Compensating for PC Abilities

[Mike W]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Let's say you let a player have a power that is a little tough to deal with in general. A few exmples might include:

• Entangle Based on ECV
  
• Small EB Based on ECV (does BODY), around 3D6
  
• Detect Truth
  
• Fairly High Powered Telepathy

Now these turn out during game play to be powers that do quite a bit to derail adventures. The first ability winds up letting the player freeze a big threat or three so that everyone else can gang up on those left to fight; The EB slowly pecks away at someone who no one else seems to be able to hurt; The characters always know that the NPCs aren't being straight with them; The players manage to dredge up big pieces of the hidden plot from the minds of their victims.

 

As a GM, you have a responsibility to make things more difficult on your players. If they waltz through scenarios then its not all that rewarding for them. On the other hand, if villains start showing up with High EGOs, with special powers of deception, with Resistant Mental Defense, it's a cheat to the hero to some degree that his powers stop being all that functional.

 

I realize this is why they put the caution and stop signs in the book, but curing play sometimes something proves more troublesome than expected.

 

How do you handle the powers that seem to circumvent your game? Do you repeatedly slap down the "offender" by beefing up your villains to unconscienable degress? Do you let them run roughshod? Do you wind up inserting a mysterious mental defense mid-combat to spare the adventure's plotline?

 

In short, how do you deal with powers that exist in your game that are proving to be a headache?

 

A lot of that depends on the ability. Once it becomes widely known, some super smart guy like the Tinkerer(in Marvel) would likely come up with a way around it or a device to block it. Or villains start gameplanning for it. Suddenly, the guy with the biggest attack isn't necessarily the first one to go down.

 

If it's more of a non-combat ability like "Detect Truth", there have already been some good ideas. Just look at the limits of the power. Villains are naturally creative, especially when they know what they're up against.

[sinanju]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Thirdly' date=' sit em down. Explain to the player that you didn't forsee this power construct as being an issue and you let it in. But now that you have, you see that it is really wrecking the games. Ask the player to go radiation accident or redesign to remove the offending power. In theory this shouldn't be a problem because we are all adults right? Pshaw. I wish.[/quote']

 

I guess it depends on your gaming group. It's never been a problem in my (now defunct, alas) gaming group. We've all been the GM and we're all unrepentant powergamers, so we understand the realities of rules-legal but unworkable character designs. It's almost a a badge of honor to have your character identified as too powerful or too effective for the game; you get some public acknowledgement of your cunning and cleverness...and then you redesign or retire the character so the game can go on.

[CBikle]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Did the player buy his mental entangle to affect machines, animals and aliens ? If not, he should, seeing as the SFX ( time stop) should affect those characters. By having to add those advantages, it might warrant having to bring it down to a lower-level to keep it in the same relative point range. Problem solved.

 

I'm also wondering if Mental Entangle is the best attack to represent timestop. I'm thinking more of a Transformation attack. This might also solve the problem in that odds are he'll need 3 + shots to "freeze" the target.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

I've done some serious Mentalist work lately, as I've just taken over our Champions campaign. Our old GM had a flat no-mentalists guideline, for all the reasons you've mentioned above. Personally, I like mentalists and wouldn't mind seeing a mentalist PC. But, I've worked up some guidelines for it. I think these might be pretty helpful to you IF your player is willing to accept a few rewrites in the interest of keeping the game fun for everyone - including you - which I think most players would be understanding of.

 

1. All Mentalists must take some Common, Total Psych Lim referring to the "Sanctity Of The Mind" - IE: They won't use Telepathy or Mind Control to force their will into someone else's mind in order to compel the target to divulge his/her secrets. The use of Telepathy must be consentual. It's still a useful power, as the mentalist would be able to help someone recover lost memories. Basically makes Telepathy more of a "helpful" power than an "invasive" power. (The Xavier Clause.)

 

2. Any BOECV Entangle ("Mindlock") Also requires Continuous (to make it a Constant Power for...), Eye Contact Throughout, and Concentration (Throughout, Character Totally Unaware,) & Lockout (Character Can Perform No Other Actions.) Basically, the Mentalist can "Mindfreeze" an opponent, but he has to constantly exert his will in order to keep the target's mind frozen. This way, there's at least a chance the 10 EGO brick will be able to break out of the 3d6 BOECV Entangle when one of his buddies comes over and clobbers the Mentalist (breaking the Concentration) OR one of the Mentalists buddies knocks the villain on his back (breaking Eye Contact.) It's still a useful power, but not so much so that it becomes unbalanced.

