OIF for Powered Armor why?

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I'm beginning to suspect that you're not going to be much for interesting conversations.

 

If you suspect this, then why are you still here? It's sad when people can't leave, even after they admit they have nothing to stay for except to get there way.

 

Continuing on with my point, I will wait till Kristopher leaves.

[Kristopher]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

If you suspect this, then why are you still here? It's sad when people can't leave, even after they admit they have nothing to stay for except to get there way.

 

Continuing on with my point, I will wait till Kristopher leaves.

 

Um...you haven't been paying attention, then. This isn't a chat room.

 

I'm sorry you haven't realized that I've been trying to help you out, newbie. I guess you'll have to learn on your own. I appologize for wasting your time, and my own.

[Sean Waters]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

You're mistaken.

 

Off the top of my head, I've been in both strong agreement and strong disagreement, publicly, with Killer Shrike, ChuckG, OddHat, WhammeWhamme, and bblackmore. I don't always agree with anyone here -- I can't think of anyone who does.

 

I always agree with everyone. I have to otherwise they might turn my power armour off, as due to a design fault I put it on the outside...

 

 

Lord Beavis: I've made a suggestion as to how to do power armour without the OIF limitation:

 

http://herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=574114&postcount=85

 

and you haven't commented on that or the various suggestions that you clarify the mechanics of your power armour framework and how it would differ from existing frameworks. Why don't we turn this into a debate again?

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

and....Kristopher has left. Thank you!!...

 

This is not a debate, simply an exercise in creating another limitation or Power Framework.

I want to keep it positive. If you want to debate this, you may create your own thread, and talk amongst yourselves.

[Kristopher]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

and....Kristopher has left. Thank you!!...

 

This is not a debate, simply an exercise in creating another limitation or Power Framework.

I want to keep it positive. If you want to debate this, you may create your own thread, and talk amongst yourselves.

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

and....Kristopher has left. Thank you!!...

 

This is not a debate, simply an exercise in creating another limitation or Power Framework.

I want to keep it positive. If you want to debate this, you may create your own thread, and talk amongst yourselves.

 

...leaving you here, alone, to talk amongst yourself? C'mon chap, I'm trying to be positive, I'm making suggestions, let's have your feedback.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

As long as those who want to be positive, I appreciate their input. Just waiting for those who have nothing stick around for....goes the way. I may have to create a new thread, maybe I will hide it under " A different take on a old limitation". Don't tell the detractors!!!

 

(P.S. I know I can't throw anyone off the thread. I just want to discuss creating an option for 6th ed. Those who are not interested in that possibility, should read other threads)

 

For those who want to discuss it positively, why is the thought of eliminating it so horrid? Comics, as illustrated, change affects all the time. They do it to advance the story. Good thing I didn't bring the idea of eliminating STUN and STUN/Body damage!!!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

For those who want to discuss it positively' date=' why is the thought of eliminating it so horrid? Comics, as illustrated, change affects all the time. They do it to advance the story. Good thing I didn't bring the idea of eliminating STUN and STUN/Body damage!!![/quote']

 

Eliominating what? OIF in general? OIF for powered armor only? Choice for powered armor between OIF, OIHID or no limitation whatsoever? While I'm inclined to doubt it, perhaps you will post your idea and some of us will say "Hey what a great idea - this would make a good replacement for the focus limitation". However, you have to post the idea first, with the risk that some of us will NOT feel that way.

 

We can eliminate any rules you want. All Hero (or any RPG system) really provides is a more objective framework for playing "Let's Pretend". If we could all agree whether, in fact, I killed your character, wounded him, knocked him out, stunned him, or just barely missed when I pointed my finger at you and said "BANG BANG", we wouldn't need the rules and a GM to arbitrate it for us. The whole RPG rules structure just boils down to an objective means of determining success and failure in our "let's pretend" game.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

We can eliminate any rules you want. All Hero (or any RPG system) really provides is a more objective framework for playing "Let's Pretend". If we could all agree whether, in fact, I killed your character, wounded him, knocked him out, stunned him, or just barely missed when I pointed my finger at you and said "BANG BANG", we wouldn't need the rules and a GM to arbitrate it for us. The whole RPG rules structure just boils down to an objective means of determining success and failure in our "let's pretend" game.

