Environment Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about rules pertaining to the environment that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about the environment that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is definitely worth considering. Obviously DEF is simpler, but it’s a rather imprecise way to describe objects. I don’t think it would cause any difficulties to switch to PD and ED.

[JakSpade]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is definitely worth considering. Obviously DEF is simpler, but it’s a rather imprecise way to describe objects. I don’t think it would cause any difficulties to switch to PD and ED.

I believe equipment DEF is as simple and straight forward as I like. If I'm dealing with something fragile I'd lower the defense, or if it's something such as an electronic device that is susceptible to energy damage, adding a "Takes extra from electricity" modifier works just as well as defining ED for the item.

jak

[Xotl]

EDIT: a part removed due to redundant info. Thanks Marcus

I definitely support replacing DEF with PD/ED. More flexibility, more consistency.

[L. Marcus]

Xotl, I believe that was taken care of in 5ER.

Edit: Yup -- Temp Level Zero is called the Comfort Zone.

[yamamura]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is definitely worth considering. Obviously DEF is simpler, but it’s a rather imprecise way to describe objects. I don’t think it would cause any difficulties to switch to PD and ED.

I would say yes if we are to keep PD/ED separate and not made into a single attribute. Of course you could give vehicles PD/ED and give people DEF

[steamteck]

Objects should be given PD/ED I believe. Makes it easier to model real objects ( rubber for example)

More attention should be made to somehow scaling object defenses with supers. maybe something like Lord Liaden's house rules if no numbers are changed.

[Comic]

I've always viewd DEF as a convenience, not an absolute.

Keeping the convenience of DEF as a default, but with suggested options for those very common situations where DEF is imprecise, seems a good way to go.

It's not nearly so useful a detail as to compell a lot of extra work to bring it into a game world, but too useful to ignore, either.

[Super Squirrel]

On one hand:

8 DEF; Half Defense Against Energy Attacks (-1/2) works fine.

On the other hand, 8 PD/4 ED is so much more elegant.

However, I'd think breaking it down to PD/ED is a better choice because I also think there should be an easy way to go from a vehicle that takes BODY damage only to a vehicle that takes body and stun damage (Transforms, living cars, etc...)

[nexus]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?
.

I support this idea. It’s more consistent, IMO, and models some real life issues better. Even in the sense of dramatic realism some objects are going to be more vulnerable to energy attacks than physical and vice versa.

I’d also like to see, if not in the core rules a supplement more rules for environmental effects like hunger, dehydration, fatigue, disease, infection, ete for grittier games and genre.

IMO, Falling Damage should probably be Killing.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Yes, it unifies the system better.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm all for unifying PD and ED into just DEF, myself. Physical and Energy then become SFX rather than game mechanical constructs. Only Vs. (one or the other) could be a Limitation, or it could be possible to buy DEF that only protects against one or the other at half cost without resorting to a Limitation, but I seldom see characters with different PD and ED scores (and they could easily be handled by limiting DEF).

So, count me as against giving objects PD and ED.

[Thia Halmades]

I'm pro-granularity, which means that I think DEF should just be abolished and that PD/ED should Rule the Rink. A car getting whapped with a 1d6 Electrical Attack is a very different creature than a 1d6 solid slug to the door.

Then again, I think that the rules from Ultimate Energy Projector should be adopted as universals to the system for the purpose of granularity and differentiation.

But yes. Abolish DEF for purposes of vehicle/base/etc. development and we'll have one LESS stat to worry about, which actually makes MORE sense to me in the long run.

[Vondy]

I think you should keep the distinction. Its critical in superheroic games (and some games where big FX powers get thrown around). Its not critical in a lot of genres, but it is often enough to leave it alone.

[Lord Liaden]

If the character/vehicle/etc. generation will continue to distinguish between PD and ED, then I would favor making the distinction for objects as well. However, I'd also like to see objects whose Defense, or at least part of it, is non-Resistant. There are many objects that people can encounter or use, e.g. cloth, rope, fur, canvas, which may be very tough versus blunt-force blows, but much easier to damage with cutting or penetrating weapons.

Besides providing stats for such objects, I also suggest extending the Nonresistant DEF Limitation from Entangle to objects we can build under the system, including Foci, and optionally even Vehicles (flying carpets) or Bases (e.g. tents or Japanese paper-wall houses).

[Enforcer84]

I think I like the Objects have PD/ED idea better than DEF.



...I don't know what that says about me.