Taming Absolutes

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

D A M A G E R E D U C T I O N I S N O T A D E F E N C E

 

For the love of mike, it is a multiplier to stun and body*. You don't simulate it with limited defences you simulate it with limited stun and body.

 

Personally I don't think damage reduction really fits into the system or scales properly, but it is here and it is staying, so there's not a lot I can do about that one.

 

 

 

 

*sorry, Hugh, this one just pushes my button. Deep breaths now, Sean....

 

The fact is, it DOES effectively multiply your STUN and BOD (unless hit with something not reduced).

 

But we have no advantage to multiply STUN and BOD against certain attack types (like we have no mechanic to subtract DC's instead of damage points), so we have to use the imperfect "buy extra defenses" model.

 

Far from needing to apologize, Sean, you've illustrated the point.

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Change it to a dozen thugs striking from ambush with machine guns. I'm guessing they still take down your bulletproof hero more often than not. To me' date=' that's not so far out of genre.[/quote']

 

If the GM wants that character to be effectively bullet proof, he will either set the character's defenses high enough to take such an assault (which may mean building the character on more points) or not run a scenario where such an assault occurs. For the character to be taken down by such an assault, when the GM has decided to make the character effectively Bullet Proof, is a break with the genre the GM was attempting to simulate.

 

I have, and I like damage reduction. It provided a new option - he's tough, but not immune to BOD damage. But I'm also open to a "reduced DC's" defense priced in a fashion to be a worthy choice to replace high levels of PD/ED. The fact that it's not presently in the game, and could be sort of simulated by a kludgier model with some weird advantages and/or limitations doesn't make me dismiss it out of hand. I'm still not sure I'd add it to my game, but I'd at least be open to the prospect.

 

Congratulations on your open mindedness. Perhaps, when you price your new power, you should consider comparing it to existing powers in the game. Of course, that might require you to try building it with existing powers, and even using advantages and limits to see how it could work.

 

If you think working out how Sovereign Defense might fit into a campaign and be fairly priced = dismissing it out of hand, I suspect that we have no common grounds allowing us to communicate on this subject.

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I'd be much more open to dropping the SM entirely. I didn't get the sense that's what you were referring to.

 

As to restricting the combat options of mooks, does an agent with a gun get surprise attack modifiers? What about a Super who carries a gun? "You're bulletproof, but only if the right person fires the gun"?

 

Depends on the campaign, like so much else. In a Silver Age Standard Supers campaign I might run with genuinely Bullet Proof Heroes, Supers don't carry guns.

 

If I wanted Iron Age Supers who were bullet proof in a "gritty realistic" environment, I'd let the PCs have enough points to pay for it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

The fact is, it DOES effectively multiply your STUN and BOD (unless hit with something not reduced).

 

But we have no advantage to multiply STUN and BOD against certain attack types (like we have no mechanic to subtract DC's instead of damage points), so we have to use the imperfect "buy extra defenses" model.

 

Far from needing to apologize, Sean, you've illustrated the point.

 

 

Erm..THIS is what damage reduction does:

 

Extra characteristics only effective against physical attacks (-1)

 

+60 STUN

+20 BODY

+20 CON (only to prevent stunning -1/2)

 

66 points

 

Even works against NNDs and the like (unlike limited defences). Note the cost. You'd get the same benefit for 30 points from damage reduction, assuming you had 20 CON, 20 BODY and 60 STUN to start off with. this way it is accurately costed, and it costs a lot more, hence my contention that damage reduction is not priced right and does not scale (in fact it anti-scales).

 

OK, without DR no one would do this: it is much more efficient to buy defences. What damage reduction is really is a cheap way to buy up certain characteristics for certain purposes.

 

But, like I said, it is here...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Bulletproof.

 

Can you think of a good justification for being bulletproof? OK it happens in the comic, but they model bullets differently and situationally.

 

You want bulletproof in Hero? Get rid of the killing attack mechanism

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Bulletproof.

 

Can you think of a good justification for being bulletproof? OK it happens in the comic, but they model bullets differently and situationally.

 

You want bulletproof in Hero? Get rid of the killing attack mechanism

 

Amen.

 

Or, you could just cough up the points.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I think if you want to do source material you can't pick and mix. Achilles was an invulnerable warrior in the ancient world where the worst he'd face would be a battle axe wielded by a 23 STR opponent pushing his strength to 33: 3d6+1 killing.

