Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 66
Desmarais, John
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 2:35 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #66
champ-l-digest Friday, December 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 066
In this issue:
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: squeezing damage
Re: Independent Limitation
CHAR: Piccolo
Re: The Canadian Shield
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: squeezing damage
Re: Independent Limitation
Independent limitation
Re: squeezing damage
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: squeezing damage
Re: Independent Limitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:02:29 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: J. Alan Easley <alaneasley@email.com>
Cc: HERO System List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>> The limitation does not say that the power *will* be taken away simply
>>that it *can*.
>
>*Sigh* We've been over this. And the emotional trauma and the other
>things you mention. In a long running game, all of these things are
>going to go away. The -2 is going to become less and less important as
>long as the item can be recovered. The tension isn't there anymore if
>you play for a year and are only threatened with the loss of the item
>again and again. And if the threat is real, and happens often, you are
>very likely to lose the item. If it happens often enough for it to be a
>-2, it is likely to be lost.
I have read your pre-reply to this and thank you for trying to take the edge
off of it.
>Again, I ask: what does this represent? Points are only important (and
>maybe not even important) to players: the player is the main one
>penalized by the limitation. Any focus or other power can be judged to
>be taken away permanently or semi-permanently by the GM. You can walk
>around with reduced power for some time, and that's up to the GM in all
>cases. So what is this limitation for? Personally, I like them to limit
>the character, not to be disturbing to the player.
I already told you what the limitation is for. I would like to try to
answer the questions above but I have already done my best in my rather long
post. Sorry. I understand that you don't like it. I don't particularly
like or dislike the Independent limitation. I just happen to know what it
is for and respect the fact that some people can use it to add to their
games. Not necessarily
saying that you don't just that it seems that way.
The Independent limitation may at one time been different than it is now. I
don't plan on digging out my FH to find out. From all of the misconceptions
that I have read about it on the list recently that seems likely.
Regardless of these misconceptions, anyone who reads over the entire section
on Independent and Dispel in the 4.2 BBB will be able to understand that
while Independent powers are often attached to items they can also be
attached to people and places. They will also understand that IF the Focus
limitation is also taken the power will be in an item and receive an
additional limitation, and that the focus must be Universal and can be
destroyed by the use of Dispel. If attached to a place that it cannot be
Dispelled, that the place must be destroyed. If placed on/in a person that
you have to make up your own rule because the book doesn't specify. Whether
or not that makes it worth a -2 is open to opinion because that varies with
GMs use of the facts. But the above are facts and any changes of them are
either skewed interpretations or house rules. At least I say so, but then
again, who am I? :-)
>And yes, I read your entire post. It is, indeed, up to the GM. But he
>asked for our opinions of using this, in a superhero game, with a
>starting character, on powered armor which I presumed was a large part
>of the character. And he asked for our opinions of what is in the book,
>not of our modifications to it.
I wasn't answering him, I was trying to answer your question concerning
Independent. I simply did my best to answer that question. I am sorry you
didn't like the answer. I was rather proud of it. Since it was your
question and you don't want or like my answer I won't bother you anymore
about it. <sniffle>
> So I feel it perfectly appropriate, in
>that context, to express my opinion of the inappropriateness of the
>power. The changes I might make because I feel the limitation is bogus
>are, therefore, irrelevant. Please keep it in this context, and I will
>try to as well.
>
>JAJ, GP
You've really lost me on this last paragraph. I thought that since your
original question asked what ways is Independent really limiting if the
power were never taken away and commented vaguely about how you used it,
that questions regarding how you used it were relevant. Since you don't, I
will gladly retract the questions. I really didn't mean to offend you. I
am sorry we seem to have hit it off badly with each other.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:56:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: squeezing damage
On 3 Dec 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> "L" == Logan <logand@cyberramp.net> writes:
>
> L> GM's ruling was that since the special effects of his force field was a
> L> "wind shield", then a regular punch would ignore the force field
> L> entirely! Ouch! But that was the way the character had been built.
>
> If a GM did that to me, I would pack up my stuff right there and leave.
Yes, well...
There is the question of how aware the PCs were that the GM was going to
run SFX like this. Personally, I don't like the idea of SFX have -0 lims
that are that disabling, but if people were aware of the house rules
before the question came up, then one doesn't have a lot of room to bitch.
