Missing Arm as a DF not Physical Complication

[dmjalund]

41 minutes ago, massey said:

Of course now I'm thinking of a 1940s orc detective in a trenchoat with a fedora and a bottle of Jack Daniels.

in some game-worlds Jack Daniels can be used as holy water

[Duke Bushido]

Right.  He's more than just a judge. 

 

But the ownership of the game belongs to everyone, unless the GM is doing everything himself. 

 

And his plots can (and should) change, as does the world around the game, when the players do something impactful.    If a player does something that cracks the moon in half, that moon should stay cracked, even if it wasn't at all in the GM's plan.  He can accept it, but he can't ever truly own it.  The best he could do tell future players "but I made him take a - 3 penalty because he only had one arm" 

 

 

[zslane]

1 minute ago, Duke Bushido said:

But the ownership of the game belongs to everyone, unless the GM is doing everything himself. 

 

To the extent that fuzzy terms like "ownership" mean anything useful here, I guess I agree. But in practical terms, the GM is sole arbiter and primary "author" of the game world. I think terms like responsibility are more useful and more important than terms like ownership when it comes to understanding who decides what (and for whom) during the game. The GM is responsible for everything that isn't a player's request to try something with their character (including its concept/buildout), and even then the GM is often responsible for that too when, say, the PC is mind controlled or charmed or otherwise not under the player's control.

[massey]

46 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

To the extent that fuzzy terms like "ownership" mean anything useful here, I guess I agree. But in practical terms, the GM is sole arbiter and primary "author" of the game world. I think terms like responsibility are more useful and more important than terms like ownership when it comes to understanding who decides what (and for whom) during the game. The GM is responsible for everything that isn't a player's request to try something with their character (including its concept/buildout), and even then the GM is often responsible for that too when, say, the PC is mind controlled or charmed or otherwise not under the player's control.

 

The GM only gets to be the GM because the other players allow it.  At the end of the day, we're all independent people sitting around a table.  

[zslane]

1 hour ago, massey said:

The GM only gets to be the GM because the other players allow it.

 

That's one way to look at it. I think in the case of most groups, the person who ends up GM has to be GM because nobody else wants the job. Regardless of how it happens, once a GM is determined, all the responsibilities and vectors of authority of being the GM become his/hers alone. Unless your group is engaging in some sort of "troupe play", the fact remains that the GM is the one who determines what actually happens in the game world. Without that single point of authorial management, the game risks straying into chaos. Hell, all it takes is a weak GM and a lot of games devolve into endless rules arguments because the group has not established proper respect for the canonical structure of play and everyone starts to think they are co-GM.

[Hugh Neilson]

So, does that mean the player also cannot choose who his character's parents, siblings, friends, relatives, mentors , etc. were?  Sorry, it turns out that your parents were actually Trolls in disguise infiltraring gnomish society, so your character is not actually a gnome, but an Orc.  Here is your actual character sheet.  All that magic your character thought he learned was all delusional, but the good news is that your character is much stronger and tougher than he thought, and can regenerate.

 

OK, let's play!

 

Extreme example none of us would ever consider, of course.  However, the reality is that the players and the GM must reach a consensus on both the PCs and the world they live in.

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, zslane said:

 

To the extent that fuzzy terms like "ownership" mean anything useful here, I guess I agree. But in practical terms, the GM is sole arbiter and primary "author" of the game world.

 

Okay, page three.  By long-standing and perhaps even intentional board tradition, we have passed the point of being useful to the original poster and into the realm of philosophical debate.

 

With that in mind, let's proceed :

 

The above statement can't be true, unless you leave off "of the game world."  The game world will always be shaped by what the players decide to have their characters do, without regard for what the GM does or doesn't allow the characters to _be_.  If this is also not true-- if the characters are only allowed to as the GM permits them to do, then you do not have a game world.  You in fact have an interesting hobby of

"Hey, guys; let's meet at my house twice a month and watch me write a book."  

Uhm, okay...  Why do you need us there, exactly?  

"Well, I'm really bad a dialogue...."

 

This might not be a non-starter for a lot of folks as a social event (and please, someone make this a valid social event, because seriously: writing can be cripplingly lonely!   ), it's really not a "game," either.

 

Before it gets suggested, I am _not_ making the case that the GM must therefore allow any kind of zany crazed and whacky kind of thing to occur: the actions that players are -- and hate to use this word, as it's not accurate, but it is markedly convenient for the moment--"allowed" to take in any situation are _not_ the exclusive domain of the GM: those actions are "allowed" under agreement, spoken or otherwise, of all the players at the table.  As someone else pointed out up-thread, I am not chained to your table; and you are not chained to mine.  If it's not something I want to be involved in, I won't be.  And if it _is_ something I want to be involved in, I will show my appreciation by and enjoyment by being there.  If I am not happy with it, I won't be there.  Seriously.  Ask _anyone_ who has ever tried to get me to play fantasy: I won't do it.  You want to lay down your fantasy world and tropes and such and such, fine.  I don't fault you for it.  Find a player.  Don't bother looking this way.

