Missing Arm as a DF not Physical Complication

[Doc Democracy]

11 hours ago, zslane said:

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.

 

i too mostly agree ? but find it amazing that in a fantasy world, people might be more willing to suspend disbelief for a man throwing fireballs than a one-armed man training himself to function as well as any normal person might with two arms.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, zslane said:

 

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).

 

While I agree with maintaining the campaign level of realism, I find your example problematic.  If an expert climber with two arms can make the climb without special equipment, how is it a quantum leap to imagine that a similarly expert climber who has lost an arm, but has developed coping mechanisms which result in his loss of a limb not impeding him, could not make the climb.  To me, the most significant suspension of disbelief, by far, is the ability to scale a sheer cliff face without special equipment at all, regardless of having one or two arms.  Using good equipment is already a bonus to the skill roll, while lacking the appropriate equipment imposes a penalty.

 

I also question where the problem actually rests.  You are focusing solely on the character having only one arm.  Would you let a two-armed character scale that cliff face with no equipment if he has an 8- climb skill?  What if he has an 11-, or a 14-?  Does he need an 18-, 21- or 26- (enough to soak up -10 in penalties for difficulty and lack of equipment and still be pretty likely to succeed)?  Are skill levels that high realistic (within the parameters of realism permitted in the campaign)?  If we cannot imagine them, should they also be disallowed?

 

Maybe it's the combination - the one-armed man should not be allowed to buy a Climbing skill of 18-, 21-, 26-, or whatever because it just doesn't feel right for the character.  If the player has not bought a huge Climb skill, but just left that 8- Everyman, or even bought a DEX-based roll, is that an issue, or is that just consistent with coping with the missing limb?

 

Let's say the Wizard casts Mass Spider Climb, giving every character +15 Climb skill (or Clinging).  Is that forbidden to work on the one armed man when it works just fine on everyone else (pretty sure a spider with 7 legs still climbs pretty easily).

 

And I second Doc's comment - I listed quite a few "replacement arms" that are impossible in the real world but we would probably accept in a typical fantasy world, but someone who succeeds by personal skill and determination, rather than magical assistance, we simply can't suspend our disbelief for.  It is a common comment on other fantasy games that muggles can't have  nice abilities.  Sorry to see that dragged into any Hero game.

[zslane]

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

i too mostly agree ? but find it amazing that in a fantasy world, people might be more willing to suspend disbelief for a man throwing fireballs than a one-armed man training himself to function as well as any normal person might with two arms.

 

In one case magic is being used (magic that presumably follows the supernatural laws of magic in the campaign setting), but in the other you are referring to pure handwavium labelled "training". In the latter case I would require some reasonable explanation for what that training might actually be. I'm really not a fan of handwavium except in the explicit cases of magic and rubber science. So yes, some things require more effort to engage willing suspension of disbelief even in a fantasy campaign setting. Covering every ridiculous thing under the blanket of, "Hey, this is a fantasy world," is just plain lazy.

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

but someone who succeeds by personal skill and determination

 

There are limits to what personal skill and determination can achieve in any campaign setting that wishes to sustain verisimilitude, even magical/superheroic ones. Letting anything and everything fly without requiring that it pass at least a nominal plausibility test is possible, but not recommended.

[Doc Democracy]

Gonna have to bow out of this one.  We are simply re-stating our case. 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

23 hours ago, zslane said:

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). 

While there are situations where the gear is obviously not there (like he just broke out of Prision and has not re-aquired his gear), most of the times I would asume it is there. Especially if he has the skill, he has commonly needed gear for said skill.

[Duke Bushido]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

While I agree with maintaining the campaign level of realism, I find your example problematic.  If an expert climber with two arms can make the climb without special equipment, how is it a quantum leap to imagine that a similarly expert climber who has lost an arm, but has developed coping mechanisms which result in his loss of a limb not impeding him, could not make the climb.  To me, the most significant suspension of disbelief, by far, is the ability to scale a sheer cliff face without special equipment at all, regardless of having one or two arms.  Using good equipment is already a bonus to the skill roll, while lacking the appropriate equipment imposes a penalty.

 

I also question where the problem actually rests.  You are focusing solely on the character having only one arm.  Would you let a two-armed character scale that cliff face with no equipment if he has an 8- climb skill?  What if he has an 11-, or a 14-?  Does he need an 18-, 21- or 26- (enough to soak up -10 in penalties for difficulty and lack of equipment and still be pretty likely to succeed)?  Are skill levels that high realistic (within the parameters of realism permitted in the campaign)?  If we cannot imagine them, should they also be disallowed?

 

Maybe it's the combination - the one-armed man should not be allowed to buy a Climbing skill of 18-, 21-, 26-, or whatever because it just doesn't feel right for the character.  If the player has not bought a huge Climb skill, but just left that 8- Everyman, or even bought a DEX-based roll, is that an issue, or is that just consistent with coping with the missing limb?

 

Let's say the Wizard casts Mass Spider Climb, giving every character +15 Climb skill (or Clinging).  Is that forbidden to work on the one armed man when it works just fine on everyone else (pretty sure a spider with 7 legs still climbs pretty easily).

 

And I second Doc's comment - I listed quite a few "replacement arms" that are impossible in the real world but we would probably accept in a typical fantasy world, but someone who succeeds by personal skill and determination, rather than magical assistance, we simply can't suspend our disbelief for.  It is a common comment on other fantasy games that muggles can't have  nice abilities.  Sorry to see that dragged into any Hero game.