I have stated that in my Silent Mobius game, PCs make find their attacks
bounce off the villan, regardless of die rolls.
Example: one of the PCs exits a nightclub to find 40' of Oriental dragon
standing next to a wrecked police car. The PC pulled out her AMP issue
blaster and fired a shot at the dragon. He rolled his 'to hit' and
damage dice. I told the player that the shot hit and the dragon didn't
even blink. The dragon then vanished. Several players noticed that I
didn't even look at the dragon's character shhet. *Really* observant
players might have noticed that I didn't even *have* a character sheet.
Of course, OTOH, the PCs have whacked opponents in the same manner.
Example:
"I hit a DCV of 6."
"Okay, your shot hits, and it vanishes in a messy spray of goo."
"And I do... 8 BODY and... uhm oh... nevermind."
Michael Surbrook / susano@otd.com
http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 20:57:42 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
Still getting used to being on the Champions list, I see: you sent this
to me personally.
Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
> >>Could someone give me an example of an independant power that's NOT a
> >>focus?
> >
> >
> >One of the examples given somewhere was basically an enchanted "tatoo" or
> >ritual scar that granted power to the possessor. It could be destroyed by
> >cutting the flesh, breaking the magical design.
> >
>
> Of course you could make an argument for that being an Inaccessible Focus,
> especially if it doesn't require special skill or serious harm to be done to
> disable it.
You could, indeed, and this was mentioned. Depends really on how much
damage needs to be done to the arm (or whatever) to disable it.
I think the idea of the Geas is a better example, though I think that
such a thing is something that should be allowable without such an
expenditure of points. But I'm point fixated and don't like to give them
up so easily...
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:00:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: CHAR: Piccolo
[here you go... all 975 points. BTW: I have noticed that I don't think
the defenses of these guys are high enough... I think they all need some
STUN-only Damage Reduction...]
PICCOLO
Val CHA Cost Roll Notes
43 STR 33 18- 9450kg; 8 1/2d6
27 DEX 51 15- OCV: 9 / DCV: 9
30 CON 40 15-
20 BODY 20 13-
20 INT 10 13- PER Roll 14-
24 EGO 28 14- ECV: 8
25 PRE 15 14- PRE Attack: 5d6
10 COM 0 11-
25 PD 16 Total: 25 PD / 3 PDr
25 ED 19 Total: 25 ED / 3 EDr
6 SPD 20 Phases: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12
15 REC 0
80 END 10
60 STUN 3
Total Characteristics Cost: 265
Movement: Flight: 30" / 120"
Running: 9" / 18"
Superleap: 19.5" / 40"
Swimming: 2" / 4"
Teleport: 12"
Cost Powers & Skills
Combat Training:
32 Combat Skill Levels: +4 with all Combat
Martial Arts: Hand-to-Hand Fighting Skill
Maneuver OCV DCV Damage
4 Block +2 +2 Block, Abort
4 Choke Hold -2 +0 4d6 NND (2)
4 Dodge +0 +5 Dodge vs All, Abort
5 Headbutt +1 +3 12 1/2d6 Strike
5 Kick -2 +1 16 1/2d6 Strike
4 Knife Hand -2 +0 1d6+1 HKA (2 1/2d6 w/STR)
4 Knee/Elbow Strike +2 +0 14 1/2d6 Strike
4 Punch +0 +2 14 1/2d6 Strike
12 +4 Damage Classes with Martial Arts
Namek Racial Powers:
12 Claws: HKA: 1/2d6 (1d6+1 W/STR), 0 END (+1/2),
Reduced Penetration (-1/4)
3 Thick Skin: Damage Resistance: 3 PD / 3 ED
8 Life Support: Does not Eat, Excrete or Sleep; Immune to Aging
10 Regeneration: Aid: 5d6 to BODY, Self Only (-1/2), Only to
Starting Values (-1/2), Full Phase (-1/2)
20 Stretching: 6", No Noncombat Stretch (-1/4), END 2
Ki and Mystic Powers:
180 Ki Powers Multipower: 180 Point Pool
12 u - Chobakuretsumaha: EB: 30d6, Full Phase (-1/2),
Gestures (-1/4), END 15
