Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ronin8879

Curious of Other Opins

Recommended Posts

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

Everyone above me has made far better cases than I could have, both for and against the construct. And as mentioned, it's ultimately up to you to allow it.

 

Personally, I'd go with the suggestions to break it up into multiple powers, justified simply by the rule that says you can't use power A to simulate power B; that's what power B is for.

 

Of course, I also have to wiegh in heavily in favor of the 'smack him with the rule book' suggestion as well. Not because the construct itself is horrifying (though I'd prefer it done with existing abilities where such are relevant) but because of what I think the intentions are (cheesiness rarely seen outside of pressurized cans).

 

Or you could teach him an object lesson about trying to munchkin around your rules:

 

"Okay, I try to Detect Abilities."

-Roll Perception-

"Okay, I made it by five."

-Yes, he has abilities.-

"Wha--? Oh, yeah. Discriminatory"

-okay, he has several abilities-

"Hunh? Fine. Analyze."

-He has several _good_ abilities-

 

and on in that vien.

 

But wait till he spends the points. The lesson sticks better that way .

 

Seriously, if you think he's trying to short-shift he way to a cheesy construct, nip it now. It's harder to bring them back to sway once they know you can be convinced to cave in.

 

 

This message has the official Evil GM seal of approval.

 

 

Duke

Just to expand on your post here (which was very amusing I might add):

 

Normal:

He has abilities.

 

Discriminatory:

He has six abilities.

 

Analyse:

He has six abilities.

17% of them are very, very good.

17% of them are good in certain circumstances.

67% of them will make you cry when used on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

Analyse:

He has six abilities.

17% of them are very, very good.

17% of them are good in certain circumstances.

67% of them will make you cry when used on you.

 

Hmmm...if we wanted to get really creative here, we could restate abilities in accordance with a chart. How 'bout the old Marvel Supers scale (points in Marvel terms):

 

Feeble (2)

Poor (4)

Typical (6)

Good (10)

Excellent (20)

Remarkable (30)

Incredible (40)

Amazing (50)

Fantastic (60) *

Monstrous (75)

Unearthly (100)

 

* OK, that one didn't exist. I just found a real gap between 50 and 75, and an adjective that was notable by its absence.

 

We'll ignore the Shift X, Y Z and Class 1000+ for now

 

Now apply this to Hero. Start by establishing a base line. Let's say the low end of campaign norm for a Super is Amazing and the high end is Fantastic. So maybe we treat DC's as topping out like this, in a campaign where 10 - 12 DC's is the norm:

 

Feeble (0)

Poor (1)

Typical (2)

Good (4)

Excellent (6)

Remarkable (8)

Incredible (10)

Amazing (11)

Fantastic (12) *

Monstrous (15)

Unearthly (16+)

 

Then we tack on a factor for restrictions - it's a bit limited (-1/4), somewhat limited (up to -3/4), quite limited (up to -1 1/2) or very limited (more than -1 1/2). Maybe we even break down the types of limitations somehow.

 

This would give the character some information (He's Monstrously strong) without necessarily giving the game away. And we don't tell the character what the various categories mean (although analyzing his teammates may give him some ideas).

 

Down side? You have to chart out your whole campaign, which will get annoying fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

I am still not convinced. If you spent the points on, for instance, telepathy, that could have far more devastating effect on the campaign. We are talking 50 to 75 points here: that's a lot, even without splitting them into seperate detects.

 

The detect physical objects and danger are standard abilities in any event (and would only cost 30 points + whatever levels you need between them), then detect opponent's abilities needs some definition but is not, for instance, the same as 'Find Weakness': it just lets you know what they can and can't do.

 

I can imagine this sort of ability being defined as a character who has limited precognition and postcognition - they can see things that directly relate to their immediate environmnet, their safety and those around them, and can then chose, based on that information, the best future to proceed to. Define it like this and you get a better handle on it.