 

 

I'm not going to get deep back into this one for a short list of reasons, the single most important one might be what Doc offered before bowing out:  We are just re-stating our case.

Also, I want to use what little time I can grab here and there to stay on my scanning task

Third: I really have pretty well shot my intellectual wadding on this subject:  I don't have anything more to add; I can only reply to questions, but I expect I have answered any questions you might have for my position already, or someone else has given an answer identical enough to stand in.

 

Just a couple things before I drop back out, and likely will stay back out (but if the OP posts his final decision, I would appreciate it if someone would let me know  )

 

On November 17, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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?

 

A couple of years of experience with my buddy Lehman (former customer from when I was in the building materials game).  He doesn't have a Facebook (I've been looking since this thread started.  Evidently he doesn't social media, at least not under his own name) or I'd link it for validation.  He's a carpenter and an electrician and he has no hands.  He lost them years ago pulling a deep well up for replacement and hit a power line with the piping.  Blew them both off.  One is above the elbow, the other is just the tines bit below the elbow (he refers to this as his "chicken wing", which bugs the rest of us more than it does him, so I suppose we're all a bit prejudiced in our ideas about how "handicapped" people "should" behave).  He has a prosthesis that he wears.  Around his neck.  I've never seen him wear it except for around his neck, either.  He says it's for when he sees a cop while he's driving: he can slip it on and hook it over the steering wheel.

 

He is still a carpenter, and he's still an electrician, and he builds decorative little birdhouses and bric-a-brac for extra money when the mood strikes him.

 

I don't know how he gets dressed by himself, or how he relieves himself (and I _know_ that one is by himself because he's used the warehouse bathroom more than once) or how he gets that wad of tobacco in his mouth by himself, but he does it.  He does pretty much anything I do, except shake hands and ride a motorcycle.  I won't build him us a mighty adventurer or anything else, but the fact is that he still does everything he ever did before (except the shake hands part; I don't think he ever rode a bike).  And to top it all off, when it comes to building little wooden bric-a-brac, his craftsmanship is far superior to mine (and I ain't shabby).

I have watched him countless times pull his shirt tight with one arm, pop the bottom of his breast pocket with the other, and pop his wallet onto the counter to retrieve notes or pay a bill. And yes: some things he does are awkward to watch, but they are no slower than me doing it (unless he's using a debit card-- poking the little numbers with his "chicken wing" slows the process down a bit).

 

Yeah; I know: without pics it ain't real, which is why I was hoping he was a Facebooker, but apparently he isn't.  So just ignore this; the biggest reason I felt I had to post it even if I couldn't find some photographic proof was because this entire conversation has forced me to realize just how damned amazing he actually is.  I just don't feel sympathy for him like I used to.

 

 

On November 17, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

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?

 

In the example I assume (admitted: perhaps wrongly) that you are referencing, I am referring to the common sense that leads to the game rulings that ultimately determine if something needs a new rule or not; it was right there in the same sentence.    

 

For the purposes of this conversation, though, I would think common sense would lead the understanding that data is needed to make a judgement (presuming we are making a "real-world" determination as to someone's ability or inability with regards to being one limb short.  Rather than just assuming that someone would be limited because we believe that we ourselves would be limited, it would make more sense to actually observe the person in action, and _then_ determine if he is in fact limited.

 

The _huge_ flaw in this line of reasoning that seems to permeate this discussion is two-handed weapons.  It's been a long time since debate class, but I remember my philosophy a little better than my debat-iquette, so let's go back to one of the earliest, easiest lessons in that subject:

 

If you have no door on your bed chamber, are you free to leave every time you want?  Of course you are.

If there is a door, and you can open it, are you free to leave every time you want?  Of course you are.

If the door is locked from the outside, but is unlocked just before you awake-- every time you awake-- are you free to leave every time you want?   Of course you are.

 

People get hung up on that "but it was locked!" or worse, it was locked, and I didn't even know it!" a lot.  You'd think that didn't even know it part would have more significance to them: you didn't know it because it was unlocked every time you wanted to leave.

 

So it would be awkward for him to use a two-handed weapon (unless he has truly great STR, of course).  But is that a problem if he never had any intention of using them?  Are people who rely on mass transit less free because they can't hop into their truck and just go and go on the weekends?  Not if that is something that they aren't going to do anyway; no.  They are not.

 

All that seems to be the difficult part for some folks to accept.  It's why "doesn't work in a complete vacuum" is a -0 Limitation on Swimming-- you aren't going to leave earth's atmosphere with the intention of Swimming as a routine part of your life.

 

There's so much more, but as Doc points out, it's all restating, and I want to keep this short and get to what _I_ believe (again: just one stranger's opinion; don't consider it to be any sort of expert analysis) is the major stumbling block here:

 

 

23 hours ago, zslane said:

 

Since I can't imagine how a one-armed character would accomplish something like 

 

That's it, in a nutshell.

First, I want to thank you, Z, for being a good sport about me using your quote for this: this reply is not directed at anyone in specific!  I chose your quote because you were, as near as I could find, the first person to use those words, and because from your history in such discussions, you've always been big enough and gracious enough to understand there is no implied attack or ill-will.  I thank you, as I thank everyone in this thread thus far, and I believe that we all appreciate the impersonal and civil tone thus far.