7 u - Kakusanyudokodan: EB: 12d6, Autofire (+1/2), Indirect (+1/2),
1/2 END (+1/2), Full Phase (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), All Shots must
be at a single target (-1/4), END 3 per shot
8 u - Ki Blast: EB: 16d6, END 8
8 u - Makankosappo: RKA: 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2), Extra Time:
Turn (-1), Gestures (-1/4), END 18
8 u - Renzoku Energy Dan: EB: 14d6 Autofire (+1/2), 1/2 END (+1/2),
Full Phase (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), END 3 per shot
10 u - Shogekiha: EB: 14d6 (physical), Invisible Power Effects:
Sight (+1/2), END 10
8 u - Tsuihidan: EB: 14d6, No Range Modifer (+1/2), Gestures (-1/4),
END 10
96 Missle Deflection: All Ranged Attacks, Deflect At Range (+1),
Reflect back at Caster, +4 OCV to roll
97 Bukujutsu: Flight: 30", x4 NCM, 0 END (+1/2)
6 Running: +3" (9" total), END 2
14 Sanzouken: Teleport: 12", No Non-combat movement (-1/4), Must be
able to cross distance normally (-1/2), END 2
10 Superleap: +12" (19.5" total), END 3
3 Enhanced Perception: +1 with all PER rolls
37 Ki Sense: Detect: Ki, Discriminatory, Ranged, Sense,
Telescopic +8, 360 degrees
10 Telepathic Link to Son Gohan: Mind Link: Son Gohan, Psychic
Bond (+5 pts)
16 Summon Clothing: Instant Change: Any Clothing, Useable on
Others (+1), Gestures (-1/4)
Background Skills:
1 Contact: Kami-sama 8-
10 Talent: Eidetic Memory
3 Acrobatics 14-
3 Breakfall 14-
10 Defense Manuever (full)
3 KS: Kami-sama 13-
3 KS: Meditation 13-
4 Namek (native)
2 PS: Sensi 11-
7 Survival 13-
3 Tactics 13-
710 Total Powers & Skills Cost
975 Total Character Cost
100+ Disadvantages
10 Enraged: Son Gohan Seriously Injured 14-/11-
10 DNPC: Son Gohan (AsPow) 14-
15 Distinctive Features: Namek-jin (NC)
Psychological Limitation:
10 No Sense of Humor, Stoic (a Loner) (C, M)
25 Protective of Son Gohan (VC, T)
15 Vengeful (C, S)
20 Reputation: Evil Demon King Piccolo, extreme 14-
5 Rivalry: Son Goku ('friendly')
765 Experience
975 Total Disadvantage Points
Designers Notes:
Piccolo is a rather complex character. He is arguably one of the most
powerful of the cast, and is certainly the most powerful non-Saiyajin. He
is also one of the more popular characters, winning many contests for his
sheer 'cool' value. Anyway, his history runs something like this:
Something like 400 years before the start of the Dragonball manga, a Namek
(one of several major alien races in the series) came to Earth to assume
the roll of "Kami-sama" (aka "supreme spirit" aka "god"). In order to
properly assume the role of Kami-sama, this Namek divested himself of all
his internal evil, creating the being known as "The Great Demon King
Piccolo" (also known as Piccolo Daimo). This version of Piccolo was
trapped in a rice cooker by a powerful human master of the martial arts
(Mutaito-sama the man who was Kamesennin's teacher). Everything was okay
until Pilaf, a very short megalomaniac with dreams of world conquest,
released Piccolo. The aged and withered promptly collected the seven
dragonballs, wished himself young again and then killed Shen-Long (the
dragon god that grants wishes when the dragonballs are brought together).
After becoming young (and regain a great deal of his power), Piccolo
started killing anyone he felt could oppose him, as well as starting a
rein of terror. He was defeated by Tenshinhan and Son Goku, but not
before spitting out an egg that would later hatch into an exact duplicate
of himself (aka Ma Junior).
Ma Junior battles Son Goku in the 23rd Tenkaichi Budoukai and looses
(barely). Goku lets him live and Piccolo eventually returns to help Goku
fight Raditz. When Goku dies, Piccolo promises to train young Son Gohan
for a year, so that he can help fight Vegita and Nappa when they arrive.
