Limitation Boondoggles?

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

(snip)* I was trying to build a villain last night to an interesting (I thought) concept. very much a team player' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I love your "hidden template" comment. Was this character framework-friendly (doesn't sound it)? Was it difficult to apply Lims to deter cost? Raises an interesting point, off the mark for the thread, but interesting.

 

PS - and would this character be a "reasonable" PC in your eyes?

[incrdbil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Any limitation is a boondoggle if the GM dfoesn't enforce it.

 

Some combinations can really be a boondoggle--liek this little gem. For any one use power, dont buy 1 charge. Buy 2 charges, with an 8- burnout. You get the power cheaper, and their is a small chance you get to use it twice.

 

Some limitations take little effort for their effect to be felt by the player, while others limitations can have much less impact with the right circumstances. Iif the game consists mainly of short fights with ample time to visit bases, 8 charges, 6, even 4 isn't much of a limit. Its one of the less easy parts of a GM--reviewing a character and their limitations, and recalling when the character actually was limited.

 

I haver a player who is a weapon master. Big multipower, lots of slots, all with charges. So many slots that running out of just one slot hasn't been too bad.

 

But now... He's on an extended series of adventures cut off from the NPC supplier--no resupply. He will not recover his charges between games; sorry, thats the fx. He's been able to resupply during a game where significant time passed. He's now nursing his shots, but immediately asked to spend experience to learn the Weaponsmith skill to start building his ammo. I refused for mahy reasons--one being that he never before expressed how he was studying the aspects of making all the various ammo (energy based, greandes, various acid, chemical weapons, flash grenades..you name it, its there. No where in their dimension travelling adventure has he sat down to study with the team gadgeteer. I wont even except the excuse of 'character development I just couldn't afford before"--its a quick spend to finally avoid suffering his limitations. I wont let him purchase the skill until he has time to actually learn it, which wont be possible any time soon.

 

Yeah, I know its not the textbook way to inforce a limit, instead of x% of every game he's effected, I'm picking out one or more games where it REALLY makes his life difficult. Call me a bad GM, but I a very memorable instance of limitation is just as much of a drawback to a plyer, or even mow, that more frequent, minor limitations.

 

And I'm not picking on him--I've got a power armor guy whos really only sufferred the equivalent of OIHD so far..till the next adventure.

 

And the next few games should make my guys with no limtys, the pure builds, just giddy with joy.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I think RDU Neil has hit on an important point - at least as I interpret his statement.

 

Limitations, at the table, will seperate the Roleplayers from the Rollplayers. And in the end you'll never know until you're at the table and, as Oddhat said, "...just pick up the damn dice and play."

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

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

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

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

 

Not sure I want to!

 

 

Will look and see whether I can put more words together that will make more sense than the ones that are down there....later.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Any limitation is a boondoggle if the GM dfoesn't enforce it.

 

Some combinations can really be a boondoggle--liek this little gem. For any one use power, dont buy 1 charge. Buy 2 charges, with an 8- burnout. You get the power cheaper, and their is a small chance you get to use it twice.

 

Some limitations take little effort for their effect to be felt by the player, while others limitations can have much less impact with the right circumstances. Iif the game consists mainly of short fights with ample time to visit bases, 8 charges, 6, even 4 isn't much of a limit. Its one of the less easy parts of a GM--reviewing a character and their limitations, and recalling when the character actually was limited.

 

I haver a player who is a weapon master. Big multipower, lots of slots, all with charges. So many slots that running out of just one slot hasn't been too bad.

 

But now... He's on an extended series of adventures cut off from the NPC supplier--no resupply. He will not recover his charges between games; sorry, thats the fx. He's been able to resupply during a game where significant time passed. He's now nursing his shots, but immediately asked to spend experience to learn the Weaponsmith skill to start building his ammo. I refused for mahy reasons--one being that he never before expressed how he was studying the aspects of making all the various ammo (energy based, greandes, various acid, chemical weapons, flash grenades..you name it, its there. No where in their dimension travelling adventure has he sat down to study with the team gadgeteer. I wont even except the excuse of 'character development I just couldn't afford before"--its a quick spend to finally avoid suffering his limitations. I wont let him purchase the skill until he has time to actually learn it, which wont be possible any time soon.