 

But that's what I believe is the problem: "I can't imagine."

 

Well in this case, someone else can.  I unabashedly proclaim that _I_ can imagine it, and while I will not try to speak _for_ him, based on his activity on this thread, I expect that Doc D can imagine it, as can many others.  But in this case-- not just a case where a character has one arm, but in this specific case where this exact player and this exact GM are working on this one particular character:

 

The GM can't imagine it, either.  But the player can.  Get with the player.  _Remove_ all your ideas, all your reasons why you can't imagine it.  Force yourself to, if you can't see it from his side, at least really _listen_ to the players version.  And I don't mean just let him talk about it until he feels he has made a case: I mean _really_ _listen_ to his ideas and his thoughts.  I am not saying it will change your mind, but it might. Even if you can't see his vision working in your particular world the way he imagines it, you may find a lot more middle ground than before.  I don't know: I am certainly not an oracle.  I am a guy who should have put the lasagna in the oven thirty minutes sooner than he actually did, and is now spending the back of his mind working out a bathtub schedule for the kids that won't leave him getting to be an hour late.  The one thing that I _can_ absolutely _promise_ you, however, is that you will _never_ find even a middle ground if you start with the idea that "well your guy is missing an arm, so _obviously_ --- "

 

It's not an obvious fact.  It's a reflection of how you feel that _you_ would be in that scenario.  It's a reflection of what you believe is "normal."  At the end of the day, we're talking a world of magic and fairies and trolls and warriors so great they carry their horses when the horse gets tired.  Why is "normal" in a third-floor apartment on a noisy street in Cincinnati even remotely important here?

 

 

 

 

On November 17, 2018 at 2:27 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

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.

 

Thank you Ninja-Bear; that means a great deal to me.  And I expect that you have a point: there are those who would say "my character is X" with the plans of snagging a freebie at some point down the road.  (though you know, there is that "Power Skill" thing....    No; I'm kidding.  Though the analogy may make an interesting conversation at some point in the future, it is certainly not for here or now).

 

At the end of the day, I think the "floats over the earth" is pretty much the same thing as "DF: missing arm."  The only in-game effect that is actually mandated is that he now has half as many fingerprints.  The rest of it, just like DF: floats two inches above the earth, is just the SFX of this particular character's existence.  Heck, carried far enough, any character is essentially just the SFX of their stats, skills, powers, and Limitations.  In strictest game terms, the character is nothing more than the package they come in, and it gives us an easy way to get all those traits to where we want to use them.

 

Holy Cow!  I'm becoming a war gamer!

 

 

 

 

I've got to get busy.

 

You folks have a good evening!

 

Duke

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I possess the intelligence to agree with Doc, but not the wisdom to bow out.

 

9 hours ago, zslane said:

In one case magic is being used, but in the other you are referring to pure handwavium labelled "training".

 

There are limits to what personal skill and determination can achieve in any campaign setting that wishes to sustain verisimilitude, even magical/superheroic ones. Letting anything and everything fly without requiring that it pass at least a nominal plausibility test is possible, but not recommended.

 

Trimmed down to the issue at hand (I don[t believe I have changed your meaning).

 

In a typical Fantasy game, we dfon't just have magic.  We have Legolas-class archers, sheer wall scaling rogues and warriors whose skill and strength at arms allows them to battle a dragon.  We accept an amazing number of special abilities as a consequence of skill and training.  Your fixation on "a one armed man must face physical limitations that are impossible to overcome", compared to those characters and in spite of examples like the one-armed target shooter and Duke's acquaintance baffles me.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

In the example I assume (admitted: perhaps wrongly) that you are referencing, I am referring to the common sense that leads to the game rulings that ultimately determine if something needs a new rule or not; it was right there in the same sentence.   

 

Common sense tells some of us that a lack of complication points means a lack of complications.  To others, it absolutely requires these complications, points or no points.  Common sense is not all that common, nor is there a consensus on what it actually might look like.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

But that's what I believe is the problem: "I can't imagine."

 

Well in this case, someone else can.  I unabashedly proclaim that _I_ can imagine it, and while I will not try to speak _for_ him, based on his activity on this thread, I expect that Doc D can imagine it, as can many others.  But in this case-- not just a case where a character has one arm, but in this specific case where this exact player and this exact GM are working on this one particular character:

 

Exactly this.  I don't have to share the player's vision to accept it.  He does not strain the bounds of possibility to a greater extent than hundreds of other abilities in a fantasy game. That he can still achieve all that he previously could with one arm (except shaking hands with that hand) is no different than Duke's acquaintance who copes with his own loss of limbs.  [Duke, I won't say "pics or it didn't happen" - you have always posted with objectivity and examined all sides of the issue - you're not going to make up a story to win an online argument).

 

There seems no need for zslane to discuss with his player - the OP seemed to lean to allowing his player's vision, and zslane's players have not, to my knowledge, asked.  But I agree a good GM will look for a way to allow the player to play the character he envisions.  In extreme cases, that's not possible (game-breaking characters; Buck Rogers in LoTR, what have you).  This is not an extreme case.  The player does not want an unfair advantage, or an out of genre character.  So I'd be looking to make it happen. even if it is not the character I would envision or play.  Perhaps especially so - those are the ones that broaden the campaign, even the game.

