Using Supervillain Psych Lims

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

There is also no reason every roll means an appearance and a combat. Your Hunted could take action while you are engaged in something else, and you hear about it later. Maybe Clown Man leaves a dead Sparrow on your doorstep to taunt you about his killing of Sparrow the Kid Wonder. Maybe he just buys up a Reg Argonite rock and starts preparing it into a doomsday ray, and you only know the rock was stolen from PLANET Labs. These things could all happen while the PC is in space He finds out about them (or doesn't) on his return.

 

Maybe when I roll an appearance for a Hunted for every PC, that means their Huinteds have met and will work together on a plan to desyroy their respective nemeses.

 

If Aunt June's DNPC roll and Dr. Squid's Hunted roll both come up, maybe they've met and are becoming romantically involved, unknown to the PC, ArachnidBoy

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

But they _are_ supposed to roll it, and they _are_ supposed to match appearances and die rolls 1:1.

 

Given the sentences talk about having difficulty working it into "that night's session", and it specifies they should be made up for, it is a stretch and a leap to say that it leaves it utterly up to the GM.

 

It provides clear guidelines and says what the GM should do. And, incidently, it states in no uncertain terms that the GM should roll every sessiom - rolling is NOT presented as optional.

 

 

 

By selectively quoting.

 

Selective quoting is an excellent way to misrepresent someone. By pulling out the right pieces, you can reverse the meaning. Context is important.

 

And the fact that a book is acessible is unimportant. I for one tend to believe my opponents to have been quoting accurately and so see no reason to go hunt down a book (which may have even been lent out).

 

Lies (any form of misleading) that can be easily disproved is no more honest for that.

 

Tell me... why did you omit the sentences after the sections you quoted that I included?

 

The only answer I can think of is, to quote a moderately humourous movie... "Because it's absolutely devastating to my case!".

 

Accusing me of deliberate dishonesty is all you have left now, isn't it? Seriously, this is about as devestating to my case as a wet noodle.

 

I left them out for the same reason I left out the parts of the FREd quote I left out...I didn't feel like typing in hundreds of words of quoted text, so I quoted the important parts.

 

The sentences I did quote from 4th are more than enough to demonstrate that the frequency rolls weren't a strict rule as far back as 1989. That's how I read it when I found the game in 1993, that's how every GM I've ever played the game with has read it. Including the sentences that I did quote in the book pretty much put the whole thing under GM and player discretion.

 

But since you want to expand the reading, fine, we can do that. Note that at the beginning of the relavent paragraph for DNPC, it says "adventure", not session. That alone gives the GM a tremendous amount of leeway, since the GM pretty much decides when an "adventure" is over and a new one begins. It could mean each session, it could mean each story arc -- it's very vague. And after that, it gives the GM even more leeway by allowing him to "Just make up for it some other time." When is "some other time"?

 

Hunted, on the other hand, specifically refers to "session", but it gives the GM complete leeway as to whether or not to obey the results of the roll for that session. But then, if he doesn't, it's pretty much up to the GM when to "make up for it" -- as in "during another session", which could be next session, or a year from then, it really doesn't say.

 

There's so much leeway given to the GM in those two paragraphs that the rolls might as well be left out entirely. And I can't find anything in either paragraph that specifically says that the DNPC or Hunted appreances must match the roll on a 1:1 ratio -- in fact, rolling for it makes it quite likely that it won't be at exactly that ratio unless you play the same PCs for hundreds of sessions (or is it adventures?).

 

Yeah, my case is really devestated now. Woo boy, don't know how I'll handle this...

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

There is also no reason every roll means an appearance and a combat. Your Hunted could take action while you are engaged in something else, and you hear about it later. Maybe Clown Man leaves a dead Sparrow on your doorstep to taunt you about his killing of Sparrow the Kid Wonder. Maybe he just buys up a Reg Argonite rock and starts preparing it into a doomsday ray, and you only know the rock was stolen from PLANET Labs. These things could all happen while the PC is in space He finds out about them (or doesn't) on his return.

 

Maybe when I roll an appearance for a Hunted for every PC, that means their Huinteds have met and will work together on a plan to desyroy their respective nemeses.