 

3. As for Detect Truth, Skill VS. Skill is the way to go. Someone may be really good at being able to tell if someone is lying to them, but the world is full of skilled liars, after all. I think it would be impossible for someone to NEVER be fooled.... unless they have like a Golden Lasso or something...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

I've done some serious Mentalist work lately, as I've just taken over our Champions campaign. Our old GM had a flat no-mentalists guideline, for all the reasons you've mentioned above. Personally, I like mentalists and wouldn't mind seeing a mentalist PC. But, I've worked up some guidelines for it. I think these might be pretty helpful to you IF your player is willing to accept a few rewrites in the interest of keeping the game fun for everyone - including you - which I think most players would be understanding of.

 

1. All Mentalists must take some Common, Total Psych Lim referring to the "Sanctity Of The Mind" - IE: They won't use Telepathy or Mind Control to force their will into someone else's mind in order to compel the target to divulge his/her secrets. The use of Telepathy must be consentual. It's still a useful power, as the mentalist would be able to help someone recover lost memories. Basically makes Telepathy more of a "helpful" power than an "invasive" power. (The Xavier Clause.)

 

2. Any BOECV Entangle ("Mindlock") Also requires Continuous (to make it a Constant Power for...), Eye Contact Throughout, and Concentration (Throughout, Character Totally Unaware, Character Can Perform No Other Actions.) Basically, the Mentalist can "Mindfreeze" an opponent, but he has to constantly exert his will in order to keep the target's mind frozen. This way, there's at least a chance the 10 EGO brick will be able to break out of the 3d6 BOECV Entangle when one of his buddies comes over and clobbers the Mentalist (breaking the Concentration) OR one of the Mentalists buddies knocks the villain on his back (breaking Eye Contact.) It's still a useful power, but not so much so that it becomes unbalanced.

 

So, basically, if you want to play a Mentalist, stick to Ego Attacks, since you won't be allowed to use Mind Control as a real attack. Or are you saying it's OK to use Mind Control to force an opponent to inflict physical violence on his teammmates, just not to force the kidnapper to tell you where the kidnapped child is being held?

 

For the same cost as an Energy Blast, I'd say Telepathy that can't do anything but read a consenting person's mind is far too expensive for the cost. Again, if telepathy, or any other power, is going to break your game, just don't allow it. Or alllow it, but at a level where it's not an autosuccess. Don't allow the player to spend points on an ability you will rarely, if ever, allow him to use successfullly.

 

At least your approach is up front, so the player can make an informed decision about whether he will pay the points for the power. Not too far off a rule stating that characters must take, and role play, a Code vs Killing because we want a low-lethality game.

 

[Mind you, if I'm a mentalist, I have a pretty good ego roll, so I can probably have a decent chance of overriding my psych limit if there's a compelling reason to do so - like, say, my "Protective of the Innocent" total psych lim. ]

[CBikle]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

If a GM doesn't feel comfortable with certain powers like telepathy or clairsentience and has to water them down to the point where they're just "plot devices" (precognition with "No Conscious Control" comes to mind), why have players spend points on them at all ?

 

Telepathy with "consentual only" as a limit, sounds like a plot device to me.

[casualplayer]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

How about making every point of negative STUN effectively 1 point of MD? Tougher to read an unconscious foe.

 

How about Hero Games gets off their duffs and makes Mental Defense a base stat? Everyone would get EGO/5, 1 cp for 1 pt.

 

How about making Telepathy more time-consuming than Googling someone's head? Sure, given all day you can data-mine someone's whole noodle but heroes are usually on a timetable.

 

How about Hero Games getting off their duffs and reinstating Mental Paralysis rather than the kludge Entangle? Champions III was the best book ever!

 

How about VIPER giving their mooks suicide pills or, if too Iron-y, Lithium? try to find a coherent thought in that head.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

So, basically, if you want to play a Mentalist, stick to Ego Attacks, since you won't be allowed to use Mind Control as a real attack. Or are you saying it's OK to use Mind Control to force an opponent to inflict physical violence on his teammmates, just not to force the kidnapper to tell you where the kidnapped child is being held?

 

For the same cost as an Energy Blast, I'd say Telepathy that can't do anything but read a consenting person's mind is far too expensive for the cost. Again, if telepathy, or any other power, is going to break your game, just don't allow it. Or alllow it, but at a level where it's not an autosuccess. Don't allow the player to spend points on an ability you will rarely, if ever, allow him to use successfullly.

