Limitation Boondoggles?

[zornwil]

This is inspired by another thread.

 

Okay, so we all know that a 14- Activation means success just over 90% of the time (or at least we can easily look it up! ). 8 Charges manages to defeat both END cost AND is very often going to be adequate for a fight, especialy in a team setting. We know that the rules say a -1/2 lim affects a character roughly 1/3rd of the time, but these, among others, defy that logic.

 

Do you care? Why do you think the system encourages this? Or are these values entirely fair? Why? Curious what people think.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Well, while 8 charges is usually enough for a fight, that doesn't always cut it. I've been in a position where my gadgets were well-nigh exhausted of power, my magical talismans, scrolls, etc. had all been expended, and then -- instead of having time to rest up, recreate things, resupply batteries, etc. -- had to go almost immediately into the next fight. Not only did this put me at a heavy disadvantage, and mean that I didn't have the traditional flexibility, either -- not having any "prep time" for the 2nd fight -- but it also led to me, out of desperation, pulling out one of those "forbidden objects" that I normally keep safely locked away, and using it -- once -- during the fight.

 

That second fight was a real nail-biter for me, having to scrupulously conserve every erg of power in my batteries, picking and choosing just the right moment to expend the last of an item's power (meaning I took a lot fewer shots than normal at opponents, and helped out team members a lot less, too). It also, indirectly (because of the use of the potentially soul-tainting 'forbidden item'), led to several major complications and a couple of rather intense follow-up adventures.

 

While I regard this as a good thing -- high drama, nail-biting tension, that feeling of being on the edge, etc. -- for the player, it left the character in a very precarious situation.

 

Of course, that's what Limitations are for, right? My point is, in this case, that just because 8 charges is, in the vast majority of the cases, enough for one fight, that doesn't mean they're enough, period...if you don't have time to recover the charges expended (usually 24 hours) before you need them again, then you're SOL.

 

Does that happen often enough to be worth the Limitation you get for 8 charges? I dunno...I'm guessing that will depend heavily on the individual campaign, but in most cases probably not.

 

But it's not an open-and-shut case against the Limitation you get for 8 charges, either.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I think Dr. Anomoly hit it on the head. An archer "Green Arrow/Hawkeye" type character might have a quiver of 60-120 "arrows" or slots in a multipower each built with differing amounts of charges (less when continuing charges are used for things like lingering smoke/gas effects). The limitations of this multipower (focus, charges, etc...) are not going to come into play very often in the single stand alone adventure unless a particular NPC happens to dissarm the character or be resistant to the majority of the "arrows" the character has available. The MAJOR limitation comes into play when a character like this gets stuck in a multi-adventure running every minute counts type story (see the JLA/Avengers 4 issue crossover miniseries from last year for a perfect example of this).

 

HM

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

8 Charges, as Dr. A has pointed out, is as limiting as the GM let's it be in some cases. If he spaces combats out over time, or sessions, then most of the time those 8 Charges will be more than enough for 1 combat every now and then.

 

If, however, there are sessions where combat consists of running fights, multiple fights, etc... then those 8 charges don't look so hot and you're starting to look miserly next to characters who don't have the charges available.

 

Now, on the activation roll ... I never use 'em so I don't have much in the way of real play examples. I don't really know how this might play out in a game. All it takes is one bad night of rolls to make that one suck monkey something hard.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I think that a 14- Act Roll comes up often enough to merit the points. Unlike many limitations, the player can't tactically plan around this. Every time he shoots, there's a chance of failure.

 

If he has 8 charges, and he's fired 8 times, he knows not to fire that attack this phase. if his powers don't work underwater, he won't be using phases to try to use them. If his best attack Does not Affect Women, he'll target the men on the villain team. But he always risks failure when firing a 14- Act Roll power.

 

It may not FAIL 1/3 of the time, but the possibility means the limitation is in effect 100% of the time.