 

If Aunt June's DNPC roll and Dr. Squid's Hunted roll both come up, maybe they've met and are becoming romantically involved, unknown to the PC, ArachnidBoy

 

All of which is so open-ended and up to the GM that I'm wondering why the rolls would ever be required?

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

All of which is so open-ended and up to the GM that I'm wondering why the rolls would ever be required?

 

*Everything* is open ended and vague. What does getting hit for X STUN mean when you describe it? What does making your to-hit roll by Y mean when it's described? What does a failed contact roll entail happened?

 

The rules are there to provide a _fair_ framework, where your chances of hitting, getting knocked out, knowing someone useful, seducing an NPC, or doing a handstand are not up to the whim of the GM, but instead something you have some control over and knowledge of.

 

The rolls (and rules) are there to tell the GM what he should be doing to make sure the player gets to play the character they designed as they designed it - which, because Hero is better than many games, includes how often their arch foe or annoying sidekick is going to cause problems.

 

 

Answer me this, by the way: Why WOULD the rules require you to roll for something? (Anything; justify one roll, please)

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Accusing me of deliberate dishonesty is all you have left now' date=' isn't it? Seriously, this is about as devestating to my case as a wet noodle. [/quote']

 

The fact that you used a dishonest tehnique (cherry picking?) is just incidental. The fact that 4th said what I said it did rather than what you said it did is what absolutely demolishes your claim that it didn't.

 

I left them out for the same reason I left out the parts of the FREd quote I left out...I didn't feel like typing in hundreds of words of quoted text, so I quoted the important parts.

 

The sentences I did quote from 4th are more than enough to demonstrate that the frequency rolls weren't a strict rule as far back as 1989. That's how I read it when I found the game in 1993, that's how every GM I've ever played the game with has read it. Including the sentences that I did quote in the book pretty much put the whole thing under GM and player discretion.

 

The words you left out were enough to reverse it.

 

I read it exactly as I've said I've read it, which is the visible meaning of the words, and if those other GM's either made an error in reading comprehension or threw in a gratuitious house rule, that's nothing to do with me.

 

I notice a shift from "it wasn't the rules" to "it wasn't a STRICT rule", incidently. Strict is meaningless. Hero is nice and friendly, it says that you can do things other ways, because, you know, you're always free to implement your own house rules, there are no rule police.

 

But, as I've been saying for several iterations now, the correct method was to roll and take a note of the need to include that character. And this gives power to players to determine the kind of NPC's and villains they would like to show up, or at least a way to present it formally to their GM (after all, the GM could just reject the disadvantage, but at least THEN they would be making it clear they don't want to run the kind of game the player is requesting).

 

It facilitates communication. Your favoured vagueness makes it no easier to tell a good story, but it does make it harder to protest poor GMing.

 

But since you want to expand the reading, fine, we can do that. Note that at the beginning of the relavent paragraph for DNPC, it says "adventure", not session. That alone gives the GM a tremendous amount of leeway, since the GM pretty much decides when an "adventure" is over and a new one begins. It could mean each session, it could mean each story arc -- it's very vague. And after that, it gives the GM even more leeway by allowing him to "Just make up for it some other time." When is "some other time"?

 

Hunted, on the other hand, specifically refers to "session", but it gives the GM complete leeway as to whether or not to obey the results of the roll for that session. But then, if he doesn't, it's pretty much up to the GM when to "make up for it" -- as in "during another session", which could be next session, or a year from then, it really doesn't say.

 

There's so much leeway given to the GM in those two paragraphs that the rolls might as well be left out entirely. And I can't find anything in either paragraph that specifically says that the DNPC or Hunted appreances must match the roll on a 1:1 ratio -- in fact, rolling for it makes it quite likely that it won't be at exactly that ratio unless you play the same PCs for hundreds of sessions (or is it adventures?).

 

Yeah, my case is really devestated now. Woo boy, don't know how I'll handle this...

 

By resorting to rules lawyering to violate the spirit of the rule? Oh boy, that's a good comeback.