 

And I'm fine with that.  So long as the GM is fine with me not being there (and there's no reason he shouldn't be), we're both happy.  When he wants a certain _type_ of player, however-- or maybe any at all, such as in the player-poor environment I live in now: I drive ninety-miles one way for my monthly game down on the coast), he is going to have to make concessions to that kind of player.  None of this is argumentative, there is no power struggle, there is no quid-pro-quo formal agreement.  It is simply comes to pass that person A wants X out of a game, person B wants Y, person C wants Z, etc, etc.  Everyone has to give a little to get a little.  A good playgroup is like a good group of friends: you will all  (as in _all_, GM included) give a little here and there to get a lot of what you want: a great experience with one another).

 

As I had to explain to my youth group when that started a couple of months ago:

 

"So, the GM is like the God of the game?"

 

No, A; absolutely not.  The GM is the universe in which the game is played: as GM, I will control all of the things that you don't control.

 

"So you're like God of the game."

 

Not at all.  I am the entire world that you, J, N, C, and the others are playing in.  I am just the world around you: the bad guys, the normal people, the other good guys, the buildings, the air, the trees: I don't control them like a god.  I handle how they react to what you and the other players do.  I play the part of the universe, and you guys are all the things that will change it as we go along."

 

Call it warm and fuzzy if you want, but I'm running two groups (though one is a youth group) and am one of three GMs for my regular game, so it's got to work pretty well as a concept.

 

To create a game world, I tend to use a really simple system:

"Guys, when we wrap this up, I'm kinda thinking about something like X"

"Will it have this?"

Oh yes; lots of it.

"Will it have that?"

I haven't give it much thought.  I'll get back to you on that.  Is it something you'd like, if I can work it in?  Is it a deal-breaker if I can't?"

"I don't know.  Depends on how it comes together.  Will it have this other thing?"

I don't think so.  That's not really in the scope of things I'm wanting to tackle.

"Why not?"

And then there's that discussion.  Sometimes, they get it, and we move on.  Sometimes, they don't, so we start working _together_ to come up with an alternative acceptable to both of us.

 

This goes on for a few sessions-- during breaks, before or after play.  I'm the GM, and I cannot say "I built this world and this is how it is" even after doing all the heavy lifting, because I'd be lying.  The players helped shape the spirit of the game just as much as I did.  Sometimes we end up with something _radically_ different than what I originally envisioned (not usually; we've been gaming together for years now, so we all have a feel for what we do and don't get interested in), but because of the process, I'm still pretty excited about trying it.

 

No.  Not saying that's how it should be.  But I am willing to be that there are a _lot_ of groups that operate the same way.  In the end, the GM has no more claim of ownership or inspiration of these worlds than does any other player.  He's no more "in charge" than the agreement between all players places him.  The only real difference is he has more paperwork.

 

I do it this way because I have a responsibility to my players to ensure that they have the best time I can provide, and because I am responsible to myself to make sure that _I_ am having the best time I can, considering the investment I'm going to make each time a new world comes up.  Best part is we avoid most stumbling blocks before I even begin to put in real effort on the world itself.  Can't be that.

 

 

3 hours ago, zslane said:

I think terms like responsibility are more useful and more important than terms like ownership when it comes to understanding who decides what (and for whom) during the game. The GM is responsible for everything that isn't a player's request to try something with their character

 

That's the thing: it's not a "request;" it's a character action.  I am _going_ to swing my sword, mount my horse, throw that dynamite-- whatever.  That's what my character is doing.  If I have to ask "can I shoot him?" I need an answer like "there are four other ugly henchmen in the corners, eyeing you steadily, all of them looking edgy.  The air is bristling with anticipation, and you catch an occasional glance of Mr. Bigboss toward one or the other of them, and he doesn't act like he's any more concerned about his well-being than he was when you got here.  The curtains are drawn over the only two windows, but you can make out the unmistakable silhouette of iron bars showing through them from the gaslight outside.  The only door was the one you came in, and the guy that opened the door has closed it and taken moved himself into a position to block it.  He nods gravely as you glance back at him.  His coat is opened and pushed back, and you think you might see the barrel of a gun in the shadow under his folded arms."

 

Not an answer like "No."

"Why not?"

"Because I worked really hard on this guy and I've got a couple of story arcs lined up I wrote just for him so you can't shoot him!"

I shoot him anyway-- I grab my guns from my quick-draw holsters, going straight into a rolling dive at the floor so I can get under and behind the table he's seated at--

"Well your guns jam and a guy you didn't see grabs you before your feet leave the floor."

"what?  both guns?"

"Yes.  And Mr Bigboss laughs at your pitiful efforts and his men beat you up a little and throw you out the front door and board up the wall you phased through with hardened, desolid-proof paneling that was stacked nearby under the table where you didn't see it."

 

 

See?  The odds my way look grim, because Mr Bigboss is prepared, and I really don't want to lose him, because I _do_ have some plans for him later.  But if the players want to try it, well, there is always a _chance_.