After the year is up, Piccolo, Son Gohan and several otehr characters
confront Nappa and Vegita. In the ensuing series of battles, Piccolo is
killed by Nappa, trains in the afterworld with Kaiou-sama and is summoned
to the planet Namek to help battle Freezer. He absorbs the life essence
and body of the Namek warrior Nail (merges actually) and helps pound on
Freezer while Goku is recovering from nearly being killed earlier on.
Later, while preparing for the Cell Game, Piccolo merges with Kami-sama,
powering up to the version shown here. Since the Earth needs a Kami-sama
(and more importantly Shen-Long is powered by the Kami-sama) the Namek
healer Dende is brought in to replace him.
Whew... well, that's his history in a nutshell (sorry if it seems
confusing). Anyway, as one can see, Piccolo gets around and has been a
major part of the series since his inital appearence. It is interesting
to note that the Nameks seems to have a lot of unusual powers, including
the ability to merge with one another in order to increase the power of a
particular Namek. For more information, see the Typical Namek character
sheet.
As a side note, Piccolo's name is obviously derived from the musical
instrument. At one point, the Evil Demon King Piccolo had a host of
flunkies, with such names as Tamborine, Cymbal, Piano and Drum.
Description:
Piccolo is a Namek, and like all Nameks, has green skin, three fingers,
pointed ears, no hair and two small antenna on his brow. Piccolo is very
tall as well, looking to be close to 7' in height, with a lean muscular
build. Piccolo dresses in a purple (or dark blue) one-piece sleeveless
outfit, with a red belt and ankle-high leather boots. Over this he wears
a heavy metal shoulder plate that is wrapped up in a white cloak. He also
wears a heavy skullcap wrapped in white to resemble a turban. These items
are used for strength training and are usually discarded before any
combat.
Powers Notes:
Piccolo is massively powerful, and can hold his own versus almost any
opponent. He is exceedingly strong, fast, tough and durable. A very
skilled fighter, he has fought beside Son Goku in all of Goku's major
battles. Piccolo is a master of many ki techniques as well as possessing
a number of more 'mystic' abilities.
As a Namek, Piccolo has clawed fingers that could be used in combat
(although we never actually see him use them considering the potency of
everything else he can do). He can also regenerate wounds and has regrown
lost limbs in a matter of moments. He can also stretch his limbs long
distances. Finally, Piccolo doesn't need to eat and is never seen to
sleep.
Piccolo's ki powers are extensive and include:
Chobakuretsumaha: This is Piccolo's answer to the Kamehameha. It
is a powerful energy blast and is also called the "Gekiretsukodan".
Kakusanyudokodan: With this attack, Piccolo unleashes a swarm of
energy bolts. These bolts surround the target on all sides and then
impact all at the same time.
Ki Blast: Generic energy blast, fired from the hands, eyes or
mouth.
Makankosappo: This is really two energy bolts, one a normal blast,
and the second coiling around the first. It is very powerful and can
punch through mountains. A least one translation of the name was given as
"Industrial Light Magic Attack" while another was "Devil's penetrating
energy killing attack".
Renzoku Energy Dan: A barrage of powerful energy blasts.
Shogekiha: This is an invisible force bolt fired from the body.
Tsuihidan: This is a ki blast that can track it's target.
The rest of Piccolo's powers should be self-evident and are pretty common
to all of the major Dragonball Z cast members. Piccolo's two unique
powers are the ability to produce clothing at will (both for himself and
others) as well as a seemingly permanent mindlink with Son Gohan.
Disadvantages Notes:
Piccolo is very much a loner, prefering to meditate and practice his
martial arts and ki talents. He is a stoic, with virtually *no* sense of
humor and doesn't like ot be bothered. On the other hand, he is very
protective of his only student (Son Gohan), and shows up innumerable times
to help save Gohan from certain doom. He is also vengeful and will not
forget an insult or slight. Becuase he is an exact duplicate of the
original Demon King Piccolo, his appearence frightens some people.
Piccolo also wanted to kill Goku, but after training Son Gohan for a year
(and battling Vegita and Nappa) he became a close friend of Goku. He
still is a rival of sorts to Goku, always pushing himself to try and equal
Goku's feats.
(Piccolo created by Akira Toriyama, character sheet created by Michael
Surbrook)
Michael Surbrook / susano@otd.com
http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:56:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Glen Sprigg <borealis@cois.on.ca>
Subject: Re: The Canadian Shield
>> WESTERN TEAM MEMBERSHIP: Mountie (leader), Chinook, Live Wire, Rad, Yukon
Jack
>
> Rad?
