Creation philosophy

[Force]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I would' date=' in my 450 point PBEM game. She might need to be beefed up a bit, but no problem. I'd also allow her in my 400 point PBEM, but she'd need to give up a bit. I'd be happy enough with her in my face-to-face game. I don't consider her overpowered (from a mechanics point of view) for my higher point games, but mainly I'd allow her to be played because I trust the player. Personalities and play styles trump mechanics most of the time when it comes to how well a character works in a group.[/quote']

 

Let's not talk about who is playing the character.

 

Let's just go from character write ups.

 

Would you allow Z'lf or Black Lotus in a 350pt campaign?

[OddHat]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Let's not talk about who is playing the character.

 

Let's just go from character write ups.

 

Would you allow Z'lf or Black Lotus in a 350pt campaign?

 

I do not allow characters in if I do not trust the players. That's part of what my own experience has taught me. That said, If I did trust the player, then while I would handle Zl'f's limitations somewhat differently, yes, I'd let her in to some of my campaigns.

 

I look at player personality before character, look at concept before mechanics, and balance the mechanics according to the expected needs of the campaign. I don't see that as all that unusual an approach.

[Starlord]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

*gets back from work and sees AgentX Troll has been busy trying to be as destructive as possible again*

 

I'll respond only to the "high" points. Then I'm going to get back to trying to make useful posts. *might as well have fun doing it*

 

You persist in these attempts to twist my words and actions into a hatefully distorted parody of their intent and meaning. Regain your maturity.

 

If you have anything other than treacherous social manipulation and craven innuendo to contribute, please speak these and all will attend. Otherwise, please be silent. You are not nearly as cunning as you appear to think yourself, and these infantile tactics should be transparent to any who even casually examine and reflect on them.

 

This Discourse was evolving peacefully and satifactorily before your first uninvited disruption and again after it recovered from it. Yet you return to tedious attempts to throw all into turmoil and chaos once again.

 

My research (yes, the Careful Man does research both potential foes and potential vermin) shows that this behavior is unworthy of you, but then it would be unworthy of any adult of good breeding. I pray you reconsider this present course and correct your path, for no good can come of this one for you.

 

Nonetheless, "actions make the man" and if for some reason you can not climb back from your Fall from the ranks of Gentlefolk and rejoin our Good Company, then you will be treated as your words and deeds warrant and demand.

 

 

 

You insinuate that I am Craven...

 

While trying to instigate a conflict you know can not have real consequences to your person as you are "safe" and not F2F...

 

While disrupting a conversation that was doing just fine without you (perhaps that's why you decided you needed to try and inflame things? WTF did I do to you?)...

 

In the process of a being a firestarter who has added NOTHING substantive to the discussion except to destabilize it every time you post...

 

While deporting yourself as if you are The Ultimate Authority on these matters. (The rest of us have engaged in give and take, but not you... No, your Word is God's. Sorry, not buying.)

 

And you have the EFFRONTARY to call ?ME? arrogant and condescending??

 

...AND I OWE ?YOU? AN APOLOGY??

 

That will happen about the time Lucifer rules on both Earth and Heaven and not a moment before.

 

You sir, are an unmannerly churl, and your behavior is that of the Craven Instigator and Coward as well as that of the Bully.

 

Were this another time and place I would challenge you to face me Man to Man with pistols or fisticuffs, your choice, until one of us asks pardon or unconsciousness or death.

 

Don't get confused about the neo-Victorian prose, I'm dead serious.

 

I strongly suggest we just add each other to our respective Ignore lists and move on.

 

You want more than that then I want an address for a f2f meet and we'll settle this like Men. Regardless of how much younger than I you are.

 

*...and to think I usually +respect+ Teachers. I feel sorry for this jack@ss's students*

 

Cool Dr. Doom impersonation. :rofl:

 

PS: It's Affrontery.

[David Blue]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I was looking at the sample characters in the big black book' date=' trying to work out some system for comparing the combat efficiency of various characters: my conclusion is that you just can’t do it, even when you are only comparing two characters, unless they are built in a very straightforward way.[/quote']Do you think it would be desirable if you could do it? (I think it would.)

[Force]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I do not allow characters in if I do not trust the players. That's part of what my own experience has taught me. That said, If I did trust the player, then while I would handle Zl'f's limitations somewhat differently, yes, I'd let her in to some of my campaigns.

 

I look at player personality before character, look at concept before mechanics, and balance the mechanics according to the expected needs of the campaign. I don't see that as all that unusual an approach.

 

But does this really address this?:

 

Anyway, this got me thinking: what is the biggest problem in the game, even for experienced players? How long combat takes. There’s all kinds of ways to speed up combat I’ve seen (and tried) over the years, but the one that never occurred to me was designing characters that wouldn’t last so long in a fight!