 

That other way?  Well your odds are pretty much determined by the train schedule for the rail you're riding on.  The GM might as well be writing a book, and he doesn't really need _any_ of you for that.  Does he really want to play a game at all, or just share this neat dream he once had with you?

 

3 hours ago, zslane said:

2 hours ago, massey said:

 

The GM only gets to be the GM because the other players allow it.  At the end of the day, we're all independent people sitting around a table.  

 

Well I don't know how I screwed that up, and I haven't a clue how to fix it, so I'm afraid y'all are going to have to suss that one out yourselves. :/

 

Massey, I wish I'd found that comment before I wrote two paragraphs to say the same thing: while fans of crunchy systems tend, as a general trend, to have the hardest time admitting this, the fact is that these games are a _cooperative_ experience.  The less we cooperate, the less the experience.

 

1 hour ago, zslane said:

 

 

I think in the case of most groups, the person who ends up GM has to be GM because nobody else wants the job.

 

That may well be the case for some groups; I don't know, and I won't take us off topic far enough to discuss it.

 

1 hour ago, zslane said:

 

Regardless of how it happens, once a GM is determined, all the responsibilities and vectors of authority of being the GM become his/hers alone. Unless your group is engaging in some sort of "troupe play", the fact remains that the GM is the one who determines what actually happens in the game world. Without that single point of authorial management, the game risks straying into chaos. 

 

I don't argue that a bit.  I _do_ argue that the game belongs to the GM, however.  Let's be fair: if the work invested translated to ownership or authority, then I'd own the last two companies I worked for.  I worked my rear off-- seriously!  It's totally gone!  I had to get a new one to change jobs, so I could work it off again) while the owner (by inheritance) was on vacation 30 weeks a year traveling the world on hunting trips, fishing trips, and of course the "vacations" he needed to rest up from all that.  It's the same with the GM: the GM will _never_ be required to put in more work than he wants to, period, because when he's done, he's done.  If you want him as your GM, then you'll play.  If you don't, then you won't.  If you want to play bad enough, you'll be the GM (if you seem to think it is some sort of undesirable thing, I mean.  If you don't, then you will likely go straight to the job after deciding that what's been presented is not up to snuff for your tastes.  Hell, that's how I ended up with about half the groups I've had over the years: other people were more than happy to do it.  I wanted more.  So I made more, and the others liked it.  But I digress (again!).

 

The authority of the GM, in my own opinion, stated as clearly as I can, is _entirely_ based on the agreement of the other players.  A really bad GM can yell and demand all he wants, but when his players walk away, what power or "authority" is he going to exercise to bring them back and make them subservient to his will? (I'm looking at you, Davien, wherever you are.  And wherever it is, I hope it's _really_ unpleasant.)  The players agree to allow the GM to help keep them on task and cohesive to the world in which they have all agreed to play, and change by their play.  Period.  That's the extent of his magic authority.  That's not even an opinion or a traditional definition: that's just a fact.  We are all our own people, and we can all walk away from a bad deal.

 

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So, does that mean the player also cannot choose who his character's parents, siblings, friends, relatives, mentors , etc. were?  Sorry, it turns out that your parents were actually Trolls in disguise infiltraring gnomish society, so your character is not actually a gnome, but an Orc.  Here is your actual character sheet.  All that magic your character thought he learned was all delusional, but the good news is that your character is much stronger and tougher than he thought, and can regenerate.

 

OK, let's play!

 

Extreme example none of us would ever consider, of course.  However, the reality is that the players and the GM must reach a consensus on both the PCs and the world they live in.

 

 

that's about it.  We can _want_ it to be different: "more control for me!," regardless of which side of the screen you're on, but everyone has only the control and power agreed upon by everyone else, and they only have it until they start wrecking the fun for everyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

Now folks, as always, this thread-- like many others before-- has been an absolute _blast_ to be a part of, and i want to thank everyone who did and everyone who still is participating for letting me be a part of it.  You're all wonderful people.

 

However, I have _got_ to step out of it.  I believe I have already expressed every single thought I have on the subject-- sometimes reasonably, even!   I will continue to _read_ it, as the thoughts on both side of "why isn't a missing limb a handicap (which, if I remember correctly, was the pitch the started this game)?" have been interesting, whether I agree or not, and because something said later might get me thinking more.

 

But for now, if you have a question for me specifically, I think you'll find the answer already up here somewhere, because I have completely emptied my brain on this subject.

 

Thanks!  It was amazingly fun!

 

 

Duke

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Well since we’re on the philosophical part of the thread, here’s a thought.  If I picked up a complete canned game and all the world building is done and I as GM just arbitrate the rules, can I claim “ownership” of the game?

[Lucius]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:43 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

How about if he doesn't take the limitation?  How about if we go all 5e on this thing and decide that you simply _state_ "my character is big" or "my character floats two inches above the ground at all times and can't turn it off" or "my character is missing an arm" but don't do anything, plus or minus, with points?  Two of those work and one doesn't?  

