Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 72
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 2:44 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #72
champ-l-digest Saturday, December 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 072
In this issue:
Due South
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: AP/Penetrating question
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: The Mountie
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Due South
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:49:00 -0500
From: "Marc" <games@nassau.cv.net>
Subject: Due South
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0103_01BE1FE9.0C646660
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
With all the characters being posted to the list. Can anyone help with =
a HERO GAMES version of Brenton Fresier?
_________________________________________________________________________=
_____________________________________
IN CHARACTER. Home of my characters and soon (or later) my BPEM =
campaign
HTTP://www.liii.com/~dragon
- ------=_NextPart_000_0103_01BE1FE9.0C646660
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>With all the characters being posted =
to the=20
list. Can anyone help with a HERO GAMES version of Brenton=20
Fresier?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000=20
size=3D2>________________________________________________________________=
______________________________________________<BR>IN=20
CHARACTER. Home of my characters and soon (or later) my BPEM=20
campaign</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.liii.com/~dragon">HTTP://www.liii.com/~dragon</A></FON=
T></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0103_01BE1FE9.0C646660--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:32:58 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com>
To: HERO System List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: Independent Limitation
>If you're the sort of GM who insists on creating a situation
>specifically to exploit each disad that every character takes, yes this
>will begin to look contrived.
>
>Since we've been talking about independent powers, let's talk about
>making that -2 count. Any power that's independent can be used by
>anyone. So anyone who can control/acquire this power will want to do so
>if it meets their needs, right? For example, a suit of power armour that
>can make a two-bit hood into Iron Man would be a pretty hot ticket. Any
>criminal element who knows this thing exists is going to want it for
>themselves and may come up with complex plans and hire on specialists to
>steal it and use it for their own dire purposes. Likewise, if you've got
>an independent END battery or something based on location, wouldn't you
>expect someone to take control of that area and build a bunker around
>it?
>
>To me, taking any -2 limitation on a power is like taking a 25pt. Disad.
>They should be prepared for serious hassle because of it.
>
>Which brings me around to this whole limitation conversation about
>whether a disad will occur or may occur. I don't understand the
>confusion. If your powers don't work in a vacuum, they don't work in a
>vacuum. If you're just neurotic about being in a vacuum, then it's a
>psych lim, right? Taking an activation roll doesn't mean you eventually
>fail your roll, it means you check the activation roll each and every
>time. I think that being arbitrary about enforcing disads is a huge
>mistake. It's okay to be rough on your characters but you can't be
>arbitrary about it.
I kept all of the above because I felt it deserved repeating. Thank you for
your eloquent support.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:36:51 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: HERO System List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>Most of the time, in a game where Independent is appropriate, my
>assumption is accurate. But, yes, you could do that. If you were to,
>though, it would not be inappropriate to only count the Independent
>points to resist the Dispel, since most powers without that limitation
>do not take the total points in the item to resist Dispel but only their
>points. This is an advantage of Independent. The same seems reasonable
>to apply to the spell when it's on a person.
It is both an advantage and limitation of Independent. Don't forget
Independent powers are not merely turned off by Dispel, they are destroyed.
Agreed, a reasonable house rule. Not that house rule is a bad thing. Just
the opposite, house rules are necessary.
>
>> > The dispel wouldn't destroy a place: merely remove the magic
>> >from it.
>>
>> The description of Independent says otherwise. Do you not agree with it
or
>> not know it?
>
>The description of Independent says nothing about Dispel one way or
>another. Dispel says nothing about destroying a site or the magic on a
>person.
The description of Independent is pretty clear about the removal of
Independent powers that are placed on areas. The destruction of the area is
required. If you want that to be different, fine, I won't argue with you
over the validity of your desires, but that is also another house rule.
> As I have said previously, I believe this to have been an
>oversight: Dispel, with the correct special effect (desecrating holy
>ground, removing a curse, etc.), should be allowed to destroy
>Independent spells whether they are on items or not. If they are so
>allowed, then they would not destroy the site, they would only destroy
>the magic.
Your belief in this oversight, which doesn't directly matter to me since I
don't play in your game is unreasonable to me. I do like and agree with
your house rule in most if not all instances that derives from your belief.
>In any game where I chose to use Independent, a rare thing I'll admit, I
>would be leary of any Dispel that could affect a wide variety of
>Independent spells. A spell that destroys magic items would not affect a
>curse or a magical location, for example. But the power is reasonable
>for destroying such things in general, if not in specific.
