application of derogatory terms to those who disagree with your playstyle (or, frankly, any of your other opinions) does not in any way persuade me to your way of thinking.

I believe you mean:
re-use of a term you introduced for 'a' playstyle does not in any way persuade you to my way of thinking.

I provided this correction because you and I have never gamed together, so you can't possibly know my playstyle and, thus, aren't in a position to make accurate judgments about it.  (You are, however, in a position to make assumptions without facts on the matter.)   I merely re-used a term that you introduced into this thread and used ... one you apparently find derogatory.  If you find it so when others use it -- perhaps you shouldn't have introduced and used it, yourself.

 

 

 

I can design characters who are well suited for Danger Room scenarios, and characters who are not. In a game where I choose the former so I can leech xp from the other players, I would consider myself exhibiting munchkin behaviour.

Munchkins tend also to view the game as a competitive exercise (player vs player, or PVP) rather than a cooperative exercise.

Yes, you absolutely can.  Anyone can.  But that's not what was discussed or implied, so I don't see the relevance.  An approach that reveals who among a player set won't take risks that entail tangible losses ... i.e. those who only seek more advancement, improvement, power .... was what was discussed.  Non-munchkin gameplay tends to entail both gains and losses.  By taking an approach that reveals who can't handle both gains and losses, you learn something about your players through the revelation of who, among them, only wants a one-sided, ever more powerful game ... and it's generally not a good something that is learned.

 

 

I went looking for an old post by Jason S. Walters where he addressed this, but did not find it. I suspect it did not survive a forum update. I know from posts by the CC author that, with the sole exception of removing classes of mind, he neither intended nor believed that CC made any changes to the 6e Hero rules, but presented them in a more concise manner, with less examples and elaborations. By definition, presenting the rules in a smaller package removes considerable word count, so examples, rulings, corner cases, etc. in the 2 volume 6e rules will not appear in CC.

But, as pointed out earlier via RAW citations, changes WERE made.  In this case, the CC verbiage I quoted is actually less concise than what Christopher quoted from 6e V1&2, as the CC RAW contains a higher wordcount and more elaboration.  i.e. This is no mere difference through omission, this is a case where the verbiage is clearly and markedly different by way of additional exposition.

 

 

It’s unfortunate you have such difficulty with that concept, but the reality as I understand it is that the 2 volume set expands on the rules presented in the more concise “Complete” volumes. I assume that is why the .pdf’s remain on sale, and that is clearly why Steve Long uses them as the reference source in the Rules Questions in this forum. When 5e expanded to 5er, Steve stopped referencing 5e in fairly short order. Ditto when 6e replaced 5er. The fact that he continues to use 6e, on Hero’s site, in his own private Rules Question forum, is clear enough to me that the two volume 6e is considered “the same” as the Complete books.

I don't have difficulty with the concept.  Instead, I simply acknowledge they are NOT "the same" and seek explanation as to which is correct/authoritative without relying on GM subjectivity to suss it out when there's a clear/obvious conflict such as the one brought to light in this thread.  The way I see it, the actual difficulty comes into play when two versions of RAW that distinctly show they are not "the same" as it pertains to a particular mechanic ... are supposed to be treated the same just because they are both 6e ... when they aren't "the same".

 

I would have exactly the same stance if you expected me to treat an apple and an orange "the same" just because they are both fruit ... and I would make sure you and others were aware that the apple had a skin that many would enjoy eating while an orange tends not to ... and that they have things in common, but that they are absolutely not "the same".  And if you removed my availability to readily obtain an apple ... but you still gave me ready access to procure oranges, I would, as a reasonable person, reasonably presume you had replaced apples with oranges...

 

And with that, I will indeed, let that sidecar go down its own track, but I reserve the right to continue to point out that CC makes no mention of refunding CP in its PERK description and that if you are treating CC's verbiage on the matter "the same" as 6e V1 & V2 ... while treating the more detailed of the two as the 'official' one ... then you still have a dilemma to be resolved.

 

 

Absent a clear indication that the points are permanently lost, I am of the view that this is a clarification which did not make its way into CC. Where the full volumes contain more details, I consider them to be the official clarification.

As pointed out, above, CC contains more detail on this matter -- as it expounds upon Followers dying, Bases and Vehicles being lost, etc. where the text Christopher quoted from 6e V1 & 2 did not.  So, if more detail is considered official, then CC's text should probably be official here, yes?  And since CC's text has no indication of refunding CP due to lost character abilities such as Perks ... while 6e V1 & 2 apparently, does, then I think we have a fairly clear indication of the change given the added details on the matter in CC as compared with Christopher's quoted 6e V1 & 2 text.

 

Keep in mind, however, I don't have full 6e V1 &2 texts to compare with, so I admit that there might have been more text that Christopher failed to quote.  However, based on the information presented in this thread, to date, it looks like CC actually has the more detailed set of RAW on this topic and, thus, it would be the official clarification (using your approach).

 

 

The key difference in Duplication, IMO, is that the character does not choose the potential of permanent loss of the ability, nor can he alter this by altering the cost. For the Independent power, either the character gets the huge benefit of a highly discounted ability, or he loses it entirely. If it is never lost, he gets to stay overpowered. If not, he gets to limp along, underpowered (or make a new character, with more Independent devices).

I must disagree on this -- because the player can absolutely work out with the GM a +1/4 Advantage (or whatever is appropriate per the GM for the game) on Duplication such that the death of a duplicate is not permadeath.  By NOT paying more for the ability than its base cost, the player absolutely chooses for the character the potential of permanent loss of the ability, since it is inherent to Duplication.  To put that into perspective, the same choice of permanent loss is made when a Favor is purchased instead of a Contact, since a Contact is a way of paying more points for someone who can do things for the character ... who won't disappear like a Favor will.

 

CC is even kind enough to give us an example to work by that might provide a guideline for a GM as to how much such an Advantage is worth, as on CC page 209, Astral Form entails the following limitation: Must Recombine Daily (if characters don’t recombine within 24 hours, both die; -½).  So permanent death of both the original and the duplicate is a -1 limitation, halved to -1/2 per RAW because it's on the recombination only.  Thus, an Advantage that prevents permanent death of a duplicate affecting that duplicate's creation ... without impact to the original ... likely isn't a +1 (due to no impact to the original).  Call it +1/2 ... and then half it to +1/4 per RAW since it's only for duplicate creation?  (This is how I arrived at +1/4, above, by the way....)

 

My point:
​The player has a choice, as s/he can work with the GM to set an appropriate advantage that eliminates the risk of perma-death of duplicates if s/he wants to do so and if it makes sense from a SFX standpoint.  This is not just a rebuttal of there being no choice, but a very strong nod to Duke's point on the matter ... that it's worth more than the base power costs for the duplicate to never risk permadeath, so it should probably be an Advantage, not a hand-waved 'gimmie' that completely ignores Duplication's RAW.

[Duke Bushido]

Sure – because he paid points for it. So why should anything else he paid points for be different? Why should he pay the full points for the rifle, rather than only buying off the independent limitation and paying money for the part that everyone else can get without spending CP?

Thanks for the responses, Hugh; I appreciate the time it takes to do that. I have added emphasis above. Can I ask for a bit of clarification on that part?

 

 

Package deals also lost their discount,

That is the single best thing I've heard about 6e That's great.

 

and simply became examples of what a character of this type would have.

I suppose it's possible to need that, if you want to play a character who is something you really don't know anything about. (For example, I would need a good bit of help grasping what it's like to be a millionaire playboy .) For making alien races and such (and likely would for whatever you call elves and dwarves and such, if I played fantasy)-- that is, the physical aspect, anyway, I take the more work-intense method of actually creating a racial template. As we dis-connected Figureds decades ago, it actually helps out a lot. For player contentment, I try to keep them more-or-less balanced there: if I decide that a "typical sample" of that race starts with a 15 CON instead of a 10, then I try to make sure there's something else that is a bit lower than "typical human," just to keep it fair. The "Maxima" for such a race follow the typical "you can go ten more, but it doubles after that" logic of NCM. Though I'm a bit harder on Heroic Level: I double it again after 25 (for humans) no one breaks 30, period. It's not hard-heartedness; it's just that when you think about what that level of a Characteristic represents, you don't just fall across such people everyday. They are _rare_, and that second doubling helps to keep them that way. Well that, and it makes the other races clearly superior or inferior in their own ways. Between the soft cap and the hard cap, I've added a "gel cap," for lack of a better term.

 

You and I share the same dislike – it in no way limits, disadvantages or complicates the character who will not buy his stats up past those limits.

Yep; we agree very much in this regard. For years, it's been widely accepted that Heroic Level campaigns should use these or similar guidelines. Then all of a sudden someone decided that we should get points for following the parameters of the campaign? Those aren't Disadvantage Points, Son! Those are _Experience_ Points, and you have to _earn_ them. (I know; I'm being all kinds of long in the tooth calling them Disadvantages, but even if I should suddenly decide to run out and upgrade to all things 6e, I am absolutely not-- not once; not _ever_-- going to call them "Complications." I'm just not going to do it. Just thinking about it feels all kinds of weak and scuzzy. But that's just me. .)

