Limitation Boondoggles?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

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' date=' player vs. GM type situation" and [i']not[/i] 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.

 

If the player wants to role play out the time spent and difficulty... sure... that is not an us vs. them situation. What I'm speaking of is that the PLAYER gets frustrated and competitive and argumentative when the GM puts such limitation roadblocks in their way and focuses on avoiding the pitfalls of the limitation all together... not role playing the repercussions of those pitfalls.

 

Big difference.

 

i.e. The player needs to be willing to lose because of their limitation, enjoy losing because that is part of the character, and role play the repercussions of losing. (by losing I mean, have things go against them, not achieve a goal, have the opponent succeed, whatever... there are lots of ways to lose.) It mean enjoying the CHARACTER failures without the player feeling like s/he has failed. This requires a level of objective distance between player and character that some people struggle with more than others.

 

 

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).

 

Forcing me to think tactically... as opposed to thinking dramatically. Get over yourself. The point is (and it goes back to your "Master" comment above) it is not just the GMs job to make dramatic choices and drive the story while the players just react tactically to situations given to them. That is old school, old school, RPG concept and RPG play has long since moved past this but Hero in it's basic form is still from this era, and classic interpretations of limitations overwhelmingly enforce this.

 

Is it true that I know some players who could use some help thinking tactically... yes... but at the same time I know other players I'd like to see think more dramatically and be less tactically efficient... the story, plot, humor, scene based rather than "achieve the goal" based. Limitations don't seem to help either of these types. The tactical thinker just puts the limitations into their plan they would already by using, while the less tactical is often stymied by them and may take bad actions that are neither tactical, strategic or story driving... in fact they feel helpless to overcome them.

 

In the end, it is my years of experience with Limitations that show that rarely (not never, but not often)... on a power by power, lim by lim basis... do limitations provide the game play experience that is desired, as they exist to be effective almost totally in the character building half of Hero.

 

(Edit: I should qualify this... desired play experience is different for everyone... but I would assume that many people want a CONSISTENT QUALITY of play experience... which limitations actually undermine. Random failed activations, arguments that disrupt game play over interpretation, general bad blood in the group as people feel picked upon or singled out or outstripped by another player. I would say that in many ways, almost every dysfunction in game play can be traced back to limitation issue, one way or another. I don't feel that is the intended design of Limitations, but I do feel it is the design result of Limitations as they stand now.)

 

What I'm looking for is a way to interpret Limitations in game play (and the idea of looking at them in total starts to do this) that does drive our desired play experience much more effectively.

[Gary]

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.

 

 

There's no proof involved. I just think it's ridiculous that 12- and 13- is worth exactly the same value and that a 9% chance of failure is worth a -1/2 Limitation.

 

I would however, give an additional -1/4 Limitation for Activation rolls on Constant or Persistent powers. So Armor Act 14- would be worth -1/2, while EB Act 14- would be worth -1/4. The consequences of a failure on a Constant or Persistent power is generally far worse than on an Instant power.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Every Limitation should be costed at a flat -2/3. Just to really cause havoc.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Yes' date=' 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." [/quote']

 

Oh, I'm not talking about letting a player roll and then overriding it. I'm talking about completely omitting the roll completely. As in "don't bother rolling, you succeed/fail". If a ask a player for a roll, the roll is what he gets, and what I get. It's what I asked for after all.

 

Another tid-bit about my GM style though. I only accept rolls I ask for. My players shouldn't be rolling dice unless I asked them to. If I've already made my mind up about something, there is no point in rolling the dice. Most of the game can be mitigated though logic and dramatic license, and I don't want three plastic cubes spoiling the game should they decide to disagree.

 

I make a massive effort not to be heavy handed about this. As far as Activation Rolls are concerned, my players understand they are buying a Power that will fail sometimes, and that I, the GM decides when, not dice. The roll value is just a guideline I use, and most of the time I do simply let the dice decide. But it's always my decidion on whether or not the dice are rolled.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

If the player wants to role play out the time spent and difficulty... sure... that is not an us vs. them situation. What I'm speaking of is that the PLAYER gets frustrated and competitive and argumentative when the GM puts such limitation roadblocks in their way and focuses on avoiding the pitfalls of the limitation all together... not role playing the repercussions of those pitfalls.