 

Oh, it's certainly limiting. No argument there. But, I think I could probably come up with scenarios where a mentalist PC who did want to buy Telepathy would be able to successfully use it. Plus, in certain life or death situations, even a Common/ Total Psych Lim can be overcome with a successful EGO roll minuses a few applicable penalties (at least in our campaign. Others may vary - feeling that Common/ Total is just that. Common and Total.) Creates a nice, highly dramatic moment, actually.

 

On the Mind Control, using MC to take over an opponent's mind and force them attack their colleague wouldn't really fit in with the overall tone of our campaign, and would probably be frowned upon by the other PC's, who would most likely address that with the Mental guy. Now... Mind Controlling someone and telling them to "Stop Fighting" or the like, that's different (to me, anyway.) It's still a useable power, but maybe not in the traditional "offensive" sense.

 

At least your approach is up front, so the player can make an informed decision about whether he will pay the points for the power. Not too far off a rule stating that characters must take, and role play, a Code vs Killing because we want a low-lethality game.

Thanks! That's the idea!

 

[Mind you, if I'm a mentalist, I have a pretty good ego roll, so I can probably have a decent chance of overriding my psych limit if there's a compelling reason to do so - like, say, my "Protective of the Innocent" total psych lim. ]

 

Precisely! And a good time will be had all... Well... maybe except for whoever's harming the Innocent. Yeesh. I'd hate to be the guy that made a super-mentalist override one of his own psych lims. That's like being the guy who makes Batman shoot somebody.

[David Johnston]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Oh' date=' it's certainly limiting. No argument there. But, I think I could probably come up with scenarios where a mentalist PC who did want to buy Telepathy would be able to successfully use it. [/quote']

 

Maybe, but that's kind of like poisoning a character's food just so he can use his Detect Poison. On the whole I'd prefer a code of telepathic ethics that, while forbidding casual use of the ability, still leaves it available when you are dealing with a matter of life and death.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

On the Mind Control' date=' using MC to take over an opponent's mind and force them attack their colleague wouldn't really fit in with the overall tone of our campaign, and would probably be frowned upon by the other PC's, who would most likely address that with the Mental guy. Now... Mind Controlling someone and telling them to "Stop Fighting" or the like, that's different (to me, anyway.) It's still a useable power, but maybe not in the traditional "offensive" sense.[/quote']

 

Do the other PC's refrain from physically striking their opponents, whether with fists or bolts of energy? If so, well and good. If not, however, I see this as just singling out a certain power type, arbitrarily, for special restrictions.

 

I'll never understand why so many posters can accept the use of violent force to solve problems, but reject the use of a more subtle power such as Mind Control ("Attack your villainous allies instead") or Mental Illusions (friends appear as enemies) to cause someone else to inflict exactly the same kind of violent force to exactly the same end result.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

I'll never understand why so many posters can accept the use of violent force to solve problems' date=' but reject the use of a more subtle power such as Mind Control ("Attack your villainous allies instead") or Mental Illusions (friends appear as enemies) to cause someone else to inflict exactly the same kind of violent force to exactly the same end result.[/quote']

 

Best guess: Knee-Jerk reactions generated by the powers seeming to be overpowered/broken because of improper use, either via rules misinterpretation or lack of GM preparedness. For example, a PC drops a Telepathy well within the campaign's DC/Active Pt guidelines and uses it to probe a thug's memory. The GM may forget about the Ego roll, or not consider that the thug probably has a pretty strong aversion to the PCs finding out where the hideout is (on the 'if they find out I told you, they'll kill me' line of defense against interrogation), so that 12d6 (say) of Telepathy goes straight through to the desired answer.

 

Now, again, the GM may not take certain factors into account, not the least of which is that, unless the PCs are the first supers, EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT SUPERPOWERS*, including telepathy. This means that any mastermind worthy of the title won't tell his underlings every last detail of his master plan. He'll only tell him the bare minimum he needs to know to get the job done. In its way, it's like how resistance cells work in rebellions; they don't spread a lot of information between them, because it prevents the 'one gets caught, we all get caught'. REALLY sneaky masterminds will lie to their underlings to throw telepaths off; it's not that the PCs can't use their Telepathy, it's just that they can't use it like a hammer to smash through the plot.

