When Is A Limitation Not A Limitation?

[Armory]

I'd love for the community to weigh in on an argument I just had with a player.

 

The character in question is a person possessed by a witch.  The player has selected the Limitation, "Half Active Points During the Day" on most of the powers.

 

He claims that refusing to play the character during daytime scenarios is a valid application of that Limitation, that the character is limited by only playing at night.

 

I call BS by pointing to the rulebook which says that a Limitation that the character/player can choose to avoid isn't limiting, and thus worth no points.  I say his interpretation effectively places the limitation on the player, not the character.

 

I'm curious as to the consensus of the fine folks on this forum.

 

Thank you,

-Tony

[massey]

Depends how the game is run. You're the GM, you determine when the adventures take place. If you roll over and allow all the adventures to take place at night, then it's not worth any points. If there are adventures in the daytime, and the player sits there griping because his character can't show up, then it is a limitation. But it sounds like it won't make for a happy player.

[DasBroot]

Definitely.  And the point value of the limitation should also determine how often the GM sets an adventure 'during the day'.  If they took it as a -1, for example, they have no cause to complain if they're at half point value for literally half of the adventures.  On the other hand if they took it as a -1/4 they would be fully justified in being upset at that.

 

Time or environmental specific limitations are tricky to adjudicate for that very reason, however - if the current adventure takes place during the day, for example, but runs three or four sessions during the same 'day' without noticeable time passing between scenes then even the -1 guy SHOULD be a little upset.  Even if every other adventure to date had been run at night: balance wise that's fine - it's finally come up to bite him for once - but it's not a political or fun decision.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Yup - I like to tell players that their choice of limitation value is them setting the frequency with which the limitation will come up. You want a high limitation, you take a high restriction. "Binary limitations" like this can be frustrating for everyone - the character is overpowered at night and underpowered during the day, never aligning with his teammates.

[steriaca]

Don't forget that a battle can start out in the evening and stretch out into the early morning. So playing the night guy at night does not mean he won't be caught in daylight.

 

Bring that up and ask if he wants to rewrite the character to remove that Limitation.

[InfiniteKarma]

In any balanced game (where DC and CV/defense is supposed to be within certain maximums and minimums), I'd probably disallow that limitation completely.

 

A "witch blast" that deals 12d6 normal damage might be effective and balanced at night, but 6d6 might be completely ineffective versus campaign average defenses.

 

I might argue that a 25% reduction in active points is closer to a 50% reduction in effectiveness, to actually make the character playable. The FX being "half as powerful during the day" doesn't mean that maps as a 1-to-1 direct reduction in points.

[Chris Goodwin]

That literal situation right there is one of the classic "GM watch out for this" examples in many of the books.  It's similar to taking "Power Does Not Work Outside The US" in a game that takes place only in the US.  

 

The GM is perfectly justified in saying no, and in requiring the player to play a character that can work with the other characters.  Please note that this is not in any way a character issue; this is the player insisting that the GM cater his game to that player's special snowflake character.  Imagine if all of the Justice League's adventures happened underwater because Aquaman.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I like to tell players that their choice of limitation value is them setting the frequency with which the limitation will come up.

 

 

When I was running Champions, I tried to tailor how often the limitation would come up to the adventures: a -1 would come up at least once an adventure, for instance.  It didn't always work out but it seemed like a good rule of thumb.  Some concepts work less reliably than others like the original idea; interesting concept, but how will you realistically play it?

[DasBroot]

 Some concepts work less reliably than others like the original idea; interesting concept, but how will you realistically play it?

 

I'd find a way to make the powers work during the day but be harder to use - like Extra Endurance (which I think actually has a 'doesn't apply in this situation' modifier.  So x2 or x3 endurance, doesn't apply at night.  Suddenly you're able to contribute during the day but you're at your best when the sun's gone down.

 

I think side effect might have a similar modifier as well.  Don't have access to my books or the builder.

 

Or perhaps recoverable charges which recover in special situations (at night).  You have 8 blasts you can use an encounter in the evening, no problem, since they recover afterwards, but only 8 blasts you can use in the entire *day* before the sun goes down - make them count.

[dsatow]

Personally, I never look at a player's character sheet when designing adventures.  They take place in an area suitable to the story.  A break in at a museum does not happen in the middle of the day.  So I would allow the character to buy the power with the limitation and I would stress the high point values.  Of course, if the combat happens during the day and his character is not there, then he earns no xp for that combat.  And while I would give out catch up xp for people who can't make games due to real life, I won't for a character that is missing play solely due to an unplayable concept or min/maxing after being warned.

