Game Mechanics of Visibility

[PhilFleischmann]

The way the visibility of powers is handled has never quite sat right with me. Same for IPE. The other day I may have hit on the reason why: because it's all based on senses and sense groups, rather than the actual game-mechanical results of the visibility.

 

What does it mean for a power to be visible (perceivable, if you prefer) in game-mechanical terms? It means all of the following:

1. You can tell where the power came from, i.e., the person who used it.

2. You can tell where the power came from on that person, i.e., the Point of Origin.

3. You can determine the special effects of the power, e.g., you can tell whether it's fire, bullets, sonic waves, or purple-sparkly-mystical-beams.

4. You can perceive where the power hit, i.e., the target of the power.

5. You can get a rough idea of the strength of the power, e.g., a 12d6 EB is going to look bigger/sound louder than a 6d6 EB.

6. You can easily detect the results of the power, i.e., the effect on the target.

 

Anything else? Am I missing anything?

1 means you know who's shooting at you.

2 lets you know that if you can disable/immobilize that body part, he won't be able to shoot you anymore.

3 might give you an idea of how to defend yourself. It might let you know who is protected/immune and who is vulnerable. If she's using fire, keep the scarecrow away.

4 lets you take defensive action - you can Dodge, Dive for Cover, Missile Deflect, etc.

5 might help you assess the threat level.

6 means you know what happened

 

Notice that some of these, most notably 1 and 4, don't apply to non-attack powers.

 

Two additional things that don't always apply:

7. If the power is bought with an Obvious Focus, it will be obvious that the focus is essential for the manifestation of that power.

8. If the power costs END from a character, it will eventually become evident that the character is tired if he uses the power enough (low on END, burning STUN as END, etc.).

 

Note that any of the above could be concealed, without spending any additional points, simply by the circumstances. You can use your power from a hidden position, or in the middle of a crowd, etc., to make it difficult to detect any of the above visible conditions.

 

I would propose changing the definition of "Visible" from the current "3 sense groups" to "the above conditions 1-6 are easily perceivable." And thus, the IPE Advantage can be based on removing any or all of those six points.

 

According to the current rules for IPE, just 1 and 2 are only worth half the Advantage. And 3, 4, and 5 together are worth half the Advantage. And if you already have 1-5, adding 6 doubles the cost of the Advantage.

 

Any one of 2, 3, or 5, by itself - completely invisible to all sense groups - is probably not worth a +1/4 Advantage. The main Advantages as I see it, ar in #s 1, 4, and 6. So what should these be worth?

 

(more thoughts coming)

[Lucius]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

I would say this bears thinking on.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

"Very interesting" agrees the palindromedary. For once.

[David Johnston]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

If you drop the sense groups then you won't be able to use super senses to detect invisible power uses.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

1. Power's Source - Discriminatory Targeting Sense: You can tell where the power came from, i.e., the person who used it.

2. Power's Point Of Origin - Discriminatory Targeting Sense: You can tell specifically where the power seems to originate from on the Power Source.

3. Power's Type - Discriminatory Sense: You can determine the special effects of the power (Fire, Bullets, Sonic Waves, etc) and perhaps glean what defenses might work better against the power.

4. Power's Target - Discriminatory Sense: You can perceive where/what the target was used against.

5. Power's Level - Analyze Sense: You can get a rough idea of the strength of the power (12d6 EB vs 6d6 EB) and perhaps glean what kind of danger it poses.

6. Power's Damage Effect - Discriminatory/Analyze Sense: You can easily detect the results of the power (effect on the target).

Reworked for easier reference.

 

[True] 1 means you know who's shooting at you.

[False] 2 lets you know that if you can disable/immobilize that body part, he won't be able to shoot you anymore. [Depends on the actual build of the power]

[True]3 might give you an idea of how to defend yourself. It might let you know who is protected/immune and who is vulnerable. If she's using fire, keep the scarecrow away.

[True]4 lets you take defensive action - you can Dodge, Dive for Cover, Missile Deflect, etc. [To be more precise, it allows for the possibility for an opportunity of an action to be taken, if circumstances permit]

[True] 5 might help you assess the threat level.

[False] 6 means you know what happened [Depends on the actual build of the power]

Both 2 and 6 would depend on the actual power build.

