Irksome players

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

The Mage firing off an Attack of some form whose basic purpose is to cause damage and having the GM give a bunch of extra damage predicated upon some circumstance was using a Power to do what it was intended to do -- cause damage -- and the GM increased it. There is a direct relationship between the intended effect and the actual effect -- instead of doing SOME damage it just did MORE damage.

 

It's like you're completely blind to the SFX of it. Your examples only list the mechanics, in complete disregard for the in-game effects of the power.

 

On the other hand how was the player with the Entangle having character supposed to realize that the Power he has that normally impedes movement would instead completely destroy an opponent? For any reason?

 

Can you address that basic illogic?

 

Completely destroy an opponent? That would be a leap. But have any useful effect at all? There's nothing illogical about that assumption.

 

And as far as roleplaying is concerned I'd pit my roleplaying ability against yours and have full confidence' date=' so before you casually cast aspersion think carefully whether you really want to go there.[/quote']

 

That you can roleplay doesn't mean you understand the underlying theory very well.

 

And some players' date=' if you can believe it, do BOTH -- considering the game from the characters perspectives of what they observe and the mechanics behind it.[/quote']

 

But doing BOTH is exactly what you're not doing - you're only considering the game from the perspective of the mechanics behind what the characters are doing.

 

And those character that are observing the details of that world would presumably notice the idea of CAUSE and EFFECT.

 

So, to put this into easily understood terms. The character with the Entangle ability has presumably used his Entangle power before

 

The MECHANICAL effect is defined in terms of DEF, BODY, and affected Area.

 

The SFX that is OBSERVED by the characters in the game is that the EFFECT of it was to IMPEDE MOVEMENT either by ensnaring things or by forming a barrier.

 

No, that was one consequence of the SFX. The understanding of our characters is not limited to our understanding, as players, of the statted out mechanics of their powers. For instance, I have a character with an Entangle that has SFX: vines (the power itself is limited to only where vines could grow), but it's entirely within reason for him to expect that, if he wants to rapidly cover up the floor to conceal bloodstains on it, he could use the vines to do so, even though he's only used it to restrain people (Entangle them) so far. I'm fairly sure the GM would allow such a usage, too, even though "penalty to PER rolls" wasn't originally bought as part of that power.

 

I have a comprehensive understanding of the roleplaying experience both from a mechanical and characterization perspective.

 

Yet you continue to use examples that consist entirely of the mechanics, blatantly ignoring the SFX and what the characters would be able to think of them.

 

Nice speech. Now, if you don't mind, could you please make an attempt to actually reconcile the specific case? You know, actually address the point?

 

How could a GM expect a Player to intuit that an ability that they know does one thing, and have IN CHARACTER observed as doing that one thing will instead do something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for no other reason than a whim of the GM?

 

Can you answer that simple question?

 

See above. And further above, where I indicated that the GM had consistently shown SFX to be important in and of themselves.

 

And youre allowing the SFX to replace the mechanics. Remember that while a GM can certainly do whatever they want with their own game no matter how stupid or arbitrary or clever it may be' date=' SFX are intended to be the effects of a Power Construct as they are observed by the character in the game, and they should in fact have some correlation to the Power Construct they represent.[/quote']

 

Vines have some relationship to Entangle. But vines are SFX, and Entangle is mechanics; expecting every single power that vines could be the SFX for, to have some correlation to Entangle, is silly.

 

Also though there may be circumstantial benefits and hindrances' date=' having one SFX on a Power Construct should not be measurably better or worse in general usage than having some other SFX on the same Power Construct.[/quote']

 

Different SFX may lead to different benefits and hindrances, but if they're balanced in power, what does it matter?

 

More than anything else SFX are actually a limiting factor on Power Constructs; they serve to lock down exactly what the nature of the Power is to something consistent and well defined. They are not intended to be a gross power up.

 

If every power receives a proportionate enhancement through the SFX, they are still balanced.

 

What I have a problem with is him taking exception to a player not somehow reading his mind and guessing that the use of a Power would have a radically different outcome contrary to what all evidence both in and out of the character would suggest.

 

If the GM has been actively encouraging creativity in unorthodox use of powers for the whole campaign, to the depth that other players have caught on and are doing so, the one player who still insists on playing as if the mechanics alone were all that mattered could be considered irksome.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Irksome players

 

It's like you're completely blind to the SFX of it. Your examples only list the mechanics' date=' in complete disregard for the [i']in-game effects[/i] of the power.

Actually Im looking at the logic of it, which apparantly is a perspective unavailable to you.

 

 

Completely destroy an opponent? That would be a leap. But have any useful effect at all? There's nothing illogical about that assumption.

And yet, if you read the actual topic at hand, you'll see that the GM did indeed have the entangle DESTROY the golem.

 

We arent talking about whether the Power should have had any useful affect -- if nothing else it should have impeded the movement of the golem as the ability is in fact designed to do.

 

We are talking about the GM expecting the player to realize that their Entangle would destroy the hollow golem.

 

That you can roleplay doesn't mean you understand the underlying theory very well.

It also doesnt mean that I don't and in fact is suggestive that I do.

 

This logical interplay thing is really not your strong suit I take it.

 

But doing BOTH is exactly what you're not doing - you're only considering the game from the perspective of the mechanics behind what the characters are doing.

Um...you mean aside from where I illustrated how both the mechanical effect and the character's observations of it in game were related?

 

 

 

No, that was one consequence of the SFX. The understanding of our characters is not limited to our understanding, as players, of the statted out mechanics of their powers.

On the contrary, the mechanics of the Power Construct is the framework and the SFX is the cosmetics.

 

The intention of Power design is that you reason from the desired effect and find the best mechanical way to model and realize the desired effect. You don't build a Power Construct and then assign a SFX to it, and then turn around and use that SFX as leverage for free Powers.

 

For instance, you don't sit down and say "Ive got an Entangle built a certain way, what is a SFX that will grant me free abilities?"

 

You sit down and say "I want an ability that causes a certain effect, what Power or combination of Powers model that ability accurately?". The Mechanics are there to model the SFX you wanted.

 

It seems like you have confused SFX for a VPP. If you want a VPP, then pay for a VPP.

 

 

 

To put it into a real world example, you could theoretically make a car look like a boat by slapping a boat hull over a chasis, but if you didnt engineer it to also work like a boat its not going to float.

 

Similarly, you could declare your SFX to be whatever, but if it doesnt have any correlation to what the Power actually does there is a logical disconnect.

 

For instance, I have a character with an Entangle that has SFX: vines (the power itself is limited to only where vines could grow), but it's entirely within reason for him to expect that, if he wants to rapidly cover up the floor to conceal bloodstains on it, he could use the vines to do so, even though he's only used it to restrain people (Entangle them) so far. I'm fairly sure the GM would allow such a usage, too, even though "penalty to PER rolls" wasn't originally bought as part of that power.

And this has what to do with using Entangle to destroy a Golem, exactly?

 

Are you seriously incapable of seeing the difference between a sensory effect stemming from SFX which are in fact mostly sensory in nature, and the effect of destroying an enemy?

 

 

Yet you continue to use examples that consist entirely of the mechanics, blatantly ignoring the SFX and what the characters would be able to think of them.

Actually, the only ignoring I detect is youre ignoring of the duality that I illustrate between what the characters observe in the game world and how the ability is tracked in the real world.

 

See above. And further above, where I indicated that the GM had consistently shown SFX to be important in and of themselves.

