Limitation Boondoggles?

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

This to me is problem thinking. For me a good role-playing game is about the World and the events. A rules engine whether HERO or something else is a tool which is subservient to the groups desire to emulate this world. So the "subjective" costs are far more real than points. After all the characters understand what "my power ring doesn't work on yellow things" means but not about points.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am of the firm opinion that "game balance" is ultimately a myth game designers and players tell each other rather than a meaningful thing.

Well, there's "meaningful", then there's "precise" or such. I think there's a meaningful level of balance, but it's at a gross level and only to the extent it's actively managed by GM and players alike. But true or discretely measured balance, I agree, is an illusion.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

You're back' date=' after nearly six months! [/quote']

Ha, beat you to the punch!

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

First, I'd like to point out that some of this is a matter of GM vs player perception. When I played The Troll in your game, several of his powers were based on charges. In about one third to half of the sessions, he ended the session severely depleted or out of charges (if he didn't use all of his charges, I felt I hadn't played him to his potential). This was exciting, and part of the design, but it wasn't something to make a big deal out of. When charges were gone, it was just a sign that tactics had to be changed. I'd mention it when it happened, but I don't think anyone else ever really noticed, and I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't aware it was happening.

 

In a way, taking the charges lim is betting that combat won't go past a certain point. If the amount of combat in a session doesn't exceed the charges threshhold, the player wins. If it exceeds it by a large amount, the player loses (though as has been previously mentioned, these types of losses often make memorable sessions so they can often be seen as tactical losses but role-playing wins.)

 

I personally think that activation rolls and "Requires Skill Roll" lims are seriously muddled, but at this point in my experience with Hero, I see this is symptomatic of a fetishistic focus on complexity for the sake of complexity, rather than a discrete issue to be addressed. I can still build the characters I want, and keep them legal, even if it means jumping through unnecessarily silly rules to do so.

Just FYI, none of this topic came out of our game, more an academic exercise and input into the Goodman Institute's glacial-but-steady pace.

 

Good comments. I mentioned it in rep, but you might want to see the 5th evaluation thread I did, it's similarly recent, this same forum.

[austenandrews]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Activation Roll would be nice and balanced if you simply extended the chart logically.

 

11- (-1)

12- (-3/4)

13- (-1/2)

14- (-1/4)

15- (-0)

 

14- only has a -1/2 because of its legacy from 1st Edition.

I like the "15- (-0)" option because it explicitly states something that many Hero players don't want to hear - that any power can fail to work in a particular situation, at the GM's discretion; and that's not inherently worth any points.

[Lamrok]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Just FYI' date=' none of this topic came out of our game, more an academic exercise and input into the Goodman Institute's glacial-but-steady pace.[/quote']

 

You actually said as much earlier in the thread, but I did want to point out that sometimes the value of limitations isn't always apparent from a GM's perspective.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Neil and I talked ftf about this the other day.

 

I would like to point out that Limitations are not only mechanical limitations.... but Player "Govenors & Predictors."

 

If I have Flight Act: 14- because I have "prototype jump boots".... I will be pretty damn sure to stay close to the ground and use my Flight for quick, short bursts of getting around. I, as the player, has LIMITED myself in PLAY. My character Vector has had Flight of 0 end for years.... he floats around while doing household chores. He has flown over oceans. I, as the player, do not limit myself with Flight with Vector.

 

If I have Armor Act: 11-... and it is my only armor... I"m not going to be running up to the frontline like a Brick would... unless I bought the DisAd: Deathwish.

 

If I have EB: Doesn't work vs. Fire.... then I won't even bother when confronted by Firestorm, the living Flame. And I might not bother when confronted by Smouldering the HazeMan... Smouldering is NOT on fire... but his sfx is Heat... how nitpicky do I make my GM be? See? I just limited myself again. I've put myself in this place of not even trying to roll the dice.

 

I agree with Neil. Our criteria for a 1/2 limitation is a 1/3 game sessions event is based on 80's comic book trope and early 80's rpg game theory. This was their way of saying "HEY!!! GIRLS AND BOYS! POSSIBLE PLOT HOOK!!! LOOK, LOOK!!!" It was a way of SUGGESTING complications and plot hooks for players. It shouldn't be a rule or some kinda yardstick.

 

And it worked. I was blown away by disadvantages and limitations when I came upon Danger International from D&D. Here is where I said; "a hero is defined more by his limitations than his strengths".