With number 2 a player can easily specify a SFX that might be easily recognizable as a weapon, but if the weapon isn't actually a focus, just the appearance of weapon, then trying to restrain the weapon arm/hand may or may not actually be restainable in the manner you are suggesting.

With number 6 the actual damage done may or may not be recognizable by a third party, but the target should have some idea.

 

Notice that some of these' date=' most notably 1 and 4, don't apply to non-attack powers.[/quote']

Why don't they apply to non-attack powers?

Consider the following:

Character does a runby and spills oil around the hex, but not in the hex, of the target character.

Character puts a Force Wall Globe around another character.

 

I guess it depends on how you are defining what an Attack is.

 

Note that any of the above could be concealed' date=' without spending any additional points, simply by the circumstances. You can use your power from a hidden position, or in the middle of a crowd, etc., to make it difficult to detect any of the above visible conditions.[/quote']

When you say "concealed" are you just talking about negating the "Targeting" aspect of the Power's Source? If so, then that would be true, otherwise, I wouldn't allow the character to get invisibility/IPE for free.

 

But consider this, a common attack in a modern campaign would be a bullet fired from a gun. SFX would suggest that the Gun Attack be purchased with at least one level of IPE since the bullet usually can't be seen, muzzle flash is debatable since I'm not an expert on such things, so locating the Power's Source would be based on a Non-Targeting Sense, or more precisely, based on sense that is less absolute as a Targeting Sense.

 

Just Food For Thought

 

I'll have to think about your suggestions for a while before I actually make any comments or suggestions myself.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

If you drop the sense groups then you won't be able to use super senses to detect invisible power uses.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If a power is Fully Invisible, IPE at +1, you already can't detect it with super senses. In any event, I'm not proposing to drop sense groups, just to not define visibility (perceivability) by sense groups.

 

Reworked for easier reference.

You've made some assumptions about sense groups and the characteristics of those senses (Discriminatory, Targeting, Analyze), and then inserted them into my quote, which is precisely the type of thing I'm trying to avoid. I don't see any of those things implied or required in the rules as-is, and they certainly aren't in the change I'm proposing. If these are your requirements/interpretations/house rules, then say so, but don't put them into my quote.

 

Both 2 and 6 would depend on the actual power build.

With number 2 a player can easily specify a SFX that might be easily recognizable as a weapon, but if the weapon isn't actually a focus, just the appearance of weapon, then trying to restrain the weapon arm/hand may or may not actually be restainable in the manner you are suggesting.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. Let me clarify: The first list was just "things that are perceivable about a power when it is used (assuming no IPE or something like that)." The second list is just game-mechanical reasons why those things are important. #2 is that the Point of Origin is perceivable. #2 matters because you might be able to do something about the power if you know its point of origin. You could grab Cyclops' head and keep it facing away from you. And this applies to non-attack powers as well: you can see someone Running using their legs, so if you grab or disable their legs, they won't be able to run. That's all I meant by #2. And as I said later in the same post, it may be possible to conceal the PoO, or otherwise misdirect those looking for it.

 

With number 6 the actual damage done may or may not be recognizable by a third party, but the target should have some idea.

The target will *always* know that he's been attacked, according to the rules. People around the target will be able to see the damage done, unless the power is bought with IPE at 2x cost. That's in the book, not something I'm making up. And to clarify what I meant, I should have said, "6 means you know what happened to the target."

 

Why don't they apply to non-attack powers?

Consider the following:

Character does a runby and spills oil around the hex, but not in the hex, of the target character.

Character puts a Force Wall Globe around another character.

 

I guess it depends on how you are defining what an Attack is.

Those seem like attacks to me. Let me be more precise: 1 and 4 don't really apply to any power that doesn't emerge from the character and affect someone or something other than the character. IOW, there is no "target" for a Movement Power - the character simply moves. Likewise for a Body-Affecting Power - the character's body simply changes in some way without regard to any "target". The implication of this is that invisibility for non-attack powers is not as big an advantage (small 'a') as it is for attack powers.

 

When you say "concealed" are you just talking about negating the "Targeting" aspect of the Power's Source? If so, then that would be true, otherwise, I wouldn't allow the character to get invisibility/IPE for free.

No, that isn't what I mean. I mean you can hide somewhere and shoot somebody without being seen. That doesn't require you to buy IPE for your power. Likewise, you could use a power when your target (or everyone) isn't looking. You could distract them to make them look away or use any other tactical method of hiding the use of the power. This shouldn't cost any extra points. And of course, none of this prevents anyone from figuring out what happened. And it doesn't guarantee that no one is able to perceive the power as you attempt to use it.

