TheDarkness

The only limits I tend to put on PC's XP expendatures are:

 

Balance Related. Is this going to unbalance the game or team (ie will this make the PC way more powerful than the rest of the PCs)

 

Niche related. Is this going to make this PC too much like another PC's niche in the game (overlap of niches can work as long as the PC that was originally built for a particular niche isn't overshadowed by the person overlapping).

For me, I don't worry about the niche related stuff so much, I focus on my responsibility to make the game for all the characters. So, if I have one character who is the skilled normal batmanesque character with detective skills, and another who is the skilled normal who is largely focused on hth, then I really need to make a lot of opportunities for the detective skills, the disguise work, etc. The CIDs mean more front end work for me, but in game play, and scenario design, they make it a lot easier to do this. Yes, the guy focused solely on hth will probably lead the Batmanesque character in hth, but the Batman gets a lot of opportunities to say, "Yes, Mr. Fisticuffs, we could try to charge in there and knock everyone out. If this wasn't Boss Salieri's base of operations. And there weren't more supers in there than we have out here. And we weren't here for information that we won't get if we are incinerated. Did I mention Atomic Fire? Don't know her? Hmm..."

Obviously I tend to put a lot of focus toward the narrative as me and the characters build it. I try to keep in mind that I do not have perfect knowledge of it, but I view it like genre, in a sense. If the build doesn't fit the genre, this is going to be a problem. If the build kills suspension of disbelief, this is going to be a problem. It is not my first response to kill the problem. I just voice my concern, so that I can hear out their thinking on it. Sometimes, they just didn't think about it. Sometimes, they did. Usually, we work to find a satisfying solution, which just as easily could be compromise, or me coming around to their way of thinking(and not after weeks, during the conversation), to them deciding it is problematic. Sometimes, they grin and admit they were just trying to do a cheesy build.

In response to Massey's good post, the Luke Skywalker example is a good one.

Take away the idea that he is strong with the force, and none of it makes sense.

Take away that he is a good flyer at the start, and none of it makes sense.

There is leeway, but there is also suspension of disbelief. Both are necessary and useful.

Back to milkshakes.

If the game everyone is playing is, for lack of a better word, serious in tone, and that has seemed to be the consensus, then I would probably not be encouraging that build. But, I might ask the players if they want to do a more humorous game, if so, then my response would depend on the current campaign. If it's not established, then I might just go with the humorous tone. If it's long established, then I might say, okay, we're going to play the versions of these characters on a more ridiculous Earth, make a second copy, mark it Earth:Toonacity, and let's go. This would actually be nice, because I can use all the stuff I already built for the main game.

If, after playing Earth: Toonacity for a while, they want to have their characters in the serious Earth have the powers they gained, then all they have to do is, and if they want or need my help to do so, explain how the armor became internalized, why this character can paint tunnels on a wall and make them real only for himself, etc.

In any case, if the character has a build idea that at first seems at odds with whatever the group narrative is, but, in discussion, is actually not, then no problems.

In this process, I DO NOT assume I have absolute knowledge of what the overall narrative from each viewpoint is.

I DO NOT assume a characters has a direction defined by me.

I DO NOT require them to work for weeks on explaining their expenditure.

I DO NOT even make them design the danger room stuff, I work my butt off coming up with fun danger room scenarios.

I DO NOT make them do long scenarios to spend the experience they have, I work my butt off to come up with fun role plays that put them in contact with the people or situations they need to make it all fit well in the story the way WE ALL can enjoy. This last one is especially rewarding, because it often means I have to flesh out my world further.

As for CIDs for gadgets, as I explained, this is so that the people with skills get to showcase them A LOT MORE than most games. I make the CIDs for KS: Area Supers Underworld, and if someone gets this skill, I give it to them, and they have, at their fingertips, info about a lot of people other players haven't met yet, and an awareness of what info isn't there yet. It makes skill rolls less "roll once and you fix it" and more "okay, I'm going to have to fix this and this to get the shields back up," which adds way more to the suspense, and makes them the star for that moment NOT for their combat skills.

I'm not telling anyone else to do this, but I DO find it useful.

It was not clearly a joke or I would not have responded to it seriously.  I'm also not sure how enjoying something equates to "greed".

So, knowing it was meant as a joke now, the second comment is you doubling down on it being meant seriously?

But when you declare the reason for your methods as the universal problem of all players behaving in the same "greedy" fashion I'm going to call BS.