 

Divinations/Precognition are the same way. If the GM isn't prepared, it suddenly becomes "Here you go, read my notes, you know everything". However, if done properly, with a little preparation and a bit of off-the-cuff improvisation (arguably THE most important skill for a game master!), you can use those powers to enhance the plot, rather than expose it like a Playboy Centerfold.

 

(I've also met a lot of GMs who have extremely straightforward ways of thinking and playing; when you do anything besides a straight-up fight, they freeze up and can't even figure out how to judge it, which either means you automatically succeed (because he can't figure it out) or you automatically fail (because he won't let you derail his plot).)

 

*I get just as irate when I'm in a 'Magic is widespread' kind of Fantasy game and not a single character or stronghold has any kind of defense against commonplace magics like flight, scrying and teleportation.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Do the other PC's refrain from physically striking their opponents, whether with fists or bolts of energy? If so, well and good. If not, however, I see this as just singling out a certain power type, arbitrarily, for special restrictions.

 

I'll never understand why so many posters can accept the use of violent force to solve problems, but reject the use of a more subtle power such as Mind Control ("Attack your villainous allies instead") or Mental Illusions (friends appear as enemies) to cause someone else to inflict exactly the same kind of violent force to exactly the same end result.

 

 

Well, each campaign is different. Inherently, there's nothing wrong w/ MC'ing the enemy brick and making him/her attack their colleagues. However, it strikes me (and our prior GM) as devious and a bit underhanded to do so. Not that all fighting has to be direct "me punch you, you fall down," it just wouldn't really be an action that fits the tone of my campaign. It's nothing arbitrary or a personal vendetta against mentalists in any way, shape or form. That just doesn't meet up to the expectations of what has been defined as "heroic" behavior in my campaign. If it works for you, hey, great! More power to ya.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Best guess: Knee-Jerk reactions generated by the powers seeming to be overpowered/broken because of improper use, either via rules misinterpretation or lack of GM preparedness. For example, a PC drops a Telepathy well within the campaign's DC/Active Pt guidelines and uses it to probe a thug's memory. The GM may forget about the Ego roll, or not consider that the thug probably has a pretty strong aversion to the PCs finding out where the hideout is (on the 'if they find out I told you, they'll kill me' line of defense against interrogation), so that 12d6 (say) of Telepathy goes straight through to the desired answer.

 

Now, again, the GM may not take certain factors into account, not the least of which is that, unless the PCs are the first supers, EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT SUPERPOWERS*, including telepathy. This means that any mastermind worthy of the title won't tell his underlings every last detail of his master plan. He'll only tell him the bare minimum he needs to know to get the job done. In its way, it's like how resistance cells work in rebellions; they don't spread a lot of information between them, because it prevents the 'one gets caught, we all get caught'. REALLY sneaky masterminds will lie to their underlings to throw telepaths off; it's not that the PCs can't use their Telepathy, it's just that they can't use it like a hammer to smash through the plot.

 

 

I'm inclined to agree w/ alot of what you're saying here, CC, but - and I could be WAY out in deep left here - wouldn't it be frustrating for the PC mentalist if, after a while, it seemed like EVERY captured thug was either able to resist their mental probings, not told what was going on, or fed misinformation? I mean, if this has worked for you, which apparently it has, that's great. It just seems to me that this could become straining on the Player/ GM trust if PC mentalist guy was constantly getting duped by normal thug types.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Maybe' date=' but that's kind of like poisoning a character's food just so he can use his Detect Poison. On the whole I'd prefer a code of telepathic ethics that, while forbidding casual use of the ability, still leaves it available when you are dealing with a matter of life and death.[/quote']

 

Plus, in certain life or death situations, even a Common/ Total Psych Lim can be overcome with a successful EGO roll minuses a few applicable penalties (at least in our campaign. Others may vary - feeling that Common/ Total is just that. Common and Total.) Creates a nice, highly dramatic moment, actually.

 

[David Johnston]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

I'm inclined to agree w/ alot of what you're saying here' date=' CC, but - and I could be WAY out in deep left here - wouldn't it be frustrating for the PC mentalist if, after a while, it seemed like EVERY captured thug was either able to resist their mental probings, not told what was going on, or fed misinformation? I mean, if this has worked for you, which apparently it has, that's great. It just seems to me that this could become straining on the Player/ GM trust if PC mentalist guy was constantly getting duped by normal thug types.[/quote']

 

