Interesting telekinesis situation.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

With a Ranged attack such as TK' date=' I don't think it's an optional rule. I think any Ranged Attack can Spread as a default unless stated otherwise.[/quote']

Any ranged attack based on Damage Classes; TK is STR based.

 

 

Personally I like and allow STR to be spread, so its all good for me either way.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

Then the GM was being unfair and broke the rules.

 

GMs can't break the rules. The rules are whatever the GMs decide, whenever they decide.

 

Consistency they can violate, but whatever they say IS the rule.

 

I don't see a huge issue. This looks like it was done for the benefit of the players. To give them a more enjoyable experience later. After all, the players WON the fight. The villains had their tails between their legs! It wasn't like the GM handwaved a sudden defeat onto the players, or even just a nasty attack! While an off panel vanishing act would have been best, or at least a hidden roll, I can certainly buy this before I buy something as ex machina as a volcano, or even the building starting to collapse.

 

As long as these tools are used for the BENEFIT of the PCs, I am typically ok with it. Sure, it wasn't as stylish as it could have been, but you know, what kind of superhero shoots someone in the back while they are running away carrying an injured comrade? That's not very stylish either...

 

So, in small doses, GM ex machina is a good thing.

[CBikle]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

what kind of superhero shoots someone in the back while they are running away carrying an injured comrade? That's not very stylish either...

 

Stylish ? perhaps not, but very much in character for this character and appropriate for this particular game.

 

We almost certainly would've let Zephyr and Stormfront go, but the dealbreaker was her grabbing Holocaust as well:

 

In this scenario, Holocaust had been portrayed as a super-terrorist who had achieved something of a body count in his backstory. Basically, we're talking

General Osama Bin Zod. After meeting and fighting him, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

It was a fairly tough battle (power level-wise, Holocaust alone is waaaay past what our group can handle; to his credit, the GM didn't run him as nasty as he probably could have, but he was almost impossible to take down after two sessions of combat) and keeping the guy down became a priority.

 

Not sure if you really wanted an answer to your question, but there it is.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

Stylish ? perhaps not' date=' but very much in character for [i']this[/i] character and appropriate for this particular game.

 

We almost certainly would've let Zephyr and Stormfront go, but the dealbreaker was her grabbing Holocaust as well:

 

In this scenario, Holocaust had been portrayed as a super-terrorist who had achieved something of a body count in his backstory. Basically, we're talking

General Osama Bin Zod. After meeting and fighting him, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

It was a fairly tough battle (power level-wise, Holocaust alone is waaaay past what our group can handle; to his credit, the GM didn't run him as nasty as he probably could have, but he was almost impossible to take down after two sessions of combat) and keeping the guy down became a priority.

 

Not sure if you really wanted an answer to your question, but there it is.

 

See, character attitudes are important here. Under those conditions, it seems reasonable. But also under those conditions, considering that the GM seems to have UNDER played an NPC to the benefit of the PCs, it seems fair that the GM can save the most likely story critical NPC with a little OVER play later.

 

It balances to me, and it seems to be best for all involved.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

 

Two issues:

 

1. Was it played right?

 

2. Are the rules right?

 

1. My take is this. The GM can do what they like and make up any rules they like, but they won't have the trust of the players, or the players at all if they are seen to be doing this kind of monkey business. They might as well just sit the players down and read them the plot in narrative form - after all the players are given the imp[ression that if it is not in the script, then it ain't going to happen. Even if that is trues, they shouldn't be left thinking that - nothing NOTHING spoils a game more than the players starting to think that the game would run just fine if they were not there - they won't be.

 

Yes, I'm commenting on one player's perspective. That's what I've been asked to comment on. I could make up all sorts of excuses for why the GM did what he did, from plot to inexperience to trying out a new rule in gameplay, but it is making it up. If the GM wants to post his side I'll give that due consideration, but at present I'm just working with what I've got.

 

2. The rules are not good ones, to my mind. I'm particularly concerned about the spreading suggestion. A grab by gets a strength bonus from velocity of v/5 - which means, at NC velocities, the bonus is likely to be large. 20" at NC velocity equals +40 STR, so even with a modest 40STR TK you can afford to devote 20 STR to +4 spreading and still have 60 STR for grabbing, and that is an example of quite low NC velocity.

 

That would mean you could grab with 60 STR an unsuspecting target on 12-. You could then guide the into the side of a building at NC velocity. Ouch. Not a lot of use IN the average combat but it could be a way to take out

 

The point is tha TK combined with a grab by works very differently from an EB, and you should be well aware of the potential consequences if you allow this: it is powerful offence not just defence.

 

Moreover, the OCV you can generate is NOT linked to your velocity - potentially you could be moving at thousands of miles an hour and still be able to hit as accurately as a normal running at 24" a turn.

 

Personally I allow NC velocity to be used for movement only: no attacks, not even any cunning manouvres - basically fast, straight, movement, and nothing else really - it is a getting there (or getting away) power, that allows for little else.