 

Anyway, that's what I think. Like I said before, in the vast majority of cases it is going to be no use at all. When you fight Grond in a normally lit environment, knowing where he is, that you are in danger and his abilities are virtual invulnerability and enough strength to squish you to mush just isn't going to help - and could have been deduced through the evidence of normal senses anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

One key point which hasn't been stated (I think), although Sean alludes to it, is one of basic fairness to the player. If you feel the desired power will be overbalancing, deny it to the player outright and tell him why you're doing it. If you're going to alow it, make sure he gets the value appropriate to the points expended, and make sure you and the player agree up fronmt on how the ability will work, and how its success will be adjudicated.

 

As Sean rightly points out, it will often be useless, so when it is effective, it should be very valuable.

 

Don't let the player spend 50 - 75 points, then make it a mission to make those points useless by rules interpretations, plot twisting or some other mechanism that rub the player's nose in the fact that you "outwitted him". That just creates a "Player vs GM" attitude that will likely leak over to your other players, probably reduce the enjopyment of the game for everyone and almost certainly result in one really annoyed player. That doesn't do anyone any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

Agreed with Sean and Hugh completely.

 

My punitive suggestion was for humorous purposes only; sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

I only suggested any punitive measures in the event that the player had an obvious intention to 'get around' some other existing rules or constructs. If the player and the GM are both agreed on how the construct works and the GM feels that it is not unbalancing or simply a 'dirty trick' then there is no reason that it shouldn't be allowed to stand. (unless, as I stated, it is more accurately represented by existing abilities.)

 

But I still have the issue with doing all that on one Detect as opposed to one for each.

 

And if the player intends to use his 'Detect Solid Objects' in a combat situation, he might do well to buy it Targeting as well.

 

Guess I've already blow my 'makes good sense' disguise, and after only 30-odd posts. ;)

 

On the plus side, the pressure's off! :D

 

Duke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

One key point which hasn't been stated (I think), although Sean alludes to it, is one of basic fairness to the player. If you feel the desired power will be overbalancing, deny it to the player outright and tell him why you're doing it. If you're going to alow it, make sure he gets the value appropriate to the points expended, and make sure you and the player agree up fronmt on how the ability will work, and how its success will be adjudicated.

 

As Sean rightly points out, it will often be useless, so when it is effective, it should be very valuable.

 

Don't let the player spend 50 - 75 points, then make it a mission to make those points useless by rules interpretations, plot twisting or some other mechanism that rub the player's nose in the fact that you "outwitted him". That just creates a "Player vs GM" attitude that will likely leak over to your other players, probably reduce the enjopyment of the game for everyone and almost certainly result in one really annoyed player. That doesn't do anyone any good.

Then again, this might very well also be a reason to put your foot down in the first place, be firm, and honestly deny any build that you aren't going to give its full value in play, either because you think it is unbalanced, should be built another way (i.e. breaks a metarule), won't be useful in your game, or whatever. You can look at it both ways.

 

I do this all the time. If a player (not that I've ever had this particular one come up) sinks 20 points into KS: theology to be the best frigging theologian in history, I might just say, "Ah, you don't need that many points. In practice you are really only going to need about a 20- roll for absolutely anything in my campaign, if that. Are you sure you want to sink so many points into that when they aren't going to be useful?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

Agreed with Sean and Hugh completely.

 

My punitive suggestion was for humorous purposes only; sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

I only suggested any punitive measures in the event that the player had an obvious intention to 'get around' some other existing rules or constructs. If the player and the GM are both agreed on how the construct works and the GM feels that it is not unbalancing or simply a 'dirty trick' then there is no reason that it shouldn't be allowed to stand. (unless, as I stated, it is more accurately represented by existing abilities.)

 

But I still have the issue with doing all that on one Detect as opposed to one for each.

 

And if the player intends to use his 'Detect Solid Objects' in a combat situation, he might do well to buy it Targeting as well.

