5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

[Tasha]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Edit: I hereby propose this as a new -1/4 Limitation: Iconic Item. Meaning' date=' it's part of the character's identity and presence, the way Cap's shield or Thor's hammer is. He can be without it sometimes, but it's rare. If it's permanently lost or damaged or stolen, he can acquire an updated version (Iron Man's armor). Corwin's sword Greyswandir (Zelazny's Amber Chronicles) would have this also.[/quote']

 

I would say that Only in Alternate (heroic) ID covers it was well as your "new" limitation. It's an item that the character can only use while in their alternate ID. It may look like a foci, but the character never seems to lose it ex for short spans of story. If damaged or stolen the character acquires a new on in fairly short order, the new one may also even be an upgrade. Also Pattern Weapons like Corwin's Sword Greyswandir are OIAID, as the item is only missing till the character needs it or the story requires it (and never for very long).

[Gary Miles]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

I never had a problem with Ind. Focus. I can't say I've seen it used much.

 

But if I were running a game and someone wanted Independent Focus I'd let them take it.

 

And sometimes I'd take that focus away from the player. I would also make it the target of enemies who want that wonderful toy for themselves. If things go badly the bad guys might even get the focus and use it against the PC. What I wouldn't do as a GM is destroy the Independent Focus without permission or some serious provocation from the player.

But then it wouldn't be worth the Independent Focus Limitation. It would just be a normal Focus.

[Greywind]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Cap's shield is unique only in it's original steel/vibranium alloy. The composition is unique, but he's also had his share of replacements over the years.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

He became quite livid when he failed the fast draw roll at a different time' date=' and his fancy, spring-loaded scabbard shot his sword out just a little too fast for him to catch.[/quote']

 

I don't suppose there's any chance you caught this on video?

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

He became quite livid when he failed the fast draw roll at a different time, and his fancy, spring-loaded scabbard shot his sword out just a little too fast for him to catch.

 

JoeG

 

Bwahahahaha!

 

Seriously, though, a player like that is going to be a problem anyway - specific limitations aren't the issue. Alas, most GM's know the problem.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

I'd agree with the others: Cap's shield is clearly not independant: it's a unique focus with some inbuilt power, but most of Cap's points on shield-related stuff (not SHIELD-related stuff ) are actually built with the -1/2 limitation "Shield of opportunity".

 

As noted, he always gets his original shield back if he loses it or gives it away, and in its absence, he uses other shields or even garbage can lids.

 

Independant is really best thought of as "temporary power boost" or "independant power": it's a way of gaining a price break - but that price break is temporary, because at some point, the power is going to go away.

 

A good example, from the last campaign was a character who could make a "ka" - a full physical copy of somebody - from a drop of blood. We put independant on that, because the kas were complete copies, and there was no mental link. They were essentially independant characters and as time passed, they would evolve away from the starting character. So they were not normal followers, because they were not guaranteed to hang around the PC that created them, or even be friendly.

 

Independant worked perfectly for that: a ka of an enemy would still be an enemy, a ka of a PC would react exactly like the PC would ... initially. As time went on, however, they became their own person. Some of the PC Kas hung around with the original PCs, while most drifted away, and some met gruesome ends .

 

The power was based around summon, but summon as written was problematic, because of questions over how many summoned creatures you can have at once and duration of summoning. Independant allowed us to bypass that problem by summoning creatures and then paying the points cost to make them literally independant of the PC in question.

 

I've also had a player make an oath and use independant to get get a temporary boost on powers until the oath was fulfilled - at which point he lost those points.

 

For a creative GM or player, independant offers many useful possibilities. However in games it works best for small powers, where the inevitable loss of the power does not cripple the character. It also works well for "granted powers" a trope of most genres, from fantasy to superheroes, where the hero (or heroes) get temporary power-ups. Of course the GM could just handwave that, but it's not an approach I have ever been fond of, and independant tied it nicely into the rules.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

For a creative GM or player' date=' independant offers many useful possibilities. However in games it works best for [b']small [/b]powers, where the inevitable loss of the power does not cripple the character. It also works well for "granted powers" a trope of most genres, from fantasy to superheroes, where the hero (or heroes) get temporary power-ups. Of course the GM could just handwave that, but it's not an approach I have ever been fond of, and independant tied it nicely into the rules.