 

In the Mutants and Masterminds game, they eliminated hit points and hit point damage. This was to "catch" the flavor of the comics. Obviously, in the comics, the hero in picture 1 of the page shoots at the villian. In pic 2, there isn't a little caption reading, "and the villain takes 25 STUN 3 BODY."

 

It's an interesting concept.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

In the Mutants and Masterminds game, they eliminated hit points and hit point damage. This was to "catch" the flavor of the comics. Obviously, in the comics, the hero in picture 1 of the page shoots at the villian. In pic 2, there isn't a little caption reading, "and the villain takes 25 STUN 3 BODY."

 

It's an interesting concept.

 

M&M does have a creative and innovative combat system. However, pic 2 in your example also doesn't have "he made his damage save by three, but now he's at -2 for the next one".

 

Emulation of the genre clearly requires both "kill" and "knockout" results, with the latter being far more likely in most Supers games. Pure hit points wouldn't work. Champions (and Golden Heros) segregated death-dealing damage from stunning damage (body vs Stun in Hero; hits to kill vs hits to kncok out in GH).

 

M&M eliminated one d20 standard mechanic (hit points) and replaced it with another (saving throws). However, they retained the fact that a character can only take so many hits before KO is inevitable (the cumulative penalty to those saves).

 

In both cases, we have an objective means for determining the results in our game of "Let's pretend". Is one more true of the comics than the other? Good question.

 

Comics have lots of "one hit KO's" which likely wouldn't happen in Champions (he couldn't do that much Stun in one hit) but could in M & M (oops! rolled a 1). On the other hand, comic combat also includes a lot of scenes where a character "can't take another hit like that one", and a -1 to the save doesn't seem to move someone from "Just dazed" to "Sure thing KO".

[Kristopher]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

In the Mutants and Masterminds game, they eliminated hit points and hit point damage. This was to "catch" the flavor of the comics. Obviously, in the comics, the hero in picture 1 of the page shoots at the villian. In pic 2, there isn't a little caption reading, "and the villain takes 25 STUN 3 BODY."

 

It's an interesting concept.

 

Personally, I prefer the STUN/BODY system. There are reasons I'm playing Champions/HERO, and not M&M or some other superhero game system.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

M&M does have a creative and innovative combat system. However, pic 2 in your example also doesn't have "he made his damage save by three, but now he's at -2 for the next one".

 

I only saw it as a demo. I thought it was an interesting take.

 

Emulation of the genre clearly requires both "kill" and "knockout" results, with the latter being far more likely in most Supers games. Pure hit points wouldn't work. Champions (and Golden Heros) segregated death-dealing damage from stunning damage (body vs Stun in Hero; hits to kill vs hits to kncok out in GH).

 

I never played Golden Heroes.

 

M&M eliminated one d20 standard mechanic (hit points) and replaced it with another (saving throws). However, they retained the fact that a character can only take so many hits before KO is inevitable (the cumulative penalty to those saves).

 

The people who play it, say they like the lack of keeping track of the math.

 

In both cases, we have an objective means for determining the results in our game of "Let's pretend".

 

I agree. Objective means is the key. Which leads into my idea for the limitation.

 

I appreciate the more civil tone. I hope to keep this thread going with that in mind. That goes for me also.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

No, I understand what happens to those who oppose the "regulars" on this board. They get attacked to the point where they leave. I fortunatley believe in the positive and believe I am going to come up with an alternate idea for the good of the game.

 

You haven't defined how this is for the "good of the game" beyond denying that the current rules are ever used in the correct and crying that because the current rules can be abused that they should be changed.