Yes.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 01:25:31 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: AP/Penetrating question
At 11:11 PM 12/4/98 -0600, Donald Tsang wrote:
>>Captain Energy fires his blast at Dr. Density, who has a 20 rED
>>defense. On average, Cap will do 28 stun and 8 body. Dr. Density
>>will take 8 stun from the blast and 8 from the penetration, for a total
>>of 16 stun.
>
>Umm. Penetration only creates a _minimum_ STUN amount, not an
>_additional_ STUN amount...
Right you are. Serves me right for not looking it up before attempting
to answer the question. Still...it makes my point even stronger:
AP Penetrating is not a super attack.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Posterity shall triumph in this day's business,
even though we may regret it. I trust we shall not."
John Adams. 2 July 1776
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:34:39 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: HERO System List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>> Only if the chance is random does the last sentence hold true. There is
a
>> chance that I will get divorced at some time in my life. That doesn't
mean
>> that I ever will. It isn't a random uncontrollable chance. I am in
control
>> of my actions and can and do choose not to. At times that means I act
>> differently than I might want to for a particular amount of time, middle
of
>> arguments and such, but the chance is there. The
>> might-means-will-eventually argument is not logically sound unless
>> discussing a random chance for an infinite time period.
>
>We are not discussing random chance. We are discussing the possibility
>of losing an Independent item, which must come up for it to be worth any
>more than a regular Focus. And if ruthlessly run, which it also must be
>to be worth the limitation, and not just given back because the GM
>doesn't want to hurt the character, it must be a real chance that you
>might be able to avoid. You're eventually going to slip. Then it will be
>gone. Any other alternative and it's a regular Focus.
To me real chance still implies randomness. Without randomness there is no
chance, only destiny.
We are still on different sides of the meaning of 'can' and 'will'. I am
not going to change mine, and I don't think you are going to change yours.
One of the reasons I am going to continue to be stubborn about this is that
the original question that started off this most recent dispute over the
limitation, Independent, was posed by someone who didn't understand the
limitation half as well as you or me. I am naturally argumentative but I
also spend a half of my work day teaching. Dispensing of correct
information is very important to me. You and some others told this guy that
if you took Independent on a power you would eventually lose it forever. I
disagree. You may lose it forever and that is sufficient reason for him not
to take it in the context that he was asking about. But, Hero is difficult
enough to learn without receiving misinformation about its rules. I truly
understand that you weren't trying to and still don't believe that you have
given misinformation, but please try to understand that I do believe you
have. I feel it necessary to correct that misinformation or to at least
dispute it and let the poor guy who has probably stopped even reading our
high-level bickering over the finer points of a limitation that he shouldn't
even be using in the first place, make his own decision. This has already
gone on too long and probably doesn't serve any real point any longer, but
as long as I think someone might be reading this who would be misled into
thinking that house rules and interpretations of some are the only one and
correct way to play a particular feature of Hero I will be speaking up. I
hope my obstinate behavior will be forgiven by the list at large who are
most likely very tired of this thread.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:35:12 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: HERO System List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>> >It is called Unbreakable. Sorry. Which means that it is unique and
>> >irreplacable.
>>
>> No it doesn't mean that. The description of Focus specifically states
that
>> the GM must allow for a way to get an Unbreakable Focus remade if it is
ever
>> broken. So, not only is an Unbreakable Focus not irreplacable it isn't
even
>> unbreakable.
>
>Could you please give me the benefit of the doubt? I know that, and so
>does everyone else here. Thanks.
I am sorry, but I didn't have any doubt of which to give you the benefit. I
am a very literal-minded person. I like everyone else occasionally screw up
and say or write something different than I mean. I still prefer to take
people at their word and act accordingly, unless I am sure they didn't mean
what they said. If my wife asked me to get her a coke out of the fridge I
would get her a Diet Coke because I know she doesn't drink coke. I don't
know you well enough to make such assumptions. If you asked me to get you a
coke you would get a coke.
>While it doesn't mean that it's COMPLETELY unbreakable, no ordinary
>force will break it. This is why it's Unbreakable, and what I was
>referring to. This also does not detract from from the item being
>unique, which it is in the description of the thing. If you lose it, you
>will not be able to get another one like it. I like the way someone else
>said it: "Your focus returned or your points back".