 

And as for the 1:1 ratio... 1 appearance per 1 instance of them being rolled as appearing. Yet another instance of either poor reading comprehension or wilful misrepresentation.

 

Bah.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

The fact that you used a dishonest tehnique (cherry picking?) is just incidental. The fact that 4th said what I said it did rather than what you said it did is what absolutely demolishes your claim that it didn't.

 

I quoted what I thought was relevant. That we don't agree on what was relevent doesn't mean that I was being dishonest.

 

It says something about the strength of your arguement that you're going after my posting style, and me personally, at least as much as you're addressing the issue at hand.

 

The words you left out were enough to reverse it.

 

We disagree on that. (Obviously) After your insistence that 4th Ed demanded rolling for those Disads, I was pleasently surprised by the rather open-ended language I found when I went back to check.

 

I read it exactly as I've said I've read it, which is the visible meaning of the words, and if those other GM's either made an error in reading comprehension or threw in a gratuitious house rule, that's nothing to do with me.

 

Yeah, meaning so visible that the four GMs and many players I've been in HERO-based games with all read it the opposite way you did, and so did I back then, and again when I went back to check.

 

Instead of assuming that they -- and I -- coundn't read (ironic, considering that this is a text medium), or are bad GMs, or ignore the published rules "gratuitously", maybe for a moment you could entertain the following:

 

That everyone I played with graduated from college, and that includes two people who teach college English courses, a high-school teacher, a guy who made staff sargeant while in combat in Iraq and has been to most of the countries in Europe more than once and speaks three languages, a guy with what amounted to a triple major, a professional magician and storyteller who has been gaming since near the very beginning of RPGs, and so on. In other words, we weren't idiots and it's really unlikely that we had poor reading comprehension skills.

 

That we've all played a multitude of different game systems with many different people who have many different styles.

 

That all of us read it the same way, in good faith, and found that it worked very well using it exactly as we read it, and never needed the rolls or the percentages to make it work.

 

That we had a lot of fun playing in those campaigns of Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Wars adapted to HERO, and even a trial run of one guy's World of Darkness adapted to HERO.

 

That we'd all be stunned by the notion that getting a good balance of everyone's characters, and their respective plot hooks, into the game would require a hard and fast set of dice rolls.

 

I notice a shift from "it wasn't the rules" to "it wasn't a STRICT rule", incidently. Strict is meaningless. Hero is nice and friendly, it says that you can do things other ways, because, you know, you're always free to implement your own house rules, there are no rule police.

 

And, in the cases in question, it goes so far as to make an additional, specific point of given the GM even more leeway right there in the rules. Huh.

 

But, as I've been saying for several iterations now, the correct method was to roll and take a note of the need to include that character. And this gives power to players to determine the kind of NPC's and villains they would like to show up, or at least a way to present it formally to their GM (after all, the GM could just reject the disadvantage, but at least THEN they would be making it clear they don't want to run the kind of game the player is requesting).

 

What kind of player/GM relationship requires the communication to be hidden in the character sheet, speaking in a code of Disads and required rolls and NPC appearance percentages?

 

It facilitates communication. Your favoured vagueness makes it no easier to tell a good story, but it does make it harder to protest poor GMing.

 

How? If the GMing is poor, then talk to the GM about it, get another player to GM, or leave the group if both of those fail. Wow, that was really hard.

 

By resorting to rules lawyering to violate the spirit of the rule? Oh boy, that's a good comeback.

 

Now it's "rules lawyering" to take an option offered by the guys who wrote the book? IMO, "rules lawyering" is getting on the GM's case because one's personal NPCs are't getting their 55% airtime and demanding rolls.

 

And as for the 1:1 ratio... 1 appearance per 1 instance of them being rolled as appearing. Yet another instance of either poor reading comprehension or wilful misrepresentation.

 

"Either you can't read, or you're lying."

 

Nice. Maybe I'm working on something while I'm posting. Maybe I'm not feeling well. Maybe the cat was bugging me. Maybe one of a hundred things distracted me while I was reading your post and I misread the end of that one sentence. But no, none of that could be the case, I'm either lying or I have poor reading skills. Really nice, Whamme, really nice.

