UOO vs Focus

[Duke Bushido]

9 minutes ago, Greywind said:

When did Superman become a mutant? 

 

31 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Now let's look at Superman's universe:  

 

[Chris Goodwin]

35 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I do intend to revisit later to at least answer Chris, if anything here didn't clarify things for him.

 

Oh, it's perfectly clear. 

 

I have a good bit to say, and between this thread, the points for magic items thread in Fantasy Hero, and the Western Hero equipment thread in main system discussion, not to mention a number of threads over the years I really want to compile up a post where I lay out my complete thinking on it. 

 

For my part, I've generally thought of Foci, magic item or not, superheroic or not, pretty similarly.  A lot of it goes back to first-gen, where in Champions, the reasons Batman doesn't pick up a tommy gun and become Captain Thompson, rapid fire blaster of bad guys, are two-fold: because that's not how it's done in the comics, and because he didn't pay points for the tommy gun.  

 

I'm on my phone right at the moment, and the seasonal change is hitting me maybe a bit harder than usual (and maybe some other things are too), but I'll owe you a post.  The general you, not just you, Duke.   By this weekend I should have something.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Because I decided to spend fifteen points on a rocket belt.  That's all the justification I need: my character's flight is acceptable to the GM, and I decided that he flies via a belt with those neat-o little retro rockets on it: the kind with the wooba-wooba-wooba-woooba disks on one end.

 

Typically, we add some role playing and backstory to our characters.  I'm pretty sure you do as well.   In game, I would use those sfx and backstory to assess why your points seem to find their way back to you.

 

But to play this one out, why do you need more justification for "the belt stays with you and does not get stolen for long periods, much less forever, simply because that is acceptable to the GM.  You want to lose the belt for a long time?  Buy a pair of suspenders and leave the belt at home.  It's your choice to play "character with no flying belt" too.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

He doesn't have to maintain it, because by all the popular wisdom, he paid points for it, so he can't be deprived of it for any meaningful period of time.  Sometimes, when he gets bored, he sets it on fire just to watch it reassemble itself.  Other times, he throws it under monster trucks then runs home to see if he can get there before his new belt spontaneously generates. 

 

No, he doesn't have to maintain it because the in-game reason he has provides him with neither the need to maintain it nor the ability to maintain it.  My simple response to "how does the belt come back" was "it depends on common sense, dramatic sense, game sense and SFX".

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Anyway, we keep using Supers as the key reason Foci can't be gone forever and very rarely during this conversation do we acknowledge "but there's the pretense that supers is only one of ten different genres this system -- this totally universal system-- works with.  Of course, it's so universal that we have to make this one special case....  Which works as well as the rather grating "the exception that proves the rule!"   ugh.  >:/

 

I'm  not clear who "we" is.  I use Supers because I seem to be responding to Supers examples, in a thread in the Champions board.  The same possibilities, however, work in a fantasy game if our Wizard has a flying belt.  Why does he have a flying belt?  Does he know the spells that maintain the enchantment?  If so, we are back to "he knows how to make and maintain the item".  Only possible explanation?  Not by a long shot.  Perfectly serviceable explanation?  Sure.  BTW, Elric never loses Stormbringer either, The Avenger never loses Mike and Ike, and Teal'c is the only one with that snazzy Goa'uld staff weapon, so "the focus always comes back" is not unique to supers by any stretch. 

 

There is no "why" - game or game not.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 If Groundstuck Man likes the belt so much he wants to keep it, and I'm cool with letting him keep it (since I have just discovered my crippling fear flying outside of every airplane in existence or whatever), why not?  Why can't we work out a deal?  You take an EP from every session and apply it toward the belt.  Then I'll get one rebated back  (or, more famously:  you send your EP to Foxbat and he'll use them to pay off the belt).