 

Bolded for emphasis. I think that is the key the player must understand about the limitation. When you put "DNPC - Frail Old Aunt" on your character sheet, you are instructing me, the GM, to ensure that your Frail Old Aunt makes your character's life difficult on occasion. When you put "Power Does Not Work on Insects" as a power limitation, you are instructing me, the GM, to include some insect adversaries or challenges where it would be nice if this power did work on them. And when you apply "Independent", you are instructing me to ensure the power is removed, and the points permanently lost, at some point in the campaign.

 

The GM did not "take the points away", you chose to build a character whose points are to be taken away.

[Lucius]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Independent can also be used with Area Effect to create things like permanantly blessed temples, enchanted valleys, cursed villages, magic circles, wizard towers, etc. Destroying the area itself (demolishing a structure, rerouting a river, etc) or a massive enough Dispel destroys the power forever of course, with no point refund.

 

Another use is to create an "Initiatory office" that is a Power or Powerset that one character bestows on another, and that other can by some defined means pass it on to another (losing it in the process of course.)

 

6th Edition does retain Independent in one form: Charges have an option "Does not Recover."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that Lucius used that for the "Cheat the Reaper" power

[Sean Waters]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

The real problem with Independent is the practical one: logically a player COULD lose an independent item during their first session, but they would be hacked off if they did, and the longer they have it the more they are likely to rely on it so they will miss it (and be unhappy) when it goes; enforcing it is entirely arbitrary.

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Another use is to create an "Initiatory office" that is a Power or Powerset that one character bestows on another' date=' and that other can by some defined means pass it on to another (losing it in the process of course.)[/quote']

 

This is, in fact, exactly how I used it in the last campaign, where it worked very well.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

The real problem with Independent is the practical one: logically a player COULD lose an independent item during their first session' date=' but they would be hacked off if they did, and the longer they have it the more they are likely to rely on it so they will miss it (and be unhappy) when it goes; enforcing it is entirely arbitrary.[/quote']

 

Shrug. Then they shouldn't have taken independant, should they?

 

The player who built the uber-bow chracter referred to above, wanted to play an elf character. Elves, in my game, are an NPC race, because they have problems with sunlight and ferrous metals (Susceptibility: double damage in the latter case).

I attempted to disuade him: people who take double damage from common weapons really don't make great PCs in a fantasy setting.

But he insisted.

 

Yeah, it was a big chunk of disadvantage points, but you can guess how pleased the player was when some uncharitable NPCs forcibly introduced pieces of ferrous metal into his body ...

 

Yet I don't find the disadvantage/complication rules problematic.

 

No ruleset can control for basic pig-headedness.

 

cheers, Mark

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

The GM did not "take the points away", you chose to build a character whose points are to be taken away.

 

I like the approach that Independent powers (at least those tied to objects) can be gotten back via action on the character's part, but that it's not guaranteed and relatively trouble-free the way it is for a Focus. Instead of a disgruntled player who's now at a permanent disadvantage compared to his peers, you have adventure hooks with a very motivated participant, and whether or not he/she gets the points back is dependent on the character's performance rather than GM fiat.

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

I like the approach that Independent powers (at least those tied to objects) can be gotten back via action on the character's part' date=' but that it's not guaranteed and relatively trouble-free the way it is for a Focus. Instead of a disgruntled player who's now at a permanent disadvantage compared to his peers, you have adventure hooks with a very motivated participant, and whether or not he/she gets the points back is dependent on the character's performance rather than GM fiat.[/quote']

 

I think this is fine too: in the past, I have put PCs through the grinder to allow them to get independant items or powers back. But I think it's only fair to let players know up front that there is every likelihood that they will lose those points at some stage, so they don't plan their characters on the basis of keeping them.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Shrug. Then they shouldn't have taken independant, should they?

 

Yet I don't find the disadvantage/complication rules problematic.

 

No ruleset can control for basic pig-headedness.

 

But I think it's only fair to let players know up front that there is every likelihood that they will lose those points at some stage' date=' so they don't plan their characters on the basis of keeping them.[/quote']

 

I certainly agree with all of the above.

