Netzilla

Re: Oihid It's the order of magnitude involved that makes your analogy bad. Yes, both lighters and flamethrowers can set things on fire. However, the order of magnitude makes referencing flamethrowers silly when discussing the dangers of handling a lighter. Also, you're 0 Control Cost VPP violates Meta-Rule #4 of the Hero System (HSR 348). OIHID doesn't. Okay, we need to back up and deal with this 425/400/x vs. 350 comparison you keep making. When was the last time anyone saw a PC submission that involved a character built with no Limitations and no Frameworks what so ever? How common an occurrence is this? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Ironclad and he gets so many bennies in the form of Figured Characteristics it almost doesn't matter. I don't think anyone's disputing that. That's why I keep saying to compare the build to the rest of the group, which is the point of steps 3, 4 & 5. I've been talking about comparing him to the rest of the group all this time because PC creation should not be taking place in a void, nor should the evaluation of said PC builds. Especially when it comes to things like, "Will he be over/under powered a significant portion of the time?" You need to have the rest of the group in order to define 'over/under powered' in the first place. You're assuming that the player knows ahead of time that his OIHID is going to be lost. That's a lot different than knowing if it's daylight out. You're not actually talking about the same thing I am. Forget OIHID for a moment. Let's go back to the example of the 'Only in Darkness' character. That included the player regularly asking if this adventure was going to be taking place at night or not. That's the kind of behavior I'm talking about. If I suspect that Mr. OIHID is going to constantly ask, "Am I going to be taken out of my Hero ID tonight?" and refuse to play the character when the answer is "yes", then that's a failure of Step 6. Similarly, if I expect that the player will constantly pout, complain or demand to play a different character every time he suffers from his OIHID unexpectedly, then that's a violation of Step 6. Likewise, if he has the Psyche Lim "Protective of Innocents" and I have an expectation that he'll refuse to even try to save someone just because he's not in Hero ID, then we've got a violation of Step 6. Off the top of my head? I'd say that he needs to make his non-heroic ID more viable (that should fix the violation Step 4; assuming the other characters are more capable when not suffering from their Lims). Nope, your first post to me about him was 374. You haven't expanded upon that since. You never even mentioned what the other thread's name was. Fortunately, H-Man has given me the link, but I haven't had a chance to go over it yet. If you're really curious about my opinion, then you'll be able to find it over there some time in the next few days. As a side note, out of curiosity, why do you keep putting up various characters in counter to my list of steps to test for Lims that are "too sweeping"? You practically act like it's a bad idea. Do you think the test is somehow flawed? If so, how? You're ignoring the first sentence entirely, "Depends on how many of his spells pump up his stats or give him additional skills." You're also contending that it's impossible to build a viable PC (much less powerful) that doesn't spend "a good chunk of their points" on stats. Just so we're clear, define "a good chunk" for me. Okay, the example on UMA 144 does pretty strongly imply the attacker gets to select their targets. It's not an idea that I like, which is probably why I don't use it and didn't remember it, but it's there. In any case, what you're saying is that an enforced Limitation isn't going to be a problem. Of course, what I originally asked, when bringing up Gestures and Incantations was, "Should we also get rid of Gestures & Incantations since not all GMs faithfully enforce those?" (msg 373). You haven't actually answered that question since you started off assuming a GM that would enforce them. Actually, that is a problem. That would suggest that OIHID is so good that every player wants to take it, which is something the core book warns against in the "Meta-Rules of the Hero System" (HSR 348). Still, it's a slightly different issue. Ah, so you do agree that it's not just points percentage that defines a Limitation as a problem. That's one of the points I've been trying to get across for a while now that you seem to keep challenging me on. Actually, I haven't described any such thing. They're a paraphrase of the ideas in the "too sweeping" paragraph on pgs 194 & 195. I brought that up when I first posted them in message 355. Besides that, if you're definition of house rules includes checking a character for balance issues, then you're got a lot broader definition of the term than I've ever seen before. After all, page 338 of the core rules states that the GM needs to check characters for balance. You never stated otherwise, but you also never answered the question any of the other times I asked it. Now that we've established this, why are you so concerned with other people enforcing a -1/4 Lim only 5-10% of the time? Or 25% of the time? After all, one of your main complaints about OIHID is that some people don't enforce it enough and that others enforce it too often, thus causing 'Limitation Burnout'. If these levels work for other people in their campaigns, why do you argue with them on that? One character takes 100 points in Dissads for a total of 300 CPs. A second character takes 150, for a total of 350. A third character also takes 150. The GM enforces Character 2's Dissads, but not Character 3's. As a result, Character 3 has gained the power level of a 350pt character while only suffering the in-game penalties of a 300 pt character. Character 1 is being shorted 50 points. Character 2 has the same points as Char 3, but he's suffering greater penalties. Well, anything that makes sense given the Hunter's motivations & capabilities and the target character's abilities to have spotted them or heard about it. With OIHID, you have to make something up within the confines defined by the OIHID's special effects. Doesn't seem like a big difference to me. The Hunter's actions will eventually have an on-screen effect. Otherwise, what's the point? So, the impact of anything you make up after the fact will need to be taken into account in future developments. Basically, in one case, you're asking "How will Hunter X's spying on SuperDude's last battle effect him down the road?" In the other, you're asking "How will SuperDude's OIHID effect him down the road?" I still don’t see the big difference. If Mr. 300 is in a group with these other two, why did the GM approve Mr. 300 in the first place? (Remember Step 5?) Simply requesting a revision during character creation would have avoided this whole issue. Now, assuming the characters were balanced against each other to begin with, so long as the -1/4 Lims are being enforced with equal frequency, who's getting screwed here? That still doesn't prove: "Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points." Convince me of what? I assumed that your point in starting this thread was to get feedback on your idea of turning OIHID into a Dissad. Are you trying, instead, to get me to adopt that idea?

Re: Oihid Actually, I think it's morphed into any Limitation that's commonly referred to by its acronym is Evil!!!!! So, OIHID, OIF, IIF, OAF, IAF, FOA, RSR, ASPCA, NCC, RBR, YMCA, RBOS, STRM and FCC are all fair game. I hate to tell you this, but D&D's been upgraded to 3.5 now. The Eeeevillle just keeps growing! Hey, at least we haven't run afoul of Godwin yet.