 

Yeah, I know its not the textbook way to inforce a limit, instead of x% of every game he's effected, I'm picking out one or more games where it REALLY makes his life difficult. Call me a bad GM, but I a very memorable instance of limitation is just as much of a drawback to a plyer, or even mow, that more frequent, minor limitations.

 

And I'm not picking on him--I've got a power armor guy whos really only sufferred the equivalent of OIHD so far..till the next adventure.

 

And the next few games should make my guys with no limtys, the pure builds, just giddy with joy.

I don't see anything showing you're a bad GM here. The same sorts of things happened in our old campaign fairly often... traveling back in time unexpectedly, getting trapped in a forigen country on a mission... various things to occasionally drop my gadgeteer and our power armor character off the first string and let some of the other characters grab a little more of the limelight, while we got to count bullets and get creative. Good times for all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I love your "hidden template" comment. Was this character framework-friendly (doesn't sound it)? Was it difficult to apply Lims to deter cost? Raises an interesting point, off the mark for the thread, but interesting.

 

PS - and would this character be a "reasonable" PC in your eyes?

 

 

Not really framework friendly: most of the points went in characteristics and defences, and I was using 1/2 damage reduction because I did not want an indestructible character, just one that could take an awful lot of punishment.

 

Given that I basically wanted her to be able to last several phases under attack from the enemy team she had 50 BODY and 100 STUN, which coupled with the damage reduction makes her very tough - but only 10pd/ed defences - so easily damaged. She also had resurrection regeneration.

 

The character would not be an unbalanced PC by any means, but would have to be a team player as she lacked any offensive powers capable of doing any real damage to a 'standard build' equivalent point character. There seems to be quite a 'self sufficiency' thread running through character creation - each character has to be able to survive and prosper on their own and rarely - in my experience - any attempt to build characters that compliment each other well.

 

Hero is set up (IMO) to build such 'all rounders' and is less good at modelling - both (at times) in character creation and in game mechanics, some concepts that do not fit the mould.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Not really framework friendly: most of the points went in characteristics and defences, and I was using 1/2 damage reduction because I did not want an indestructible character, just one that could take an awful lot of punishment.

 

Given that I basically wanted her to be able to last several phases under attack from the enemy team she had 50 BODY and 100 STUN, which coupled with the damage reduction makes her very tough - but only 10pd/ed defences - so easily damaged. She also had resurrection regeneration.

 

The character would not be an unbalanced PC by any means, but would have to be a team player as she lacked any offensive powers capable of doing any real damage to a 'standard build' equivalent point character. There seems to be quite a 'self sufficiency' thread running through character creation - each character has to be able to survive and prosper on their own and rarely - in my experience - any attempt to build characters that compliment each other well.

 

Hero is set up (IMO) to build such 'all rounders' and is less good at modelling - both (at times) in character creation and in game mechanics, some concepts that do not fit the mould.

IMHO, this is a good example of why the arbitrary nature of the EC rules, despite their "balance" intention, are a bad thing.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

IMHO' date=' this is a good example of why the arbitrary nature of the EC rules, despite their "balance" intention, are a bad thing.[/quote']

 

But in the circumstances a sympathetic GM wouldn't blanche at allowing a preternatural toughness EC that would allow extra STUN, REC, BODY, REGEN, DAMAGE REDUCTION?

 

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

But in the circumstances a sympathetic GM wouldn't blanche at allowing a preternatural toughness EC that would allow extra STUN, REC, BODY, REGEN, DAMAGE REDUCTION?

 

 

Doc

Well, I don't! I still ask for an SFX unification and a way in which the EC could be defeated, or in the absence of a player-provided explanation I'll make one (and they know that).

[Mr. Negative]

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.

