GM Resources

 

This content is still under development.

Thematic Powers

 

This content is still under development.

Managing Reputation

 

This content is still under development.

Playing Limitations

Broadly, Limitations can be categorized into those that are directly related to power mechanics, those that are external or systemic, and those that related to the character's identity. The way in which a GM approaches and incorporates an actor's limitations into a campaign can vary based on these categories.

1. Power-Related

Power-related limitations are in many ways the easiest to incorporate into a campaign as their rules and effects tie directly into game mechanics. One of the two components for each of these limitations will always reflect a concrete penalty (in dice) to the actor's ability to resolve tests of their powers. The second will typically reflect the conditions under which the penalty is applied.

The most important task for GMs when players want to use power-related limitations is to ensure that the definintions of the components are specific, explicit, and clear. Don't allow players to hand-wave the rules under which their powers are affected. Make sure these are nailed down before hand.

Power-related limitations may be specified to apply to only a subset of an actor's capabilities, but GMs are encouraged to limit the potential complexity here. A player attempting to micro-manage multiple limitations against individual powers can very rapidly become mired in a nightmare of interlocking game mechanics that can bog down the whole game for everyone.

Consumable Power

The critical factor for this limitation is defining the nature of the "recharge" functionality of the actor's power. What must the actor do to recharge? How long does it take? Are there specific conditions required? Does recharge occur all at once, or is it incremental?

The two components of this limitation have been chosen for their ability to model various mechanisms of power-loss and recharge. A limitation with an Interval of 5 and a Interval Penalty of 1 represents a power which diminishes with each use, eventually resulting in the loss of the capability. A high Interval and high Interval Penalty combine to represent a power which may be marshalled for one big use before needing recharging. A low Interval and high Interval Penalty combine to represent a power which may suffer dramatic fall-off in power if not managed responsibly.

Extrinsic Power

When choosing the extrinsic power limitation, the player must clearly and specifically describe the character's power source, and under what conditions it is vulnerable to removal/failure. GMs should ensure that the Vulnerability component is appropriate to the real vulnerability. Attempts at forcibly removing or disabling the extrinsic power source may be tested against a difficulty set by 6 - Vulnerability.

Physical Vulnerability

Like the other power-related limitations, players must clearly and specifically describe the material nature of the vulnerability, and GMs should ensure that the Ubiquity component is appropriate to the real likelihood of a the source of the vulnerability being present in a particular context.

GMs may choose to plan encounters with the material, and/or leave the opportunities to chance. The limitation's Ubiquity component can be used by GMs as a measure of likelihood to determine occurrance of the material. For any given encounter, the following test can be used by the GM to decide if the material is present:

Ubiquity + 1 → 2S

When the material is present, the Impact component is subtracted from all tests of affected capabilities.

Uncontrolled Ability

The real manifestation of this limitation may vary depending on how the lack of control affects the actor. Do they lack mastery in invoking their power when they want to? Does it fail them at inopportune times? Might they lose control and harm innocent bystanders if they're not careful?

As with the other power-related limitations, GMs should ensure that the specific nature of the loss of control is clearly and specifically stated, and that the components are commensurate with what the player has in mind.

Instead of applying the Difficulty component penalty universally, GMs are encouraged to apply it randomly or in moments of high dramatic tension. To randomly determine when to apply the difficulty penalty,

There are three general categories which this limitation covers. Each affects the player's actions in different ways:

Unreliable Invocation

The actor isn't always able to reliably initiate the use of their powers.

Each time the actor uses the affected power, the GM may contest the roll with a number of dice equal to the Difficulty component before any other actor contests the roll or any consequences are applied. As with a normal contest, any successes are deducted from the actor's test successes.

Unstable Maintenance

The actor isn't always able to reliably maintain the use of their powers.

Each time the actor attempts a Maintain action related to the affected power, the GM may contest the maintenance roll with a number of dice equal to the Difficulty component before any other actor contests the roll or any consequences are applied. As with a normal contest, any successes are deducted from the actor's test successes.

Uncontrolled Activation

The GM may at any time make the following test.

Difficulty → 2S

On success, the actor's affected power activates. If the affected power includes a direct or indirect attack, the attack is resolved by the player. Any successes from the GM's test that are 6s are chained to the player's test. The GM (or player, if the GM chooses) determines the target of the attack, or if the power is not attack-related, the outcome.

2. External & Systemic

These limitations can generally be as concrete to incorporate into a campaign as power-related limitations. The key difference is that external and systemic limitations will affect the fabric of a campaign in ways that transcend individual powered interactions. As the GM, it will be necessary to make space in your campaign world for the implications of limitations in this category.

Nemesis

This limitation is highly concrete and straightforward. The GM's challenge for the Nemesis limitation is in developing and playing the nemesis non-player character (NPC). GMs should allow player input to shape the nemesis, but ultimately decisions on character and motivations are in the GM's hands.