 

However, to me, Independent is a lot like the early edition D&D Wizard. At lower levels, you're pretty much useless, but if you can survive through those levels to the higher levels, you will now rule the roost. Supposedly, this is "balanced" because Useless at the start gradually rising to Omnipotent at the end all averages out.

 

Independent works in reverse. Your 150 (400) point character adds an extra 75 (200) points worth of abilities by taking that Independent limitation, so at the start of the game, the character is extra-powerful. As time goes by, the character loses those independent items, and while everyone else becomes more powerful, he becomes less powerful. Now the group has 200 (500) points, but he has 125 (300). It averages out - he's overpowered for some of the time and underpowered for the rest - but just like the wizard, I prefer to modify the game so the characters are more or less evenly useful over the entire game, not just averaged out over time.

 

Unlike the Wizard, however, the Independent Item character is more prone to change characters when his item is gone. There's typically a logic to the old character leaving. He quests to recover or recreate that ancient item; the failure of his vows has crushed his spirit and he descends into the bottle; type the character response to the reason the independent points went away and off we go.

 

Gee, I wonder whether New Character will also have a bunch of Independent abilities. If you make the new character start with no xp, he needs them just to compete with the Old Guard, so that hands him a nice rationalization, doesn't it? If not, well, they're so clearly appropriate to this character concept (mainly because the player would never consider a concept that precludes these extra benefits) that they cry out to be Independent.

 

Of course, the ever-growing volumes of "standard procedure" taken to ensure the item is difficult to steal or otherwise remove also gets annoying after a while.

 

Now, these issues could be taken to mean a lot of things. It hurts fun, so pull the rule. It's often problematic and less than essential, so put it in an APG as an optional rule for specific games. It's problematic if not used wisely, so put a Stop Sign or Yield sign beside it and include some discussion of the issues. Or even Hey, I like the old 1e Wizard - make it a core concept. Ultimately, the designer needs to choose, and will choose, in part, based on his own bias between game styles. I like it as an APG topic, with some caveating, and the specific statement that this power boost is temporary and will reverse, not just disappear, so a player applying this limitation should do so with the full expectation the powers (and their points) WILL be taken away over the course of the game, which WILL make their character less powerful than his teammates.

 

Now, if one religiously applies the xp template, a significant power gap should gradually fade, as more adventures are difficult for this character than his more powerful colleagues. But that disparity will last a long time. Of course, some games (and some gamers) are more comfortable with power disparities than others.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

There is always the option of allowing the characters to buy off the Independent Limitation with earned XP.

 

The longer they wait to do this, the greater the risk that the initial points are gone forever.

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

I certainly agree with all of the above.

 

However, to me, Independent is a lot like the early edition D&D Wizard. At lower levels, you're pretty much useless, but if you can survive through those levels to the higher levels, you will now rule the roost. Supposedly, this is "balanced" because Useless at the start gradually rising to Omnipotent at the end all averages out.

 

Independent works in reverse. Your 150 (400) point character adds an extra 75 (200) points worth of abilities by taking that Independent limitation, so at the start of the game, the character is extra-powerful. As time goes by, the character loses those independent items, and while everyone else becomes more powerful, he becomes less powerful. Now the group has 200 (500) points, but he has 125 (300). It averages out - he's overpowered for some of the time and underpowered for the rest - but just like the wizard, I prefer to modify the game so the characters are more or less evenly useful over the entire game, not just averaged out over time.

 

Unlike the Wizard, however, the Independent Item character is more prone to change characters when his item is gone. There's typically a logic to the old character leaving. He quests to recover or recreate that ancient item; the failure of his vows has crushed his spirit and he descends into the bottle; type the character response to the reason the independent points went away and off we go.

 

Gee, I wonder whether New Character will also have a bunch of Independent abilities. If you make the new character start with no xp, he needs them just to compete with the Old Guard, so that hands him a nice rationalization, doesn't it? If not, well, they're so clearly appropriate to this character concept (mainly because the player would never consider a concept that precludes these extra benefits) that they cry out to be Independent.