 

This has moved to an entirely different concept, which feels more like a mini-radiation accident than an "independent" focus.  Neither character is gaining or losing points on a long-term basis.  GM is paying his points for the belt, albeit gradually, and FlyGuy is gradually recovering the points while being deprived of his focus.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Don't bother with "but this opens doors to everyone chipping in to buy one guy a massive power--"

 

Why not?  If I can "lend" GM 15 points by handing over my flying belt, why can't I lend him 15 xp I have not spent.  He can pay me back 1 point per session, just like he would pay me back for the belt.  I'm not saying I think this is a great idea, but if it is acceptable in-game, it doesn't seem like there is any reason it can only work for Focuses.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

That's what the GM is for!  It's his job to make sure things are fair(ish), fun (hella), and don't go all kinds of five-dimensional pear-shaped.  I _totally understand_ that the bulk of the remaining HERO fans see the entire system as some kind of self-regulating computer program and that the ultimate goal of this system is to find some sort of mathematical perfection that will one day be able to math the GM out of existence, and Hell- one day, that may actually be possible  (for the record, that day was like ten or fifteen years ago, and it was called Champions Online, then City of something or other, which eventually died for a while then _kind of_ came back?  Meanwhile, the GM-regulated pen-and-paper kind of Champions kept being played, here and there).

 

Again, I will say "yes and no".  There are two extremes here.  One is the self-regulating computer program you postulate.  The other is just let the GM decide what each character can do and toss out CP entirely.  Somewhere between, we find a game.  There are a lot of points on that continuum where various games sit.

 

IIRC, Superhero 2044 pretty much told the GM "you figure out how each character''s superpowers work".  V&V tightened it a bit, but still had things like Mutant Power (just make something up) and a lot of other "design it yourself" elements to its powers.  Golden Heroes had some of that "design some of the rules yourself" along with the unusual angle of a "random roll your powers" chart coupled with "now make them into a cohesive character - any power that does not fit, goes".

 

I suspect Mutants and Masterminds doesn't let me give or lend character points to teammates either.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Oh-- I do have one thing to add, but it isn't much:

 

Most of this grew out of the very _need_ to answer the question you yourself posed:  your on a quest!  You're to retrieve the Five Colored Rings of the Holy Lantern Brigade!  The Lanterns died of ridicule directed at their emotion powers some thousand years ago, but your patron has a map!  It's a good one, too!

 

You find the rings, and low-and-behold, they work!

 

Why?

 

Because they work in this game.  The GM said so.  If the GM, two weeks later,, says "they vanished" or "they stopped working" or "a big alien repo man came by off-camera and took them back to the dealership", that's also what happened.

 

Game or game not - there is no "why"!

 

But if one of the players paid xp to keep one?  Then he gets to keep it, unless the GM rules that he cannot spend xp on that.  Just like the GM may rule that your Elf Wizard cannot use his xp to buy a Colonial Viper.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The people who used them died a thousand years ago.  The guy who made them died a thousand years before that.  Why do they still work?  Points be paid.  Stuff doesn't disappear if points be paid.  That's one of the tent stakes:  if they don't pay for it, it's a one-time trick, and that's okay.  If they want to do it a lot, forever going forward, they have to pay for it!

 

So, if the focus lasts forever because points be paid and points are eternal, what happened to the points those long-dead people paid for their STR, CON and PRE?  It is actually possible to overthink the points stuff, something I know you already know.

 

 

[Lee]

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

...is not the whole point of Focus being a disadvantage the fact that it can be lost, broken, stolen-- taken away from you?  Totally out of your control, being used (or collecting dust wherever you dropped it) by someone else, with you having no actual control over when or even if it will show back up?  Didn't we go even further with focus, adding things like "fragile" and "unique"---

 

which just burns me up.  If we're going to up the bonus because it's easy to break, or up the bonus because there's no way in Hell I can ever get another one---  but then make absolutely certain that these things are nowhere near as limiting as the name implies--- then we're lying to ourselves or we're doing it wrong.  If we're not willing to risk breaking our irreplaceable focus, then ditch unique.   Same with fragile.  Same with Focus, really, because the only difference we're willing to accept between Focus and UBO or UOO or EIEIO that we are willing to accept is that "It can be stolen," but even then, it can't stay stolen.

 

And we keep going-- and odd, only when Focus is up for discussion-- to "the source material is superhero comics."  Now I _admit_, routinely, that I know bug-squat about superhero comics.  I accept that this is a trope, but maintain that it's a damned stupid one.  When we get to Heroic "Oh, well, Hell-- no big deal there.  He only paid money (game money; fake money) for that.  Let it fall into the toilet and get flushed out to sea, through a dimensional vortex and a thousand years forward in time.  No biggie."

 

Points make the difference is a crock of crap unless Focus is re-tooled to work on a double-standard.