 

Big difference.

The only difference I see is a level of maturity and understanding between players (GM included).

 

i.e. The player needs to be willing to lose because of their limitation, enjoy losing because that is part of the character, and role play the repercussions of losing. (by losing I mean, have things go against them, not achieve a goal, have the opponent succeed, whatever... there are lots of ways to lose.) It mean enjoying the CHARACTER failures without the player feeling like s/he has failed. This requires a level of objective distance between player and character that some people struggle with more than others.

Agreed. If the player is unwilling to do this, and spends his time avoiding his Limitations just so he can win (as you define it), then he's being a munckin lout and should be smaked with a HA 2d6 0 END OAF(unbreakable and personal) STR Min Real Weapon.

 

 

 

 

Forcing me to think tactically... as opposed to thinking dramatically. Get over yourself. The point is (and it goes back to your "Master" comment above) it is not just the GMs job to make dramatic choices and drive the story while the players just react tactically to situations given to them. That is old school, old school, RPG concept and RPG play has long since moved past this but Hero in it's basic form is still from this era, and classic interpretations of limitations overwhelmingly enforce this.

 

Is it true that I know some players who could use some help thinking tactically... yes... but at the same time I know other players I'd like to see think more dramatically and be less tactically efficient... the story, plot, humor, scene based rather than "achieve the goal" based. Limitations don't seem to help either of these types. The tactical thinker just puts the limitations into their plan they would already by using, while the less tactical is often stymied by them and may take bad actions that are neither tactical, strategic or story driving... in fact they feel helpless to overcome them.

 

We're in agreement with all of this it seems. Mechanically speaking, there's no functional difference between a Limitation that's put there so the player has to think more tactically and a Limitation that's put there so the player has to think more dramatically. Tactics and dramatics are an element of game play, and a source of inspiration for character design. During that design, they are just reasons why the character has the Limitation. Either one is fine for me. What isn't fine is putting the Limitation on in a effort to have more points for other Powers without any intention of role-playing the Limitation (tactically, dramatically or otherwise).

 

In the end, it is my years of experience with Limitations that show that rarely (not never, but not often)... on a power by power, lim by lim basis... do limitations provide the game play experience that is desired, as they exist to be effective almost totally in the character building half of Hero.

 

(Edit: I should qualify this... desired play experience is different for everyone... but I would assume that many people want a CONSISTENT QUALITY of play experience... which limitations actually undermine. Random failed activations, arguments that disrupt game play over interpretation, general bad blood in the group as people feel picked upon or singled out or outstripped by another player. I would say that in many ways, almost every dysfunction in game play can be traced back to limitation issue, one way or another. I don't feel that is the intended design of Limitations, but I do feel it is the design result of Limitations as they stand now.)

 

This I would definately disagree with. If character design is handled like nothing more than a math problem, then everything on the sheet is practically worthless in game play and Limitations, present or not, won't make any difference. The players (again, GM included) are responsible for playing the game, and character design should reflect their desires. I've always tried to design characters from indended game play backwards, and encourage my players to do the same. This tends to eliminate pointless builds, Limitations that don't limit, and unhappy players who don't get what they paid for.

 

What I'm looking for is a way to interpret Limitations in game play (and the idea of looking at them in total starts to do this) that does drive our desired play experience much more effectively.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

There's no proof involved. I just think it's ridiculous that 12- and 13- is worth exactly the same value and that a 9% chance of failure is worth a -1/2 Limitation.

 

I can agree with that. There's a more than a small difference between a 12- and a 13-, as far as chance of failure. Since I stand by my belief that -1/2 is fair for a 14- and -1 is fair for 11-, I have to be as happy as I can with -3/4 for both 12- and 13-, as there is no other denomination available.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

This I would definately disagree with. If character design is handled like nothing more than a math problem, then everything on the sheet is practically worthless in game play and Limitations, present or not, won't make any difference. The players (again, GM included) are responsible for playing the game, and character design should reflect their desires. I've always tried to design characters from indended game play backwards, and encourage my players to do the same. This tends to eliminate pointless builds, Limitations that don't limit, and unhappy players who don't get what they paid for.

