Jump to content

Limitations 2: The singling.


Christougher

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

And since you're all about super-heroic play, just try making a Mental Entangle in 6e without a list of advantages/limitations if you have any doubts on this topic.  And note: that's just to make the basic Mental Entangle -- onto which someone then might need to lump additional advantages (IPE, for example) and limitations (charges, only works when X, etc.) to take that Mental Entangle and make it fit properly into the overall character concept. 

 

Ah mental entangle, my players hate it from the time mental paralysis debuted in Champions 3(I think).  Hated it so much they asked that I never use it again for any villain if they promise not to use it on any hero.  As such it does not feature in my games.  As an intellectual challenge I will accommodate you however.

 

Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle.  This attack is based on mental combat values and may only be broken using mental attacks which will have no effect on the entangled character (+3). [24 END]

 

This costing reflects my campaign. Mental powers are rare and EGO rarely bought up.  This kind of power is more effective as it uses MCV and needs mental powers to be broken and so I have increased the overall advantage by +3/4.  Wasn’t difficult and even this basic text will work on the character sheet. 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been a while, still need to catch up on all the responses.

 

Point creep was one of the reasons for this thread.  I've seen 700+ point characters crammed into 250 by use of limitations. 

 

Powers with eight -1/4 limitations cost a third normal, but are rarely affected, compared to a single -2 that might literally be usable once in a blue moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I reject the notion that we are dumbing down anything. I contend that we are looking to make the character sheet more characterful and less like a spreadsheet on speed.

 

Who's "we?"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a palindromedary on speed dial

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as simplifying things (unless you are talking about the character sheet).  I think that it requires a bit more active GMing in agreeing a value for limitations and advantages (which is really something they should already be doing).

 

The mental paralysis example shows where I came to a different value on advantages than those written in the book to better fit my campaign.  That is something GMs should not be afraid of doing but the rules, as they are laid out, make it difficult for GMs to reject values presented by the players as RAW.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

I don't see it as simplifying things (unless you are talking about the character sheet).  I think that it requires a bit more active GMing in agreeing a value for limitations and advantages (which is really something they should already be doing).

 

The mental paralysis example shows where I came to a different value on advantages than those written in the book to better fit my campaign.  That is something GMs should not be afraid of doing but the rules, as they are laid out, make it difficult for GMs to reject values presented by the players as RAW.

 

Doc

 

Perhaps the rules should make it clearer that it's okay to adjust the given values, and give more guidance about doing so. The fact that some Advantages have a kind of "surcharge" in some combinations or contexts (Autofire and Area Effect for example) is a step in this direction.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

Perhaps the rules should make it clearer that it's okay to adjust the given values, and give more guidance about doing so. The fact that some Advantages have a kind of "surcharge" in some combinations or contexts (Autofire and Area Effect for example) is a step in this direction.

 

One thing I've noticed about Hero is that there is a culture of treating the rules as absolute. It doesn't have the same tradition of, "hacking" that FATE (for example) has. Many of the ideas in the APGs could be used to customize campaigns, but they rarely make it into anything published. (I think that The Widening Gyre uses the heroic lift table from APG1, but I'm not aware of any others.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I reject the notion that we are dumbing down anything. I contend that we are looking to make the character sheet more characterful and less like a spreadsheet on speed.

 

Agreed - like Lucius, I don't see it as dumbing down, but I don't see it solving any issues either.

 

20 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Ah mental entangle, my players hate it from the time mental paralysis debuted in Champions 3(I think).  Hated it so much they asked that I never use it again for any villain if they promise not to use it on any hero.  As such it does not feature in my games.  As an intellectual challenge I will accommodate you however.

 

Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle.  This attack is based on mental combat values and may only be broken using mental attacks which will have no effect on the entangled character (+3). [24 END]

 

This costing reflects my campaign. Mental powers are rare and EGO rarely bought up.  This kind of power is more effective as it uses MCV and needs mental powers to be broken and so I have increased the overall advantage by +3/4.  Wasn’t difficult and even this basic text will work on the character sheet. 