Doesn't have to be constant. Doesn't even have to be common. After all, there's no fundamental difference between successfully questioning a thug and successfully mind probing a thug. The truth is, given the difference in PRE + modifiers between thugs and superheros who have captured them, you can expect to know everything a thug knows every time. Supervillains are a bit tougher but then again once you've captured the bad guy's supervillainous cohorts, you are probably pretty close to the end anyway and most characters don't spend fights mindprobing instead of fighting. But, bear in mind that the bad guys are usually going to know they lost people and that the people are probably not to going to keep their secrets. If they know where bad guy HQ is, then the bad guys are going to either lay a trap or relocate. If they know what the next job is, then you either go in assuming the heroes will be laying a trap, or you go somewhere else. Telepaths screw up scenarios where you have all the suspects for the crime lined up and you have to figure out whether it was Professor Plum in the conservatory; but when's the last time you saw a situation like that in a comic book?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Well' date=' each campaign is different. Inherently, there's nothing wrong w/ MC'ing the enemy brick and making him/her attack their colleagues. However, it strikes me (and our prior GM) as devious and a bit underhanded to do so. Not that all fighting has to be direct "me punch you, you fall down," it just wouldn't really be an action that fits the tone of my campaign. It's nothing arbitrary or a personal vendetta against mentalists in any way, shape or form. That just doesn't meet up to the expectations of what has been defined as "heroic" behavior in [b']my[/b] campaign. If it works for you, hey, great! More power to ya.

 

It's tough for me to comment on the tone of your campaign without knowing what OTHER common actions are considered heroic/not heroic. However, I would reiterate that, to me, it's no more "Heroic" to beat someone near to death so you can haul him off to Stronghold than it is to Mind Control his ally into beating him up for you. It sounds like you (and your former GM) have simply decided that mental powers are somehow inherently less heroic/more devious and underhanded than physical powers.

 

In which case, why not simply state that, and restrict mental powers to villains.

[CBikle]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

It's tough for me to comment on the tone of your campaign without knowing what OTHER common actions are considered heroic/not heroic. However, I would reiterate that, to me, it's no more "Heroic" to beat someone near to death so you can haul him off to Stronghold than it is to Mind Control his ally into beating him up for you. It sounds like you (and your former GM) have simply decided that mental powers are somehow inherently less heroic/more devious and underhanded than physical powers.

 

I agree, if you routinely blast thugs with radiation-bursts, it's kind of hard to moralize against mind control effects.

 

I think this is more of a case of GMs not being comfortable with these powers and pre-emptively neutering them by having them villainized in the campaign.

 

The Champions Universe sourcebook defines mental abilities as being semi-legal so that GMs can control how the PCs use them (I believe).

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

It's tough for me to comment on the tone of your campaign without knowing what OTHER common actions are considered heroic/not heroic. However, I would reiterate that, to me, it's no more "Heroic" to beat someone near to death so you can haul him off to Stronghold than it is to Mind Control his ally into beating him up for you. It sounds like you (and your former GM) have simply decided that mental powers are somehow inherently less heroic/more devious and underhanded than physical powers.

 

In which case, why not simply state that, and restrict mental powers to villains.

 

Well, it's not so much that they're "inherently" un-heroic in our opinion - I happen to think Martian Manhunter and Professor Xavier are both pretty heroic cats and they've got mental powers for days. It comes down to how the power is used. We (and by we, I refer to not only myself, but the majority of our 6 PCs) would be pretty adverse (IC'ly) to anyone who used their powers in an unheroic manner, mental or otherwise. IE: If a brick really did beat someone to near death (as in, using their full STR on an obviously smaller, fragile target and continuing to beat them to a bloody pulp) and not seem at all distraught by it afterward or that they were acting intentionally, we'd have issues. ANY power can be misused in this regard - which I gather is the crux of the debate here.

 

I suppose I could simply state that some sort of "Code of the Hero" be enforced, and define what that would entail for each archetype so as not to give the appearance that mentalists are unfairly being singled out (because, in all honesty, they're not. At least, not intentionally.) But, for my group anyway, we all pretty much understand that already, and have a pretty good understanding about what would fly and what wouldn't. The only reason why mentalists are spelled out in more detail is because they're kinda like unexplored territory for us, as up until a few months ago, mental powers WERE "Villains only."

 

There have definitely been some good points raised here, though, that I will take into consideration as my campaign progresses. Thanks!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Well' date=' it's not so much that they're "inherently" un-heroic in our opinion - I happen to think Martian Manhunter and Professor Xavier are both pretty heroic cats and they've got mental powers for days.[/quote']

 

Within his first three appearances, Prof X used his mental powers to strip one villain of any knowledge of who he was and what his powers were, and a second of all knowledge of the X-men, Xavier's school and the fact he was a mutant. Xavier's pretty far down the "mentalist slippery slope", IMO.