 

But we've come quite some ways since then. In fact, Silver Age Sentinels's term "Complications" {and I think Fuzion tried it too}... is a better term than "Limitations". Just in terminology. "Complications" drive story. "Limitations" curtail Players.

 

And mechanically, I think Mutants and Masterminds of just adding and subtracting pts (for advantages/limitations) instead of all the division is more ELEGANT than what we have in Hero.

 

But Hero is the basis for M&M and SAS... lets never kid ourselves. There wouldnt' be M&M and SAS or even Necessary Evil, w/o Champions.

 

 

You've said this many times... but it took this writing for me to figure out why I don't think this "governors/motivators" is a legitimate argument.

 

Governing/motivating a character is role playing... pure and simple. Why should one character get disproportionate extra points for "role playing" than another? Just because the system encourages certain builds (OIF, OIHID, etc.) means that "role playing" those characters is decidedly encouraged compared to other builds/concepts. I disagree that limitations are intended for, or really expected as role playing motivators... nor do I think that the game/system of Hero is saying "You get bonus points for building in "problems" for your character."

 

Disadvantages? Sure... absolutely. I see them working this way. Limitations are not the same... and here is why.

 

Points equal player control. The less points you spend, the less control the player has over that aspect of their character. Limitations lessen the points you spend, so they are effectively saying, "This is where I give up my ability to influence the game to plot and dice and GM decision" not "This is where I get rewarded for role playing."

 

Your "governors" idea goes directly against this. It is saying, "I should get points for making tactical decisions to avoid getting hosed by my limitations."

 

To that end... such an interpretation is saying that Hero encourages munchkinism. Maybe it does... because knowing that your EB won't hurt fire gives you the tactical advantage of knowing when to use it and when not to. That is actually a benefit... but you get a cost break for it? Not only that, if the GM maneuvers a scenario to enforce a limitation... whiile the player is tactically working to avoid that scenario... then worst case has occurred and limitations have created a very gamist, player vs. gm type situation.

 

To try and interpret limitations using concepts like those from Burning Wheel is like judging medieval motivations from a 20th century perspective. You can't compare the two.

 

Limitations were built to say, "This power is not as good as this other power, so it is cheaper." Hands down. Thus, a player needs to be aware that the are saying, "I expect to get boned by my not-as-good power and actually WANT that to happen" when they take a limitation. Not "I expect to play around my limitations and forcing me to think tactically like that is worth giving me points." To this latter thought, I completely disagree.

 

Now... COULD limitations be rebuilt to function in a way of "role playing aid"... sure. But I don't think their current structure lends it to such because, as you stated, certain limitations are so much more efficient in both building and playing a character that what they do is encourage a certain kind of character build more than they encourage personality and story based role playing.

 

To my previous comments about holistically looking at limitations... this is a way, without changing the mechanic as written, of beginning to give each character a fair comparison to each other... recognizing that the more points you save... the more your character is expected to be manipulated by the game, compared to the character doing the manipulation.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

This to me is problem thinking. For me a good role-playing game is about the World and the events. A rules engine whether HERO or something else is a tool which is subservient to the groups desire to emulate this world. So the "subjective" costs are far more real than points. After all the characters understand what "my power ring doesn't work on yellow things" means but not about points.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am of the firm opinion that "game balance" is ultimately a myth game designers and players tell each other rather than a meaningful thing.

 

Mathematically exact balance? Sure, that's a myth. But "in play" balance where all PCs have roughly equivalent ability to affect the world... and BE affected by the world? That can have some guidelines and measuring points at least.

 

No hard benchmarks... just "You saved a much larger percentage of points in limitations that others... so you should expect your character to suffer accordingly more." Better yet, the player should take the limitations because the WANT the character to suffer, thus why they took the limitations in the first place. Most often, this isn't the case... players take limitations to get more power for less points. There is a big difference in the mindset and expectations in those two interpretations... but looking at limitations wholistically is a good way to begin talking about/bridging this gap in expectations.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Not only that' date=' if the GM maneuvers a scenario to enforce a limitation... whiile the player is tactically working to avoid that scenario... then worst case has occurred and limitations have created a very gamist, player vs. gm type situation. (snip) [/quote']

 