 

Mechanically? Because he took the disadvantage Can Not Buy Mental Powers (maybe that should be Must Pay Double for Mental Powers, actually). In game? Because his BODY is super, but his BRAIN is not, just like the guy you gave 20 points to for NCM lacks superhuman characteristics without his suit of powered armor. And either of us can buy it off and develop a Super Brain or Body.

Oh yes; I got it immediately. I was meant as a tease. I had reached my emoticon (I'm not going to call them "emoji," either. > ) limit and had to pull a few off the post. I got what you were saying: why is _this_ character given a bonus for being built exactly to a concept when _all_ characters are built to a concept? That's the one single greatest draw of HERO, particularly back in the early days! You don't have to roll or randomize _crap_ for your character! No unplayable messes! No lumbering powerhouses gasping for breath after twenty paces (unless you want one, of course). No chance of being 3/4 through character generation when a random table tells you "oops; you died!" (I loved you, Traveller, but that was just silly)-- you could build _exactly_ what you wanted, and even though the bulk of the RPG industry has finally begun to normalize this idea, our rules system here started that way. So why suddenly give this off-the-wall bonus for one particular character type? Honestly, if I decided to violate it with a 25 DEX, I'm still making out for 5 "free" points. It's nuts!

 

So yeah-- we agree there, definitely.

 

 

Anyway, I'm gonna run-- getting the house ready for some refugees from the hurricane. Talk to y'all later!

 

 

 

Duke

[Duke Bushido]

Oh-- let me add on the racial templates: I add that second doubling to _everyone_. The "for humans" referred to the characteristic score used as an example; not as a penalty for humans specifically.

 

Sorry for any confusion.

 

Duke

[Hugh Neilson]

Thanks for the responses, Hugh; I appreciate the time it takes to do that. I have added emphasis above. Can I ask for a bit of clarification on that part?

Let's use a very simple example for ease of reference, and assume GranPappy's Rifle is an Energy Carbine, which we will define as – 3d6 RKA, OAF, 8 Charges, so I paid 18 points for GranPappy's Energy Carbine, and I can be confident that, while it can be taken away, it won't be for long, like any OAF.

 

But if I slap Independent on there as well (like the K Mart Blue Light Special Energy Carbine the other PC is using, which can be lost forever), I'd pay 10 points for that. He can get it for no CP cost, so why can't I pay 8 points (the difference between the free, Independent carbine and my non-Independent carbine) to just buy off the limitation?

 

That is the single best thing I've heard about 6e That's great.

I think the discount was removed in 5e, but I could be mistaken.

 

I suppose it's possible to need that, if you want to play a character who is something you really don't know anything about.

It's a bit of a grab & go – slap the Dwarf package and the Warrior package on and we have the start of our Dwarvish Warrior. Template is just as good a term.

 

Yep; we agree very much in this regard. For years, it's been widely accepted that Heroic Level campaigns should use these or similar guidelines. Then all of a sudden someone decided that we should get points for following the parameters of the campaign?

I don't think that was ever suggested. Rather, it was offered to a character in a game who did not suffer from this restriction based on campaign norms, but took it on voluntarily. I like the rename – it was selected to suggest that these are not bad things forced upon you to weaken your character by a tyrannical GM, but good things that drive the game and focus attention on your character's plot hooks. But it's only a name. When I discuss with you, I try to stick to pre-6e terminology.

 

But your point is dead on - why does "playing to certain concepts" mandate a point break?

[Duke Bushido]

I think the discount was removed in 5e, but I could be mistaken.

I'll be more than happy to accept that at face value. If my 5e ever turns up (I've looked for more than once over the last few conversations, but I really seem to have completely lost track of it), I can check that myself. Either way, I'm still pretty happy about it.

 

But your point is dead on - why does "playing to certain concepts" mandate a point break?

It occurs to me that there's a double-wierdness here, too:

 

If we are rewarding "weaker" characters, are we not in fact giving more points to characters who're conceptually obligated to use _less_ points?

 

I mean certainly it's possible to spend any amount of points you want when building any sort of character: I can have a "super hero" with a full set of sub-standard stats and enough armor to be sort of bullet resistant, and that's it. I can have an incredibly talented normal individual who has either point-bought a great deal of equipment or has a skills list like a fine pedigree. But overall, the idea of NCM seems to have been to give someone more points for agreeing to not need as many.

 

Go figure.

[Hugh Neilson]

You know as well as I do that no such rule exists.

When you state that

 

your stance seeks to remove a tool from the GM's toolbox -- that tool being loss of XP/CP. I like my GM's to have tools ... and to wisely use them to enhance the game ... to make it feel more real.

You suggest to me that you either do not know that no such rule exists, or that you ignore that fact in the interests of supporting your argument. As the GM cannot remove CPs without the player's consent, in purchasing the specific abilities where CPs can be lost, nor can you remove them from anything but those abilities, then the tool you are suggesting is being removed was never there in the first place.

 

Permanent death of a character after 25 CP was gained as XP on top of the starting CP total... followed by the player commencing a new character at the starting CP total (i.e. without the 25 XP earned by the dead character) ... translates to 25 CP lost.

Actually, it translates to "character lost". Where in the rules does it state that the new character cannot start with XP comparable to a deceased or retired character? This is set as a campaign rule, not anything mandated by the system. It's no more RAW than Danger Room Wagers. Maybe we should all lose a hundred points to one character, then create a new character who starts at the campaign baseline. If positive xp does not carry over, why should negative xp carry over?

Destruction of a 25 CP vehicle translates to loss of 25 CP ... at least under CC rules, it does, since there's no RAW in CC indicating a refund is in order.

Destruction of a 75 CP base translates to loss of 75 CP... at least under CC rules, it does, since there's no RAW in CC indicating a refund is in order.

Please cite the CC rule which states that the destroyed vehicle or base is any more permanently lost than a destroyed OAF – Ninja Sword or OIF – Powered Armor Suit. The previously cited "perks can be more transient" quote doesn’t do it for me.

 

Use of a favor for which a character paid 1 CP translates to loss of that CP. The character could do something to upset the individual who owes the facor, too, causing the Favor to simply vanish due to game-appropriate reasons and also translating to loss of that 1 CP paid for it ... at least under CC rules, it does, since there's no RAW in CC indicating a refund is in order.

Favour is the one where I feel the loss is appropriate. It is also the one I think is more appropriately a non-XP in game reward. Developing a Contact makes more sense. In fact

Some GMs often award Favors to PCs as part of the Experience Points for an adventure. For instance, if the characters save an admiral’s life during an adventure, the GM might give each of them a Favor from that admiral. If PCs can buy Favors on their own, the GM should approve every Favor to make sure it doesn’t unbalance the campaign. .

 

Back in the day, Sonny, we would have called that a role playing reward, separate and apart from XP, but we now feel the need to price out everything. So this is as much an "if you must have a point cost you can pay to have this without the in game role play earning it, fine, hear you go" mechanic as anything else.

 

BTW, where is your cite for the favour being lost without being used? Certainly, "You ask too much of me" is legit, as indicated by the RAW possibility some actions may require you to cash in multiple favours. But the source material is also littered with honourable foes granting a Favour because honor demands it, not because they are pleased with the character. "Though you are my sworn foe, I cannot ignore my debt of honor, so I will do as you ask. But know that my debt is paid with this act – if we meet again, I will show you no mercy. " is very different from "Your actions have angered me – I will not repay the debt I owe you. "

 

Permanent death of one of a character's twin Duplicates translates to no loss of CP but partial loss of an ability ... unless the GM allows the character to pay 5 CP to double the number of Duplicates (from 1 to 2, again) to get the Duplicate back -- in which case the translation is to a loss of 5 CP.

So let's not be deliberately dense, here -- the GM clearly has loss/risk of CP to use as a tool in RAW ... at least RAW as it stands today.

First off, the existence of two mechanics, the Favour and the Duplication rule, is not, at least in my view, a clear presentation of loss or risk of CP as a tool the RAW grants the GM. The player chooses to spend character points on Duplication or a Favour and chooses when to use that Favour.

 

Second, arguing that the existence of the Duplication mechanic supports the appropriateness of the Duplication mechanic is as circular a reasoning as I can ever imagine, and could easily be classified as deliberately being dense.

 

Clearly, you see it differently, as witness

 

Personally, I perceive your observation of a reduction trend, here, to be self-serving and cyclical logic.

Kind of surreal, really 

 

I believe you mean:

I will suggest that we have long since established that what you believe and what I believe to be considerably different in many ways, so I will leave it at that.

 

An approach that reveals who among a player set won't take risks that entail tangible losses ... i.e. those who only seek more advancement, improvement, power .... was what was discussed. Non-munchkin gameplay tends to entail both gains and losses. By taking an approach that reveals who can't handle both gains and losses, you learn something about your players through the revelation of who, among them, only wants a one-sided, ever more powerful game ... and it's generally not a good something that is learned.