[OddHat]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I see limitations as story telling tools, and I'm not much into the tax accountant approach to character design. So, I'm not passionate on this issue.

 

That said, I've GMed and played characters that ran out of charges in situations where they could not get new charges, and the effect was significant. Characters who were the "heavy hitters" of the group had to struggle in situations that would normally be a cake walk, and (of course) those without those limits had a chance to shine. Focus based characters are in exactly the same situation. Yes, your power ring is saving you a bunch of points, but I promise that, as the GM, you will have to face most or all of an adventure without it now and then. 14- guy is going to blow his roll a time or two every session, but he at least can try again on the next phase. When your bullets run out or your Magic Pokey Stick gets taken away, you're at least going to need to change tactics, and you may be out of the fight.

 

So, no, I don't see a problem.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Thanks for input. Just a general comment- please don't feel constrained to focus on my specific examples - I think there are plenty of others from the, as OddHat puts it, "tax accountant" perspective.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

PS - oh, also, what I'm really interested in is that there are certainly imbalances in the Limitation value guidelines versus actual probability, and what do people think of that? Why do you think that is? The easiest example is the 14- one - why do we give a -1/2 for something that happens less than 10% of the time? And more generally, how do people feel about Limitations rationalizations and values?

 

Not to suggest some didn't answer this already, but I wanted to emphasize the theme/general questions.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

For the record, zornwil, I understood your general point/theme for the thread; at the moment, though, the only input I had to offer, off the top of my head, related to your "charges" example -- mainly because of traumatic character experience -- so that's the part upon which I commented.

 

I hope to have some more comments later on.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Personally, I believe the value guidelines vs probablity should come out in play and not in character creation.

 

A poorly built game will not take full advantage of limitations as presented and therefore cause them to look like a point break far out stripping their value. On the flip side it may take too much liberty bringing them into play and therefore make them worth not nearly as much as the cost break that was recieved.

 

Ultimately the value of a limitation is only worth as much as the Game (GM And Players alike, mostly the GM as they're the presenter of the scenarios) allows them to be.

 

And of course there's both a long term and short term accounting. In one session your -1/2 Lim may come up constantly and look to be worth closer to -2 for all the good the Power isn't doing you, but then may never show again for several more sessions making it look like it should be valued at -0 as you aren't limited at all.

[OddHat]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

PS - oh, also, what I'm really interested in is that there are certainly imbalances in the Limitation value guidelines versus actual probability, and what do people think of that? Why do you think that is? The easiest example is the 14- one - why do we give a -1/2 for something that happens less than 10% of the time? And more generally, how do people feel about Limitations rationalizations and values?

 

Not to suggest some didn't answer this already, but I wanted to emphasize the theme/general questions.

 

I think the real problem is the artificial "It should show up a third of the time" standard. It certainly doesn't reflect how often limitations show up in the source material, and more importantly it doesn't reflect the impact on the story and game experience that a given limitation will have. As Hugh pointed out, 14- man always knows that his power isn't reliable, and sure as death and taxes it will fail when he needs it now and then. In some campaigns it might get him killed. Considering the impact, I don't see it as overvalued at all. The same goes for most of the limitations.

 

Very high numbers of charges and fuel charges are broken from a pure math point of view, and I sometimes have to remind myself not to slip into power player mode with them. Linked is sometimes broken when attached to too many powers, and is probably in those cases better represented by Only In Hero ID. Only In Hero ID and Linked together on the same power is often meaningless. This particular list goes on. In the end, character creation and storytelling work and interact together in a way that just looking at the math in isolation can not describe.

 

Sometimes you've got to just pick up the damn dice and play.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

For the record, zornwil, I understood your general point/theme for the thread; at the moment, though, the only input I had to offer, off the top of my head, related to your "charges" example -- mainly because of traumatic character experience -- so that's the part upon which I commented.

 

I hope to have some more comments later on.