 

If you can accept it only as magic,  then keep that in the back of your mind.  No one knows, nor will ever know, that the Patron Saint of Disabilities has gifted the character with a Guardian Angel Appendage.  To all in game, he's a one armed man who copes so well that he can do anything a two armed man can (and, being PC material, probably more than most).  You know it's magic.  The players don't, but life is full of mysteries and unknowns.

[Lucius]

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

In a typical Fantasy game, we dfon't just have magic.  We have Legolas-class archers, sheer wall scaling rogues and warriors whose skill and strength at arms allows them to battle a dragon.  We accept an amazing number of special abilities as a consequence of skill and training.  Your fixation on "a one armed man must face physical limitations that are impossible to overcome", compared to those characters and in spite of examples like the one-armed target shooter and Duke's acquaintance baffles me.

 

 

Would it baffle you if I said that Legolas cannot shoot the moon out of the sky, or that the wall scaling rogue cannot crawl across the ceiling like a spider, or that the warrior cannot kill his dragon by picking up and hurling a mountain at it?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Would you be baffled by a palindromedary?

[Scott Ruggels]

I think the base problem is summed up by “I can’t imagine someone....::”.  A GM will be handed a character such as the base character of this discussion, and they immediately imagine themselves in that situation. They are now missing an arm, holy cheese!  How are the going to go to (fill in the blank)?  The answer, is that they are going to adapt. Having come out of a serious, near fatal health situation for the past few months, I saw people adapt to all sorts of situations around me, often with the help of Physical therapists, and other health professionals, but over time they adapted. “I’m getting used to it”, “I’ve added another ten reps to my set”, or”I don’t need to use the walker any more, thanks”, are all examples of someone adapting. Doc’s Example of his handless friend is a good example of adaptation. I would argue that someone having a Physical Disadvantage “no arm”, could buy it down to Distinctive Features, “No left arm, concealable in a heavy, padded, coat”, is justified that the character adapted to his situation. To me, the argument seems like a failure of imagination rather than a lack of realism. 

[BoloOfEarth]

On 11/16/2018 at 7:12 PM, Duke Bushido said:

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.

 

FYI, you might want to check if your PDF has Bookmarks.  Most good ones do.  My version of 5ER does - in Adobe Acrobat, click on the thing that looks like a folded-over ribbon on the left side of the screen.  You might see something like "DOJHERO109 (blah blah blah)", if so click on the plus sign to expand it, then scroll down to "Powers G" and click on that to get to the page before Growth.

 

Edit to add:  Appearance may differ for older versions of Acrobat.  But if you dig around to find how to show Bookmarks, it will most likely be worth the time. 

[zslane]

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 I unabashedly proclaim that _I_ can imagine it

 

And if you were the player who wanted your one-armed character to climb a sheer cliff face without any special gear or powers (to use just that one example out of the countless other similarly "impossible" feats a character might ask to perform), then I would need to hear how you imagine your character accomplishing that, and I'd have to be convinced that it is plausible within the fictive reality of the campaign world, before I would allow it. But I would certainly hear your case. However, off the top of my head I can't imagine a plausible explanation (that doesn't come with half a dozen "if this and this and this" qualifiers that require way too much handwavium), and so I feel your job would be a difficult one.

[Duke Bushido]

I'm not the player, so I'm the wrong guy to ask. 

 

But if I were remotely curious, I'd ask this lady here:

 

 

https://theknow.denverpost.com/2017/11/03/maureen-beck-reel-rock-2017/164090/

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry;  hit the wrong button. 

 

To contiune:

 

Or Aaron Ralston, the guy who whacked off his arm with a dull pocket knife and had to climb dowon both handicapped and horribly wounded. 

 

Or Gary Guller: one armed mountain climber turned motivational speaker. 

 

Why is it so difficult to wrap our collective heads around the idea that there are people out there who are far, far better than us at pretty much anything we've ever done? 

 

Now I'm sure there is still a person or two who will argue that actually having had it done in the real world, repeatedly, doesn't make it at all realistic, and because I deep in my heart think this conversation has come to that point, I am bowing out completely.  I not only have nothing to add, but for the last page plus, I haven't seen anything really new to read, either. 

 

 

Once again, I thank all of you for a truly wonderful brain storming session.  This has been remarkably energizing, and inspirational. 

 

Thanks to all. 

 

 

 

Duke

[Christopher]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I'm not the player, so I'm the wrong guy to ask. 

  

But if I were remotely curious, I'd ask this lady here:

 

 

https://theknow.denverpost.com/2017/11/03/maureen-beck-reel-rock-2017/164090/

 

 

Not a sheer surface. If there are natural handholds, climbing it is doabel with even one hand. But if you lack those you have to make them. Wich requries 2 hands:
1 to hold you
1 to place the pin and hammer it in

[Duke Bushido]

Christopher, you're an extremely intelligent guy, and it's really unusual that I find myself this far away from your position (and I can't figure out how to turn alerts off, os that little chime keeps pulling me back over here :lol:) 

 

I will accept your counterpoint the moment someone convinces me (and I am malleable, if loud) that every single clearly-more-capable-because-they-aren't-handicapped two-handed dissenter in this discussion can do the same thing these people are doing, only far, far better, because they aren't "disabled". 

 

(please!  Someone shoot me a PM on turning off notifications!) 