I would say that it's important not to forget that this is a legit playing style preferred by some groups. It can still be RPing-centric, but might well be what a group enjoys. It's not for me, either, but so long as the two parties understand they're out to tactically outwit each other, specifically, by maneuvering what elements each player has control over, it's a fair structure.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I would say that it's important not to forget that this is a legit playing style preferred by some groups. It can still be RPing-centric' date=' but might well be what a group enjoys. It's not for me, either, but so long as the two parties understand they're out to tactically outwit each other, specifically, by maneuvering what elements each player has control over, it's a fair structure.[/quote']

 

True... and I even started to mention that point, but I got caught up in the immediacy of the fact that this pertains to our gaming group. Storn would be the first to say he has no desire for the us. vs. them mentality... but at the same time, he admits that he is very gamist in the First Game of hero, character building. Trying to shoehorn large concepts into smaller amounts of points and such.

 

What I'm saying is just reiterating my initial post in this thread... that Limitations are a key point where the 1st Game of hero (building) can conflict with the 2nd Game of hero, the actual play experience. Gamist construction vs. Sim or Nar play might be one way to look at it. I've seen many, many times where it ends up a player (many different players) feels it is their right to min/max every point in character construction... but then get emotional and frustrated in game play when those lims and disads come into play. It is not necessarily an intended design outcome, but a result of design none the less that this dichotomy creates conflict. Hero sets us up for this in some instances (Limitations is the biggee) and without discussion like this, it can take a long time to understand where the dysfunction in the group resides. With discussion like this (which would be part of the "Intent" concept that has come up in your 5th Review thread) it is easier to get everyone on the same page, or at least understand where disagreements are arrising. (No system will be without interpretation and style issues... but more modern systems openly acknowledge where they are likely to happen by design.)

[Storn]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Governing/motivating a character is role playing... pure and simple. Why should one character get disproportionate extra points for "role playing" than another?

 

Disproportionate? Pure and Simple? There is no such thing in RPGs. Not in my mind. Mechanics affect roleplaying, roleplaying affects mechanics.

 

It is not the player who introduces the "trigger element," but rather the GM. It is the GM who sets the stage at the Hyatt, someone might mention that there is a pool and fountain in the lobby... or the GM might mention it themselves. But if FireFlower is affected by water, either Disad or Lim... they are in an arena that the GM has provided. HOW the player of FireFlower reacts to said arena is roleplaying....

 

In fact, often Limitations NEED roleplaying to come into play. If all of NightNerd's powers are at night... and every situation is at night... the Limitation never comes into play. It takes the GM setting the stage, which to me, is part of the roleplaying experience.

 

What I'm saying is that on the balance sheet of what a Limitation is worth, the idea of the Power regulating the width of options is worth SOMETHING. Not everything... but not nothing either.

 

So the 14- equals -1/2 is the benchmark. Other Limitations are not as cut and dried in terms of percentages.... and nor should they be. All I'm saying is that modifying of player range of options SHOULD BE weighed when putting a cost on a Limitation... which i believe it often is. Especially Conditional Limitations which are Campaign specific... a limitation of Fear of Magic is going to be worth less in a super hero world, where there are lots of different power origins, than a mid to high fantasy world... where it is really the only power origin.

 

How often have we seen the Malta crew twist themselves into planning pretzels because their is NO WAY they can get through an airport with all their cybernetics and gun hardware? That GOVERNS their behavior... that MODIFIES how those players are going to proceed. That is a collection of Limitations that gets roleplayed all the time.

 

I disagree that limitations are intended for, or really expected as role playing motivators... nor do I think that the game/system of Hero is saying "You get bonus points for building in "problems" for your character."

 

I never said that they were. I AM saying other games are doing this NOW. And that is intriguing to me. And makes sense to me. However, I do remember a couple of lines in 4th ed about Disads and Limitations as being fodder for subplot ideas. In this way, you are getting roleplaying *opportunities* outta your limitations. It was couched in early game theory... but it was there.

 

Lastly, I'm saying this is a new way of looking at limitations... not that is the way of Hero. It is a possibliity I bring up. That is all.

[Storn]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

but at the same time, he admits that he is very gamist in the First Game of hero, character building. Trying to shoehorn large concepts into smaller amounts of points and such.

 

I admited to no such thing in our face to face. and you are misinterperting my reaction.