Re: Oihid Don't worry, coach, I'm okay. What round is it? Oh, wait... What? No. That was that dream I just woke up from. Never mind.

Re: Oihid Sure. Our group has had similar characters until recently (one moved and the other's currently taking his turn as GM). It was never a problem for us. Of course, neither were the Multiform character, Elemental Control build, the several Multipower chars and even the couple VPPs (all things I've seen labled abusive way more often than OIHID). The GM checks each one to start, isn't shy about saying "no" to things he doesn't like, and is perfectly willing to deal with problems that only show up after play has started. All of us who take turns GMing do that. I suspect your group probably works with a similar dynamic (don't know about the rotating GM bit though). A lot of these 'abuse' threads would go a lot smoother if folks would accept the idea that the GM saying "no" can be a good thing and will head off a lot of these problems before they start. Why use a page long house rule to prevent munchkinism when a simple "no" can do the job in 2 seconds? Eh, getting soapboxy. It must be my bed time.

Re: Oihid

Re: Oihid 1. Not every player is going to want OIHID for their character, nor does it come close to being designed as an 'Every-Hero' construct like your 0 Control-Cost VPP. 2. A 0-Control Cost VPP does not in any way limit the character. An OIHID does. 3. A 0-CC VPP will slow the game way down as players compute adjustments to their power set. 4. A 0-CC VPP will reward players who know how to 'work the system' way more than OIHID does. These things combined with the fact that a 0-CC VPP is exponentioanlly harder to adjudicate than an OIHID falsifies your analogy. First, 10% is not my default standard. 10% is my minimum. Second, you're attempting to relate two things that don't directly relate. That's why I said Thorn wouldn't pass even without having most of his points wrapped up in one Limitation. They are two distinct requirements. If you're only making the minimum contribution to background abilities plus putting most of your powers under one Limitation, you're pushing your limit on two requirements. Obviously that will increase the likelihood of your character being sent back for revision. Actually, I'm limiting out characters appearing in GM-only materials (like CKC and the GM's Vault sections of other books). Other characters are more likely to (and should) be seen as examples by the players. These can be taken as examples of starting (the Champions, Shugoshin, Kinetic, Meteor Man III etc.) or experienced/high-powered characters. They're placed in the common sections of the materials to act as examples for the players. A -1/4 Lim can be worth enough if it covers enough points. It takes fewer points on a -1/2 Lim and even fewer on a -3/4 Lim. Basically, it’s a comparison on the value of the Lim (-1/4, -1/2, -3/4, etc) to how many points of the character are covered by it. So, 75% at -1/4 may be considered enough by some GMs. So might 60% at -1/2, 50% at -3/4; just to illustrate the thinking involved. I guess you could roll 1 & 2 together to some extent, but I prefer keeping them as separate steps. Keep in mind that just failing 1 & 2 alone won't be enough me to send a character back. I can't vouch for other GMs. Such is the nature of OIHID. I don't see that as a problem. Ah, for some reason I thought you'd written 'elite'. My goof. In that case he'd fail on Step 4. Well, I've been working under the assumption that you're using him as an example of a PC submission. Therefore, it's presumed he'd be working with a group. Step six doesn't cover weather the character would want to up and leave; it's about the player. Basically it's a question of how much I, as GM, trust the player of the proposed PC. If I could expect him to play those Dissads as written, that would pass this step. If the player's going to pout, switch characters or just not participate, then we've got a problem. Of course, I'm not likely to allow a player like that into my game for very long anyway, but the step is there for the sake of completeness. So, at this point we know he fails steps 1 & 4 and passes 2 & 3. That puts him on thin ice. Steps 5 & 6 are harder to say as we don't have hypothetical players. If either of those failed, there's a good chance he'd be sent back. If there were anything else I objected to in his write-up (doesn't directly relate to this discussion so I'm not looking it up right now), he'd definitely get sent back. In any case, a potential problem character is taken care of during development without the use of paradigm-challenging house rules. All you gave me was a points ratio. I've stated many times that I need more info than that to make a call. We have a few more examples than that if you go by what I explained above. As to their builds, I have dislikes of a few of them as well, but not for any of the reasons that have come up in this thread (as I recall; I don't remember how most are set up for background abilities). Depends on how many of his spells pump up his stats or give him additional skills. Neither is out of concept for a super-mage. In any case, you could still end up with a very powerful character without taking stats or skills out of normal human range. I don't see anything in the description of grab that says the attacker gets to choose which two limbs they've grabbed. It just says that it affects 2 of the targets limbs (usually the arms parenthetically). So, are you going to rule that every time someone with Gestures, a Focus or Restrainable is grabbed, it will automatically be their arms that are pinned? 'Usually' implies to me that there's a certain amount of the time that is not the case. How often that is gets left up to the GM to decide. Incantations can only be stopped while their being said. With a 0-phase power, you'll have to have a held action. (Never mind constant powers with Incantations only to start). OIHID, taking a Full Phase, can be stopped in the middle of the process. And Entangles still don't stop either. Also, are you going to rule that grabs against someone with Incantations always affect the head/mouth? Sorry, by Frequency, I was meaning how many characters do this, not points ratios. Anyway, as I've said before, I need more than just points ratios to go on. You're assuming that all 150 points in background abilities will come up in every non-combat situation (or at least a significant portion). That's not necessarily the case. I've seen characters with some skills, talents or powers that come up maybe once or twice in a campaign. Heck, one of my current characters has PS: Soldier and KS: U.S. Army which have never come up in 3 years. He's also got a power that he's only used once in that time frame. I knew these wouldn't come up often, but bought them because they fit the concept. Some background abilities are like that. Besides, the character you're suggesting still fails steps 1-3 right off the bat. 4 & 5 are possible to pass at this point. Not likely on that many points, I'll grant you, but possible. If either one failed or #6 failed, he'd be sent back for revision. The character is dealt with right out of the gate with no house rules required. If the character does manage to make it past steps 4-6, he's still on my 'observe closely' list. Basically, I'd give the player a reserved approval, letting them know exactly where I was uncomfortable with the build. I'd also tell them that if I determine that he's out of balance after seeing him in play, a revision will be called for before he can be used again. Consider it a play-test if you will. Again, the character's dealt with; no house rules required. So, do you agree that different GM's have different tolerance levels and thus no one set frequency can apply across all campaigns? I don't agree with that at all. If you're character gets 20 points from a Vulnerability that never comes up in play, that's effectively 20 free points. Other characters are being penalized for taking those points while yours isn't. If he's go 2 20-pt Psyche Lims that the GM doesn't enforce, that's still 40 free points that other characters are being penalized for. Uneven enforcement of anything is unfair to the players, no matter what the Lim or Dissad is or if the points involved are 20, 40 or 60. How does retconning watching Hunters every 4 games take less GM work than planning for an OIHID once every 4 games? You've still got to adjudicate the effects of those Hunters' off-screen activities. So long as this character's -1/4 Lim comes up as often as other character's -1/4 Lims and his 8- Dissads come up as often as other character's 8- dissads, who's being cheated here? What does that have to do with me challenging this statement of yours, "Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points." That is the statement of yours that I was responding to. I brought up Defender and Nighhawk as counter-examples of that statement. Basically, I'm challenging your contention that people use OIHID as a sweeping Limitation significantly more often than they use OIF as a sweeping Limitation. Okay, so you don't want to do away with OIHID entirely, you just want to change it into a Dissad. The thing is, you still need to convince me that this is necessary. You need to show proof that OIHID is more abusable than other Limitations, gets abused more often, is harder to spot by an alert GM and is harder to adjudicate.