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, zslane said:

 

And if you were the player who wanted your one-armed character to climb a sheer cliff face without any special gear or powers (to use just that one example out of the countless other similarly "impossible" feats a character might ask to perform), then I would need to hear how you imagine your character accomplishing that, and I'd have to be convinced that it is plausible within the fictive reality of the campaign world, before I would allow it. But I would certainly hear your case. However, off the top of my head I can't imagine a plausible explanation (that doesn't come with half a dozen "if this and this and this" qualifiers that require way too much handwavium), and so I feel your job would be a difficult one.

 

Would you set the bar at a similar level for the two handed character's player to explain precisely how he achieves the same feat?  Because I certainly don't know how to do it - but then, I do not have an 11- in Climbing, much less a heroic or legendary skill.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Why is it so difficult to wrap our collective heads around the idea that there are people out there who are far, far better than us at pretty much anything we've ever done? 

 

Now I'm sure there is still a person or two who will argue that actually having had it done in the real world, repeatedly, doesn't make it at all realistic, and because I deep in my heart think this conversation has come to that point, I am bowing out completely.  I not only have nothing to add, but for the last page plus, I haven't seen anything really new to read, either.

 

In fairness, the real world isn't all that realistic, now is it?

 

39 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

I will accept your counterpoint the moment someone convinces me (and I am malleable, if loud) that every single clearly-more-capable-because-they-aren't-handicapped two-handed dissenter in this discussion can do the same thing these people are doing, only far, far better, because they aren't "disabled".

 

And therein lies the key - the one armed character is a one armed cinematic hero, not a one armed couch potato who slings dice every so often with friends imagining cinematic heroics.  So, I will accept the counteroffer once someone shows me that a one-arm'ed gamer is not as able to roll dice as a two armed gamer

[zslane]

57 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Would you set the bar at a similar level for the two handed character's player to explain precisely how he achieves the same feat?

 

Yes, I would.

 

But I think we may be focusing too much on the specific example here. I was merely trying to find a situation that was basically impossible. Maybe my example wasn't sufficiently "impossible" for you, and if so, substitute one you prefer. If a character was missing his right-arm, how would he perform a right-handed military salute? How would he perform a voodoo ritual that required complex gestures with both hands?

 

Now maybe you're saying you'd alter every such situation so as to remove any natural barriers the character might face, but IMO that is giving the character way more power over the campaign setting than his choice not to take 10 points of Complication should buy him.

 

58 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

And therein lies the key - the one armed character is a one armed cinematic hero

 

Sure, but even being a cinematic hero has its limits.

[LoneWolf]

As someone with a real world disability I understand that a person can overcome a lot more than people give them credit for.  In some cases learning to overcome the disability can actually give you some advantages over people without the disability.  My disability is a hearing loss.  Because I cannot always hear everything I have learned to make the most of what I do.  This sometimes allows me to understand what people mean even if some of the message is missing.  People are often surprised by the fact I can read a partial message and understand what a person means.  I can often understand someone who has limited command of English better than someone who does not have a hearing loss. 

 

A one handed man could easily lean to adapt to be able to perform most tasks that a person with both hands could perform.  There will of course be some things that will be difficult or even impossible for the one handed man to do, but those should be very rare.  This was the reason I suggested a 0 point complication.  The basic rule of Hero system is that if a complication does not hinder you, or only hinders you in very minor ways it is worth no points.  About all I would say is that the character is unable to get a bonus for using two hands.  They would not take a penalty for only having one hand even if the activity normally uses two hands.  To me that would be a 0 point complication.

[Christopher]

13 hours ago, zslane said:

If a character was missing his right-arm, how would he perform a right-handed military salute?

There are actually rules for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salute#Saluting_with_left_hand

" Some soldiers may salute with the left hand when the right hand is encumbered in some way (though it is rare), for example, a soldier with a rifle at Right Shoulder Arms; if movement of a weapon would be encumbered when making the armed salute; if the performance of duty requires the right hand for use or operation of equipment such as riding a motorcycle; if it is not possible to use the hand due to injury or amputation; when escorting a woman and it is not possible to walk on her right side. A right-handed boatswain Mate piping an Officer aboard may salute with his/her left hand."

As the salute is only a convention/social norm, exceptions to it are easy.

 

13 hours ago, zslane said:

How would he perform a voodoo ritual that required complex gestures with both hands? 

"It is harder to weave the magic with only one hand, but not impossible. I learned to live with it."

It is easy to comapre this case to "one handed grab", where offsetting training is like "+5 STR with left arm".

[zslane]

On 11/20/2018 at 7:56 AM, Christopher said:

There are actually rules for that

 

Rules that may not apply in my science fiction campaign.

 

On 11/20/2018 at 7:56 AM, Christopher said:

"It is harder to weave the magic with only one hand, but not impossible. I learned to live with it."

 

But maybe in my campaign setting, it is absolutely necessary to perform this particular ritual using the complex two-handed gestures without variation in order to tap into the supernatural forces at work, or to successfully "call" the supernatural being to our dimension (or whatever). The player doesn't get to change the laws of magic in my campaign setting just because he elected not to take a Complication.

 

The way I see it, this is really no different than a player who creates a character whose backstory says they are a member of a prominent family who are barons of industry, commerce, and politics, but elects not to take a DNPC Complication for any of them. Now, if anyone thinks that I as GM am prohibited from imperiling those family members as part of a larger plotline just because the player did not take a DNPC Complication they are not only dead wrong, I seriously question their grasp of the game.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, zslane said:

 

Rules that may not apply in my science fiction campaign.