I am unable to find the reference in the book to it being unique. In my
game we have at least one unbreakable focus that has a duplicate unbreakable
focus. A pair of swords that were made at the same time. With a proper
adventure/quest the knowledge could be retrieved and more swords could be
made. If unbreakable foci must be unique I have a problem.
>> >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.
>>
>> I had a GM once who liked to reduce the powers of characters for his
>> sadistic plots. He hasn't been seen for many years except on cold windy
>> nights, when the moon is full.
>
>So, are you saying that it is inappropriate to take away someone's focus
>for a few games? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. And it does
>not require that the item be Independent, or even Unbreakable: in the
>course of the adventure, logically run, the character might not be able
>to get the spare suit. If clever, and the item wasn't Independent, then
>he might be able to jury rig something in the villains lab and use the
>points to buy something new and temporary. I would prefer this, in fact,
>to not being able (within the rules) to jury-rig up a replacement. The
>point was: this kind of plot-line does not require Independent
>limitation. The difference is that the Independent item can be lost.
I didn't know you were talking about temporarily removing foci and using
powers such as suppress to legitimately hinder characters for the long term.
I was referring to a GM who simply removed powers and abilities that he
didn't like or changed his mind about letting characters have. No warning
given. No out of game discussion at all. I didn't make myself clear.
>> I am firmly in the camp that doesn't go for GM fiat if it can be avoided.
>
>And who said anything about GM fiat? I have never made any comment that
>was intended to be such. I said that powers could be reduced on a
>character: where did I say I wouldn't buy the power or be using a
>limitation against the character? Please, point it out to me so I don't
>ere again.
It was a combination of the way you stated that it could be done because it
didn't say in the book that you couldn't instead of saying it could easily
be done within the rules, and my previous bad experience with a rotten GM
and my argumentative nature. :-)
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:36:05 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: <champs-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>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.
Let's assume, for a moment, that both you and I completely agree with the
above paragraph. The difference of opinion that still exists between us
then is that you then infer that the character will lose the points
permanently. I infer from the above that many things are possible. That
the character with an Independent power may be put in situations where they
will act differently than normal, can lose the points temporarily, can lose
the points permanently.
Of course, I think you are wrong and I am right. I won't ever agree that
'can' and 'will' are the same, in this context. They are two different
words with two different definitions. If I am wrong, it will take someone
with an english degree that I trust to convince me differently. As I have
stated before I can accept that something that can happen, will happen, if
it is probability-based and given infinite time. Games don't last for
infinite time. Even if they did, this limitation isn't the same as an
activation roll. If the GM doesn't contrive a situation that forces the
loss there doesn't have to be one. I understand that you believe that if
the GM doesn't ever force it that the threat is meaningless, that it should
be represented with a Psych Lim. I still disagree. Psych Lims don't
enforce a punishment for disobeying them. I have a Psych Lim against going
anywhere that I believe will contain either Wasps or Bees. I still can and
do go into these places I just grit my teeth and tense up every muscle in my
body and let my blood pressure sore and just do it. There is no inescapable
long-term consequence. The two things are different, like it or not.
Secondly, to my way of thinking a -2 limitation is justified if it makes the
power useless for 2 out of 3 games. 'I only paid a 3rd normal price, I
should only get to use it a 3rd of the time.' An Independent power placed
in a place such as a base or dungeon that is off-camera most of the time
should be enough to justify the limitation without it ever being taken away.
>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.
When I made statements earlier about random chance you said you weren't
talking about random chance. Now you start talking about possibilities
again. I accept that it isn't an explicit part of the limitation. I wish
you would accept that a definite, eventual, permanent loss of the power
isn't either. If you can give me one quote that says the power WILL be
lost, I will accept it. If you can't, I maintain that you are putting your
own assumption's of the only way you could/would do it is the only way. You
aren't ever going to convince me that it is not possible to make Independent
worth a -2 Lim without eventually taking away the power.
>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.
We are getting closer to an agreement in this past paragraph, the part that
still separates us is your feeling that it is impossible to make a -2
limitation worth it unless the power completely goes away at some time.
This just doesn't make sense to me. I can get a -2 Limitation by picking a
combination of other limitations that combined will simply make the power
many times unusable, but would never completely strip me of the power. I
can accept that you can't play Independent so that it is sufficiently
limiting without taking the power away at some point during the game, but
not that I can't. I feel completely up to the task of ensuring that the
Independent limitation be worth a -2 and never permanently take the power
away from the owner.