Re: Oihid Changing Gary's mind isn't really my goal. I've been around the internet (and this is especially true for usenet) long enough to know that changing people's minds via the 'net is a difficult proposition at best. I can understand where Gary's concern comes from, even if I don't share that concern. I'm just wanting to give Gary and others some counterpoints to think about. I think that some of Gary's arguments raise questions that should be addressed and I'm trying to point these out. I'm also trying to illustrate how a lot of these concerns can be alievated without resorting to extensive house rules that challenge certain paradigms of the game system. At the end of the day, Gary can do whatever he wants with his campaign (same as anyone else). Well, I'm sure it is being abused in some campaigns and not in others. I'm of the oppinion that an alert & active GM can stop those abuses (sometimes at character creation). But what else would we do if we weren't busy building mountains out of mole hills?

Re: Oihid I was just trying to point out that Focus and OIHID shouldn't be on the same power. You'll chose whichever you feel fits the character best. There's just too much overlap between the two Lims to justify putting both on the same power.

Re: Oihid Okay, I don't seem to be getting my point across well enough. My point is that distinction between 'sweeping' and 'too sweeping' is not just percentage. Other factors have to be taken into account before I'll label something 'too sweeping'. Well, it's fair to the players (not the GM but I'll get to that) but probably not balanced. What you've got there is a power that almost every player would want for their character. Heck, you've almost made it an every-hero power. It's fair for the players because they all have access to it. It's unfair to the GM because adjudicating one cosmic VPP can be enough of a headache. Because of those factors, I don't think your analogy stands. I'd prefer a minimum of about 10% or so of points in background abilities (not just skills). However, I'm not sure that's really germane to this discussion. In any case, I'm certainly not planning on starting any threads stating that I think characters who only spend 5% of their points on background abilities are unfair and unbalanced and that we need a rule requiring players to spend at least 10% of their points on background abilities. Stalwart is a GM-only character. He may be a hero, but he's an NPC and thus built to NPC, not PC standards. I don't think he'd meant to be an example of how PCs should be built. Otherwise his write-up wouldn't be in the GM's Vault. With that said, just for the sake of argument, let's take him through the steps: 1. Does this character have all of their Powers bought with the same Limitation? It looks like it, but I don't have the write-up in front of me. 1a. If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable? It certainly looks like it. Fail on Step 1. 2. Is that Limitation worth -1/2 or more? No. 2a. If 'no', is the Limitation worth enough to make the GM uncomfortable? IMO, no. Pass on Step 2. 3. Is the Limitation likely to occur 1/3 of the time or more? No. 3a. If 'no', is the Limitation frequent enough to make the GM uncomfortable? IMO no. Pass on Step 3. 4. Is the character significantly underpowered when the Limitation is in play? If he's good enough to count as an elite agent while suffering for his OIHID, I'd say no. Pass on Step 4. 5. Is the character significantly overpowered when the Limitation is not in play? If the other characters are built with the same base points & experience and have achieved similar points savings, then no. Pass on Step 4. 6. Is the player likely to avoid playing this character when the Limitation would apply? Unknowable since we don't have a hypothetical player. So we won't take this one into consideration. In my analysis, he only fails Step 1, so I'd say he passes overall. So I'm guessing he clocks in at over 70-75% of his points limited by OIHID (I haven't done the math). If so, he goes through the steps I just did for Stalwart. Without more info on his writeup, I can't say if he'd pass for my campaign or not. At only slightly more than half, Oddhat's probably not going to need to go through the steps unless something else about the character were to jump out at me. But they're both designed to NPC, not PC standards. Therefore, you can't take them as examples of how PCs should be built. Well, I've seen Gestures mainly on super-mage type characters in Superhero campaigns. Not on all of them, but several, including some official write-ups (Stingray comes to mind, but it's only on some of her powers). Even so, you could still build a Dr. Strange type character that required Gestures or Incantations on 70% or more of their Powers/Points. To stop a one-handed Gesture, you'd have to grab both arms. How do you fairly adjudicate that the grab didn't end up on an arm and leg or both legs or an arm and neck or something other than both arms? How is OIHID harder to deal with than this? With Incantations, you've got to stop them speaking. Your grab would have to involve their head (specifically their mouth) which runs into the same problems as one-handed gestures. In addition, Entangles don't normally stop someone from speaking. So, how is this easier to deal with than an OIHID that requires a magic word? So, you're saying that frequency of the occurrence is a significant factor in the problem with OIHID and Conditional Powers? I'm a little dubious on that reasoning. I'm also not convinced the problem comes up quite as often as you imply it does. It wasn't a blanket 'no'. It was a 'no' based on the character violating steps 1-4. Actually, since you were basing this on the book example (which assumed the character being overpowered), it actually violated 5 out of 6 steps. I'd say the 'no' was fully justified. Now, I'm assuming that you're changing the example by suggesting that the 150 extra points were spent on background abilities. In that case, the character gets re-evaluated. In the re-evaluation, it's still going to fail steps 1, 2 & 3 (half of the process). Steps 4 & 5 will depend on how likely those background abilities are to come up in play and so it's harder to say pass/fail on that one. If some only come up rarely, but a few come up enough to keep the balance between under/over-powered, then the build would pass those steps. Step 6 is still an unknown quantity. The character's being over/under powered has nothing to do with what I asked. What I asked was: What how often can a Limitation be enforced and still be fair to the GM (i.e. not strain him too much or take too much time away from other players)? So why is a 25% frequency okay for Disadvantages but not for Limitations? Is a 25% frequency bad for some Limitations but not others? If so, why? No sweat. I'm not going to take offence to anything said over the internet unless the person is obviously being deliberately offensive. I was just trying to point out that some of your statements come close to 'one-true-wayism'. You haven't actually crossed that line; just come close. I freely admit that I may have stepped on that line here and there. I'm trying to be careful of that, though. No sweat. I've lost track of who said what to whom in internet discussions often enough. I figured that was what was happening here. In what ways? Is this true for all Focus Lims or only certain values of Focus? Two of the iconic PC-example Champions characters (Defender and Nighthawk) have OIF on significant portions of their points. Defender saves well over 100 points and Nighthawk clocks in at about 35 (these would be a lot higher if I based their OIF savings off the powers' Active Costs rather than their MP slot costs). I know others do as well, but I'd have to look them up to be certain which ones. That's certainly debatable. Besides which, even if the Focus Lim is more integral to the game system, OIHID is a significant part of the genre that the game tries to emulate. OIHID fills a very valuable role in that regard.