 

I can build defences that will stop 3d6+1 killing. Not cheap, but I can do it. It will cost 80 points. Mind you Achilles is a premier hero of his age: 80 points is probably not unreasonable.

 

No need for anything other than effective invulnerability. We'll never have adjustmaent damage in the campaign so we don't need power defence, etc etc.

 

Now Achilles invulnerability was never well defined in the source material. Even the mythof how it came about (dipped in the Styx) is not the only one - there is stuff about his other trying to burna way his mortal part (he was a demigod) with fire but his father pulling him out...

 

I'm not sure I recall anything about swords shattering on his skin or anything like that. He wore armour in battle - bit pointless if you are invulnerable, wouldn't you think...

 

What we are dealing with here is people's (perhaps not always entirely accurate) interpretation of source material...

 

One major distinguisher between (most) source material and rpgs is XP: you don't have many examples of characters steadily progressing and becoming more competent and powerful over time in any kind of observable way like you do in rpgs. I've often thought we should not hand out XP but changes in characetrs should be entirely plot and play driven...another thread, perhaps...

 

Point is that the game does not mimic the source material. If Achilles is invulnerable he is not going to need to up the points in it through his career - the AP of attacks he faces won't be going up over time. You NEVER have to worry about how invulnerability scales: the points are not changing....

 

Now I can build you a character, and so long as you don't go looking at the character sheet, you can play Asbestos Lass the totally invulnerable to fire and heat girl for years without realising or worring about the fact that enough heat WILL hurt her: she is never going to meet it. As far as she (and everyone else in the campaign) is converned she IS invulnerable to fire and heat. I know that she has 60 ed v fire and heat, so I make sure that she never gets hit by an 18d6 fire blast, or I build all the fire blasts to be less effective against specific fire and heat defences.

 

Everyone is happy in their belief system. The fact that it might not be an absolute truth is perhaps not relevant. The fact that there is not such thing as absolute invulnerability, ditto. The truth is what you make of it

Of course, part of the game not mimicing the source material is the desire to both implement and balance things like invulnerability, requiring both instances since we're not writing a story where we have control. The issue is that the player needs control for his value. Of course, you address this and it's fine for your game but I think it's clear that (as with various other approaches people have submitted) it's not going to fit a number of needs, and Achilles not being the sole example of a form of invulnerability (again, please note, I don't think anyone is talking about even his level of invulnerability per se, since it seems all accounts gravitate toward SFX-based invulnerability) we still have to address others.

 

I think any approach which requires an explicit campaign maxima is one step more removed from the system than the starting point of "how do we do invulnerability." There's no specific rules in HERO for maxima, in fact that's one of its charms. So when we discuss "how would an optional and reasonable solution look," I think the maxima approach isn't really a great solution. That being said, it's not so bad a solution if we add in the hand-wave that anything beyond the max still is discounted as if it were max,. though I find that remarkably fudgy.

 

And also, again, I'm not at all suggesting it doesn't work great in your house and that it won't work in houses with real campaign maxima. I'm not suggesting that you have a solution that is bad in and of itself. I'm suggesting the scope of the solution is too limited, that's all.

 

But I'm not suggesting in any case, as TB is, an actual core rule change.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I've thought about that as well' date=' but then you either don't get hurt at all, or you take BOD. I could see a game where this is the primary defense and PD/ED is a backup.[/quote']

I'm still thiniking you'd have your personal PD/ED as from your stats, as a necessity, and then haven't refined from there how the rest of the values work. I didn't say that, though, sorry.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

OK I'm having one more go then I'm offski.

 

Ever read 'The Fish Who Could Wish'? It is about a fish who could wish - for ANYTHING.

 

Eventually he wondered what it would be like to be a fish who COULDN'T wish...

 

Bought a tear to my eye.

 

There is no such thing as useable absolute choice. Some decisions you have to live with. If you want absolute defences because they fit your understanding of a part of the source material or your character concept then you are denying absolute attacks: you only have absolute choice so long as you don't make a choice. Immoveable and unstoppable can not coexist in the same universe. If you put in absolute defences to match your character concept, you are collapsion the prbability wave and limiting someone else's choice as to what the game can/should do.

 

Role playing games are about a shared illusion. In the game, you are invulnerable to something if, despite the attempt being made, it doesn't hurt you.

 

Absolute invulnerability as a concept only matters to the players, not the characters. It doesn't matter to he game, and it doesn't matter to the illusion.