 

Doc

 

How much Hero experience goes into that costing?  Is it likely a brand-new GM, presented with "I want my character to be able to mentally freeze an opponent in place", will be able to adapt the Entangle rules, costed appropriately for his game, without the suggested limitation and advantage values, and mechanical changes, provided by current RAW?

 

I note that you are also embracing the combination of advantages and limitations in this regard.  But why isn't the base Entangle worth more, or less, depending on the game?  It seems like a Fantasy game which requires Gestures on all spells and uses OAF weapons, would create a lovely environment for the character with an Entangle, no advantages or limitations, wouldn't it?

 

17 hours ago, Christougher said:

Been a while, still need to catch up on all the responses.

 

Point creep was one of the reasons for this thread.  I've seen 700+ point characters crammed into 250 by use of limitations. 

 

Powers with eight -1/4 limitations cost a third normal, but are rarely affected, compared to a single -2 that might literally be usable once in a blue moon.

 

Pick the eight limitations.  They can have no overlap (i.e. GM oversight applies).    I'll go with 1 charge, so I can reliably use the power once a day, 2 charges that cost END would be even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How much Hero experience goes into that costing?  Is it likely a brand-new GM, presented with "I want my character to be able to mentally freeze an opponent in place", will be able to adapt the Entangle rules, costed appropriately for his game, without the suggested limitation and advantage values, and mechanical changes, provided by current RAW?

 

I note that you are also embracing the combination of advantages and limitations in this regard.  But why isn't the base Entangle worth more, or less, depending on the game?  It seems like a Fantasy game which requires Gestures on all spells and uses OAF weapons, would create a lovely environment for the character with an Entangle, no advantages or limitations, wouldn't it?

 

I think that the additional guidance suggested by Lucius for the current system would be necessary for this to work.  I think this suggestion would make it more likely that GMs would use the guidance.  

 

I dont like to think how long I have been using the system.  ?  GMs used to FATE like systems would be more than able to use this.  A brand new GM would see nothing additional when faced with the edifice of rules that HERO always was.  I think HERO felt more because you needed to have a grasp of it all before playing the game while something like D&D allowed you to grok a small subset of rules before you started playing.

 

I did not combine advantages and limitations in that example as there were no limitations - it was all advantage.  I would be inclined to keep advantages and limitations separate in the description. 

 

I am sticking my neck out far enough talking about combining and shifting the costs of advantages and limitations, dont see why you think I would be up for bringing up recosting every power in the book....  :-S

 

 

Doc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Is it likely a brand-new GM, presented with "I want my character to be able to mentally freeze an opponent in place", will be able to adapt the Entangle rules, costed appropriately for his game, without the suggested limitation and advantage values, and mechanical changes, provided by current RAW?

 

I realised I had not quite addressed this.  No one I have seen is seeking to reduce the page count of the rules.  I think that the current rules could be usefully supplemented with guidance on how to handle complex builds with multiple limitations.  There does need to be explicit recognition that such builds are possibly/likely to provide less value than adding all the limitations up.

 

I am getting the feeling I need to go to the rulebook and write up a character in there in this manner, just so we can see what it would look like compared to the current method.  This is as much re-skinning and presentational as it is anything to fundamentally change the rules.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the character writeup (we could write them up like your Mental Paralysis example anyway) as the rule book as a whole. 

 

Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle.  This attack is based on mental combat values and may only be broken using mental attacks which will have no effect on the entangled character (+3). [24 END]

 

Which mental attacks, again?  Only those that cannot effect the entangled character?  Or does that mean "when used against the entangle, these attacks do not affect the entangled character"?  How do I count the dice, remembering that Entangles only have BOD, and few mental attacks can inflict BOD?  You now what you were intending to say, but a rookie layer or novice GM won't.