 

I think you've miscounted. None of those work and three of them don't.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says I don't work as well as I should.

[zslane]

18 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So, does that mean the player also cannot choose who his character's parents, siblings, friends, relatives, mentors , etc. were? 

 

It depends. The player can come up with these things, but they are always subject to GM approval. This is not a new idea, in fact it is decades old.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

 

It depends. The player can come up with these things, but they are always subject to GM approval. This is not a new idea, in fact it is decades old.

 

"GM approval" is a slippery thing.  It's quite fine, IMO, for the GM to deny approval for things that are game-breaking (DCs and defenses, etc., outside campaign maximums, for example, or telepathy in a real-world police procedural), things inappropriate to the genre (there's that telepathy in a police procedural again; a sci fi raygon in an Old West game) and things inappropriate to the campaign (that Legacy Super suggested above when the game is set around superpowers emerging for the very first time).

 

GM Approval of whether your character has blonde hair and blue eyes; whether his parents are alive or dead; whether he had siblings?  We're digging deeper into the agency of the players again.

 

Saying "your one-armed character can't be as competent as a two armed character" where that laundry list of other options I set out above would be accepted, in a game where Legolas style archery would be a reasonable character ability?  Not so much.  GM approval should, to use a common legal phrasing, not be unreasonably withheld.

[zslane]

34 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

GM approval should, to use a common legal phrasing, not be unreasonably withheld.

 

Agreed.

[Duke Bushido]

12 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

I think you've miscounted. None of those work and three of them don't.

 

 

 

I love ya, Man, 

 

and I started to quote you chapter and verse-- to the point of dragging out 5e and reading it (it does have a nice index), but after about twenty minutes, i remembered why I don't use that thing much--

 

Lord, the _reading_!  I don't mean "I hate reading;" obviously I love reading.  I'm pretty certain that goes for most role-players (I've never met one that didn't like to read), but JHC, man!  Twenty minutes of cruising through all ends of micro-management minutiae, and still can't find even _one_ of the numerous mentions of "Characters shouldn't take 'Always On' (or whatever Limitation was under discussion at that time) for Growth to represent being very large.  Instead, they should buy Powers that represent the effects of being very large, or take Disadvantages appropriate to being very large and simply declare that the SFX is 'being very large,' "  or several thousand words to that effect.

 

I quit when my eyes got runny and my headache came back.  I spend all day coming through records and histories and catalogues of dry, boring stuff like that.  I don't want to come home and do it there, too.  Lord.  I can read a fourth of the entire 2e manual in the time it took me to give up looking for something that's in 5e _multiple times_!

 

At any rate, you win by default, because it takes more time than I have to get the information.

 

[zslane]

Yeah, what Duke said.

 

It seems to me that extrapolating from the way objects are measured according to their BODY (i.e., 2x size for each +1 BODY), characters could conceivably do the same thing (i.e., buy up BODY) if all they want to do is have a Very Large character (who isn't also super strong, super dense, etc.). I don't recall ever having to spend hours pouring through 2e or 4e to arrive at this conclusion.

[Christopher]

17 hours ago, Lucius said:

  

I think you've miscounted. None of those work and three of them don't.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says I don't work as well as I should.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I love ya, Man, 

 

and I started to quote you chapter and verse-- to the point of dragging out 5e and reading it (it does have a nice index), but after about twenty minutes, i remembered why I don't use that thing much--

"I am big": 6E does have the disection of hte Growth pwoer, wich allows you to make "naturally big" characters without resorting to permanent growth. Permanent growth might still be beneficial however, as the drawbacks are realized via Limitations. The same reason 6E introduced "selling off senses".

 

"I permanently fly": Definetely a power build.

Upside of flight: Does not leave tracks (usually)*. Does not trigger stuff like landmines that requires touching the ground.

Downsides of flight: More vulnerable to knockback.

 

*If you are thinking of hovercraft/low flying helicopters, those have specific limitations as part of their implementation of flight. Flight the hero system power does not have them inherently.

[Ninja-Bear]

Well Duke some of the “bloat” for 5th & 6th is from all the new modifiers that allow more uniqueness in the game with less GM handwavium. For example, Teleport in 3e, you couldn’t lose your velocity by Teleporting it’s explicit in the rules. Of course there probably a work around or GM approval. Now it’s just an adder. We’ve already had a thread over the merits of alternative combat values- trading OCV for ECV and such. Could you do it in prior editions of 6th? Yes, but again with GM approval.  What I found about 6th isn’t that I use all the options but rather when I do, it’s nice to have them. Now if your comfortable with going the GM approval like we discussed with DCIS, then by all means that’s great. Now I do think that there are a few items which didn’t needed to be added, such as inherent for extra limbs. 

[BoloOfEarth]

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Twenty minutes of cruising through all ends of micro-management minutiae, and still can't find even _one_ of the numerous mentions of "Characters shouldn't take 'Always On' (or whatever Limitation was under discussion at that time) for Growth to represent being very large.  Instead, they should buy Powers that represent the effects of being very large, or take Disadvantages appropriate to being very large and simply declare that the SFX is 'being very large,' "  or several thousand words to that effect.