 

On a side note, I had an experience near like this.  I had a character, a flying brick.  I ask the three GMs what not vs magic was on defenses.  Basically, like Superman, magic had an effect as if the character were a normal human.  All three GMs said -1/4.  Now here's where it get interesting and I found out for the next 30+ games where magic hit the character.

1. One GM said -1/4 because less than a quarter of his villains were magic based.  Unfortunately, every team of villains had at least one magic villain.
2. Another GM had only figured about a quarter of his games would be about magic.  Unfortunately, the first arc of 5-10 games were in a magical realm.
3. The final GM really had only a few magic villains and most of the games were in the "real world".  Unfortunately, he only GM'd once every 10 games or so.

[massey]

 

Personally, I never look at a player's character sheet when designing adventures.  They take place in an area suitable to the story.  A break in at a museum does not happen in the middle of the day.  So I would allow the character to buy the power with the limitation and I would stress the high point values.  Of course, if the combat happens during the day and his character is not there, then he earns no xp for that combat.  And while I would give out catch up xp for people who can't make games due to real life, I won't for a character that is missing play solely due to an unplayable concept or min/maxing after being warned.

 

On a side note, I had an experience near like this.  I had a character, a flying brick.  I ask the three GMs what not vs magic was on defenses.  Basically, like Superman, magic had an effect as if the character were a normal human.  All three GMs said -1/4.  Now here's where it get interesting and I found out for the next 30+ games where magic hit the character.

1. One GM said -1/4 because less than a quarter of his villains were magic based.  Unfortunately, every team of villains had at least one magic villain.
2. Another GM had only figured about a quarter of his games would be about magic.  Unfortunately, the first arc of 5-10 games were in a magical realm.
3. The final GM really had only a few magic villains and most of the games were in the "real world".  Unfortunately, he only GM'd once every 10 games or so.

 

 

As I see it, there are really two types of limitation.  Value has to be assessed according to which of the two categories it falls into.

 

The first category is a limitation that always affects the character to some degree, but where the effect is something you can predict and plan for.  Your main attack is a light blast that has No Knockback on it for -1/4.  It always affects you, but you know that you aren't going to blast anyone backwards with your attack, so you can live with it.  Or your light blast has x2 Endurance for -1/2.  You know that you'll fire it a little less frequently than you would otherwise, but it's still always there if you need it.

 

The second category is a limitation that affects you infrequently, but has a more severe effect when it does happen.  This is like Not vs Magic, OIF, Activation Roll, etc.  They have the ability to stop working at just the wrong times.  When these limitations come up, you can be in serious trouble.

 

The first category should generally be worth less than the second category.  The second doesn't have to come up nearly as often to justify the same limitation value because it has more serious consequences.

 

 

Actually, let's go further than that.  I think you should consider the following things when assigning a limitation value:

 

1--Is this likely to come up during gameplay?  (If "no", it's probably not a limitation, but see the next question)

2--Is this likely to come up in the game world?  (if "yes", then it may still be a limitation, but it should be much smaller than normal)

3--Is this something that the character can work around with clever thinking?  (If "yes", then it should be worth less)

4--Is this something a normal enemy can intentionally activate?  (If "yes", then it should be worth more)

5--How predictable is the limitation/how much notice does the character have? (the easier it is to blindside you with it, the more it's worth)

6--How disadvantaged is the character when the limitation is activated?  (the worse off you are, the more it's worth)

7--How quickly can this be recovered from?  (the longer it takes, the more it's worth)

 

Let's look at some examples.

 

1.  Captain Werewolf has powers with the limitation "only during the full moon".  That would normally be a really hefty limitation, but since he took it on all of his powers, and he has absolutely no intention of playing the character during the non-full moon times, it is significantly less limiting.  Effectively the character ceases to exist during the rest of the month, appearing only when his powers can be used.  If every game session takes place on the full moon, then it's not really a limitation, is it?

2.  Except... if the game world continues on in his absence, it could still be worth something.  Good old Harry Talbot, Captain Werewolf's secret identity, doesn't even realize he's a monster.  He just sort of goes about his business between adventures.  But during this time, Captain Werewolf's enemies can do things that might worsen his situation.  Next session they might have silver bullets.  They've had a month, after all.  The GM may decide to run a "capture Harry Talbot" adventure instead of sticking to the monthly sessions.  

 

(You can also see a good example of these two aspects with very long Extra Time limitations.  If it takes you a month to cast the ritual, that's incredibly limiting.  Except virtually all of that time will be spent offscreen.  At best someone is going to show up at the very end of the ritual to try and stop you, but for most of the time nothing happens except the GM says "okay, a month passes..."  As a result, the limitation value is tied to the time chart, where the time increases by a lot and the limitation increases by only a little.)

