Limitations: There should be only one!

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

 

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.

 

 

FIrst:

 

My apologies, Neil;

 

I wanted to get in on this early-on, but I was involved elsewhere and didn't want to over-extend my focus or my time.  I really only have two things to add, all other points (and far, far more) having been well and thoroughly addressed by others.

 

First: your comment quoted above: That's a GM's fault, plain and simple.  It's also why I don't (generally) get involved in discussions of "What's this Limitation / Advantage worth?"  There is, honestly, absolutely no way that anyone can answer it except you or your GM if you're not the GM yourself.  The case you mention: stacking a bunch of book examples, and getting a sum greater than the total of its parts, is precisely why I disagree with most book builds: too many "official" characters coming off very rules-rapey of GM-abusive.  It's also why my groups have and occasionally use 1/8 values: sometimes something is worth a point or three one way or the other, but not much more.  And it comes up most often in the situation you describe: stacking prior examples.

 

That being said, I thought one of the editions pretty much spelled out that "Limited Power" was the over-arching concept, and the book builds were examples or categories that play groups could use as guidelines.  I may be wrong; I might be remembering a column heading or something.....

 

 

Carry on!

 

Duke

 

[IndianaJoe3]

On 9/10/2018 at 2:10 PM, RDU Neil said:

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.

 

I think this is a bad idea because it hides the complexity of Limitations. "Laser Pistol (-2)" sounds simpler than, "OAF (-1), 6 Charges (-3/4), Beam (-1/4)," but it doesn't tell you what the restrictions actually are. Players might also want similar powers with different Limitations, and then the GM has to keep track of, "Tom's Laser Pistol (-1)," "Dick's Laser Pistol (-2)," and "Harry's Laser Pistol (which is different from Tom's) (-1)."

[RDU Neil]

22 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

I think this is a bad idea because it hides the complexity of Limitations. "Laser Pistol (-2)" sounds simpler than, "OAF (-1), 6 Charges (-3/4), Beam (-1/4)," but it doesn't tell you what the restrictions actually are. Players might also want similar powers with different Limitations, and then the GM has to keep track of, "Tom's Laser Pistol (-1)," "Dick's Laser Pistol (-2)," and "Harry's Laser Pistol (which is different from Tom's) (-1)."

 

I would honestly find the latter WAY easier than the former. And no... just like any game where OAF -1 has pretty much the same determined level of impact on a game... having two different Laser Pistol -1 is not what I'm talking about. But even if it was, because their character concepts (the truly important thing) are so vastly different that the different Laser Pistols play out differently... well... that is the point of all this. The limitations that are story based should move the story... and if you are saying the latter scenario above is difficult, then how do you keep track of the basics of "What is this player wanting at the table? How is this PC perceived to manifest in the imaginary space? What judgment calls fit the players concepts of fun play, and which don't?"

 

GMs are making (or should be) these kind of constant social dynamic judgment calls all the time. Every decision a GM makes is one... not a mechanical decision... but a judgment call. To have the PCs "play experience" (at least as far as limitations are concerned) encapsulated in a single thing (the overall limitation description and the value of the limitation) is VERY helpful. 

 

That really helps me clarify even more. Mechanical limitations are ok as written (for the most part), and those are implemented every time BY THE PLAYER. The Story LImitations, though, are up to the GM, and therefore should reflect "How much can the GM mess with my standard operations?" I think it was Lucius above who also enunciated this as well.

[IndianaJoe3]

8 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

That really helps me clarify even more. Mechanical limitations are ok as written (for the most part), and those are implemented every time BY THE PLAYER. The Story LImitations, though, are up to the GM, and therefore should reflect "How much can the GM mess with my standard operations?" I think it was Lucius above who also enunciated this as well.

 

I don't see anything wrong with a narrative approach, but Hero isn't designed for it. I'd probably use Fate if I was playing a narrative game, instead of trying to adapt Hero.