>
> Tell me this is the inside joke I think it is? Did he originally
>land in Calgary?
>
>
Um, not an inside joke, AFAIK. I'm from Ontario; I've never been out west,
so I wouldn't know about any special attachment to that word. Rad's name
will be explained in his character sheet. Suffice to say for now that it is
an acronym.
Glen
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:36:24 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
Please see my other post, as well.
> Well, first of all, the rulebook makes no mention of an Irreplaceable
> Focus (at least, not in my copy).
It is called Unbreakable. Sorry. Which means that it is unique and
irreplacable.
> Second, taking away any Focus that is not Independent (and not giving it
> back, whether right away or ever) still means that the experience points
> spent on it can be re-spent on a replacement. This can be done right away
> or in due time, and the replacement can identically match its predecessor
> or be completely different, depending on the specifics of the campaign, but
> it can still be done. This could not be done with an Independent item;
> when the item is gone, for however long that is, so are the points.
Nowhere does the book say that points cannot be reduced by the GM for an
adventure. If the GM is going to reduce your points long term but
temporarily, he can do so. What you are describing is a temporary
reduction of points as an adventure seed. This in no way requires
Independent to pull off, so Independent is not necessary.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:18:41 -0600
From: "Logan" <logand@cyberramp.net>
Subject: Re: squeezing damage
- -----Original Message-----
From: Mathieu Roy <matroy@abacom.com>
To: Logan <logand@cyberramp.net>
Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: squeezing damage
>
>
>Logan wrote:
>
>> In my last tabletop game, we pretty much ruled that SFX could hose you
>> regardless of specific power limitations and advantages.
>>
>> For example, we had a "weather-wizard" (cadged with modifications from
>> Aquarius of the Zodiac Conspiracy) who had a "wind shield" built as a
force
>> field / force wall. There wasn't a specific limitation saying that his
force
>> field wouldn't work vs hand to hand or grappling attacks, but he got
tagged
>> by a brick who just walked up and grabbed him and then punched him. GM's
>> ruling was that since the special effects of his force field was a "wind
>> shield", then a regular punch would ignore the force field entirely!
Ouch!
>> But that was the way the character had been built.
>
>YOUCH! I would have been very, very mad at the GM if he'd pulled that one
on me.
>I've always thought that a corrolary to the golden rules of limitations
was: if
>it's a significant limitation you should get points for it. "Not vs.
Punches" is
>at least -1/4, more likely -1/2, on defenses!
>
Well, you're probably right. Still,
a) I wasn't the one that it happened to, and
b) the person it _did_ happen to was a royal pain in the ass jerk who
disrupted the campaign and tried to backstab the characters at every
opportunity even when it went outside the boudaries of his original
character conception.
c) Nothing like that had ever happened before and it was apparently both a
chance to define it and teach him a lesson at the same time, since he had
recently found another excuse to attack another of the PCs. (But I was
Mind-Controlled! Really!)
Of course that doesn't change the basic point and you are correct, that is
pretty mean.
But basically I didn't mourn for him very much. >:)
- -Logan
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable
game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective
of any of the other players,* to being involved in an obscure and complex
version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite
stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who
_smiles all the time_."
-Neil Gaimen and Terry Pratchett
_Good Omens_
*i.e., everybody.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:06:15 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> the decision is the GM's). Even if you do insist on using the rule from the
> Dispel description as the removal method just how many balanced games are
> going to have someone walking around with a Dispel that is powerful enough
> to overcome the TOTAL active points in a character?
Well, you wouldn't have to overcome the active points of the character,
only the active points of the Independent power. I would think. Yes, you
do have to do that with a magic item: all the powers in it are
Independent, though.
I suppose you might have to overcome all the Independent powers on the
person. The dispel wouldn't destroy a place: merely remove the magic
from it.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:34:15 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Independent limitation
Finally, I agree with another poster: I dislike Independent (for the
most part) for two reasons:
1. I hate taking points away, even potentially.
2. My players don't care for it, either.
This does leave open trinkets, permanent enchantments and so on. But as
the basic powers for a character, no.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:01:34 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: squeezing damage
> Is there any parallel advantage to having soft armor, or is the person just
> getting penelized for their SFX?