 

Per 5E:183:

Quote

Growth is for characters who can alter their size; if the character is exceptionally large all the time, he can simulate that by buying various Powers with that special effect (see pages 126-27 or the Appendix, page 573).

 

Per 5E:126:

Quote

Size Powers are only appropriate for characters who can alter their size. Characters who are always very tall or very small should not buy these powers; instead, they should buy various Powers (such as high STR or an increased DCV) to reflect the benefits of having a permanently altered size, and a Physical Limitation (see page 336 and Appendix, page 573) to reflect the drawbacks. Use the Size Powers as guidelines for what Powers such characters should buy.

 

Though in fairness to Lucius, Duke had originally said (bolding added by me):

 

Quote

How about if we go all 5e on this thing and decide that you simply _state_ "my character is big" or "my character floats two inches above the ground at all times and can't turn it off" or "my character is missing an arm" but don't do anything, plus or minus, with points?  Two of those work and one doesn't?

 

Since the 5E and 6E "My character is big" thing does still involve points being spent, the first two that Duke listed (big and float) still don't work without point expenditures.

[Scott Ruggels]

Hmmm this may be why I want to stick with 4th Ed.. I worked in video games, and the  analogy for me is that the size of the game books is like the increasing graphics requirements for games. Champions was originally like Quake, then came Champions 2e like Quake2, 3rd edition was like Unreal. 4th was like Unreal Tournament, etc. The work needed for the increased requirement grows exponentially. I am not convinced the increased specificity of modifiers, was a good thing. 

[Duke Bushido]

16 hours ago, Christopher said:

 

"I am big": 6E does have the disection of hte Growth pwoer, wich allows you to make "naturally big" characters without resorting to permanent growth. Permanent growth might still be beneficial however, as the drawbacks are realized via Limitations. The same reason 6E introduced "selling off senses".

 

Man, I don't want to get too off-track, and I want to get back to scanning as fast as I can, but let me take a quick poke at this stuff (which I have quoted in entirely the wrong order, I see)

 

1) I can't swear to this, but I don't think 6E is the introduction of selling off Senses.  There may be new or altered rules for it, but it seems I remember seeing some company-approved villains (heroes?) with a sold-back sense or two, and players have been doing it since the first Daredevil knock-off, probably somewhere around 1e.  I know we did in 2e to build aliens for our sci-fi stuff.  No one told us we weren't allowed to build aliens until the company published a sci-fi book in 3e, so we did it and had a rip-roaring good time.   

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Christopher said:

 

"I permanently fly": Definetely a power build.

 

Why?

 

Okay, seriously: don't answer that; I really don't want to be tied up here the next few nights with what I am quite certain will be an interesting discussion.  Regrettably, I just don't have time for it right now.

 

16 hours ago, Christopher said:

Upside of flight: Does not leave tracks (usually)*. Does not trigger stuff like landmines that requires touching the ground.

Downsides of flight: More vulnerable to knockback.

 

Let's go with the 5e-legal example of "being big without Growth" I couldn't find but Bolo finally did (You're a wonderful human being, Bolo; thank you for doing that).

 

Growth....  Man, what did Growth give me in 5e?

 

Oh my GOD I hate this book so much!  (re-5 PDF.  I've never read re-5, I prefer my paper copy of 5e, but not by much).  You can't actually find a power in the Table of Contents, and going through the index gives hits on every time the word just appears in the text.  (Okay, slight exaggeration, but only slight.  Still, anyone wonder why HERO is not catching on with newer players anymore?  It doesn't just stop a bullet!  The frustration will stop a desire)  

"Hmmm.... Where's Growth....  Not in the Table of Contents.  Like, at all.  Let's try the index.   First appearance, Page 168.  Let's go to 168 and read all about Entangle.  Though it looks like it's only page two of Four pages about Entangle....   Hmmm.....    Maybe it's right after Entangle?  No....  That's EDM, for umpteen pages...  Let's look in the Index....  Index says   Well, let me get my magnifying glass so I can double-check that I'm reading it right....  Let's see... Growth.....  Growth (Power).. Yep.  168.  Okay, next it says 183; let's try there.... (thumbing through the four hundred pages I _don't_ want, yet again)...  Ah!  Growth!.   Now, what does Growth provide for me....?  After reading a page and half, I realize "not much," and I'm confused.  It no longer grants me AOE after a certain size, but it _does_ provide "Growth Momentum?" What the heck?  It's too wrong to get a "free" AOE for spending eighty points on growth, but for five points I can get some free damage dice?!    Fine; just run with it.  I don't get what I used to, I _do_ get something that's wiggy, but I also get:  BODY, Stun, Height, Mass, Additional Reach (free Stretching!  Yay! ), STR, KB Resistance, and some penalties if I get too big.