Or maybe, the sentence relates that my players seem to like the fun of using their experience the same as players in other games without the same framework for experience expenditures? Said facetiously using the word 'greedily', as is now readily apparent, despite your already having forgotten so for the sake of your argument? Given that I never once stated that this 'greed' was why I use the approach I do, as is, again, readily apparent now?

As for draconian, I think, when you actually examine what I said I do, you would find that to be a false assertion that people have only managed to try to assert is true based on straw man arguments that my previous posts and followup responses show I do not do.

Here's the theatrical version:

I tend to do original stuff, but, when I am confused about how to build a power, I often will look up builds on the major comic book heroes that people have done.

Aside from that, others here can give more expert advise on the system than I.

Problem solved!

Ya know what: My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard and they're like its better than yours. Damn right its better than yours. I could teach you but I'd have to write a very long post about it and delve into tons of overly critical responses. So I wont. But my milkshake does bring all the boys to the yard.

 

Soar.

If you write about it, I will totally click the problem solved button on that post. Then we can talk about peaceful things, like how some characters are just begging for capture, and which is better than fifth edition, 6th, or 6th.

The CIDs were added FOR the gadgeteers as a means to make their related skills more useful and meaningful and frequently used in gametime, based on a thread here on the topic. The one player to make a gadgeteer loved making them and the idea for their use.

The gadgeteer who is cautious and methodical would just test the item more.

More than a few have commented that its really not that uncommon to stockpile experience.

Yes, there are a number of types that can develop new powers without anyone blinking and eye, and a larger number of types that really can't. You seem to be just arguing to argue on this one.

As for why the villains may need CIDs, if Kaiser Mayhem uses a bomb to sabotage his teleporter before the characters arrive, and the characters get trapped in the teleporter room by others who have come to take a shot at the villain, while the rest of the group might be holding off the threat, the gadgeteer may be figuring out what is damaged, and how to bypass it, and his skills come into dramatic play in a way beyond "roll twice to get it going", a way that is more tactile, just as the combat system is more tactile than the skills system in general.

Seriously, ad hominem and strawman arguments are all through your post. It's getting a bit tiring how personally some people have to take this. My players are good, I try to do a good job, lay off the personal assumptions.

Where, exactly, did I say that I even had a substantial number of players who present problem builds?

EDIT:[deleting grumpy post]

The first post was written while I was stuck working and skipping sleep because a coworker didn't finish their work, and people who would have suffered if the work didn't get done needed it done, so I did it. As such, the tone on the first post is a bit terse.

That said, I wrote a lot more posts trying to clarify. I've clarified. And had a lot of bad motivations ascribed to me based on straw man arguments. So, while my tone didn't help, I was hardly alone in that, and I've been trying to clarify.

So, hope everyone has a wonderful day.

I'm kind of curious here. Especially presence and combat stats. Thanks in advance...

A character can make multiple Blocks in a single Phase as long as each attempt is successful.  Each attempt after the first is at a cumulative -2 Penalty. The first failed attempt ends the character's Phase.  Only the 1st attempt would ever be considered an Abort action.  Block and Dodge are both considered 'Attack Actions' that otherwise end a character's Phase.

You have just saved me a potential imaginary beating. Thanks...

Ok, now I've read through...why aren't you building this as a Damage sheild?

Because I hadn't thought of it!

I'd have to think about how I'd apply it. It really only would come up when attacked in hth, have no effect any other time, and I'd probably give it an activation roll to see if it works(because I don't want it to automatically do the damage)

If the trigger is an attack, then it doesn't matter if both have trigger to block. Once you attack in a segment, you cannot abort to block to trigger anything. Once you abort to block, and activate your trigger of an attack, and attack, you can no longer abort to block anything. At most, each person gets one attack(we'll ignore if the first is a multiple attack for counting).

The main reason I'm not using the counterstrike maneuver for this is more for feel. When you have a group of fighters in your gaming group, and you are one, every time it comes up, everyone will feel like "That's a counterstrike? Seems more like a setup?" So its situation specific for me and my gamers. As a setup, perfect. As a counterstrike, not very apt.

I'm confused on something. Blocking. You can't abort more than once in a segment, can you? How do you abort to block until you miss a roll?

"Yes but" is what I thought I heard the Darkness saying, but I may have misheard them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary heard something about a milkshake

You heard me right, "Yes, but..." and "milkshake". There are no good milkshakes near me. I'm often muttering it.

To further illustrate:

Gadgeteers and armor making characters, in most cases, would normally have an advantage, as no other type of character can explain as easily the acquisition of new powers(and skills, in many cases). A gadgeteer can pretty much build any power and it probably fits in with the narrative.