 

It comes down to how the power is used. We (and by we' date=' I refer to not only myself, but the majority of our 6 PCs) would be pretty adverse (IC'ly) to anyone who used their powers in an unheroic manner, mental or otherwise. IE: If a brick really did beat someone to near death (as in, using their full STR on an obviously smaller, fragile target and continuing to beat them to a bloody pulp) and not seem at all distraught by it afterward or that they were acting intentionally, we'd have issues. ANY power can be misused in this regard - which I gather is the crux of the debate here.[/quote']

 

That is the crux of the debate. To my mind, if the Brick can take a specific action and be considered "heroic", then it is generally no less heroic for the mentalist to mind control the enemy Brick into taking the same action. [i say "generally" because I would exclude heroic self-sacrifice by the PC being forced on the NPC from being heroic on the part of the mentalist.]

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Within his first three appearances' date=' Prof X used his mental powers to strip one villain of any knowledge of who he was and what his powers were, and a second of all knowledge of the X-men, Xavier's school and the fact he was a mutant. Xavier's pretty far down the "mentalist slippery slope", IMO.[/quote']

 

See? You learn something new every day. I was not aware of that - I'm honestly not a HUGE X-Fan. Chuck always just struck me as being a fairly upstanding citizen in a world of... well.. Wolverines. That's precisely the sort of mentalist behavior that I'd prefer to not see.

 

 

 

That is the crux of the debate. To my mind, if the Brick can take a specific action and be considered "heroic", then it is generally no less heroic for the mentalist to mind control the enemy Brick into taking the same action. [i say "generally" because I would exclude heroic self-sacrifice by the PC being forced on the NPC from being heroic on the part of the mentalist.]

 

Yeah. I can definitely see where you're coming from there. I don't know that I completely agree, but I certainly can understand - and Lord knows we Herophiles aren't known for agreeing most of the time.

[David Johnston]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Within his first three appearances, Prof X used his mental powers to strip one villain of any knowledge of who he was and what his powers were, and a second of all knowledge of the X-men, Xavier's school and the fact he was a mutant. Xavier's pretty far down the "mentalist slippery slope", IMO.

 

 

It was the Silver Age. Nobody had problems with that kind of thing in the Silver Age. (An often overlooked feature of the Silver Age, incidentally. CVK's may have been mandatory but the casual way that people would screw with each other's minds was simply stunning. There were no rules or reservations at all.) Xavier only developed his telepathic code of ethics later. Even then his commitment to it fell short of being total particularly when it came to non-mutants.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Xavier only developed his telepathic code of ethics later. Even then his commitment to it fell short of being total particularly when it came to non-mutants.

 

 

Fascinating. See, to me, in my crazy little ideal world, it should be just the opposite. The Hero should be even MORE concerned about the rights and protection of the NORMAL man than about those with the meta-powers capable of defending themselves. I probably wouldn't bawk so much at a mentalist wanting to gently mind-probe a meta - particularly one with mental defenses or powers - as opposed to an ordinary thug or normal hireling. But then, X-Men does tend to have a VERY "Us Vs. Them" approach to relations between Mutants and normies.

[Blue]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Anyone allowed Resurrection in their game? How'd it go?

[David Johnston]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Fascinating. See' date=' to me, in my crazy little ideal world, it should be just the opposite. The Hero should be even MORE concerned about the rights and protection of the NORMAL man than about those with the meta-powers capable of defending themselves. I probably wouldn't bawk so much at a mentalist wanting to gently mind-probe a meta - particularly one with mental defenses or powers - as opposed to an ordinary thug or normal hireling. But then, X-Men does tend to have a VERY "Us Vs. Them" approach to relations between Mutants and normies.[/quote']

 

Yes, but Xavier's code is ultimately pragmatic. The reason why he refrains from messing around with the minds of mutants (without permission) is because he doesn't want to alienate potential or present recruits and they're more likely to figure out what happened than a baseline. Xavier doesn't casually mess with random joes either, but actual baseline enemies are another matter.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Compensating for PC Abilities

 

Anyone allowed Resurrection in their game? How'd it go?

 

Um... nope. That one has never come up, actually. I'm not entirely sure that's something I'd allow in a supers game. I'd have to think about it a bit though.