 

If I just want to be "big," do I _have_ to buy all that to be big?  I can't just declare "I'm eight feet tall, and I want some STR and BODY.  Why yes; according to the rules, you _can_.  Cool!  No DCV and PER penalties!  Love it!  All I have to do is be 440-odd pounds.  Of course, this extra weight won't cause me any problems like it does with Growth, because I didn't take the Disadvantage.  Oh?  I _have_ to take the Disadvantage?  Well, not really.  The book doesn't tell me that I _have_ to do that to be big.   It comes with Growth, which it specifically recommends I don't buy to be big all the time.  Tell you what, I'm not 440 pounds.  I'm 220 pounds, but I'm big.  I have Bird Bones.  No; it's not a disadvantage, because they don't break more easily.  They're part of my mutant power, and are laced with weird metallic compounds that make them stronger for way less weight.  My muscles are mostly air, too.

 

They can't be?  Fine.  I'll let the extra STR and BODY go, then.  I'm still eight feet tall.

 

Wait-- I _have_ to buy STR and BODY and all that other stuff to be eight feet tall?  _Why_?  I don't want the extra powers; I just want to be eight feet tall.  No; it's not a Limitation.  I can duck through doors and I get motion sickness, so I don't ride inside cars.  I get around with my Running or on my motorcycle.  No; you don't get motion sick on a motorcycle because you never turn.  No; you never turn.  Look it up.  It's about the angles and the G-forces and C-forces-- you never get the sensation of snatching to the right or the left.  So because I don't get into cars, and I sleep on the floor, and my spine lets me duck through doors, I have no limitations associated with being big (other than the apparent persecution and anti-tall discrimination that assumes I am somehow hundred by being eight feet tall.

 

 

Being big, without limitation, hindrance, of benefit costs how much?

How much does being hispanic cost?

How much does a mustache cost?

 

If it has no game effect at all, it costs nothing.

If it doesn't limit, it's worth nothing.

 

It just _is_.

 

Apply this to the floating example.  I wish I could remember where first I read that.  That was from an official ruling on something, way back when.  An official ruling, or example, or something--- at any rate, it was official, yet here it is being shot down  (which is why I chose it, because I figured it would be).

 

Did I buy Flight?

 

No.  I did not.  Therefore, I don't suffer the complications of Flight, like extra knock back.  I _also_ don't get any benefits of Flight, like not leaving traces.  There are power builds using flight to not leave a trail, but the SFX don't even have the character leaving the ground!  (Honestly, I have no problem with this: you paid for a specific benefit, after all).  But _not_ getting the benefit because you didn't pay for it, _this_ is a problem?

 

So I leave a trail.  Big deal.  I am cursed to never set foot on the earth; the Lord God Himself has forbidden me to revel in the sensation of my feet in a cooling river or fertile soil between my toes; He has even forbidden me to enjoy the wondrous scents of His garden ( sorry; got on a roll) until I atone for my Great Nasty Thing.  Thus, I am forever two inches above the ground.  My feet burn for the touch of spring grass; my spine aches to rest on a riverbank. 

 

You know, this sounds so wonderful it should cost points!

 

I leave footprints; I don't touch the ground, but the stain of my soul marks the ground beneath me with every agonizing denial of contact with the soil from which I was born.  I don't suffer additional knock back because I'm not flying.  The Lord would not bless me with such a gift after my great sins....  And at walking speed, a Turn Mode is ridiculous.

 

"Okay; fine!  Don't buy flying!  But I DEMAND  that you buy total invisibility without fringe, only to cover the bottom half of your feet!"

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Christopher said:

 

*If you are thinking of hovercraft/low flying helicopters, those have specific limitations as part of their implementation of flight. Flight the hero system power does not have them inherently.

 

No.  I thank you for considering it, but I'm not thinking of Flight at all.  I'm thinking about Distinctive Features, and nothing more.  I'm wondering what part of the rules require you to buy a Power to offset your ugliness, or what-have-you, and what part of the rules _mandate_ that someone take additional penalties for standing out in a crowd.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Well Duke some of the “bloat” for 5th & 6th is from all the new modifiers that allow more uniqueness in the game with less GM handwavium. For example, Teleport in 3e, you couldn’t lose your velocity by Teleporting it’s explicit in the rules. Of course there probably a work around or GM approval. Now it’s just an adder. We’ve already had a thread over the merits of alternative combat values- trading OCV for ECV and such. Could you do it in prior editions of 6th?  Yes, but with GM approval.

 

Well, yes and no.  I'm not arguing with the basis of your assertion; really I'm not.  To some extent, the GM got involved.  However, the rules have _always_ had rules for making new powers, new limitations, new advantages, etc.  They specify that the GM has to approve it, but the fact is that it was all still book-legal; not really "handwavium"  (I thought that was an alloy?   )

 

In practice, new advantages and adders generally have to fly with the entire group, just so no one feels --- you know what?  I've digressed enough.  Again, you're right: GM approval.  However, this was in accordance to rules going back to at least 2e (I have yet to read my new scan of 1e).  2e came about because of "home-brewed" changes to 1e.  Granted, it was the people that wrote it, but at the end of the day, it was homebrew made legal.