>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.
As you say, a matter of taste. Believe it or not, I am not advocating the
use of Independent in a bad way, especially not the way the original poster
was asking about. Merely disagreeing with your interpretation of 'the only
way to play it. I find it too limiting. :-) But after discussing it with
you, I am thinking about using it in a couple of write-ups that it seems
perfect for. Not a completely true-to-genre Supers game, and not for major
items.
>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.
Here, here, well said.
>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.
My initial reaction was "NO!, how can you possibly buy off the Independent
limitation?" The points, strictly speaking are not yours any longer. Then
on second thought as long as the character is already at a points deficit
because of creating an Independent power and is merely reabsorbing points,
whether or not they are from the same Independent power that was originally
created. Of course the storyline justification should be good enough to
justify the buying off of a limitation, which is true regardless of what
limitation is being bought off. Thanks for the idea.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 23:56:29 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: HERO System List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>Well, to some extent: I still believe that the
>willingness both to lose it and to take it away still have to be there, or
>it is not worth the limitation. You have to be willing to lose it, or I
>won't let you have it. I have to be willing to take it away, or, again, I
>can't let you have it.
>
>JAJ, GP
That is completely reasonable. I hope that I never inadvertently disputed
that fact. I never meant to imply that the loss of the item shouldn't be a
possibility just that it didn't necessarily have to happen.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 22:42:41 -0800
From: "Capt. Spith" <cptspith@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: The Mountie
thomas deja wrote:
>
> I just want to point out that, since you called him Kevin MacDonald, I
> keep thinking of the Kids in the Hall member, best known for The Buddy
> Holly Sketch ("There are kids out in, I dunno, Liverpool right now being
> influenced by MY music! That's why I'm flying in a plane!") and as Sir
> Simon Milligan.....
That's "MC Simon Milligan", and his manservant Hecubus....
- --
-Reverend Spith
"I used to be a heathen, but then I saw the Light. Now I'm a pagan"
- -Anonymous
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 23:25:43 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: Independent Limitation
>>Since we've been talking about independent powers, let's talk about
>>making that -2 count. Any power that's independent can be used by
>>anyone. So anyone who can control/acquire this power will want to do so
>
>So can any Universal focus whether Independent or not. That's not just a
>feature of Independent Foci.
Universal Foci can be used by others but not for extended periods of time.
The rules will still eventually make the points revert back to the original
owner. If the user of someone else's Universal focus wants to keep using it
he'll have to eventually pay points for it.
>
>>
>>Which brings me around to this whole limitation conversation about
>>whether a disad will occur or may occur. I don't understand the
>>confusion. If your powers don't work in a vacuum, they don't work in a
>>vacuum. If you're just neurotic about being in a vacuum, then it's a
>>psych lim, right? Taking an activation roll doesn't mean you eventually
>>fail your roll, it means you check the activation roll each and every
>>time. I think that being arbitrary about enforcing disads is a huge
>>mistake. It's okay to be rough on your characters but you can't be
>>arbitrary about it.
>
>However, in this case the _only_ real distinguishing trait about
Independent
>Foci over others is that it can be permanantly, irrevocably taken away.
It is not the only distinguishing trait.
> The issue isn't whether it will ever actually happen; the issue is whether
the
>GM will let it happen if it makes sense. If he won't, then he's handing
out
>the limitation for free. If he will, given the nature of the Independent
>Foci at least, it probably will happen sooner or later...and at that point
>the character, if wrapped around the Focus, is pretty much hosed for good.
True but a good GM would explain that to the player ahead of time and make
sure that they understand that it would be a bad thing to take a major power
in a supers game as Independent. It would also be a bad idea to take a
major power in a supers game as a 1 charge power, or a 10x Endurance power.
That doesn't mean that those Limitations are useless. In a FH game, if you
lose your Independent sword go knock somebody over the head and take their
Independent sword from them.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 23:14:33 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
>>To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 12:50 PM
>>Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I have to go along with Guy here. Just because something *can*
happen,
>>>>doesn't mean that it *must* happen.
>>>> My own tendency would be to let the character have the Independent
>>Focus
>>>>for a while, then take it away for a period, and then have an
opportunity
>>>>to get it back. It would be during the absent period that the
Limitation
>>>>of its being Independent would be underscored; a normal Focus could be
>>>
>>>But how is this different from an Indestructible focus, which also can't
be
>>>replaced except by getting the original back? This is the problem, it
>>looks
>>>like some people are proposing giving an extra -2 Limitation for
situations
>>>that would occur with one of the two standard kind of Foci without
>>Independent.