 

I'm good at it. I enjoy the challenge. But if I had my druthers, I would prefer that my "large" concepts came out in whatever points they came out to be and I did NOT HAVE to fit them in.

 

I also like Limitations for their own sakes, independent of point savings. I like the fact that I have No Concious Control over Shugoshin's visions. I like the fact that Giest's Mind Control only works on Spirits. Those are part and parcel of those characters.... sure Geist would be MUCH more effective if he was a traditional mentalist.... how many times have other players asked me to do Telepathy or Mind Control living targets? Several times. And I cannot do what they ask of me because Geist's ability is...well...llmited.

 

I've seen many, many times where it ends up a player (many different players) feels it is their right to min/max every point in character construction... but then get emotional and frustrated in game play when those lims and disads come into play.

 

I agree with you. That is why I'm suggesting a different way of looking at Limitations AND Disads. And also why I like BW's and M&M's rewards for when those complications get triggered. Takes the sting out.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

But Hero is the basis for M&M and SAS... lets never kid ourselves. There wouldnt' be M&M and SAS or even Necessary Evil, w/o Champions.

 

Which is only relevant if we are writing a History of rpgs. SAS, M&M, and others are not HERO or lesser deriviatives of HERO even if HERO was an important influence in their development. They are their own games.

 

As for what Limitations are for it might be worth pointing out that in litcrit trying to figure out the Author's Intent is referred to as "the fallacy of intention" what is important is what sense you can make out of limitations if you use them as role-playing motivators than good for you.

[sinanju]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I would say that it's important not to forget that this is a legit playing style preferred by some groups. It can still be RPing-centric' date=' but might well be what a group enjoys. It's not for me, either, but so long as the two parties understand they're out to tactically outwit each other, specifically, by maneuvering what elements each player has control over, it's a fair structure.[/quote']

 

I've played in groups at both ends of the spectrum. I started out in a gaming group (lo these many years ago now) in which the GM rolled ALL the dice. The players explained what their PCs were trying to do, and the GM rolled dice behind the screen and told you what happened.

 

This has its good points and its bad points. Yes, we (the players) knew damn well that often the GM was fudging the results; sometimes to keep us alive despite bad die rolls, sometimes to benefit the plot. That game being a very pulp-style campaign, cinematic heroics tended to work (surprise!) far better than realistic but unheroic pragmatism. Also, recurring villains had an alarming--sometimes annoying--tendency to escape despite our best efforts. (This frustrated me terribly sometimes, and I wound up making it impossible for some PCs to adventure together after my PC went on a rampage once trying to kill Morgan La Faye and nearly killed another PC in the attempt.)

 

On the other hand, it was the most newbie-friendly and creative gaming style I've run into. Newbie players didn't have to know anything about the game system--they simply described what they wanted their PC to attempt (sometimes guided by the GM or other players if they were seriously over- or underestimating their abilities), and the GM did the rest. There was no "gaming" the system (except insofar as throwing yourself into the pulp adventure mindset tended to work very well).

 

It's not a style for everyone--I've had people react as if I'd confessed that we were barbecuing and eating newborn babies. That whole "never touch another man's dice" thing from KODT.... But we enjoyed it for many years (and that group is still enjoying it back in Virginia).

 

When I got to Portland in 1991 I very quickly fell with the Western Oregon Wargamers. Specifically, a group who played GURPS regularly. It was a real change. These guys were rules-lawyering powergamers who took pride in their ability to game the system. But that approach also yielded a heck of a lot of entertaining gaming over the years. You need a GM who is as comfortable gaming the system as the players for it to work, but when you have that, it's a blast. The GM has to be able to look at a character, see the carefully crafted boobytraps and reject them ("Nice try--but not in my game. Come up with something else.") or discover them in play, admire the artistry involved and then correct the problem so the campaign can go on. Either way, the powergamers (in that group, anyhow) would be satisifed by having his cleverness acknowledged and then settle down to actually roleplay.

 

That approach isn't for everyone either. We saw a lot of potential new players join us--briefly--before disappearing again, scared off (or simply put off) by the way we gamed. I was one of the few who joined them, got my *** handed to me when I tried running my first campaign (Expendables v 1.0), but learned how to deal with them and came back for more (Expendables v 2.0 and other campaigns).

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I admited to no such thing in our face to face. and you are misinterperting my reaction.