 

How many of your own house-ruled Advantages, Adders, Limitaitons, etc found their way into later rules editions?  Quite a few, I bet.  No; I'm sorry.  Seriously-- there is no snark in that _at all_.  I made the assumption that you do use at least an occasional House Rule.  To be fair, it's because you're a HERO player, and I have met very, very few that don't.  Forgive me; it was a bad assumption.  Let me change that just a bit, and offer a list of our own "house rules" that made it, more or less, into later editions.  Not exhaustive, just off the top of my head that (I _think_ ) were "new" in 5e.

 

Upscale = Megascale

Inherent = Inherent (that made me giggle a bit)

T-port Velocity Option = the adder to not shed momentum with T-port (as with the others, we did much differently, of course,  but we arrived at similar results)

Growth Punch = Growth Momentum (we did this as a separate Power Build entirely, with a set of modifiers.  I still prefer it, as Growth does not imply that a character physically swells up at such a rate as to provide this ability.  That, and we have a rule about Power Advantages)

 

And I'm going to stop there, because it's time to feed the kids and I want to move on a bit.

 

Because of this-- and I _know_ I'm not the only one.  Steve himself solicited some ideas for "things who's time has come" back when he was writing 5e.  I expect that he combed laboriously through the lists and studied the ones that were most-common; i.e., the ones that lot's of people were doing, indicating a real desire to see some official rules.   Then he did his Steve thing and determined how he himself thought it would work within the rules, and boom-- new stuff.  Same exact stuff for a good portion of people, I'm sure ( I only score one "exact," and that was Inherent.  I got an "almost" with Upscale, except he made it way too inexpensive to go way too fast, and wa== =never mind; I'm running on again.  What can I say?  You toss out some great ideas and talking points! )

 

The crux of this, summed up badly, is that there isn't really any "handwavium," despite the popularity of the idea.  The people making new House Rules are following the book rules by doing it, and they are more than likely not doing it because it's a shortcut; they are doing it because there is a need.  These needs won't get addressed until the next book (which seems to be a long, long way off right now).

 

As to your other point, I think most of the bloat comes from the line-by-line play through of how every single Advantage interacts with every single Power and stuff like that.

If you have a true Power Advantage, it's more or less universal in application and effect.  If it isn't, then you have an _Adder_, and stop making it something else.

 

11 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Yes, but again with GM approval.

What I found about 6th isn’t that I use all the options but rather when I do, it’s nice to have them. Now if your comfortable with going the GM approval like we discussed with DCIS, then by all means that’s great. Now I do think that there are a few items which didn’t needed to be added, such as inherent for extra limbs. 

 

  Sorry; I laugh because it amused me: I just finished posting that it was the best addition, for me, and then following up with reading that-- it was funny: a reminder that we all have different needs for our games.  For what it's worth: the idea behind inherent for Extra Limbs keeps them from being Drained or Suppressed.  Not allowing it (since the rules, at least at that time, didn't expressly state it, did not disallow this).  Personally, I think common sense takes care of most of the problems people want new rules for, but there we are: one man's good sense is another man's total insanity, after all.  

 

 

NB, it's been fun, but I've already shot through the tiny amount of time I _should_ have been scanning, and I've got to go get the kids fed.  You have a good evening, Sir (I assume)!

 

8 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Per 5E:183:

 

Per 5E:126:

 

Though in fairness to Lucius, Duke had originally said (bolding added by me):

 

 

Since the 5E and 6E "My character is big" thing does still involve points being spent, the first two that Duke listed (big and float) still don't work without point expenditures.

 

 

Bolo, you wonderful and patient human being, I am sorry that I quoted the wrong part of you comment, though I think the bulk of the comments on Christopher's post summed up a good chunk of what I had in mind.  I am sorry I didn't get to go into this further with you.

 

Christopher, NB, Bolo, etc--

 

you guys have a good weekend.  I'm banning myself until the last of the scanning is done!
 

 

Duke

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Ok Duke when you read this, I agree with you that with sfx if you say you hover and use running (which I have with robot cardboard miniatures), and you accept all the good and bad that that entails, i.e. the same as a normal then you are fine.  I suspect though that some players would want to be Big as sfx and not pay the points and still get the benefits.

[Doc Democracy]

I think that this is a feature of HERO, that there are (increasingly) no black boxes where just because you have one feature means you have to have one or more other features.  There are still some areas in the game where these black box package deals exist, growth and shrinking are high on that list.

 

If you want your character to grow and shrink during a game you buy the power that allows you to make that adjustment (but it does mean you are buying into a single vision of what it means to grow).  This would not meet the SFX of Bouncing Lad inflating himself to grow big.  There will be others too.  

 

Many black boxes have been deconstructed so that you can get exactly what you want, but it does mean a lot of explanation on how these things are done and appeals mostly to the geekiest of geeks (that’s us folks! ? ).