 

Again, it's telling that you're the one engaging in personal attacks as much as you're addressing the issue at hand. This didn't start out being about you, Whamme, and it still isn't about you. It got heated because you took a general comment I made about a (IMO) poor GMing style as a personal insult, which might tell the rest of us something.

 

Yes, the rules going back at least 17 years clearly provide the rules for rolling, and probably favor rolling as the default method in the older 4th Ed rules. I have no problem saying that, it's true.

 

What I do have a problem with the the assertion being made that anyone who didn't and does not roll, and/or who does not adhere very closely to the frequencies they represent, is a terrible GM who is cheating his players and ignoring the rules and the players in favor of his own whims. I have a problem with someone being so certain that his way is the only way and that his reading of the rules is correct that he's reduced to attacking the minutia of my posts and my quoting, and to attacking the GMing style of guys who were so good at gaming that I can't even game with average players or GMs now because I get frustrated by the lack of character, the powergaming, and the aimless GMing-by-numbers.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

And really, the other thing I don't understand is this idea that I'm being "cheated" if my DNPCs and Hunteds don't show up. I don't care if they show up all the time, sometimes I'm happier if they don't. Let other people have the limelight if they want it, some people like their characters to get in trouble -- the deeper the better. Personally, I'm happy just staying in character and addressing whatever challenges are currently facing us and having fun. I don't need Disads/Flaws/whatever to define my PCs or keep them in the game or keep me in character. At the end of the day, that 150 points that most GMs want in Disads is more of a chore than a "way of communicating".

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

And really' date=' the other thing I don't understand is this idea that I'm being "cheated" if my DNPCs and Hunteds don't show up. I don't care if they show up all the time, sometimes I'm happier if they don't. Let other people have the limelight if they want it, some people like their characters to get in trouble -- the deeper the better. Personally, I'm happy just staying in character and addressing whatever challenges are currently facing us and having fun. I don't need Disads/Flaws/whatever to define my PCs or keep them in the game or keep me in character. At the end of the day, that 150 points that most GMs want in Disads is more of a chore than a "way of communicating".[/quote']

 

If it's a chore, why do it? If you game with such great guys, why bother?

 

Heck, if you trust everyone so much and all, why do you need rules?

 

 

 

For those of us who occasionally have to deal with mere mortals, they help provide guideposts for keeping the spotlight balanced and people from feeling either ignored or put upon.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

I quoted what I thought was relevant. That we don't agree on what was relevent doesn't mean that I was being dishonest.

 

It says something about the strength of your arguement that you're going after my posting style, and me personally, at least as much as you're addressing the issue at hand.

 

No, it really doesn't say a thing. I could say it says something that you feel a need to use it as a debating point... are you feeling insecure?

 

I addressed it because I was offended by it. Since you insist you were doing nothing wrong, I'll accept that.

 

We disagree on that. (Obviously) After your insistence that 4th Ed demanded rolling for those Disads, I was pleasently surprised by the rather open-ended language I found when I went back to check.

 

So happy, you didn't bother double checking but went right ahead and declared victory... tsk.

 

It says that you have to roll every session. There is no ambiguity about _that_. It gives flexibility in what you do AFTER that. Which I'd ackknowledged. From my first post, where I said that was how I did it.

 

Yeah, meaning so visible that the four GMs and many players I've been in HERO-based games with all read it the opposite way you did, and so did I back then, and again when I went back to check.

 

Instead of assuming that they -- and I -- coundn't read (ironic, considering that this is a text medium), or are bad GMs, or ignore the published rules "gratuitously", maybe for a moment you could entertain the following:

 

That everyone I played with graduated from college, and that includes two people who teach college English courses, a high-school teacher, a guy who made staff sargeant while in combat in Iraq and has been to most of the countries in Europe more than once and speaks three languages, a guy with what amounted to a triple major, a professional magician and storyteller who has been gaming since near the very beginning of RPGs, and so on. In other words, we weren't idiots and it's really unlikely that we had poor reading comprehension skills.

 

That we've all played a multitude of different game systems with many different people who have many different styles.