However, in my game, I now require gadgets to have a CID(causal influence diagram) that shows the major parts and how they relate. I also require them to actually build it, make the appropriate rolls, etc.

Ultimately, they will have a suit they payed for. but there will probably be beta versions(unless they roll well the first time). They may not realize that one particular function, they actually failed the roll by one, and so it may fail occasionally until it is replaced by a fully functioning version. However, they may also test the suit, and from the results, figure out if there are any issues.

The CID is nice, because in case of a failure, or if a focus is targeted and damaged, they can look at what's happening, see "ah, these two systems are down, and power comes to both of them from this part, so if I can rig the power to bypass that part, I should be able to activate the beam in time. Cover me, everyone, I'm on it."

Conversely, this means gadgets of NPCs and machines that have game relevance require me to make a CID for them, or be able to cobble one together quickly if asked.

It was not my intention to denigrate his manner of GMing XP, and if it came across that way I apologize for any misunderstanding.  I was just giving my experience (pun intended) in the matter. 

No need to apologize, your posts stated your point quite clearly on why you take a different view. Good posts.

Just throwing this out there: if the characters totally get themselves captured, and the players insist on no captures, this is attempted railroading on the players' parts.

[Grins evilly, twirling his beard]

Our job as GM is to make a FUN game. Putting barriers to spending XP (ex when there are balance issues) is not fun. Even balance issues can be dealt with by saying Yes, but... (ie Yes, but 6 skill levels are way too powerful. How about you go with 2 skill levels for now and we talk about where you want your character to go XP wise)

Funny, I said I do this exact thing as part of my process at least three times. It is exactly what most often will come up. And it is the GM telling the player how to spend experience.

And no, while it may be fun to decide I'm bitter about a character who tried to pass off a bunch of CSLs, that was an example made off of the cuff while wearing my evil svengali costume, not my bitter forum member costume, that one's at the cleaners.

How the hell does a player "greedily" spend XP? Maybe if you think every player in every game ever is being greedy they are really just playing the game normally and the problem is with you putting some weird value judgement on participating in a normal part of the game...

The comment was clearly a joke, we all enjoy spending experience, myself included.

Honey Badger!

Really, what I like about the approach I use, is that with all the training with other characters and NPCs, the main battles have a lot less of the 'what's the ruling on this?' moments, and a lot more of me going 'holy !@#$! Where'd they come up with that. Escape rout B! Escape route B! Archvillains and demons first, guard the rear, my faithful, but expendable thugs!'

And often, for example, if they are worried about something, like a mentalist, their first response is not always to buy things, but to make allies that can help with that problem.

Whether done immediately or after a wait, I have never seen a player doing anything other than greedily spending their experience. Just like in everyone else's games.

To illustrate something that has and does happen.

A character, we'll say this is a gadgeteer, has stockpiled points for a while, thinking to do something with it, then finds out his original idea is not a legal build. He's got the points, but no plan at the moment. Then, during a busy week, he is in a combat and gets tired of having problems when opponents get close to him. Right then and there, he decides he wants to use his stockpile to buy those CSLs.

Now, if tomorrow, I know there is more going on(and especially if he knows), and there is no way to explain the sudden change, he just wants the skills as skills, I'll talk with him and say, look, coming up, there's some down time, we'll get you in the dojo with No-Shadow, it'll be fun, can you just play the remainder as is, then we'll do that, it'll represent your intensive training, you can get used to the new options it opens for you, and then, the next enemy you meet, you'll not only have the skills, but you'll know what they actually do for you with your other powers, and you will totally look great.

If he says no, then he has to come up with the narrative explanation that is not totally ridiculous. More often than not, they're fine with it. In fact, pretty much always.

I don't discourage him from ultimately buying what he wants to buy. If he wants, he could just buy one for now, since he has seen some combat lately. Then buy the rest during the break. And have added experience that he might spend on things that he realizes will work well with his new skills.

If this does not work, only then do I hold up the spinning disk while swinging my pocket watch in front of his eyes.

I'm with Tasha that imposing extra roadblocks to players spending their xp is far more trouble than it's worth. The player who provides glib explanations, or just picks the right background, can spend his xp as he pleases, and the player whose vision of his character may not match yours discovers it's not really HIS character after all.