 

Is it possible we have all become a bit too good at character design, and forgotten that the real reason we are doing this is to play an enjoyable game, not finally attain The Perfect Build.

 

It’s a strange thought, but maybe we should pay rather more attention to the character build guidelines and the sample characters, and create characters that are designed to be superheroes rather than characters that are designed to be points efficient: we tend to get a bit paranoid and assume that if we do not make a character that is as points efficient as possible, someone else will, and we’ll get shown up.

 

It might feel odd, but I suspect it could be fun!

 

Or is it the answer to this?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Cool Dr. Doom impersonation. :rofl:

 

PS: It's Affrontery.

Yes, it was. Too bad it's all for naught, because, while I think Agent X's rhetoric is a little bit over the top, he's still essentially correct about Ki-rin's attitude. It's rather interesting that although Ki-rin makes a great show that he and I are somehow "discussing this like adults", he has not in fact responded directly to even one of my posts since page seven of this thread. I might as well be on Ignore. That is hardly a sign of respect, and certainly is not a "discussion" by any standard.

 

Ah well. At least I'll have my "ungodly combat monster" to comfort me in my totally unbalanced campaign.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Tangential Challenge: Is there anyone still reading this that is clinging to the notion that stats above Normal Characteristic Maxima are superhuman?

I do in the case of Intelligence. I feel that INT starts to break the system after 35 and if you define 31 points as the Start of Superhuman there is no true range of Superhuman intelligence.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

*shakes out sore hands and gets back to the proper mindset*

 

My apologies for the delay in following up on my last post regarding Creation Philosophy. Work got in the way, and I had a hard time figuring out a decent approach to the next step. Let's see if this works.

 

At it's most fundamental, combat is basically a race. Whoever does more _sustained_ damage (more damage than can be REC per Turn) per unit time wins. Therefore one way of defining two characters as balanced in combat with regards to each other is that they each have an equal chance of Stunning or KOing the other.

 

When your PC first evaluates a potential opponent, your strategy will fall into one of these:

A- You can do damage >= their Con. You can win by Stunning the opponent.

 

B- You can do damage < their Con and >= their STUN/your SPD. You can win by KO in one Turn.

 

C- You can do damage < their Con, < their STUN/your SPD, and > than their REC. You can win by a multi Turn KO. Call it a TKO.

 

D- You can't do damage > their REC. You can't Fight and must Flee to survive.

 

Bricks tend to use (A) since they usually only need one hit to connect to take out most opponents. This also means they don't need to be very fast or skillful to offer at least a fair fight for most. This also means they need large Def in order to be able to survive getting hit while they are waiting to use that big attack.

 

As the character's attack DC decreases, obviously their SPD and skill must increase to make up for it if they are to do the same amount of damage in a Turn. This starts by being the region of strategy (. Since their SPD and skill has increased, the character's Def must decrease in order to keep them combat balanced.

 

As we decrease the attack DC even further to that of strategy ©, we must increase SPD and skill even more to make sure our character's expected damage over the entirety of the combat stays the same. This also means we must decrease our Def even further if we are to give our opponent an equal chance.

 

In the spirit of using extremes to make a point, I'm going to post 3 characters that are very different form each other yet still provably combat balanced with regards to each other:

BBrick has SPD 3, a huge DC attack, large Defenses, and is relatively unskillful.

 

AverageHero has SPD 6, a moderate DC attack, moderate Defenses, and is moderately skillful.

 

Au'o has SPD 12, a small DC attack, small Defenses, and is very skillful and nigh unto impossible to hit.

 

I'll post the work with the exact numbers after I give my hands a rest.

[OddHat]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

But does this really address this?:

 

 

 

Or is it the answer to this?

 

Internet conversations drift, as I expect you've noticed. I don't see that as a problem.

 

Added to that, it was a direct answer to your question. I don't see a problem there either.

 

However, the approach of Player->Conept->Mechanics adjusted by needs of the campaign can account for combat length; knocking down defenses to speed combat works well, if the needs of the campaign require it. It's the approach used in the 450 point online game I'm currently GMing for all save one character (whose schtick is his high defenses).

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I'm just curious, I haven't seen it mentioned yet or missed it if it was but Ki'rin are you normally the player or the GM in your HERO games?

[Stray Cat]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Were this another time and place I would challenge you to face me Man to Man with pistols or fisticuffs, your choice, until one of us asks pardon or unconsciousness or death.

 

Don't get confused about the neo-Victorian prose, I'm dead serious.

 

I strongly suggest we just add each other to our respective Ignore lists and move on.

 

You want more than that then I want an address for a f2f meet and we'll settle this like Men. Regardless of how much younger than I you are.

 

*...and to think I usually +respect+ Teachers. I feel sorry for this jack@ss's students*

 

Ladies and gentlemen, hoboes and tramps,

Cross-eyed mosquitoes and bow-legged ants,

I come before you to stand behind you,

To tell you something I know nothing about.

