Limitations: There should be only one!

[RDU Neil]

I'm sure this has come up before, but I couldn't find any threads devoted to it, so I thought I'd just see what people think.

 

Premise/Thesis:

 

There is only one limitation: Limited Power.  Every other Limitation is simply a version of this, so instead of all of them, have one Limitation that goes from -1/4 (very slightly limited) to -2 (only usable in rare circumstances)  (-1 is "about half the time, the power doesn't work when you want it to). Nice, easy sliding scale.

 

Would it be easier and more balanced to simply have one limitation (a single thing or a combination of things) that shape the way a power manifests in the game?

 

example: Instead of buying "Focus" and "Charges" and "Beam Weapon" and etc., etc. to make a gun-like power... why not simply "Limited Power: Laser-Gun!"  and then assign a Limited Power to it that fits the player/GMs feelings on how limited it is. -1/4 and Gun Gal! can use her gun unless completely bound/captured... -1 regularly dropped, disarmed, runs out of charges, whatever... -2 cosmic nullifier gun, only usable against TALLMANINPURPLESHORTS!, whatever.

 

Seems much easier, and fits the goal of a power working in "dramatically appropriate ways" rather than playing the reverse engineering/micro-detail version... where you can deconstruct something ad infinitum and is either a pointless intellectual exercise, or someone trying to max point savings.

 

You could even have most of the list of current Limitations as "Examples" for comparison... but the idea of needing to stack together a bunch of them is not correct. Any 'combination' of limitations is grouped into its own single limitation, with a value that reflects how the player wants it to come about IN PLAY.

 

(This comes out of playtesting Champions Now as well as the Density Increase discussion, etc. Limitations as a guide to play, not as a point saving mechanic.)

Thoughts?

[archer]

14 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

I'm sure this has come up before, but I couldn't find any threads devoted to it, so I thought I'd just see what people think.

 

Premise/Thesis:

 

There is only one limitation: Limited Power.  Every other Limitation is simply a version of this, so instead of all of them, have one Limitation that goes from -1/4 (very slightly limited) to -2 (only usable in rare circumstances)  (-1 is "about half the time, the power doesn't work when you want it to). Nice, easy sliding scale.

 

Would it be easier and more balanced to simply have one limitation (a single thing or a combination of things) that shape the way a power manifests in the game?

 

example: Instead of buying "Focus" and "Charges" and "Beam Weapon" and etc., etc. to make a gun-like power... why not simply "Limited Power: Laser-Gun!"  and then assign a Limited Power to it that fits the player/GMs feelings on how limited it is. -1/4 and Gun Gal! can use her gun unless completely bound/captured... -1 regularly dropped, disarmed, runs out of charges, whatever... -2 cosmic nullifier gun, only usable against TALLMANINPURPLESHORTS!, whatever.

 

Seems much easier, and fits the goal of a power working in "dramatically appropriate ways" rather than playing the reverse engineering/micro-detail version... where you can deconstruct something ad infinitum and is either a pointless intellectual exercise, or someone trying to max point savings.

 

You could even have most of the list of current Limitations as "Examples" for comparison... but the idea of needing to stack together a bunch of them is not correct. Any 'combination' of limitations is grouped into its own single limitation, with a value that reflects how the player wants it to come about IN PLAY.

 

(This comes out of playtesting Champions Now as well as the Density Increase discussion, etc. Limitations as a guide to play, not as a point saving mechanic.)

Thoughts?

 

While I think you are right at the most basic level, one of the toughest thing for a new GM is to figure out what's reasonable and what isn't for his campaign.

 

By removing a detailed list of recommended limitations on powers, you'd leave a lot of GM's guessing wrong on approving player characters and wrong on how strong the opposition might be when writing them up.

 

An experienced GM could do all of that in his sleep. A new GM might ruin a campaign and/or drive off players before he gets it right.