Very much ths.

[Lee]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

BTW, Elric never loses Stormbringer either, The Avenger never loses Mike and Ike, and Teal'c is the only one with that snazzy Goa'uld staff weapon, so "the focus always comes back" is not unique to supers by any stretch. 

 

But should those powers supposedly gained from those items be purchased with the Focus limitation? Isn't the entire purpose of Focus to create an item that can then be taken away or is it just a way to pay less points for the powers? If Stormbringer can never be taken from Elric, I would rather see it built without a Focus and simply use the sword as a special effect.

 

I realize (although it has been a long time since I've read the Elric novels) that the powers of Stormbringer don't come from Elric, but from the sword itself. That screams Focus to me, too. But, if it cannot ever be taken from him it seems inherent (not the Advantage) to him.If it's a Focus that can never be taken away, it seems like a cheap points grab, to me. It's a Limitation that isn't a limitation, from my point of view.

[steriaca]

A limitation which is not a limitation is worth a +/-0, regardless of what the book says the limitation cost.

 

There.

 

Question: as a GM, have you occasionally forgotten that certain players had limitation x on there powers, and this, gave them free points you didn't mean to on no fault on them?

[Lee]

43 minutes ago, steriaca said:

Question: as a GM, have you occasionally forgotten that certain players had limitation x on there powers, and this, gave them free points you didn't mean to on no fault on them?

 

Great question. I'm sure we all have at one time or another--I know I have. It was certainly a mistake on my part.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The mutant thing in Marvel is mostly restricted to the X-Books, and isn't a comic trope.  Its a story theme.  Comic tropes are things like "people don't use forensic medicine to find out secret identities" and "heroes don't murder their opponents."  Story elements are things like "in this book, mutants are despised stand-ins for oppressed minorities" and "in this book, everyone gets a flight ring/communicator."

[massey]

My thoughts on Duke Bushido's concerns (most of this is extremely basic and everyone already knows it, I'm just outlining my philosophy on it):

 

Playing an RPG is a cooperative task.  We get together and agree to what we want to play (Hero System), where we want to play (at Bob's house), when we want to play (Saturday afternoons), and who we want to play with (Bob, Joe, Steve, and Mike, but not Dave -- he's not invited anymore after the incident with the tuna fish).  The Hero System takes the position that the players should have more control over what kind of character they play.  Ever played D&D and you really wanted to be a Paladin/Ranger/whatever, but you rolled crappy stats and were stuck as a cleric or something?  Ever thought it would be neat to play something unique, like a farm boy who found a magic hat that gave him unusual abilities to compete with the big sword/big fireball crowd?  Well the Hero System allows you to do that.

 

In the Hero System, you can take powers and abilities through something called a "focus".  A focus is an object that is required to use the power.  This gives you a discount because the object can then be taken away from you.  If they take away your suit of armor/magic hat/special shield/freeze ray, then you can't use the associated powers.  But one of the inherent assumptions of this particular game is that you have a degree of control over your character concept.  If you want to be the farm boy with the magic hat, then you get to be the farm boy with the magic hat (subject to the agreement of the rest of the people in your group, of course -- I'm sorry Wayne, you can't play Captain Bitch-Rape in a game based on Saturday morning cartoon characters).  That means that even though a focus can be taken away, you can be secure in the knowledge that you're going to get it back at some point soon.  Yes, the orcs can capture you and take away your magic hat.  But normally they aren't going to send it away to the evil wizard on another continent, not before you manage to escape the dungeon and find the hat carelessly left sitting in a storage room.  The magic hat, you see, is an integral part of your character concept.  The discount you received for taking a focus is based on the problems you incur for losing it temporarily, not permanently.

 

Now, as I said, games are a cooperative effort.  You have some degree of control over your character, but not total.  In some circumstances, the GM may decide that the story demands you spend a period of time without that hat.  You've got to go on a quest to reclaim it or something.  And it's entirely possible that halfway through that quest, you say "screw the hat, I want to do something else".  And that's fine too.  But generally you'll get your focus back, because this is a cooperative game we're playing, and it's not real life.  The genre you're playing should have more influence on what happens than what would "realistically" take place.  In real life if you lose your special hat, there's very little guarantee you'll ever get that exact hat back.  But in a cartoon, the animators always draw you with that same hat, so you're probably gonna get it returned pretty soon.