Equally for the record, just trying to be clear and I hope nobody felt picked on!

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Equally for the record' date=' just trying to be clear and I hope nobody felt picked on![/quote']

Well, I certainly didn't, so you don't need to worry on that account!

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I think the real problem is the artificial "It should show up a third of the time" standard.

Also, I've always taken this to mean that it should impact the character during play at some point, roughly one adventure in three. Given the 14- and 8 Charges examples, that sounds about right to me. If the character uses the power 3-4 times per adventure, then he's likely to fail the 14 roll once every three adventures. Similarly, if he's using it 3-4 times per adventure on average, then it seems reasonable that he could (at least potentially, depending on what tactical choices he makes) be in a position where he would like to be able to use it more than 8 times in one out of three adventures.

[Markdoc]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

My problem is not with those specific limitations per se, but the relative levels of limitations. I have seen a 14- activation come up often (just ask Susano about his Wildfire character who got swarmed by bad guys when he failed 3 x 14- activations in a row!) The chance of it failing in any one use is only 10% but as pointed out with repeated use, the chance of a bad thing happening is multiplied.

 

However.... 14- is OK. Most of the time it will work. What is a problem for me is that you get a relatively small savings in points - but a big increase in chance of failure - if you move to 11- (or worse, even further down the scale).

 

This problem is found lots of places. A 14- activation roll is often worth the same limit as a side efect, but side effect can often be a lot more gruesome. Not only that, but the relative value of a limit depends on the power itself. On a power which is often used out of combat (telepathy, for example) a 14- limit (or extra time, or many other limits) is a minor irritant. On your armour, a 14- activation roll can mean the different between taking a little damage and taking a LOT of damage. Not only that, but a 14- activation roll (or any limittaion) has the same negative effect, but gives you far less in the way of point savings depending how many other limitations you have on the power.

 

It *is* an annoyance, but given the almost infinite variations, and the need to balance heavily limited powers, I can't see an easy fix. Even if the GM arbitrarily assigned the value of limits based on his best understanding of how limiting it would be, that is going to change depending on other powers and the situation.

 

My approach is simply from time to time put the character in a situation where his limit hurts him. Ronson may figure that his "does not work underwater" limit is free points, since how often do they go adventuring underwater? Up until the point that Minotaur grabs him, holds him down in a fountain in the middle of the Hyatt lobby and starts to pound on him... a disadvantage of that kind may not (and should not) come up all the time, but when it does, it's going to hurt.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I think you also have to remember that a -1/2 limitation on its own might (accountant style) be expected to come up 1/3 of the time as it saves you 1/3 of the points. It probably shouldn't come up 1/3 of the time when it is combined with a -3/2 limitation.

 

The total -2 limitation saves 2/3 of the points and (accountant style) you might expect the power to be limited 2/3 of the time but possibly only 1/6 of the times would be accounted for by the -1/2 limitation.

 

Due to the way the limitations and advantages work, when you start combining them they should occur less frequently if you want to compare them point for point....

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Hero is a game that has, at its heart, a points balancing system for character building. I think that we blind ourselves sometimes that this gives us ultimate freedom to build the character that we want* and I think there is an assumption that someone actually sat and thought about advantage and limitation values. I'm really not sure that is true.

 

8 Charges is not a lot if you are recovering the charges by day, if they are attached to your main attack. If they are attached to, say, triggered mental defence then that is probably enough: I rarely get mind controlled more than 8 times a day.

 

14- activation doesn't matter too much attached to your main attack - 1 additional miss in 10 is aggravating but rarely fatal: attached to your main defence it can be utterly deadly....actually, for this attack, I've only got 4 pd....

 

So the 'value' of limitations (and the same applies to advantages really) depends on what they are used for.