 

Worth thinking about.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

Its late and I have to get up early so Im not going to bother responding to that in its entirety partly because I dont feel like it but mostly because the bulk of it is just a regurgitation or your previous post. You don't like it, and we totally get that. Thanks for emoting it so clearly.

 

If you ever get a chance to meet the GM face to face perhaps you'll pause to get his side of the story before you start pelting him with stones fueled by your reighteous indignation.

 

 

 

 

As far as the v/5 extra STR granted from Grab By, it specifically only adds for purposes of succeeding with the Grab, a STR vs STR opposed roll. Thus, it would not be usable to fuel a spread even if the GM allows STR to be spread. It's ok; you can breathe now.

 

 

Although, now that Ive got the book in front of me a literal reading indicates that Grab By is not usable via TK. Only Grab and Strike are available to use with TK by default. Personally, I would extend that to Grab By since it is just Grab + Move By, but by the book its not legal by default. An extra rock for you to hurl at the GM someday.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

Its late and I have to get up early so Im not going to bother responding to that in its entirety partly because I dont feel like it but mostly because the bulk of it is just a regurgitation or your previous post. You don't like it, and we totally get that. Thanks for emoting it so clearly.

 

If you ever get a chance to meet the GM face to face perhaps you'll pause to get his side of the story before you start pelting him with stones fueled by your reighteous indignation.

 

If you want to ignore it, ignore it, if you are going to comment on it have the decency to do so from an informed position, and read it first, and see what I actually have top say.

 

 

 

 

As far as the v/5 extra STR granted from Grab By, it specifically only adds for purposes of succeeding with the Grab, a STR vs STR opposed roll. Thus, it would not be usable to fuel a spread even if the GM allows STR to be spread. It's ok; you can breathe now.

 

 

Although, now that Ive got the book in front of me a literal reading indicates that Grab By is not usable via TK. Only Grab and Strike are available to use with TK by default. Personally, I would extend that to Grab By since it is just Grab + Move By, but by the book its not legal by default. An extra rock for you to hurl at the GM someday.

 

Any ranged attack based on Damage Classes; TK is STR based.

 

 

Personally I like and allow STR to be spread, so its all good for me either way.

 

I'm sorry for misinterpretting your previous post: you seemed to be suggesting that it would be appropriate.

 

A) At no point did I say that the heroes should "let the bad guys get away". I'm saying that after they've made an attempt to stop them from getting away and the GM has them continue to get away' date=' its a clear message that the heroes have done their part in game, but the overarching plot line requires the villains to escape. [/quote']

 

I'm sorry for upsetting you on this one too, only I had read this:

 

One of my greatest frustrations running Champions is when a group of players just doesnt get that and doggedly refuses to let the bad guys get away' date=' despite mounting evidence that the story calls for it.[/quote']

 

Now I appreciate you don't like me knocking the GM on the basis of the evidence of only one player. I'm really not sure how I feel about you knocking the player, because, my friend, that is what you come across as doing in denigrating his position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

 

....but I'm just reacting now, aren't I? I don't think I should post on this topic again: things are getting a little heated. See you elsewhere on the boards. I'll buy the beers, and we can laugh about all of this.

 

Sean

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

If you want to ignore it, ignore it, if you are going to comment on it have the decency to do so from an informed position, and read it first, and see what I actually have top say.

You do like to jump to extremes, it seems. I didnt say I was ignoring it, I said I wasnt RESPONDING to it. It is basically just your previous opinion restated, and thus there is no point in continuing to respond to it with a counter opinion; you obviously arent going to be swayed.

 

 

I'm sorry for misinterpretting your previous post: you seemed to be suggesting that it would be appropriate.

More polarized thinking on your part. There is still the character's base STR involved with the Grab other than the v/5 portion that is not limited to only succeeding at the Grab.

 

I'm sorry for upsetting you on this one too, only I had read this:

Um, bro, hate to disillusion you but Im not upset.

 

 

 

Now I appreciate you don't like me knocking the GM on the basis of the evidence of only one player. I'm really not sure how I feel about you knocking the player, because, my friend, that is what you come across as doing in denigrating his position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

 

....but I'm just reacting now, aren't I? I don't think I should post on this topic again: things are getting a little heated. See you elsewhere on the boards. I'll buy the beers, and we can laugh about all of this.

 

Sean

 

What part of MOUNTING do you not understand? In other words, the villains are getting away, the PC's valiantly try to stop them, but the GM extracts the villains further away and makes it clear that they are not interested in continuing the encounter. The GM falls out of combat time and narrates it. PC's doggedly continue, GM continues to have the villains get away.

 

At this point its increasingly obvious that COMBAT is over and the villains are going to get away, period. By hardheadedly refusing to pick up on that the players that wont let go are ignoring MOUNTING evidence that the story calls for the villains to get away. The PC's did their job, their initial effort suffices.

 

Also, Im not denegrating the player, Im suggesting that the player mature a little, put their greivance aside, and consider the bigger picture.