 

When Rocket Pack Man gives the alien rocket pack that he found on the street to Gary Groundpounder, and Gary flies off, that focus may be gone until the GM and the player have a conversation.  Things like "why did you do that?  Do you want to change your character?  You know he wasn't planning on coming back, right?"  And the player is like "I dunno, I didn't think about it."  One of the guidelines for playing in a cooperative game is not to try to ruin the fun -- don't do things that put the other people at the table in a difficult situation (as opposed to putting the characters in a difficult situation, which is fine).  If you wanted to keep your irreplaceable rocket pack, why did you give it to the alien who was going back to his home planet?  Now the GM has to come up with some kind of in-game excuse for how you get it back.  Or he can let you change your character.

 

--

 

The most important thing to realize is that the game rules exist to give us options for playing.  "Focus" is a limitation that generally reflects people being temporarily deprived of an ability.  The easier it is to deprive them of it, the more points it is worth.  But that doesn't mean that everyone with a sword has a focus.  Let's look at some examples.

 

He-Man has a sword.  He-Man is almost never deprived of his sword.  He almost never gets disarmed, though it may happen very occasionally.  Of course, He-Man almost never hits anyone with the sword anyway.  The sword is really He-Man's method of transformation.  He-Man's player and the GM talk about this before the game begins, and they decide that Only In Hero ID is the appropriate limitation here.  The sword is basically an infinitely durable thingy that he holds in his hand and uses to change form, but it doesn't actually do any real damage (because it's a Filmation cartoon and he isn't allowed to stab people).  The sword isn't a focus, it has no powers.  He just has a big boost to his stats with -1/4 "Only in Hero ID" written beside it.  And the way to change is to hold up the sword that nobody ever pays attention to you carrying around.  It's occasionally possible to get stuck as Prince Adam, but it'll be rare.

 

Joe the Fighter is just a standard heroic fantasy character.  He has a variety of swords, some better than others.  They aren't really a focus, they're just a weapon he found.  He didn't pay points for them, he can't sell them for points.  It doesn't matter if Joe is carrying a +2 longsword or a two-handed sword, no particular sword is a core part of his concept.  He is a more normal RPG character, where his equipment is gained or lost entirely through the events of the game.  None of his equipment has "plot protection" where you know that's his special weapon and he should always have a version of it (I'm looking at you, Simon Belmont from Castlevania with that whip you always have).  Nope, Joe the Fighter just uses what's available, and even if he likes a certain weapon, it isn't special enough to him to become a part of his character concept.  If it were, he'd have spent points on it.

 

Darth Vader has a red lightsaber.  Vader is so good with his lightsaber that nobody can ever disarm him (unless, you know, you actually cut his arm off).  Vader may not have actually put the focus limitation on his sword power.  He may not have any limitation on it.  While it looks like a lightsaber and he wears it on his belt, he never loses it once in the entire trilogy.  He just always has his sword when he needs it.  "But couldn't he be captured and the lightsaber taken away?"  Mmmmmaybe.  But he probably cleared that with the GM first.  "Don't worry, you aren't gonna be captured.  This isn't that kind of story."  Vader doesn't get the focus limitation, but also no matter how many times you try to disarm him, it won't work.  He can just use the Force and now it's back in his hand, no questions asked.  Vader comes up with a semi-plausible reason for why people can't take it away from him and therefore they don't.  Remember, there's cooperation in this between the player and the GM.

 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

18 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

By this weekend I should have something.

 

Here it is...

 

With the Usable On Others with Differing Modifiers rules, it's possible for characters to have Powers that no one has paid points for!  

 

Usable On Others with Differing Modifiers is a GM option to start with, but it works really well for certain builds.  Someone pays for the ability to grant the Power, but that's not the same as the Power itself. The Power would have its own writeup as it is used, which would have its own -- implied -- point cost, but no one actually pays that cost -- and if they did, they wouldn't have the ability to grant the Power, only the ability to use it!  (I once asked a rules question of Steve Long whether the recipient of a granted Power could pay the points for it and keep the power; his response was, essentially, "That's up to the GM.")  

 

The Differing Modifiers rules as a modification to Usable On Others came about in the 4th edition supplement, HERO System Almanac.  But their origin?

 

First edition Fantasy Hero, in the form of the Create effect.  