I think he's talking about unbought equipment, in which case it doesn't
matter as much. It is nice to not have this come as a surprise, though:
"Your Chain Mail is half defense against squeezes, didn't I tell you?"
> Personally, if your PD can protect you
> against falls and crushes, I don't see why soft armor shouldn't.
It's arguable: your personal PD is the general sturdiness and resistance
to harm of your own body, so applies to all non-killing attacks. The
chain mail gives and allows those attack types through to your own body,
for which your defense then applies.
This is not the "right" answer, merely a reasonable interpretation.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 20:51:26 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> >When the something that *can* happen is the only reason that it is worth the
> >limitation, it follows that it *must* happen for both game balance and
> >drama.
>
> But this is not such a case. When the "something that can happen" can be
> avoided in exchange for other consequences, the other consequences become
> part of the limiting factors.
Okay, okay. I accept and accepted earlier that you had a point here. I
will rephrase: the item must have a credible possibility of being lost,
or it is not worth a limitation. I also mentioned that I had indeed run
games (short ones) where they didn't lose the items.
However: the Limitation does not actually include this modification of
behavior. The limitation is, "You can lose the points permanently". The
item can be stolen, or destroyed, or dispelled, and in that case, the
points are GONE. This is all the limitation is. Period.
Now, hear me out...
The modification of behavior is in reaction to the reality of this
limitation (as it is in the case of the Magnetic Field example, which
has been snipped), not actually a part of the limitation itself. And
this behavior will only happen if it is known to be a very real
possibility that the item and the points will be lost. If you play for a
long time and no Independent items are ever lost, you always recover
them or they are never taken in the first place, this threat is not
credible and you need not modify your behavior. Therefore, if you aren't
going to have a real possibility of losing the item during the game, it
is not worth the limitation listed in the book because that aspect of it
never comes up, and you won't live in fear of it coming up so that,
which I dispute as being truly part of the limitation, is also not an
issue, and so not worth a limitation.
In addition, in the fullness of time, the item will be lost. It is
inevitable. If there is a real chance in each game (or each set of
games, whatever you think is fair) that the item will be lost, and the
GM is appropriately ruthless, then at some point a mistake or a decision
(break your Independent item or your significant other dies!) will be
made and the item WILL be lost. If there is no real chance of this
happening, it is worth no more than a regular Focus, which can be taken
and retrieved innumerable times. Sometimes it will not happen, but it
will if the game goes on long enough and the GM includes a real
possibility of losing the item on occasion. Which is what I was not able
to make clear until now: properly run, you will lose it if the game goes
on long enough, but, yes, it is possible to keep ahold of it for the
length of a campaign. It is indeed not a necessity that the item be
lost, but it will be if the game is long enough and the limitation is
played to the full extent a -2 is worth.
As far as the drama of having the irreplacable focus and the paranoia
about losing it? An Irreplacable Focus and a Psych Lim are a much better
way to go in many games, especially superheroic ones. The Irreplacable
limitation is sufficient to removing an item from the character for a "I
must recover my doohickey" adventure, and Psych Lims are the standard
way of modifying character behavior within the rules (course, people
will role play beyond just the rules, but rules are what we are talking
about...). So I can't see taking Independent if this kind of plot hook
is what you want for your character when there are sufficient other
rules for it which I personally like better. That, however, is a matter
entirely of taste.
What it really comes down to is this: Independent is only appropriate in
some games, and you have to be very careful with it. It has its uses,
such as have been mentioned (the challenge, once it's lost, of being
fewer points, or the challenge of outwitting the GM and keeping ahold of
it, etc.). There are also times it is completely inappropriate: if you
play in a one-shot game, for instance at a convention, it is unlikely
you will lose the item, so it probably shouldn't get Independent. Most
superhero games are also inappropriate for the limitation, especially on
your main item.
A question: is it possible to buy off the Independent limitation? My
initial reaction would be "No": it is seperate from the character once
created, which seems to imply that you can't really modify how it is
bought to any great extent. But this is certainly not explicite in the
rules. Of course, I'm referring to buy it off if you are the one that
bought it in the first place.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:54:31 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>Still getting used to being on the Champions list, I see: you sent this
>to me personally.
Happens to me every time I'm in a hurry and just do a reply without changing
the header.