 

And under current rules. I can look at a power with its list of advantages and disadvantages from some character in your campaign as see exactly what it is supposed to do and how effective it is compared to another character's powers from your campaign. I don't see how you could distill down any description to get that information across as compactly and easily as it is in the current system.

[RDU Neil]

49 minutes ago, archer said:

 

While I think you are right at the most basic level, one of the toughest thing for a new GM is to figure out what's reasonable and what isn't for his campaign.

 

By removing a detailed list of recommended limitations on powers, you'd leave a lot of GM's guessing wrong on approving player characters and wrong on how strong the opposition might be when writing them up.

 

An experienced GM could do all of that in his sleep. A new GM might ruin a campaign and/or drive off players before he gets it right.

 

And under current rules. I can look at a power with its list of advantages and disadvantages from some character in your campaign as see exactly what it is supposed to do and how effective it is compared to another character's powers from your campaign. I don't see how you could distill down any description to get that information across as compactly and easily as it is in the current system.

 

I agree that a list of "suggested limitations and values" is probably necessary, because new GMs need a guide... but if you had that... coupled with the idea that "you don't stack multiple limitations, you simply have one that states "how this power manifests in play"... wouldn't the idea basically work?

 

And as for GM error... a simple OAF -1 can screw up a campaign if the GM and players aren't fully on board with exactly what that will mean during play. The player buys it "because it is a sword, so yeah, OAF" and the GM then has that sword "bound, disarmed, lost" at least 50% of the time... and the player is pissed off. Both are valid interpretations, but manifest completely differently in play. If they don't talk about it before hand... there will be problems. I don't think "One Limitation to Rule Them All" is any more problematic.

 

 

[archer]

56 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

I agree that a list of "suggested limitations and values" is probably necessary, because new GMs need a guide... but if you had that... coupled with the idea that "you don't stack multiple limitations, you simply have one that states "how this power manifests in play"... wouldn't the idea basically work?

 

 

Each limitation would be basically unique to that character's version of the power and you would have to read and remember accurately exactly how each particular power works based off of that description.

 

My memory is shot to hell due to multiple severe head injuries over the course of my life, and being old isn't exactly helping.

 

I can't imagine trying to run Champions where each of four players has eight unique descriptions of how each player's eight unique powers work and each of their four opponents have eight unique powers. That's 64 unique power descriptions right there, not counting cops, PRIMUS agents, and minions...and that's a hell of a lot less complicated than many battlefields.

 

I personally find using keywords much more convenient than remembering lists of descriptions. Yeah, some of that is because I'm used to keywords from playing RPG's and collectible card games. But the companies which make those games probably started using keywords in the first place in order to try to avoid information overload.

 

2 cents

[Scott Ruggels]

I take HERO on a more war gamey approach. This idea seems good for a more narative approach. In my case I like my players to think about the powers they create and the limitations they pick for it. I often run into assumption clash with newer players and HEROs specificity clears one avenue of that. YMMV

 

[Doc Democracy]

I like it as an idea and I think it is one that could work.  I think Archer's concerns are legitimate. 

 

However, I think this is something that would/could work if the player was willing to do a cool description of the power that encompassed its limitations.  Instead of using all that space on game notation it would simply be a couple of lines of text describing the power with a number next to it that is the overall limitation applied.  It would indeed need the suggested values so that the GM might eyeball the overall figure more accurately and consistently. I like it so much that it should be used for advantages and limitations!! ?

 

I think there would be a benefit if it encouraged the players to think in terms of descriptions rather than mechanical advantages and disadvantages...

 

Doc

[archer]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 ?

I think there would be a benefit if it encouraged the players to think in terms of descriptions rather than mechanical advantages and disadvantages...

 

 

 It's always an advantage when players think in terms of descriptions because it'd potentially help roleplayIng.

 

The GM on the other hand, has to understand and remember dozens of powers available on the field and think about what they each do. That's very difficult to do in a system that counts numbers like HERO rather than running a system like FUDGE.