 

The funny thing is I have argued with the regulars on this board. Several times. I'm still here. So have several others. What happens is people that act like you continuously just end up getting put on Ignore eventually.

 

I believe it has. Some armor will be OIF. Some armor has evolved in a Multi-form type. I am sure those who created the game in the 70's and 80's never thought of that. I would suspect the like the idea.

 

Powered Armor is a Special Effect. Which Limitations you get reflect how it functions mechanically. It was never intended that ALL Powered Armor work exactly the same. The only evolution that has occured is in the flexibility of the game system to reflect differences in the genre. The game itself has evolved. It seems like you want to take a step backwards.

 

In 5th ed no, but maybe in 6th ed!!

 

 

Given the design philosophy that Hero is based on. I am highly doubtful of that. For one, there would have be new "Power Frameworks" for pretty much every special effects.

 

Power Armor

Alien (one for each or a generic one?)

Mutant

Robot

etc etc

 

If you want a game with "Character Classes" there are several available on the market already.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

When all the detractors (those who have nothing postive or constructive to add to the new limitation or power framework) have left' date=' I will continue with the discussion.[/quote']

 

 

If everyone that doesn't agree with you leaves the thread, you'll likely end up here by yourself.

[Trebuchet]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

This is not a debate, simply an exercise in creating another limitation or Power Framework.

I want to keep it positive. If you want to debate this, you may create your own thread, and talk amongst yourselves.

I believe masturbation is colloquially known as "playing with oneself." That seems to be pretty much your sole objective here, since you seemingly don't actually want any input critical or questioning of your obvious genius and apparently unsupportable position. You're just looking for more lubricant.

 

Real people of intelligence, of course, can actually analyse and respond to honest criticism of an idea instead of blatantly attempting to shove critics out the door. I've never seen an idea that wasn't better for allowing actual input instead of just rubber stamping. So you'll be a first, of sorts. The first perfect idea in human history.

 

Try K-Y.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

As long as those who want to be positive, I appreciate their input. Just waiting for those who have nothing stick around for....goes the way. I may have to create a new thread, maybe I will hide it under " A different take on a old limitation". Don't tell the detractors!!!

 

Yeah. That'll throw everyone off.

 

Dude, you can't "hide" threads. You can't decide who responds and who doesn't. You can't censor their input. Its a public forums. Waiting until somene "leaves" doesn't work because these threads are here forever and posting on them just bumps you to the front of the line. People are going to read and make comments. I'm sorry, but you're going to get detractors particularly when, with no supporting evidence or reason beyond anecdotes about your game you suggest a major rules change that violate the basic Hero design idea. Be prepared to defend and clarify those ideas. This is coming from the guy that advocates things like an Immunity power.

 

I'd like to know what you consider "positive"? Patting you on the back or discussing your idea?

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I will continue to ignore the negative posts. When the detractors find someone else to attack, I will continue.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I will continue to ignore the negative posts. When the detractors find someone else to attack' date=' I will continue.[/quote']

 

You do realize this means your thread will either slide off into oblivion or the instant you do actually post your idea it'll be bumped up to the top and the "detractors" will likely post to it again? You are clear on that, right?

 

And I am still wondering who isn't a detractor.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

You do realize this means your thread will either slide off into oblivion or the instant you do actually post your idea it'll be bumped up to the top and the "detractors" will likely post to it again? You are clear on that, right?

 

And I am still wondering who isn't a detractor.

 

All I am suggesting is an alternate rule, which may or may not appear in the Ultimate Power Armor Book or the 6th Ed. I don't understand why people on this board seem so threatened by it, to shout me down, launch personal attacks, or accuse me of destroying the HERO game. I think some of them enjoy humiliating others or "winning" the argument.