[Ninja-Bear]

I always thought some of those -1/4  limitations from Dark Champions like doesn’t work under water we’re kinda suspicious. 

[Doc Democracy]

11 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

I don't see anything wrong with a narrative approach, but Hero isn't designed for it. I'd probably use Fate if I was playing a narrative game, instead of trying to adapt Hero.

 

I disagree.  I think narrative games are often quite rules complex, just in different ways and the ones that are mechanically light can often prove difficult in delivering particular types of story - narrative games can make stories that hinge on resource management very difficult.  

 

I also think anyone can run can run a narrative game based on any ruleset, it all depends on how much the GM decides to expose to the players.  I do think that the rules heavy impression folk have about HERO could be leavened by things that encourage a story telling approach among players.

 

You brought up the question of different laser guns.  As GM the scenario you brought up would be my fault.  I do not think that it is my job (and not implying you do either...) just to allow players to have what they want simply because it is rules legal.  That is what leads to Tom’s laser, Harry’s laser and Dick’s laser.  Neil’s approach dictates a more narrative approach to the game.  As GM when the players comes to me with his idea of his laser gun, I am going to need more than OAF, six charges and beam.

 

Tom’s laser (players wants after some discussion): Player - I want a laser gun.  I see it being the usual weapon kind of thing, stored in a holster and drawn to use.  It can only fire six times before it needs to be recharged and has no ability to be modulated, it is full power or nothing and the beam cannot be widened to hit more people, or to make it easier to hit a single target.  GM - OK. I am seeing this as about 2 points worth of limitation.  I am going to call this a Standard Imperial laser gun.  Anyone else can acquire this kind of gun.  All you need to put on your character sheet is Standard Imperial laser gun. (3D6K) (-2)

 

Harry’s laser:  Player - I don’t want a standard imperial laser.  I want my laser to do more damage but have fewer shots and be a prone to breaking down.  GM - Why the differences? Player - I have jury-rigged the power pack.  GM - ok that makes sense.  You need to write Customised Standard Imperial laser gun (4D6K; only four shots and stops working on 15+) (-3)

 

Dick’s laser: Player - I want my laser gun to be different.  I don’t want to have any limits on the number of shots I can fire and I want to be able to vary how much damage I do when I fire it. GM - OK, how are you able to keep firing? Where does the power come from? Player - it is an alien technology, some kind of fusion that continually draws in atmosphere and creates plasma.  It will run for years before the power runs out. GM - do you need to fiddle with settings to reduce the damage or spread the beam? Player - not much, I know it well enough that it takes almost no time. GM - OK, I need a race, unless you are willing to come up with your own.  Or is it unknown alien tech? Player - I like the unknown idea. GM - all right, you need to write Ancients laser gun (3D6K). (-1).

 

As GM, I have now established two potential weapons folk could buy and should be part of player reference material.  I have also shown that things can be altered.  As GM, I can decide to run with the machanical notation I have noted above or I might have two or three short descriptive sentences to go on the character sheet

 

for example Standard Imperial laser gun: this weapon comes with a hip holster. It deliver 3D6 killing damage but can only fire six times before the pack needs replaced or recharged. It is a simple weapon that does not allow the user to modulate the laser in any way.

 

Ancients laser gun: no one knows how to manufacture these weapons any more. It delivers the same damage as a Standard Imperial (3D6K) but never runs out of power and intuitive controls allow users to increase and reduce power output and to spread the beam to make it easier to hit targets.

 

Doc

[Grailknight]

While I think this idea can work in theory, it has some problems.

 

Firstly, the problem with everyone's laser pistols being different is a real one . Yes, it can be fixed by the GM at character creation but then you have to fix their defenses and their movement and so on and so on. The variety of options Hero provides will result in far too many similar things adjudicated somewhat arbitrarily.