 

3.  Green Lantern's power ring doesn't affect the color yellow.  If a school bus is plunging off a bridge to its doom, those kids are in trouble if GL is the only one around.  But if he can create a ramp that the bus' (very non-yellow) tires can rest on, then the limitation doesn't really come into play.  When Sinestro opens fire with his beams of yellow energy, can GL grab a red train car and use it to parry the blast?  If so, it's worth less.  Now, thinking your way around a situation is decent roleplaying, and should be encouraged.  But if the limitations on your powers are too easy to get around ("I use Plan Alpha One to get around my limitations, now I'm ready for Phase 12..."), then it's probably not worth too much.

 

4.  The Martian Manhunter is vulnerable to fire.  While most characters have powers other than fire, it's a good bet that any given villain team can get access to some sort of fire attack, particularly if they know they'll be facing J'onn J'onnz.  Moreover, it's really easy to start fires.  Any 5 year old can disobey his parents, play with the stove, and he's got fire.  That's a lot easier than stealing that chunk of meteorite from Addis Ababa.  Likewise, characters with foci or "does not work vs magic" limitations should generally get a higher value than its naturally occurring frequency would indicate.

 

5.  Many of Dracula's powers only work at night.  That's okay for him, though, because he knows they only work at night and he can prepare for it.  When it gets close to daytime, Drac high-tails it.  While he's out of commission half the time, he knows it's about it and unless it's a "Dracula dies at the end" kind of story, he won't be caught off guard by it in the middle of combat.  Instead he'll just have to leave and come back later.  An activation roll, on the other hand, could bite you at any time (heh heh).

 

6.  But the effects of Dracula's limitation are actually pretty stout when they come up.  He goes from kicking around a party of vampire hunters, down to about the abilities of a normal man.  That's a big time effect in the relatively rare event that it actually comes up.

 

7.  Captain America is in a battle and he gets disarmed.  He throws his shield and someone manages to deflect it, knocking it over there somewhere.  All Cap has to do to recover his shield is to run over there and grab it.  Iron Man, on the other hand, has to generally go somewhere far away to get a new suit (though movie Iron Man circumvents this a lot with suits that come to him).  Cap will have his focus back on basically his next action.  Iron Man is going to have to go all the way across town if his suit is broken.

 

I think these guidelines should be helpful when trying to assess the value of a proposed limitation that you haven't really seen before.

[Chris Goodwin]

1. One GM said -1/4 because less than a quarter of his villains were magic based.  Unfortunately, every team of villains had at least one magic villain.
2. Another GM had only figured about a quarter of his games would be about magic.  Unfortunately, the first arc of 5-10 games were in a magical realm.
3. The final GM really had only a few magic villains and most of the games were in the "real world".  Unfortunately, he only GM'd once every 10 games or so.

 

I'd be willing to go the other way on this as well.  If it turns out that the Limitation is more limiting than the player thought it would be, I don't mind letting them increase the Limitation value, and would most likely let them take the points back to spend elsewhere.

[Cantriped]

The character in question is a person possessed by a witch.  The player has selected the Limitation, "Half Active Points During the Day" on most of the powers.

 

He claims that refusing to play the character during daytime scenarios is a valid application of that Limitation, that the character is limited by only playing at night.

 

In my opinion that isn't a valid limitation if the player chooses (and the GM allows the player to) not play that character during the day. Because by doing so, the character is never actually limited by the modifier; instead the rest of the table is being limited by the modifier, which is neither fair, nor what modifiers are intended to do.

As the GM, only you have the right to set the stage. The player doesn't get to choose when crimes happen. It is entirely within your rights to have the player's character be held hostage by VIPER during a day-time bank-heist. Likewise, it is within their rights to refuse to use their powers, because they are in their public ID or because they will be ineffective... but they don't get to say they weren't there just because it wasn't an ideal situation.

[doccowie]

Agree with above.

Not a fun limitation - the character is either overpowered or useless in a predictable manner, and if the player's solution is that he will miss the majority of games and only come to the ones where he is overpowered then that defeats the whole purpose of getting together with your friends to game.

 

Knowing that, he is hoping to bypass this by either running a different character ("Hey, I have two characters, but I'll only play one at a time. By the way, one has most of his powers -1 Not During January-June, the other -1 Only During January-June"), or by using social pressure to encourage you not to run daytime scenarios ("Really? ANOTHER daytime scenario? We had one two weeks ago? Fine, I'll be over here on my phone, give me a shout when it's night time. Jeez, it's like you don't WANT me to play.")

 

The underlying job of running and playing in the game is to create enjoyment. Gamers using the Hero system tend to believe that balanced characters are part of the enjoyment. Limitations allow greater power/flexibility in exchange for some loss of power/flexibility.