This is a straw man fallacy. I have repeatedly stated I do not choose what people spend their experience on. If the player, given the opportunity and asked what he is training/working on, observed in what his character is actually doing most commonly, communicates his or her intentions, which they almost always do, I try to accommodate them. However, and again, it sticks out like a sore thumb if you have a milquetoast turn into a competent hth combatant over the weekend with no warning. Or suddenly, the day after one encounter with their first mentalist opponent, they are buying a ton of mental defense, the narrative and the balance almost always suffer for this. Problems soon become more often solved with builds than role plays.

These players may certainly buy some mental defense after such a situation. But if every buy is a drastic re-imagining of the character, it becomes tedious for everyone. It really is not unusual for games to expect that, barring certain unusual situations, which are more common in comics, but not as common as some players will try to make it, that developing skills requires time or it feels incredibly corny. Their vision doesn't have to match mine, nor has a single thing I said supported that statement. It has to fit in the story that player and the rest have been making, it has to fit the character the way he has been playing it, if he's trying to branch out, he needs to do so in-game, or figure out how to do so, and I'm happy to accommodate that.

But if someone instead wants to save up 10 points and buy +1 SPD all at once, why does he need special dispensation to do so? Note that he has done without any benefit of the 3+ points until he got to 10 - viewed one way, I gamed the system and started benefiting from my points (sometimes the activation succeeds) way sooner. Viewed another, I role played gaining my new SPD point.

You'll note that those examples match none of the ones I provided. I have no problems with any of those buys, including the speed.

Your comments suggest the characters are consistently spending 10+ xp at a time. I don't find 10+ xp often gets awarded all at once, so the player is already foregoing benefits from his xp as he decides what to do with it,

I have several times stated many players will be saving points. And planning how to make their additions to the story that the new build may entail fit seamlessly into the story. Getting experience and spending a tiny amount for something helpful, but saving the rest for something bigger. But they, and I, all find it odd if every third week people have remarkable abilities that are in no way explainable by any narrative the player has taken part in or provided.

Campaign caps are, to my mind, different. They do not say "persuade me that you deserve to spend your xp in the manner you desire", but "that use of xp is not permitted, for anyone, period".

'Deserve' is just a way to muddy the water.

Do the work to your own character's story to explain things, or don't get into a heavy role playing game is more like it. If it's too obtrusive to the narrative as everyone, that player included, has set up, slip it in over time. And caps are a flat out command that you cannot spend your points, that you earned, the way you want if it means you want to go over that cap.

It's the same.

In one case, all players have to, where necessary, using group consensus and common sense, slip in buys in a way that works with the narrative, letting some be big and dramatic, some, especially those that that character can come up with no better rationale for than "I'm a genius, so five CSLs is totally something I can do over the weekend", may need phasing in, because they sound stupid to everyone, usually even the player attempting them when you go "Really, Saturday you got beat up by a possessed little girl with 6 STR, today you're a master of the peekaboo style, because you're a genius?"

In the other case, all players have to accept the dictate of the GM on what stats can't go higher than what.

Now, we could interpret the first as some kind of Svengali GM, and the second as a jackbooted dictatorial monster, but both would be patently ridiculous interpretations.

If someone chooses to play in a story heavy game, and makes silly builds that are inexplicable even by their standards and stick out in the story, and it has been explained that's how the game is, no one is being hypnotized and having their rights taken away if people go, "Bob, don't be stupid."

Seriously, not a complaint in any system I've run, and I've played this way for years. Likewise, never bullied a player to choose a particular thing.

For 20, you get a 4 DC attack. For 52, you get a larger attack. It makes sense to me that the cost will be higher if the underlying attack is higher. I can't see spending any points for a Super to get a 4d6 attack off when he Aborts - 4d6 will rarely, if ever, damage the opponent.

Well, in this case, the 4d6 is fine for ordinary thugs and street criminals, but yes, most NPCs will not be effected. Also, in the game I'm playing, though it is 400 pts., is mainly broader with less high value powers. In the case of this power, the 20 pt. is an NPC who is the sort of vigilante who will often be taking on the thugs while the powered individuals are taking on the more powerful villains. The 52 is too pricy, as his build includes a lot of skills that the group has need of, but are not covered, and some gear that I just like. With his nightsticks, he's fairly effective, but I'm not sure I can spare the points to give him the nightstick trigger. Especially since it would be 6d6, not that much more damage.

That would require a Trigger that resets automatically. In TheDarkness build, the character aborts with a counterattack, then needs a zero phase action to "reset" the trigger. So if he aborts, his next phase comes up, and he aborts again before the following phase comes up, he can't counterattack again because he has not yet had a 0 phase action to reset the trigger.

I changed it to the 25 point version for that reason, so that I wouldn't have to deal with the reset. Totally worth the five points.