 

That all of us read it the same way, in good faith, and found that it worked very well using it exactly as we read it, and never needed the rolls or the percentages to make it work.

 

That we had a lot of fun playing in those campaigns of Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Wars adapted to HERO, and even a trial run of one guy's World of Darkness adapted to HERO.

 

That we'd all be stunned by the notion that getting a good balance of everyone's characters, and their respective plot hooks, into the game would require a hard and fast set of dice rolls.

 

Did I say it was a requirement?

 

It's easy to misread things, especially if you didn't learn from the rules but instead learnt from another player and thus had a preconception of how it should work.

 

Or if you're taking baggage from another game, same thing.

 

And a longstanding house rule can begin to feel like it's actually part of the rules; the XP for Gold rule in old D&D is particularly prone to being denied due to how many people house ruled it awsay, for example.

 

I never accused them, or you, of being bad GMs; you did, however, accuse people who prefer to follow rules precisely of being bad GMs/players.

 

We're looking at the words. Tell me where it says the GM can opt to not roll either of them. It's not there.

 

And, in the cases in question, it goes so far as to make an additional, specific point of given the GM even more leeway right there in the rules. Huh.

 

It does that in a lot of places.

 

What kind of player/GM relationship requires the communication to be hidden in the character sheet, speaking in a code of Disads and required rolls and NPC appearance percentages?

 

One where the GM has an imperfect memory and needs to keep notes?

 

The GM and player should definately talk about this (and any other aspect of the character) in advance. But that's no reason to not write down the conclusions on the sheet.

 

And I'd like to note that the character sheet is a good shorthand. You need to convey a lot of information about game expectations. And most of it will (hopefully) be stuff the GM can glance at and approve, while potential problem areas can be eliminated without affecting anything else.

 

With a knowledgeable player, that can take a bit of work off the GM's shoulders.

 

Oh, and it's hard to communicate assumptions. Because, you know, they're assumptions. The Hero Chargen way of going over every aspect of a characters life helps a lot with that.

 

How? If the GMing is poor, then talk to the GM about it, get another player to GM, or leave the group if both of those fail. Wow, that was really hard.

 

The hard part is when you can't really point to something to complain about. You feel you're not getting enough spotlight, or too much, but someone might be hurt if you complained.

 

If I don't like a rule, it's the rules, deal with it. If I don't like the house rules, or bits of the GMing, it can be a little harder to complain if you like the person - or worse, if you also like most of what they're doing.

 

Now it's "rules lawyering" to take an option offered by the guys who wrote the book? IMO, "rules lawyering" is getting on the GM's case because one's personal NPCs are't getting their 55% airtime and demanding rolls.

 

After the GM said "Okay" to you submitting a character who would have NPCs showing 55% of the time?

 

You claim that, since they had leeway in when they have to have the Hunted they rolled show up, they can choose NEVER as an appropriate time.

 

Even if I accept that, I can think of a good reason to mandate rolling:

 

To remind them about the NPC in question. Having to roll whether they show up or not and then decide whether to include them in the next session helps remind the GM the NPC exists.

 

And the argument that being allowed to delay something means you're allowed to prevent it from ever happening is a logical leap anyway.

 

"Either you can't read, or you're lying."

 

Nice. Maybe I'm working on something while I'm posting. Maybe I'm not feeling well. Maybe the cat was bugging me. Maybe one of a hundred things distracted me while I was reading your post and I misread the end of that one sentence. But no, none of that could be the case, I'm either lying or I have poor reading skills. Really nice, Whamme, really nice.

 

Again, it's telling that you're the one engaging in personal attacks as much as you're addressing the issue at hand. This didn't start out being about you, Whamme, and it still isn't about you. It got heated because you took a general comment I made about a (IMO) poor GMing style as a personal insult, which might tell the rest of us something.

 

Yes, the rules going back at least 17 years clearly provide the rules for rolling, and probably favor rolling as the default method in the older 4th Ed rules. I have no problem saying that, it's true.