Re: Oihid

Re: Oihid Actually, the paragraph only mentions Powers. It never once mentions Points. However, since the paragraph also talks about the example build being helpless when under the effects of the Lim, it seems to me that it's assuming that most of this character's Points are tied up in Powers. Considering the fact that 'sweeping' is generally applied to 'across the board' type situations, that suggests that they're starting from a point at which a considerable majority (at least 'most') of the character's points are covered by the Lim. At that point, they apply the modifier 'too', which generally indicates 'more of' or 'excessive' amounts. It could mean that they're only referring to characters in which over, say 85% of the character's points are covered, but I really think they're talking about more than just points percentages. Besides which, it still doesn't say to outright reject such a build. It warns that you should examine such builds carefully. So? What does that have to do with the wiggle room occurring between 'most' and 'all' or my statement that I need more to go on than just an 80% of points ratio in rendering a judgment as a GM? Or was this not meant to be responsive to the paragraph of mine you quoted right before it? You're right. That's my goof. Still, I'm not convinced that it was a random selection of examples. In any case, it's not a point worth debating over as I already said I was letting it go. That's a viable option, so long as you give all characters the same option. Of course, they also all have the same option of building their characters with Limitations and Frameworks and using the points savings on background skills/talents. Seems like 6 of 1 and a half-dozen of the other to me. If he were submitted to me as a PC? No, and I'm a little surprised you'd ask that question. What have I said that made you think I might? Heck, I probably wouldn't approve him without the OIHID because of having so few points in background skills. You're treading into combat-monster territory there. In any case, Thorn's a villain NPC and not subject to the same building rules as a PC anyway. It's an official published NPC villain. What makes you think Thorn has to adhere to, or be considered representative of, the standards for building PCs? As for characters posted to these boards, are you contending that a significant portion of the ones that are posted as PC write-ups make use of OIHID on 80+% of their points? I somehow doubt it but you're welcome to prove it to me. Okay. I figured OIHID was your main bone of contention since it's what you titled the thread, your first post was all about suggesting we get rid of it altogether and it's the main thing that's been argued about in this thread. Sould we also get rid of Gestures & Incantations since not all GMs faithfully enforce those? How about Restrainable? Your arguments can still be applied to most, if not all Limitations and quite a few Dissads. Why don't we just get rid of all of them rather than just OIHID and Conditional Powers? No, since that would violate at least questions 1-4 of my 'fairness check steps'. Did you ever have any doubt about that? Quite possibly. Of course, I've already repeatedly stated that a character built with 80+% (actually my threshold would be lower, but 80+% was your example) of their points in OIHID is already going under the microscope. By pointing out that the 'Conditional Powers Guidelines' table can serve as a possible guideline for OIHID frequency. I've also suggested other numbers. I've actually been trying to find out what percentage you think wouldn't be too great a strain on the GM. So, since you already seemed to reject 20% as not frequent enough and 25% (from what you say below) as being too frequent, is there a frequency you consider fair to the GM? So, is it your contention that any Limitation that would apply 25% or more of the time should be stricken from the rules? What about Disadvantages that come up 25% or more of the time (8- roll)? Do those suffer from 'Disadvantage Burnout'? What does that mean for Dissads that show up 63% (11-) or even 90% (14-) of the time? If I've given you the impression that I thought my experiences were more valid than yours or that the way you play your game is wrong, I apologize. My sole intent in this thread is to support the idea that OIHID isn't broken. It may be subject to abuse, but not any more so than any other Limitation. That's all I've tried to do here. Actually, what I said was "If the only ways you can think of to limit OIHID are combat-related, your lack of imagination is the problem, not OIHID." (msg 229) Were you seriously unable to come up with any examples that didn't involve combat? Still, since you took personal offence to that statement, I apologize for it. When did I ever put words in your mouth? I honestly don't recall it. Actually, I wasn't saying you were an advocate of unfair character building. I was saying that you've all but accused us of being advocates of unfair character building. In this very message you seem to imply that I would approve of a character like Thorn as a PC. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, but it does look that way to me. Anyway, I acknowledged in the last message that accusing us of playing the game wrong might not be your intent. You just come across that way some times. You really don't need to take that as a personal insult. It's just an observation of your posting style and not a comment on your personal character. Well, I've been a registered member of these boards for about a year now (and lurked a good half-year or so before), been a member of the Champions Mailing List since the mid-90s and have participated on rec.games.frp.super-heroes since before then. I've also been a player of this game since the mid-80s and this is the first time I've come across a discussion of how OIHID needs to be scrapped. If it were that big of a problem, I'm sure I'd have seen it before now. Perhaps you can give me a few thread titles to search for so I can observe for myself just how common a complaint it is. I haven't ignored it. You and I haven't really been discussing the Focus Limitation. You may have been discussing it with someone else in this thread, but I'm not sure. In any case, why do you suggest keeping the Focus Limitation (with a fairly minor modification) while simultaneously suggesting we throw out OIHID and replace it with a Physical Limitation. Why can't OIHID be fixed with a similar fairly minor house rule? Why a complete paradigm shift that blurs the lines between Limitations and Disadvantages for the sake of OIHID?