Which still does not address the actual point of discussion -- the complete disconnect between the standard intended and observable effect of an ability and the hand waved resolution of it as doing something completely different.

 

To put it into simple terms, "One of these things is not like the other".

 

Recognition of such is a very basic cognitive skill after all, and surely you can stop espousing generalities and weak justifications and recognize the basic fact that there is no logical corrolary between the Player's expectation of what is written on their character sheet, the character's in game understanding of what that ability normally did, and the GM's arbitary decision about what it did in that circumstance?

 

 

Vines have some relationship to Entangle. But vines are SFX, and Entangle is mechanics; expecting every single power that vines could be the SFX for, to have some correlation to Entangle, is silly.

Well, when you're done talking about vines and their usefulness as a SFX for powers in general, which no one else mentioned and is completely tantgential, perhaps you'll wander out of left field and back into the topic actually being discussed.

 

Different SFX may lead to different benefits and hindrances, but if they're balanced in power, what does it matter?

 

I'd be interested to hear why you would consider the idea of an Entangle that turns into an insta-destroy ability due solely to its SFX and the circumstance of the target being hollow to be balanced.

 

If every power receives a proportionate enhancement through the SFX, they are still balanced.

Parity is not necessarily the same thing as balanced.

 

If we both stand on our left leg on either side of a see saw we may have acheived a form of parity, but that does not mean we are balanced either individually or in relation to the pivot point.

 

If the GM has been actively encouraging creativity in unorthodox use of powers for the whole campaign, to the depth that other players have caught on and are doing so, the one player who still insists on playing as if the mechanics alone were all that mattered could be considered irksome.

I guess you missed that point where I mentioned the other cases Fenixcrest mentioned seemed more like AGGREGATIONS of the intended effect -- just bigger booms essentially and would tend to occur naturally. They are effectively just free power ups.

 

In other words, Player A shoots a target w/ their Spell of Woundrous Blasting or whatever, and instead of doing 10d6 damage like their character sheet says the GM decides they do 20d6 instead because its Tuesday and they like the pie they just ate, and the target is wearing a blue shirt, and the character has the SFX of "Mystic Positive Blue Smiting Light".

 

The player didnt have to be too clever to figure out they should try to shoot the target with the blast -- its the logical thing to do with the ability since that is what it is for. And in future the player wouldnt have to be too clever to figure out that its a good idea to feed the GM pie and use that bolt on people wearing blue.

 

The character might even go so far as to get another Spell expressly for making people's attire turn blue...which I suppose you would imagine to be cleverly interacting with the game world but which I would consider to be the logical muchkin progression of the SFX Monty Hauling of the GM.

 

 

 

On the otherhand, even within the context of such a highly random game, the Entangle + SFX = Destroyed Golem idea is not an aggregation of what the ability normally does, it is instead a completely differnet effect from the intended effect and is based solely on the GM's whim. There is no clue or reason to think that this would be the case; expecting the player to guess it would be and then holding it against them when they don't is completely irrational.

 

 

 

All that aside, I really have to wonder why, if he want's this sort of wild and high powered campaign, Fenixcrest doesnt just give the characters more points to work with so that the players can build their character's to just have the freebies he's giving out. The whole "...but this one goes to 11" idiocy is why not, I imagine

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

We arent talking about whether the Power should have had any useful affect -- if nothing else it should have impeded the movement of the golem as the ability is in fact designed to do.

 

Well, apparently we do have something further to talk about here, because the GM has made it clear that it was entirely appropriate for the power to have another useful effect based on its SFX.

 

We are talking about the GM expecting the player to realize that their Entangle would destroy the hollow golem.

 

But what possible reason could the player have for believing that?

 

The thing that's annoying is that I leave behind subtle clues for him in these situations. For example' date=' in the case of the iron golem, I made note that the thing was hollow.[/quote']

 

he figured out that he could try targeting his 3" radius plant-based Entangle inside the golem's hollow body

 

Like, he figures it out, but first he complains forever about being useless, when some creative application can do awesome things.

 

I'm sorry' date=' but what would this do? I'm on cold meds.[/quote']

 

In that situation' date=' the 3" radius sudden, explosive plant growth basically destroyed the golem, which was hollow, from the inside.[/quote']

 

I allowed this because it was a cool idea, and the golem was hollow. A solid golem of the same type, on the other hand, would have just been caught in the entangle.

 

Also, the party was hell-bent on defeating this thing, even though they had almost no chance of piercing its defences.

 

We are talking about whether it is irksome for the player to take forever whining about how useless his character is when creative applications of powers have both been consistently rewarded during the campaign and hints have been dropped for him about this specific area of exploitation, or irksome for the GM to expect said player to catch on without whining before and after about it. Or, at least, that's what I've been talking about all this time

 

Um...you mean aside from where I illustrated how both the mechanical effect and the character's observations of it in game were related?

 

Related they may be, but when you take this further to concluding that they are limited to each other, you're going too far. Just because the character has only ever observed their power doing one thing, doesn't mean that they can only imagine it being capable of doing anything else.

 

In any case, that's beside the point, since (in that message I've both quoted and linked to, but apparently all to no avail) Fenixcrest has clearly stated that the character did perceive the SFX having that effect so like a power.

 

You sit down and say "I want an ability that causes a certain effect' date=' what Power or combination of Powers model that ability accurately?". The Mechanics are there to model the SFX you wanted.[/quote']

 

You can also take other powers later on, within the same SFX (that's what Elemental Controls are, right?). Just because a single SFX has only been bought with one power so far, doesn't mean that it can never be expanded.

 

It seems like you have confused SFX for a VPP. If you want a VPP' date=' then pay for a VPP.[/quote']

 

In this case, as I stated, the GM is free to give all SFX a Cosmic VPP (for powers that would reasonably fit the SFX).

 

Similarly' date=' you could declare your SFX to be whatever, but if it doesnt have any correlation to what the Power actually does there is a logical disconnect.[/quote']

 

This correlation can be defined outside of the existing powers it is tied to, though.

 

And this has what to do with using Entangle to destroy a Golem, exactly?

 

Are you seriously incapable of seeing the difference between a sensory effect stemming from SFX which are in fact mostly sensory in nature, and the effect of destroying an enemy?

 

There is a HUGE difference between a "mostly sensory" SFX such as laser beams that change in color to reflect their source or origin, and SFX such as "vines" versus "increased gravity", both of which have a restraining effect on movement and attacks.

 

What does Entangle have to do with destroying a golem?

 

Nothing!

 

Gods, would you please stop focusing exclusively on the mechanics?

 

I have said over and over again that it is the SFX - I repeat, S. F. X. - that call for such a result.

 

Mechanics - SFX. SFX - Mechanics. Two different things. See? Not interchangeable terminology.

 

Vines have a physical substance to them. They can interact physically and visibly with the rest of the world. An increase in gravity does not. It cannot be used as a rope to climb up a castle wall nor to cover up those bloodstains on the floor.

 

Actually' date=' the only ignoring I detect is youre ignoring of the duality that I illustrate between what the characters observe in the game world and how the ability is tracked in the real world.[/quote']

 

So, in the real world, we're only capable of tracking the effects of a power (including its SFX) by the parts that are statted out and assigned numbers within the published rulesets?

 

Recognition of such is a very basic cognitive skill after all' date=' and surely you can stop espousing generalities and weak justifications and recognize the basic fact that there is no logical corrolary between the Player's expectation of what is written on their character sheet, the character's in game understanding of what that ability normally did, and the GM's arbitary decision about what it did in that circumstance?[/quote']

 

The GM's decision was far from "arbitary", as you'd realize if you read what he said (when he originally said it or when I quoted him, whichever). The player's expectation should have exceeded what was written down on the character sheet; that is the point that I have been making.