 

I agree with this in theory... but I'm saying that I feel the mechanics of limitations in Hero don't really support this. It takes long term play with the system and discussions of group philosophy to make 'em work. All that is good, but when you have to spend a lot of gaming experience and work to reinterpret a major rule... that kind of says the rule is broken to me.

 

Basically... the main function of the Limitation as currently stated is to reward character construction with more points. I totally agree with interpreting it as a tool to help realize a concept... but this is a higher level, more mature, based on player experience interpretation. It has to be learned and is somewhat counter-intuitive to the way the construction is based in the rules. Flat out... the basic function is "use these to get things cheap" and you have to fight against this interpretation to make people see the "in play" repercussions.

[PhilFleischmann]

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.

That's what I was going to say!

 

To extend the fair numbers, you can also include:

 

10- (-1 1/4, or maybe even -1 1/2)

9- (-2)

8- (-3, or maybe even a little more)

 

I just think it's ridiculous that 12- and 13- is worth exactly the same value and that a 9% chance of failure is worth a -1/2 Limitation.

Right! The difference in probability between a 14- and a 15- is very small (about 4%, IIRC), and that's considered worthy of a -1/4 difference in Limitation value. The difference between 12- and 13- is much larger (about 9%, IIRC?) but is not deemed worthy of a different Lim value.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Oh, I'm not talking about letting a player roll and then overriding it. I'm talking about completely omitting the roll completely. As in "don't bother rolling, you succeed/fail". If a ask a player for a roll, the roll is what he gets, and what I get. It's what I asked for after all.

 

Another tid-bit about my GM style though. I only accept rolls I ask for. My players shouldn't be rolling dice unless I asked them to. If I've already made my mind up about something, there is no point in rolling the dice. Most of the game can be mitigated though logic and dramatic license, and I don't want three plastic cubes spoiling the game should they decide to disagree.

 

I make a massive effort not to be heavy handed about this. As far as Activation Rolls are concerned, my players understand they are buying a Power that will fail sometimes, and that I, the GM decides when, not dice. The roll value is just a guideline I use, and most of the time I do simply let the dice decide. But it's always my decidion on whether or not the dice are rolled.

No offense, but I still find it a bit icky IN CONCEPT. Playing in your game in real life, I'm sure it's fine - most people's games are. And so long as it's stated up front, I certainly think that's fair.

[Gary]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I can agree with that. There's a more than a small difference between a 12- and a 13-' date=' as far as chance of failure. Since I stand by my belief that -1/2 is fair for a 14- and -1 is fair for 11-, I have to be as happy as I can with -3/4 for both 12- and 13-, as there is no other denomination available.[/quote']

 

 

A 9% chance of failure for an attack is roughly equivalent to 1 less OCV for most CV ranges in a typical Champions game. It's the difference between a 13- and a 12- to hit roll.

 

1 point of OCV difference is not worth a -1/2 limitation in my book.

 

For a defensive power like Armor OTOH, that's a different story.

[Gary]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

That's what I was going to say!

 

To extend the fair numbers, you can also include:

 

10- (-1 1/4, or maybe even -1 1/2)

9- (-2)

8- (-3, or maybe even a little more)

 

 

Right! The difference in probability between a 14- and a 15- is very small (about 4%, IIRC), and that's considered worthy of a -1/4 difference in Limitation value. The difference between 12- and 13- is much larger (about 9%, IIRC?) but is not deemed worthy of a different Lim value.

 

 

I'm inclined to leave -2 as the highest limitation value. There are plenty of powers where having a 8- Act roll is relatively unimportant. Such as certain Summons where you only intend to do it in Noncombat time and having a few failures is unimportant.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

Oh, I'm not talking about letting a player roll and then overriding it. I'm talking about completely omitting the roll completely. As in "don't bother rolling, you succeed/fail". If a ask a player for a roll, the roll is what he gets, and what I get. It's what I asked for after all.

 

Another tid-bit about my GM style though. I only accept rolls I ask for. My players shouldn't be rolling dice unless I asked them to. If I've already made my mind up about something, there is no point in rolling the dice. Most of the game can be mitigated though logic and dramatic license, and I don't want three plastic cubes spoiling the game should they decide to disagree.