 

Secondly, this places even more burden on the GM. While this might be doable by us longtime Hero grognards, It will be overwhelming to a newer GM. And getting newer GMs is the main problem Hero is facing. Even experienced GMs will have to juggle how they adjudicate new players to avoid the cries of favoritism and inconsistency.

 

Thirdly, I can see a great deal of reinventing the wheel coming. GMs will have to have some guidelines or there will be no common ground to fall back on. There would be no commonality between different games. Characters would have to be redone for any transfer between campaigns and putting out any source material would become a nightmare as all games will be their own niche market.

 

It would be better to start new groups with solid rules and transition them to this narrative style once they become comfortable with the rules. I can see this working well with A GM and players that have had some time together. But it is too ahrd for newbies and I don't think you can keep a company going with it.

[Duke Bushido]

This whole narrative style thing-  while thought provoking to read; I thank everyone who weighed in here-- is being...  Overthought?  Wrongly-angled? 

 

I don't know what to call it, really; I can only sum up the notions in my head:

Champions / HERO doesn't, in its native forum, push it away.  If I understand what Neil is describing, it's pretty much how most of our games are played, and how most other groups I see in action play. 

 

Maybe it's because none of my groups do much math/computer/science/analytical type stuff as employment or hobby, so the need for more and more complex rules isn't there for us (and honestly, it's pretty rare for even the appreciation for such things to be there),-

 

You know, I still don't have my vocabulary around what I am trying to express... 

 

What drew me to this game, way back in the days of boxed sets and staple binding, was the freedom: make exactly what you wanted (or a good start on growing it in that direction), and play exactly how you wanted.  Other games even required you select pre-planned personalities, way back when (does D&D still do that ridiculous Alignment thing?) or archetypes and templates. 

 

Champions was naturally more free-form, right out of the gate: you were even left to design your own world (I know that there are people who actually can't handle that; I was surprised to find a couple popping up on this site when I came back, but for the most part, every single edition of these rules goes a long way out of its way to _not_ force a universe or "this must be this" on you.) 

 

The slippery slope here has been, starting with 3rd edition, the move _away_ from that openness.  Each edition gets more and more rules-heavy, and the specificity gets more and more intricate, and the word "no" pops up more and more, along with the idea of x must be this. 

 

Is this inherently bad?   I can't answer that.  I can say it's decidedly unappealing to me, and even the fans who want it repeatedly espouse the notion that it works against drawing newer players. 

 

There is clearly a market for it: the most visible, most vocal participants in any evolving, responsive Fandom are what drives the change, as historically they are representative of the largest portion of the fans. 

 

That model may no longer be accurate.  Today, internet being what it is, it's far more likely that they represent only the people with the spare time to be vocal, or simply an addiction to being online and participating in something. 

 

Am. I saying that's the case?  No; of course not.  But it's quite possible.  I wish I had a keyboard (I'm on the road and literally phoning this in) so I could better explore this, but let me leave the single observation that drives all this "I wonder:" 

 

We started with the most option-filled, make what you want, how you want system ever devised, and people flocked to it.  The game grew and spread and developed into things I doubt the original designers ever really expected. 

 

Each new addition firmed up rules, hardened limits, mandated design points--

 

What we have now is "build any character you want, any way you want," then hand it to an almost-superfluous GM who will take all the characters and feed them into a scenario run by the computer program the core rules have become, and tally experience points for you. 

 

We have what the most vocal of fans wants and loves, and the company flounders in a way it hasn't done since the table-top implosion that brought down the hobby as a whole. 

 

I am not declaring a connection, but I am suggesting that it's worth a consideration. 

 

I'm also saying I have a lot more fun using this and that element from the new stuff, but overall, keeping to the older rules sets, from the Era when the players and the GM worked together to tell a story, and away from the modern grind for infinite specificity and seven-hour combat sequences that seem to be the thrust of the newer ones. 

 

HERO is not anti-roleplaying; I suspect that a lot of people want it to be, though. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

While I think this idea can work in theory, it has some problems.