Where I look back to the classic D&D artifacts where pulling a lever might cause great gains or great losses, and consider the player whose character pulls the lever, on the logic that one in a hundred will gain great power, and I can keep cycling new characters until I get that one, as the munchkin, and the player who perceives a real character, thinking and reasoning, would not take the 1 in 100 chance of great power with a significant risk of crushing loss as being the non-munchkin. Perhaps my reasoning seems just as surreal to you.

[Hugh Neilson]

But, as pointed out earlier via RAW citations, changes WERE made. In this case, the CC verbiage I quoted is actually less concise than what Christopher quoted from 6e V1&2, as the CC RAW contains a higher wordcount and more elaboration. i.e. This is no mere difference through omission, this is a case where the verbiage is clearly and markedly different by way of additional exposition.

Again, nothing in your verbiage clearly contradicts the expanded discussion in 6e. The 297 words introducing perks in 6eV1, including 40 in a sidebar on their use in frameworks, is considerably more wordcount.

 

More to the point, nothing in the 80 words you quote inherently contradicts the 52 words Christopher quotes. The perk can be lost and the points repurposed, or the perk can be lost and the points lost with it. 6eV1 clarifies that they generally are not lost.

 

The author of CC deliberately consolidated wording in overall descriptions to reduce wordcount. Contacts runs about 1.5 pages of sheer text in 6eV1. Follower runs almost a page (including the possibility of follower death), and the discussion of losing a Deep Cover identity alone runs 97 words in 6eV1. The specific discussion of vehicles and bases in 6ev1 discusses the rate at which they are repaired when damaged or destroyed, elaborating and expanding on, but not contradicting, the slimmed down CC.

 

Were there to be an actual contradiction, I would interpret RAI (rules as intended) to be consistent with the two volume 6e tomes, as that was the stated intent of the author.

 

 

I don't have difficulty with the concept. Instead, I simply acknowledge they are NOT "the same" and seek explanation as to which is correct/authoritative without relying on GM subjectivity to suss it out when there's a clear/obvious conflict such as the one brought to light in this thread.

First off, you seem incapable of perceiving the lack of a clear and obvious conflict. One says that perks are transitory and can be lost. The other says that perks are transitory, can be lost and the points can be regained. That is clarification, not contradiction.

 

To be "the same", the Complete books would need to reprint 6e in its entirety. That was not the purpose. They reduced explanations and examples, and that comes with added ambiguity. That was an accepted cost of slimming the tome for ease of entry. All of the examples and clarifications remain available, much as a huge FAQ made available for other games online often adds clarifications and examples, resolving ambiguities in the rules.

 

You don't like that approach, and that's fine. I like dead tree books as well. But that does not make clarifications in the larger volumes turn into contradictions. Neither does it prevent you deciding to depart from those clarified rules, or even from rules clearly stated in both sources.

And with that, I will indeed, let that sidecar go down its own track, but I reserve the right to continue to point out that CC makes no mention of refunding CP in its PERK description and that if you are treating CC's verbiage on the matter "the same" as 6e V1 & V2 ... while treating the more detailed of the two as the 'official' one ... then you still have a dilemma to be resolved.

I have one that says you can lose a follower to death, and the second which goes on to further discuss the potential to recruit a new follower. One provides more detail. Both are still available. The fact that the apples are now on a higher shelf, requiring you to stretch, or sold only in bags of a dozen – that is, not available in the format you prefer – in no way means they have been replaced by the oranges offered in a format you prefer.

 

Keep in mind, however, I don't have full 6e V1 &2 texts to compare with, so I admit that there might have been more text that Christopher failed to quote. However, based on the information presented in this thread, to date, it looks like CC actually has the more detailed set of RAW on this topic and, thus, it would be the official clarification (using your approach).

Like Christopher, I do not propose to reprint the 10 pages 6eV1 devotes to Perks. If you want the more expanded and clarified versions, the .pdfs are available on this very website.

 

I must disagree on this -- because the player can absolutely work out with the GM a +1/4 Advantage (or whatever is appropriate per the GM for the game) on Duplication such that the death of a duplicate is not permadeath.

So we are now not going purely by RAW.

 

By NOT paying more for the ability than its base cost, the player absolutely chooses for the character the potential of permanent loss of the ability, since it is inherent to Duplication.

Are we discussing RAW (under which duplicates die and are not recovered – no RAW to remove that) or how RAW might be varied (whether by removing the permanent loss of duplicates, for greater consistency with the remaining RAW, by adding an advantage, or by removing the automatic permanent loss and adding a limitation to return it)?

 

To put that into perspective, the same choice of permanent loss is made when a Favor is purchased instead of a Contact, since a Contact is a way of paying more points for someone who can do things for the character ... who won't disappear like a Favor will.

Both covered in the RAW, with the detailed RAW providing considerably more guidance, it seems, on the favour often being granted as part of a reward for success, rather than a purchase by the player for the character.

 

CC is even kind enough to give us an example to work by that might provide a guideline for a GM as to how much such an Advantage is worth, as on CC page 209

Derek is clearly a Doctor Strange fan to retain this example from 6eV1. However, this “24 hour limit” in no way suggests a value for loss of points or gaining of points, any more than “must dismiss summoned creature after 15 minutes” suggests a cost for converting the summoned creature to a permanent follower.

 

Ultimately, we disagree on which approach should be the default, and the appropriate value of duplicates being lost permanently versus recovering like virtually every other ability in the game. Practically, had Duplication not developed in Champions whole Summon developed in Fantasy Hero, I very much doubt we would have two separate powers from 4e onwards, with the merger of the rules.

 

In any case, it’s been surreal.

[Duke Bushido]

You might not, but some GM's do ... and many players like it.   I'm one of them

[EDIT: this was in response to the idea of removing "points lost forever" power builds-- Duke]

 

I'm another one. It really is the _rarest_ of rare things in my games; it's happened a tiny handful of times since I started playing Champions in '81 (82? I think it was '81). I will also freely admit that some of these times were at player or even group request-- usually to create a related plot-line or to tie into the history / plot line of another character. That notwithstanding, it has happened.

 

this matter [EDIT: reference to the "points lost" type builds-- Duke] is not ushered in as a rule change in some future revision of RAW,

I've already expressed my disappointment at the loss of one potential method, and I, too, would really rather not see it vanish. But not just as a GM tool either. As I've said, I personally hold to the idea that _any_ sort of "game balance" is, by necessity, meta-ruling, so I just don't see the idea of "this construct involves a big risk" being much different. It's method is different, but we already have numerous mechanics for different aspects of the game. I just see this as one more.

 

Further, I see it as a _validation_ for those who would willingly accept the risk, or wish to explore the idea. From my own point of view, I see "points lost" builds as little more than additional tools for modeling something permanently damaging, permanently debilitating, or permanently life-changing.

 

To that end, I will freely mention that until we (well, two of the four groups and some of a third) had all had our turns running through one of the two copies of 5e the First I plunked down for, we had no "Independent." It was an assumed inclusion to "Accessible" as a focus limitation: someone could grab it and take it away from you. The earliest rules made no mention of getting it back automatically, so we followed the logic: "if it can be taken away from you, you can take it back." And so that's how we handled it: if someone took it, you didn't have it until you took it back-- if you could, of course.

 

I didn't then and I don't now see that as "unfair" to the players. When teaching them the rules of the game, how to build Powers, the definitions of Advantages and Limitations, this was explained to each and every one of them. Over the years, some of them took the gamble on "Accessible." Many of them lost that gamble. Most of them managed to win back their Focus. A few did not. A tiny few, to be sure, but they lost fairly and without prejudice (in fact, to this day we have a recurring minor villain who is still using the Time Stopper ray (Drain: SPD) he took from a PC in the late 90s). Some of them built new Foci; others moved on without them.

 

But at no time did anyone feel "robbed," because they were well-aware of the possibility prior to taking the chance. And each time they took the chance, they were reminded again, just for good measure.

 

When we adopted "Independent...." Well, we didn't really adopt it; it was something the majority of the players wanted to use (you know Players: anything to make it cheaper. ;-) ) so I agreed and we came to an agreement on what it would mean: it would take the place of the second part of Accessible. If you had an accessible Focus that was not Independent, then you could still have it taken away from you. It would be returned to you. Eventually. Somehow. That would be left up to the story. You might have to endure a couple of sessions without it. You might get it back right away (like the example of of Graddaddy's carbine, where the timing of his escape justified that his belongings might not have been through processing and locked away yet), or you might have to work a bit to get it. But you would get it back (had one character who's Focus ended up being mailed to him... at his secret ID's house. ;-) That was actually a lot of fun. ).

 

But if it had Independent, then there was absolutely no guarantee it would be returned, ever. (like the way we _used_ to handle Accessible).