 

I'm good at it. I enjoy the challenge. But if I had my druthers, I would prefer that my "large" concepts came out in whatever points they came out to be and I did NOT HAVE to fit them in.

 

I also like Limitations for their own sakes, independent of point savings. I like the fact that I have No Concious Control over Shugoshin's visions. I like the fact that Giest's Mind Control only works on Spirits. Those are part and parcel of those characters.... sure Geist would be MUCH more effective if he was a traditional mentalist.... how many times have other players asked me to do Telepathy or Mind Control living targets? Several times. And I cannot do what they ask of me because Geist's ability is...well...llmited.

 

 

 

I agree with you. That is why I'm suggesting a different way of looking at Limitations AND Disads. And also why I like BW's and M&M's rewards for when those complications get triggered. Takes the sting out.

 

 

But to take BW as an example... what it does is say "You build in a negative aspect in character creation... get rewarded for it in game play." What Hero says is "You build in a negative aspect in character creation, you get rewarded with more points in character creation."

 

What happens is that game play comes along and people forget they've already been rewarded, and don't like to pay the price in play. Just like in the business world when you reward someone with higher pay or benefits, but later they complain about the extra work load. The player/worker has incorporated the reward into their base expectations... taking it for granted essentially... and thus doesn't recognize the reward when they essentialy "earn it" later.

 

Continuing with the Burning Wheel concept... the player is supposed to take the negative aspect of their charcter in order to consciously work to make it come up in game play. Translating that to Hero... a player should cheer when their activation roll goes against them, or when they are hit with their Vulnerability or whatever. They should want to role play out the repercussions of this limitation/negative aspect... not work to avoid it. Example: M. playing Maser, to follow the BW model, should actually take director stance when appropriate to have things happen/be done to wreck his suit and make his powers go crazy/not work. By taking the OIF suit, he should actively seek out times when the suit is screwed up... "I take knockback? Wow... I'm sure it was right through that razor wire surrounding the prison, wasn't it!" hint hint...

 

What you are saying is that you appreciate the "on time" rewards of doing this... while I'm more comfortable with the "you've already been paid" concept. Both reward the player... but the current way does it in a more analytical, logical way... and the other is a more emotional "gold star" pat on the back, kind of way. This has always been our major difference in style. I'm a hard core "T" and you are a big time "F" and we'll never fully agree on this because it is a matter of preference, not right or wrong.

 

Oh... and "I enjoy the challenge" is textbook definition of "gamist." Not a bad thing, but it is a different style than your "in play" style... which is much more Nar.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

As for what Limitations are for it might be worth pointing out that in litcrit trying to figure out the Author's Intent is referred to as "the fallacy of intention" what is important is what sense you can make out of limitations if you use them as role-playing motivators than good for you.

 

Except that in a literaray encounter, the only thing that matters is my individual interaction with the text. In an RPG, the textless text of the shared imaginary environment is not a singular experience, thus interpretations that match elevate the experience and conflicting interpretations degrade the cooperative endeavor. Literary theory only goes so far in being applied to the totally unique experience of role playing where there are X+1 perceptual encounters coinciding to create a unique gestalt, where X is the number of players (including the GM) and the +1 is the gestalt itself feeding back into it's own creation process.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I admited to no such thing in our face to face. and you are misinterperting my reaction.

 

I'm good at it. I enjoy the challenge. But if I had my druthers, I would prefer that my "large" concepts came out in whatever points they came out to be and I did NOT HAVE to fit them in.

 

I also like Limitations for their own sakes, independent of point savings. I like the fact that I have No Concious Control over Shugoshin's visions. I like the fact that Giest's Mind Control only works on Spirits. Those are part and parcel of those characters.... sure Geist would be MUCH more effective if he was a traditional mentalist.... how many times have other players asked me to do Telepathy or Mind Control living targets? Several times. And I cannot do what they ask of me because Geist's ability is...well...llmited.

 

 

 

I agree with you. That is why I'm suggesting a different way of looking at Limitations AND Disads. And also why I like BW's and M&M's rewards for when those complications get triggered. Takes the sting out.

(To both you and RDU Neil)

 

An aside, but have you guys considered playing points-less?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

(To both you and RDU Neil)

 

An aside, but have you guys considered playing points-less?

 

Pointless gives no basis for comparison. Talk about crossing the line of "not Hero."