 

Well' date=' when you're done talking about vines and their usefulness as a SFX for powers in general, which no one else mentioned and is completely tantgential, perhaps you'll wander out of left field and back into the topic actually being discussed.[/quote']

 

Are you at all familiar with the idea of an "analogy"? I thought so. Now try re-evaluating what I've been saying as if it were one of those. It should make much more sense, then.

 

I'd be interested to hear why you would consider the idea of an Entangle that turns into an insta-destroy ability due solely to its SFX and the circumstance of the target being hollow to be balanced.

 

Because different SFX, in their own "best case" circumstances, might turn out to have effects just as powerful. In this case it wasn't even that powerful, because it was basically a called shot that caused an expanding force (growing plants) to break out of the hollow area from within, a NND Killing Attack is how I would probably stat that if I had to (seeing as how the players were unwilling to run away, and dying horribly, I would probably just say "that kills it" since otherwise the party would die and the campaign would end there).

 

I guess you missed that point where I mentioned the other cases Fenixcrest mentioned seemed more like AGGREGATIONS of the intended effect -- just bigger booms essentially and would tend to occur naturally. They are effectively just free power ups.

 

I guess you missed half of the examples Fenixcrest gave us, then.

 

In other words' date=' Player A shoots a target w/ their Spell of Woundrous Blasting or whatever, and instead of doing 10d6 damage like their character sheet says the GM decides they do 20d6 instead because its Tuesday and they like the pie they just ate, and the target is wearing a blue shirt, and the character has the SFX of "Mystic Positive Blue Smiting Light".[/quote']

 

Why don't you try using an actual example from Fenixcrest's post? The ones you're making up clearly demonstrate that you have no idea of the correlation between SFX and effect that Fenixcrest is using.

 

The player didnt have to be too clever to figure out they should try to shoot the target with the blast -- its the logical thing to do with the ability since that is what it is for.

 

Getting more of the same effect is not what we're talking about here - in fact, I can't even find a single example that Fenixcrest has actually given us which does nothing more than the original power did.

 

And in future the player wouldnt have to be too clever to figure out that its a good idea to feed the GM pie and use that bolt on people wearing blue.

 

Wait, you meant the player did these things? That's not even SFX, that's metagaming. I don't see how you can at all equate the two.

 

On the otherhand' date=' even within the context of such a highly random game, the Entangle + SFX = Destroyed Golem idea is not an aggregation of what the ability normally does, it is instead a completely differnet effect from the intended effect and is based solely on the GM's whim.[/quote']

 

It's based on common sense which we would expect any character to possess, especially those that don't know their abilities are being artificially restricted to those that some "players" have paid for their right to use.

 

There is no clue or reason to think that this would be the case; expecting the player to guess it would be and then holding it against them when they don't is completely irrational.

 

No clue or reason??? Did you completely miss the post here? Skip over it when I quoted it? Ignore the previous link to it?

 

I think it was reasonable in this case' date=' having set a precedent in almost all previous sessions for SFX having major effects on the world[/quote']

 

Now, on to those examples you also seem to have missed:

 

the character in question's plant entangle has been known to cause serious damage to the environment and objects contained therein

 

Hmm, seems like a "reason" to me.

 

I think after making a fairly large tree grow to block a vertical passage' date=' the character in question could have made the leap that a similar method could be used to overwhelm what is, essentially, just another hollow structure.[/quote']

 

Looks like a "hint"; toss that in with:

 

in the case of the iron golem' date=' I made note that the thing was hollow[/quote']

 

And not just once, this, but multiple times:

 

it fell upon him to catch the "It is hollow" hints that I was dropping every Turn or so.

 

This works out to about 15-20 times:

 

It took like 20 Turns of the party

 

And we seem to have a pretty good case for considering the player "irksome" when they whine so much about it both before and after.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Irksome players

 

Well' date=' apparently we [i']do[/i] have something further to talk about here, because the GM has made it clear that it was entirely appropriate for the power to have another useful effect based on its SFX.

 

But what possible reason could the player have for believing that?

 

Even if the character detected that it was possible to target inside the Golem, the effect of doing so is still not clear or intuitive or in anyway appropriate to the actual ability.

 

To put it into a different context, lets say a group of soldiers is being attacked by a robot controlled tank. One of the members of the group lacks any sort of attack that could pierce the tanks hull and do damage to it.

 

The GM tells the player that their character notices a hatch through which a grenade or something could be inserted.

 

The only kind of grenade the character has is a tangle web grenade, built with the Entangle Power.

 

The GM knows this and has it in his mind that a tangle web grenade will somehow gum up the works and break the tank, effectively destroying it.

 

The Player has it in his mind that the Entengle is meant to restrain the tanks movement, and figures he's out of luck since there is no logical way that putting a tangleweb grenade INTO the tank is going to prevent it from moving, since its tracks are on the OUTSIDE of the tank, and its too strong for the tangle web to do much.

 

The Player isn't deficit for not reading into the GM's offer of a hand wave; he's working with what he knows from what is on the character sheet and what his character knows from what the ability has done in the past. The GM's alteration of this expectation is the anomaly, not the player's inability to read the GM's mind.

 

We are talking about whether it is irksome for the player to take forever whining about how useless his character is when creative applications of powers have both been consistently rewarded during the campaign and hints have been dropped for him about this specific area of exploitation, or irksome for the GM to expect said player to catch on without whining before and after about it. Or, at least, that's what I've been talking about all this time

Im talking about the GM having unreasonable expectations regarding player's abilities to guess at arbitrary decisions that the GM has made, and getting irked when they don't.

 

In my opinion, the GM is at fault for having unreasonable expectation and for not being consistent in how the world works.

 

 

Also, on the topic of consistency, you state that the GM has 'consistently rewarded' what you call "creative applications" of Powers. I would point out that what the GM has done is repeatedly show the world to be inconsistent based upon circumstance and whim.

 

Related they may be, but when you take this further to concluding that they are limited to each other, you're going too far. Just because the character has only ever observed their power doing one thing, doesn't mean that they can only imagine it being capable of doing anything else.

 

On the contrary, an Energy Blast defined as a mystical bolt is always an Energy Blast and never a Transform or an Aid. They can use it to blast a million times and it should never suddenly work like an Aid or a Drain or Flight.

 

Its not a question of one being limited to the other, its a question of one REFLECTING the other.

 

In any case, that's beside the point, since (in that message I've both quoted and linked to, but apparently all to no avail) Fenixcrest has clearly stated that the character did perceive the SFX having that effect so like a power.

Perceived the SFX having what effect so like what Power? Try forming complete sentences please.

 

You can also take other powers later on, within the same SFX (that's what Elemental Controls are, right?). Just because a single SFX has only been bought with one power so far, doesn't mean that it can never be expanded.

Wrong. Each Power has its own SFX. Even if you have 10 Powers and they SHARE a COMMON SFX, technically they have 10 different identical SFX tied to 10 different Powers.

 

An Elemental Control requires Powers to have a tightly defined CONCEPT not a single SFX.

 

Say I have an Ice Power EC, the SFX of my Ice Slide and the SFX of my Ice Blast are both similar in that they are Ice based, but they are still different in how they are perceived. The Ice Slide looks and is interacted with differently than the Ice Blast.