 

I didn't like Independent initially because, like NCM, I really felt it was "gimme" points. For the most part, I still do. The only thing that I respect it for even now is that it specifically states something that was never specifically stated before, but was instead something we inferred (the way many people inferred buying partial dice of KA was okay, even long before it was made cannon). Stands to reason, though, with a lawyer writing the new rules. "Unclear language" and all that.

 

I like my GM's to have tools ... and to wisely use them to enhance the game ...

I quite agree with this, but I go a bit further with my reasoning:

 

Even if I _never_ use a tool, the very fact of its canonization justifies-- more accurately, confirms the validity of a particular concept to the _players_ as well. How often have any of us-- especially in the early days, when we were all learning-- looked to published examples for hints, help, and inspiration? How many people have at one time or another encountered someone using a Speedster who "runs" with Flight: must touch a surface? Or a skilled lock-picker with "teleport: must cross whatever the heck that said to justify it"? (or was that Tunneling?)

 

to make it feel more real.

I love ya, Dude, but in a game featuring cosmic beings, alien races, and ultra-fit people in onesies flying through the skies hurling nuclear fusion at each other, I'm not going to go that far. ;-) I know what you're saying, though.

 

that players feel their successes more deeply when rewarded for them in tangible terms ... and also feel their failures more deeply when they, too, are underscored in tangible terms.  (It's just human nature.)  The tools that let GMs do this ... are XP/CP gains/losses, power gains/losses, etc.

I heartily concur, but I must up-front first say that from what I have gleaned over the course of this conversation, I fully accept that the desirability of such a build, or the opinions on whether or not it is liberating in a way (my own admittedly minority opinion) or the opinion that it is either cruel or lop-sided, really seems to depend a lot on what is important to the individual playing the game and the group that he plays it with. I can see why a group that finds combat or rapid expansion of their powers or even a slightly competitive "I'm the same as you!" or a need to stay tightly in line with everyone else at the table, then I can see how they could find losing points to be rather off-putting, even moreso when it seems to target some Power or build that they feel they might like to try.

 

If the player or the group finds the exploration of the character or the world in which he lives to be the more significant part of the game, then these concepts open up some new and interesting possibilities.

 

I see advantages to it for GMs _and_ for Players.

 

Though, as I said, that's just me. I've been ignoring the bulk of three generations of rules updates, so who am I to quibble, right? ;-)

 

 

If you underscore success by granting EXP/CP (one tool in the GM's toolbox) to make the high feel 'higher', it makes sense to do the same as it pertains to failure using EXP/CP loss (another tool in the GM's toolbox).

That's an interesting take on the idea. I had not even considered it that way. Again, I guess it boils down to how you "see" the game and how you're used to playing it.

 

Anything else is one-sided and akin to having day without any concept of night -- i.e. tough to appreciate the reward, because there's just no concept of risk or loss in that game.

 

To be completely fair, though (it doesn't look like it on a message board post, but I've now had twenty minutes or so to consider it), you can't run with this analogy. As a periodic thing: saying "some powers carry more risk than others and the player needs to decide for himself" works, but treating it as an overall measure of success is really only possible if _every_ build has the possibility of a similar loss.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that "points-lost" is not inherently evil and that it _does_ have a valid good side; I just don't think, the way points-lost currently happens, that it makes much of a 'failure meter,' if you will.

 

 

It's the munchkinny types that tend not to be able to handle losses.

From an earlier example in this conversation, I think it's the munchkinny types that put web shooters into an Elemental Control.

 

Sorry about that. It was just time of a little light-heartedness.

 

Post split in half because apparently it's possible to be too interested in a discussion.

[Duke Bushido]

 

 

In danger rooms, characters learn things.

A bit OT, but you know in all the years I've played this game, I've _never_ been in or run a danger room scenario. I'd never thought about it until this thread. I understand it's purpose, but it doesn't seem to have any appeal at our Supers tables. Odd.

 

 

 

why shouldn't a GM underscore successes and failures in danger rooms like they would any other in-game effort?  Winner take all should be that -- meaning players should have some risk for failure and reward for success and it should come from them, be it in-game currency on the table or XP/CP representing actual experience in the danger room (be it success experience gained of failure experience lost).

Feh-- make it something important: Winner doesn't have to chip in for snacks! Player morale boosts _always_ affect Character morale. Always.

 

They _shouldn't_, but they do. ;-)

 

 

 

 

I really like that we're on the same page about this, as it shows that I'm not the only one feeling this way and means I'm not the only counterpoint to Hugh's sentiments of a game without XP/CP losses, perma-death, etc.

Thank you. Rest assured (if it helps you to do so) that I very much believe that there is utility for points-lost builds, and am now curious to wonder what else might possibly work with such a limitation. I mean beyond Foci and such. Not that I have a desire to enforce it, but suppose a Player wanted it as a Limitation of some sort? Susceptible to X, lost Y points of Flight forever? Or for a year? Or Summon: one specific glass cannon? Multiform: can lose the ability to take this one particular form.

 

Something like that. What sort of Limitation would that take?

 

While we're on it:

 

Suppose Duplication-- the driving force of this thread-- ditched the "points lost" aspect of the current rules. What would be the value of a Limitation that retained that aspect?

 

On the other side of that, what is the value of an Advantage that prevents it?

 

It's impossible to calculate, and it's impossible to calculate because it's very binary: either yes; it happens, or no; it doesn't.

 

(I say that now, but I've noticed a disproportionately-large number of mathemagicians seem to be drawn to HERO, and it's likely someone will figure it out perfectly before anyone else replies to this thread .)

 

Yes; I am in agreement with you, and for far more than game balance or GM tool reasons. However-- and I must be clear about this or I am not being true to myself, I do not feel that Hugh's views that points-lost is a bad thing is any less valid than my differing opinion. I have very much enjoyed reading what _everyone_ in this thread has offered. I realize that you and he have been the major contributors, but there have been a lot of really interesting ideas brought to light, and I feel that even one's opinion is never swayed, there is a lot one can learn about your his opinions and the strength or rationale of his own convictions by simply giving _serious_ contemplative consideration to those ideas that disagree with his own. There's a reason I'll likely never vote a straight ticket: sometimes, the "other" guy really has a better take on a situation that I thought I did.

 

What I really want to say on this point is that you think a lot like my current GM, as making the dead duplicate appear when the power is used sounds like something he would do if it made for good dramatic sense.

I like him already!

 

And yeah, if there was a way that it would enhance the story-- trauma to the character (for good reasons, I mean) or as a sign that the character's powers may be in for a change of some sort-- even as a weird kind of omen-- if I believed , _really believed_ that it would enhance the story, I would _totally_ do it.

 

As the character with Duplication to which it could happen in our game, I'd be just fine with it -- most especially if it added game flavor.  In fact, I love the imagery and the poetic license!

 

Ooh! How about this: (sorry; I've been wordy enough that I just don't have it in me to really flavor it up as a proper vignette):

 

It's over. The rush is gone-- nothing to look forward to now but the shakes. That high,though.... That sharp snapping arc of electricity of Electron's bio-lightning gave just barely enough warning, that sideways leap to anywhere else as the earth beneath your feet explodes and every hair on your body stands straight out and crackles-- heartbeat suddenly so loud you can't even hear the com link in your ear. There's cover, but where to go?! You see the shadows; he's brought friends! In your adrenaline fueled panic your mind darts left and right and just that little twist of your attention triggers it and without even thinking about it you're running in four directions at once; you see four angles and four hidey-holes and you head for all of them and by now your reflexes are taking over and that adrenaline fuel pumping through you has just hit your brain and your muscles and tendons are bridge-taught steel cables as you quickly asses the situation from four angles and start returning fire.

 

These are the moments. Sure, truth and valor and public safety and giving back and looking out of the little guy-- they're all great. The people eat it up, and part of you really is content with that. That's what gets you through the slow times, searching databases and canvasing neighborhoods, but this-- there's nothing like it. Using your powers wide-open, the danger painfully thick in the air as your enemies try to kill you with each attack, nothing keeping you alive and whole but your wits, your reflexes, and all the energy you can pump out in a surge of physical effort that no normal is ever going to understand. That's why you do this, and you know it.

 

Way too soon, the battle is over. Your jaggy, twitchy as you come down. You know it's over, and it almost hurts. Nothing now but the shakes. They'll be here soon enough. Got a few minutes to take stock of the situation. You've won, but you knew that. It's not cockiness anymore: you're still here to lose the high, so you must have won. If you'd lost you'd be as dead as the rest of you. The shakes are coming-- that single thought gives them away. You're never maudlin when you're on the high.

 

It's true, though. You used to be cocky, because you knew you'd always win. That was before you lost. That was before the four of you saw one of you die, held yourself in your own arms and tried so hard to stop the bleeding. There was so much-- no one ever let on how horrifying it was. Two of you went for help while two of you did everything you could do to keep you alive. If only.... if only you weren't looking up at you as you died... if only you weren't-- well, you're not the only 'splitter in the world, but you're the only one you've ever heard of who splits a consciousness. You're the only one to hold yourself in your own arms as you died; you're the only one to watch you die in your own arms. Your the only one to look up at yourself, desperately hoping that somehow you could do something for yourself, the only one to feel those God-awful spasms as your lungs fought for the air that your blood-starved brain said wasn't coming......