 

What I do have a problem with the the assertion being made that anyone who didn't and does not roll, and/or who does not adhere very closely to the frequencies they represent, is a terrible GM who is cheating his players and ignoring the rules and the players in favor of his own whims. I have a problem with someone being so certain that his way is the only way and that his reading of the rules is correct that he's reduced to attacking the minutia of my posts and my quoting, and to attacking the GMing style of guys who were so good at gaming that I can't even game with average players or GMs now because I get frustrated by the lack of character, the powergaming, and the aimless GMing-by-numbers.

 

If you get so bent out of shape when someone attacks your GMing style, perhaps you should refrain from attacking that of others.

 

As for the jab about your reading comprehension... I didn't say _why_ you didn't 'get' the intended meaning. I just noted that you did not get the intended meaning of a sentence as it was written (or you were trying to misrepresent it; I don't have access to your mind). You may or may not have some kind of reading problem; what I *can* tell is that if you thought that was what I was trying to say, you did not gather the correct meaning.

 

Whether it was caused by a cat, a neurological imbalance, being in a hurry, or a bad burrito, you observably did not comprehend my meaning, and given that you did so while reading the rulebook as well, it seems reasonable to absolve myself of blame.

 

I reread your posts to try and ensure I follow your reasoning. If *I* fail to comprehend something, I'd expect you to call me on it.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

It says that you have to roll every session.

 

Really? Go re-read the DNPC entry in 4th Ed again. I'm pretty sure it says "adventure", as I just pointed out. Can't check the book, I'm at work.

 

And what exactly it means be adventure, I'm not sure. Session? Story arc? Whatever the players and GM feel like?

 

 

I reread your posts to try and ensure I follow your reasoning. If *I* fail to comprehend something, I'd expect you to call me on it.

 

[Enforcer84]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Thrust! Parry! GOUGE! FLAIL! SLAP! Dodge! Spin! Spin! Poke! Reposte! Scream!

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Thrust! Parry! GOUGE! FLAIL! SLAP! Dodge! Spin! Spin! Poke! Reposte! Scream!

 

Nah.

 

I just have trouble leaving a groundless accusation unaddressed.

 

Anyway, at this point, it's the conversational equivalent of waiting for my opponent to realize that I've mortally wounded him, and fall down. Meanwhile, I still have to slap aside his attacks so he doesn't get any blood on me.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Really? Go re-read the DNPC entry in 4th Ed again. I'm pretty sure it says "adventure", as I just pointed out. Can't check the book, I'm at work.

 

And what exactly it means be adventure, I'm not sure. Session? Story arc? Whatever the players and GM feel like?

 

 

 

 

 

One is worded each way.

 

Hunted rolls each "game session". DNPC rolls "before each adventure". The other point in the rules where the word Adventure was used is XP; an Adventure is the length of time between awarding experience. (And yes, an Adventure can specifically last longer than a session).

 

Beyond that, no, it's not defined.

 

I severely doubt they varied the wording because they varied their intent. Given the basic standard was for most adventures to last a single session (the XP chart notes a multi-session adventure as being something that might happen, and so NOT the norm, presumeably).

 

By the way, I'm still here because you rudely compared anyone who thinks rolling for disadvantages is a good idea with the epitome of bad roleplaying; D&D 'wargaming' RPGs.

 

That is insulting. You should apologize.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Wait, so, just for me to understand, are you opening the discussion up to where you area allowed to extrapolate from the rules based on your own judgement calls?

 

Not being sarcastic. I just think that if we go there, then we are going to get a lot of arguments stemming from the different readings of intent in the book.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Wait, so, just for me to understand, are you opening the discussion up to where you area allowed to extrapolate from the rules based on your own judgement calls?

 

Not being sarcastic. I just think that if we go there, then we are going to get a lot of arguments stemming from the different readings of intent in the book.

 

 

We're already there.

 

Of course, in this case, it's kinda moot, since FREd entirely and unambiguously supports my position.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

We're already there.

 

Of course, in this case, it's kinda moot, since FREd entirely and unambiguously supports my position.