 

And further, I couldnt NOT buy the Ice Slide and just use the Ice Blast for a similar effect because they have the same SFX, which is essentially what Fenixcrest is allowing by having one Power act like other Powers due to its SFX.

 

In this case, as I stated, the GM is free to give all SFX a Cosmic VPP (for powers that would reasonably fit the SFX).

The GM is free to give all characters whatever they want. This does not make it any less arbitary, random, or ridiculously powered up.

 

This correlation can be defined outside of the existing powers it is tied to, though.

Non sequitir?

There is a HUGE difference between a "mostly sensory" SFX such as laser beams that change in color to reflect their source or origin, and SFX such as "vines" versus "increased gravity", both of which have a restraining effect on movement and attacks.

Not really. And neither SFX, you'll note, magically turns the Entangle into a DESTROY effect.

What does Entangle have to do with destroying a golem?

 

Nothing!

 

Gods, would you please stop focusing exclusively on the mechanics?

Let me ask you a quick question, and Im trying not to make this an attack, but are you being purposely obtuse or are you really this dense in real life?

 

My entire point revolves around taking issue with Fenixcrest expecting a player to intuit that their Entangle would destroy the golem and holding it against them when they didnt.

 

So in other words -- of course Im not going to stop focusing on it.

 

The logical disconnect between the mechanics, the previous observed functionality of the ability, and the GM's hand waved resolution is the entirety of the point.

 

Get it?

 

 

All your noise and rambling and inablity to address this central fact aside -- youre understanding of SFX is IMO flawed, youre inability to understand the concept of reasoning from effect to correctly model the intended functionality of an ability so that the game world effect and the mechanical definition are paired and harmonious is unfortunate, and youre continued defense of the idea that SFX is really just supposed to be a free VPP indicates a woefully munckin-esque mindset.

 

 

 

I have said over and over again that it is the SFX - I repeat, S. F. X. - that call for such a result.

 

SFX dont call for results. SFX are how the results of the MECHANICS are perceived. Try to keep the horse before the cart and not the other way around.

 

Mechanics - SFX. SFX - Mechanics. Two different things. See? Not interchangeable terminology.

 

Who said they are? Youre becoming incoherent, but please continue to blather -- its vaguely amusing.

 

Vines have a physical substance to them. They can interact physically and visibly with the rest of the world. An increase in gravity does not. It cannot be used as a rope to climb up a castle wall nor to cover up those bloodstains on the floor.

Personally, I wouldnt allow a character to use their Entangle to climb a wall, and as far as the seeing thru things there is an Adder for Entangle called OPAQUE that the player should pay for if their Entangle blocks a sense.

 

That aside, do you understand that if you want an actual game effect you should take a Power or other ability that grants that game effect, not try to use the SFX of a different power to get a freebie?

 

By your rationale, why is Invisible Power Effects a +1 Advantage? Not only are you getting half the effect for the same points, you are also screwing yourself out of a veritable VPP of other free powers.

 

Oh, Im sorry, I forgot to roll my eyes at you to drive the point home, since smirking and eye rolling seems to be part of your communication style.

 

So, in the real world, we're only capable of tracking the effects of a power (including its SFX) by the parts that are statted out and assigned numbers within the published rulesets?

 

What are you talking about?

 

There are two levels to a roleplaying game, in character and out of character.

 

In character Thrudd slashes the ill-aspected twisting vines that attempt to trap him with might swings of his glisteningly sharp broadsword. "What evil is this! These twisted vines must be the work of some dark magicker!"

 

Out of character Thrudd applies the damage of his 2d6+1 HKA to the 3 DEF 2 BODY Entangle.

 

SFX is the in-character aspect of an ability, the MECHANICS are the out of character aspect of the ability. They are two sides of the same coin.

 

The GM's decision was far from "arbitary", as you'd realize if you read what he said (when he originally said it or when I quoted him, whichever). The player's expectation should have exceeded what was written down on the character sheet; that is the point that I have been making.

Why should it have exceeded it, and moreever, even if the Player was thinking:

 

"Ok, telling me I can target inside the Golem was a tip off that this big Monty Hauler of a GM is going to give me some kind of freebie."

 

that doesnt obviate the fact that the player would have to guess which of their Powers the GM was telegraphing them to use. The final answer, the Entangle, isnt by any stretch a clear or obvious guess.

 

 

Are you at all familiar with the idea of an "analogy"? I thought so. Now try re-evaluating what I've been saying as if it were one of those. It should make much more sense, then.

 

Well, since Ive actually been using analogies to make it clear to you why Fenixcrest and you are wrong, I would hope so.

 

Of course the analogies seem to be lost on you, so perhaps when you say analogy you mean some arbitrarily different idea of what an analogy would be used for and look like, similar to the Entangle conundrum we are discussing.

 

Oops! I just made another analogy which is sure to be lost on you.

 

At any rate, what you are saying could hardly make less sense if interpreted as some sort of extended analogy that somehow looks and acts in a manner completely inconsistent with the way analogies normally work.

 

 

Because different SFX, in their own "best case" circumstances, might turn out to have effects just as powerful. In this case it wasn't even that powerful, because it was basically a called shot that caused an expanding force (growing plants) to break out of the hollow area from within, a NND Killing Attack is how I would probably stat that if I had to (seeing as how the players were unwilling to run away, and dying horribly, I would probably just say "that kills it" since otherwise the party would die and the campaign would end there).

 

Wow. Im tempted to pick this apart, but I think its been made clear that you basically just make it up as you go along, and all characters basically have a No Conscious Control VPP available to them thanks to you the GM hand waving success at them, easily triggered by the expedient of holding their own characters hostage by putting them into easily avoidable life & death circumstances.

 

I can say that Im glad I don't play in your campaign, and I sincerely hope that you are not representing the HERO System to people that don't have enough knowledge of it to realize how far off baseline you are, and Ill leave it at that.

 

I guess you missed half of the examples Fenixcrest gave us, then.

 

Why don't you try using an actual example from Fenixcrest's post? The ones you're making up clearly demonstrate that you have no idea of the correlation between SFX and effect that Fenixcrest is using.

As far as I can tell the correlation between SFX and Mechanics in Fenixcrests world is entirely definable as "Stuff I (Fenixcrest) made up cuz it seemed cool at the time".

 

And it sounds like you are of the same school of thought.

 

Personally, I'm of the mind that Fenixcrest and Robyn might be two logins for the same person, but either way...I think you're both dead wrong in your interpretation of how much freebie effect is appropriate to SFX.

 

Getting more of the same effect is not what we're talking about here - in fact, I can't even find a single example that Fenixcrest has actually given us which does nothing more than the original power did.

Then read it again.

 

Wait, you meant the player did these things? That's not even SFX, that's metagaming. I don't see how you can at all equate the two.

Off in left field again. Its like watching a pinball bounce around.

 

It's based on common sense which we would expect any character to possess, especially those that don't know their abilities are being artificially restricted to those that some "players" have paid for their right to use.

What? If a player's character has a hammer in the game and uses the hammer to drive nails, break things, and hit people (HKA), you are saying the character shouldnt rule out the possibility that the hammer would suddenly heal what it hit (Healing) or cause something to turn into a petunia on impact (Transform)?

 

Of if my character had the ability to surround themselves with an aura of flame that burned anyone that touched them (HKA Damage Shield) they shouldnt rule out the possibility that it would one day instead make people touching it grow tired (Drain STUN) or telport them to a random dimension (EDM UAA)?

 

Obviously absurd in both cases.

