Missing Arm as a DF not Physical Complication

[Christopher]

5 hours ago, Mister E said:

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? 

The hit locations simply pass through to the next less specific. Hand becomes Arm. Armr becoems torso. And if oyu lack that one too, I guess everything is a headshoot?

[Hugh Neilson]

On 11/19/2018 at 7:18 PM, zslane said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

So the one handed man cannot achieve a task that would be impossible for a two handed man?  That does not seem to differ from what the player is asking.  "My character can do anything a two-armed character of similar skills and abilities can do" appears to be the ask.

 

How would he salute?  With his left hand.  That would be noticable.  That is what a Distinctive Feature (the complication the player wants to take) is for, isn't it?  If not saluting with the right hand (however impossible) means the character is to be lined up against the wall and shot, it sounds like his DF causes extreme reactions, and should be worth more points in your setting.

 

Clearly, he would not perform a complex voodoo ritual that requires two hands.  But shouldn't he get a higher limitation for one-handed gestures, if that means he (unlike anyone else in the game) can't do anything with his "off hand"?  If the game setting requires two hands for magical rituals, then we have a clash between the desired character and the game setting which needs to be resolved.  As I consider the "complex magic which requires two hands", I am reminded of the Dr. Strange movie.  He can't cast his spell because his hands are disabled.  Yet Hamir can manage with only one hand - it is not the limbs, but the will.

 

Should we also decide that female characters have a lower Normal STR maximum (remember how well received that was in early editions of AD&D)?  Maybe redheads are cursed, so we kill them on sight.  OK, in this world, red hair comes with a lot of mandatory complications. 

 

But none of the roadblocks you are frantically inventing appear to be issues in the campaign the OP is running, does it? 

 

20 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.

 

You can imperil any NPC you like.  As has been pointed out, however, the player is not obligated to protect these NPCs as they are not DNPCs.  Perhaps he has washed his hands of his family.

 

Let me toss out another possibility, however.  He also did not pay points for Contacts, Favours, Followers, etc. from his family members.  Will those also just happen because it is logical in the campaign, whether or not points were paid?  Or do you only impose complications, and not perks and benefits?  After all, no one should think that I as GM am prohibited from having those family members befriend one or more of the PCs as part of a larger plotline, even coming along on an adventure and fighting in combats alongside the PCs, right?

 

Or is it only OK to impose drawbacks for which no points are received as compensation, and never to provide a benefit which was not paid for in full?  Either points govern the abilities of the characters or they do not.

 

By neither paying points for benefits  nor taking points for complications, the player has declined to impose any constraints on how those NPCs might be used in the campaign.  By making them DNPC's, he has made them more troublesome than helpful.  Taking them as Contacts or Followers makes them more beneficial than problematic.  Without one or the other, the family members are added to the bystanders of the campaign.  You could make members of his family the campaign villains, the patrons of the PCs, or whatever else you want - just as you could use NPCs with no connection at all in those roles.  But the player has not committed to treat these NPCs differently from any other NPC in the campaign, whatever role you place them in.  He is not required to allow familial bonds to influence his actions, positively or negatively, in any way.

 

From your comments, it seems like it might be best if you just wrote all the characters for your campaign so that no one can violate your inherent sense of the One True Way to represent any given character attribute.  I suspect that is not how your games actually run, but that is definitely how you are coming across here.

 

15 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

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?

 

Exactly.  I can also give everyone in game ED 5 points higher than PD to screw the Wizard who uses energy attacks as compared to the melee characters, or have the major campaign religion include tenets that the disabled must be afforded special privileges so it is the two armed characters who face relative drawbacks in game.

 

If these issues were part of the setting dogma, presumably that would have been communicated to the players before the game started, and it would have been clear that having one arm would be a more severe distinctive feature, and perhaps also a social complication, than would be the case in a typical game.  Just like I would expect to know that, in this setting, dwarves are pariahs in the Human Kingdoms, to be slain on sight, before I chose to play a dwarf.

 

[zslane]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

He also did not pay points for Contacts, Favours, Followers, etc. from his family members.  Will those also just happen because it is logical in the campaign, whether or not points were paid?

 

Yes. In-game benefits and penalties come and go constantly during the course of play. It is how RPGs are played.

[zslane]

Complications like Physical Complication: Missing Arm are a way for the player to be "compensated" on some level for being subject to the challenges that come from having a missing arm in any campaign world built upon a modicum of conventional reality. Not taking the Complication is not a means by which players can define their characters as having such physical infirmities while being completely immune to the consequences of that choice. If they don't want to be compensated, well, that's their choice I suppose, but their characters won't get to defy the fundamental reality of the game. They effectively have the same 0 point Complication all humanoids in the campaign setting have: Physical Limitation: Can't Use Limbs That Don't Exist. Now, if the GM distorts every in-game situation such that the character never ever has need for the missing arm (even when logic dictates they should), then they are pushing the concept of Complications far beyond their intended scope.

[Hugh Neilson]

19 hours ago, zslane said:

Not taking the Complication is not a means by which players can define their characters as having such physical infirmities while being completely immune to the consequences of that choice. If they don't want to be compensated, well, that's their choice I suppose, but their characters won't get to defy the fundamental reality of the game.

 

Actually not taking the complication on the basis that the complication is not to impede the character in-game is a means by which players define their characters.  From 6e v1 p 414

 

Quote

Before you select a Complication, think of it this way: taking a Complication for your character is a message to the GM — “I want you to incorporate this aspect of my character into the campaign.” A Complication is a part of your character, just like his Stealth, his Flight, and his weapons, and when you buy it you’re telling the GM you want it to become a part of the game. So don’t select a Complication that you don’t want to affect your character — choose Complications that reflect aspects of your character that are so important they need to be a prominent part of the campaign. Every Complication should flesh out the character and make him more enjoyable and rewarding to play.