[CBikle]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

What part of MOUNTING do you not understand? In other words, the villains are getting away, the PC's valiantly try to stop them, but the GM extracts the villains further away and makes it clear that they are not interested in continuing the encounter. The GM falls out of combat time and narrates it. PC's doggedly continue, GM continues to have the villains get away.

 

At this point its increasingly obvious that COMBAT is over and the villains are going to get away, period. By hardheadedly refusing to pick up on that the players that wont let go are ignoring MOUNTING evidence that the story calls for the villains to get away. The PC's did their job, their initial effort suffices.

 

I guess some players would be ok with this, but most that I know wouldn't.

 

I'd argue that that style of GMing will probably lead to the gradual disintegration of the game. Kind of a "winning the battle but losing the war" kind of thing.

 

Out of curiosity, why does "the story" have to be written in stone ? Using your example, why couldn't the rest of the "story" be resolved by other villains who attempt to carry out the plans of the original villains or attempt to break them out ?

 

Also' date=' Im not denegrating the player, Im suggesting that the player mature a little, put their greivance aside, and consider the bigger picture.[/quote']

 

Mature a little ? Dude, we're grown men pretending to be superheroes...

 

In all seriousness, thanks for the reply (although I couldn't disagree more).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

I guess some players would be ok with this, but most that I know wouldn't.

 

I'd argue that that style of GMing will probably lead to the gradual disintegration of the game. Kind of a "winning the battle but losing the war" kind of thing.

 

It's a roleplaying game. There is no "winning" and "losing". Its an exercise in collaborative storytelling. Who or what do you think you are winning over? Your make believe character beat up some other make believe character via many rolls of mechanical probability ranodmizers. What constitutes victory in that scenario?

 

The real "victory" in roleplaying is being able to string multiple sessions together into a coherent chronicle, shared amongst all the participants.

 

Further, try not to think in absolutes. Just because the GM tweaked things for purposes of persisting a plot line when they didnt see any other way out doesn't mean that they ALWAYS will.

 

Out of curiosity, why does "the story" have to be written in stone ? Using your example, why couldn't the rest of the "story" be resolved by other villains who attempt to carry out the plans of the original villains or attempt to break them out ?

Are you so desperate for validation that you need everything to be a tidy little success?

 

The GM's plot line is the GM's plot line. The GM is looking beyond the now, their vision must extend beyond the resolution of a single encounter. No one can answer that question other than your GM.

 

 

 

Mature a little ? Dude, we're grown men pretending to be superheroes...

 

 

Hmm...Im tempted to psychoanalyze that one, but it would just amount to a personal attack so Ill just let it slide.

 

 

 

In all seriousness, thanks for the reply (although I couldn't disagree more).

 

Well, ultimately, if you dont agree with your GM's approach badly enough, you can either leave the game or quit yer *****in and run the game yourself. Your GM is providing you with a service. If you don't appreciate it, then stop wasting their time and move on.

[CBikle]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

It's a roleplaying game. There is no "winning" and "losing". Its an exercise in collaborative storytelling. Who or what do you think you are winning over? Your make believe character beat up some other make believe character via many rolls of mechanical probability ranodmizers. What constitutes victory in that scenario?

 

The real "victory" in roleplaying is being able to string multiple sessions together into a coherent chronicle, shared amongst all the participants.

 

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about you.

 

Specifically the example you (rather rudely to Sean, I might add)posted:

 

What part of MOUNTING do you not understand? In other words, the villains are getting away, the PC's valiantly try to stop them, but the GM extracts the villains further away and makes it clear that they are not interested in continuing the encounter. The GM falls out of combat time and narrates it. PC's doggedly continue, GM continues to have the villains get away.

 

At this point its increasingly obvious that COMBAT is over and the villains are going to get away, period. By hardheadedly refusing to pick up on that the players that wont let go are ignoring MOUNTING evidence that the story calls for the villains to get away.

 

Now with this:

The GM's plot line is the GM's plot line. The GM is looking beyond the now' date=' their vision must extend beyond the resolution of a single encounter. No one can answer that question other than your GM. [/quote']

 

What happened to this being an effort in collaborative storytelling between GMs and PCs ?

 

Well' date=' ultimately, if you dont agree with your GM's approach badly enough, you can either leave the game or quit yer *****in and run the game yourself. [/quote']

Dude...the. only. one. *****ing. is. you.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Interesting telekinesis situation.

 

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about you.

 

Specifically the example you (rather rudely to Sean, I might add)posted:

 

"I'd argue that that style of GMing will probably lead to the gradual disintegration of the game. Kind of a "winning the battle but losing the war" kind of thing." -- CBikle

 

 

What happened to this being an effort in collaborative storytelling between GMs and PCs ?

The GM is still responsible for the general direction and plot line; setting the stage as it were. A fact that you surely must be aware of.

 

Dude...the. only. one. *****ing. is. you.

 

How could I be *****ing about your complaint against your GM in a game I wasnt involved with? In a thread started by you for the express purpose of whining about an action taken by your GM that you didnt agree with, no less.

 

Whatever.

 

Good luck with your game, and give my condolences to your GM.