 

I think what you're doing is confusing the idea of CONCEPT with the idea of SFX.

 

 

No clue or reason??? Did you completely miss the post here? Skip over it when I quoted it? Ignore the previous link to it?

The ability to target inside a Golem does not = "my entangle will morph into an insta-kill".

 

I think it was reasonable in this case, having set a precedent in almost all previous sessions for SFX having major effects on the world

Again, its not clear to me why Fenixcrest would not simply raise the point level of the game so that all of these "major effects on the world" could just be parts of the characters in question instead of slathered on liberally for no measurable reason other than his own whims.

 

Now, on to those examples you also seem to have missed:

 

the character in question's plant entangle has been known to cause serious damage to the environment and objects contained therein

 

Hmm, seems like a "reason" to me.

Funny, it sounds like Fenixcrest is really saying "I'm an inexperienced and/or Powergaming GM that likes to give out free powers and effects because I don't understand how the game is supposed to work, the purpose of a points based game system, the idea of reasoning from effects, or the intended purpose of SFX vs Mechanics!"

 

And it still doesnt translate to Entangle = destroy golem

 

Looks like a "hint"; toss that in with:

And not just once, this, but multiple times:

This works out to about 15-20 times:

My coffee cup is hollow. I have put a piece of paper with a number between 1 and 30 written upon it inside the cup. Or I might not have put anything in there at all, but the coffee cup is definitely hollow.

 

Either way, you have to sit here while your friends do something fun until you can guess what number it is. If you don't guess it within 10 tries, youre really going to irk me. And if you complain about it being unfair and unreasonable, oh man...that will really irritate me.

 

Each time you guess wrongly Ill be sure to remind you that the coffee cup is hollow.

 

Ok, go!

 

 

And we seem to have a pretty good case for considering the player "irksome" when they whine so much about it both before and after.

The only thing I consider irksome at this point is that you might be spreading your warped view of the game to others.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Irksome players

 

That you can roleplay doesn't mean you understand the underlying theory very well.

this is going to come across as rude no matter how I put it...

 

But from what I've seen of your posts KS has not only a much better grasp of the underlying theory of Roleplaying, but an much better grasp of the execution of it as well.

 

I have to jump in on his side...

 

Hollow Golem .. Plant Based Entangle ... it would never have occured to me that putting the Entangle inside the Golem (which is mechnically impossible without Indirect but we'll ignore that) to stop it. If it's hollow it obviously doesn't NEED it's insides .. heck we could fill it with sand through a crack and I don't see how that'd make one lick of difference.

 

Chiding a player for not making an "intuitive" jump the GM expected that is, by all accounts, a coutnerintuitive thought to begin with is just bad form.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Irksome players

 

The only thing I consider irksome at this point is that you might be spreading your warped view of the game to others.

And I just repped you too...

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Irksome players

 

Thanks! Maybe you could lend Robyn your briefcase full of rules

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

The Player has it in his mind that the Entengle is meant to restrain the tanks movement' date=' and figures he's out of luck since there is no logical way that putting a tangleweb grenade INTO the tank is going to prevent it from moving, since its tracks are on the OUTSIDE of the tank, and its too strong for the tangle web to do much.[/quote']

 

But surely such a thought might enter the character's mind?

 

Im talking about the GM having unreasonable expectations regarding player's abilities to guess at arbitrary decisions that the GM has made, and getting irked when they don't.

 

In my opinion, the GM is at fault for having unreasonable expectation and for not being consistent in how the world works.

 

If the decisions were truly arbitrary, I'd agree with you. Since the effect would be consistent with what Fenixcrest had previously established about how his world worked, I think that his actions don't fall within your peeve.

 

Also' date=' on the topic of consistency, you state that the GM has 'consistently rewarded' what you call "creative applications" of Powers. I would point out that what the GM has done is repeatedly show the world to be inconsistent based upon circumstance and whim.[/quote']

 

I contend that what you're saying here is completely without basis in the available evidence, and, furthermore, is actively refuted by the available evidence.

 

On the contrary' date=' an Energy Blast defined as a mystical bolt is always an Energy Blast and never a Transform or an Aid. They can use it to blast a million times and it should never suddenly work like an Aid or a Drain or Flight.[/quote']

 

I said "character" and you use out-of-character terms in responding. Do our characters see their powers as "Energy Blast"? They don't see the mechanics of the game. They see the special effects.

 

Perceived the SFX having what effect so like what Power? Try forming complete sentences please.

 

I did. The effect was "so like a power"; in other words, an effect that resembled a power more than merely cosmetic effects.

 

An Elemental Control requires Powers to have a tightly defined CONCEPT not a single SFX.

 

True, I got a bit confused there. But the point still applies; if I want to have a "icy ray" that does damage, and an "icy ray" that freezes people, their SFX are identical. In other words, they have "the same" SFX. To the character, she can fire an icy ray that hurts people or freezes them. This might be more appropriate as a Multipower than an Elemental Control, actually. But they can still be bought separately.

 

The GM is free to give all characters whatever they want. This does not make it any less arbitary' date=' random, or ridiculously powered up.[/quote']

 

In cases where the GM's application of such generosity is clearly and objectively consistent, it is not arbitrary.

 

This correlation can be defined outside of the existing powers it is tied to' date=' though.[/quote']Non sequitir?

 

You said:

 

Similarly, you could declare your SFX to be whatever, but if it doesnt have any correlation to what the Power actually does there is a logical disconnect.

 

If the SFX is "vines", and the power is "Entangle", it isn't a logical disconnect for my character to look at those vines and think "Hmm, maybe I can use these as rope.", because my character isn't limited in his thinking to "I've always used these to Entangle people, that's all they can be used for."

 

Not really. And neither SFX' date=' you'll note, magically turns the Entangle into a DESTROY effect.[/quote']

 

I've said before that the powers can vary and still be balanced. The localized gravitational field might restrict Superleaping.

 

Do you see the connection yet between the in-game perception of what the SFX is and what the character might think it would logically accomplish? This is the consistency in what Felixcrest does; the additional effect is based on what would logically be a result if we were thinking of the situation outside of the pure mechanics.

 

Let me ask you a quick question' date=' and Im trying not to make this an attack, but are you being purposely obtuse or are you really this dense in real life?[/quote']

 

No

 

My entire point revolves around taking issue with Fenixcrest expecting a player to intuit that their Entangle would destroy the golem and holding it against them when they didnt.

 

Then you're attacking a straw man, since what Fenixcrest is holding against that player is the whining about it.

 

The logical disconnect between the mechanics, the previous observed functionality of the ability, and the GM's hand waved resolution is the entirety of the point.

 

Get it?

 

I have pointed out time and again how the "previous observed functionality of the ability" is consistent with the effect that the player was able to produce. To toss your own words back at you, are you deliberately trying to be obtuse, or are you really this dense in real life?

 

The GM's "handwaved" resolution, as I have indicated above and in earlier posts and as I shall no doubt continue to indicate later on in this post, is actually a consistently and objectively verifiable, as well as common sense to most people, way of handling such situations.

 

youre inability to understand the concept of reasoning from effect to correctly model the intended functionality of an ability so that the game world effect and the mechanical definition are paired and harmonious is unfortunate' date='[/quote']

 

I understand that concept. I just don't happen to agree with you that it means they must be exclusively paired, never so much as implying that anything happen which was not bought and paid for.

 

and youre continued defense of the idea that SFX is really just supposed to be a free VPP indicates a woefully munckin-esque mindset.