 

Admittedly, the Create effect specified that the created effect had to be a magic item with the Independent Limitation.  

 

But no such requirement exists as part of the Differing Modifiers rules.  In fact, Independent is gone from 6th edition entirely as a Limitation. Differing Modifiers is also given as an option in FH 6e (maybe 5e as well) for creating magic items, explicitly to be specified for magic items by the GM for no Limitation value.  (For disclosure's sake I should point out that FH 6e doesn't state that the Usable On Others rules are used when creating magic items, only that they are "similar to" the Differing Modifiers rules on 6e1 p. 359.  Which was a slight misconception on my part in earlier threads, but that doesn't invalidate my point.)

 

There's no specific requirement for a Differing Modifiers granted effect to be built with a Focus.  If it is built in this way, and if the granting process meets a certain set of GM-specified parameters, then it's a magic item.  

 

The wording of Independent has been pretty sloppy over the editions, but the thing it uniquely does is makes the points spent on it a permanent investment.  (In FH 1e, and 4th and 5th editions, it also specifies that an Independent effect need not be bought through a Focus or magic item, that it can be tied to person or a place.)  In most of its appearances it specifies that using it disconnects the effect from its creator, and that the effect can continue working while the creator is unconscious or dead.  But! We already have a Modifier that allows an effect to continue while the originator is unconscious… that being Persistent. (We have a Limitation that has been worth -1 to -2, depending on the edition, and it automatically grants Persistent?)

 

By the way, there's nothing in Independent that prevents Dispel from working on the Independent Powers, nor Drain nor Suppress...

 

I'm going to digress slightly.  Consider the lowly firearm. Whichever make, model, caliber, and so on, that you want, but at its simplest let's say 2d6 RKA, OAF, 10 shots.  In most Champions campaigns, in any edition, you can find a generic "thug" writeup that has that on its list of Powers; in most modern, non-superheroic campaigns, you can find it on the list of mundane equipment for which PCs don't pay points.  (Substitute a mundane 1d6 HKA, OAF sword, in fantasy campaigns.)  

 

Either way… who created that OAF Firearm?  The factory, yeah, but it would be ridiculous to claim that the "creator" or originator of the firearm had to invest points in it (unless that was specified in Limitations), or that its RKA is somehow tied to the points in it.  It can certainly be used after its last wielder's, or creator's death, regardless of whether they paid points for it or not. (I haven't ever seen a writeup of any firearm that used the Independent Limitation.)

 

Getting back on target (no pun intended), I'm going to throw out a statement that may very well be heretical.

 

The "connection" between a caster and their spell, or an enchanter and their created magic items, is no more inherent than that of the thug's OAF firearm, to… anyone.

 

It's certainly a reasonable conclusion to come to, and it was certainly implicit and in some cases explicit in the way FH 1st edition presented it, but that's also where Persistent first appeared.  The FH 1e supplements Magic Items and The Spell Book both suggested a GM-permission Advantage called Permanency (which would be Inherent, in current editions), for items that are truly permanent, as in things like the One Ring, Mjolnir, and the like -- anything handed down by the gods or whoever. 

In conclusion: 

• It's possible for someone to have a Power for which no one has paid points (through UOO with Differing Modifiers).
• There's nothing inherent about any Focus (regardless of genre) that causes it to stop working when its creator dies.  
• There's nothing inherent to a Focus (regardless of genre) that ties it to its creator except by implication and GM decision.
• The GM should specify, in any Fantasy Hero campaign, whether and how a spell is connected to its caster, whether and how a magic item is connected to its creator, and whether or not characters pay points for their magic items (and, if so, whether they pay permanently or not).  

Don't worry, Duke, I'll have more to say about Independent in another post.   

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Lee said:

 

But should those powers supposedly gained from those items be purchased with the Focus limitation? Isn't the entire purpose of Focus to create an item that can then be taken away or is it just a way to pay less points for the powers? If Stormbringer can never be taken from Elric, I would rather see it built without a Focus and simply use the sword as a special effect.

 

I realize (although it has been a long time since I've read the Elric novels) that the powers of Stormbringer don't come from Elric, but from the sword itself. That screams Focus to me, too. But, if it cannot ever be taken from him it seems inherent (not the Advantage) to him.If it's a Focus that can never be taken away, it seems like a cheap points grab, to me. It's a Limitation that isn't a limitation, from my point of view.