 

My point, at the end of it all, is absolute anything is just about bragging rights, not gameplay, or need. The game does not need absolute invulnerability to create the look and feel of it.

 

http://www.electricferret.com/fights/bigboys.htm

But I never suggested that it was absolute. In fact, the premise of this thread is how to have "absolutes" that are functional, eliminating the aspect of non-scalability and eliminating the idea of not having any counter at all. The issue is how to do that. The Achilles heel example is similar to the Superman kryptonite one - an obscure thing that bounces the character totally. But we've seen (as you in fact use in suggesting invisibility isn't really in existence in the source material) get countered on occassion.

 

That's why I like the Affects Invulnerable/Hardened option, and, setting aside a fictitious power which doesn't exist, why I like the idea for Desolid to be Hardened versus Affects Desolid and so on.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Bulletproof.

 

Can you think of a good justification for being bulletproof? OK it happens in the comic, but they model bullets differently and situationally.

 

You want bulletproof in Hero? Get rid of the killing attack mechanism

Sci-fi has bulletproof characters, even not just robots, and in the non-comics quasi-realistic Unbreakable the character is apparently bulletproof.

 

The "problem" is that people want to mix and match these concepts - and in an Iron Age era, that's probably even MORE common to desire.

 

But I was thinking about something important here - we invest a lot of energy in talking about the source material, and ultimately, really...I daresay...the source material is almost irrelevant. Yes, I said that. The reality is that we in the RPG world are enjoying creating more and more RPG-centric stories, and more and more imparting out own visions that don't match source material. In fact, it's the tradition boldly established by Gygax himself. It's oft been said and quite properly that AD&D <> "real" traditional fantasy, that it shares the trappings but has wrapped around it all sorts of concepts which don't match that. And I think Champions itself did a lot to move to the side of the comic book genre per se. I think the real world play experiences some of us went through early on, as RDU Neil and others discussed in an important conversation sometime in the last year, illustrates that RPGs are a thing unto themselves.

 

Now, I said "almost" irrelevant and even at that was overstating somewhat for effect. But I find that increasingly we are modeling worlds and scenarios which are unto themselves. So many indie games these days (and even in the past, to be fair) have little or nothing to do with any particular genre in the true sense, rather borrowing elements and then putting it into something else.

 

Which makes sense. RPGs are not writing, they're not even stories, really, even if the end result is a reasonably coherent story.

 

I think this is a good thing, too. I think we are tending to hobble ourselves a bit if we focus much on fiction recreation.

 

That being said, I actually do agree with using the source material as a bar, and using it as the starting point for likely mentalities. I just think we should be equally supportive of original constructs. For HERO, this should mean anything which fits into the mold, reasonably, of heroic action adventuring, at the core. Which doesn't preclude things quite divergent from the stories we are accustomed to.

 

By the way, re invulnerability...vampires...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Here's my take on invulnerability, in game:

 

Loic (playing Achilles): "I'd like to go to the blacksmith and pay him to make a really big iron boot...."

 

Donna (playing Superman): "So, Lex has his kryptonite ring on? OK I'll find some lead at superspeed then, using it as a shield to approach him, again at superspeed, I wrap his fist in lead. Next phase...."

 

The thing is, taking your example of the Volcano God - it still requires GM set up, even if you have some invulnerability build in game - if the team are immune to heat, cold, radiation and sonics, you can still hit them with a 25d6 punch and take them down. You don't because being unconscious does not make for a rich gameplay experience (well, not often)

 

I don't rigidly enforce APs and DCs (although I don't have as uch cariation as you), but I only allow or create ones above average for good reason, and with an eye to the rest of the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Sci-fi has bulletproof characters, even not just robots, and in the non-comics quasi-realistic Unbreakable the character is apparently bulletproof.

 

The "problem" is that people want to mix and match these concepts - and in an Iron Age era, that's probably even MORE common to desire.

 

But I was thinking about something important here - we invest a lot of energy in talking about the source material, and ultimately, really...I daresay...the source material is almost irrelevant. Yes, I said that. The reality is that we in the RPG world are enjoying creating more and more RPG-centric stories, and more and more imparting out own visions that don't match source material. In fact, it's the tradition boldly established by Gygax himself. It's oft been said and quite properly that AD&D <> "real" traditional fantasy, that it shares the trappings but has wrapped around it all sorts of concepts which don't match that. And I think Champions itself did a lot to move to the side of the comic book genre per se. I think the real world play experiences some of us went through early on, as RDU Neil and others discussed in an important conversation sometime in the last year, illustrates that RPGs are a thing unto themselves.