>> Of course you could make an argument for that being an Inaccessible Focus,
>> especially if it doesn't require special skill or serious harm to be done to
>> disable it.
>
>You could, indeed, and this was mentioned. Depends really on how much
>damage needs to be done to the arm (or whatever) to disable it.
Like the 'Wings as OAF' simplification it's probably a bad idea, though.
>
>I think the idea of the Geas is a better example, though I think that
>such a thing is something that should be allowable without such an
>expenditure of points. But I'm point fixated and don't like to give them
>up so easily...
Heh. I know the disease.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:54:45 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> I already told you what the limitation is for. I would like to try to
> answer the questions above but I have already done my best in my rather long
> post. Sorry. I understand that you don't like it. I don't particularly
> like or dislike the Independent limitation. I just happen to know what it
> is for and respect the fact that some people can use it to add to their
> games. Not necessarily
> saying that you don't just that it seems that way.
Beat me up why don't you :)?
Ok: what Independent is is a way to disaco... dang, seperate the points
involved from your character. The upshot of this is twofold: the item or
power will be around whether you are, if you die it will still be there,
it is permanent. This is a useful effect (some would argue that the
Limitation is invalid because it is giving the power additional
abilities, but nevermind). The other side of the coin is that you have
the possibility of losing the power (item or otherwise).
If willing to part with the points, this allows enchantment of areas,
permanent spells on people (unless dispelled), the creation of very
unique items, and so on. This is useful, if anyone is actually willing
to do this (or if the GM is willing to provide some points for this
purpose). Or buy those little items to make life more interesting,
though some of these should really be awarded by the GM (hey if the
players are willing to buy them, I'm willing to hand them out).
However, in the specific case of a character in a supers game buying the
powered armor in this way, it is inappropriate: this usage has the
potential or even likelihood of ultimately crippling the character. It
is rolling the dice with the character, and seeing if you make it
through.
> If attached to a place that it cannot be
> Dispelled, that the place must be destroyed.
I must still disagree on that point: I believe that this was an
oversight while updating the rules. In the previous BBB, or previous
books, they didn't have it on anything but foci, and it may be that they
missed this point during the new edition.
Still, as a central part of your character conception, this is not
something you would want, whether it could be dispelled or not. I don't
think that it's particularly better to lose the points because someone
dug up your ground over dispeling it. Still, it's currently the only way
to get permanent effects. Which I suppose is better than losing a point
of D&D Constitution.
> If placed on/in a person that
> you have to make up your own rule because the book doesn't specify. Whether
> or not that makes it worth a -2 is open to opinion because that varies with
> GMs use of the facts. But the above are facts and any changes of them are
> either skewed interpretations or house rules.
This is a good argument toward allowing non-focused powers to be
Dispelled: otherwise there is really no way to remove it from a person
aside from killing them, at which point it no longer matters.
> At least I say so, but then
> again, who am I? :-)
No one important, which puts you in good company.
> You've really lost me on this last paragraph. I thought that since your
> original question asked what ways is Independent really limiting if the
> power were never taken away and commented vaguely about how you used it,
> that questions regarding how you used it were relevant.
And you are correct. We'll just have to try that again.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:43:56 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: squeezing damage
>> Is there any parallel advantage to having soft armor, or is the person just
>> getting penelized for their SFX?
>
>I think he's talking about unbought equipment, in which case it doesn't
>matter as much. It is nice to not have this come as a surprise, though:
>"Your Chain Mail is half defense against squeezes, didn't I tell you?"
Yes, I missed it was in FH first time through.
>
>> Personally, if your PD can protect you
>> against falls and crushes, I don't see why soft armor shouldn't.
>
>It's arguable: your personal PD is the general sturdiness and resistance
>to harm of your own body, so applies to all non-killing attacks. The
>chain mail gives and allows those attack types through to your own body,
>for which your defense then applies.
Actually, far as I know, there's nothing in the rules that says _any_ damage
except for those explicitly targeted at exotic defenses or NND that bypasses
armor. Doesn't mean it can't be treated that way in some games.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:26:04 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
I have modified my statement, though not really my views: see other
posts.
> I do. If the character never enters a magnetic field, either due to luck or to
> cautious play, then that's what happens: The character never enters a magnetic
> field & his power never shuts down. All the GM has to do, IMHO, is give the
> character a 'fair chance' to enter a magnetic field accidently and to give the
> villains a 'fair chance' to put the character into a magnetic field.