 

Now we are never (and I would not want to) going to cost out the value of limitations for each individual power/combination, but I think we have to accept that the sysytem, for all its supposed choice, is still guiding us as to how to build characters, favouring some constructions over others and is not something that stands up well to a rigorous mathematical analysis of cost against utility: it is purely going to go on anecdotal evidence, and frankly we have all lived with it so long that we are probably not the best people to judge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I was trying to build a villain last night to an interesting (I thought) concept. very much a team player, she was a mime (the team being call the The Freakshow - vaguely cirrcus themed). Her power was to mime, and wind people up doing it - a cumulative mind control, single command, 'become enraged and attack me'. Obviously she needed to be able to take a lot of damage, so I thought, reasonable DEX (20) +3 levels of DCV, high BODY and CON and STUN, regeneration with res, half damage reduction: nothing unreasonable, but boy howdy was she expensive. Hero does not encourage this kind of build, even though the character herself was not exactly a powerhouse, nor even, by a long chalk, invulnerable: it doesn't fit the hidden template, and so, whilst you can do it, you pay through the nose for the privilege.

[EverKnight]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

When I read the section of the book stating how often the limitations should occur I didn't really believe it, even without comparing it to the listed values. I do like Derek's theory that it is not based on overall time but what fraction of adventures the limitation will crop up in at some point. Not that I have seriously thought how well that fits.

 

When it comes to determining the value of limitations that are not listed in the book I usually go with what feels right. So something that will just about prove to be a problem is a -1/4, somewhat more troublesome is -1/2 and so on. In the end you just hope people are creating characters to a concept rather than the points cost.

 

This discussion has reminded me of a sonic based character in my current game that the GM allowed to have a -1/4 limitation does not work in vacuum. The result is that we know will be going to into space at some point so that the limitation will prove to be a limitation. So if you want to be cunning when designing a character for a campaign you ask the GM what various limitations are worth to get an idea of what will be happening in the campaign.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

This discussion has reminded me of a sonic based character in my current game that the GM allowed to have a -1/4 limitation does not work in vacuum. The result is that we know will be going to into space at some point so that the limitation will prove to be a limitation. So if you want to be cunning when designing a character for a campaign you ask the GM what various limitations are worth to get an idea of what will be happening in the campaign.

 

...and that's how he ended up in Dr Lights Bulb of Doom, needing to break through the foot thick safety glass before the electricity arced through the vacuum he was standing in....

 

 

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Do the "set" limitation values create a mismatch of values? Yeah.

 

Is the value mismatch easily quantified in order to make a universal fix? Not hardly.

 

Things to think about with Limitations:

 

1) Comparative analysis of the cost saving multipliers of various Limitations was clearly not done when they were originally "set" and tended to be consistent only internally within a Limitation. (Ex: OIF was probably not compared to 14- activation when established... just that 14- was compared with 12- compard with 8-, etc.)

 

2) The question about the intent of Limitations and their effect on game play was probably not more thought through than "If I have a gun that can be taken away, shouldn't it be cheaper than an Energy Blast that is a natural ability?" and away they went. Understanding the long term play affects (player control based on points, character construction vs. actual play, etc) are more modern design consderations that are not really addressed adequately by a system that is, at it's heart, a primal '80s construct.

 

3) The use of Limitations in game play is fundamentally different than the use of them in character construction. In construction, we are doing "T" style analysis, numbers and cost and points. In play, we are in "F" mode (to use Myers-Briggs terms) where the "feel" of the game is every much emotional value based. Dr. Anomaly's example is clearly this. Even if 1000 other games showed 8 charges to be more than adequate... one game(s) where it really made for drama and tension and player sweat will resonate intently and powerfully for a long time. Proving in the end that "value" is subjective... no matter what numbers you apply to it.