 

If he cannot be deprived of the sword, it is not a Focus.  If he can be disarmed, have to go somewhere honking great swords cannot go, be KOd and have to find the sword after he wakes up, etc. , it is a Focus.  Unless it is Independent, he will get it back. 

 

As Massey notes:

 

5 hours ago, massey said:

even though a focus can be taken away, you can be secure in the knowledge that you're going to get it back at some point soon.  Yes, the orcs can capture you and take away your magic hat.  But normally they aren't going to send it away to the evil wizard on another continent, not before you manage to escape the dungeon and find the hat carelessly left sitting in a storage room.  The magic hat, you see, is an integral part of your character concept.  The discount you received for taking a focus is based on the problems you incur for losing it temporarily, not permanently.

 

[dmjalund]

Just because it is bought as a focus, doesn't mean it will return magically at some later date. It just mean the GM should provide a means for returning it to the player. T\his may include a raid on an enemy base or a quest to find the magical components required to recreate it. What it won't require is that the player respend points.

[Duke Bushido]

20 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So, if the focus lasts forever because points be paid and points are eternal, what happened to the points those long-dead people paid for their STR, CON and PRE?

 

They're using them in the afterlife, obviously.  And I suspect the newly dead are a bit jealous of the long-dead characters with their COM.  (   )

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

It is actually possible to overthink the points stuff, something I know you already know.

 

 

    

 

For the record, I was trying to take a drink when I read that.  I think I herniated my esophagus....  

 

 

 

OH!  I mean--  No; I have no idea what you're talking about!

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

28 minutes ago, dmjalund said:

Just because it is bought as a focus, doesn't mean it will return magically at some later date. It just mean the GM should provide a means for returning it to the player. T\his may include a raid on an enemy base or a quest to find the magical components required to recreate it. What it won't require is that the player respend points.

 

 

GOOD GOD, THANK YOU!!!

 

I had to do it this way because I've hit the campaign cap on passing out reactions today.  

 

 

[Lee]

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If he cannot be deprived of the sword, it is not a Focus.  If he can be disarmed, have to go somewhere honking great swords cannot go, be KOd and have to find the sword after he wakes up, etc. , it is a Focus.  Unless it is Independent, he will get it back. 

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make by raising the questions I did.

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

  11 hours ago, dmjalund said:

Just because it is bought as a focus, doesn't mean it will return magically at some later date. It just mean the GM should provide a means for returning it to the player. T\his may include a raid on an enemy base or a quest to find the magical components required to recreate it. What it won't require is that the player respend points.

 

Agreed. But this doesn't have to happen immediately, or in my opinion any time soon. The player got to have the advantage of having a power greater than the others for a while (due to the Focus limitation). They will have to live without it for a while now, too.

 

As I mentioned in another thread, this "problem" is exactly why I wouldn't allow (or be very reticent to allow) a character to start off with a magic item like that, in spite of a great character concept. I would want all the magic items to be "found" and have the equivalent of the Independent/Universal Focus, probably along with "Real <Equipment>". That way, not only can the item be lost/stolen/damaged/whatever, it can be that forever.

 

For a player that has a great character concept, I'd try to work it out so that they didn't start the campaign with the item, but at some point along the way they would obtain it. That would allow me to, at various other points in the campaign, provide items for the other players, too, keeping things (mostly) "fair".

 

But, it would also mean that if the first player decided to throw their nifty new character concept magic item into a bottomless pit to see if it makes a sound and thus prove the pit is not actually bottomless, they can do so, but if it is indeed bottomless, they lose that item forever and won't get it back.

 

I also get the example of Captain America's shield--he never seems to lose it permanently. Using the MCU, in the Winter Soldier he throws it out of a crashing Helicarrier, yet somehow gets it back. In Endgame it's severely damaged by Thanos, but somehow "old Steve Rogers" has an intact one to "pass on". But, as a GM I'd rather arrange for something like that between me and the player and not (necessarily) be bound by game mechanics. It sounds more like a story/character/campaign plot point.

 

I just see scenarios like the following in my head (in various forms):

Player 1: "Elric throws Stormbringer into the maw of the burning pit fiend to see if it is hot enough to melt it.

GM: <Shocked> "Um, well, it melts."