 

My simplistic question of curiosity is whether you balance this out with an offsetting number of "Don't bother rolling - it activates". If you dwecide my 14- roll fails once, shouldn't it get to succeed 9 times to preserve the ratios?

[Guest daeudi_454]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

You must have very amiable players, amazingly so. If any of my group, or the members of the clubs that used to be here ever heard a GM saying- Don't bother rolling, you fail. It would be the end of the campaign.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

You must have very amiable players' date=' amazingly so. If any of my group, or the members of the clubs that used to be here ever heard a GM saying- Don't bother rolling, you fail. It would be the end of the campaign.[/quote']

My group would be okay IF it were a solid reason, such as some overwhelming SFX. Otherwise, as you say, it's not our play style for GM fiat to be imposed "arbitrarily" (note to Dust Raven - I do not mean you personally are arbitrary in a bad way, I know it's story/plot, but I mean in terms of predictability/"quantifiable" effect).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I agree with this in theory... but I'm saying that I feel the mechanics of limitations in Hero don't really support this. It takes long term play with the system and discussions of group philosophy to make 'em work. All that is good, but when you have to spend a lot of gaming experience and work to reinterpret a major rule... that kind of says the rule is broken to me.

 

Basically... the main function of the Limitation as currently stated is to reward character construction with more points. I totally agree with interpreting it as a tool to help realize a concept... but this is a higher level, more mature, based on player experience interpretation. It has to be learned and is somewhat counter-intuitive to the way the construction is based in the rules. Flat out... the basic function is "use these to get things cheap" and you have to fight against this interpretation to make people see the "in play" repercussions.

 

I've never really encounted this in my experience, be they new or old players, to just the Hero System or RPGs in general. Certainly I've come across munchkins and power gamers and min maxers, but if anything Hero System caters to them less than other games because of the rules for Limitations (well, the point based structure of the rules in general). A Limitation either limits or it doesn't, and its game value is based on that.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

A 9% chance of failure for an attack is roughly equivalent to 1 less OCV for most CV ranges in a typical Champions game. It's the difference between a 13- and a 12- to hit roll.

 

1 point of OCV difference is not worth a -1/2 limitation in my book.

 

For a defensive power like Armor OTOH, that's a different story.

 

If it limits as often as an OIF would, or a Full Phase extra time, then yes it is worth a -1/2.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

My simplistic question of curiosity is whether you balance this out with an offsetting number of "Don't bother rolling - it activates". If you dwecide my 14- roll fails once' date=' shouldn't it get to succeed 9 times to preserve the ratios?[/quote']

 

My simplistic answer would be, yes.

 

Most of the time, I just go with the die roll. I don't keep count of the exact number of times I omit the roll, but I do balance it out. Most of such powers bought in my campaigns involve non combat application, which is when I'll often say "don't bother rolling, you're not under enough stress for it to fail" or something along those line. It's a much more rare circumstance where I'll state the opposite. All my players know that I will occasionally, and I remind them upfront when they take the Limitation that they are agreeing that the power will work most of the time and not work the rest rather than the power working or not working based on the roll of the dice.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

You must have very amiable players' date=' amazingly so. If any of my group, or the members of the clubs that used to be here ever heard a GM saying- Don't bother rolling, you fail. It would be the end of the campaign.[/quote']

 

I believe I do have very amiable players, and I consider myself to be highly fortunate to have them in my game. Bear in mind my answer to Hugh's question though. I also say "Don't bother rolling, you succeed."

[Lucius]

Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I'm inclined to leave -2 as the highest limitation value. There are plenty of powers where having a 8- Act roll is relatively unimportant. Such as certain Summons where you only intend to do it in Noncombat time and having a few failures is unimportant.

 

It's important if there are side effects.

 

Also if it's on charges, since you just expended one anyway.

 

And even noncombat time can be important, if you have to take all night to do the summons and failing means trying again next day.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

"Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas" is an incantation to summon a palindromedary. To dismiss the palindromedary, say the same incantation backwards.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

My simplistic answer would be, yes.