 

Of course, the ever-growing volumes of "standard procedure" taken to ensure the item is difficult to steal or otherwise remove also gets annoying after a while.

 

Now, these issues could be taken to mean a lot of things. It hurts fun, so pull the rule. It's often problematic and less than essential, so put it in an APG as an optional rule for specific games. It's problematic if not used wisely, so put a Stop Sign or Yield sign beside it and include some discussion of the issues. Or even Hey, I like the old 1e Wizard - make it a core concept. Ultimately, the designer needs to choose, and will choose, in part, based on his own bias between game styles. I like it as an APG topic, with some caveating, and the specific statement that this power boost is temporary and will reverse, not just disappear, so a player applying this limitation should do so with the full expectation the powers (and their points) WILL be taken away over the course of the game, which WILL make their character less powerful than his teammates.

 

Now, if one religiously applies the xp template, a significant power gap should gradually fade, as more adventures are difficult for this character than his more powerful colleagues. But that disparity will last a long time. Of course, some games (and some gamers) are more comfortable with power disparities than others.

 

Interesting in theory, but irrelevant in practice, as that does not seem to be what happens in real life - in my groups, or in others.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Interesting in theory' date=' but irrelevant in practice, as that does not seem to be what happens in real life - in my groups, or in others.k[/quote']

 

I think it depends on the gaming groups. Seems to me the posts, historically, where the players use the limitation sparingly, so that it adds colour and depth to the game, aren't wildly outnumbered by the ones where the player sees a great cost break and is less than pleased when the GM actually enforces the limitation. Then again, many players/GM's post about the problems in their games, looking for advice, so the problems with any given element likely get more airplay than the games where these elements function smoothly in the background.

 

There was clearly a perception that Independent's "problems:fun ratio" was high enough that it should be pulled from the 6e rules.

 

In my games, it's rarely been used and never been a problem. But my group hasn't historically been overly focused on power gaming or min/max, and I think understands that the limitation means "this will be taken away and the points will be gone".

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

I think it depends on the gaming groups. Seems to me the posts, historically, where the players use the limitation sparingly, so that it adds colour and depth to the game, aren't wildly outnumbered by the ones where the player sees a great cost break and is less than pleased when the GM actually enforces the limitation. Then again, many players/GM's post about the problems in their games, looking for advice, so the problems with any given element likely get more airplay than the games where these elements function smoothly in the background.

 

There was clearly a perception that Independent's "problems:fun ratio" was high enough that it should be pulled from the 6e rules.

 

In my games, it's rarely been used and never been a problem. But my group hasn't historically been overly focused on power gaming or min/max, and I think understands that the limitation means "this will be taken away and the points will be gone".

 

Really? In this thread, it's only 3:1 no problem: problem, but in past threads, I recall it as significantly more. Even so, none of them indicate this as the recurring problem you hypothesize - instead, it seems to be a one-off where players either weren't clear on the limitation, or hoped the limitation would not come into play.

 

And it's worth noting that that in both cases, the threads rapidly devolved into comments about players who caused problems by relentless min-maxing, regardless of particular limitations (and I suspect, probably regardless of game systems )

 

So no, the scenario you outline where players would build a character abusing independant, retire it when it lost its power, build a new character abusing independant, retire it when it lost its power, etc .... well, it's an interesting hypothesis, but honestly I've never even heard of it being a problem, far less encountered anyone who's actually experienced it.

 

cheers, Mark

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Most of the threads I remember from back in 5E about Independant were about problems with it, and while it is true that those that chimed in saying they had no problem with it outnumbered those who found it a problem, at least a 1/4 of them also admitted to always letting the player get the item back eventually (which IMO is basically not enforcing the Limitation and bordering on House Ruling a change in the Limitation/Rule.)

[Christopher]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

So no' date=' the scenario you outline where players would build a character abusing independant, retire it when it lost its power, build a new character abusing independant, retire it when it lost its power, etc .... well, it's an interesting hypothesis, but honestly I've never even [b']heard[/b] of it being a problem, far less encountered anyone who's actually experienced it.

The most simple way to avoid something like this, is to tie the retired characters Point total to the new characters Point total. Maybe they only get 75-90% of the points they were above a startign characters total.