 

Unless you mean, stats but don't pay attention to cost... assume you have enough points to buy whatever you like. That would assume everyone is willing to submit their character for GM approval (and group approval.) Also it gives up on of the analytical tools that points provides. I don't really see that as helpful... since such a concept would take away from player control.

 

If forced to change, I'd prefer keeping track of points without requiring everyone to have the same. I still wouldn't like this, though. I prefer the creativity forced by constraint... not to cowtow to player demands that whatever concept they want should be allowed. The character should fit the story being told, not the other way around.

 

The biggest issue is... not just for our group but Hero in general... is that because any concept is possible (sort of) then many think any concept should be allowed in any game. This is where the call for discussions of intent and axioms and such is important... because if there is an understanding of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" was part of the system, it would be easier to create desired play experiences. Same with WHY points are being used and what they represent, the decision on how to use them would have a common basis. As it is, I'd have to first convince everyone to buy into my "points mean control" theory... then from there decide if we were going to use them... etc., to give an example.

 

To me, a player agreeing to play a game with 350 point characters should build a 350 point character, because that is what the game is asking for... not try to figure out how to force their concept on the game by cramming a 500 point character into 350 points.

[Storn]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

"You build in a negative aspect in character creation... get rewarded for it in game play." What Hero says is "You build in a negative aspect in character creation, you get rewarded with more points in character creation."

...

 

What you are saying is that you appreciate the "on time" rewards of doing this... while I'm more comfortable with the "you've already been paid" concept. Both reward the player... but the current way does it in a more analytical, logical way... and the other is a more emotional "gold star" pat on the back, kind of way.

 

Actually, what I'm saying is "why can it not be BOTH!". I don't feel strongly about "gold star" over " up front"... I think both are valid tools.

 

Hero was ahead of its time, IMO, with Limitations and Disads. Now, time has caught up. I think there are other ways of looking at these mechanics and their impact on in-play experience. I'm just suggesting looking at Limitations from a different angle.. that's all. I'm not saying throw out the whole idea of Limitations... or that Limitations shouldn't give a cost break up front.

 

But what I am suggesting is to take the sting out of that OIF Power Armor being stripped from the character is language and thinking about Limitations in such a way that Player accepts the setback. I think a karmic reward, which is SOOOO comic-booky (and wouldn't be Noir appropriate, for example)... is an awesome idea. But it is just one way. Not the only way.

 

We are analytical bunch. Not everyone we game with is. So, a lot of the sub-surface reactions to Limitations being triggered precipitates that negative reaction of 'why, why me?!?!"... because Hero has not suggested in its tone this possible way of looking at Limitations... a way of fostering communication between GM and Player.

 

Oh... and "I enjoy the challenge" is textbook definition of "gamist." Not a bad thing, but it is a different style than your "in play" style... which is much more Nar.

 

Okay, "enjoy the challenge" might sound "gamist"...although I rejected the GNS model quite some ways back. But the joy for me is the character. The creation of the character, REGARDLESS of SYSTEM. I don't have one way to create a character... sometimes it IS shoehorn large concept into the level of points allowed.

 

But often it is not. Often it is just realizing concept. How is that Gamist? Mr. Shoal was a concept waaaay before points were assigned. Crusader was a concept of how do I make a cape, this silly trope of comics, interesting to me? How do I do power armor that is NOT Iron Man? That is basis to Crusader. Sometimes it is disads.... sometimes it is skill set... or a neat power that I haven't played with.... sometimes its a visual. The points are a foundation, the craft of fitting into mechanics and setting.

 

My most EFFECTIVE, GAMIST PC ever? Striker. A flying brick with OIHID. And I find him BORING except for the wrinkle that you introduced of him being able to navigate t-port space because of his armored skin... that is cool. That is interesting to me. I wish I'd thought of that at his conception... I might have made him more interesting to me.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I'd prefer keeping track of points without requiring everyone to have the same.

 

This is what I was referring to. Lemming ran his game this way and it worked pretty well, it was fairly high-powered, 400-500 point range.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I agree with Vorsch on this one. If you are going to decide when an activation roll succeeds or fails, will you also decide when To Hit rolls succeed and fail, that the damage roll was realy not below or above average, that a successful skill roll actually failed or a failed roll actually succeeded, etc.?

 

To me, the random rolls are there to adjudicate success and failure in an unbiased non-arbitrary fashion. If the GM simply makes all the calls, we go back to cowboys and indians in the playground. "I shot you; you're ead".