 

I've lost the rest of my post three times in a row so I guess I'm just not supposed to type it and I guess I'll just end it here.

[Hugh Neilson]

If -1 is "usable half the time"(logical, as it halves the cost), why is -2 "rarely usable" instead of "usable about a third of the time"?  Maybe that sliding scale needs to go further down, or the GM must downplay some of the limitations on a highly limited ability.

[Lucius]

5 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

I'm sure this has come up before, but I couldn't find any threads devoted to it, so I thought I'd just see what people think.

 

Premise/Thesis:

 

There is only one limitation: Limited Power.  Every other Limitation is simply a version of this, so instead of all of them, have one Limitation that goes from -1/4 (very slightly limited) to -2 (only usable in rare circumstances)  (-1 is "about half the time, the power doesn't work when you want it to). Nice, easy sliding scale.

 

Would it be easier and more balanced to simply have one limitation (a single thing or a combination of things) that shape the way a power manifests in the game?

 

example: Instead of buying "Focus" and "Charges" and "Beam Weapon" and etc., etc. to make a gun-like power... why not simply "Limited Power: Laser-Gun!"  and then assign a Limited Power to it that fits the player/GMs feelings on how limited it is. -1/4 and Gun Gal! can use her gun unless completely bound/captured... -1 regularly dropped, disarmed, runs out of charges, whatever... -2 cosmic nullifier gun, only usable against TALLMANINPURPLESHORTS!, whatever.

 

Seems much easier, and fits the goal of a power working in "dramatically appropriate ways" rather than playing the reverse engineering/micro-detail version... where you can deconstruct something ad infinitum and is either a pointless intellectual exercise, or someone trying to max point savings.

 

You could even have most of the list of current Limitations as "Examples" for comparison... but the idea of needing to stack together a bunch of them is not correct. Any 'combination' of limitations is grouped into its own single limitation, with a value that reflects how the player wants it to come about IN PLAY.

 

(This comes out of playtesting Champions Now as well as the Density Increase discussion, etc. Limitations as a guide to play, not as a point saving mechanic.)

Thoughts?

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

. I like it so much that it should be used for advantages and limitations!! ?

 

I think there would be a benefit if it encouraged the players to think in terms of descriptions rather than mechanical advantages and disadvantages...

 

Doc

 

And why stop there?
 

We only need one Power! Just describe what it does and assign an appropriate cost!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suspects Lucius Alexander is being sarcastic.....

[unclevlad]

It's very much in the spirit of what Ron's trying to do in Champs Now, and I think it's the better direction.  That said, it's probably asking a lot for newer players to assess what limitations should be worth.

 

My copy of Champs Now rules is now a couple months old...haven't downloaded in a while.  But one thing for others to note is, the list of limitations s MUCH, MUCH shorter.  Categories:  activation, always on, burnout, costs End, focus, increased End, linked, no range, only in hero ID, and the catchall Limited for usable or not, reduced effectiveness/all or nothing.  

 

I also have to wonder the degree to which limitations have exploded, in Hero System, is due to trying to duplicate other systems.  For example, trying to duplicate spells and magical items for fantasy gaming, while letting them be affordable and reasonably effective.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

RDU Neil, my buddy has been doing something like this for years when he converts from other systems. When it comes down to a specific type limitation that another game has that would be a pain in Hero, he just lists what the value he feels it should be and a note of the limitation. It saves lines in the sheet.

[unclevlad]

BTW:  Champs 3E also has a very narrow set of limitation types:  activation, always on, End Bat, Focus, Increased End, Limited Power, and Limited Uses.

[RDU Neil]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I like it as an idea and I think it is one that could work.  I think Archer's concerns are legitimate. 

 

However, I think this is something that would/could work if the player was willing to do a cool description of the power that encompassed its limitations.  Instead of using all that space on game notation it would simply be a couple of lines of text describing the power with a number next to it that is the overall limitation applied.  It would indeed need the suggested values so that the GM might eyeball the overall figure more accurately and consistently. I like it so much that it should be used for advantages and limitations!! ?