 

 

Knowing that you aren't focusing specifically on the 14- Activation, but wanting to comment on a specific limitation, rather than just blather generally:

 

This specific limitation, only fails about 10% of the time. However, that isn't to say that it doesn't affect how the player uses the power more frequently than that. I don't think that the "-1/2 affect you 1/3rd of the time" guideline just applies to whether the power succeeds or fails in an absolute sense.

 

A player with a 14- activation power may not use it in many various circumstances where success is critical. If you absolutely have to drop the villain with this shot, then you might drop the exploding arrow for the good old pointy one. If you desperately need to impress the attractive reporter, you might approach using your boring old Flight rather than your occassionally glitchy Teleporter.

 

I think a lot of limitation work like this. Not only are you occasionally constrained by the actual mechanism of the limitation, but you are also constrained by the theoretical occurence of the limitation. Even limitations that are very concrete ("Not Underwater") still have the added variability of not knowing if you'll be underwater this adventure.

 

Also involved in limitation values can be the effect that your opponents have on them. Certain limitations are very hard to affect (completely random activation rolls) but others can be deliberately exploited by the opposition. Thus, even if your "Women Only" Energy Blast statistically affects only 50% of the potential targets, the opposition can make sure to hire a man to do you in.

 

To be concise (too late) I don't think a strict probability calculation from just the limitation itself can often capture accurately how "limiting" the limitation actually will be in play.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Knowing that you aren't focusing specifically on the 14- Activation, but wanting to comment on a specific limitation, rather than just blather generally:

 

This specific limitation, only fails about 10% of the time. However, that isn't to say that it doesn't affect how the player uses the power more frequently than that. I don't think that the "-1/2 affect you 1/3rd of the time" guideline just applies to whether the power succeeds or fails in an absolute sense.

 

A player with a 14- activation power may not use it in many various circumstances where success is critical. If you absolutely have to drop the villain with this shot, then you might drop the exploding arrow for the good old pointy one. If you desperately need to impress the attractive reporter, you might approach using your boring old Flight rather than your occassionally glitchy Teleporter.

 

I think a lot of limitation work like this. Not only are you occasionally constrained by the actual mechanism of the limitation, but you are also constrained by the theoretical occurence of the limitation. Even limitations that are very concrete ("Not Underwater") still have the added variability of not knowing if you'll be underwater this adventure.

 

Also involved in limitation values can be the effect that your opponents have on them. Certain limitations are very hard to affect (completely random activation rolls) but others can be deliberately exploited by the opposition. Thus, even if your "Women Only" Energy Blast statistically affects only 50% of the potential targets, the opposition can make sure to hire a man to do you in.

 

To be concise (too late) I don't think a strict probability calculation from just the limitation itself can often capture accurately how "limiting" the limitation actually will be in play.

 

 

I positively agree

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

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....

 

Zornwil asked for further comment on this, I'm still not sure whether I can make 'Doc's Theory of Cost Relativity' as Sean called it any more comprehensible.

 

So what did I mean? I'll take an 12D6 energy blast limited by 'not versus heat based defences' which the GM has given a -1/2 limitation. The accountants view of this would be that the GM has decided that this limitation will come up every third scenario as it saved the hero a third of his points. He spent 40 points rather than 60.

 

If the hero has also taken another -3/2 limitation due to limited charges or extra time or some other combination then the 'not versus heat based defences' then the hero has spent 20 points rather than 60. The not versus heat based defences is only responsible for 1/4 of those savings (10 points). As such the accountant GM will ensure that the hero encounters such defences one in every sixth scenario.

 

The same limitation, with the same value causes the accountant GM to ensure that the situation comes up at different intervals.

 

It is that logic that says to me that the limitations are relative and cannot have any definitive absolute value in game terms otherwise they would all be based on fixed proportions of the base cost. Not versus heat based defences would be 20 points worth for 12D6 man regardless of other disads - but with such a system you could eventually get powers that provided you with points rather than cost you them - four -1/2 limitations would each provide a 20 point cost break resulting in a 12D6 EB that provided you with 20 points to spend on something else!!

 

It gets silly very quickly....