 

4) Even if you try to put a more quantitative element into the game as a GM (planning 1 in 3 events where the limitation will come into play) I don't know that the intent was to be so intrusive to story and plots. If nothing else, some arguments seem to be that a GM is only "good" if they plan their games around systematically applying Limitations... and even as if GMs are supposed to know, from the very beginning, exactly what is an appropriate value for a Limitation... which in my mind is just impossible, because based on the organic, story nature of play... that value will change over time as the campaign organically evolves. Does this mean characters should be rebuilt with new values every time the GM and group feel it is important? (Actually this opens up the question as to whether the original idea of Hero as Champions was to simulate the very static, status quo, unchanging aspect of Silver/Bronze age comics... thus an evolving campaign wasn't part of the picture.)

 

I really think Doc is on to something when he speaks of looking at Limitations in total, rather than piecemeal. I stated something similar in an old thread about Disadvantages. I never really look at disads individually. I don't look at them as optional, but as part of all characters in total. Example: A 350 point character is not 200 points and if they WANT, can take Disads to go to 350. No... they are 350 points, and they all have 150 points of Disads. This means that all characters should be considered equally disadvantaged for the campaign... though details vary. For limitations, not thinking of it in these terms means that we have 350 point characters with 0 lims, and some with -2 Lims... but all are considered equivalent in game play. This is the breakdown... the fallacy assumption.

 

In other words... to have limitations really work in a "universal" way... there should be some guidelines about "Look at the total point saved through limitations on each character and compare all PCs together. The characters who saved the most points have more burden on them to suffer for their limitations. (You can look at points for roughly equal point characters, or percentages for PCs with large real cost discrepancies.)

 

Thus you look at the character limitations in total... and factor THAT into game play/plots... rather than trying to calculate probabilities on individual Limitations that can be very inconsistent from character to character.

 

(Sorry... this is long and rambling... but I was spewing it out as a way to start cohere some thoughts on this.)

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

The key difference between a 14- act roll and 8 shots and many other limitations is that you don't know when it's going to bite you.

 

If I take a limitation "only works on women", then I have a pretty good idea every time I target something whether or not it's going to work. Sure, there are some borderline cases, i.e. alien babes, robot babes or demonic babes where you aren't sure if it's going to trigger or not, but against the majority of targets, you're pretty sure it's either going to work or not. (shapeshifters ?)

 

With an activation roll, you have to commit to a course of action, then see if the limitation bites you.

 

Some limitations affect your combat choices, the activation roll limits your combat performance. A clever player can overcome the former, only a cheater can overcome the latter. (it happens)

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Continuing on a couple of points:

 

One thing that is interesting about Limitations is that they provide Quantitative Rewards for players at the cost of Subjective Cost during game play. Hard points are saved, quantifiably greater ability is on the character sheet... at the cost of subjective, story driven, often view as arbitrary penalties during game play.

 

That is a dangerous dynamic that is forced upon us by game design that gives rise to a lot of dysfunction if the group isn't aware and mature enough to deal with it.

 

Second, to clarify the idea of looking at Limitations in total...

 

Once a character is created, it might be a good idea to calculate the "Real Cost" of the character without any limitations. Do this for all the PCs, and compare. Now a bunch of 350 point characters actually look more like a 522 point character, a 477 point character, a 430 point character and a 379 point character. There is likely to be some discrepency in power levels in such a spread.

 

This is fine, but the important part of the comparison is to inform the players, as a group, what the cost of those limitations will tend to look like in game play. Explain to Mr. 522 that he should expect to have more things happen that cause his character's powers to not work or be less effective than all the other PCs. Find out if he is ok with this.

 

If you really have to apply numbers, you can show that he has 33% bonus compared to an 8% (rounded up) bonus in points... so should expect something like 4x the number of power problems of Ms. 379. I personally don't think going to the numbers is necessary... but the conversation about "Are you, as as player, willing to role play the amount of limitations you've purchased?" is critical.

 

I see this little exercise as a bridge between the "T" side of analytical character building and the "F" side of interactive play and storytelling. It won't be perfect... but at least this method offers us one way to address the issue.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

The key difference between a 14- act roll and 8 shots and many other limitations is that you don't know when it's going to bite you.