  

I think there would be a benefit if it encouraged the players to think in terms of descriptions rather than mechanical advantages and disadvantages...

 

Doc

 

My feel, and I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, is that in most cases Advantages come with a specific mechanical effect (Autofire, Armor Piercing, Area Effect, etc.) whereas Limitations tend to bleed more into "how it plays" rather than mechanics. Where there are specific mechanical functions of a Limitations (Activation Role, Increased END, No Range) having it spelled out is good, but for the most part, the "how it plays" like Focus, Limited Power, etc. are more descriptive, with a general sense of "just how limiting is this in scenes/story/plot" being what matters the most. 

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

 

And why stop there?
 

We only need one Power! Just describe what it does and assign an appropriate cost!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suspects Lucius Alexander is being sarcastic.....

 

 

Indeed, why have point costs at all?  Just describe what each character can do, and how he is limited (whether by power limitations, complications, etc.) and rely entirely on the GM to ensure each character is both challenged and useful.

 

Why even have mechanics?  The players and GM can simply describe what happens.

 

Ultimately, RPG rules are merely an adjudication model for a game of "Let's Pretend".

[Ninja-Bear]

RDU Neil here is an example of what I believe your asking. X, the Phantom Fed is a Master of Disguise. So I would by him Shape Shift-disguise sight and maybe sound to cover mimicry and give him a limit of -1/2.  According to the PDSH blurb it seems that this Super Akill isn’t really really hindered. So I figure -1/2 is usually what’s assigned for back at the lab. Also in the blurb says that even his intamets don’t know who he really is. I’d just call the limit Master of Disguise.

[Doc Democracy]

There is some sarcasm and hostility being directed towards this idea but I think it is simply a call for a more stripped down notation on character sheets and for GMs to be a bit more liberal and flexible in their application of the rules.

 

I think that the rulebook would have just as big a section on advantages and limitations as it already has but they would be guidance for the GM in how to come to a value.

 

I think it would make for more narrative content on character sheets and a far greater move towards HERO's claim that you can build anything you want to. 

 

In essence I am effectively doing just this every time I use the Limited Power limitation (and I make reasonably liberal use of that to get what I want).

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

Well Doc I hope you don’t think I was being sarcastic. I like it.

[RDU Neil]

14 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

RDU Neil here is an example of what I believe your asking. X, the Phantom Fed is a Master of Disguise. So I would by him Shape Shift-disguise sight and maybe sound to cover mimicry and give him a limit of -1/2.  According to the PDSH blurb it seems that this Super Akill isn’t really really hindered. So I figure -1/2 is usually what’s assigned for back at the lab. Also in the blurb says that even his intamets don’t know who he really is. I’d just call the limit Master of Disguise.

 

If I understand you correctly, then yes... Shape-Shift, -1/2 Limitation Master of Disguise... and that limitation involves everything that disguise entails, taking time to put it on before hand, disguise could be damaged, start to fall off if he over exerts, etc. Whatever is 'dramatically appropriate' for a disguise to be hindered at a -1/2 level. Basically, a quarter of the time it starts to slip up, can be discovered, whatever. That kind of thing works for me, because it makes the disguise "power/super skill" a point of dramatic tension.

[RDU Neil]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

There is some sarcasm and hostility being directed towards this idea but I think it is simply a call for a more stripped down notation on character sheets and for GMs to be a bit more liberal and flexible in their application of the rules.

 

I think that the rulebook would have just as big a section on advantages and limitations as it already has but they would be guidance for the GM in how to come to a value.

 

I think it would make for more narrative content on character sheets and a far greater move towards HERO's claim that you can build anything you want to. 

 

In essence I am effectively doing just this every time I use the Limited Power limitation (and I make reasonably liberal use of that to get what I want).