 

Now, I said "almost" irrelevant and even at that was overstating somewhat for effect. But I find that increasingly we are modeling worlds and scenarios which are unto themselves. So many indie games these days (and even in the past, to be fair) have little or nothing to do with any particular genre in the true sense, rather borrowing elements and then putting it into something else.

 

Which makes sense. RPGs are not writing, they're not even stories, really, even if the end result is a reasonably coherent story.

 

I think this is a good thing, too. I think we are tending to hobble ourselves a bit if we focus much on fiction recreation.

 

That being said, I actually do agree with using the source material as a bar, and using it as the starting point for likely mentalities. I just think we should be equally supportive of original constructs. For HERO, this should mean anything which fits into the mold, reasonably, of heroic action adventuring, at the core. Which doesn't preclude things quite divergent from the stories we are accustomed to.

 

By the way, re invulnerability...vampires...

 

I don't think our philosophies are so far apart...but we do like...er....discussing stuff, don't we

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Sci-fi has bulletproof characters, even not just robots, and in the non-comics quasi-realistic Unbreakable the character is apparently bulletproof.

 

The "problem" is that people want to mix and match these concepts - and in an Iron Age era, that's probably even MORE common to desire.

 

I'd say that a big part of the problem is that people want to build characters who are immune to 6 DC of Killing Damage but still vulnerable to 12 DC of Normal Damage, and they want to do it cheaply and in a single step.

 

Fixing the Stun Lotto would be my prefered approach to that issue.

 

By the way, re invulnerability...vampires...

 

Traditional Vampires were easy to kill with whatever you had at hand, depending on the folktale. Hollywood monsters (and major bad guys) of all kinds are "Invulnerable Unless Cause Of Death Is Cool."

 

Genre issue.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Here's my take on invulnerability, in game:

 

Loic (playing Achilles): "I'd like to go to the blacksmith and pay him to make a really big iron boot...."

 

Donna (playing Superman): "So, Lex has his kryptonite ring on? OK I'll find some lead at superspeed then, using it as a shield to approach him, again at superspeed, I wrap his fist in lead. Next phase...."

 

The thing is, taking your example of the Volcano God - it still requires GM set up, even if you have some invulnerability build in game - if the team are immune to heat, cold, radiation and sonics, you can still hit them with a 25d6 punch and take them down. You don't because being unconscious does not make for a rich gameplay experience (well, not often)

 

I don't rigidly enforce APs and DCs (although I don't have as uch cariation as you), but I only allow or create ones above average for good reason, and with an eye to the rest of the game.

No offense, but your take is about immature players. The solution for them is quite easy.

 

I don't dispute it takes GM setup - the whole game does. HERO's that way.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I don't think our philosophies are so far apart...but we do like...er....discussing stuff' date=' don't we [/quote']

I think everyone arguing in this thread isn't so far apart as their arguments would make them seem.

 

Me? I don't like discussing stuff much...

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

 

I don't dispute it takes GM setup - the whole game does. HERO's that way.

 

This is a good point we tend to forget in these debates.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I'd say that a big part of the problem is that people want to build characters who are immune to 6 DC of Killing Damage but still vulnerable to 12 DC of Normal Damage' date=' and they want to do it cheaply and in a single step.[/quote']

 

That's weird. I'm not disputing it, per se, I'm just saying it's weird.

 

Fixing the Stun Lotto would be my prefered approach to that issue.

 

 

 

Traditional Vampires were easy to kill with whatever you had at hand, depending on the folktale. Hollywood monsters (and major bad guys) of all kinds are "Invulnerable Unless Cause Of Death Is Cool."

 

Genre issue.

 

Oh, now, you know what I mean...

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

That's weird. I'm not disputing it' date=' per se, I'm just saying it's weird.[/quote']

 

Part of the weirdness that is HERO.

 

6 DC Killing Attack = Max 12 BODY and 60 STUN = 120 STUN if a surprise attack is made.

 

12 DC Normal Attack = 42 Stun in an average attack.

 

You can't be immune to the worst case scenario of a 6 DC Killing Attack without also being immune to the average damage of a 12 DC Normal Attack, unless you take limits on your defenses, and in any case it will be fairly expensive on a 350 point budget.

