1KM1KT Free RPG Community

Hello. This is my first post here.

I'm working on my own custom system, and I'm wondering what others thing of this:

Suppose you have an ability that requires an item to activate, and you get whatever price break is appropriate for being able to lose that item, and thus the power, and for the ease of recovering or replacing the item should it be lost. I've got all that figured out just fine, as well as items that, when lost, only weaken a power, multiple item requirements for a single power, and extra price break if more than one power requires the same item, since you lose all of them should that single item be lost.

However, what I'm unsure of is, how much of a benefit or drawback is it if the item bestows the power on others? In that case, you could pass it to a friend to let them use your power, but on the other hand, if an enemy stole it, they could use it against you. Would this be based on how easy it is to steal? A harder to steal item is less likely to fall into enemy hands, but is also harder to take back if they manage to get ahold of it and use it. How much would an attunement time of some sort modify this?

I'm going to include a separate modifier for powers that can be lent to friends, so this is only if the power can be used by friends, enemies, and anyone in between.

Thanks for any help on this.

HERO System, and pretty much all other point-buy supers games, addresses this issue. It's mostly genre convention that keeps suped-up gadgets in the hands of their creators. Or power rings on the finger of The Chosen One (or at least the spud who was close enough).

Another twist is super gadgeteers building items specifically for someone else. That is, the receiving character has a cheaper rate because not only can the item be stolen, he or she cannot repair or replace it on their own. The quintessential example here is War Machine. James Rhodes was a better power armour pilot than Tony Stark, but had little expertise in repairing the suit. If lost or stolen, Mr Rhodes loses all of his superpowers permanently. That is, unless he can convince Stark to build him a new one.

Power-source gadgets that are more mystical in nature--or are 'sufficiently advanced' ultratech--also fall into this category. The power rings of the Green Lantern Corp are only usable by their chosen bearer; a new GL is not picked until the old one dies. At least this is true in most of the stories. There are numerous exceptions. Should the ring fall down into a sewer grate, Green Lantern becomes plain old Kyle Rayner again, completely unable to create a new ring. Then there is the original Green Lantern. The ring is just an affectation; the power still resides within the body and will of Alan Scott. He is completely unable to loan the ring, and taking it off does nothing to diminish his power (again, at some points in his story).

All of these options could have mechanical modifiers to power cost. Limited ammunition, duration/endurance, number of uses per day, bulkiness vs. concealability, clunkiness of operation, are some other possible limiting factors off the top of my head.

Welcome to 1km1kt.

I don't want to start out negative, but you really shouldn't have item based super-powers.

First of all, what is the genre about? Being larger than life and having amazing abilities. If the GM takes advantage of this flaw more than once, they are being unfair to the player and nullifying one of the game's big attractions. Think of time in video games where you've been amassing great equipment, and powerful NPCs, just to be sent on a solo stealth mission or odd race where they are useless - its frustrating. On the other hand, not taking away powers at all means the flaw is just free points.

Secondly, each person wants a chance in the spot-light, and to be unique. Allowing someone else to use your powers/equipment takes away from that, and carries some possibility of rules abuse. Even in shows and comics where everyone is in the military and has the same robot/cyborg-body/etc. there is still a level of customization and personalization to fit their style and concept.

If transferable powers are included, then they would probably operate at less than maximum effect for anyone other than the main user. Perhaps because the new bearer lacks the years of mental training to control the medallion's chaos spirit or vehicle cockpit is set up in an odd arrangement and is slightly too small for the new user to be comfortable.

As for costs - well it would seem that the danger of losing it to the enemy is kind of off set by the advantage of giving it to a friend, leading to a zero sum price change.

True, there are some problems with equipment-based powers, but I'm building a system that can accomidate any style of power use you want. Essentially, a system in which you can build a system for your character, whether that be a mana-cost system, simply having abilities that work any time, spells per day, stance changes, or anything else. The GM is not obligated to allow any possible style of ability use, but it's there if it's wanted, and GM willing, if a player wants to base a character's abilities on the character's equipment, that should be allowed. Of course, they could always just explain a power comes from an item, but have it statistically work like any power, in which case the powers couldn't be passed around or stolen any more than a super power or ninja skill could, and it's no problem.

It's also not a supers systems. I use "power" to mean anything; a spell, a psionic ability, a powerful piece of equipment, etc. The system is more of a GURPS style. Made for any setting.