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

....or a -1/2 on a 60 point power is worth a saving of 20 points. Two -1/2 limitations on the same power save you 30 points - so each only saves 15 points: the more limitations the less cost benefit you get from each one, so (according to DToCR) the limitation imposed by each should also be less, assuming the saving in cost accurately reflects the amount of limitation imposed.

 

I think.

[pinecone]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I've always viewed the diminishing returns as a feature...it helps to disincentive stacking massive disadds (it doen't do this real well...but it trys hard..) the disadvantages are sometimes subtle in their effects...in my experiance , every once and awile someone for example sees Act(14) and goes Ka-ching! But they soon find that the lim is a much bigger headache than they had imagened...they have invariably sworn never to take it again...No lim is a lim if the GM doesn't make it one, but at least act and the like make thenselve known "on their own" and thats one less thing I need to keep track of...

[Trebuchet]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

IME many players avoid using Charges because they're terrified of running out in the middle of a fight/adventure (usually because it's previously happened to them at the worst possible time!). Our group is more likely to go with Reduced END on attacks than Charges. I think the only character in our current Champions campaign with Charges on his attacks is Cyberknight. He has several specialized missile attacks (RKA, AP, No Range Mod) bought with Charges but he also has a basic EB without Charges so he can still fight if he runs out of missiles.

 

Our group avoids Activation rolls like the plague.

[Marketeer]

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.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you fail your Activation Roll, don't you waste your Action for the Phase (on an Attack Power)?

 

Losing a Phase is quite significant, whereas all the other Limitations tend to be ones you that you can see in advance and plan around.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Zornwil asked for further comment on this, I'm still not sure whether I can make 'Doc's Theory of Cost Relativity' as Sean called it any more comprehensible.

 

So what did I mean? I'll take an 12D6 energy blast limited by 'not versus heat based defences' which the GM has given a -1/2 limitation. The accountants view of this would be that the GM has decided that this limitation will come up every third scenario as it saved the hero a third of his points. He spent 40 points rather than 60.

 

If the hero has also taken another -3/2 limitation due to limited charges or extra time or some other combination then the 'not versus heat based defences' then the hero has spent 20 points rather than 60. The not versus heat based defences is only responsible for 1/4 of those savings (10 points). As such the accountant GM will ensure that the hero encounters such defences one in every sixth scenario.

 

The same limitation, with the same value causes the accountant GM to ensure that the situation comes up at different intervals.

 

It is that logic that says to me that the limitations are relative and cannot have any definitive absolute value in game terms otherwise they would all be based on fixed proportions of the base cost. Not versus heat based defences would be 20 points worth for 12D6 man regardless of other disads - but with such a system you could eventually get powers that provided you with points rather than cost you them - four -1/2 limitations would each provide a 20 point cost break resulting in a 12D6 EB that provided you with 20 points to spend on something else!!

 

It gets silly very quickly....

 

 

Doc

Okay, I get it. Thanks - my head hurts, but thanks!

 

Actually, it's a really interesting idea. I'm in a game just checking on stuff when I have a chance, so will have to look at it more detail later as a concept.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

IME many players avoid using Charges because they're terrified of running out in the middle of a fight/adventure (usually because it's previously happened to them at the worst possible time!). Our group is more likely to go with Reduced END on attacks than Charges. I think the only character in our current Champions campaign with Charges on his attacks is Cyberknight. He has several specialized missile attacks (RKA, AP, No Range Mod) bought with Charges but he also has a basic EB without Charges so he can still fight if he runs out of missiles.

 

Our group avoids Activation rolls like the plague.

That's funny how experiences in groups are different. I've seen tons of Charges, especially in my former group back in SC, they were big into Charges. They did run out sometimes, especially the 4x ones. But for 0 END, it's a nice side benefit.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you fail your Activation Roll, don't you waste your Action for the Phase (on an Attack Power)?

 

Losing a Phase is quite significant, whereas all the other Limitations tend to be ones you that you can see in advance and plan around.