 

This game is based on new rules and new ideas. That's how the game has lasted from 1st ed to 5th ed and beyond.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

All I am suggesting is an alternate rule, which may or may not appear in the Ultimate Power Armor Book or the 6th Ed. I don't understand why people on this board seem so threatened by it, to shout me down, launch personal attacks, or accuse me of destroying the HERO game. I think some of them enjoy humiliating others or "winning" the argument.

 

This game is based on new rules and new ideas. That's how the game has lasted from 1st ed to 5th ed and beyond.

 

For me, it has nothing to do with your idea. I actually want to hear it. Some things about the Focus rules ARE a little wonky. You just might be on to something.

 

Its your attitude that's really grating. The assumption that because you've had trouble with it, everyone else has to change as well. That the many people that have pointed out flaws in your argument as presented are just trying to attack you and should just leave the thread (whatever that means on a forum). You came out guns blazing and got fired on in return. It wasn't an ambush. If you're going to post something revolutionary, you have to expect argument and debate.

 

So lets here your idea so it can be discussed or you can keep it to yourself and never have to worry about anyone nay saying. Or approving.

[Kristopher]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

All I am suggesting is an alternate rule, which may or may not appear in the Ultimate Power Armor Book or the 6th Ed. I don't understand why people on this board seem so threatened by it, to shout me down, launch personal attacks, or accuse me of destroying the HERO game. I think some of them enjoy humiliating others or "winning" the argument.

 

You have a very biased idea of what is going on here. If you think there is a party line or a single set of opinions held by some group known as "the regulars", I suggest you check out a thread such as the one regarding Shapeshift.

 

People are reacting negatively to you because you're being aggressive, condescending, and rude. Your ideas certainly aren't threatening. The only personal comments have been in response to your snotty attitude. No one has accused you of destroying HERO. They've explained how your idea for an SFX-specific Power or Framework won't ever happen, because it vioaltes a basic principle of the HERO system.

 

This game is based on new rules and new ideas. That's how the game has lasted from 1st ed to 5th ed and beyond.

 

One thing that hasn't changed, in all these years, over all the editions, is the basic idea that there are no Powers or Frameworks that exist solely for the representation/creation of a single special effect or superpower.

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I will continue to ignore the negative posts. When the detractors find someone else to attack' date=' I will continue.[/quote']

 

God, I should have went and unsubscribed to this thread, but like an ongoing train wreck, the disastrous spectacle drawns me back.

 

Here's somethign most people figure out early on in learning how to have conversations: disagreement is not an attack.

 

Perhaps you expected support for your premise. However, when you propose a premise of "I think rule X doesn't work, here is rule Y", but offer nothing mechanically wrong with the rule, just repititions of how people you know haven't been able to rule X correctly correctly, you are not likely to draw legions of supporters for the base of your issue--other than those who can't understand pretty basic rules. Perhaps you'd have a better chance if you actually showed your proposed rule that will make eveyone dance with joy and cast of the shackles of the existing rules mechanic. Instead, you state you won't bring that forward until all those who didn't agree with your unproven premise in the first place silence themselves and leave in the first place--in other words, you only want to talk to people who accept everything you say from the start, and don't want to communicate with those that think differently. A pretty pointless effort on a public baord, but I'll point out a little secret: one of the best ways to test and design a rule is to include and review input from those who may be skeptical of it; if your criteria for contributors is only allowing those who agree with you from the start, you'll not get most of the benefit of seeking the input of others.

 

Since you seem incapable of getting around to it, I guess we'll have to help you do it.

 

You want to design a Power Framework to govern a certain Special Effect. We'll ignore the fact that such an approach is contrary to the entire premise of the Hero system for now.

 

Your conditions for the framework: Anyone purchasing power armor under this framework will have armor that can be taken away, damaged, and destroyed. This framework wil be replace current mechanics such as Focus, or Hero ID only. Apparently, you've decided those limitations will apply to anyone claiming to use power armor, even if they want to simulate power armor that cant be taken away, damaged, or destroyed. So we have a framework that's dedicated to a FX, and is dedicated to telling characters how to play, and how they must simulate genres/characters. There goes another convention of the hero system down the tubes.