 

If I take a limitation "only works on women", then I have a pretty good idea every time I target something whether or not it's going to work. Sure, there are some borderline cases, i.e. alien babes, robot babes or demonic babes where you aren't sure if it's going to trigger or not, but against the majority of targets, you're pretty sure it's either going to work or not. (shapeshifters ?)

 

With an activation roll, you have to commit to a course of action, then see if the limitation bites you.

 

Some limitations affect your combat choices, the activation roll limits your combat performance. A clever player can overcome the former, only a cheater can overcome the latter. (it happens)

 

 

This is very true... as Hugh also points out earlier. Limitations that are pure "Randomized" are likely more true and quantifiable values than "Set Effect" limitations. Having "set" values for Randomized Limitations could work... but Set Effect Limitations are often more of the problem.

 

Focusing on Set Effect... like a Focus or "Not vs. Women" In some ways, the Set Effect limitation is forcing the GM to incorporate "take away the sword" and "attach with female badguys" into the campaign. So, Set Effect are the ones we have to watch.

 

A GM might have to review every "Set Effect" to tell the player how much value the limitation is worth. In short lived, contained campaigns maybe this is possible, but in the more open ended, long term evolving campaign this is impossible to determine.

 

What is often not recognized in the "T" realms of character construction is that, by taking a limitation, the player is actually saying "I want my character to lose their power like this at points in the game." It is not very often that such is a players intent. Most of the time, at best, the limitation is there because it is "in concept" but the player hopes it won't come up very often... while at worse, it is trying to get points for a "set limitation" by the book... while expecting to play around it and never have it come up in play.

 

If players were realizing that (for example) taking a Focus was saying, "I expect my character to lose this power pretty frequently" we'd be cool. As opposed to the normal course of thought which is "My character COULD lose this power, but I'm hoping it won't happen much and I'll fight it as best I can when it does happen."

 

Again... this just illustrates the often ugly division between the two games that make up Hero. The "character construction game" and the "role playing game" which can... but often don't... match in expectations.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

The values for the limitations, especially circumstantial ones, really are dependent on the GM to justify their value. But from a character building standpoint, limitations are not only a way to help balance powers, but they should help define powers. When a player comes up with a limitation on a power, I don't want it there just because it saves a few points, it should be there to represent the nature of the power. When MagnetMan puts a limitation on his telekinesis, only vs metal, that helps define the power. When MunchkinMan buys an EB only vs metal because it so happens his hunted controls armies of robots, that is working the system. And as a GM I am inclined to give bigger values to limitations that define the power, especially if the power isn't going to be unbalancing in to course of the game (or at least as far as my myopic GM vision can tell).

 

I am not much for activation rolls because I find too many activation rolls slows down gameplay. I generally find it easier and more dramatic for the GM to decide when an activation roll fails. In some cases I find the activation roll limitation a useful guideline for a power that always works except when it suits the plot for it not to (the primary example of this is when I have a group of dimension travellers whose EDM always works except when I need them to be trapped in some peculiar dimension and find another way out). Of course this treatment of activation rolls makes them again dependent on the GM instead of the more pure randomized variety, but if it makes for better gameplay, who cares?

 

____________________________________________________________

"The rich scare me. They can already evade taxes." - Grim Reaper

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I think you also have to remember that a -1/2 limitation on its own might (accountant style) be expected to come up 1/3 of the time as it saves you 1/3 of the points. It probably shouldn't come up 1/3 of the time when it is combined with a -3/2 limitation.

 

The total -2 limitation saves 2/3 of the points and (accountant style) you might expect the power to be limited 2/3 of the time but possibly only 1/6 of the times would be accounted for by the -1/2 limitation.

 

Due to the way the limitations and advantages work, when you start combining them they should occur less frequently if you want to compare them point for point....

 

 

Doc

 

Can you please expand on what you mean by the last sentence?