Sure, so the 10% is a matter of your SPD as well.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

IME many players avoid using Charges because they're terrified of running out in the middle of a fight/adventure (usually because it's previously happened to them at the worst possible time!). Our group is more likely to go with Reduced END on attacks than Charges. I think the only character in our current Champions campaign with Charges on his attacks is Cyberknight. He has several specialized missile attacks (RKA, AP, No Range Mod) bought with Charges but he also has a basic EB without Charges so he can still fight if he runs out of missiles.

 

Our group avoids Activation rolls like the plague.

Funnily enough, I'm almost the exact opposite with my character Dr. Anomaly. I use charges (usually Fuel charges) on almost every gadget to simulate a limited fuel supply, battery life, etc. I could create gadgets with 0 END and such, and have in the past -- I just don't usually do so, since that doesn't "feel" right for my character concept. And as I noted, that has risen up to bite me once or twice...but I knew it would, and it seemed right. Along the same lines, I put charges even on things that don't use END, like LS: Self-Contained Breathing, and usually at 1 Hour, as that's a -0 Limitation. Given that it tops out at that value, I could (for no extra points) make it a Fuel Charge that lasts 1 Day, 1 Week, 1 Century...but I don't. Not because I can't, but because it doesn't feel right. I want my stuff to have a limited service life.

 

My magical stuff is usually done up as single charges (sometimes single Fuel charges) to represent it's stuff I create ahead of time (potions, scrolls, etc.) that are expended by use. I do this not only because once more it fits how I envision my character, but in this case it usually is a matter of points savings as well...my Magic pool is just 35 points, so I need to stretch those as much as possible.

 

I also have Activation Rolls on almost everything. In part this is to fit the concept of "incredibly compact/hi-tech devices" -- i.e. this isn't so much an 'impossible' or 'futuristic' device as it is "impossibly compact" and the reason it's so compact is that the operator does all the things through lightning-swift mental calculations that normally would require entire other feedback devices to compute and do...balance magnetic containment for fusion reactions, that sort of thing. Also, it makes it almost impossible for the device, if taken away from me, to be used by an opponent -- either they likely won't have the necessary Skill ("Requires a Skill Roll vs. Science: Chaos Theory") or, if they do, the minus on the roll due to the active points makes it unlikely they'll be able to make the roll. (Dr. Anomaly has a 40 INT to begin with, and some skill levels with these various things...far from a sure thing when the device is 75 active points, and thus -7 to your roll, but still not bad odds.)

 

The magical things are sort of 50/50 as regards skill rolls; things like scrolls generally require Gestures, Incantations, and a Magic Roll to activate, while things like potions or oils anyone can grab, open, and swallow or pour over themselves. Again, a matter of flavor and concept.

 

Since almost all of my devices already have things like OAF and other Limitations on them, stacking on Charges and RSR doesn't save many (if any) points, as has been pointed out, due to 'diminishing returns'. Still and all, I put them on there...because that's the flavor I want.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Zornwil asked for further comment on this, I'm still not sure whether I can make 'Doc's Theory of Cost Relativity' as Sean called it any more comprehensible.

 

(snip as it's both originally posted and quoted above)

 

It's a very interesting point.

 

Now, to be clear, I assume that this is a way of replacing the book's commentary of "Limited Effect -1/2 should come up around 1/3 of the time", correct? That it's not a "reinterpretation," per se, of that specific sort of book thing.

 

Now, considering atop this idea and even atop the book's own "per session" comments that in any of these systems we end up with an awful lot of things that "should" happen on a certain basis, and multiplied by the # of players as well. That's really impractical, to the point of impossibility (setting aside the built-in timed lims like Charges and Activation and so on), in terms of any sort of real scheduling or "accountability".

 

RDU Neil proposes a schema that makes sense in terms of looking at total points. You could also look at this along the line of Disads as well, rolling up the points into something like:

 

Player A:

30 total points savings with his "Not vs demons" => equivalent to a 30 point Disad just for this

50 total points savings for his "OIHID" => equivalent to a 50 point Disad just for this

 

Anyway, I'm just rambling on a different approach...