 

 

But maybe in my campaign setting, it is absolutely necessary to perform this particular ritual using the complex two-handed gestures without variation in order to tap into the supernatural forces at work, or to successfully "call" the supernatural being to our dimension (or whatever). The player doesn't get to change the laws of magic in my campaign setting just because he elected not to take a Complication.

 

The way I see it, this is really no different than a player who creates a character whose backstory says they are a member of a prominent family who are barons of industry, commerce, and politics, but elects not to take a DNPC Complication for any of them. Now, if anyone thinks that I as GM am prohibited from imperiling those family members as part of a larger plotline just because the player did not take a DNPC Complication they are not only dead wrong, I seriously question their grasp of the game.

 

True enough on both accounts however the question is; Did you have these game conventions in mind before the player wanted a one armed man or are you just trying to screw the player?

[Christopher]

5 hours ago, zslane said:

 

Rules that may not apply in my science fiction campaign. 

 

 

But maybe in my campaign setting, it is absolutely necessary to perform this particular ritual using the complex two-handed gestures without variation in order to tap into the supernatural forces at work, or to successfully "call" the supernatural being to our dimension (or whatever). The player doesn't get to change the laws of magic in my campaign setting just because he elected not to take a Complication.

 

The way I see it, this is really no different than a player who creates a character whose backstory says they are a member of a prominent family who are barons of industry, commerce, and politics, but elects not to take a DNPC Complication for any of them. Now, if anyone thinks that I as GM am prohibited from imperiling those family members as part of a larger plotline just because the player did not take a DNPC Complication they are not only dead wrong, I seriously question their grasp of the game.

 

The your selected Setting Rules make the taking of this Complication impossible. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can change the rules or be a stickler. That is the GM's prerogative.

 

Also, seriously? Rules for when you can salute with the other Hand do not exist in your science ficiton campaign? What if someone looses their hand in the middle of combat, miles from the nearest "restore all limbs" medical treatment? Firing squad for insubordination?

[Duke Bushido]

6 hours ago, zslane said:

 

Rules that may not apply in my science fiction campaign.

 

 

But maybe in my campaign setting, it is absolutely necessary to perform this particular ritual using the complex two-handed gestures without variation in order to tap into the supernatural forces at work, or to successfully "call" the supernatural being to our dimension (or whatever). The player doesn't get to change the laws of magic in my campaign setting just because he elected not to take a Complication.

 

The way I see it, this is really no different than a player who creates a character whose backstory says they are a member of a prominent family who are barons of industry, commerce, and politics, but elects not to take a DNPC Complication for any of them. Now, if anyone thinks that I as GM am prohibited from imperiling those family members as part of a larger plotline just because the player did not take a DNPC Complication they are not only dead wrong, I seriously question their grasp of the game.

 

 

Hello, Z, and happy Thanksgiving!

 

I love my new job: never got off early for a Holiday before, and in my entire adult life, I've never had a four-day weekend!  Not being funny: I really don't know how to enjoy it yet, and I've been feeling "wrong" just by being at home this early in the evening.

 

 

Anyway, I popped over to scroll through to see if there were any new developments (seems there really aren't  ).  We may have exhausted the discussion entirely.   It might be time to "agree to disagree" before we get to that ugly place where we stop listening to each other entirely.  

 

 

I enjoyed the entire thread, though; I really did.  I just wanted to mention something about your last couple of examples.  The first one above-- the problems with casting magic:

 

This goes directly back to the freedom-inside-a-locked-room thing I mentioned:  It's only a problem if the character had any intention of using magic.  By some as-yet-unidentifiable bit of meta-gaming, the vast majority of every fantasy party I've ever seen had _one_ magic specialist.  If the party was large enough, there was some sort of healer with a lesser bits of magic.

 

And that's it.

 

One magic specialist per party.  So our one-armed man is to be penalized because he _can't_ do something, even if he didn't want to in the first place?  

"What do you do for a living?"

"I'm a trapper who trades in furs. Occasionally, I let myself out as a guide for strangers in these parts on interesting adventures."

"You can't use magic, can you?"

"Why would I want to?  The traps are pretty easy to set, I know my way around the woods, I'm a fair hand with  sword and dagger, and there's nothing lives here that's difficult to skin.  Why do I need to spend years studying magic when I can be adventuring now?"

"Just sayin'. You're never going to be able to use magic."

"I don't want to use magic."

"Fine.  But you're never going to be able to.  You're going to have to suffer some penalty to your life because you can't use magic."

"I don't use magic; I don't _want_ to use magic; no one in my entire village uses magic!  Are we all to be punished because we don't want to use magic?"

"No; of course not.  Just you.  You're the only one getting punished.  The rest of them have the only acceptable number of hands."

"What about Traveling Mike, of the Spider Folk?  He comes through these parts every third moon and mends kettles and blades.  Like all Spider Folk, he possesses six arms!  Though I confess, I would be happy for him to see a substantial boon fall his way.  He may be able to stop traveling and keep a true shop for once, with a real bed in which to rest.  I would be delighted for him, indeed!'
"Why would he get a boon?"

