Hi I had a question. So it has come up in sessions where one player were moving another players stats (based on the influence system) and they wanted to change a stat that had seemingly reached its limit. (I.e. Lower one stat and then Raise a stat that was already at 3 or raise a stat and then move down a stat that was already at -2).
Now the players in one game I’m in allowed this and had the player whose stat was changed just keep the stat at its limit while changing the one “changeable” stat and then having the player whose stats were changed mark a condition. (Ex. robin is changing Starfire’s stats He wants to raise star fires danger and lower her freak. Starfire’s freak is at 2 and her danger is already at three. So the GM says okay. Lower your freak to 1, keep danger at 3, and take a condition.) (or the reverse. Robin wants to lower her Mundane, which is already at -2, and raise her freak, which would put it at three. So the GM says to raise the freak to 3, keep Mundane at -2, and then take a condition.) now this approach does have the outcome of permanently giving or taking away a stat from a player. In the first instance Starfire suffers as she does not regain the point that was taken away from her when Robin lowered her freak. Whereas in the second scenario she gains a point by not having to lower a stat to match the raised Freak.
However, players in a recent game disagreed with this approach and dissallowed players to “change” stats past their limit. Essentially saying you can’t raise Starfires danger only lower it. Or you can’t lower her mundane, only raise it. Which essentially is partially locking the stat in my opinion, which is a benefit that you gain only from taking the advance to do it or using your moment of truth. Also it ignores the directions that if you CANNOT change a stat to mark a condition, with forcing the influencing player to choose to move the stat in the opposite direction than intended or choose a different stat completely.
So my question is which approach is right? The approach that maintains the full flexibility of stats that aren’t locked with the downside of people losing or gaining stat points permanently this way……. Or the approach that doesn’t allow this permanent yet seemingly arbitrary advantage or disadvantage to be forced on a player against their will, and errs on the side of caution with limiting the choices a player has to change another players stats. The way I see it it boils down to whether you give more power to the influencing system at the cost of the player being influenced or less power to the influencing system to try to maintain more of the power over the character to the player playing that character.
My gut says that the influencing system SHOULD maintain as much power as it can…. Power to the influencing player. That’s what it’s there for, their words are hitting you hard, they change you, and that’s what the condition statement is there for. Giving power over your character to another player…… That is always dangerous, but at times it can be beneficial, it’s all in your point of view. Also it gives a danger to having a stat at extremes without it being locked, which I don’t particularly disagree with. If someone has a stat at three that SHOULD have the ability to bite them in the ass. But ultimately, I definitely see the point of both views and I just want to know which is right.
You can’t permanently lower or raise stats beyond +3 or -2. Every time you think you should, put a paragraph break in your post.
I definitely don’t think you should be able to permanently cost someone points.
I can see the merits of letting the influencer grind the influenced against the top or bottom of the scale and therefore cause them to mark a condition though.
If you can’t change a stat and someone tries to, you take a condition instead. See the shifting labels section.
The logic is as follows: I, Superboy, am the Saviorest Savior that ever Saviored. Some grown-up goes “Wow, that Superboy sure is a fella who saves everyone and ~never screws up~, aren’t we lucky Superboy is here to ~constantly save everyone and nobody gets killed ever~.”
You don’t get more Saviory in that situation. You get Insecure or Afraid.
Adam I’m not talking about permanently changing them beyond their limit. Making a stat 4 or -3.
An alternate choice for this would be any time a player wants to raise or lower a stat that can’t be raised or lowered anymore then NO stats are changed and instead a condition is taken
You don’t raise or lower the other stat in the pair when you take a Condition.
Thank you Benjamin and Jason for answering my question, I think that is a very good solution. Adam, you were singularly unhelpful and snarky. I will enjoy when your character who is my Bulls rival will do something to annoy her in our next game and I have angry marked……..See you Sunday (^~_~^)(Devil face)
If I recognized your avatar I would’ve been far snarkier. See you then!
While this query has been resolved pretty handily, I come bearing the gift of pretty much official response sorta. ’cause I needed similar clarification ages back and Mr Brendan Conway confirmed the intended ruling like so:
—–
When you would shift a label up or down and can’t, then the entire shift doesn’t occur, and instead you mark a condition. So, for example, if your Danger is at +3 and somebody is going to shift your Danger up and your Mundane down, then the entire shift is canceled (you shift neither Danger nor Mundane), and you take the condition.
This is intentional for exactly the reason you stated — we don’t want any permanent stat-balance shifts as a result of these shifts! Permanent stat-balance shifts only come from advancement.
(And) it’s just the one condition marked, exactly. “Forget this shifting business and mark a condition” is the single overriding event. So if you’re supposed to shift your Danger +3 up and your Mundane -2 down, you still only mark the one condition.
Glad to help, sir!
—–
Other intended ruling of note: I am a sir.
Thanks for sharing that, Matt.
Yes. Thank you Matt. To have it official is nice lol!
I really don’t understand this rule.
If I’m playing a Legacy who completely self identifies as a savior, whose trying to win recognition from the world (especially adult supers), why is it such a terrible thing for me rob told I’m doing a good job? Why is receiving the validation I so long for a bad thing?
Because at that point the pressure of it is too much; as a teen you don’t have the internal stability to permit yourself to fail.
“You’re the greatest superhero who ever lived. Now go have fun out there!”
Jason Corley That’s exactly the problem.
Someone whose opinion you value telling you “You were right about the world, and your contributions to it are making it a better place,” should make you feel better about yourself, not worse.
Shifting a label isn’t say something about the world, it is saying something about you. Trying to shift a Label that’s already at the max means the world expects you to do more than you can.