Meaningless Limitations - Excluding Things not Available in Game World

[Nedorus]

While designing stuff for my upcoming Iron Kingdoms campaign I was looking into Single-Skill limitations for Imbuements (see my other thread).

While reading up on stuff, I was wondering whether I should apply / allow a limitation that limits the character to things that are really the only option in the game world anyway.

Limitations often narrow applicable use down by categories but the larger category may be the same as the narrowed down version in a particular game world (like "all life" vs. "all carbon based life").
How do you handle this?

In the particular example that sparked the question I had this:
GunFu's Gunslinger advantage lists:
Gun Rack -40% limitation as All one-handed ranged weapons used with either Beam Weapons, Guns, or Liquid Projector e.g. 'Guns (Pistol) Only'
Type -60% limitation as A subset of everything used with one specialty of the three skills above e.g. 'Revolvers Only' or 'Blaster Pistols Only'.

In the Iron Kingdoms (my version anyway) there is only one type of handgun (muzzle or breech loaded flint locks). This makes the two limitations above virtually the same.

Should I still apply/allow the -60% version?
Why / why not?

[Taneli]

If you think that abilities are priced for their utility, you should use include the limitations as the limitation makes the ability of lesser utility in your world, and if you did not price it accordingly, the players might choose other abilities in lieu of what they might see as an overpriced ability in that world.

For instance, if the Rules of the World make it impossible for anyone to Warp over 10 yards in a single use of the Warp, and you don't include the limitation (-50%) in all builds of the Warp advantage available in your world and instead pricing it at 100 points, your players might view something like Enhanced Move (20 points per level) (if available) as better value, because for a 20 point investment into that, they would get the same movement as with your world-limited Warp, or for 100 points they could move up to 32 times their Basic Speed. Or they could get up to +5 to their Basic Speed for purchasing more Basic Speed (if available).


If you think that the abilities are not priced on their utility but instead just an accounting tool of limiting choices, your players might still think as above and not choose the Warp, unless they *really* *really* want the ability to Warp, in which case you might be shafting the players who want to Warp, but don't *really* *really* want to Warp.

I dunno, I usually do apply the listed limitations if the Rules of the World set them, but do remember to note that they can't be removed. I however do not add an extra limitation for the inability to remove the other limitations.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Nedorus

Limitations often narrow applicable use down by categories but the larger category may be the same as the narrowed down version in a particular game world (like "all life" vs. "all carbon based life").
How do you handle this?

A good guideline for that are the percentages given for the Accessibility limitation {Powers p.99, or Limitations p.04}, if the situations in which the two apply overlap 94% of the time or more, that's worth -0%, so if less than 6% of your encounters can be expected to be with non-carbon based life, you don't get a discount for taking that rather than all life.

In the Iron Kingdoms (my version anyway) there is only one type of handgun (muzzle or breech loaded flint locks). This makes the two limitations above virtually the same.

Should I still apply/allow the -60% version?
Why / why not?

In general I'd say yes, go ahead and take the more limited form, just remember that if anybody invents a flamethrower or gun shaped wand, you won't get to use it with the trait. In this particular case though, that -60% discount is honestly way too large. Both of them are. For example Weapon Master allows you a bit over -50% for one weapon, and Heroic archer is only getting a -20% break for having essentially both one skill and two handed only (because there are no one handed bows).

[Varyon]

Personally, my inclination is to price things as though the wildtype Advantage were available, even if it isn't. If the only DR available for purchase as an Advantage has the Tough Skin Limitation, then characters buy DR (Tough Skin -40%) [3]/level, not DR (Tough Skin +0%) [5]/level - although I believe After the End goes with the latter.

An exception would be Accessibility-type Limitations, rather than ones that truly reduce the Advantage's innate utility. Only Affects Women is normally a -20% Limitation, but if the campaign is set in a world where there are only women (or men are so vanishingly rare that might as well be the case), that's not a valid Limitation.

