Is Regeneration a Disadvantage?

[AlexanderHowl]

I have to agree.

[brianfb]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I don't play in games where GMs play sleazy tricks.

This. I would go play d&d before I would tolerate this. I quit a GURPS group after the rest of the group found spending two hours debating the thickness of rope needed to lift some stuff worthwhile. Sometime Ppl forget that games should be fun.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

I know, the question, "Is Regeneration a Disadvantage" probably sounds silly. Of course it's an Advantage!

But...depending on the GM's interpretation, not being able to switch off Regeneration could be a serious problem.

I have a super-level PC who Jumps from campaign to campaign, GM to GM, not all of whom treat abilities the same. The PC has very fast Regeneration with Switchable. I paid for the enhancement due to a question that came up.

Imagine a character has very fast Regeneration, healing at 1 HP/second. If that characters gets, for example, a broken leg, they would almost certainly be fully healed before the leg could be set in place. In real life, people who heal without having broken limbs properly set can be crippled. So could the regenerating character be permanently crippled because of Regeneration?

What do you think?

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I don't play in games where GMs play sleazy tricks.

I would personally call this GM-rhymes-with-muckery.


There is no reason to even think that having regeneration shouldn't mend broken bones and reset them automatically. Otherwise pricing becomes weird. I would call "Heals without regard to set bones" a Nuisance effect worth at *least* -20%.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

any GM who sprang such a houserule on a player who paid 100 points for an advantage would, in my view, be demonstrating very bad form.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I don't play in games where GMs play sleazy tricks.

Hear! Hear! I'd rather leave the campaign than pay extra points for Switchable. A GM who is going to screw you over with that perverse ruling cannot be trusted not to screw you over with another one on another advantage. I'd rather watch videos on YouTube than pay 20% of my character points as an insurance bribe to a GM who runs such an extortion racket.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

For me, the problem is more the bait-and-switch. It's ok if everyone agrees up-front to use that level of "grimdark"; but the GM does not get to suddenly spring on you, that your power, that you paid points for, also counts as a disadvantage.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I don't play in games where GMs play sleazy tricks.

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

I would personally call this GM-rhymes-with-muckery.

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

For me, the problem is more the bait-and-switch. It's ok if everyone agrees up-front to use that level of "grimdark"; but the GM does not get to suddenly spring on you, that your power, that you paid points for, also counts as a disadvantage.

I agree with these, with the caveat that, if the injury is not healing correctly because of an in-game reason, like a special attack or other muckery (I like that, I think that'll be the code word for that). If it's part of the story/game why, yes.

GM-Muckery, when done to challenge the characters, can be fun and exciting. When done because they're just poor GMs . . . that's a different story.

I'm an acolyte of John Wick, so, I like a little GM-Muckery. I expect, and invite, it. Have fun, challenge my character.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I agree with these, with the caveat that, if the injury is not healing correctly because of an in-game reason, like a special attack or other muckery (I like that, I think that'll be the code word for that). If it's part of the story/game why, yes.

I don't think it's wrong (depending on genre played in) to have injuries that don't heal properly. However, having regeneration should not be worse than not having it.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I agree with these, with the caveat that, if the injury is not healing correctly because of an in-game reason, like a special attack or other muckery (I like that, I think that'll be the code word for that). If it's part of the story/game why, yes.

GM-Muckery, when done to challenge the characters, can be fun and exciting. When done because they're just poor GMs . . . that's a different story.

I'm an acolyte of John Wick, so, I like a little GM-Muckery. I expect, and invite, it. Have fun, challenge my character.

Originally Posted by Anthony

I don't think it's wrong (depending on genre played in) to have injuries that don't heal properly. However, having regeneration should not be worse than not having it.

In game reasons to temporarily beset a protagonist with problems is all well and good, but from how I read the OPs post it was just a GM being a jerk and interpreting how an advantage works in a weird way.

[Rupert]

The way I see it, Regeneration doesn't affect broken bones at all - they are a 'lasting' crippling effect, and Regeneration doesn't affect those (unless there's Regrowth in there as well). That means that Regeneration wouldn't cause breaks to heal too fast to be set, and if Regrowth is involved, well that brings dismemberments, etc., back to full function so it wouldn't result in a badly healed break either.

If I was presented with this ruling mid-game I'd be pretty annoyed. It doesn't match what you'd expect from the advantage, and it doesn't match the RAW either, and the faster levels of Regeneration are a reasonably expensive purchase and so one shouldn't have to pay extra just to have them not mess you up.

[AlexanderHowl]

Regeneration includes Rapid Healing though, which gives a +5 to HT for determining crippling duration. Assuming that a hero with Regeneration (Very Fast) has a minimum of HT 12 and Luck (it they do not, they should reevaluate their character design), they would be very unlikely to have a lasting crippling injury (much less a permanent one).