 

So, in other words, if I buy Reaching (only for grabbing) as a lasso, the GM should never let me use it as a freaking rope? I thought that Cosmic VPP's were the center of all such attempts - common items that could be used in ways that we couldn't anticipate all of in advance, or when we weren't inclined to stat out the entire rope/spoon/whatever.

 

I, as a character, might approach the tower where the young maiden is being held captive, Entangle the guardian so he can't stop us from beating him senseless, and then say "Hey, instead of forcing open this door and battling my way through all the tower's other guardians, wouldn't it be cool if I could throw up a rope to the maiden and climb up to guard the rope for her while she climbed down to safety?"

 

And then I'd go "Alas, for I have no rope with me, and must abandon this plan and grimly slaughter my way through the tower's denizens, at great risk to my body and limb."

 

But then I'd go "Hold! I perceive upon the ground before me a very rope-like substance, which was certainly strong enough to restrain yon ogre, and might even now be strong enough to support my weight as I climb to the maiden."

 

And thus, human ingenuity wins through.

 

SFX dont call for results. SFX are how the results of the MECHANICS are perceived.

 

Since that perception is more than illusion (a gravitional field has no mass, but vines do), the effects upon the game world do, in turn, call for more things (like inspiring an idea about using the vines for something else).

 

Who said they are?

 

Actions may be quieter than words, but they certainly do express one's philosophy more forthrightly:

 

For instance, I have a character with an Entangle that has SFX: vines (the power itself is limited to only where vines could grow), but it's entirely within reason for him to expect that, if he wants to rapidly cover up the floor to conceal bloodstains on it, he could use the vines to do so, even though he's only used it to restrain people (Entangle them) so far. I'm fairly sure the GM would allow such a usage, too, even though "penalty to PER rolls" wasn't originally bought as part of that power.

And this has what to do with using Entangle to destroy a Golem, exactly?

 

When I speak about using the vines, and you switch terminology to speak about using the Entangle as if they're the same thing (in other words, when you use them interchangeably, you show that you consider them to be the same.

 

That aside' date=' do you understand that if you want an actual game effect you should take a Power or other ability that grants that game effect, not try to use the SFX of a different power to get a freebie?[/quote']

 

In a Superheroic campaign, yes. In those games, you can't just walk out to the local electronics shop and pick up a radio, because you haven't paid for it with points. But even in those, shouldn't our characters have the right to assume that they can do so? It would almost seem like metagaming to act like we couldn't.

 

In a regular Heroic game, though, we can try to create "actual game effects" using anything we haven't paid for. We can use our "icy ray" ability to try to put out a fire, with the reasoning that it makes things colder and a fire can't sustain itself unless it's hot.

 

So' date=' in the real world, we're only capable of tracking the effects of a power (including its SFX) by the parts that are statted out and assigned numbers within the published rulesets?[/quote']

What are you talking about?

 

There are two levels to a roleplaying game, in character and out of character.

 

In character Thrudd slashes the ill-aspected twisting vines that attempt to trap him with might swings of his glisteningly sharp broadsword. "What evil is this! These twisted vines must be the work of some dark magicker!"

 

Out of character Thrudd applies the damage of his 2d6+1 HKA to the 3 DEF 2 BODY Entangle.

 

And, out-of-character, we are aware that Thrudd perceives the Entangle as a vine. I contend that this perception is more than simple imagination; that, on the in-character level, those actually are vines, and can be interacted with like normal vines (they don't vanish when Thrudd slashes through a few of them). We, as players, can be aware of this.

 

Why should it have exceeded it' date='[/quote']

 

Because . . . of roleplaying? The player's expectation should have exceeded what was written down on their character sheet, because the character and the game world are more than just what they are statted out to be?

 

and moreever, even if the Player was thinking:

 

"Ok, telling me I can target inside the Golem was a tip off that this big Monty Hauler of a GM is going to give me some kind of freebie."

 

that doesnt obviate the fact that the player would have to guess which of their Powers the GM was telegraphing them to use. The final answer, the Entangle, isnt by any stretch a clear or obvious guess.

 

If you're thinking of it as an Entangle, no. If you're thinking of it as the character sees it; i.e., as plant growth; common sense can apply.

 

At any rate' date=' what you are saying could hardly make less sense if interpreted as some sort of extended analogy that somehow looks and acts in a manner completely inconsistent with the way analogies normally work.[/quote']

 

I'll lay it out for you real explicit-like, then:

 

the mage's positive energy bolt has been known to briefly transmute matter and energies into their postive quasi-element forms, often resulting in highly increased damage output, the druid's vines have been known to act like kudzu and cut off local plantlife from its special nutrients, the arcane swordsman's Light Blade spell can be used as a high-powered light source, the character in question's plant entangle has been known to cause serious damage to the environment and objects contained therein, the arcane archer's fire arrows have been known to actually light things on fire, and so on

 

See how it just fits right in there? Now, imagine the level of detail I've put into the "SFX: vines" being present for the rest of the powers in this list, and you'll have the analogy I was using.

 

Wow. Im tempted to pick this apart' date=' but I think its been made clear that you basically just make it up as you go along, and all characters basically have a No Conscious Control VPP available to them thanks to you the GM hand waving success at them, easily triggered by the expedient of holding their own characters hostage by putting them into easily avoidable life & death circumstances.[/quote']

 

If it's "easily avoidable" (note: even during the encounter the PC's could easily have backed out at any time), that's really the players' choice isn't it? Your analogy of "holding the characters hostage" can easily be countered by pointing out that it would have to be the equivalent of a character sneaking onto a soon to be demolished military base and claiming "Help, help, the government wants to kill me!" when they're just in the way of their own free will.

 

As for "making it up as I go along", well, duh. It's impossible for the GM to anticipate and account for everything the players will think of. At some point, along the way, you have to improvise. Unless, of course, you just take the Ultra-Super-Heroic approach that nothing can ever deviate from the story in ways that weren't specifically approved in advance.

 

I can say that Im glad I don't play in your campaign' date=' and I sincerely hope that you are not representing the HERO System to people that don't have enough knowledge of it to realize how far off baseline you are, and Ill leave it at that.[/quote']

 

Considering the bad reputation HERO has for statting out everything, and the number of people who feel that this reputation is ill-deserved, I hope that people who are new to the HERO system aren't scared off by your implications that whatever hasn't been statted out can't happen.

 

As far as I can tell the correlation between SFX and Mechanics in Fenixcrests world is entirely definable as "Stuff I (Fenixcrest) made up cuz it seemed cool at the time".

 

And yet you have still to use even a single one of the examples Fenixcrest provided to prove that. Instead, you make up your own. Why? Are the examples Fenixcrest provided somehow inferior to made-up examples that nobody has actually done? I would think that, if what he's doing is really so terrible, you would be more than eager to demonstrate, point for point, exactly why nothing that he has done is justifiable.

 

And it sounds like you are of the same school of thought.

 

From what I've seen of his examples, I'd have to agree.

 

Personally' date=' I'm of the mind that Fenixcrest and Robyn might be two logins for the same person, but either way...I think you're both dead wrong in your interpretation of how much freebie effect is appropriate to SFX.[/quote']

 

Then again, maybe we're just not running Superheroic campaigns. The "freebie effect caps" that would be appropriate for a Heroic campaign would certainly seem excessive to someone only used to a Superheroic game.

 

Getting more of the same effect is not what we're talking about here - in fact' date=' I can't even find a [i']single example[/i] that Fenixcrest has actually given us which does nothing more than the original power did.