Re: Oihid First, are you conceding that the paragraph in question does, indeed, talk about a subset of sweeping limitations rather than all sweeping lims? You claimed that it didn't and I want to make we're as close to being on the same page as possible. Now, on the definition of "too sweeping". The term "sweeping", by itself, implies to me a Lim that already covers a significant majority (or 'most') of the character's powers. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "sweeping". So, pure points percentages is not enough to distinguish between "sweeping" and "too sweeping". That's why an example with additional qualifications is included. As to what criteria I do use to define as "too sweeping", that's going to depend on the situation (campaign type & power level, players involved, etc), so there's not one pat answer I can give you. However, I'll attempt to outline my thinking on such things as I go through the rest of this message. Well, just to be clear, 'most' is only >50% of powers/points. All is 100%. There's a lot of wiggle room in between. What you're talking about is well over 80% of the character's points and is certainly something that would send up warning flags to me as a GM. I'm pretty sure I've said something to that effect before. In any case, this, by itself, is not enough for me to automatically send the character back for revision for the reasons I've outlined above plus what I'll go into below. Actually, it's not a "they", it's Steve Long that picked the example. Given his clarifications in the FAQ and on the 'Rules Questions' board, it's pretty clear to me that Steve Long did not pick his examples randomly, but rather to be as representative as possible. Now, there is a chance that he did pick it randomly, but I doubt it. Still, neither of us has an iron clad case on this, so I'll let it go. Actually, I didn't leave it out as it was covered by points 4 & 5 in my list of steps for checking the fairness of Limitations. Because I did not explicitly mention it in this paragraph does not mean I missed it or ignored it. It just wasn't germane to the point of that particular paragraph of mine. As to your question, it again depends on circumstances. Not all balance is about points. Do I know this player & can I trust him to not take advantage of the "extra" points? Have the other players built their characters with comparable levels of savings? Etc. Those extra 75 points could be taken up with just background skills & talents that are unlikely to come up in the game but add more flavor. They might even be put into rarely used powers that might only come up once or twice in a campaign. Which did get covered in step 5 of my 'fairness checklist'. Not at all. You'll notice that Step 1 had a substep: "If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable?" That's to account for the situation in which the GM wishes to set the limit below "all". I thought that was straightforward. Steps 2 & 3 contained substeps equivalent to the substep in Step 1. In addition, weather or not 75 extra points is huge depends on how those 75 points are spent (as mentioned above). Not in mine. But then, builds placing 80+% of their points under OIHID seem pretty rare to me. In most of the games I've run and played in, the players built their characters with a pretty even mix of stats, skills & powers; so I doubt many (if any) reached 50% of their points. That's not been my experience at all. I'd suggest that players who do things like that are powergaming at the least and more likely pulling munchkin tricks. I, personally, and several of the groups I've played with now and in the past have played our characters in disadvantageous situations; sometimes deliberately. Overcoming adversity is, after all, part of the fun. So, why is the GM allowing this player to switch characters every time one of their Limitations would come up? If the player does this kind of thing repeatedly, why doesn't the GM talk to the player about their behavior and let them know it's unacceptable? If the player refuses to comply by the campaign standards, why do they keep getting asked back? This is not a problem with OIHID. This is a problem with the GM & Players. I could swear I've pointed this out before (as have others). So, why, exactly is the GM allowing this? What exactly is it that's preventing the GM from "going back to the player and suggesting they revise the build", which I suggested last message and in other messages before? Why does this mean that OIHID needs to be singled out and changed when it can just as easily apply to almost any other Limitation or Disadvantage? I haven't run a hard statistical analysis of exactly how often this particular Lim shows up. I do know that it's been often & severely enough that the points saved were certainly paid for. In fact, I know I've said that before. In any case, why does there have to be one set number? Why can't it vary from campaign to campaign so long as all the players feel they're being treated fairly? If you're uncomfortable with 5-10% feel free to up the frequency (as I've repeatedly suggested before). It's your campaign. Why are others wrong for keeping theirs at 5-10%? You're the one telling all of us that OIHID is broken. When we explain to you why we think its not, and cite our experiences with it, you continue to insist that it is broken in spite of our explanations. You've repeatedly accused myself and others of misreading the rules, "screwing with the players", advocating unfair character building and the like. While it may not be your intent, you certainly come across as trying to tell us that we're playing the game wrong. If OIHID were the problem you think it is, then I think quite a few more people would be complaining. After all, people don't seem shy about enumerating the Hero System's other faults. So, with a fan base measured in the thousands, only a handful (I'm not sure it's even in double-digits) of which complain about OIHID, I'd say its safe to say that there's at least hundreds who think it's fine as is. So why is the GM allowing this? Do you suggest that this means that the Focus rules need to be scrapped altogether (like you do with OIHID)?