Limited weapon selection is a bit of a mixture of the two, however. Gunslinger assumes that you'll have access to a variety of weapons, so you can modify your loadout as the situation demands. But in a setting where there are very few weapons to choose from, that's not really an option. In your example, it's particularly problematic in that the character is essentially limited to single-shot pistols - game-mechanically, the difference between revolvers and semi-automatics is small enough that if only one were available (probably revolvers, as they came first), I probably wouldn't give any further Limitation beyond "handguns only"... but with non-repeating pistols, where you'll typically only be able to shoot it once in a fight (breechloaders are faster to reload, but I think GURPS combats tend to be over fast enough you'll be unlikely to have a chance to fire again), Gunslinger really is of more limited utility. So I'd probably be inclined to price it at -60% - or maybe split the difference and make it -50%.

[GnomesofZurich]

In Pyramid #3/36, the Musketeer occupation uses the full value of Gunslinger [25] based on the limited selection of firearms to which it can be applied. If there is potential in your game for someone to instead take Heroic Archer [20], they might look askance at the musket wielding character paying [10] or [15] for an equivalent advantage.

[RyanW]

Ask yourself this:

Are there situations in this campaign that I could run into where I might expect the ability to be useful but it won't be?

"Doesn't work on elves" is a limitation in a world with elves, but not one without elves.

"Benefits don't apply to disintegration beams" is only a limitation in a setting with disintegration beams.

"Doesn't work during a waning moon" is a limitation in any setting that features moon phases, even if every example of the ability has the same limitation.

Edit: After rereading the first post more carefully, I'll add that (for my games) I would use the limitation that accurately describes the limit and is still a meaningful limitation beyond the lesser ones. So in a setting that has only one type of handgun, "Only single-shot flintlock handguns" is not a limitation above "Only handguns." Use "Only handguns."

[Nedorus]

Thanks everyone for the input. I still need to answer my question / take my decision by myself (who would have thought) but all of your input helps lots! Thanks!

I guess I'll add in the more limiting "one skill" with the higher discount just in case someone comes up with some other weapon type in the future (like a magical beam weapon?)

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Nedorus

While designing stuff for my upcoming Iron Kingdoms campaign I was looking into Single-Skill limitations for Imbuements (see my other thread).

While reading up on stuff, I was wondering whether I should apply / allow a limitation that limits the character to things that are really the only option in the game world anyway.

Limitations often narrow applicable use down by categories but the larger category may be the same as the narrowed down version in a particular game world (like "all life" vs. "all carbon based life").
How do you handle this?

In the particular example that sparked the question I had this:
GunFu's Gunslinger advantage lists:
Gun Rack -40% limitation as All one-handed ranged weapons used with either Beam Weapons, Guns, or Liquid Projector e.g. 'Guns (Pistol) Only'
Type -60% limitation as A subset of everything used with one specialty of the three skills above e.g. 'Revolvers Only' or 'Blaster Pistols Only'.

In the Iron Kingdoms (my version anyway) there is only one type of handgun (muzzle or breech loaded flint locks). This makes the two limitations above virtually the same.

Should I still apply/allow the -60% version?
Why / why not?

If there are no subsets then you can't pick a subset. But there are always, always subsets of any set even if the subsets are as trivial as "guns made by a certain gunsmith and her students" even if that makes no game mechanical difference.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by GnomesofZurich

If there is potential in your game for someone to instead take Heroic Archer [20], they might look askance at the musket wielding character paying [10] or [15] for an equivalent advantage.

On the other hand, the Acc of a handgonne is going to be 1, and the rate of fire is like 2 per minute, so essentially you are getting a single +1 to hit once during a fight, halving the penalties for a bunch of things you can't do, and ignoring the bulk penalty if you hold your one shot until you are in close combat. They're such lousy weapons to begin with that the improvements you get out of Gunslinger aren't really worth very much.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by malloyd

On the other hand, the Acc of a handgonne is going to be 1, and the rate of fire is like 2 per minute ... the improvements you get out of Gunslinger aren't really worth very much.

Unless you have a brace of them, and thus have between 6+ shots in a fight. In which case Gunslinger starts to look semi-attractive.

Of course that's pretty expensive $ wise. Even a crossbow is a better option.

Unless the GM is allowing Lightning Fingers and Quick Reloadx3 perks, in which case you could maybe (if the GM agrees*) squeeze that Flintlock Musket down to a 3 round reload.


* The idea that cocking the Flintlock requires a Ready action and is part of the 15 rounds of reload time, so Lightning Fingers would make that a Free Action... so Quick Reload x 3 reduces it to 4 rounds and Lightning Fingers shaves off another round.