 

To the DD idea, coupled with RDU Neil's, you could sum up the total saved points as RDU Neil mentions and as DD alludes to earlier in looking at in total, plus this idea, and do a 2-fold analysis, first is the % of points saved for each player by Disads and Limitations, the second is within each player the composition therein. The player who saved "x" % should have that % of sessions feature a "serious" issue with any of these points. The % of each sort of thing for that player dictates which one it is, by chance. One would probably combine all the like issues for this sake, for both ease and because it's only logical they'll hit the many facets of the character. Less serious issues, as guidelines, might occur at 3x the rate of serious ones; as stated, this is just to provide the GM with a benchmark, as it would be even harder to effectively do. And of course all of the Lims/Disads with built-in chances we don't count. For example:

 

Campaign I: 250+100

 

Player A: out of his 350, 100 from Disads, and 50 from Lims: he has a 150/350 chance of a serious issue = 43%. So almost half of sessions he has a serious issue, i.e., his issue is really in the foreground and he's going to get hit, so to speak. You could also just look at this as rolling 1d100 and if it's 1-43 he gets it. 3x.43 = 1.29, so 1 session and 29% of other sessions something more minor occurs

 

Player A's array of Disads/Limitations:

 

Related to Fire ("Fear of Fire", "Susceptibility to Fire", "Doesn't Work vs Fire") = 75 - 75/150 = 50% chance of a serious fire incident

 

Related to Foci = 20 - 20/150 = 13% chance

 

Secret Identity and OIHID = 15 - 20/150 = 10% chance

 

Social Lim - Known as Bully and Psych Lim - Bully - 40 - 40/150 = 27%

 

So if his serious issue comes up, roll among these, use whichever. For his 1.29 per session (perhaps we make a rule, btw, that if he has a serious issue we just don't bother with the minor ones), we automatically have one, roll among these, and on a 1-29/d100 we roll one of these.

 

 

Player B: out of his 350, 100 from Disads, and 438 from Lims. But out of these Lims, 50 points are from Activation or Charges, so we don't count those as they're "self-controlled". So removing 50, he has a 488/350 chance of a serious issue = 139%. So every session something serious limits him and 39% of other sessions. And minor incidents (if we allow them for characters with serious issues - given he has a serious issue coming up so much, all of his limiters will come into play anyway) would be 4 sessions plus 17% of sessions.

 

Player B's array of Disads/Limitations:

 

Related to Hunteds = 30 - 30/488 = 10% chance

 

and I'm lazy, so, and so on...

 

Now, this is just an idea, not something I'm necessarily advocating for. It might be good as a guideline, it might even be good if somewhat enforced, with common sense and fair play in tow of course. If nothing else, it could be a good way for GMs to realize what all those "free" points are amounting to and to what degree they should have some sort of impact, even if it's not even at the guideline level, just a study for the sake of knowing. It is a lot of work, but it would only need be done at character creation and then every so often as the character changes (it wouldn't be worth doing when a character spends, say, 10 XP, but once he's spent 50 and some of that has diluted or eliminated these limiters it's probably worthwhile (I mean assuming it's worthwhile at all, which I'm not advocating)).

 

I wonder what people think of this sort of idea, if we disregard the amount of work involved? And what is then thought about it once we do take that work into account? There's a degree to which I do like it at least as a guideline/idea generator. If you use a chargen tool in theory it could also be done quite easily and quickly, actually; there'd be no real harm at all in that case if each little lim and disad were counted individually for the % chance, because it would work out if there were many closely related ones in exaggerating the importance and in the scenario where it was an uncommon/isolated limiter. There's also a degree to which it really does not work, I think, unless you take a dim view of honking big limitations. For example, let's say Heat Man has more than 50% of his character paid for by things related to the cold. For him, this will then come up almost every session and be serious and be the same thing. It would make a player want to throw the character out after a while, I think. Now, some people really do disapprove of mass savings based on a singular achilles heel; for those people, this system might actually work. For others - like me - who are into that idea, so long as the player does realize they'll be absolutely crippled, this really doesn't work.