 

This player is sending a message to the GM that the only aspect of this character's missing limb which should arise in-game is that he is recognizable.  He is not physically impeded.  His choice of a DF for this complication is perfectly legitimate within the game context, and this is a means by which the player can define his character.

 

A further thought - the "one armed man who only looks distinctive, but can achieve anything a two-armed man could do" can be viewed as having the Complication "only has one arm" and having spent the points from that complication on "penalty skill levels - offset all penalties that would apply for having only one arm".  This is an extension of the logic cited a few times above of buying extra STR only to offset the STR reduction for a one-armed grab. 

 

Another approach is "only has one arm" offset by "extra limbs" (defined as using other parts of his body to offset the missing arm, such that he effectively does have two arms).  "Missing a limb" offset by "extra limbs" is an example specifically provided in the 6e rules (legs in that case) of a complication which should not be allowed.  The combination of the power and the complication offset each other, so there should neither be a power purchased nor a complication obtained.  The two leave the character exactly as capable as a baseline character - no more, and no less - so there is no impact on character points.

[Christopher]

21 hours ago, zslane said:

Complications like Physical Complication: Missing Arm are a way for the player to be "compensated" on some level for being subject to the challenges that come from having a missing arm in any campaign world built upon a modicum of conventional reality.

Wich is exactly why he does not take the Physical Complication. But to social complicataion "Distinctive Feature".

 

It is your right as GM to say "the realism of this scenario does not support this combination. It is not realistic for a character with missing arm to only have a DF, he needs a physical complication"

It is your right as GM to say "this complication is not hindering* and thus not worth any points" (as hugh already quoted)

We already established that on page 1, Post 5 latest.

 

Now the only thing I can not figure out is what you are even arguing about.

 

*In average gameplay.

[BoloOfEarth]

[Ninja-Bear]

Bolo this is funny as long as I ain’t the one being wrong! ?

[massey]

On 11/22/2018 at 1:52 AM, Christopher said:

The hit locations simply pass through to the next less specific. Hand becomes Arm. Armr becoems torso. And if oyu lack that one too, I guess everything is a headshoot?

 

That's how it works in Battletech, so it's good enough for me.

[massey]

Here's the final, true, 1000% correct answer.  Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

 

It is perfectly legal to take Distinctive Features: missing arm, and then not take further Disadvantages/Complications related to it, thus functioning the same as a character with two arms.  The rules allow you to do this.  Doing so will not be appropriate in all campaigns, and the concept will make some GMs have a conniption fit (see lane, zs).  This doesn't make it any less book legal though.

 

[Christopher]

7 hours ago, massey said:

Here's the final, true, 1000% correct answer.  Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

 

It is perfectly legal to take Distinctive Features: missing arm, and then not take further Disadvantages/Complications related to it, thus functioning the same as a character with two arms.  The rules allow you to do this.  Doing so will not be appropriate in all campaigns, and the concept will make some GMs have a conniption fit (see lane, zs).  This doesn't make it any less book legal though.

 

One could say: "It is the RAW truth!"

[Tech]

It's clear this conversation is pretty much split down the middle. Half say it's fine, others say no it's not.

[massey]

1 hour ago, Tech said:

It's clear this conversation is pretty much split down the middle. Half say it's fine, others say no it's not.

 

And they may be right, for their games.  But it isn't universal.

 

The core of this argument comes up with some frequency, but it takes different forms each time.  It boils down to how much you can divorce the character description from the character build.  In a game where you can define the special effects of your powers and abilities, what are the limits?  The rules themselves don't establish any limits, you are free to define your character however you wish.  But not all character descriptions are appropriate for all genres, or all campaigns.

 

It totally changes the feel of the story to include supernatural powers where they didn't exist before.  Die Hard is a great film, and if you're trying to duplicate that kind of story then you probably don't want John McClane to take X-ray vision or psychic powers.  It might be a fun game to allow them, but maybe that's not the kind of story you want to tell.  Depending on the level of realism you're trying to pursue, abilities like Combat Luck or Rapid Healing may or may not be appropriate.  These kinds of restrictions are fine.  In fact they are necessary to establish the proper tone of your game.  Both the GM and the players should understand what these basic assumptions are, and why they are in place.

 

Personally, I've found that many modern fantasy games are too heavily influenced by video games and anime.  I don't play World of Warcraft or any of those games, and I don't watch anime, and I don't want that creeping over into my D&D.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm a grouchy old timer and that's not what I want to play.  If somebody came in with their "AOE buff spell" character, I would scowl and complain.  It isn't something I want in my games.  Perfectly book legal, but definitely something that takes me out of the game.  It breaks the verisimilitude.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I don't want this in my game".  As I said, it's actually necessary to establish a campaign that's more than just a hodge-podge of thrown together stuff.  But you also have to acknowledge that there are games where it fits in just fine.  There's nothing against the rules in designing a character like that.

[Tech]

We are all missing critical information: the campaign style, what's allowed & not allowed, how easily/hard this can be integrated into the campaign, the GM's take on it, etc etc.  We are left guessing and until any further clarifiction, it's someone's opinion on someone's opinion on someone's opinion on I'm hunting wabbits on someone's opinion etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Tech said:

We are all missing critical information: the campaign style, what's allowed & not allowed, how easily/hard this can be integrated into the campaign, the GM's take on it, etc etc.  We are left guessing and until any further clarifiction, it's someone's opinion on someone's opinion on someone's opinion on I'm hunting wabbits on someone's opinion etc.

 

https://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/97655-dukes-scans/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-2684413

[Tech]

Thanks for the update, Hugh.