Next Thursday, which is Good Friday,

There will be a Mother's Day meeting for fathers only;

Admission is free, so pay at the door,

Pull up a seat and sit on the floor.

The topic to discuss...

The crime that has never been committed.

 

One fine day in the middle of the night,

Two dead men got up to fight,

Back to back they faced each other,

Drew their swords and shot each other,

One was blind and the other couldn't see

So they chose a dummy for a referee.

A blind man went to see fair play,

A dumb man went to shout "hooray!"

A paralyzed donkey passing by,

Kicked the blind man in the eye,

Knocked him through a nine-inch wall,

Into a dry ditch and drowned them all,

A deaf policeman heard the noise,

And came to arrest the two dead boys,

If you don't believe this story’s true,

Ask the blind man he saw it too!

 

Cat

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Ladies and gentlemen, hoboes and tramps,

Cross-eyed mosquitoes and bow-legged ants,

I come before you to stand behind you,

To tell you something I know nothing about.

Next Thursday, which is Good Friday,

There will be a Mother's Day meeting for fathers only;

Admission is free, so pay at the door,

Pull up a seat and sit on the floor.

The topic to discuss...

The crime that has never been committed.

 

One fine day in the middle of the night,

Two dead men got up to fight,

Back to back they faced each other,

Drew their swords and shot each other,

One was blind and the other couldn't see

So they chose a dummy for a referee.

A blind man went to see fair play,

A dumb man went to shout "hooray!"

A paralyzed donkey passing by,

Kicked the blind man in the eye,

Knocked him through a nine-inch wall,

Into a dry ditch and drowned them all,

A deaf policeman heard the noise,

And came to arrest the two dead boys,

If you don't believe this story’s true,

Ask the blind man he saw it too!

 

Cat

That would be Poe My Lips Are Sealed

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

*gets back from work and sees AgentX Troll has been busy trying to be as destructive as possible again*

 

I'll respond only to the "high" points. Then I'm going to get back to trying to make useful posts. *might as well have fun doing it*

 

You persist in these attempts to twist my words and actions into a hatefully distorted parody of their intent and meaning. Regain your maturity.

 

If you have anything other than treacherous social manipulation and craven innuendo to contribute, please speak these and all will attend. Otherwise, please be silent. You are not nearly as cunning as you appear to think yourself, and these infantile tactics should be transparent to any who even casually examine and reflect on them.

 

This Discourse was evolving peacefully and satifactorily before your first uninvited disruption and again after it recovered from it. Yet you return to tedious attempts to throw all into turmoil and chaos once again.

 

My research (yes, the Careful Man does research both potential foes and potential vermin) shows that this behavior is unworthy of you, but then it would be unworthy of any adult of good breeding. I pray you reconsider this present course and correct your path, for no good can come of this one for you.

 

Nonetheless, "actions make the man" and if for some reason you can not climb back from your Fall from the ranks of Gentlefolk and rejoin our Good Company, then you will be treated as your words and deeds warrant and demand.

 

 

 

You insinuate that I am Craven...

 

While trying to instigate a conflict you know can not have real consequences to your person as you are "safe" and not F2F...

 

While disrupting a conversation that was doing just fine without you (perhaps that's why you decided you needed to try and inflame things? WTF did I do to you?)...

 

In the process of a being a firestarter who has added NOTHING substantive to the discussion except to destabilize it every time you post...

 

While deporting yourself as if you are The Ultimate Authority on these matters. (The rest of us have engaged in give and take, but not you... No, your Word is God's. Sorry, not buying.)

 

And you have the EFFRONTARY to call ?ME? arrogant and condescending??

 

...AND I OWE ?YOU? AN APOLOGY??

 

That will happen about the time Lucifer rules on both Earth and Heaven and not a moment before.

 

You sir, are an unmannerly churl, and your behavior is that of the Craven Instigator and Coward as well as that of the Bully.

 

Were this another time and place I would challenge you to face me Man to Man with pistols or fisticuffs, your choice, until one of us asks pardon or unconsciousness or death.

 

Don't get confused about the neo-Victorian prose, I'm dead serious.

 

I strongly suggest we just add each other to our respective Ignore lists and move on.

 

You want more than that then I want an address for a f2f meet and we'll settle this like Men. Regardless of how much younger than I you are.

 

*...and to think I usually +respect+ Teachers. I feel sorry for this jack@ss's students*

I'm not confused by your prose. I'm astounded that you would use it. I'm also astounded you would challenge me to a proverbial duel. What are you trying to prove?

 

You're doing research on me? No good can come of this for me? This is obviously some sort of threat what with the comments about meeting face to face and duels and the death talk. You've got issues.

 

I suggest you stop now. You are inching very close to legal difficulties.