This allows players to siwtch charcters without falling to much behind, but also means the consquences of loosing points still carry along.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

The most simple way to avoid something like this, is to tie the retired characters Point total to the new characters Point total. Maybe they only get 75-90% of the points they were above a startign characters total.

This allows players to siwtch charcters without falling to much behind, but also means the consquences of loosing points still carry along.

 

If they were heavily (ab)using Independent, loss of the item(s)/abilities, if reasonably expected to be permanent, probably meant they were below a starting character's points anyway.

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Most of the threads I remember from back in 5E about Independant were about problems with it' date=' and while it is true that those that chimed in saying they had no problem with it outnumbered those who found it a problem, at least a 1/4 of them also admitted to always letting the player get the item back eventually (which IMO is basically not enforcing the Limitation and bordering on House Ruling a change in the Limitation/Rule.)[/quote']

 

I don't have a problem with the possibility of getting the item back - especially if the character has to suffer multiple sessions without it to get it back. Heck, I have allowed characters to retrieve lost independant items in the past myself. It was just never easy, or certain. I don't see that as in any way conflicting with the rules, or even the spirit of the rules. And of course getting such powers back does not mean you will keep them

 

I only have a problem if that becomes the default. As I noted, in my games, independent powers are routinely lost. In some cases, the players in question gave up the points knowing in advance that the points would be lost almost immediately.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

The most simple way to avoid something like this, is to tie the retired characters Point total to the new characters Point total. Maybe they only get 75-90% of the points they were above a startign characters total.

This allows players to siwtch charcters without falling to much behind, but also means the consquences of loosing points still carry along.

 

Yeah. This opens up another issue.

 

Character death is potentially a problem in pretty much every genre except supers. It's like independant writ large, in that you lose all your points :=

Although I have tried various approaches, I don't have anything that resembles a perfect answer.

 

In a campaign some years back, set in a fantasy-historical Japan, I gave out karma points for good (meaning social class-appropriate) behaviour and deducted them for bad behaviour. I kept the total secret, to reduce chances for gaming the system, but the players knew the system was in use. These points could be cashed in for a reroll, or accumulated and if accumulated, each karma point gave you a 10% bonus on your starting points for your new character meaning - at least in the first few years' play - that a scrupulous character could end up with more points than his old character. I did that deliberately to encourage "contempt for death" in the samurai PCs who were the bulk of the group - an honorable death was very good karma.

 

More usually (since I award XP equally to the whole group but only to the PCs whose players are present at the session, plus very occasional bonus points to individuals for exceptional gaming) I allow new PCs to be bought in at the points value of the lowest PC in the group (at the time death occurred: you can't get an upgrade by killing yourself!) That will always be more than the starting points, but of course will usually be less than everyone else. I do make some rule of thumb exceptions to this: if the PC dies in a particularly glorious or appropriate fashion, for example, they'd get a decent bonus.

 

That helps: the new PC starts out behind everyone else in terms of points, but not drastically so.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Replacement characters are a difficult question. Some see the replacement as receiving points he didn't "earn". However, where is the verisimilitude in the group deciding to bring some wet behind the ears neophyte in, rather than recruiting a seasoned veteran such as themselves.

 

I find it less an issue in many Hero games, as experience often means breadth of ability, rather than raw power, growing, but the issue can still be there.

[Christopher]

Re: 5th Edition; the correct application of the Independent power limitation

 

Yeah. This opens up another issue.

 

Character death is potentially a problem in pretty much every genre except supers. It's like independant writ large, in that you lose all your points :=

No, my idea has already closed this issue before it was even opened. When you die, you get a new character with part of the XP you earned. Just take the point total, including all non-lost independants* and compare it to the normal starting points. You get a large part of that added to your new character starting total.

 

*and of course non that where "kept" by the group. If it's powerfull or a family heirloom, there will be peopel comming looking for it. If the group keeps it against the will fo the player, he get's the points and they get a hunted.

 

It might not be bad to differentiate between death and retirement (wich may include a heroic death, if that was agreed upon with the GM beforehand). A random death would mean you got less for your next character than an if you intentionally retired him/her to try something different.