 

This framework must provide a reason make placers want to play power armor characters. (If all it does is create limits without reducing costs, you simply wont have power armor characters). Therefore, this rule must reduce power costs, set up how armor can be damaged and the effect on powers, and cover what types of powers are suitable for Framework: Power Armor.

 

Is all armor equally hard to destroy? (Poor idea, doesn't seem to allow for different technology levels.) Is the ability to damage or destroy armor based on the defenses armor provides, or the active points of the power? What method would represent this--and it must be better than the method provided by the focus rules, mind you. Is this armor easily seen? How quickly can it be fixed? Can just anyone use it?

 

We also have to keep this framework balanced. Existing frameworks like EC only allow related powers that use END; will you be changing that? (Seemingly necessary due to the many end using powers found commonly by PA characters) So thats one inherent advantage of the PA framework already over an existing one. Will the framework incoperrate attacks bought via PA, or can players still utilize multipowers--if they use multipowers, how do you affect the cost of such multipowers since they have the limitations of being taken away, destroyed damaged--sounds like you would have to make up an disadvantage level to apply here--maybe -1/2? where could I have gotten that value from?)

 

Are you enjoying re-inventing the wheel at this point?

 

Oh, and these rules have to be written in a very unusual manner. You see, the description of the focus rules is pretty darn clear; but apparently, people can't understand them, or refuse to abide by them. Your new framework must contain special hypnotic commands that will make players obey its rules.

 

Abandoning the framework concept, let's look at other powers--

You could try multiform--except you have to decide what limitation to give the multiform for being able to be taken away, damaged, or destroyed, and how to reduce the cost of this in comparison to InherentMan's multiform with the exact same powers, just not the PA FX. Again, same problem--except now you bring in all the GM decisions basedon how powerful each multiform can be, and how many points it can have.

 

So we're violating basic hero premises, re-inventing the wheel, and resorting to player mind control. Hmm, why are those vultures circling this concept?

 

Thankfully, Mr Mystic guy doesnt worry about this. He just decides his powers come from an OIHD or OIF mystic amulet, and gets characteristics, senses, attacks, and movement. But hey--its not power armor, so he doesn't have to mess with this new framework.

 

Starting to get the idea that a framework for on fx is pointless? I doubt it, because your argument seems based on the premise that your opinion can't be wrong, cant be challenged, and that you cant actually bring up your details to fix the rules with anyone but adoring sycophants.

 

Got an issue with anything I said? Instead of telling everyone but the Cult of the Power Armor Framework to go away, go ahead and tell us what your brillant rule is already. Dazzle us with your insight. And dont forget, if you really want it to work within the hero system, it should be capable of being used for any character utilizing a breakable OIF in the books.

 

or go start a new thread titled "Only for those who already agree with anything I will say in the future" and await the results.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

In helping with eliminating the rude attacks, I have added several people to the ignore list. It's very helpful, unlike the people on the ignore list.

 

If you follow the idea of comic book logic, this alternate concept is not for you.

 

This will follow the Fuzion rule of all powered armor is the same, regardless that is worn by the Viper Mauler agent or Dr. Destroyer.

 

Secondly, it differs from other special effects because it is a tangible object independent of the powers it contains or allows.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

In helping with eliminating the rude attacks' date=' I have added several people to the ignore list. It's very helpful, unlike the people on the ignore list..[/quote']

 

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Note the non-ignored: just quote the posts pointing out the mile wide holes in this, unless you prefer to do this yourself.

 

So far: All Power armor is alike (When all power Armor isn't alike..but hey, if you like running cookie cutter games with cookie cutter classes..D20 is that-a- way)

Drawning Inspiration from Fuzion. (Equivalent to growing crops on a toxic dump)

As for the second part--that's different from non power armor foci in what way?