Then read it again.

 

I did. Several times. I quoted it at you. In large parts, and in small parts. I linked to it for you. Twice. Here's a third time. I think I've more than proven that I've read his examples - isn't it about time that you did the same?

 

Off in left field again. Its like watching a pinball bounce around.

 

If I'm the pinball, then you're the flipper that sent me there. You used examples that based increases in power effect off of real-life events:

 

In other words, Player A shoots a target w/ their Spell of Woundrous Blasting or whatever, and instead of doing 10d6 damage like their character sheet says the GM decides they do 20d6 instead because its Tuesday and they like the pie they just ate

 

And in future the player wouldnt have to be too clever to figure out that its a good idea to feed the GM pie

 

None of Fenixcrest's actual examples (there, I linked to it a fourth time for you) based the in-game effects off of out-of-game causes. Furthermore, none of them were mere enhancements to the usual effect; they were all different effects. When you make up examples that don't have any relationship to the originals, it's difficult to recognize that you intend for them to be "analogies".

 

It's based on common sense which we would expect any character to possess' date=' especially those that don't know their abilities are being artificially restricted to those that some "players" have paid for their right to use.[/quote']What? If a player's character has a hammer in the game and uses the hammer to drive nails, break things, and hit people (HKA), you are saying the character shouldnt rule out the possibility that the hammer would suddenly heal what it hit (Healing) or cause something to turn into a petunia on impact (Transform)?

 

Of if my character had the ability to surround themselves with an aura of flame that burned anyone that touched them (HKA Damage Shield) they shouldnt rule out the possibility that it would one day instead make people touching it grow tired (Drain STUN) or telport them to a random dimension (EDM UAA)?

 

Speaking of a logical disconnect . . . where do you get the idea that thinking of such a thing would be "common sense"? Do you just have no grasp of the similarity between "What we, as real people, would rationally expect if we were to face this situation in the real world." and "What our characters would rationally expect from facing the situation in their own world."?

 

Obviously absurd in both cases.

 

I agree, but I think it's possible to reason from the SFX that your aura of flame might, say, keep someone warm if they huddled close to it (Life Support: Extreme Cold).

 

The ability to target inside a Golem does not = "my entangle will morph into an insta-kill".

 

Inherently to the power? No. A "house rule" that was consistent and objectively verifiable? Yes.

 

Again' date=' its not clear to me why Fenixcrest would not simply raise the point level of the game so that all of these "major effects on the world" could just be parts of the characters in question instead of slathered on liberally for no measurable reason other than his own whims.[/quote']

 

If there really weren't any measurable reasons (and I wouldn't place anything whimsical outside of such a category), it would still be perfectly clear to me: to make it the GM who decided such things, and not the players.

 

Funny' date=' it sounds like Fenixcrest is really saying "I'm an inexperienced and/or Powergaming GM that likes to give out free powers and effects because I don't understand how the game is supposed to work, the purpose of a points based game system, the idea of reasoning from effects, or the intended purpose of SFX vs Mechanics!"[/quote']

 

You seem to be confusing your own idea of "how the game should be played" with the "official rules".

 

And it still doesnt translate to Entangle = destroy golem

 

No, the established and consistent house rules of the campaign, the PCs' stubborn refusal to retreat, and the GM's desire to actually have a game without killing people off all combined to form that result.

 

The only thing I consider irksome at this point is that you might be spreading your warped view of the game to others.

 

Live with it. As a villain with a warped mind, the worst torment I can inflict upon you is having to spend every day knowing that, somewhere out there, players are experiencing HERO in a way other than you feel is proper. Mwahahahaha!

 

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

this is going to come across as rude no matter how I put it...

 

But from what I've seen of your posts KS has not only a much better grasp of the underlying theory of Roleplaying, but an much better grasp of the execution of it as well.

 

Yet, according to GNS theory, I actually have an excellent grasp of it.

 

Mine just happens to be a different type of roleplaying.

 

Hollow Golem .. Plant Based Entangle ... it would never have occured to me that putting the Entangle inside the Golem (which is mechnically impossible without Indirect but we'll ignore that) to stop it. If it's hollow it obviously doesn't NEED it's insides .. heck we could fill it with sand through a crack and I don't see how that'd make one lick of difference.

 

Sand doesn't expand. It's the same thing as if you lured the hollow golem into a lake and then used an ice ray to freeze the water.

 

Err . . . okay, setting aside for a moment that this would probably be an Entangle that completely immobilized the golem. Let's say that you spent a few minutes fighting them in the lake, because earlier you'd poked a hole in the top of their head. Then you lure them back out and use your icy ray on them.

 

The icy ray freezes the water inside it, which results in an expansion against their torso, which is not durable enough to resist the pressure, and the golem splits open, rendered inanimate in the process.

 

There's a similar principle for the growing plants. One force pushes against another, which tries to resist. GM says "By this point it's obvious that none of you are going to think of running away unless someone dies, and maybe not even then either, so I'll rule that the effect is in favor of the growing plants enough to get this encounter over with already."

 

Also, it is kind of inconvenient to have some or all of the party die mid-adventure. It's bad for the players' morale, and it wastes a lot of the work the GM put into the campaign to get them to this point, and the player's effort as well. I don't think that "ensuring the characters survive so we can all continue playing together" is an exclusively munchkin perogative.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Irksome players

 

The only thing I can see with the golem thing is that, these (let's say vines for the sake of argument, ok?) vines exert pressure because they have mass and take up space, yadda yadda etc.

 

That is how they block, after all. They have substance, they are real, etc. Therefore, they are subject to all the little quirks that everything else is.

 

So, I can see cramming a bunch of vines inside a hollow structure to the point that the amount that can be held inside that structure is exceeded will lead to structural damage.

 

I.E. He filled it with so much green goodness that the thing burst.

 

At this point though, this sounds like a teleport to me. Because, you know, HOW DID THE PLANTS GET INSIDE?

 

That's what has been bugging me. I guess the nature of the spell just creates fresh plants each time it is used, at the location of its use.

 

On the above tank example: if the tank had been piloted by a group of humans, I would think it would be a very straightforward conclusion. Having a bunch of gooey, sticky gunk cover all of the compartment and the people inside would tend to make piloting a tank difficult, all the way from a few negatives on the crews' ability to control their vehicle to perhaps even immobilizing the thing entirely, since the people inside cannot move.

 

If a character has an ice ray, I would allow him to use it to keep certain foodstuffs cool, although I would tell him there would be a case of freezerburn since they thing is so EXTREME. I would not, however, allow him to use it as a cryogenic device, stating that the extremeness of it would simply kill anything. Minus the example, I would allow the characters and players some leeway in a creative use of SFX, but not to the extent that I think it would become unbalancing.

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

The only thing I can see with the golem thing is that, these (let's say vines for the sake of argument, ok?) vines exert pressure because they have mass and take up space, yadda yadda etc.

 

That is how they block, after all. They have substance, they are real, etc. Therefore, they are subject to all the little quirks that everything else is.

 

Repped

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Manic Typist again."

 

Okay . . . when I can

 

So, I can see cramming a bunch of vines inside a hollow structure to the point that the amount that can be held inside that structure is exceeded will lead to structural damage.

 

I.E. He filled it with so much green goodness that the thing burst.

 

I wanted to say "exactly", but that last part sounds vaguely dirty

 

At this point though, this sounds like a teleport to me. Because, you know, HOW DID THE PLANTS GET INSIDE?