 

Most of the time, I just go with the die roll. I don't keep count of the exact number of times I omit the roll, but I do balance it out. Most of such powers bought in my campaigns involve non combat application, which is when I'll often say "don't bother rolling, you're not under enough stress for it to fail" or something along those line. It's a much more rare circumstance where I'll state the opposite. All my players know that I will occasionally, and I remind them upfront when they take the Limitation that they are agreeing that the power will work most of the time and not work the rest rather than the power working or not working based on the roll of the dice.

 

I don't really see it as "omitting the roll" when there's no reason the character can't just keep trying until it works. This is a point where the limitation isn't really limiting, so waiving the roll really isn't giving anything back to the player. Now, if theree were some time limit to getting the job done, I would consider waiving the roll to be an offset to a previous "you fail. Too bad". Of course, as noted above, it takes about 9 auto successes to offset one auto fail on a 14- Activation Roll.

[Gary]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

If it limits as often as an OIF would' date=' or a Full Phase extra time, then yes it is worth a -1/2.[/quote']

 

 

As "often", or as "much"? If you go by as often, then Act 17- should be worth -1/2 since you roll every single attack. If you go by as much, then clearly Act 14- doesn't limit as much as OIF.

 

Consider the average character with equal OCV to his opponents DCV. He normally hits on a 11- or 62.5% of the time. With Act 14-, 9% of those hits turn into misses, so he really hits 57% of the time. That's about a 6% difference. The character can negate the entire Act penalty (and a little more) by purchasing 1 3 pt CSL with his multipower.

 

Is it worth a 20 pt savings on a 60 pt power, when you can negate that penalty in most situations with a 2-3 pt CSL?

 

The answer is clearly no.

[Gary]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

It's important if there are side effects.

 

Also if it's on charges, since you just expended one anyway.

 

And even noncombat time can be important, if you have to take all night to do the summons and failing means trying again next day.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

"Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas" is an incantation to summon a palindromedary. To dismiss the palindromedary, say the same incantation backwards.

 

 

If you have side effects, charges, or extra time, you're getting the additional limitation value anyway. I don't see it as justifying Act 8- to be worth more than a -2 limitation.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

I don't really see it as "omitting the roll" when there's no reason the character can't just keep trying until it works. This is a point where the limitation isn't really limiting' date=' so waiving the roll really isn't giving anything back to the player. Now, if theree were some time limit to getting the job done, I would consider waiving the roll to be an offset to a previous "you fail. Too bad". Of course, as noted above, it takes about 9 auto successes to offset one auto fail on a 14- Activation Roll.[/quote']

Like I said, I don't keep track of how many of what. Hopefully if a player thinks he's getting jipped, he'll tell me. Not all of the times I say "you succeed" are when the character has unlimited time so as to keep rolling until it works though. But most of the times I say that are non-combat situations. Most of the times I say "you fail" are out of combat as well, though not nearly as many as "you succeed" (It's actually extremely rare I fiat a "you fail"... to be honest I can't remember the last time I did it, but I remember many times I've said "you succeed"). Occasionally in combat I will omit the roll, but more often than not I just go with the roll then.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

As "often", or as "much"? If you go by as often, then Act 17- should be worth -1/2 since you roll every single attack. If you go by as much, then clearly Act 14- doesn't limit as much as OIF.

 

Consider the average character with equal OCV to his opponents DCV. He normally hits on a 11- or 62.5% of the time. With Act 14-, 9% of those hits turn into misses, so he really hits 57% of the time. That's about a 6% difference. The character can negate the entire Act penalty (and a little more) by purchasing 1 3 pt CSL with his multipower.

 

Is it worth a 20 pt savings on a 60 pt power, when you can negate that penalty in most situations with a 2-3 pt CSL?

 

The answer is clearly no.

To you maybe, but you're a pobibility junky. I don't let the math rule my game or my judgement.

 

To answer your question, I'd say as much or as often, whichever is appropriate to the character/power/campaign.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

 

To you maybe, but you're a pobibility junky. I don't let the math rule my game or my judgement.

 

To answer your question, I'd say as much or as often, whichever is appropriate to the character/power/campaign.

DR, I'm stealing a quote (and have repped), let me know if you mind...