This is the third time I have gotten this response, so I will address
this issue specifically: there must be a chance for the character to be
in the field. A real chance, otherwise it is not limiting at all. In a
game that lasts long enough, those "chances" are going to cause the
character to be in that field at some point.
> Consider it this way: Your player's characters are all mortal (unless they've
> bought some sort of special 'Unkillable' ability). Does this mean that you
> *must* kill off *all* the PCs in the course of the campaign?
That doesn't apply: being mortal is not a disadvantage in most games.
Besides, yes, you must kill off all the PC's in the course of the
campaign if it lasts enough years. In both this and the above case, we
are getting a bit hypothetical, because each game is different. But the
threat must always be there.
> Or consider a character who bought an unusual defense (Power Defense, say)
> with a 14- activation. It happens that the character ends up having to use
> Power Defense only couple of dozen times in the course of the campaign - and
> each time he made his activation roll. (He was a lucky player, but not unduly
> so.) Would you accept this? Or would you start arranging things so that the
> character kept getting hit with power-defense-required attacks until he failed
> his activation roll?
This is perfectly acceptable. See above.
> > When the something that *can* happen is the only reason that it is worth the
> > limitation, it follows that it *must* happen for both game balance and
> > drama.
>
> I put less stock in 'drama' than some GMs.
What about game balance? Nevermind, just curious.
> Nor is there any reason to assume that you ARE going to lose it.
Perfectly reasonable assumption. You must lose it in the fullness of
time. It's just a matter of when.
> If your players take 'Secret ID' for their characters, do you play this as
> meaning that the characters' Secret ID *will* be revealed sometime in the
> campaign? Or do you play it that the characters must from time to time act so
> as to prevent their Secret ID's from being revealed? I play it the latter way,
> and I play Independent the same way.
Of course not: but that's not the way Secret ID is written. In the case
of Independent, the only limitation is that the points are seperate from
the character. For that to come up, a credible chance of loss must
exist. With a chance for loss, you will lose it eventually.
> If the PC keeps his Independent item locked up in a secret vault 90% of the
> time, then I'm not going to engineer a special break-in into that vault just
> because an 'Independent' item is within it. Some GM's are 'dramatic' that way,
> but I'm not.
I only brought up drama because the idea of stealing an item from the
character for a while came up. For dramatic purposes, there is no need
for Independent. No need to beat me up over it.
If the PC keeps his Independent item locked up in a secret vault 90% of
the time, the villains can learn of it and its importance, especially if
it's pulled out every now and then. It is not unreasonable for them to
then try to steal it, and if successful, well, it's gone.
> The other 10% of the time that the PC has the item out and in use, it will be
> subject to the usual chances of being stolen or destroyed, but I'm not going
> to engineer a special attack on the item just because it's Independent. Again,
> I'm not 'dramatic' that way.
I am not talking about forcing it to go away. I am talking about giving
it a real chance of being lost. If you don't have that possibility, it
is not worth a limitation worth more than the normal Foci (or not, if
they are personal powers). If that possibility exists, it will go away.
Inevitably.
> Well, I play Irreplacable Foci as being "Recovery guaranteed or your points
> back." Independent doesn't have this guarantee, which is why it's worth more
> as a limitation.
Of course you do: that's what it means. Independent doesn't have this
guarantee, but statements have been made about the appropriateness of
taking the item away only to give it back. That it does not have to be
lost. If they are never lost, if there is no possibility of it, it is a
bogus limitation, except when used to create permanent effects. The
possibility must be real, and that means an eventual loss unless the
odds are tweaked by the GM. And if the odds are so tweaked, it is not
worth more of a limitation than any other focus.
> Right. My point is that the GM shouldn't use his gameworld-warping powers to
> guarantee that the character *doesn't* get lucky and *does* lose the trinket.
My point, which I was very unclear on (I appologize, late hours being
kept) is not that the GM must guarantee the items loss. Merely that
there must be a real danger of loss. Luck doesn't last forever, no
matter how many dice you have, and if you have credible chances of
losing the item, you will eventually lose it.
Thanks to everyone for the help getting my opinion straightened out,
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #66
****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 03:32 PM