 

That's what has been bugging me. I guess the nature of the spell just creates fresh plants each time it is used, at the location of its use.

 

I'm thinking they hit the golem and made a hole in it. It's also possible that they found out it was hollow by the sounds it made when they hit it, but I think that after 20 turns of combat they'd at least have managed to put a dent in the thing

[Manic Typist]

Re: Irksome players

 

Ha! I was editing and repping you at the same time you were repping me. Ain't life grand?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Irksome players

 

And to be clear, I don't have a problem with Fenixcrest doing strange things with SFX in his own campaign. I personally think it's silly and if I were playing in his campaign I would have a lot to say against it, but it is his own game.

 

What I have a problem with is him taking exception to a player not somehow reading his mind and guessing that the use of a Power would have a radically different outcome contrary to what all evidence both in and out of the character would suggest.

 

 

I think you might be able to see that point, even if only peripherally.

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Irksome players

 

It's tied in with what I'm talking about, I think. They can't be in a submissive position. They can't handle people being dominant over them. They must always have a trick up their sleeves, and being captured is worse than dying.

 

...

 

The player in question was like that in real life. When you would get him with some wit ["burns" as that 70's show calls it] he would deny most strongly that you nailed him. This is a guy who would critize someone elses abilities with women, when at a strip club went into a terror of shyness when some lads got him an air dance and uttered those famous works "I think I am going to puke". Yet when you counter with his ahem brave example, rather then admit he is the lessor man would insist that the person he was talking about is less able then him. Very anoying trait.

 

I've had a character in a solo caimpaign who refused to back down in a sure death situation, however it was a one time thing, and because I figured due to some extreme successes previously that his overconfidence went from moderate to total. It wasen't so much that he didn't want to lose, but rather the character [but not the player] knew he could beat the Dragon single handed. Actually might of had a chance if it wasen't for some items being dispelled. Shame I really liked that character, but at least he had a good death.

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

The player in question was like that in real life. When you would get him with some wit ["burns" as that 70's show calls it] he would deny most strongly that you nailed him. This is a guy who would critize someone elses abilities with women' date=' when at a strip club went into a terror of shyness when some lads got him an air dance and uttered those famous works "I think I am going to puke". Yet when you counter with his ahem brave example, rather then admit he is the lessor man would insist that the person he was talking about is less able then him. Very anoying trait.[/quote']

 

They see the game as their power fantasy (come to life), and noone is allowed to lessen that for them by being as powerful (much less more so).

[Jhereg]

Re: Irksome players

 

- The Time-Traveler: “Can we say that I got my focus out of the building before it blew up?”

 

- People who habitually withdraw from the game (whip out a magazine, put their head down on the table) while their character isn’t in focus. I understand that your character’s down time is the best opportunity to grab a cigarette, go to the bathroom, etc, but it when it’s always the same player; it becomes a sign of disrespect (“I don’t care enough about the GM’s story to pay attention"). Plus I feel like I’m doing a better job if the people are content to watch other players do their thing for a little while.

 

- Similar to the ‘refusal to respect authoritah’ is the players who try to cow every NPC they meet with their awesome-ness. It takes a lot of time to roll a PRE attack on all your NPCs. However, the reverse is worse; the GM who makes all of his NPCs utterly resistant to intimidation.

 

- Players who make combat-oriented killing machines, then complain about being left out of the non-combat side of things... ... ...like having skills.

 

- Players who take a Hunted, then fully expect to kill them in the first game. I had a Champions player who wanted to be hunted by Warlord, then complained that Warlord was sending lackeys rather than show up himself, "so I can kill him." And that was OOC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Irksome players

 

I've had a character in a solo caimpaign who refused to back down in a sure death situation' date=' however it was a one time thing, and because I figured due to some extreme successes previously that his overconfidence went from moderate to total. It wasen't so much that he didn't want to lose, but rather the character [but not the player'] knew he could beat the Dragon single handed. Actually might of had a chance if it wasen't for some items being dispelled. Shame I really liked that character, but at least he had a good death.

 

There's an Overconfident character in a campaign I've run whose character will take actions very consistent with that trait while the player grins and says "this is going to seriously hurt". Challenging Firewing to one on one combat (as the player goes from IC "You and me - one on one - or are you chicken" to OOC "Hopefully you guys will accomplish something while I'm getting my @$$ kicked") was a great example - and a long-remembereed campaign moment.

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

There's an Overconfident character in a campaign I've run whose character will take actions very consistent with that trait while the player grins and says "this is going to seriously hurt". Challenging Firewing to one on one combat (as the player goes from IC "You and me - one on one - or are you chicken" to OOC "Hopefully you guys will accomplish something while I'm getting my @$$ kicked") was a great example - and a long-remembereed campaign moment.

 

On that note, I might find irksome (don't recall encountering any, but I might someday) those players who realize OOC that they're outmatched or can easily die, and play more conservatively than their character's personality would call for. Basically metagaming over roleplaying.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Irksome players

 

Am I permitted to aside for Irksome GMs who don't bother to call to tell his players that he's been scheduled to work on game night?

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

Am I permitted to aside for Irksome GMs who don't bother to call to tell his players that he's been scheduled to work on game night?

 

The first time I showed up for a game with Dr Pepper's group, I was told the Shadowrun GM was on his way. A while later, we started to play Palladium instead. Much later, I heard Dr Pepper strolling back and forth making a call on his cell phone going "Where were you! You said you were leaving the house, and would be right over!". A few minutes later he came back in and explained that the GM had been in a car accident or something.

 

So, he didn't show up, but it worked out, because by then we had just started to play something else instead

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Irksome players

 

The first time I showed up for a game with Dr Pepper's group, I was told the Shadowrun GM was on his way. A while later, we started to play Palladium instead. Much later, I heard Dr Pepper strolling back and forth making a call on his cell phone going "Where were you! You said you were leaving the house, and would be right over!". A few minutes later he came back in and explained that the GM had been in a car accident or something.

 

So, he didn't show up, but it worked out, because by then we had just started to play something else instead

 

That's at least an understandable emergency and couldn't be prepared for. This guy knew a week-or-so in advance that he'd be unable to be at the game, and told nobody.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Irksome players

 

This document has been in use by me over 15 years, in one form or another. It's been distributed to a few other local GMs, mainly to deal with excessive tardiness or frequent interruptions. I usually include it into the basic documentation about the game I'm running. For one game, I had to include a ban on cleaning handguns*, but that's a different story.

 

[ATTACH]21471[/ATTACH]

 

JoeG

*Real ones, as opposed to "in character".

[Ndreare]

Re: Irksome players

 

Spending more time on number crunching than backstory doesn't necessarily mean we're going to be irksome, it may just mean we suck at math

 

"Two . . . five . . . carry the one . . . " :beads of sweat breaking out on forehead:

I play with this guy every Saterday

Poor guy is horrid at math but a good gamer none the less. Without the programs he could spend jours making a character for HERO, GURPS, FUZION or any other point based game.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Irksome players

 

This document has been in use by me over 15 years, in one form or another. It's been distributed to a few other local GMs, mainly to deal with excessive tardiness or frequent interruptions. I usually include it into the basic documentation about the game I'm running. For one game, I had to include a ban on cleaning handguns*, but that's a different story.

 

[ATTACH]21471[/ATTACH]

 

JoeG

*Real ones, as opposed to "in character".

 

Cleaning handweapons with a bunch of excited gamers... that sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Jhereg]

Re: Irksome players

 

I had to ban live steel at the gaming table for fear of players getting "prop happy".