 

...of course, it DOES still allow for the rolling of disadvantages, the rolling of disadvantages is still the default position (which you are free to ignore, but you should probably tell the players that's what you're doing), and it being optional does not affect this:

 

"Rolling disadvantages does not make you a poor GM"

 

So no, it doesn't support your theory that the only good way to GM is to not roll disadvantages.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

...of course, it DOES still allow for the rolling of disadvantages, the rolling of disadvantages is still the default position (which you are free to ignore, but you should probably tell the players that's what you're doing), and it being optional does not affect this:

 

"Rolling disadvantages does not make you a poor GM"

 

So no, it doesn't support your theory that the only good way to GM is to not roll disadvantages.

 

Was that my theory?

 

I think I missed where that was my theory.

 

I started out making a snide comment about people who, on these forums, vocally assert that things are terribly wrong with a game and with a GM if the GM doesn't roll and/or strictly follow the percentages. That's what I was commenting on, and what it seems to me you immediately stepped up to defend, and defend with a certain about of bile at that.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Was that my theory?

 

I think I missed where that was my theory.

 

I started out making a snide comment about people who, on these forums, vocally assert that things are terribly wrong with a game and with a GM if the GM doesn't roll and/or strictly follow the percentages. That's what I was commenting on, and what it seems to me you immediately stepped up to defend, and defend with a certain about of bile at that.

 

vs

 

The very idea of rolling for Disads every game session strikes me as a very Gygaxian, D&D thing to do, along the lines of having a pair of charts in the back of the DM's Guide for coming up with what kind of prostitute the party might run into tonight...

 

or

 

"Sorry guys, I know we were left off at a cliffhanger last time we played, and that the space station was about to explode, but since Ultraman's DNPC hasn't come up in 3.25 sessions, we're going to do a flashback today to keep things balanced."

 

Both times, you're being extremely condescending and superior.

[Harry Canyon]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

*Everything* is open ended and vague. What does getting hit for X STUN mean when you describe it? What does making your to-hit roll by Y mean when it's described? What does a failed contact roll entail happened?

 

The rules are there to provide a _fair_ framework, where your chances of hitting, getting knocked out, knowing someone useful, seducing an NPC, or doing a handstand are not up to the whim of the GM, but instead something you have some control over and knowledge of.

 

The rolls (and rules) are there to tell the GM what he should be doing to make sure the player gets to play the character they designed as they designed it - which, because Hero is better than many games, includes how often their arch foe or annoying sidekick is going to cause problems.

 

 

Answer me this, by the way: Why WOULD the rules require you to roll for something? (Anything; justify one roll, please)

Uhh... Why are you generalizing here? I'm fairly confident that the "why require a dice roll" reference was regarding Disadvantages; not damage rolls, "to hit" or any other roll in the game. So where did the leap to "what do you mean all rolls are bad" come from?

 

Take care,

 

Derek

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Uhh... Why are you generalizing here? I'm fairly confident that the "why require a dice roll" reference was regarding Disadvantages; not damage rolls, "to hit" or any other roll in the game. So where did the leap to "what do you mean all rolls are bad" come from?

 

Take care,

 

Derek

 

My point was that it is hard to justify rolling for anything.

 

You roll to add a random element to make things less predictable (and thus, hopefully, more fun) (or, alternatively, to prevent everything coming down to GM arbitration).

 

Why is the burden of proof on *me* to prove it's good to roll? Why not try and prove it's bad to roll for it?

 

The answer: Proving something is hard. If you can convince your opponent they have something to prove, you're going to win.

[Harry Canyon]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

My point was that it is hard to justify rolling for anything.

 

You roll to add a random element to make things less predictable (and thus, hopefully, more fun) (or, alternatively, to prevent everything coming down to GM arbitration).

I completely agree with the 'random element' aspect. Personally I like rolls in some (perhaps even most) situations, but not all! A roll allows me as GM, IMO, two options. I take the roll at face value and work it into the current situation. Or I ignore the roll and use what I feel works for the story. I've no hard and fast rule about this , I use either as it suits me, the game, and what I believe my player's expectations to be, at that moment in the game.

 

Why is the burden of proof on *me* to prove it's good to roll? Why not try and prove it's bad to roll for it?