 

Guess I've already blow my 'makes good sense' disguise, and after only 30-odd posts. ;)

 

On the plus side, the pressure's off! :D

 

Duke

 

I always assume everything everyone else says is for humourous purposes only. :D

 

Whilst I agree with you about 'all that in one detect' the rules specifically allow you to add additional detects for +5 points and, so long as you can justify it all in one sfx bundle (I suggested some sort of pre/post-cognition deal). I don't make the rules up, I just abuse them.

 

I'll always remember those first thirty posts fondly, Duke: welcome to the land of the fallen (well, I like to call myself fallen, which impies I was once 'up there' and we all know that ain't true :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

I always assume everything everyone else says is for humourous purposes only. :D

 

Whilst I agree with you about 'all that in one detect' the rules specifically allow you to add additional detects for +5 points and, so long as you can justify it all in one sfx bundle (I suggested some sort of pre/post-cognition deal). I don't make the rules up, I just abuse them.

 

I'll always remember those first thirty posts fondly, Duke: welcome to the land of the fallen (well, I like to call myself fallen, which impies I was once 'up there' and we all know that ain't true :))

Hmm. True, but Clairsentience isn't bought with Enhanced Senses; it is its own Power. Not that I'm saying I think it should necessarily be that way, but building Clairsentience using Enhanced Senses would definitely be breaking a metarule if Clairsentience is used in the standard fashion within a campaign. Now, you can certainly use non-standard senses through Clairsentience, just like you can use non-standard senses to gather the input for using a Skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

I wouldn't allow a power like this in most campaigns because:

 

a) Conveying the information would be a major cause of delays unless the character was very on the ball.

 

B) Possessing that information kills a lot of mystery in the campaign and makes it harder to sustain mood. (Constructing the power appropriately can negate this, of course.)

 

Also, the way it was presented to us was very game-mechanic oriented, which makes it seem like the player was more concerned with mechanics than special effects or roleplay. This always makes me suspicious of "questionable" constructs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

I wouldn't allow a power like this in most campaigns because:

 

a) Conveying the information would be a major cause of delays unless the character was very on the ball.

 

B) Possessing that information kills a lot of mystery in the campaign and makes it harder to sustain mood. (Constructing the power appropriately can negate this, of course.)

 

Also, the way it was presented to us was very game-mechanic oriented, which makes it seem like the player was more concerned with mechanics than special effects or roleplay. This always makes me suspicious of "questionable" constructs.

 

 

Some really good points here, especially number 1: it'll slow the game down. Whilst I agree it may seem game mechanic oriented, it may just be that that is the ewasiest shorthand for the effect. I may be being over-generous - it does depend a lot on the campaign and the player.

 

I'm less worried about number 2 - I'm always happy to show off the cunning build of the villains, and this looks like an ideal opportunity :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Curious of Other Opins

 

I wouldn't allow a power like this in most campaigns because:

 

a) Conveying the information would be a major cause of delays unless the character was very on the ball.

 

B) Possessing that information kills a lot of mystery in the campaign and makes it harder to sustain mood. (Constructing the power appropriately can negate this, of course.)

 

Also, the way it was presented to us was very game-mechanic oriented, which makes it seem like the player was more concerned with mechanics than special effects or roleplay. This always makes me suspicious of "questionable" constructs.

I think the SFX-vs-mechanics point at the end is most important. The mechanics "as presented" would just be the beginning of the conversation, it's more important what the SFX is and what makes it an ability that has some reasonable game limitations, so it isn't simply "auto-Telepathy, whatever I need to know!"

 

That being said, with an appropriate understanding of just how it works and some reasonable boundaries around what it can and cannot do, it's probably fine. I'll come back to the PC in our ongoing supers game who has the ability to predict the future - but defined as a reflection of looking forward and seeing the probabilities among the possible futures. So he gets some things more clearly than others, something unlikely can happen, and all that. As a simple "I can see the future," it's a pain to work with, but with the SFX of understanding it is related to his ability to represent dimensional energies and that he's seeing the possible futures, it can work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...