 

 

You almost hate yourself. Sure; it was a long time ago, and you've learned lots of ways to cope with it. At least, that's what you tell yourself. It didn't take much therapy to realize that the only thing therapy teaches you is how to hide yourself, how to stop making the people around you feel like you needed help. Man, the knees are really going, aren't they? Someone should invent an adrenaline pill or something to help you taper off. Still the high wouldn't be as great if you didn't have the shakes to compare it to.

 

Time to focus. You turn to you and start walking, queuing up single-file as you walk back into yourself. Three, two--

your not looking at you. You're standing there, staring at you, but you don't see you back! What the Hell--? Oh, there you are. Must be the shakes. You're moving into you, but you're looking at your feet. As you take that first step back inside, you glance up at you and you glance back at the last copy just as you look up from your feet and take your cowl off and in that split instant before you step back inside yourself you see those cold dead eyes and the drawn and withered skin shrunk away from your teeth and HOLY GOD IT'S INSIDE ME....

 

 

That sort of thing. ;-)

 

Or maybe just laying there at your feet as the others run off. Whatever seems appropriate to the moment.

 

 

 Duke

[Duke Bushido]

Dude!

 

I think I've got a good one!

 

"Radiation Accident" leads to developing Danger Sense. Your perception of danger is your dead duplicate (obviously dead, mind you) standing toe-to-toe with you, staring lifelessly into your eyes.....

 

 

Yep.

 

Gonna have to do that one day....

 

 

 

 

 

Duke

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm another one. It really is the _rarest_ of rare things in my games; it's happened a tiny handful of times since I started playing Champions in '81 (82? I think it was '81). I will also freely admit that some of these times were at player or even group request-- usually to create a related plot-line or to tie into the history / plot line of another character. That notwithstanding, it has happened.

“The rarest of events” does not need a mechanic any more that story McGuffins do. A player or group requested power-down? That’s just another form of radiation accident.

 

To that end, I will freely mention that until we (well, two of the four groups and some of a third) had all had our turns running through one of the two copies of 5e the First I plunked down for, we had no "Independent." It was an assumed inclusion to "Accessible" as a focus limitation: someone could grab it and take it away from you. The earliest rules made no mention of getting it back automatically, so we followed the logic: "if it can be taken away from you, you can take it back." And so that's how we handled it: if someone took it, you didn't have it until you took it back-- if you could, of course.

I had a player make that error some years back. When I commented on how he had not used a certain power (a pretty minor one) in a while, I discovered his misconception. How does Hawkeye never get his bow back? This one seems pretty obvious to me, but that’s why 6e grew to the size it did, and why there are come clarifications missing from CC and other Complete products.

 

Stands to reason, though, with a lawyer writing the new rules. "Unclear language" and all that.

Steve clarified the rules. I’m surprised the Law Society has not disbarred him yet 

 

To be completely fair, though (it doesn't look like it on a message board post, but I've now had twenty minutes or so to consider it), you can't run with this analogy. As a periodic thing: saying "some powers carry more risk than others and the player needs to decide for himself" works, but treating it as an overall measure of success is really only possible if _every_ build has the possibility of a similar loss.

Agreed. I also find the theory that there is no Win besides more character power, and no Loss besides reduced character power, a sad kind of game. “You failed to stop the advance of the alien armada, which has now destroyed the Earth, but you all get 5 XP for the game sessions.” That is not even close to a win, at least in my books.

 

For that matter, a heroic and well role played death feels a WAY more like an RPG win, at least to me, than the character skulking off from the battlefield, fleeing to save his own skin, after making three consecutive Ego Rolls to overcome his Overconfident, Loyal to Teammates and Never Runs from a Fight psychologicals.

 

A bit OT, but you know in all the years I've played this game, I've _never_ been in or run a danger room scenario. I'd never thought about it until this thread. I understand it's purpose, but it doesn't seem to have any appeal at our Supers tables. Odd.

Comes back to my point that “winning” and “losing” is about campaign events, not a holographic training session, even one with XP.

 

 

Thank you. Rest assured (if it helps you to do so) that I very much believe that there is utility for points-lost builds, and am now curious to wonder what else might possibly work with such a limitation. I mean beyond Foci and such. Not that I have a desire to enforce it, but suppose a Player wanted it as a Limitation of some sort? Susceptible to X, lost Y points of Flight forever? Or for a year? Or Summon: one specific glass cannon? Multiform: can lose the ability to take this one particular form.

Susceptibility: Drain with extended recovery rate. A long enough recovery rate is the same as “forever”. As a complication/disadvantage, it also means you don’t increase character power as a consequence, as the price of the ability does not decrease. This much better fits the disad model – it’s a plot hook in that, even if the ability is never lost, the character always has to consider that (anyone recall Flare’s “ages twice as fast as a normal person”)?

 

Suppose Duplication-- the driving force of this thread-- ditched the "points lost" aspect of the current rules. What would be the value of a Limitation that retained that aspect?

If we buy in to the value of Independent and Charges never recover, I suggest -2 .

 

Although, since you can avoid Independent by guarding your focus carefully, and work hard to make your duplicate a paranoid coward to minimize risk of loss, maybe Charges Never Recover should carry an even greater limitation.

 

Even with the choice, shouldn't an Independent focus with 2 DEF and 2 BOD rate a higher limitation than one with 15 DEF and 30 BOD? Pretty sure I know which one will break in combat first...and how likely is it that a Duplicate will die? That should impact the value of either the possibility he will, or the advantage of buying off that possibility.

 

It's impossible to calculate, and it's impossible to calculate because it's very binary: either yes; it happens, or no; it doesn't.

The crux of the problem – either you have the massive power boost, or you have a power loss. No in between.

 

It would be interesting to cost out Duplication built with Summon – you need inherent loyalty, but you also don’t have to Summon them one at a time, for example. Building both Duplication and Summon out to remove the drawbacks they do not share would make either one pretty costly.

 

I do not feel that Hugh's views that points-lost is a bad thing is any less valid than my differing opinion.

I don’t know that it’s a “bad thing” so much as an “inconsistent thing”. You can take pretty much any ability you like with confidence it will be your character’s ability forever, but not Duplication. I see nothing so special about Duplication to justify this. It does not appear vastly overpowered in play, even if the Duplicates never die. Limiting access to any other power reduces its cost. But not this one.

 

If the belief is that a game with serious risk of losing abilities is a better game, then that should be built into the game mechanics, not added to just one, or a tiny handful.

[Duke Bushido]

I had a player make that error some years back. When I commented on how he had not used a certain power (a pretty minor one) in a while, I discovered his misconception.

We're going to disagree on this, simply because it's not an error.

 

From 2e, page 33:

 

[NOTE: I'm not really sure how "fair use" applies to a property this far out of date, but if anyone thinks this is "too much quote," let me know and I'll edit it out-- Duke]

 

 

Focus: This limitation represents a Power that works through some sort of device. Foci are defined as being either obvious or in obvious and either accessable [sic] or inaccessable [sic]. A Focus that cannot be removed without killing the character is not a Focus. The GM should keep in mind that a Focus is a Limitation, and should be stressed whenever appropriate.

 

An Obvious Focus is a device that an observer can tell is responsible for a character's ability to use a Power. An in obvious Focus is a device that allows a character to use a Power but does not let an observer know that the device is responsible. An accessable [sic] Focus is one which an opponent can remove or make useless in combat.

 

Normally, an accessable [sic] Focus can be removed with a Grab maneuver or easily incapacitated. An Inaccessable [sic] Focus is one which can only be removed or incapacitated given some time and work out of combat. The chart below lists the various types of Foci and the bonus.

 

 

[chart not included as it is not relevant to the interpretation of the play mechanics-- Duke]

 

 

A Focus is either defined as replaceable or unreplaceable [sic]. A device that the character could build again, given time and money, is replaceable. Replaceable Foci are breakable and have 1 BODY and 1 DEF for every 10 active points through the Focus (see Breaking Things). Foci that are not replaceable should not be breakable. Some examples of Foci :

 

Gun..................OAF

Wings................OAF

Powered Armor........OIF

Magic Amulet.........IIF

 

Some Foci can be obvious for one character and in obvious for another. If your Power Ring glows incredibly when you exert your Powers, and the beams come directly from the ring, then that is an obvious Focus. If your ring just sits there while you exert your Powers, then it is inobvious.

That's it. Other than some examples on the character sheets, there's nothing else.

 

There is the mention that accessible Foci can be taken away. There is no promise, suggestion, or even mention of the fact that the character is entitled to have it returned. The very next mention of Foci is page 54, under Grab:

 

Grab : A character who successfully executes a Grab maneuver can get hold of his opponent's acessable [sic] focus [sic], his costume, or even the opponent.