"Well, he has six arms.  If I am to be penalized because my single limb, well-thewn though it may be, is one short of the two required to wield magic, in spite of neither needing nor desiring such, then is Traveling Mike not to receive a boon upon his life?  For he has not one, but three pairs of arms, each more skilled than a seamstress who dabbles with nunchuks.  Surely this is worth bequeathing him a gift!  He could work magic at least three times as deftly as you, Sir."

"No.  He'll have to take a penalty, too..."

"Why is that, Sir?"

"He's not got two arms.  It's just not natural."

 

 

 

Fine; so a bit of fun, because at this point, it's just time for it.

 

But going right back to the "Disadvantage that doesn't limit is worthless (yes; it's an old saw, but frankly, it _is_ a major pillar upon which character creation is based),"  "Can't use magic" is absolutely not a limitation for a character who _doesn't_ use magic.  At that point, you are quite pointedly and undeniably penalizing the _player_, and not the character, and that's just a total Nixon move.

 

You can do that second one all you want, but why don't we all take just a minute, step back, and examine that.

 

Why would I have all these illustrious and powerful family connections and _not_ take a Disadvantage related to having powerful and illustrious family connections?

 

I ran away so I could live on my own?

 

What makes a DNPC a limitation-- a liability, to use a more reality-oriented word?  Generally it's emotion: you have a powerful emotional interest (be it love, duty, or a sense of obligation-- it might even be genuine concern or a over-active compassion gland.  Call what you like, in the end, it is that you care.

 

 

Why wouldn't they be a limitation?  Well, they're rich and powerful-- possibly even more than I am!  They are so capable of providing for their own care that I don't really much bother myself wondering about their well-being.

 

I have twenty powerful relatives that I may or may not mooch off (depending on the character conception I pitched).  Why wouldn't I take some sort of Limitation based on that?

 

 

Well for that, if you'll watch your head on the door-- it sags a bit; it's hard to find pneumatic struts for DeLoreans these days-- I'm going to take you back to 1983: the scene of one of the earliest Champions-based not-Champions games we head ever tried.  Davien was running (worst GM _ever_, and serial rules rapist as a player) and the campaign was set around his favorite game: Dungeons and Geiger Counters.  I mean, uh, Gamma World.  I actually _was_ the player you postulate: I was heir to one of the mid-level Eastern Kingdoms, and I had abandon that and headed west to seek my own destiny.  I had _no_  Disadvantages like DNPC or Reputation: heir to the throne.  Nothing.

 

You know why?  It was just _backstory_.  In game terms, we were adventuring over a month's ride from my birthplace, far enough that no one knew of the Easter Kingdoms, so that I might make a name of my own.  Yet Davien still kept trying to use it against me: getting me kidnapped for ransom, etc.  It didn't work well, because any single time I thought about throwing it back at him and tossing out "well I'm heir to the Kindgom of the Ashen Villages (which I would _never_ have done if Davien hadn't kept literally rail-roading me into it)", the response from every single person within ten-days march would say "who?"  and be all unimpressed.  Then something would happen to me because of who I was born from.  I wrecked it for him by never varying from the idea that I was cast out from the family (I wasn't, but I ended up changing my backstory to make this complete horse-puckey stop! ).

 

Near the middle of the campaign, he turned the tables: he decided he would kidnap my _parents_  (totally unbelievable, considering that the four guys who seem to have done it had no chance against the small army they would have had to wade through, but hey-- he was a total Nixon, and this was a _total_ Nixon move in a long, long line of total Nixon moves.  He thrived on it.  He thought TPK was some kind of desirable goal as GM.  But I digress.

 

I -- no; not quite right.  The other players and I had amassed impressive (but not staggering) wealth by this point, and were working on building a fortified keep of sorts, from which to to begin building a fortified city.  In our youth, we had plenty of time to game; we could be very long-view oriented like that.

 

Then I get a messenger who tells me if I want to see my parents alive, I (and the party) would vacate the fortified keep, convert our wealth (technology, metals, jewels, etc)-- into Ingots, and bring them to X on day Y.

 

So the party and I (having hatched an off-table plan) carry large sacks on carts to location Y, leave, and watch from a vantage point.  After days of watching (we knew Davien: we knew his goal was to simply "bully the party" and he had no actual plan for the next events.  We threw it in his court), two men creep out from under cover, dance excitedly, and run up amongst the carts.  At which point the player who had restored the tech set off the remote, and a massive fireball consumed these two men.

 

Two days later, another messenger, telling me that the kidnappers are going to forgive my stupidity, but if I don't do it for real, they will kill my parents.

 

So I let the new day y pass.  By like a week.  Another messenger, same threat, to which I replied "what?  They're not dead yet?" as annoyed as I possibly could.  I ignored the next day y, and got-- yet another messenger!  Who'd'a thunk?!

This time he has brought me a finger with a royal ring upon it as proof.

 

Fine.  This has gone on long enough.  I shot the messenger.

 

Two days later-- another messenger!  Different guy this time, though. He tells me day Y has been moved up because of my uncooperativeness and the deaths of three of his associates.  He tells me this from behind, across the weapon in my back.  I don't actually carry all my wealth with me all the time, I explain.  No matter, it seems, I am to be hostage, along with my parents.  Oh, goody.  So they're still alive?

 

Oh yes.

So you're just incompetent, then?  That's the problem?

I get stabbed a bit in the backal region.