 

But consider this, a common attack in a modern campaign would be a bullet fired from a gun. SFX would suggest that the Gun Attack be purchased with at least one level of IPE since the bullet usually can't be seen, muzzle flash is debatable since I'm not an expert on such things, so locating the Power's Source would be based on a Non-Targeting Sense, or more precisely, based on sense that is less absolute as a Targeting Sense.

The ordinary gun is an example used right there in the book (FREd, at least). It is specifically describe as not needing IPE, even though the bullet in flight can't be seen with normal senses. You can see the gun and the guy pointing iit. (And someone might have an Enhanced Sense in the sight group that can see the bullet.)

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

So...

 

According to the rules, a power can have:

aspects 1-5 completely invisible to all senses for a +1 Advantage,

aspects 1 & 2 completely invisible to all senses for a +1/2 Advantage,

aspects 3-5 completely invisible to all senses for a +1/2 Advantage, or

aspects 1-6 completely invisible to all senses for a +2 Advantage.

 

I don't see any reason why 1-5 invisibility must be a prerequisite for #6.

 

Based on the above, it would seem to me to be fair to allow:

aspects 3 & 5 completely invisible to all senses for a +1/4 Advantage,

aspect 6 completely invisible to all senses for a +1 Advantage, or

aspects 1 & 4 (and maybe 2) completely invisible to all senses for a +3/4 Advantage (although I can't think of any SFX or mechanism that would justify it).

 

And based on these, you could have more limited forms of invisibility:

aspects 1-5 partially invisible for a +1/4 - +3/4 Advantage,

etc.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

You've made some assumptions about sense groups and the characteristics of those senses (Discriminatory' date=' Targeting, Analyze), and then inserted them into my quote, which is precisely the type of thing I'm trying to avoid. I don't see any of those things implied or required in the rules as-is, and they certainly aren't in the change I'm proposing. If these are your requirements/interpretations/house rules, then say so, but don't put them into my quote.[/quote']

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was simply trying to give titles and practical implementation of what perception actually would mean via the rules.

 

And to note. Yes the book does imply certain things about SFX concerning the senses. The rules clearly state that SFX grants an observer (normal human by default) an absolute location of the Power's Source. This can only be achieved by certain kinds of senses, per the rules. Those senses that are Targeting allow one to pinpoint specific locations of things using that sense.

 

For humans, the only Targeting sense is Sight.

 

So I simply included what type of senses would be implied by the SFX rules themselves.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. Let me clarify: The first list was just "things that are perceivable about a power when it is used (assuming no IPE or something like that)."

Correct. But SFX can be anything, and sometimes it can be misleading depending on build because the build is based on what it actually does, not what it looks like. So a gun (SFX) might not actually be a gun (FOCUS) and therefore trying to take the gun away would be a useless tactic, even though you perceived the SFX and reacted accordingly.

 

The second list is just game-mechanical reasons why those things are important.

But importance directly relates to the utility which is affected by the dependability and in this case perception. If the utility is not dependable, then it's value or importance is lessened. That was all I was pointing out here.

 

The target will *always* know that he's been attacked' date=' according to the rules. People around the target will be able to see the damage done, unless the power is bought with IPE at 2x cost. That's in the book, not something I'm making up. And to clarify what I meant, I should have said, "6 means you know what happened [i']to the target[/i]."

I agree with the first statement. The book does say this. But the second one isn't backed up by the book since the SFX might not leave perceptible damage after the fact. It usually will, but nothing in the book guarantee's that it will.

 

Example: Gas attacks rarely leave perceptible wounds after the fact.

 

Those seem like attacks to me. Let me be more precise: 1 and 4 don't really apply to any power that doesn't emerge from the character and affect someone or something other than the character.

Oh. Okay. Yeah, using that definition certainly would make my examples I gave attacks. Glad we got that definition out of the way.

 

IOW' date=' there is no "target" for a Movement Power - the character simply moves.[/quote']

I don't think the book backs this idea up, but if that's how you want to define it, I guess you could. It does make the Move-by and Move-through somewhat confusing with this definition. But that is beside the point.