 

If all we do is take the existing rules and tack on "These values are only guidance, and should be modified for each power construction to reflect actual value in your game", maybe dragging up Chapter 10 to feature earlier in the rules (note that increasing cost of PRE is discussed there), then what is achieved?  It feels like we would have the same rule book, just restated a bit to encourage the GM to tinker with the pricing.  Will the players currently taking a pile of -1/4 limitations "cuz da book sez I can"  be any less inclined to argue with the GM's value calls under this new system, or will they argue for a higher limitation or lower total advantage because they see the synergies moving the value in the opposite direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:13 PM, Doc Democracy said:

 

Ah mental entangle, my players hate it from the time mental paralysis debuted in Champions 3(I think).  Hated it so much they asked that I never use it again for any villain if they promise not to use it on any hero.  As such it does not feature in my games.  As an intellectual challenge I will accommodate you however.

 

Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle.  This attack is based on mental combat values and may only be broken using mental attacks which will have no effect on the entangled character (+3). [24 END]

 

This costing reflects my campaign. Mental powers are rare and EGO rarely bought up.  This kind of power is more effective as it uses MCV and needs mental powers to be broken and so I have increased the overall advantage by +3/4.  Wasn’t difficult and even this basic text will work on the character sheet. 

 

Doc

I should have been more specific and said 'in 6e RAW' rather than just 'in 6e'.  Please forgive the oversight if for some reason my post suggested in some way that I was looking for a house-ruled write-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The present rulebook says that a limitation which does not limit is worth no points.  How often have you seen a player say "well, I don't feel very limited so I should pay back the points"?

It's been a long time since I've seen that -- largely because a) most of the people I've gamed with are mature enough not to take a value for a limitation that doesn't limit them and b) most of the GM's I've gamed with are seasoned enough to spot that sort of thing a mile away and stomp it out on those rare occasions where it comes up.  (Note: Both a) and b) result in no need to pay back the points because no cost break was received in the first place.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I should have been more specific and said 'in 6e RAW' rather than just 'in 6e'.  Please forgive the oversight if for some reason my post suggested in some way that I was looking for a house-ruled write-up.

 

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

b) most of the GM's I've gamed with are seasoned enough to spot that sort of thing a mile away and stomp it out on those rare occasions where it comes up. 

 

These were interesting posts next to each other. I do no think that I have house-ruled here. Just as a limitation that is not limiting, an advantage that is providing more advantage should cost more, it is the corollary of the limitation.

 

I went to the rulebook and found mental paralysis and used my notation. RAW would be almost identical with an advantage of +2 1/4 rather than +3. As Hugh pointed out, I could have been clearer in my language.

 

RAW Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle, ACV (uses OMCV against DMCV; +1/4), Takes no Damage from Attacks (+3/4), Works against EGO, not STR (+1/4).

 

I think Hugh's critique of my notation could as easily apply to this.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I look again, I see that I misread the rules intent.  My notation should have been:

 

Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle. This attack is based on mental combat values. It can be damaged by all mental attacks and provides the entangled character with protection from further mental attacks.  It provides no protection against non-mental attacks targeted at the entangled character.(+3) [24 END]

 

I know which one I would prefer on my character sheet.  With context of a character and campaign, that text could also be more flavourful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The present rulebook says that a limitation which does not limit is worth no points.  How often have you seen a player say "well, I don't feel very limited so I should pay back the points"?

 

I have never seen that.  I have suggested limitations to players when their descriptions of powers seem to suggest a limitation to help them budget, I have helped players limit their powers.  I have never seen a player tell me that his MEGA-bolt can only be fired four times a day but he never uses it more than once or twice in a game, so we should remove the limitation from the costing.  ?

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

 

These were interesting posts next to each other. I do no think that I have house-ruled here. Just as a limitation that is not limiting, an advantage that is providing more advantage should cost more, it is the corollary of the limitation.

 

I went to the rulebook and found mental paralysis and used my notation. RAW would be almost identical with an advantage of +2 1/4 rather than +3. As Hugh pointed out, I could have been clearer in my language.

 

RAW Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle, ACV (uses OMCV against DMCV; +1/4), Takes no Damage from Attacks (+3/4), Works against EGO, not STR (+1/4).