 

Doc

 

Yes... this essentially, because if you can never have a comprehensive list of every possible limitation. And even if you did, it would tend toward limitation stacking that quickly breaks, because there is not enough granularity (and I wouldn't want there to be more) to model every slight difference in how a power functions. (And generally leads toward WAY more price break than the total limitation actually plays out in game.)

 

And also, I feel there is a very big difference between limitations that have a clear mechanical effect... and limitations that are more story/sfx/complication based. Treating them as the same kind of stackable point-saving function makes for some seriously hinky builds.

 

Ultimately, the limitations should reflect "How does the player, play group, and GM want the character to manifest in actual play?" And this is more about a liberal use of "what do I ultimately want" vs. "how do I stack a list of limitation to simulate some existing effect."

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Well Doc I hope you don’t think I was being sarcastic. I like it.

Not at all, I find you to be a very open-minded forum-er. ?

 

I wasn't looking to tell people off for bad behaviour, just to point out that folk seemed to be missing the essence of the idea.

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

Ok Doc thought so, it just that my last post then yours and working third shift.

[Lucius]

11 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

 

And also, I feel there is a very big difference between limitations that have a clear mechanical effect... and limitations that are more story/sfx/complication based. Treating them as the same kind of stackable point-saving function makes for some seriously hinky builds.

 

 

 

This reminds me of something I've said about Complications: That some like Unluck or Vulnerability are very mechanical (and Unluck is literally the opposite of a corresponding Power) and make sense to grant more build points, and others like Hunted or DNPC are more story focused and perhaps should be tied to something like gaining a metacurrency (like aspects gain Fate Points in Fate) rather than being tied to build points.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I usually tie a palindromedary to a tagline

[unclevlad]

11 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Yes... this essentially, because if you can never have a comprehensive list of every possible limitation. And even if you did, it would tend toward limitation stacking that quickly breaks, because there is not enough granularity (and I wouldn't want there to be more) to model every slight difference in how a power functions. (And generally leads toward WAY more price break than the total limitation actually plays out in game.)

 

Some combinations simply blend well together, so the combined limitation is really no more severe than either one separately.  To wit, quite often...Extra Time and Concentration (to activate, not throughout).  Both are "I really want a moment alone, or engage this outside combat altogether."  As long as the power has major out-of-combat utility, the limitations don't mean enough.  And the more limitations are out there, the more such combinations exist.  

 

Also, a laundry list of limitations fundamentally drives many people to thinking in the point-shave mode, IMO, to focus on the mechanics and how to get the mostest for the leastest.  And that's not trivial, IMO.

 

 

[RDU Neil]

1 hour ago, Lucius said:

 

This reminds me of something I've said about Complications: That some like Unluck or Vulnerability are very mechanical (and Unluck is literally the opposite of a corresponding Power) and make sense to grant more build points, and others like Hunted or DNPC are more story focused and perhaps should be tied to something like gaining a metacurrency (like aspects gain Fate Points in Fate) rather than being tied to build points.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I usually tie a palindromedary to a tagline

 

I'd totally be on board with this kind of thing. It would be a very straight forward way to award bennies... you spend them for benefit, and it triggers a disadvantage coming into play in the game, so some such. That is very solid.

[RDU Neil]

33 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Some combinations simply blend well together, so the combined limitation is really no more severe than either one separately.  To wit, quite often...Extra Time and Concentration (to activate, not throughout).  Both are "I really want a moment alone, or engage this outside combat altogether."  As long as the power has major out-of-combat utility, the limitations don't mean enough.  And the more limitations are out there, the more such combinations exist.  

 

Also, a laundry list of limitations fundamentally drives many people to thinking in the point-shave mode, IMO, to focus on the mechanics and how to get the mostest for the leastest.  And that's not trivial, IMO.

 

 

 

Yes, exactly. One of the motivations for my thinking in this area is not just simplifying, but removing the tendency to stack multiple small limitations because they "make sense" and "are on the approved list" but together provide way more of a point break than they are worth together.