GMs may choose to plan encounters with the nemesis, and/or leave the opportunities to chance. The limitation's Frequency component can be used by GMs as a measure of likelihood to determine nemesis appearances. For any given encounter, the following test can be used by the GM to decide if the nemesis should appear:

Frequency + 2 → 3S

When more than one actor within the heroes' party have the Nemesis limitation, GMs may also wish to consider the prospect of these nemeses teaming up against the players' characters, or maintaining a single nemesis NPC for multiple characters.

Target of Bigotry

 

Before playing this limitation with fidelity, GMs should check in with themself and all players to ensure that roleplaying bigotry and prejudice by NPCs and characters' responses fits in with everyone's ideas of what makes for a fun game.

The critical factor for this limitation is defining the nature of the bigotry directed at the super-powered actor. GMs should work with players to refine their ideas of how this affects their characters, but because this limitation has such an effect on the overall fabric of the campaign setting and the behavior of NPCs, the GM should make final decisions about these aspects. For the sake of expediency and simplicity, GMs are encouraged to unify instances of this limitation across characters.

The limitation's Normativity component represents how likely NPCs are to openly act out their prejudice in front of other NPCs. When considering any social response to an actor with this limitation, the normativity and Intensity of bigotry should both be added to the factors against the actor.

3. Identity

Limitations related to identity can be the most complicated to integrate into a campaign in a natural and organic way, but they can also be the most rewarding to players and GMs. These limitations will be most relevant to players and campaigns that focus on nuanced roleplaying. Players whose goals orient more around action and combat may be ill-suited to exploring the challenges of identity-based limitaitons. GMs are encouraged to avoid the prohibition of any particular limitations, but rather encourage players to build characters they will enjoy playing.

Especially with identity-related limitations, an actor's Reputation can be a complicating factor and mechanism of consequence in playing the limitations.

With identity limitations, GMs are especially encouraged to refer to the plethora of source materials available in the genre of super-powered heroes to find ways to incorporate these limitations into their adventures in fun and surprising ways. There are endless variations for plots and sub-plots that revolve around the hero's dual life, the potential for threats to their friends and family, and how their relationship with their own heroic identity affects their sense of honor or duty.

Code

GMs can think of the Constraint component as a representative measure of the likelihood of an actor being placed in a position to break their code, and the Compulsion component as a measure of how difficult it is for them to deviate from it.

If a player has trouble (or avoids) roleplaying this limitation with fidelity, GMs may encourage the player to utilize the limitation's components as a decision-making mechanic. When faced with a choice between an action that aligns with their code and one that does not, the actor may make the following contest, with each side representing one of the choices, and the winning side determining the chosen action.

In Alignment with Code Code Compulsion + SOC

  vs

Against Code Code Constraint

When the player of an actor with a Code limitation acts contrary to their code, this is not necessarily a violation of a character's design or any particular rules. Many dramatic moments in heroic stories are driven by just such a conflict. GMs should consider the limitation's Compulsion component and the action's dramatic relevance to the moment. An actor who repeatedly breaks their code may incurr reduction of their Reputation, which can have significant consequences for the actor's external and internal worlds.

Duality

Actors attempting to maintain a double life can be a source of both challenge and humor. GMs are encouraged to find ways to place the actor's dual identities in conflict to produce opportunities for roleplaying—and perhaps for action. This limitation combines well with others to produce complex and dramatic moments.

Does the hero need help from a contact or ally who only knows them by their mundane identity? What will the hero do when their nemesis appears with nefarious intent while the hero is out of costume among their mundane friends?

GMs should take the two components of this limitation, Inconvenience and Vulnerability, into account when developing scenarios that leverage the limitation. Farcical shenannigans are far less fun if the inconvenience of switching between identities is trivial. The threat of an arch enemy capturing and unmasking the hero is significantly diminished if being unmasked doesn't leave them particularly vulnerable.

Social Vulnerability

The Social Vulnerability limitation is intended to model a hero's connection to a specific individual. It is inappropriate for players to allocate this limitation for general categories or groups of people.

GMs should ensure that the individual who is the object of the vulnerability is clearly specified and can be represented as an actor within the game, and the GM should be prepared to play the individual as a non-player character (NPC), unless another player will be playing the actor. If the individual will be an NPC, GMs should allow player input to shape them, but ultimately decisions on character and motivations are in the GM's hands.

The Vulnerability component of the limitation should drive GM decisions on incorporating threat to the individual in their campaign. Placing a hero's ward or loved one in jeopardy is a time-honored plot development that can be used to enhance the stakes of an encounter or drive internal conflict.

When placing the individual in dangegr, GMs should take note of the hero's actions and balance these against the Importance component. As with the Code limitation, character actions that run contrary to the importance of a social vulnerability can be used to drive dramatic tension.