 

I think Hugh's critique of my notation could as easily apply to this.

 

Doc

 

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

And as I look again, I see that I misread the rules intent.  My notation should have been:

 

Mental Paralysis

6D6 Entangle. This attack is based on mental combat values. It can be damaged by all mental attacks and provides the entangled character with protection from further mental attacks.  It provides no protection against non-mental attacks targeted at the entangled character.(+3) [24 END]

 

I know which one I would prefer on my character sheet.  With context of a character and campaign, that text could also be more flavourful.

 

For both of the descriptions, there has to be a greater understanding of the abilities off the character sheet.  Among other issues, this defines how the dice are counted, how mental attacks damage it, and how the entangled character is protected from those attacks.  The text for either can be more flavourful with context, and the character sheet could also include only a minor notation (say, "Disorienting Confusion") with the actual power description written down elsewhere.  This is no different from a D&D character sheet having the name of the spell,. and we have the full writeup in a rulebook.

 

But if all we want to do is  change what we write on the character sheet (more flavour, less crunch) and which rules we leave off the character sheet, we don't need any change to the rules.  Just read a typical Hero sheet, but remove most or all mechanics of the power.  So all we see is "Disorienting Confusion" or maybe "Disorienting Confusion (6d6 Mental Entangle) rather than following it with the entire power writeup.

 

Practically, the suggestion of "player describes and GM figures out cost for advantages and limitations" sounds a lot like "player describes abilities he wants and GM builds the character".  They're a bit different in practice, and serve a different goal, but they'd be pretty similar in play.

13 hours ago, Surrealone said:

It's been a long time since I've seen that -- largely because a) most of the people I've gamed with are mature enough not to take a value for a limitation that doesn't limit them and b) most of the GM's I've gamed with are seasoned enough to spot that sort of thing a mile away and stomp it out on those rare occasions where it comes up.  (Note: Both a) and b) result in no need to pay back the points because no cost break was received in the first place.)

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I have never seen that.  I have suggested limitations to players when their descriptions of powers seem to suggest a limitation to help them budget, I have helped players limit their powers.  I have never seen a player tell me that his MEGA-bolt can only be fired four times a day but he never uses it more than once or twice in a game, so we should remove the limitation from the costing.  ?

 

Let's expand a bit. 

 

How often have you seen a player provide a limitation for his power with "-0" beside it.  He takes the limitation and applies no point cost, rather than just not adding that largely meaningless limitation.  Not 100% meaningless - he fully expects it to impair his character at some point, but the combined extent and frequency of impairment, he notes, are not enough to justify any limitation value.

 

Or perhaps he limits it more than the rules require.  Maybe the power has 5, or 7, charges (less than the maximum number it could have for the same limitation - 7 because it is luck-based, or 13 because it's card-based and there are 13 cards in a suit).  Perhaps the power which would normally cost 3 END costs 7, at the 2x END limitation, rather than the 6 it could cost, "for flavour reasons".  Or it has an activation roll of 6-, st the maximum (7-) limitation? 

 

By the way, the implication that any player who might build a mechanically effective character, or disagree with your judgement over whether a limitation is sufficiently limiting to merit even a -1/4, reflects a lack of maturity is, in my opinion, itself immature.  It suggests that anyone whose playstyle, or whose vision of how limiting something could be, fails to align with your own is "immature".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How often have you seen a player provide a limitation for his power with "-0" beside it.  He takes the limitation and applies no point cost, rather than just not adding that largely meaningless limitation.  Not 100% meaningless - he fully expects it to impair his character at some point, but the combined extent and frequency of impairment, he notes, are not enough to justify any limitation value.

 

Again, never.  I guess my experience is partly flawed in that I am the one who designs most of the characters in our games - I have probably written in limitations worth no points without explicitly going through that with the players but in the limited number of characters handed to me by others, I can remember none that have -0 limitations...

 

Doc

 

I need to trawl through some of the official character stuff like Enemies to see how prevalent such a thing is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...