I think ultimately, I want to have item-based powers because I've been very dissatisfied with system like GURPS handling equipment as an entirely different system than personal abilities. This works in a system like D&D, where equipment is sort of standardized and built into the level progression, but in a generic system, it bothers me when a gun that shoots burst of flame works on an entirely different system than a spell that does exactly the same thing. With item powers, at least the rich Batman/Iron Man type character is built using the same rules as the super hero, spellcaster, skilled warrior, or psychic.

I think I've come up with a solution to my problem though. I think you're right that it's just about as good to be able to share as it is bad for an enemy to take a power, so that's not an issue. However, if the item is easy to give to a friend, but difficult to steal, like say a ring, or takes longer to warm up to a new owner that's an enemy, then the price break for the power needing the item is a little lower.

Your project sounds very ambitious, Goober. Even if conceptually simple and elegant, it is a great deal of writing for each of the multiple cases. I believe your methodology matches that of Gurps 4e. Third edition did in fact treat equipment differently. I know that HERO treats superpowers, spells, and equipment identically. You build up the effect with points. Whether the end result is supernatural, technological, or mutant powered, is just window dressing.

The advantage of this system becomes really obvious when dealing with cybernetics. Is that super-strong mechanical arm something you just buy with money, or does it adjust the point-value of your character. The disadvantage to this system is noted in abilities (whatever their origin) that could conceivably have multiple effects. These effects become cost-prohibitive if you purchase them fairly, and cheating if you do not. For example, consider the character of Firestar from Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends (not until years later brought into the Marvel universe proper). Her powers include flight and energy blasts. The reason given (the window dressing, above) is a mutant gene that generates and controls microwaves. In most point-power systems, that's all you need to buy. But wait! That power also lets her create heat, scramble radio signals, and distract someone (or get their attention) by sparking off of metal objects. Plus, she can cook dinner without using any appliances. These supplemental abilities quickly spike the price of what is ostensibly her sole superpower. They are all logical extensions of this one ability.

I must respectfully disagree with Chainsaw Aardvark that device-based powers aren't as cool as inborn ones. Looking back at the Masked Mystery Men genre of the mid-twentieth century. These sort of characters are all over the place. Some of them consist of a single device for their character hook. Others are naught but a themed costume. Consider the founding members of the JSA. Only two characters had inborn powers: Flash and Spectre. Considering that the Spectre's powers come from his ghost time-sharing with the spirit of God's wrath, 'inborn' may not apply. However, as this ability is not at all easily stripped from him, it can be considered such for our purposes. Hour-Man's powers come from a pill. Three members derive their powers from one to three magic items each: Doctor Fate, Green Lantern, and Hawkman (with the latter's being 'sufficiently advanced' technology). Sandman had no superpowers, per se. He had a sleep gas/grappling hook gun and accompanying gasmask. The Atom... well, he only had the hook that he was short. Later versions (the current retcon) have added Mr. Terrific, Dr Midnight, and Wildcat into the mix, each without even device-based powers.

A game using these Golden Age comics for inspiration--with heavy doses of the movie Mystery Men--could make for an interesting game.

I think the best way to resolve this is with a game that rewards character disadvantage. The best example of this is Fate - if your aspect is tagged (an enemy gets a benefit from it) or compelled (your choices are limited by it) you get a Fate point.

An example? Faulty Jetpack. You're involved in an aerial battle, and your nemesis tries to outmaneuver you - tagging your Faulty Jetpack. He successfully gets behind you and strikes a knock-out blow. You tumble to earth, and the GM compels your Faulty Jetpack - limiting your options of where to land to a narrow, slippery ledge instead of that wide plateau you were hoping for.

No one needs to decide beforehand what the problems with your jetpack are. No one has to decide whether a faulty jetpack is worth half or one third or three quarters as much as a working jetpack. You don't have to hope and pray your GM forgets about its faultiness.

Maybe if you approach it a different way. A piece of equipment does something. There are two broad kinds of equipment in "super" settings: equipment anyone can use (which includes ordinary items and possibly superscience) and equipment only usable by the gifted or special (the Lens, magic wands usable only by wizards, psionically-activated devices.) What the player purchases in chargen is the ability to use an item that produces certain effects. The drawback is "can't use powers without equipment", but aside from that, "equipment" doesn't have to be specific. Thus, if lost, it can be replaced, and if broken, it can be repaired. How easily these things can be done is not relevant to the character point cost.

Equipment that is usable by others is either "usable by anyone, regardless of the character's opinion on the matter" or "usable only with the character's permission". The former means the equipment isn't a power, it's just equipment; set up a character-point-equivalent to price/rarity conversion and you're done. The latter is a power, not a drawback == "bestow temporary power on others".