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I do in the case of Intelligence. I feel that INT starts to break the system after 35 and if you define 31 points as the Start of Superhuman there is no true range of Superhuman intelligence.

The chart sets Legendary Intelligence at 21 to 50 and Superhuman Intelligence at 51 or better. 31+ is for physical stats. I'm a little confused by your post. Did you know this already or not?

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Yes, it was. Too bad it's all for naught, because, while I think Agent X's rhetoric is a little bit over the top, he's still essentially correct about Ki-rin's attitude. It's rather interesting that although Ki-rin makes a great show that he and I are somehow "discussing this like adults", he has not in fact responded directly to even one of my posts since page seven of this thread. I might as well be on Ignore. That is hardly a sign of respect, and certainly is not a "discussion" by any standard.

 

Ah well. At least I'll have my "ungodly combat monster" to comfort me in my totally unbalanced campaign.

Nothing else got his attention so I repeated my point over and over and over and over.

[Force]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

You know agentx, I think I will just leave this thread and hope someone starts one all over.

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

You know agentx' date=' I think I will just leave this thread and hope someone starts one all over.[/quote']Sorry man, I didn't want it to go here. My hope was that Ki-rin would catch on to what I was getting at and either he would acknowledge the problem or he would fade out trying to save face. I never thought there would be talk of duels and death. But hey, you meet all kinds on the net.

[David Blue]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

At it's most fundamental' date=' combat is basically a race. Whoever does more _sustained_ damage (more damage than can be REC per Turn) per unit time wins. Therefore one way of defining two characters as balanced in combat with regards to each other is that they each have an equal chance of Stunning or KOing the other.[/quote']That's an interesting and possibly useful metaphor.

 

By "damage," do you mean STUN?

 

Because doing BODY is easy and very effective.

 

Adjustment attacks like "Transformation to my willing slave" are effective too.

 

As we decrease the attack DC even further to that of strategy ©' date=' we must increase SPD and skill even more to make sure our character's expected damage over the entirety of the combat stays the same. This also means we must decrease our Def even further if we are to give our opponent an equal chance.[/quote']I don't see that.

 

An attempt to win by a multi-Turn campaign of reducing the opponent's STUN could involve different means of protection, including DCV and all the defences the opponent could be hitting in the meantime - Resistant Flash Defence, Hardened Damage Reduction, Double-Hardened Power Defence, Life Support (versus some of the infinite range of attacks with No Normal Defence) and so on. Is this not so?

 

I'll post the work with the exact numbers after I give my hands a rest.

I recommend you reconsider your assumptions. It would be a pity if you hurt your hands, and twice the pity if people then said you had laboured in vain because your assumptions were invalid.

[Force]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Sorry man' date=' I didn't want it to go here. My hope was that Ki-rin would catch on to what I was getting at and either he would acknowledge the problem or he would fade out trying to save face. I never thought there would be talk of duels and death. But hey, you meet all kinds on the net.[/quote']

 

My last and only response, maybe forever here on these forums.

 

Don't say you didn't want it to go here.

 

You guaranteed it would.

 

Thanks all!

 

Signing off...

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

My last and only response, maybe forever here on these forums.

 

Don't say you didn't want it to go here.

 

You guaranteed it would.

 

Thanks all!

 

Signing off...

No, seriously, I didn't want to be threatened nor did I think it would go there. I just wanted this guy to own up to his rude behavior. It never ceases to amaze me how folks blame someone for not putting up with rude, bullying behavior. It isn't rude to stand up to rudeness. I never used foul language. I attacked statements he made that needed to be attacked. I just wonder what you think people should put up with to avoid "unpleasantness."

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I forgot that it was. But I highly hate that. I seriously believe that INT starts to break down after 35 though. Heck, even Dr. Destroyer, who according to his write-up is among the smartest of all and is matchless in wits. Yet he remains a 35 in INT. That is why I hold true to the believe that 50+ is a mistake.

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I forgot that it was. But I highly hate that. I seriously believe that INT starts to break down after 35 though. Heck' date=' even Dr. Destroyer, who according to his write-up is among the smartest of all and is matchless in wits. Yet he remains a 35 in INT. That is why I hold true to the believe that 50+ is a mistake.[/quote'] It works for me. I studied Standard Deviation of Intelligence enough in college to accept it in a pseudo-scientific babbly way. I even started a thread on it some time ago. I'll search for it.

[Stray Cat]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

That would be Poe My Lips Are Sealed

 

Actually much older than that... I didn't know there was a modern song, much less a "Poe" person. But cool! Now I hafta go find some music.

 

Cat

[Ben Seeman]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

This thread was reported. Shall I close it?

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

That would be Poe My Lips Are Sealed

Correction: PART of that poem was reproduced in Poe's version of My Lips Are Sealed. I've heard about where the rest is from, but I can't remember now.