 

Drop the Stun Lotto and Surprise Attack Doubling, and the problem becomes far less of an issue.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

No offense, but your take is about immature players. The solution for them is quite easy.

 

 

 

I think it is unrealistic to expect players, or for that matter characters who are aware of their own limitations, not to act in a way that minimises them. It is intelligent use of what you are given, not immaturity. Achilles, of course, was unaware of the nature of his limitation: if told how he would die he would probably have bought the boots himself. Superman has no such excuse.

 

They are only limitations in the source material to the extent that they are because of editorial control of the characters and environment by the writer, and some of the Superman stuff is highly contrived and frankly ridiculous: as I think we agree, games are a very differnt beast fro the 'source' material

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I think it is unrealistic to expect players, or for that matter characters who are aware of their own limitations, not to act in a way that minimises them. It is intelligent use of what you are given, not immaturity. Achilles, of course, was unaware of the nature of his limitation: if told how he would die he would probably have bought the boots himself. Superman has no such excuse.

 

They are only limitations in the source material to the extent that they are because of editorial control of the characters and environment by the writer, and some of the Superman stuff is highly contrived and frankly ridiculous: as I think we agree, games are a very differnt beast fro the 'source' material

 

Supes has the 20 point Phys Limit "Plot Induced Stupidity."

[Trebuchet]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I'd say that a big part of the problem is that people want to build characters who are immune to 6 DC of Killing Damage but still vulnerable to 12 DC of Normal Damage, and they want to do it cheaply and in a single step.

 

Fixing the Stun Lotto would be my prefered approach to that issue.

Amen, brother! I think half the reason we're discussing SD/invulnerability at all is the disproportionate effects of large Stun Multiples. Without SM, this would be much less of a problem within the system.

 

Why not look at a more moderate version of SD that completely stops all BODY and all but a KA's near-perfect Stun roll? If it stops 100% of the BODY and 75% of the Stun of a certain DC or below before other defenses, isn't that enough to be a practical invulnerability? If the character wants that last 25% to leave him unfazed, then let him buy enough conventional defenses and/or CON and Stun to ignore the attack.

[Kristopher]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Amen, brother! I think half the reason we're discussing SD/invulnerability at all is the disproportionate effects of large Stun Multiples. Without SM, this would be much less of a problem within the system.

 

Why not look at a more moderate version of SD that completely stops all BODY and all but a KA's near-perfect Stun roll? If it stops 100% of the BODY and 75% of the Stun of a certain DC or below before other defenses, isn't that enough to be a practical invulnerability? If the character wants that last 25% to leave him unfazed, then let him buy enough conventional defenses and/or CON and Stun to ignore the attack.

 

Some versions of the classic bulletproof character, Superman, appear to be stunned/driven back by massed fire from conventional small arms.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Some versions of the classic bulletproof character' date=' Superman, appear to be stunned/driven back by massed fire from conventional small arms.[/quote']

Depends on which version of him you're talking about, of course. By "classic" are you refering to the Golden Age "nothing less than a bursting shell can penetrate his skin", the Silver Age "I fly through the cores of stars", the Bronze Age "a nuke might kill me", or what? Just curious.

[OddHat]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Why not look at a more moderate version of SD that completely stops all BODY and all but a KA's near-perfect Stun roll? If it stops 100% of the BODY and 75% of the Stun of a certain DC or below before other defenses, isn't that enough to be a practical invulnerability? If the character wants that last 25% to leave him unfazed, then let him buy enough conventional defenses and/or CON and Stun to ignore the attack.

 

It's a possible fix. Resistand Defenses + Damage Reduction is the most straightforward way to build practical invulnerability as things stand. I would be concerned about flipping Dam Red from applying before defenses to after; effectively it would go from being a BOD/STUN modifier to a DEF modifier. Pricing would be tough.

 

I've been in a few campaigns where the Stun Multiple was applied only after resistant defenses. It does give a feeling of comic book invulnerabiity, but it also makes killing attacks generally far less cost effective in a Standard game.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Some versions of the classic bulletproof character' date=' Superman, appear to be stunned/driven back by massed fire from conventional small arms.[/quote']Knockback/knockdown from the force of the bullets?

 

At least that's how I'd interpret it in game if we implemented SD and wanted to simulate this effect.

 

TB