 

 

We arrive at the cave behind the scrubs and cover, where we had first blown up his other two associates.  By torchlight, we make our way into the cave, and eventually come to a well-lit room, where I see my parents tied to posts in the center of the cave.  My guide had replaced the weapon in my back with a torch, so I took a chance!  I grabbed my hold-out weapon from inside my clothing, putting all my skill levels into pistol, and shoot both of my parents dead, turn to the last remaining kidnapper and ask him "THERE, DAMN IT!  Was that so damned hard?!"  This served as enough of a presence attack (we _all_ insisted) that I managed to take him down, too.

 

Then I-- me, not the character-- stood up and gathered my things.  Four of the other players stood up and gathered their things.   Davien and two players remained.  The five of us standing told him flat out: this is a total Nixon move, and you know it.  Or maybe you don't.  Maybe you've been a Nixon yourself for so long you can't recognize it anymore.  At any rate, we're done.  Only we didn't say "Nixon," of course.  For some reason, we could only remember his tricky nick name.

 

 

A long story to remind you that you can do whatever you want.  But there is _nothing_ you can do to make a player actually give a sh(oo)t about those people he doesn't not take as Disadvantages.  Sure; you can call it "bad roleplaying" if you want.  I'll even agree with you.  I just might not agree with you about who's doing it.

 

 

 

And that third example?  That military salute "must" "only" "super-special ulitmato-importante?"  "doing it one handed is treason and rape of the general's children all rolled into one?"

 

I actually have more trouble accepting that in any way shape form or fashion than I have trouble accepting a small party of adventurers killed an evil sorcerer and overthrew a tyrant.  I have more trouble believing that than "four-month-old prodigy kills dragon."  Seriously: I will accept that your world contains the story of Burpulese, the Infant of Might, before I accept it has a sane military commander who created this salute.

 

As someone else pointed out:  Was there _any_ chance of this happening _prior_ to the one-handed-man discussion?  

 

 

Anyway, I'm gonna run.

 

I've got a holiday weekend to learn how to enjoy!

 

I hope you folks enjoy your holiday as well!

 

 

Duke

 

[Mister E]

Missing hit locations ought to cost something.

 

How would you build it? Some kind of localized Always On Desolid? A new form of Automaton Power?

[BoloOfEarth]

8 hours ago, zslane said:

The way I see it, this is really no different than a player who creates a character whose backstory says they are a member of a prominent family who are barons of industry, commerce, and politics, but elects not to take a DNPC Complication for any of them. Now, if anyone thinks that I as GM am prohibited from imperiling those family members as part of a larger plotline just because the player did not take a DNPC Complication they are not only dead wrong, I seriously question their grasp of the game.

 

I've mentioned several times in other threads that in my Champions game, I give the PCs 5 free XP during character creation if they provide me with 5 NPCs, with the express understanding that they are NOT going to be used as on-the-cheap DNPCs.  Why?  Because I want the players to have a more vibrant world to live in, peopled with characters they might actually care about -- mainly because the players created some of those characters themselves. 

 

Another why?  Because I've seen players create characters who have no family, no friends, no close connections at all.  Orphans and loners.  Because they've had GMs screw their characters over for daring to have family or friends.  (To be clear, I'm not saying that's something you would do, but I'm sure you know the type of GM I'm talking about.  If not, see Duke's story for an amusing illustration of one.)

 

Now, does that mean the hero's NPCs are immune from danger and harm?  No, things still happen to them, because, well, life is like that.  But those NPCs aren't the focal point of plots, though they might be on the periphery.  They're not kidnapped by the Villain of the Week.  The PC doesn't have to save them.  And any danger they face doesn't directly involve the PC (though events might tie into adventure plots).  A few examples:

 

Sentinel has a mom (normal NPC) and daughter (DNPC).  One day, mom took her granddaughter (the PC's daughter) to run some errands, and they were in a bank when it was robbed by a supervillain and his minions.  By the time Sentinel found out about it, the robbers were long gone and her mom and daughter were okay, though very shaken up by the ordeal.  It gave the PC a first-hand account of the robber's powers, which was useful info for that evening's adventure.  If I had wanted to have the PC directly involved in the robbery, the mom and daughter would have gotten separated, probably with the mom doing shopping while daughter ran next door to the bank to use the ATM, and gotten caught up in the robbery.  Either way, there was plenty of character drama to deal with involving the NPC - without the PC having to save her mom.

 

Circe (PC mentalist) in her secret ID has a female friend who is a fashion model.  I decided that said model was a user of recreational drugs, and was worried about aging out of her career.  So when an adventure plot involved somebody creating and selling a highly addictive designer drug that seemed to reverse aging, Circe found out about it when she noticed her model friend using the drug.  Circe used her Telepathy to find out the model's drug connection, and followed up the chain to take on the big bad. 

 

In neither case did the PC have to save the NPC from imminent peril.  But they still played minor roles in the adventure plot. 

 

So those barons of industry, commerce, and politics?  They don't have to be imperiled by having the hero's Hunted kidnap them.  The Hunted might take over the industry baron's factory as part of his plot.  He might steal a chunk of the commerce baron's stock portfolio.  Or he might mind control the politician's underlings to get what he wants, endangering the politician's career.  Plenty of ways for a creative GM to involve them in the plot, without putting a gun to their heads, and without the PC having to directly save their lives.