 

I have to say that if a player came to me in an urban fantasy game with the floating on the surface of the earth scenario Duke played out above (kudos for that, by the way) I would be content for it to be entirely SFX with no mechanical effect.  I think he would need a distinctive feature, though in some contexts, where only those who can ‘see’ would notice his torment, not even necessarily that.  

 

I have HERO because it provides me with the freedom to exactly this, to divorce each and every element to suit a particular concept.  If the concept does not fit the game, that is a different question, a different conversation.  If I am willing to have a one-armed warrior in my game, I am willing to allow that to be no more than a distinctive feature with the odd accommodation for SFX that I would make for anything else.  I might be willing to have an ancient martial arts master be able to go toe to toe with the Conan clone because it is in concept and cool.  I might allow an eyeless martial artist superhero without the need to take a complication or buy senses because the player does not want the differences mechanically, the alternate senses function just like eyes would if he had them.

 

As long as the player is not looking to game the system, to seek advantage she did not pay for then I see no need to penalise her for complications she was not rewarded for, or to insist she take both complication and reward.

 

Turning down a concept for being incompatible is a valid conversation, accepting a concept and imposing your take on it is, in my opinion, not a valid conversation for any game I would want to play in.

 

Doc

[LoneWolf]

Someone who has had a disability for a long time will often find way to adapt.  Often the person will be able to almost anything a normal person can do.  What I would do is require the character to take a 0 point complication.  This will mean that almost anything a normal person can do he can do.    So he will be able to do almost anything a two armed person can do.  He will not take any penalties for having one arm, but on the other hand he will not be able to get any bonuses for using more than one hand.

 

Another thing to consider is how much of the arm is missing.  If the arm was cut off at the elbow or lower he would be able to use special equipment for a lot of things.  For example he could use a bow that is able to be strapped to his stump.  Likewise a shield would also not be a problem.  If this is the case he would be able to get the two handed bonuses with proper equipment.

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

  Sorry; I laugh because it amused me: I just finished posting that it was the best addition, for me, and then following up with reading that-- it was funny: a reminder that we all have different needs for our games.  For what it's worth: the idea behind inherent for Extra Limbs keeps them from being Drained or Suppressed.  Not allowing it (since the rules, at least at that time, didn't expressly state it, did not disallow this).  Personally, I think common sense takes care of most of the problems people want new rules for, but there we are: one man's good sense is another man's total insanity, after all.

 

Would that be the common sense that tells us that a player who takes One Arm as a DF only is not disadvantaged by having only one arm, other than his memorable appearance caused by that missing appendage?

 

Or are you referring to the common sense that tells us of the many drawbacks which accompany a missing limb, such that a player clearly cannot just say his character is missing an arm, but that this provides no drawbacks other than his memorable appearance?

[Doc Democracy]

54 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

Someone who has had a disability for a long time will often find way to adapt.  Often the person will be able to almost anything a normal person can do.  What I would do is require the character to take a 0 point complication.  This will mean that almost anything a normal person can do he can do.    So he will be able to do almost anything a two armed person can do.  He will not take any penalties for having one arm, but on the other hand he will not be able to get any bonuses for using more than one hand.

 

Another thing to consider is how much of the arm is missing.  If the arm was cut off at the elbow or lower he would be able to use special equipment for a lot of things.  For example he could use a bow that is able to be strapped to his stump.  Likewise a shield would also not be a problem.  If this is the case he would be able to get the two handed bonuses with proper equipment.

 

So you would require the player to be disadvantaged but give him no payback for that disadvantage?

 

I think I would put the onus on the player to give a reasonable explanation of how he intended to accomplish things given the lack of one arm.  I would give him a lot of slack as he should, mechanically, be able to accomplish anything a character with two arms could.  

 

Doc

[zslane]

40 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think I would put the onus on the player to give a reasonable explanation of how he intended to accomplish things given the lack of one arm.  I would give him a lot of slack as he should, mechanically, be able to accomplish anything a character with two arms could.  

 

I mostly agree with this. But I would be careful that the amount of slack given doesn't allow the character to do patently impossible things with that missing arm (based on the campaign setting's axioms of reality), making the campaign world seem more cartoonish and/or implausible than I (and the rest of the group) signed up for. That means that the degree of latitude given here depends a lot on the nature and style of the campaign and the expectations of the GM and players involved.

 

The whole "you can't penalize or hinder a character who didn't explicitly take a Complication" rule must be treated as situationally malleable, like all the rules of any RPG. Take, for instance, climbing a sheer cliff face. That is a mighty challenging task even for expert climbers with two arms. Since I can't imagine how a one-armed character would accomplish something like that without special gear specifically designed to make that possible, I'd have to tell him he simply can't do it (in the absence of said special gear) regardless of the fact that he chose not to take a Complication that would have given him points for the terrible burden of accepting without complaint being told "no" in such situations. And I wouldn't just assume that the necessary gear is magically on hand by virtue of him not taking the Complication either (unless we're playing a TOON style campaign or something, where characters can pull items out of thin air as befits the tone and nature of such a campaign).