 

Of course, the real issue either way is the SEVERITY of the issue for the player, how completely it cripples him. So, thinking on the spur of the moment here, perhaps you could refine the system a bit so that there's some sort of guideline around "degree of crippling," and the extent to which any single limitation (or type thereof, such as a whole series all related to cold like "Goes berserk in cold", "Does not work in cold", "Hates cold", etc.) dominates indicates some sort of deferrment once used. Just for pure example, perhaps a category that is 75%-100% of a character's pool of limiters/"free points" can only come up at a maximum once per 3 games, 50%-75% is once per 5 games, and below that is more open ended.

 

This could balance out. After all, the "smart guy" who tries to get around it by getting lots and lots of points is still going to get hit every session or more with serious problems, even if each one is only for a power here or there - but because it's "serious" it should be when he needs it. Similarly, the guy who has a serious problem with one theme but is sensible and doesn't base his whole character on it will have that one problem come up almost every time it's serious, but won't have it come up too much. And the guy who has a critical problem that absolutely stops him from functioning will definitely feel it but only at a certain threshold.

 

I'm still going to hold off on my own thoughts on limitations' frequencies and such until later. This whole idea is just spitballing based on others' thoughts of how you could turn lims into some sort of meaningful measurements and character impacts.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Funnily enough' date=' I'm almost the exact opposite with my character Dr. Anomaly. I use charges (usually Fuel charges) on almost every gadget to simulate a limited fuel supply, battery life, etc. I [i']could[/i] create gadgets with 0 END and such, and have in the past -- I just don't usually do so, since that doesn't "feel" right for my character concept. And as I noted, that has risen up to bite me once or twice...but I knew it would, and it seemed right. Along the same lines, I put charges even on things that don't use END, like LS: Self-Contained Breathing, and usually at 1 Hour, as that's a -0 Limitation. Given that it tops out at that value, I could (for no extra points) make it a Fuel Charge that lasts 1 Day, 1 Week, 1 Century...but I don't. Not because I can't, but because it doesn't feel right. I want my stuff to have a limited service life.

 

My magical stuff is usually done up as single charges (sometimes single Fuel charges) to represent it's stuff I create ahead of time (potions, scrolls, etc.) that are expended by use. I do this not only because once more it fits how I envision my character, but in this case it usually is a matter of points savings as well...my Magic pool is just 35 points, so I need to stretch those as much as possible.

 

I also have Activation Rolls on almost everything. In part this is to fit the concept of "incredibly compact/hi-tech devices" -- i.e. this isn't so much an 'impossible' or 'futuristic' device as it is "impossibly compact" and the reason it's so compact is that the operator does all the things through lightning-swift mental calculations that normally would require entire other feedback devices to compute and do...balance magnetic containment for fusion reactions, that sort of thing. Also, it makes it almost impossible for the device, if taken away from me, to be used by an opponent -- either they likely won't have the necessary Skill ("Requires a Skill Roll vs. Science: Chaos Theory") or, if they do, the minus on the roll due to the active points makes it unlikely they'll be able to make the roll. (Dr. Anomaly has a 40 INT to begin with, and some skill levels with these various things...far from a sure thing when the device is 75 active points, and thus -7 to your roll, but still not bad odds.)

 

The magical things are sort of 50/50 as regards skill rolls; things like scrolls generally require Gestures, Incantations, and a Magic Roll to activate, while things like potions or oils anyone can grab, open, and swallow or pour over themselves. Again, a matter of flavor and concept.

 

Since almost all of my devices already have things like OAF and other Limitations on them, stacking on Charges and RSR doesn't save many (if any) points, as has been pointed out, due to 'diminishing returns'. Still and all, I put them on there...because that's the flavor I want.

I guess which Limitations are most used and disused within a gaming group depend on the play style of the individual campaign. I think the fact our GMs are quite willing to apply Limitations ruthlessly may have something to do with it. Our current group is different than other groups I've played in; which is interesting because several of our group also play in another group.

 

In my own 23 year personal history of Champions characters I've certainly used Charges and Activation rolls. My first character, Ranger, was a powered-armor type with bleeding edge technology so many of his abilities were prone to failure at inconvenient moments; particularly his attacks (His Energy Blast also had Burnout).