Player 2: <To Player 1> "Why in the world would you do that!?"

Player 1: "Don't worry, I paid points for it. I'll just get it back."

GM: "Uh, no, you won't."

Player 1: "Yeah huh, the rules say I do".

GM: "No, it was a stupid thing to do with such a powerful item."

Player 1: "Well, I'll just get my points back and make a new item that's just like Stormbringer".

GM: "No, you're not getting those points back. It was a stupid thing to do."

Player 1: "That's not fair!"

The argument goes back and forth until either Player 1 or the GM leaves the table. If I'm the GM, it would be me leaving because I will not be rules lawyered into doing something I think is wrong.
 

Now, if Player 1 and I had decided to make Stormbringer like Cap's shield (and perhaps it should have been), it would be a different story. It just seems to me that it is open for all kinds of player abuse, destroying all their various Foci, at whim, because they know they will always get them back. I'd rather try and nip that expectation in the bud, so to speak, and then in very special and specific circumstances allow it to happen.

 

Just like, I try very hard not to kill the characters (and certainly not have a TPK). But if a character jumps naked into an erupting volcano for fun just because, "the GM won't kill my character", they might be surprised (actually they shouldn't) that their character will be utterly dead. No miraculous last second save, no resurrection, just dead.

 

Now, if jumping naked into the volcano is the answer to stopping it from erupting onto the city below by placating the volcano god, I might be willing for something to happen where the character doesn't die (i.e. the honest intent was more important the actual act). But only in that very special and specific circumstance. Do it again somewhere else and you're toast.

 

"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Lee

[massey]

See, all that’s gonna happen when you start taking away somebody’s special focus is that they begin redefining their characters.

 

Captain Flagsuit doesn’t have a rare, one of a kind invincible shield.  He’s got a regular shield, and he’s just that damn good with it.

 

Albino Sorcerer Man doesn’t have a unique soul-sucking sword.  He’s haunted by a demon that gradually transforms any sword he uses into a demon blade.  

 

Functionally there’s no difference here.  The guy is just going to have a different explanation for why his weapon will always come back.

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Lee said:

I just see scenarios like the following in my head (in various forms):

Player 1: "Elric throws Stormbringer into the maw of the burning pit fiend to see if it is hot enough to melt it.

GM: <Shocked> "Um, well, it melts."

Player 2: <To Player 1> "Why in the world would you do that!?"

Player 1: "Don't worry, I paid points for it. I'll just get it back."

GM: "Uh, no, you won't."

Player 1: "Yeah huh, the rules say I do".

GM: "No, it was a stupid thing to do with such a powerful item."

Player 1: "Well, I'll just get my points back and make a new item that's just like Stormbringer".

GM: "No, you're not getting those points back. It was a stupid thing to do."

Player 1: "That's not fair!"

The argument goes back and forth until either Player 1 or the GM leaves the table. If I'm the GM, it would be me leaving because I will not be rules lawyered into doing something I think is wrong

 

I think that my response here is, of course you will get the value of the points back but we are going to have to talk about how that happens.

 

There are no more items like Stormbringer in my campaign world, so that is not going to happen.  If you want a similarly unique item we will need to think about what it is and how it might end up in your possession...that will not be immediate and you will be missing a chunk of ability until it is.

 

I agree, doing a stupid thing deserves punishment.

 

I have often given players the ability to travel back in time when they do something stupid.  So after he threw Stormbringer in the volcano, I might say, you have accurately imagined the likely outcome, you still want to throw it in?  Gives them a second chance.

 

Doc

[dmjalund]

There are two modes of Focus:

1) breakable and replaceable 

2) unbreakable and irreplaceable 

yor example was breakable and irreplaceable, so boo to you

tha was the reason to use Independent in 5e

the 6e version is to say "don't do that"

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I think that my response here is, of course you will get the value of the points back but we are going to have to talk about how that happens.

 

Right.  You will get it back, eventually.  There was more than one blade like that in the world; every prince of Melibone had one.  At the end of the world, Elric summons dozens of the dang things.  Its just not going to be easy to get it back.

[iamlibertarian]

I think I am seeing a consensus beginning to form.

