Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2016, 03:04 PM   #21
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
I don't think fiction has any examples of a person who has no Magic Resistance or similar ability being willing to accept a spell/effect and failing to do so just because the effect isn't... what... strong enough? What is this even modeling?
Supernatural abilities in fiction usually just work; games traditionally have had "saves" instead. I don't really know if there's a reason for this other than "dead-with-no-save" sucks, and gamers like rolling for stuff. In this case it replaces the resistance roll with an an acceptance roll, probably for entirely mechanical reasons.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2016, 03:12 PM   #22
Hellboy
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

if you have skill 16 with the attack you could go with my No Nuisance Rolls (Cosmic +300%) proposal. :D

NNR normally says no combat but who's to say it's actually combat if the person you're Afflicting doesn't know they're being attacked?

It shouldn't apply if you take 'no signature' on it.
Hellboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2016, 10:13 PM   #23
mikeejimbo
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellboy View Post
Disadvantages are cheaper to afflict than Advantages so I'm not understanding the purpose of all this.

The issue here is whether or not your target tries to resist or accept your affliction. If they don't want the disadvantage-causing limitation on your advantage then they can choose to resist the advantage.

This is explained in the optional "Beneficial Afflictions" section of Powers page 40.

If you have Malediction, Afflictions can be voluntarily accepted automatically. Otherwise, consent means that (with "unquestionably positive that no one would ever object" stuff) you get the Affliction by making a HT save instead of failing it, and duration is based on how much you won by not how much you lost by.

The downside to this, of course, is while you're pretty much guaranteed to get nice juicy durations for Afflicting your already-beefy HT 20 buddies with even more advantages (afflict 'cumulative' extra HT ad infinitum for ever-increasing durations!) it actually makes it a lot harder to help out your HT 5 dependents who probably need the beneficial Afflictions much more.

Which is largely why this system is sort of broken and why it should be rewired somehow. Which is very possible since this is merely an 'optional' rule.

The HT roll should represent instinctive resistance the body has to outside forces. Being willing shouldn't somehow flip that around so suddenly healthy bodies are accepting outside forces.

Instead, the way it ought to work, if willingness matters, is something like "if the target consents to the Affliction, apply his Will as a penalty to his HT roll".

This way, low HT guys who need help aren't screwed, high HT guys still have problems, but being willing still helps out in receiving it.
This is why I usually just throw Malediction on anything I intend to be a Benediction, which is kinda ironic linguistically. If I wanted something that didn't act like a Malediction but could have an optional resistance roll, I'd probably beg the GM to allow it for +50%.
mikeejimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2016, 11:22 PM   #24
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Supernatural abilities in fiction usually just work; games traditionally have had "saves" instead. I don't really know if there's a reason for this other than "dead-with-no-save" sucks, and gamers like rolling for stuff. In this case it replaces the resistance roll with an an acceptance roll, probably for entirely mechanical reasons.
Spells failing to affect resisting targets has little basis in fiction; some, but fairly little. Spells failing to affect willing targets has nearly no basis in fiction. The distinction is that the first is necessary for game balance, and the second, as far as I can tell, isn't necessary at all.
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2016, 11:48 PM   #25
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
Spells failing to affect resisting targets has little basis in fiction; some, but fairly little. Spells failing to affect willing targets has nearly no basis in fiction. The distinction is that the first is necessary for game balance, and the second, as far as I can tell, isn't necessary at all.
It is necessary because stuff in roleplaying games usually has some chance of failure.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2016, 08:39 AM   #26
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
It is necessary because stuff in roleplaying games usually has some chance of failure.
The problem is usually "Wizard messed up the spell" not "Wizard cast the spell just fine but the victim threw it off".
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Grand Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2016, 10:25 AM   #27
McAllister
 
McAllister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
The problem is usually "Wizard messed up the spell" not "Wizard cast the spell just fine but the victim threw it off".
Or, more particularly in this case, "wizard cast the spell just fine but the target, who was cooperating in its casting, was too healthy/unhealthy for it to take hold." Throwing it off through heroic act of will? Fine. But throwing it off through unfortunate passive Will, I don't understand.

And yeah, we roll for a lot of things, but we don't roll to drive from point A to point B unless there are some dramatic circumstances. I don't reckon casting beneficial spells to be so dramatic by default.
McAllister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2016, 10:34 AM   #28
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister View Post
Spells failing to affect willing targets has nearly no basis in fiction... the second, as far as I can tell, isn't necessary at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
It is necessary because stuff in roleplaying games usually has some chance of failure.
While the original case is a matter of dramatic convention, and not a game mechanic. A willing target when you're buffing or otherwise prepping having a failure and needing a recast isn't dramatically interesting, so the fiction authors skip it. And so does GURPS and most most RPG system. You don't roll for every action, every time. Just the ones where the negative consequences could affect the outcome. You don't need a mechanic to distinguish the two cases. You just need a GM that understands when it's not worth rolling.
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2016, 04:08 PM   #29
Nereidalbel
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Supernatural abilities in fiction usually just work; games traditionally have had "saves" instead. I don't really know if there's a reason for this other than "dead-with-no-save" sucks, and gamers like rolling for stuff. In this case it replaces the resistance roll with an an acceptance roll, probably for entirely mechanical reasons.
Those few seconds of somebody struggling before they start to change are the victim getting lucky on the first QC or two. Do you really think turning somebody into a frog needs 3 seconds of weirdness attached to them before anything happens?
Nereidalbel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2016, 11:31 PM   #30
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: inflicting advantages with negative limitations

Some thoughts;

I always thought you control advantages you give (as an attack); You would determine whether or not the victim is Insubstantial at a given time (probably with a ready or concentrate maneuver). 'Always On' would limit your options, not the victims. Afflicting Insubstantial instead beneficially so they just have it as though they bought it for a few minutes is different, and Always On now limits them

I (as a GM) would probably never allow certain limitations on advantages afflicted as attacks; Costs FP should just be a linked FP attack, Takes Extra Time should be Stunning, etc. DR with Decreased Time Rate I might allow, because it's bad as both an attack and handing it to your allies. But if it seems to just be a way to snag free points, then definitely not

Anytime I want to have a straight up beneficial affliction, I used to use Malediction, but then I came up with a better enhancement (no name yet). I take Malediction, slap -50% on it for 'only to let them ignore the roll' (total +50%) and then a nuisance effect 'Only if they choose not to resist' -5% (in this case the limitation should never screw you). This is great with area attacks and extended duration (only if close enough to user). Mind, it does make "affects others" into a basically 14.5pt enhancement, but...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
affliction, balance, limitation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.