>>
>>Unbreakable Foci, not only can be gotten back, they will be. If not a
>>similar item will be made accessible, as per description of Unbreakable
>>Foci. You can play it different but that is modifying/making a house
rule.
>>
>>Alan
>
>At which point we're right back to the original point: either you're going
>to actually take the focus away, or you aren't. If you aren't really going
>to do it, it's the same as the unbreakable one. If you are, they're
>permanantly out the points. At no point in the Unbreakable Focus rules do
I
>see where it says they aren't going to have to work to get it back. So
>again, how is the Independent Focus different in any way that is meaningful
>to the character, or the player? The vague threat that you're permitted by
>the rules contract to keep it away from them? I suspec this only works
>until they notice it's only being used as a plot device.
You are asking the wrong person. You are prefacing your question with
assumptions that I don't agree with. It isn't up to the GM to take it away
or to not take it away. It is only up to the GM to make sure that the
limitation is worth it. I have presented numerous valid ways to make it
worth the limitation value. If you don't like those ways, I don't think I
can help you. If you have simply missed my earlier posts I still have them
and will gladly re-send them to you off list. Just let me know.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 01:39:23 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
FOR GOD'S SAKE LET THIS THREAD END!!!!
Thank you
"'Remember, Boo-Boo...we only have one weakness."
"What's that, Rat Fink?"
"mmmmm.....Bullets."
--Rat Fink and Boo-Boo, RAT FINK A BOO BOO
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "My Worst Break Up" can now be found at
MAKE UP YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 23:33:18 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Due South
At 12:49 AM 12/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
> With all the characters being posted to the list. Can anyone help with a
> HERO GAMES version of Brenton Fresier?
you mean ... the actor??
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:05:17 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: HERO System List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>> Whatever Gold K is for the Silver Age Supes, it was *not* a
>>Psychological Limitation. If he had to take special steps to avoid its
>>effects, then he was still subject to those effects and is affected by its
>>presence even if he never lost his powers because of exposure to it. It
>>may have been a Susceptibility for Kryptonians, or a free-floating Power
on
>>its own, or something else, but its effects were as real as bullets are
for
>>anyone else.
>
>
>I was saying that if the effect is never going to happen in the game, it is
>not appropriate for it to be worth a Limitation on all the powers Supes
has,
>no matter how crippling it is. Maybe it's a Phys Lim, or a Susc, or
>something else, but it is not worth the points saved by the Limitation. If
>the only effect is to modify his behavior, and the GM never plans to really
>use it, a Psych Lim seemed appropriate, because that's the real effect in
>game terms. Anyway, though...
Superman and Gold Kryptonite wasn't a perfect example for Independent in the
first place. Even though it almost fits Independent, the number of times
that it came up were not nearly enough to justify a -2 Limitation.
>> Well, isn't that basically what we were talking about? The character
>>either loses it and then gets it back after a reasonable period of time
>>(the more vital the item is to the character, the shorter this time needs
>>to be for its absence to be effective), or he goes to such great lengths
to
>>avoid losing it that he ends up being nearly as crippled.
>
>That's exactly what you were talking about. I even used someone else's
>example of locking it up in the safe 90% of the time to punctuate the fact
>that it's what you were talking about. I've moderated my opinion, changed
my
>mind. I think you need to be willing to lose/take away the Independent
power
>permanently, but I no longer think that actually doing it is absolutely
>necessary to get the limitation value. Only the willingness to, and the
>occasional real long term theft, are necessary. But you must be willing to
>be ruthless, and criple the character who put all his points into it, if it
>is logical to be. 4 months is good, though. You've all changed my mind,
been
>saying so since last night. Just not so far that I don't think you need to
>have that real danger there.
I agree that the danger must be there. You shouldn't have to consider
yourself ruthless, though. A player should be aware of the possible
consequences of taking Independent and be willing to live with them, or he
shouldn't take it in the first place.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 23:35:37 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>>At 10:50 AM 12/3/98 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have to go along with Guy here. Just because something *can*
happen,
>>>>doesn't mean that it *must* happen.