 

[this is the only mention of Focus; the rest of the entry details the Grab maneuver itself-- Duke]

 

Even in the section dedicated to weapons (pp 63-65), there is no further mention of Foci. Even the examples of "real world weapons" do not take any sort of Focus Limitation. In fact, they are little more than Killing Attacks with suggested "similar" builds in normal damage. Even the Glossary of Terms doesn't mention Foci.

 

There is absolutely _nothing_ anywhere in the rules set to suggest that a Character is at all entitled to the return of a lost Focus, nowhere.

 

Before moving on, I realize that such a thing exists _now_, and it exists _specifically_ because the newer rules created "Independent," which specifically tells us "this is how you lose a Focus." Prior to that, though-- wait; I'll say " editions 1, 2, and 3, because I just don't have time to read the entire BBB tonight. This isn't snarky: I'm perfectly willing to do it, as I may have missed something essential in there and never gone back to check), but I can say after having read 2 and three tonight to fact-check myself, that in these earliest rules sets the same "obviousness" to which you refer in just a bit has lead us to the logical conclusion that, in keeping as absolutely close to as possible to the letter of the rules (i.e., making no assumptions that aren't based directly on stated concepts in the rules) that an Accessible Focus could very certainly be taken away and that there was no promise to anyone anywhere that you would get it back. Allowing Characters to go hunt for it, or to fight to win it back was-- well, realistically, it's the job of the GM to build the world as his Players roam through it, and to provide the feedback from that world, but even then, allowing the Character to do so boils down to a _kindness_ on the part of the GM.

 

Now that sounds far more high-and-mighty than I want it to sound, so let me say this: I have at no time found anything in the rules that _prevent_ a Character from tracking down his missing Focus, and certainly a Player has every right to have his Character do anything that is... well, "in character," if you'll pardon the unavoidable pun. I clearly have no issues with that idea as I've been through that scenario several times over the years. However, there is also nothing that says the GM is _obligated_ to do it, so I find that-- while more interesting anyway, and certainly more rewarding to everyone involved, deciding to interpret the omission as consent is really best described as a "kindness" instead of a mandate.

 

[As before: too many quoted points; post continues below-- Duke]

[Duke Bushido]

So getting back to your original comment (if I may re-post it, as this reply has gotten long enough that it may require up-scrolling, and that can be irritating):

 

I had a player make that error some years back. When I commented on how he had not used a certain power (a pretty minor one) in a while, I discovered his misconception.

We will be in a state of agreement and simultaneous disagreement here. I _do_ believe that an error or misconception was made. I do not believe, however, that it was made by your player.

 

Now again: if 4e proves me wrong (I assume that was the edition you were playing under, as I'm under the impression that "Independent" did not appear until 5e; please correct me if you know where I am wrong there), then I will turn around and agree that your player made the mistake. If you were playing under earlier rules, however, I am afraid that I believe the mistake was yours, Hugh.

 

 

However, on a related note, this does show some evidence that "points lost" has been around since the very inception of the game. It doesn't change one's belief in it's utility or validity, but it does suggest that it was a core concept from the beginning.

 

 

 

How does Hawkeye never get his bow back? This one seems pretty obvious to me,

Of course it does.

 

I wish to preface this a bit of complete honesty, but as it betrays a very high opinion of you, I do _not_ wish it to be confused with sycophancy:

 

I haven't been back to this board for very long (and I've got to wean myself off of it again; it's eating up too much time! ), but since I've have been back, I've been involved in some really interesting discussion with some extremely well-versed people, and I have read even more than I've participated in. Of all the few that I have participated in, I have found myself scaling my appreciation of any interaction to how much I have enjoyed my interaction with you. I thoroughly enjoy your logic-before personal desire conversation attitude; I am extremely appreciative of your willingness to to expound or clarify on something my fourteen-hour work day has made me too addled or shot-out to grasp as easily as I should, and your willingness to carry even the most unresolvable set of viewpoints until everyone has either had their say, tested their own understandings, or agreed to disagree is not only second to no one on this board, but a rare and valuable selflessness that I find rapidly disappearing from simple conversation today. I find you to be extremely well-versed in the subject matter, and I suspect that you are an extremely intelligent person in general, not just as a measure of how practiced you are in your hobby of choice.

 

And it is with that in mind that I say I have no doubt that this was obvious to you, and that it was likely obvious to you as a bad example of your position when you posted it.

 

Hawkeye always has / gets back his bow for a number of reasons. The first one, just to stay with a comic book character for a bit (thanks, Wikipedia! It seems movie Hawkeye and comic book Hawkeye are radically different. Which is great, because movie Hawkeye is kind of irritating) is that he quests for his bow off-panel.

 

But I'm certain that bad example or not, that's not really a satisfactory answer, especially in light off the conversation. But there are at least two other ways that he gets it back:

 

1) He didn't take the "Accessible" (or "Independent") Limitation. Just because my bows (I'm not comic book good, but I do like target shooting with my daughter) can be taken away from _me_ does not mean that his bows can be taken away from him. The difference, of course, is _extremely_ Meta, but when everything is said and done, we are playing a game, and all the mechanics that make it work, even the Advantages and Limitations for the effects of those mechanics, _are_ Meta. But the rules are pretty straight-forward: if he didn't buy "Accessible," (or "Independent," depending on the edition you prefer), then his bow won't be taken away.

 

2) His bow is SFX, period. This is perfectly permissible. One is _never_ under an obligation to take a Limitation unless the GM says so. Just because so much of the example stuff out there for the game today is filled with min/max builds doesn't mean that they are _required_. Hell, I find some of them too tedious to even attempt. We didn't build Hawkeye, and we've never run Hawkeye, at least not the original one with the Player that conceived him. Hawkeye might be as simple as a multipower with a list of Ultras and the bow is merely his SFX. It's a perfectly legal, perfectly reasonable build: I want to build an archer, but I don't want him to always be letting down his teammates with snapped bowstrings and missing arrows.

 

Even the sample "real world" weapons in the text of the second edition, well after discussing Foci, didn't assign Focus Limitations to any of the samples. That was left for the GM and the Players to decide the appropriateness of, case by case.

 

 

But as I stated above, you knew that when you asked.

 

 

but that’s why 6e grew to the size it did,

Sure; I totally got that when I skimmed a copy of 6e. The thing that seems to get overlooked though (and one of the reasons that I have no interest in, well I'm not so much of a jerk as to refuse to call it "upgrading," at least not to an audience that believes the new edition to be an improvement) is the other side of clarification: just like "Independent" totally changed what "Accessible" meant, each and every "clarification" has a similar effect. Each time some new rule says "this and only this," or "never this and always that," then there are other changes that _must_ be inferred (as you said earlier, "obvious" ) to make that clarification work precisely as it says it must.

 

Honestly, that's why I drifted off the board the first time: 5e the Second was still fresh (ish) and 6e was getting more and more prevalent and to be completely honest, it just didn't feel like the game I loved anymore. Sure, some of the clarifications were interesting; I won't deny that. But it's the more subtle hidden effect those clarifications had that put me off of 6e. 5e is still good source material, but we use very, very little of it.

 

 

and why there are come clarifications missing from CC and other Complete products.

First, I _want_ Champions Complete. I think I would _prefer_ a version of the rules with less pixel-by-pixel rulings on our own images of the worlds we build. Second, BBB holds a very dear place to me, even if my players never went for it. There's a bit of nostalgia there, sure, and I should be ashamed of it, but hey-- it's not too much longer before I'm a coot anyway, and then I can pee in the front yard and nobody says anything, right?

 

 

 

Steve clarified the rules. I’m surprised the Law Society has not disbarred him yet

 

HA!

 

That's great! (I've got a lawyer-in-law; I'm going to have to figure some variants of that to have on tap when the occasion warrants. )

 

 

 

Susceptibility: Drain with extended recovery rate. A long enough recovery rate is the same as “forever”.

I'm not going to scroll back up to check at this point, but I think we've used this exact example as something analogous to "points gone," but no one seems to have an issue with this.

 

What's the difference here? I don't mean compared to Duplication, but to anything else that suggests you might lose points: Followers, Contacts, etc. And I know what the build difference is. I mean what's the difference in the willingness to accept it?

 

 

(anyone recall Flare’s “ages twice as fast as a normal person”)?

No, but if you'll tell me which book it was in, I might be able to refresh myself.

 

 

 

If we buy in to the value of Independent and Charges never recover, I suggest -2 .

See? I told you someone would do it.

 

It does bring up another angle, though:

 

Is it more in keeping with the rules to keep the pricing as-is, keep Duplicates alive, then reduce the book price by -2 for "Duplicates die and points are gone"?

 

Or is it more correct to leave Duplication as-is and charge a +2 Advantage for "Dead duplicates pop off to hammer space for a quick recovery?"

 

 

 

Although, since you can avoid Independent by guarding your focus carefully, and work hard to make your duplicate a paranoid coward to minimize risk of loss, maybe Charges Never Recover should carry an even greater limitation.

Then don't let the GM hear you, because your examples here suggest that since they're pretty easy to compensate for, we should get a lesser limitation.