Re: Oihid Yes it does and I will explain why: The first sentence says to "watch out for" limitations that are "too sweeping". That's a qualifier of sweeping Limitations in general. In other words, not all sweeping limitations are bad, only those that go overboard (i.e. a subset or 'type' of sweeping Limitation). Now, let's examine the rest of that paragraph: Going back to the fist sentence, "watch out for" is not "ban". It simply means that the GM should examine such builds closely. That is entirely consistent with everything I've posted in this thread and I'd bet that it's consistent with the postings of everyone you've argued against so far. The paragraph then goes on to provide an example using Only Works in Darkness on all the character's powers. Two things here: First, 'all' is not 'most'. Second, this is a limitation specifically mentioned on the Limited Powers table. By its definition in that table, along with the 'Conditional Powers Table' on the facing page, defines its value as -1/2 and its frequency as roughly 1/3 the time. If this warning had been meant to apply to lesser Limitations, why would not one of the -1/4 Limited Power examples have been used? Perhaps its because while a -1/4 LP on (to use your number) 300 CPs would net a "gain" of around 75 points. On the other hand a -1/2 LP on 300 CPs would net a "gain" of around 150 points. That's about twice the points savings and a far bigger power differential (425 points vs. 500) when compared to the 350 point character. In addition, a -1/2 Lim would be occurring in about 1/3 of the time as opposed to 1/4. Finally, the example is continued by warning against a very specific player behavior: A player who won't play the character when the Limitation would apply. Why make this specification if it doesn't matter? So, what can we conclude form all this? We can conclude that Limitations need to be monitored by the GM for fairness. So, you could easily apply the following steps: 1. Does this character have all of their Powers bought with the same Limitation? If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable? 2. Is that Limitation worth -1/2 or more? If 'no', is the Limitation worth enough to make the GM uncomfortable? 3. Is the Limitation likely to occur 1/3 of the time or more? If 'no', is the Limitation frequent enough to make the GM uncomfortable? 4. Is the character significantly underpowered when the Limitation is in play? 5. Is the character significantly overpowered when the Limitation is not in play? 6. Is the player likely to avoid playing this character when the Limitation would apply? If the answer is 'yes' to enough of these questions to make the GM uncomfortable (and that level will vary from GM to GM), then the GM is fully justified in going back to the player and suggesting they revise the build. Now, can you tell me how any of that means that OIHID should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a Physical Limitation? As I recall, that was your original proposal and you haven't retracted it yet (though you have gone on to suggest things like Multiform), so I assume you still think that's a good idea. As a complete side note to the above, the 'Conditional Powers Table' mentioned above makes for a perfectly good guideline on how often OIHID should affect the player (and I wish I'd remembered it was there). As a -1/4 Lim, that would be about 1/4 of the time that they change IDs. With three examples, you have enough to last you probably 8 to 12 games, which I would think would be enough time to come up with at least 3 more. It still doesn’t seem overly burdensome to the GM in my opinion. On another note, from what I've observed from your posts, it would seem that you've run into problems with OIHID. My guess would be that it's some combination of the players not playing the Lim and the GM not calling them on it. That is your experience and I'll not deny that it does happen in some games. On the other hand, your experience does not in any way invalidate the experiences of the hundreds of us who have seen OIHID played and adjudicated properly. So, explain to me why we should adopt your point of view on OIHID when it runs counter to our own experiences? What makes your experiences more valuable than ours?

Re: Oihid Well, taking the whole paragraph in it's entirety, it answers the question for you. You'll note that it's not a warning against all "sweeping" limitations. Instead it is a warning of certain types of "sweeping" lims: characters that will be useless a large portion of the time (daylight is far more frequent than intense electromagnetic fields) or players only playing that character in favorable conditions. If neither is likely to be the case with the OIHID character, I don't see the problem. Again, so long as the GM shows a little foresight and willingness to enforce the Lim, there is no problem. In any case, that a character can take OIHID on 300 CPs and it might be abusive, that doesn't mean OIHID needs to be chucked and replaced with a Physical Lim. It just means you need to be careful of what OIHID builds you allow. Just like anything else in the Hero System.

Re: Oihid Hey! I'm serious, damnit! This is a matter of life or death. There can be no more important debate than what we are discussing here! The fate of the very world, nay, universe hangs upon the outcome of this debate! Surely this is obvious to everyone.

Re: Oihid I can't agree with that. Take the following: "We will have peas or carrots for dinner." Is this statement true if peas are served? Yes. Is this statement true if carrots are served? Yes. Is this statement true if both are served? Yes. For an alternative, consider asking someone this: "Do you want cake or ice cream?" Is it illogical for them to ask, "Can I have both?" If "or" only ever ment 'this or that but not both' there would generally not be such ambiguity. It's a pet peeve I picked up from my grammar professors at university. In any case, if we're to continue this, we should probably take it to PM as this thread's convoluted enough as it is.

Re: Oihid Okay, to answer my own question, I found the following on a quick web search: From: http://www.affacts.org/Procedures/pacemaker.html That actually doesn't sound like too unreasonable a standard now that I've seen the list. YMMV.

Re: Oihid Wouldn't work for me. May work for someone else. Fair enough.

Re: Oihid Well, to be fair to Gary, the qualifier was for an intense EM field. I doubt your average TV or PC qualifies. I suppose you could apply the "pacemaker" test to it. If the EM field is strong enough to interfere with a pacemaker, it's strong enought to interfere with the character's powers. That may be a bit too much though. I'm not sure as I don't know how many things affect pacemakers.

Re: Oihid Well, the 'and' is definately in the description, so I don't agree with this interpretation, but I can see how it could be come to. Unfortunately, Steve Long was unhelpfully non-committal on this when I asked him: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24744 Also, since the character has to have 2 separate identities to qualify for OIHID in the first place, I'm not sure that a Secret ID would be enough of a deterrant to allow a less than 1 Full Phase Activation.