 

Firstly, the problem with everyone's laser pistols being different is a real one . Yes, it can be fixed by the GM at character creation but then you have to fix their defenses and their movement and so on and so on. The variety of options Hero provides will result in far too many similar things adjudicated somewhat arbitrarily.

 

Secondly, this places even more burden on the GM. While this might be doable by us longtime Hero grognards, It will be overwhelming to a newer GM. And getting newer GMs is the main problem Hero is facing. Even experienced GMs will have to juggle how they adjudicate new players to avoid the cries of favoritism and inconsistency.

 

Thirdly, I can see a great deal of reinventing the wheel coming. GMs will have to have some guidelines or there will be no common ground to fall back on. There would be no commonality between different games. Characters would have to be redone for any transfer between campaigns and putting out any source material would become a nightmare as all games will be their own niche market.

 

It would be better to start new groups with solid rules and transition them to this narrative style once they become comfortable with the rules. I can see this working well with A GM and players that have had some time together. But it is too ahrd for newbies and I don't think you can keep a company going with it.

And how is this different from a Supers game? Three different people come in with Laser Powers and three different builds come out of it.  What I would do is have a list with the break down of say Imperial Laser and Ancients Laser but the new player just has listed in game Imperial or Ancients limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

And how is this different from a Supers game? Three different people come in with Laser Powers and three different builds come out of it.  What I would do is have a list with the break down of say Imperial Laser and Ancients Laser but the new player just has listed in game Imperial or Ancients limitation.

 

Good question.  My first thought is that SuperPowers don't roll off the assembly line and get shipped out for purchase off the shelf, but that is just as relevant when we say a VIPER Laser Gun is OAF, Beam, 6 Charges.

 

It's really a question of how much definition we want.  If all we had were "limited power", we would have lots of groups come up with their own Charges modifiers (I wonder how many would have baked the 0 END advantage in), for example, and lots more "how much do you think this is worth?" discussions.

 

But why stop at limitations?  Provide the GM your story hooks and he  decides how many complication points you get.  Describe how powerful your character is and he sets the costs for your powers' mechanics and advantages as well.

 

Ultimately, we buy the game rules so we do not have to write our own game rules.  Some will prefer more definition, others less, but if we boil it down to "Hey GM - it's your job to take the players' descriptions of their abilities and drawbacks and figure out costs so they all come out equivalent", why have a rule book at all?  To tell people how to pretend?

[Doc Democracy]

Ah, superheroes.  They deserve each power to have three or four good sentences.  Of course there would be no bog-standard powers, they are all unique and I think would be better utilised with a narrative base rather than a mechanics hard base.

 

I can understand the desire for hardcore consistency but that kind of thing can lead to things feeling constrained and ultimately everything feeling same-y.  I think with a decent set of guidelines it would make little difference to the utility of providing adventures.  The biggest barrier to consistency between campaigns are point totals and the tolerance to high/low CVs, damage dice and defences, and none of that is fixed.

 

 

Doc

[Grailknight]

13 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

And how is this different from a Supers game? Three different people come in with Laser Powers and three different builds come out of it.  What I would do is have a list with the break down of say Imperial Laser and Ancients Laser but the new player just has listed in game Imperial or Ancients limitation.

 

It's not different for a Supers game. It just takes the problem(too much onus on the GM to make arbitrary rulings) and magnifies it. Nearly every character will have 2-5 powers that have to be built using GM adjudication. Taken to the only one limitation goal, this will apply to every  power build in the campaign that has any limitations. The GM will have to track all this and track how each individual power interacts with the game mechanics by memory or by referring to a copy of the character sheet. Said character sheets will be incredibly complex as there is no common format for the way powers work.