 

My second character, Spirit Ninja, was a Batmanesque crimefighter with loads of minor gadgets. Almost every weapon she carried except her sword was built with charges (smoke bombs, shuriken, arrows). Even her body armor had Activation since it didn't cover 100% of her body.

 

My current character, Zl'f, is the exception. She not only doesn't use Charges or Activation rolls; she doesn't even use any foci (except the team communicator; which every team member has). Her powerset is wholely internal. It's all Hero ID Only; and she's as dangerous buck naked as she is in costume because her costume is purely for the sake of modesty (Well, she thinks it looks cool too!). Out of Hero ID, she's only as capable as any ordinary Olympic-class athlete with a mere 4 SPD, 23 DEX, 15 STR (plus martial arts) and 6 PD plus Combat Luck.

 

My character Justicar in our new Dark Champions campaign is a mix: He has body armor and a multipurpose tool/weapon; but he also has inate powers and martial arts.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Unfortunately I have't read the entire thread and have only skimmed, so if I repeat something someone else has said... just assume both of us are geniuses.

 

With things like Activation, a 14- doesn't equal a 90% success rate (even roughly). For Instant Powers, it might come close, but realistically that 10% or so possibility it might not work will affect the decision of whether or not to use it or switch to something more reliable. That decision is made each and every time the Power is used. It's even more of an issue for Constant Power, which must make that roll every phase. Imagine having an Act 14- on your Flight. How often are you going to be using it for extended travel? For high altitute maneuvers?

 

The Charges thing just works itself out in whatever genre you're playing it. In relation to primarily combat use Power, if it's combat heavy, the Limitation is truly limiting, as you'll have to conserve the Charges to make sure you only use them when you need to and not waste them, or suffer from total lack when you really need them. In combat light games, the Limitation helps reflect the total worth of the Power; combat doesn't occure often, and such Powers are worth less in general. The same can be said of any Power given it's intended application. If the application is a constant, almost allways there occurance, the Limitation forces you to conserve the use of the Power, and if the application is uncommon, the Limitation reflects the actual worth of the Power.

 

Other Limitations have similar effects. If the Power isn't going to be of much use in general, or is of a highly specific/specialized use that occures infrequently in the game, it should cost less. And if the Power is highly useful in most situations or veyr frequently throughout the game, but it's use is restricted, it should also cost less.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Unfortunately I have't read the entire thread and have only skimmed, so if I repeat something someone else has said... just assume both of us are geniuses.

 

With things like Activation, a 14- doesn't equal a 90% success rate (even roughly). For Instant Powers, it might come close, but realistically that 10% or so possibility it might not work will affect the decision of whether or not to use it or switch to something more reliable. That decision is made each and every time the Power is used. It's even more of an issue for Constant Power, which must make that roll every phase. Imagine having an Act 14- on your Flight. How often are you going to be using it for extended travel? For high altitute maneuvers?

 

The Charges thing just works itself out in whatever genre you're playing it. In relation to primarily combat use Power, if it's combat heavy, the Limitation is truly limiting, as you'll have to conserve the Charges to make sure you only use them when you need to and not waste them, or suffer from total lack when you really need them. In combat light games, the Limitation helps reflect the total worth of the Power; combat doesn't occure often, and such Powers are worth less in general. The same can be said of any Power given it's intended application. If the application is a constant, almost allways there occurance, the Limitation forces you to conserve the use of the Power, and if the application is uncommon, the Limitation reflects the actual worth of the Power.

 

Other Limitations have similar effects. If the Power isn't going to be of much use in general, or is of a highly specific/specialized use that occures infrequently in the game, it should cost less. And if the Power is highly useful in most situations or veyr frequently throughout the game, but it's use is restricted, it should also cost less.

Just to be clear, you're saying that the Lims come up roughly in equal portions according to value (assumings like set limitations of -1/2 come up 1in 3 sessions, all that)? Like I said, the point wasn't the specific lims so much as the issue - but that can be a legit answer, that they are fine.