Re: Oihid Actually, I asked you if FF character did. Are you actually suggesting a character with no other powers? Never heard of spreading an EB? Also, the crooks don't expect a super and are being taken by surprise, remember? All the hero has to do is wait for the bank robbers to designate who's going to be watching the hostages and gather the hostages into one place (so they're easy to keep an eye on). At that point, a super who has a 12d6 EB and 8 OCV can spread their EB over 4 hexes (8 meters or ~26 feet) to hit the 3 or 4 gunmen (if that many) guarding the hostages. 8 OCV vs. a 4 DCV (less if the gunmen are caught by surprise) needs to roll a 15- (95%) on each hit (roughly 81% to hit all 4). Pretty good odds. With 8 dice remaining, that's an average of 8 Body and 28 Stun. Subtract 2 normal PD and another 8 for flak vests (if they're really well equipped). That's 0 Body and 18 Stun. That's more than enough to Con-stun an exceptional person, and a good chance of 0-1" of knockback, putting the hostage guards well out of position. Is there a chance the EB hero will blow it? Yes. However, OIHID character doesn't even have that option. Last time I checked, even a small chance (which this is well better than) was greater than no chance. Except that it gives a specific way to do this by denying the character access to their powers. In essence, it makes the GM's job easier for this purpose. It's just easier to do when certain Limitations and Disadvantages come into play. That's what Limitations and Disadvantages do. Really, your argument could be applied to any Limitation or Dissad. He's also likely faster than the Pseudo-Colossus and probably just as strong (if not stronger) than P-C is in his human form, and thus at least as likely to be able to knock several people out of the way at once. He's actually more likely to succeed as he's got a higher OCV and is thus better at sweeping & move-bys. In the first case, you're changing the scenario. You're admitting that this scenario is made harder by the character not having access to his powers due to the OIHID. After all, a 50 STR brick can leap 10 hexes (roughly 65 feet). So, you'd have to move the bus stop pretty far away to keep him from being able to move-through the car by leaping into it. Heck, if he pushed his strength, he could cover 2 more hexes (about 13 more feet). With only a 6 OCV -4 for range, he's still attacking a 0 DCV target and has a 13- to hit. If he has any HtH levels or a higher than 18 Dex, he's odds of hitting are even better. Are you actually suggesting moving the victims nearly 100 feet from the character to start this off? As for the mentalist, he's still got at least the same options as P-C and likely more due to having access to whatever powers he's got. He can probably telepathically warn at least one person there, getting the message across faster and with more surety than a Presence Attack would, giving the people at the bus stop a greater chance of running. Plus, he can do it from even further away. This argument could also be made for any Limitation or Disadvantage. Is it "screwing with the player" to have a scenario in which Superman has to deal with both hostages and kryptonite (which saps his powers)? Is it "screwing with the player" to have Tony Stark have to deal with a hostage situation without his armor? Is it "screwing with the player" to have the Thing have to try to rescue someone from a burning building with unstable flooring? Is it "screwing with the player" when the Green Goblin gives Spider Man the choice between saving a truckload of hostages or Gwen Stacy? That's 3 Limitations and Dissads that your argument can be applied to just off the top of my head, plus one scenario that works no matter what Lims and Dissads the character has. If your argument is so broad as to include everything it's not a very useful argument and it certainly doesn't show how OIHID (specifically) is "broken". Says who? Does this character expect to run into villainy every second of every day? If so, they've got Psyche Lims as bad as Batman's if not worse, and Batman is known for being nutty and obsessive even among supers. Besides which, does this character never walk near a power station? Or, perhaps, he manages to avoid every single transmitting tower in the world? Yep, without OIHID, the character has the option to wait for the opportunity for surprise. The character with OIHID doesn't have that option. They either have to give up surprise or go it without their powers. Sounds like he's got fewer options to me. The same thing can be done with OIHID. So what? All I was using an Activation Roll for was comparing frequency of how often this Limitation should be taken advantage of. Never mind that I even offered to double or triple that frequency. So, by your argument, can I assume that quadrupling it to 20% of the time would be fair? That's 1 out of every 5 changes of ID (which seems a little high to me, but it's your campaign). So, I've still given you enough scenarios to cover 15 changes changes of ID, giving you plenty of time to come up with others. Still doesn't sound like too much of a strain for most GMs. If I can come up with 3 scenarios off the top of my head, surely you can come up with at least as many over 10 to 15 weeks of weekly gaming sessions.

Is it legal to have an OIHID Limitation that takes less than a Full Phase to change forms if there is an obvious/easy enough way to stop the character changing IDs? If so, are there any guidelines on how easy stopping the change should be? Would not being able to change in an Intense Electromagnetic field work? How about someone who can't change without placing their fingers on their magical amulet? I understand it would be campaign specific, but a rough guideline would be very helpful. Thanks.

Re: Oihid Because, up until now your main example of how OIHID is "broken" was an unmodified version of Colossus. I was emphasizing the fact that an unmodified Colossus doesn't meat the book legal requirements for OIHID. You ended up modifying Colossus, so I had though you'd gotten that. in response to bank-robbery scenario: Yes, because we've never seen anything like that in the source material. The good guy never manages to talk the bad guys into taking him hostage instead of the helpless innocents. You got me there. I can't think of a single example of that ever happening. Sorry, perhaps I should turn down my sarcasm meter. Is FF his only power? I suppose he doesn't have Force Wall or an Energy Blast he can spread? That would seem like a rather strange character build. Kind of a one-trick pony, eh? If not, depending on how he's built, he may well be able to do all three at once and all while taking the bank robbers by surprise. That will dramatically change the situation. Susan Richards, a FF based character could do it with ease. Heck, even the Human Torch & Reed Richards could pull it off because they can gain the element of surprise. Pseudo-Colossus can't do anything like that because all his superhuman powers are tied up in OIHID. If FF-boy had all his powers tied up in OIHID, he'd in the same boat as Pseudo-Colossus. in response to the thrown car scenario: First, the player consciously chose to take OIHID on their character. That gives the GM permission to "screw with" the character in certain ways. If the player didn't want their character to be placed in situations in which they can't use their powers, they shouldn't have taken OIHID. Second, I gave examples of how, even in his normal form, Pseudo-Colossus has a chance of saving the people at the bus stop. The chance isn't as good, risk-free or easy as if he'd had access to his powers, but that's why OIHID is a limitation. In any case, no, the character & player haven't been made as helpless in this scenario as you seem to think. Third, this kind of situation has happened to Colossus in the comic books. If he'd had to take a Full-Phase Action to change IDs his younger sister would have died in his first ever appearance in the X-Men as she got run over by a runaway tractor. In fact, many supers get placed in this kind of situation. Feel free to change thrown car to simply a driver losing control of his vehicle. How many times has that occurred in the comics/movies/books/tv/etc. Even characters without super powers have managed to save the day in this kind of situation. It's just not as easy as if you were capable of catching the car. in response to hydro-electric power plant dam: Debatable as it depends on the special effects. However, you're assuming he starts away from the dam. If he's touring the facility at the time, he's got problems. in response to other people being threatened: Certainly, and a super-hero's primary job is not to protect the innocent. Never do we ever see the situation in which a superhero has to make a hard choice involving the saving of innocent lives. Okay, the sarcasm meter's still set a bit high. However, it illustrates my point that innocents being in danger is a very common genre trope. In fact, it's the reason why superheroes exist. It's even fairly common for a superhero to not be able to save everyone at least a couple times in their career because they aren't fast/strong/skilled/smart enough. This is just a variation on that genre trope. It does a lot better, yes. You'll also note that all the scenarios I mentioned now get combined onto the same character. Since this is only a -1/4 Limitation (same value as Activation 15-), it stands to reason that the frequency of things like this happening should be around 5%. So, 3 scenarios should easily do you for roughly 60 occurrences of Pseudo-Colossus changing IDs. Heck, you could even double the frequency (equivalent of 14-; -1/2) and still not strain the GM's imagination. Even tripling it (nearly a 13-; -3/4) would be 15% of the time or about 21 total ID changes and not much of a strain.