 

Seriously though, if we're modeling "charges never recover," then we're back to my earlier entertainment with Charges of Duplication (which, by the way, don't have to be continuing charges unless your paying END to keep your dupes active.

 

 

Even with the choice, shouldn't an Independent focus with 2 DEF and 2 BOD rate a higher limitation than one with 15 DEF and 30 BOD?

I don't believe so, personally. As nothing in the rules prevents you from replacing a destroyed Focus (unless you took "Unique" [sorry; our group's shorthand for "not replaceable," but those Foci really shouldn't be breakable for several reasons). My point is that getting your Focus _broken_ isn't what "Independent" is all about. It's about losing it, forever and ever. If we can agree that this is the case, then value is based on getting it lost or stolen. How well-made it is doesn't really add into that beyond the possibility that a better-made item is a more tempting target for theft, I suppose.

 

Perhaps a reduced Limitation based on the size and weight of the Focus? It's easier to steal an amulet than it is to steal a cannon.

 

 

I'm going to leave this for tonight-- and possibly the next several. I've got family running from the hurricane, and I've still got some preparations to make.

 

 

As always, this has been positively cathartic, and thanks to all!

 

 

Duke

[Hugh Neilson]

We will be in a state of agreement and simultaneous disagreement here. I _do_ believe that an error or misconception was made. I do not believe, however, that it was made by your player.

In the incident I recall, which would have been 1e/2e (definitely pre- BBB, and we never went 3e), the Focus in question would have been replaceable (a la Hawkeye's bow) rather than irreplaceable (like Captain America's shield). It was a boomerang, which he had "lost" when a Teleporter Missile Deflected it. An irreplaceable focus would have had the potential to be non-recoverable.

 

I am pretty sure Independent first appeared in 4e, but not 100% certain. It may have showed up in Fantasy Hero earlier, as its first use was creation of magic items.

 

However, on a related note, this does show some evidence that "points lost" has been around since the very inception of the game. It doesn't change one's belief in it's utility or validity, but it does suggest that it was a core concept from the beginning.

I don't disagree that the potential may have been around from the beginning. That does not make it a core concept, rather than one, or a few, outlier rules. As well, the rules have evolved over time, so even a game that started with the view that a core concept is players competing for character points, gaining them with successes and losing them with failures, could evolve to a different conceptual framework. Certainly, the D&D model ("weaker at the start means more powerful at higher levels" transitioned to "balance at all stages of the game is desirable, if not achieved perfectly", or even "random stats - good luck" evolving to "point buy characteristics"] has changed over time. Their new editions (after 1e to 2e) are more like new games than new editions of the same game, an approach I would suggest they pioneered with the move from 2e to 3e.

 

As to Hawkeye? Sure, there can be various builds for his bow, much like there have been various interpretations of Powered Armor. However, it can be disabled easily with a Grab, and when he is taken prisoner, it is typically removed from his possession. It certainly behaves as an OAF. He has no difficulty recovering it because it has never been irreplaceable (whether such irreplaceability was defined by the Focus rules or the lack of an Independent limitation). We still have Breakable (and replaceable) and Unbreakable (not replaceable) foci. 6e still notes:

 

The GM should be careful with an Unbreakable Focus; if he destroys it, the character should have some way (a quest, perhaps?) to remake it. Of course, Unbreakable Foci can always be stolen, even if they can’t be destroyed.

The Focus limitation is a mandate for the GM to make those points unavailable for some periods in the campaign, at a minimum. Permanent point loss? Well, I reach back to the source material - how often does that happen?

 

Even when it does, we are back to a conundrum similar to Hawkeye's Bow - was that "permanent point loss" or a "radiation accident" where those points were repurposed, but not lost? In some cases, it was a more realistic version of "blending your focus into a milkshake and drinking it to make the powers innate".

 

Sure; I totally got that when I skimmed a copy of 6e. The thing that seems to get overlooked though (and one of the reasons that I have no interest in, well I'm not so much of a jerk as to refuse to call it "upgrading," at least not to an audience that believes the new edition to be an improvement) is the other side of clarification: just like "Independent" totally changed what "Accessible" meant, each and every "clarification" has a similar effect. Each time some new rule says "this and only this," or "never this and always that," then there are other changes that _must_ be inferred (as you said earlier, "obvious" ) to make that clarification work precisely as it says it must.

Whether something (in a rule book or legislation) is a "clarification" or a "radical change" depends a lot on how you interpreted it before. One example would be the "clarification" that the rules always intended a character with multiple attack powers be able to fire them together as a Combined Attack, and that the Linked limitation only meant that this was the only way to use the limited power, not the only way to combine multiple attacks. We've had posters in a position to know state that this was the intent of the original designers, the way they played it, and they never thought anyone else would interpret it differently, so the fact it was never spelled out didn't occur to them.

 

The Great Linked Wars clearly demonstrated that their expectation no one else would interpret the rules in a different manner was off base. To those who interpreted the rules as "the only way to combine two or more Attack Powers is the Linked Limitation", the Combined Attack rules didn't feel like "just a clarification".

 

What's the difference here? [HN COMMENT: between a long-term Drain as a susceptibility and something like Independent] I don't mean compared to Duplication, but to anything else that suggests you might lose points: Followers, Contacts, etc. And I know what the build difference is. I mean what's the difference in the willingness to accept it?

First, unlike Duplication, and much more like an Unbreakable Focus, it was a choice the player made, not one imposed by rules or GM. Second, the difference is, at least to some extent, in the mechanics. At the extreme, if all of your powers and abilities are Independent, you get 3x as many character points to work with (all other things being equal; regardless, a lot more character points) than the other players' characters, with the potential to have a lot less character points in the future. A Complication/Disadvantage means you get the same points as other characters, and a role playing issue to deal with that provides plot hooks rather than a binary "overpowered/underpowered" mechanic.

 

It's a bit similar to the Daredevil Conundrum. The character spends 40 points on special senses to replace sight, then gets, say, a 25 point Disadvantage for Blind. His extra abilities are really only worth the 15 point spread, but he has 40 less points to spend than the other characters. The 6e solution was to make Sight a sellback.

 

One possible approach suggested for Disadvantages/complications has been that those elements which make the power less effective whenever used should be Limitations, and those that provide plot hooks, like sometimes being unavailable, should be Disad's/Complications. I think Mutants and Masterminds is closer to that model.

 

No, but if you'll tell me which book it was in, I might be able to refresh myself.

Her w/u in the Champions comic, IIRC. The note was made that it acts more like a Psych, as the game doesn't run long enough to make this an issue, but it does motivate her to seek out possible cures.

 

 

Is it more in keeping with the rules to keep the pricing as-is, keep Duplicates alive, then reduce the book price by -2 for "Duplicates die and points are gone"?

 

Or is it more correct to leave Duplication as-is and charge a +2 Advantage for "Dead duplicates pop off to hammer space for a quick recovery?"

My gut feel is the former, only because I have never seen Duplication appear vastly overpowered for its present cost. As indicated previously, it would be great to compare a "All duplicates appear and recombine at once" build with a "highly amicable Summoned beings" build; that is, building say Duplicates to the same mechanical ability using Duplication and Summon to see how the costs compare. If they were identical (fat chance!) built either way then, since Summoned beings aren't permanently lost if killed, Duplicates should not be either. If the Summon build costs markedly more, there must be an inherent limitation buried in the price of Duplication.

 

Nothing stress tests the pricing model quite like building the exact same mechanical ability in more than one way.

 

Seriously though, if we're modeling "charges never recover," then we're back to my earlier entertainment with Charges of Duplication (which, by the way, don't have to be continuing charges unless your paying END to keep your dupes active.

Later editions "clarify" that 1 charge lasts 1 phase, absent the Continuing Charges modifier to extent that duration. Makes sense - why should

 

- 4 charges of +10/+10 Force Field, Continuing for 5 minutes each, carry no limitation, so cost 20 points [that's 20 AP, 4 charges moved 4 steps down the time chart for Continuous = -0], but

 

- 1 charge of +10/+10 Armor last for the whole day and get you a -2 limitation, so cost 10 points [30 AP/3 for the -2 "one charge" limitation]?

 

To the "stolen or broken" question, both mean you don't have the points.

 

One more issue: if OAF means "anyone else can take it and it is lost to you forever", why don't I get to keep, and use, my defeated opponents' foci? Independent made the points transferable, as much as susceptible to permanent loss.

[rravenwood]

I am pretty sure Independent first appeared in 4e, but not 100% certain. It may have showed up in Fantasy Hero earlier, as its first use was creation of magic items.

 

Yep, Independent first appeared in the original Fantasy Hero, later being included in the 4th edition ruleset.