But all limitations must be subservient to "Will this character be fun for you to play with us, and everyone else to play with?"

 

Having said that, the suggestions on modifying the idea are good. Having an extra 2d6 damage, or making your attacks half END, or having a couple of multipower slots that only work at night is a fun quirk, as long as you still enjoy playing the character during the day.

[Hugh Neilson]

That literal situation right there is one of the classic "GM watch out for this" examples in many of the books.  It's similar to taking "Power Does Not Work Outside The US" in a game that takes place only in the US.

In my view, it's more akin to taking "Power Does Not Work Outside The US" and then moaning when the scenario requires a trip to Canada or Europe.

 

Personally, I never look at a player's character sheet when designing adventures.  They take place in an area suitable to the story.  A break in at a museum does not happen in the middle of the day.  So I would allow the character to buy the power with the limitation and I would stress the high point values.  Of course, if the combat happens during the day and his character is not there, then he earns no xp for that combat.  And while I would give out catch up xp for people who can't make games due to real life, I won't for a character that is missing play solely due to an unplayable concept or min/maxing after being warned.

This is basically the same - you are getting a -1 limitation because, roughly half the time, that limitation will apply. The character will not disappear at sunrise, only to reappear at night, with nothing happening in the meantime. Quite the contrary, as the character's weakness becomes known, her enemies will plan their activity to take place as close to High Noon as possible, each and every time. Just like your character, when given the opportunity to plan the timing of an encounter, will ensure it takes place at night.

 

On a side note, I had an experience near like this.  I had a character, a flying brick.  I ask the three GMs what not vs magic was on defenses.  Basically, like Superman, magic had an effect as if the character were a normal human.  All three GMs said -1/4.  Now here's where it get interesting and I found out for the next 30+ games where magic hit the character.

• One GM said -1/4 because less than a quarter of his villains were magic based.  Unfortunately, every team of villains had at least one magic villain.

 

That works for me, at least to some extent. It is up to you to play around the weakness and focus on non-magic villains, your teammates to work with you to cover this weakness, and your opponents to try to exploit your weaknesses.

 

 

• Another GM had only figured about a quarter of his games would be about magic.  Unfortunately, the first arc of 5-10 games were in a magical realm.

 

Timing sucks. But if there is then no magic for 20 - 40 games, the limitation only came up about 20% of the time, and you saved 20% of the points.

 

 

• The final GM really had only a few magic villains and most of the games were in the "real world".  Unfortunately, he only GM'd once every 10 games or so.

 

Is the limitation even coming up enough to make it worth -1/4 in this case?

 

Taking a step back, this limitation basically says "my character will be taken out of the fight by any magical attack. By taking this as a limitation, I expect to be taken out of the fight on occasion. By taking it at a low level, I expect this to be fairly rare".

 

I often look at Activation Roll as my litmus test in assessing situational limitations. A 14- activation roll is a -1/2 limitation. If I put that on my defenses, there is a 9.26% chance that each attack which hits me will bypass those defenses. There is absolutely nothing I can do to predict when those defenses will be unavailable, or to mitigate the likelihood my defenses fail.

 

With that in mind, if you want a -1/2, instead of -1/4, limitation for "not vs magic", I expect Magic to be in play a lot more than 10% of the time - 10% of the attacks that hit you, and would be stopped by that defense, should be magical. That should take into account the reality that you and your teammates will try to steer combat towards you fighting the non-magical opponents, you will likely try to Block and Dodge magical attacks, allocate skill levels to DCV, etc. and take other steps to minimize your exposure to magical attacks.

 

I'd be willing to go the other way on this as well.  If it turns out that the Limitation is more limiting than the player thought it would be, I don't mind letting them increase the Limitation value, and would most likely let them take the points back to spend elsewhere.

This as well. I find the limitations going the other way are often vastly underpriced. "Only vs Magical attacks" is not often a -1/2 limitation - paying 2/3 of the cost of those defenses is unreasonably high in most games. It also implies that "not vs magical attacks" should be a -2 limitation, since that accounts for the remaining 1/3 of the cost of defenses that apply against both magical and non-magical attacks.

 

If I think "not vs magic" merits a -1/4 limitation, clearly "only vs magic" should be at least a -2 limitation.

 

I like the answer of making the Witch a bit more powerful at night, and a bit less in the day. Maybe in a 12 DC game, that means I let her have a 10d6 Blast, +3d6 only at night. You aren't as effective in the day, hitting for 7 less STUN than the average character, but at night you get an extra 3.5 STUN past defenses compared to other characters. Not crippling or crushing, but limited.

[Armory]

Great replies, thanks everybody for weighing in.  I think we're going to rework the character with a couple of extra DCs at night.  That looks like it will work much better for everybody.