>>>> My own tendency would be to let the character have the Independent
Focus
>>>>for a while, then take it away for a period, and then have an
opportunity
>>>>to get it back. It would be during the absent period that the
Limitation
>>>>of its being Independent would be underscored; a normal Focus could be
>>>
>>>But how is this different from an Indestructible focus, which also can't
be
>>>replaced except by getting the original back? This is the problem, it
looks
>>>like some people are proposing giving an extra -2 Limitation for
situations
>>>that would occur with one of the two standard kind of Foci without
>>Independent.
>>
>> If an Unbreakable Focus is stolen or destroyed, it *can* be replaced
>>with an expenditure of the same character points. See BBB, p. 106, fifth
>>paragraph, fourth sentence:
>> "The GM should be careful with an Unbreakable Focus; if he destroys it,
>>the character should have some way (a quest, prehaps?) to get it remade."
>
>So in practice, if you _aren't_ going to actually destroy or hide the focus
>indefinitely, then it's no different at all.
A little different, not a whole lot but a little. The point that I have
been trying to make is that is isn't necessary for a GM to force the
eventual removal of the power, and that it isn't enevitable that it will be
taken away. Only that it is possible.
>
>> This *cannot* be done with an Independent Focus; when it's gone, so are
>>the points it was made from.
>
>See above.
See above.
>
>
>> If an Independent Focus is gone, so are the character points; none of
>>the above options are available, except for the last (trying to get it
>>back).
>
>And the point is, unless the GM is actually willing to take away
>permantantly the focus, none of this means a thing. And if he is willing,
>he cripples the character. This is what I've said from the start of this
>discussion.
He would only cripple a character played by a crippled player (the correct
term by the way is not crippled but 'Heroically Impaired' or if you must
'Heroically Differently Abled'). Assuming that he warns the player ahead of
time that he isn't going to guarantee that the power will always be around.
The player should go into the Limitation with eyes open. If the GM has made
sure that the player really wants this limitation then it is not his fault
if the character is crippled. It is the player's. I agree that the GM must
be willing to take away the Independent power. I don't agree with
statements made earlier by others that it *must* be taken away.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 23:44:59 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>> If an Unbreakable Focus is stolen or destroyed, it *can* be replaced
>>with an expenditure of the same character points. See BBB, p. 106, fifth
>>paragraph, fourth sentence:
>> "The GM should be careful with an Unbreakable Focus; if he destroys it,
>>the character should have some way (a quest, prehaps?) to get it remade."
>> This *cannot* be done with an Independent Focus; when it's gone, so are
>>the points it was made from.
>
>
>However, what is being said here is that IF you are just going to give it
>back anyway, it should not get the Independent limitation. The GM knows
>whether he is willing to take the focus away or not: if he is not, the
>limitation must be disallowed. Note I said "willing": the willingness is
>necessary, not the actual act.
>
>There are other possibilities that have been gone over to also make it
worth
>the -2, but then it is almost a different limitation, really. Still, why
>have a bunch of different limitations when the one will do it?
Those other possibilities are just as much a part of the limitation as
losing the power is.
>
>> If an Independent Focus is gone, so are the character points; none of
>>the above options are available, except for the last (trying to get it
>>back).
>
>
>If the focus is taken, adventures to get it back are common enough. I have
>not seen anyone sit down and just decide immediately, "I don't like that
>hammer I got off of that broken rainbow. I think I'll just move on". The
>idea here is that while the Independent would indeed force the character to
>try if he wanted it back, it is not necessary: Focus is sufficient, and in
>fact appropriate in certain circumstances. No one is arguing that a regular
>focus won't give the refund of points if lost, merely that if what you want
>is an adventure that it is taken and returned, it is not necessary and may
>even be innappropriate.
This isn't about what the GM wants it is about what the player wants. I
have a battlesuit character. That character used to have his battlesuit
bought as a focus. If it ever got taken away, I would have had him try to
get home get a replacement and then go after the original, just cuz it was
miiine. If it had been built Independent I would have had to go after it
butt nekkid, well not really. I have another character who has a bow as a
focus. If someone took that bow he would go buy/make another one, forget
going after the original one. If that bow was Independent, a hunting for
bow I would go. There is a difference. It may be more subtle than other
differences but it is still a difference. Your argument focuses on your
opinion that the difference is too small to be important. I disagree. I
see possibilities in Independent that are more interesting than Universal
focus that I can't replace and that the GM is going to contrive to take away
from me.
Alan
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #72
****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 01:50 PM