 

An FYI to you and Vorsch: I never said I do with with all rolls, or even all Activation Rolls. I merely said I as GM have the right to. Any GM worth of the title would agree with me. The dice aren't the master of the game. I am.

 

Now, granted, as GM I can be a jerk about it and dictate how everything turns out... but I don't. But if I feel something dramatic needs to happen to make the game more enjoyable to everybody, and a dice roll will screw that up, then the dice aren't rolled and I state what happens. Everybody has fun and we move on.

 

In any case, haven't either of you even heard of diceless role-playing?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Activation Roll would be nice and balanced if you simply extended the chart logically.

 

11- (-1)

12- (-3/4)

13- (-1/2)

14- (-1/4)

15- (-0)

 

14- only has a -1/2 because of its legacy from 1st Edition.

 

Hey, welcome back!

 

And in the spirit of our old arguements... prove it! I think 14- Activation is -1/2 because it balances best at that value, as has been demonstrated throughout 20+ years of playtesting.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

To that end... such an interpretation is saying that Hero encourages munchkinism. Maybe it does... because knowing that your EB won't hurt fire gives you the tactical advantage of knowing when to use it and when not to. That is actually a benefit... but you get a cost break for it? Not only that, if the GM maneuvers a scenario to enforce a limitation... whiile the player is tactically working to avoid that scenario... then worst case has occurred and limitations have created a very gamist, player vs. gm type situation.

 

..................

 

Limitations were built to say, "This power is not as good as this other power, so it is cheaper." Hands down. Thus, a player needs to be aware that the are saying, "I expect to get boned by my not-as-good power and actually WANT that to happen" when they take a limitation.

 

In what way is the situation of a GM creating a scenario that takes advantage of a character's Limitation that the character then tries to avoid a "very gamist, player vs. GM type situation" and not a "want that to happen" and so the GM is just providing the necessary scenario for the player? The player wants his character spend time avoiding situations where his powers are useless or limited, and so the GM provides him with scenarios he can avoid. The Limitation is still limiting, and in a way that both the player and GM agree on.

 

Not "I expect to play around my limitations and forcing me to think tactically like that is worth giving me points." To this latter thought, I completely disagree.

 

As opposed to the guy sitting next to him who doesn't have to think at all, just half moves and blasts every phase because his character is a bland cookie cutter uninspired vanilla tasting drone? (Was that too sarcastic?)

 

And think of your phrasing... "forcing me to think"... which part don't you think if worth points here? The part about thinking, or the part about being made to do something against your will? (Okay, that was too sarcastic).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

In any case' date=' haven't either of you even [i']heard[/i] of diceless role-playing?

 

I even MENTIONED Cowboys and Indians. Role playing starts in the schoolyard. All we do is pretty it up with a more codified rules framework.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

An FYI to you and Vorsch: I never said I do with with all rolls, or even all Activation Rolls. I merely said I as GM have the right to. Any GM worth of the title would agree with me. The dice aren't the master of the game. I am.

 

Now, granted, as GM I can be a jerk about it and dictate how everything turns out... but I don't. But if I feel something dramatic needs to happen to make the game more enjoyable to everybody, and a dice roll will screw that up, then the dice aren't rolled and I state what happens. Everybody has fun and we move on.

 

In any case, haven't either of you even heard of diceless role-playing?

Yes, but I think it's a "contract violation" to say to a player "I know you made your Activation Roll, but it'd be far more dramatic if you fail right now, so I'm over-ruling it." If it works in your game, that's fine, I'm not suggesting you should change, but in over 20 years of playing I've never seen such a thing happen. Now, SFX-related stuff such as "I'm putting a -2 on your Activation Roll," or even "your Activation Roll doesn't count at the moment due to (SFX)" I've seen/heard (in principle, with actual Activation Rolls I don't think i've ever seen it even then, but the notion is familiar enough in other areas). But as a player I think the vast majority don't expect that player-controlled abilities such as that will be over-ruled on a GM basis for storytelling without something fairly obvious/significant in SFX or the like. Even the SFX definition I would think would need to be fairly dramatic.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Hey, welcome back!

 

And in the spirit of our old arguements... prove it! I think 14- Activation is -1/2 because it balances best at that value, as has been demonstrated throughout 20+ years of playtesting.

I tend to agree.