Where did that come from? And who ever said it (the 'burden of proof') was? The original response was regarding Disadvantages, not "all rolls". You're generalizing here when the post was, IMO, specific.

The answer: Proving something is hard. If you can convince your opponent they have something to prove, you're going to win.

I disagree. I'll be specific. If I claim that it hurts if I stomp your foot, and then stomp your foot (and you're not wearing some sort of protective footgear), it will hurt. Proving something isn't difficult. Getting the other person to accept that it's been proven (i.e. they're wrong), now THAT's the difficult part.

 

As to the original poster... Good question. There have been some interesting replies. And truth be told, I haven't given it much thought as to how that's a disadvantage, until now. Curse you for making me think!!

 

I did enjoy the Running Man reference and thought it was an appropriate example. I will ponder this further.

 

Take care,

 

Derek

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

I completely agree with the 'random element' aspect. Personally I like rolls in some (perhaps even most) situations' date=' but not all! A roll allows me as GM, IMO, two options. I take the roll at face value and work it into the current situation. Or I ignore the roll and use what I feel works for the story. I've no hard and fast rule about this , I use either as it suits me, the game, and what I believe my player's expectations to be, at that moment in the game.[/quote']

 

Have you ever found exercising the second option has led to players feeling irrelevant and/or bullet proof?

 

Where did that come from? And who ever said it (the 'burden of proof') was? The original response was regarding Disadvantages, not "all rolls". You're generalizing here when the post was, IMO, specific.

 

Because the answer is the same as for why you roll for anything: because it's better than not rolling.

 

It's more fun for many people to have an element of chance, rather than just be wandering through a Pick-A-Path book.

 

Having established why it's good to have an element of chance, let us reverse the question: why would you NOT want to roll for disadvantages?

 

Takes time? Not as much time as trying to make sure they don't show up too often by polling the players, keeping track of past sessions, and so forth.

 

Disrupts your plans? Not if you integrate it well; Hunteds and DNPCs can add that personal touch. Besides, lot's of things can disrupt the scenario. Most of them are players.

 

You don't do it in other games? This isn't other games, and we've established rolling is having fun.

 

Again, it's easy to shoot things down, it's hard to make something bulletproof.

 

I disagree. I'll be specific. If I claim that it hurts if I stomp your foot, and then stomp your foot (and you're not wearing some sort of protective footgear), it will hurt. Proving something isn't difficult. Getting the other person to accept that it's been proven (i.e. they're wrong), now THAT's the difficult part.

 

Good point, you're right, you've proven your point. The problem remains; it is hard (impossible, most likely) to put forth an unassailable position.

 

As to the original poster... Good question. There have been some interesting replies. And truth be told, I haven't given it much thought as to how that's a disadvantage, until now. Curse you for making me think!!

 

I did enjoy the Running Man reference and thought it was an appropriate example. I will ponder this further.

 

Take care,

 

Derek

[Manic Typist]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

 

You don't do it in other games? This isn't other games, and we've established rolling is having fun.

 

 

Um, not necessarily true, on the whole "rolling=fun" bit. But that is probably not what you meant. Because, from my understanding was that D&D was all about this, the aimless combat, etc. I don't think you're all about that.

 

So...... this was kind of a waste, I guess. But, just to make sure!

[Karmakaze]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Have you ever found exercising the second option has led to players feeling irrelevant and/or bullet proof?

 

I've never had a problem with it. Of course, I'm far more likely to add or remove a die (or adjust the difficulty modifier) to a roll to "nudge" a result rather than simply ignoring a roll I don't care for. And even that is something I use sparingly.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Um, not necessarily true, on the whole "rolling=fun" bit. But that is probably not what you meant. Because, from my understanding was that D&D was all about this, the aimless combat, etc. I don't think you're all about that.

 

So...... this was kind of a waste, I guess. But, just to make sure!

 

This is why I threw out the challenge to K to argue for using dice at all.

 

You have to accept rolling is at least sometimes good to want to roll for something. If you hate dice, then

 

a) playing Hero "dice buckets required" System seems odd

there's no way you'll support rolling for ANYTHING