Re: Oihid Okay. Which would be why I said, in message 242, "The book requires a minimum of a Full Phase Action (which Colossus violates) and/or a way of preventing the change (which Colossus also violates). " Note the 'and/or'. No, I'm not reading the rules wrong. You even quoted that part. Okay, to make sure I'm understanding you properly, you're suggesting a Colossus-like character who either takes a Full Phase Action to change IDs or cannot change in Intense Electromagnetic fields, but not both. Is that correct? Assuming the above is the case, then the character is meeting the bare minimum requirements for OIHID. This, as a GM, warns me that this may not be a truly limiting build of OIHID, so I then look at things like the character's SPD, will the character be spending a fair amount of their time in civilian ID, etc. In the case of this pseudo-Colossus (assuming the only change is minimum compliance with OIHID), he's not faster SPD than campaign average and he does have a life outside of superheroing, so he's cool on that front. Also, he doesn't have things like highly-reliable Danger Sense, super-perception or the such. At this point, I'd talk with the player, pointing out that they are only meeting the bare minimum of OIHID and that if I feel that they're abusing this construction, I'll require them to rework the character. Now, how to mess with the character: 1. Pseudo-Colossus is in a bank. He fails his Perception Roll, and does not notice the bank robbers taking up strategic positions within the bank (not out of character as he's probably not any more perceptive than the bank guards). By the time he's aware of what's going on, they're already in a position to shoot hostages if they meet resistance. In order to use any of his powers, he has to change forms. If he does change forms, they may well start shooting bank patrons. If his invulnerability didn't have OIHID, he could volunteer himself as a hostage, knowing he'd be in no danger and try to talk the bank robbers into letting the other patrons go. Unfortunately, that is now a far more risky proposition (even if he aborts he still has to take a Full Phase's worth of attacks and if the robbers are super-powered or super-equipped, it's going to hurt). Similarly, if his strength weren't OIHID, he could wait until the robbers ordered everyone to sit/lay down and use the teller counter to sweep the whole room (remember; comic book physics), surprising everyone and taking out anyone still standing. [This works for either version.] 2. Grond is rampaging through downtown. Pseudo-Colossus is out dropping off his mail in his normal ID. Before anyone knows what's going on, a car comes hurtling from out of the sky (thrown by Grond from several blocks away), it will squash a group of people waiting at a bus stop. Since Pseudo-Colossus cannot do anything else while changing IDs (such as diving into the path of the falling car to catch it), he has to rely on saving them without using his powers (perhaps a normal ID Presence Attack; or running over in normal form to knock as many out of the way as he can). [This assumes the Full Phase change option.] 3. A environmental terrorist super villain is threatening to blow up a hydro-electric dam. Intense electro-magnetic fields everywhere. Pseudo-Colossus can't use his powers there if this is the not in an Electro-Magnetic field option. Not in Electro-Magnetic field version can't rely on his powers against many electricity-based or magnetic-based foes; not to mention being without super-powers in most power plants, near nuclear powered devices, some parts of junk yards (if they have an electro-magnet crane), and the like. Takes a Full Phase version has serious problems in any surprise situation. Especially if someone other than himself is placed in danger. Now that I've gone through all that, I'd like to point out that while your suggestion meets the bare-minimum written requirements of the rules, I don't think it meets the spirit. The construction 'and/or' in the rules, plus Steve Long's rulings on the matter suggest to me that the less time it takes to change IDs the easier it should be prevent the change. I don't think it's meant to be a truly binary situation. If that were the case, the word 'or' by itself would have been sufficient. However, since I hadn't yet brought up 'spirit of the rules', I did not take that into account with the above scenarios and still managed to come up with multiple situations in which the character was limited without their being killed or KOed with no chance to fight back. I'm sure you can see how the character's life would get even more complicated if I decided to apply the 'spirit of the rules' to this discussion.

Re: Oihid So it sounds to me like you're admitting to making a non sequitur. Okay. Not in my campaign, by the book. The book requires a minimum of a Full Phase Action (which Colossus violates) and/or a way of preventing the change (which Colossus also violates). Therefore, it's hardly unique to my campaign like you imply. That other people have chosen to misapply OIHID does not support your claim that OIHID is broken. It supports the claim that some players misapply the Limitation, and perhaps it could be written clearer in the rules (not that I agree that it needs to be rewritten), but that's about it. OIHID, when enforced by the rules in the book, is a legit limitation. I gave you 3 examples of how OIHID can prevent a character from changing IDs without said character being killed or KOed without a chance to act and did not involve combat. You responded with yet another combat-oriented example suggesting that a OK/Kill was routinely the only way to stop many (if not most) OIHID constructs. That was the basis for my 'lack of imagination' comment. If you feel it was unjustified, feel free to prove it such by coming up with a legitimate (i.e. book legal) use of OIHID in which the KO/Kill is the only way to make it limiting.