[Tech]

What's being discussed is no longer the power 'Duplication' but the gameplay style of GM/players. Some GMs like gritty "Your character is dead, bud!", some (like myself) don't. I'm a little casual when it comes to power designs. I've always found the "your duplicate is dead and you lose points" grating me. As someone previously mentioned, you lose your OAF gun, you find another (sometimes the next phase, depending on the scenario). I've done the rules-lawyer thing and found it turns out to be "you vs me/GM vs player" mentality, so I play fast and loose with the rules. Having a fun time with friends is the most important thing in a game, not how the rules interfered. Yes, obey the rules, but not to the exclusion of bothering the players.

 

That said: Doc Democracy, your suggestions for a "duplicating" person defined simply as power is brilliant. I rather like the +50 body power.

[Duke Bushido]

Hugh et al:

 

This has been wonderful, and I am telling the absolute truth when I tell you that I would _love_ to continue this, particularly with all the new points being made.

 

However, I must bow out: I've got eight house guests for an indeterminate length of time (depending on if their homes survive the hurricane), and it's unthinkable that I sit here and hog up a currently valuable-beyond-measure private space.

 

Before leaving, though, I'd like to second the suggestion that someone compare the Duplication build to Summon. I also would like to ask if I am wrong in remembering that Summon _does_ have the "one particular individual" option. If I am not wrong, then what happens when that individual is killed? Does Summon lay it out explicitly, or is it a possible points-gone scenario as well?

 

On the Linked comments (I really had no idea there was a "Linked War" and have no interest in starting another one), but I don't think either position presented is completely valid. I don't know if I'm holding a third one, but I recall a specific line of text with Linked that stated quite specifically that Linked wasn't joining two powers, but rather creating a third completely new one (hence my irritation with the poisoned knife example that has become the norm for Linked). Given that bit of text, I would have to say that it's the only way either power could be used, simply because the rules specify that you're not using either power, but using the mechanics of both to simulate a third.

 

I know-- I'm probably quite in the majority there, too.

 

 

And yes: rules editions change and evolve. I can like it or lump it. Fortunately, there's a third option there, too: I can stay back here in the old stuff.

 

 

And specifically for Hugh: You can say "Complication." I know what it means in the new book. I refuse to use it personally for a pretty straight-forward reason:

 

HERO is not GURPS. HERO was here first, way, way, _way_ before GURPS. HERO, in my own opinion is far superior to GURPS. GURPS chose "complications," I assume, to distance themselves from HERO or to ingratiate themselves with players of some other system that might have already called it complications (I don't know, but I read Knights of the Dinner Table now and again, and they say it, too). It rankles me no end to see the game that I love-- the _innovator_ of so much of what modern games have eventually adopted, decide to give up its heritage and copy a term from what I can't help buy feel is an inferior imitation. That's why _I_ don't do it. But I totally understand it when you say it. While much appreciated, the "disadvantages/complications" is a lot of extra typing you don't have to do.

 

 

What's being discussed is no longer the power 'Duplication' but the gameplay style of GM/players.

To be fair, we are discussing, at this point, what does and does not support the idea that the dead duplicates mandate is somehow "out of kilter" with the rest of the game, and whether or not it's something that was well-thought out or hastily added. In short, we're discussing the validity of the concept and what does and does not, from the rules, support it. It's not so much GM style. For example, I think it belongs there because it's always been there, it's pretty cut-and-dried, and Duplication (if I recall) has even become cheaper over the years (or is it still 1/3 cp per copy?), which seems to me almost to be--

 

never mind. as stated, as much as I would love to, I now longer have the time to continue on as part of this discussion, and I will miss it fiercely.

 

Some GMs like gritty "Your character is dead, bud!", some (like myself) don't. I'm a little casual when it comes to power designs. I've always found the "your duplicate is dead and you lose points" grating me. As someone previously mentioned, you lose your OAF gun, you find another (sometimes the next phase, depending on the scenario). I've done the rules-lawyer thing and found it turns out to be "you vs me/GM vs player" mentality, so I play fast and loose with the rules. Having a fun time with friends is the most important thing in a game, not how the rules interfered. Yes, obey the rules, but not to the exclusion of bothering the players.

 

 

That said: Doc Democracy, your suggestions for a "duplicating" person defined simply as power is brilliant. I rather like the +50 body power.

This was, once upon a time, the only way there was to do duplication. Duplication the power was added to the rules some years after the first edition and first publishing of the second edition (but before the second publishing of the second edition). And even then, given that the cost of duplication was "add up the AP total of all your duplicates. Divide by three. That's the cost of Duplication," it was still the most popular way to do Duplication for many years.

 

For various reasons, there were similar "simulate a non-existent power" or "better-simulate the power I have in mind." They are works of ingenuity and quite often stunning brilliance.

 

In this case, for example, it's _still_ the best method of modeling Duplication, simply because it's more accurate to the general trends of the source material: Hordes of duplicates, popping up all over the place, even at distance from the character, being used as ablative bullet resistance, then popping back off to hammer space for the next go round (this would be the ideal build for the inhumanly-sadistic Naruto, for example). It lest you pop in and pop out as many or as few duplicates as you wish, any time you want, without regard for tracking their stats or (most importantly) eating up the other player's turn at the gate. The only thing this build really doesn't let you do is be in two distinct places at once, but some Clairsentience and properly-advantaged TK can handle the bulk of that, too.

 

 

And, in what seems to be a _highly_ desirable bit, they never, ever, ever die.

 

 

No matter how many times you kill them.

 

 

 

Seriously; I've got to go.

 

 

It's been an absolute blast, folks!

 

 

 

Duke

[Hugh Neilson]

However, I must bow out: I've got eight house guests for an indeterminate length of time (depending on if their homes survive the hurricane), and it's unthinkable that I sit here and hog up a currently valuable-beyond-measure private space.

thread necromancy is not forbidden - we all come back when we can, and you have more important issues to occupy your time.

 

Before leaving, though, I'd like to second the suggestion that someone compare the Duplication build to Summon. I also would like to ask if I am wrong in remembering that Summon _does_ have the "one particular individual" option. If I am not wrong, then what happens when that individual is killed? Does Summon lay it out explicitly, or is it a possible points-gone scenario as well?

We had an extensive discussion on that modifier some time back, though not on that particular aspect. It was on the appropriateness of a +1 advantage for NOT being able to Summon a live, uninjured version of whatever I summon if the summoned being was badly injured/killed last time I used the power.

 

Seems to me we also used to use Summon for Raising the Dead, back in the day...

 

I don't know if I'm holding a third one, but I recall a specific line of text with Linked that stated quite specifically that Linked wasn't joining two powers, but rather creating a third completely new one (hence my irritation with the poisoned knife example that has become the norm for Linked). Given that bit of text, I would have to say that it's the only way either power could be used, simply because the rules specify that you're not using either power, but using the mechanics of both to simulate a third.

Once you applied the Linked limitation (to both powers - it has now been "clarified" that you could apply it to one and not the other so, for example, you can use your Lightning Blast without the Sight Flash, but since the Sight Flash is linked to Lightning Blast, you can only use the Flash in conjunction with the Blast.

 

The issue was whether a character who had both the Blast and the Flash, paid for outside any restrictive framework, could use both as a single attack. One argument was "no, you can do that only if they are linked". The other, apparently the intent of the original authors, was "No, limitations restrict and do not enhance [not always true until Charges stop picking up 0 END for free...] - if you paid for two attacks, you can use both at the same time".

 

And yes: rules editions change and evolve. I can like it or lump it. Fortunately, there's a third option there, too: I can stay back here in the old stuff.

One that does not seem to change is "use what you like, modify it to suit, ditch what doesn't work for you". By that measure, we're all playing all editions.

 

To the question of "complications", I don't think Hero should shy away from any innovation, with or without comparisons to other systems. I buy into the reasoning for the name change - "disadvantage" suggests "bad thing - you should chafe at your GM forcing you to have them, and work to minimize their impact". "Complication" suggests "adds another layer - you should take them because you want them to come up in play and challenge you and your character, but buy into them". An Overconfident Disadvantage suggests arguing you're not THAT overconfident, and making routine EGO checks to avoid the down sides. A Complication suggests running with it, as one player did in our games way back...

 

GM "The unknown villain raises his hands and..what's your DCV?"

 

PLAYER: "4"

 

PlAYER 2: "FOUR??? What's your DEX?"

 

PLAYER: "23. But why would I make any effort to get out of his way? He's just some nobody I've never heard of, and certainly no threat to the mighty Stonewall. 4 DCV."

 

The same character challenged Firewing to a dues, one on one. Lasted almost a turn when, in Phase 12, he said "I can keep going for a bit if I get to post-segment 12, but if he hits me, I'm, down. Do you think an EGO roll at -3 would be enough for Stonewall to Dodge, just this once?" No one else at the table would have made him roll at all. He rolled. He Dodged. We remember it decades later.

 

Had "I'll just dodge", with or without an EGO roll to avoid the disadvantage, been the norm, it would not have been memorable. But it had player buy-in - a complication, not a disadvantage. So I endorse the renaming. It also doesn't hurt that, intuitively, a Disadvantage is the opposite of an Advantage, so it's better suited as a name for Limitations, but I don't want to change Limitations.