Foci can be lost, stolen, given away, etc. If so, those points can come back in some form (regaining the item Eventually such as a story to recapture or rebuild it), transferred to another item (Thor from Hammer to Axe), and the like. The penalty for stupidity (or pissing off tooo many bad guys with this ultra-powerful item is they target getting that item away from you) is not having it for an Appropriate Time (whatever that may be under the circumstances).

 

Foci can be gone Forever if we get a bonus (less cost) for buying the item as Fragile, Unique, or the like. But without buying those limitations, those points do come back in some manner (hopefully via a good story).

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

13 minutes ago, iamlibertarian said:

Foci can be lost, stolen, given away, etc. If so, those points can come back in some form (regaining the item Eventually such as a story to recapture or rebuild it), transferred to another item (Thor from Hammer to Axe), and the like. The penalty for stupidity (or pissing off tooo many bad guys with this ultra-powerful item is they target getting that item away from you) is not having it for an Appropriate Time (whatever that may be under the circumstances).

The problem of course, is what in the world does Focus Man do when his Focus gets taken away?  All his Super-ness was in that Focus!  Without it, anyone tougher than a street thug is going to slap him silly.  He can't superfight supercrime! 

This is, admittedly, the fault of the way the character was made for not having a backup in case of Focus loss.  But it's a very common issue.  Look at Defender's 5e writeup.  Without his OIF suit, he's throwing 3 DCs at 5 CV, has 3 SPD and 5 PD/ED.  Most instances of battlesuit users and Super Because Of This Object Man cease functioning in combat if the Focus becomes a Limitation.  That's fine if it just becomes a combat loss condition, but if it's not fixed/returned by the start of the next fight they're going in already having lost. 

Does the player just sit out combats until the GM tells them they can be Super again?  Does the plot get put on hold while everyone goes and fights non-super enemies?  Are there suddenly no combat encounters until the Focus is restored? 

If the GM has permitted Focus Man, then the only Appropriate Time is "until end of scene".  The only alternatives are to disallow Focus Man or to make Focus a non-Limitation. 

It's a terrible situation, and I'm ranting because my M&M group has a Focus Man in it and I expect things to go badly. 

 

12 minutes ago, iamlibertarian said:

Foci can be gone Forever ... for buying the item as Fragile

Fragile just means it's easier to take away via damage.  Fragile has nothing to do with permanence of loss. 

[iamlibertarian]

2 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

The problem of course, is what in the world does Focus Man do when his Focus gets taken away?  All his Super-ness was in that Focus!  Without it, anyone tougher than a street thug is going to slap him silly.  He can't superfight supercrime! 

This is, admittedly, the fault of the way the character was made for not having a backup in case of Focus loss.  But it's a very common issue.  Look at Defender's 5e writeup.  Without his OIF suit, he's throwing 3 DCs at 5 CV, has 3 SPD and 5 PD/ED.  Most instances of battlesuit users and Super Because Of This Object Man cease functioning in combat if the Focus becomes a Limitation.  That's fine if it just becomes a combat loss condition, but if it's not fixed/returned by the start of the next fight they're going in already having lost. 

Does the player just sit out combats until the GM tells them they can be Super again?  Does the plot get put on hold while everyone goes and fights non-super enemies?  Are there suddenly no combat encounters until the Focus is restored? 

If the GM has permitted Focus Man, then the only Appropriate Time is "until end of scene".  The only alternatives are to disallow Focus Man or to make Focus a non-Limitation. 

It's a terrible situation, and I'm ranting because my M&M group has a Focus Man in it and I expect things to go badly. 

 

I cannot disagree with you. If you purposely put all your eggs in one basket, that is dumb, and on you. At least Iron Man got it right. Everything is in one basket. But he was smart enough to buy Summon (arrives under its own power) on his suit, lol.

 

2 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Fragile just means it's easier to take away via damage.  Fragile has nothing to do with permanence of loss. 

I only meant Fragile, as in one way to 'lose your focus'.

[Duke Bushido]

Well I had something I wanted to put in here, but apparently the gang is ready to play.

 

Perhaps later.

 

Y'all have fun!

[Doc Democracy]

My favourite way to deal with the loss of a battlesuit is to allow the character to jury-rig a second suit.  Only issue is reliability,. All the powers CE with activation rolls etc.

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, iamlibertarian said:

I only meant Fragile, as in one way to 'lose your focus'.

 

Getting thumped in the melon is another way to lose your focus.