 

I see the intent here and it is possibly worth a try with an experienced GM and trustworthy players who have played some time together. I don't think this can work as a product for sale. Everyone has house rules but house rules by definition appeal to a niche market within a niche gaming industry. I wouldn't try to market mine either. The game needs the structure to appeal to a broad base and provide ease of entry.

[Doc Democracy]

Quote

It just takes the problem(too much onus on the GM to make arbitrary rulings) and magnifies it

 

I would challenge the use of arbitrary.  I think everyone supporting this as an idea thinks that there would be a need for guidance on what things tend to be worth (if they were single limitations) with a bit of blurb on how to blend stuff or make judgements.

 

5 hours ago, Grailknight said:

The GM will have to track all this and track how each individual power interacts with the game mechanics by memory or by referring to a copy of the character sheet.

 

How is that different from now?  The GM has to keep track of all the individual powers "by memory or by referring to a copy of the character sheet".

 

I think it sounds as if it would be more work, I do not think it would in practice.  I think you would find that, much of the time, the same limitations came up as are on the list and the values would be applied pretty much the same.  You would also facilitate those times when the listed limitations do not quite do it and you could agree a limitation with the player that works.  I do that just now.  I think this would make the character sheets more thematic and less mechanical.

 

But we are at the point of assertion now - neither of us have tried it.  Perhaps when I do my next HERO game this is what I need to do....

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

On 9/17/2018 at 3:24 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

I would challenge the use of arbitrary.  I think everyone supporting this as an idea thinks that there would be a need for guidance on what things tend to be worth (if they were single limitations) with a bit of blurb on how to blend stuff or make judgements.

 

 

How different is that from what we have now?  We would be moving from a detailed set of costed limitations, with the overriding "GM is the final arbitrator" caveat, to "GM makes the call, but here is a detailed list of suggested costs for limitations".  The reality is that, in my experience, gamers want the rules set out because they don't have the time, and/or the desire, to write it themselves.  That's why the market has trended to a gretare and greater focus on rules books.

 

On 9/17/2018 at 3:24 AM, Doc Democracy said:

I think it sounds as if it would be more work, I do not think it would in practice.  I think you would find that, much of the time, the same limitations came up as are on the list and the values would be applied pretty much the same.

 

So why make a bunch of change in theory if the result is no real change in practice?  The reality is that it will look like it is more work, and the up front work which exists now is a big component of scaring off large portions of the potential market.

 

On 9/17/2018 at 3:24 AM, Doc Democracy said:

You would also facilitate those times when the listed limitations do not quite do it and you could agree a limitation with the player that works.  I do that just now.  I think this would make the character sheets more thematic and less mechanical.

 

The former is presently addressed by "limited power" and GM assessment/rules override as necessary.  The latter arises only when the players focus on the thematic rather than the mechanical.  The player that will place 8 charges on all of his Good Luck powers, rather than the "lucky 7" which seems thematically appropriate, because having the extra charge costs no extra points, is not going to be swayed by guidance, rather than a rule, that 7 - 8 charges carries the same limitation.  He will be swayed only by the GM saying "fine - you can have the 5-6 limitation for your 7 charges" (or some other mechanical advantage).  The player is already ruled by mechanics rather than theme.

[eepjr24]

Like a lot of these discussions lately (not meaning specifically about limitations, just those that seem to generate a lot of heat and people taking strong sides) I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. If you prefer narrative descriptions and the GM assigning a single value for the sum of the limitations, play it that way. If you prefer exact math and each limitation spelled out, play it that way. Neither is intrinsically "better" for all cases and all people, the game is not going to get a new version in a few months that will disallow one or the other. It makes more sense for people to speak to the situations where they see one or the other as advantageous and list things others can gain from one style of play or the other. Personally, I like the narrative descriptions because it encourages variety. But in the background I like having the rules there to help me arrive at what would be the best value, using my own judgement when needed to override those general guiding principles.

 

- E

Edited September 20, 2018 by eepjr24
Added note clarifying what I meant by "discussions lately"