 

No' date=' that isn't what I mean. I mean you can hide somewhere and shoot somebody without being seen.[/quote']

Oh, okay, you mean you can remove the Discriminatory part of the sense. Gotcha. The Laser Beam or Muzzle Flash might be seen and the specific location (Targeting Sense) would still be perceptible, but they wouldn't know who fire it (Discriminatory Sense). Okay, that makes sense.

 

The ordinary gun is an example used right there in the book (FREd' date=' at least). It is specifically describe as not needing IPE, even though the bullet in flight can't be seen with normal senses. You can see the gun and the guy pointing iit. (And someone might have an Enhanced Sense in the sight group that can see the bullet.)[/quote']

I have 5th Edition only. Could you give the section you are referring to so I can at least get on the same page.

 

I can see this being done as convenience, but it breaks the "Reason from SFX" and makes certain SFX more useful (combat bonuses) than other SFX.

 

SFX 1: RKA - Plasma Beam is shot a mile away on a sunny day and the beam is visible along it's entire path. There is no question where the shot came from.

SFX 2: RKA - Sniper Rifle (no silencer or muzzle flash reduction) is shot a mile away on a sunny day but the bullet is not visible along it's entire path. There's a big question where the shot came from.

 

This leads to non-sensical application of the "Reason From SFX" rule.

 

Just My Opnion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Phil, great point. I think this is where the limited granularity of the system (as granular as it is) clashes a bit with the desire to be precise. I think you're right it's about utility, and something along the lines of the variables you're indicating, the actual effect of knowing/not knowing certain elements, is what matters.

 

Personally, I use IPE as including that the source is completely invisible, generally, but also the power manifestation might be as well, so that you don't even know you're getting drained or blasted, exactly.

 

But both ways (default state and IPE) should really be based on some sort of meaningful components of utility rather than just raw sense ideas.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Invisible power effects is much more useful for attack powers than for other powers, so halve the cost of IPE (or rather thee advantage value) for non-attack powers.

 

I mean, not exactly an advanced scientific approach but it does for me

[Lucius]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

I'm reminded of another discussion we had about the SFX of powers - or was it, the power of SFX?

 

If you have, say, a spell that causes a ninja to spring from the shadows and hit the target once, then vanish, that can be the "special effects" of a ranged attack power like Ranged Killing Attack. The problem is, mechanically, the target and bystanders still somehow have to know that you caused it to happen. You can make it look like a ninja, but you can't actually decieve anyone into thinking there's a real ninja lurking in the shadows and it woud be a useful thing to do to pursue and attack him - because if you can do that, you're getting a lot more utility than you deserve just for a creative use of SFX.

 

On the other hand, you may want Indirect, but you probably DON'T want Invisible Power on this - the power is visible, just not visibly tied to the character using it.

 

Perhaps what's needed is an advantage that conceals the source, but leaves the workings of the power itself still visible?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if that's what we're getting at here

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Sorry' date=' I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.[/quote']

Upon re-reading, the first part of my last post came across as agrier than i really meant it. I was just trying to be precise, not to blast you or take offense.

 

And to note. Yes the book does imply certain things about SFX concerning the senses. The rules clearly state that SFX grants an observer (normal human by default) an absolute location of the Power's Source.

Well, under ideal circumstances it does. But that doesn't necessarily imply anything about the particular senses used. See below:

 

For humans, the only Targeting sense is Sight.

But if you can't see the person using the power, you have no "targeting" on him. That doesn't mean he has to buy IPE.

 

So a gun (SFX) might not actually be a gun (FOCUS) and therefore trying to take the gun away would be a useless tactic, even though you perceived the SFX and reacted accordingly.

Do you mean, for example, a guy shoots a power out of his finger, but by holding a toy gun in his hand, makes it look like the gun is the source of the power? Does a character have to buy IPE for this? Using the current rules, he *can't*. All this does in conceal fact #2. There is no way to purchase that specific thing in the rules, yet.

 

But importance directly relates to the utility which is affected by the dependability and in this case perception. If the utility is not dependable, then it's value or importance is lessened. That was all I was pointing out here.

But the reliability of other peoples' senses is not the concern of the person who buys the power.

 

I agree with the first statement. The book does say this. But the second one isn't backed up by the book since the SFX might not leave perceptible damage after the fact.

Yes, it is. It's right there in the description of IPE. Yes, certain SFX might be a little harder to detect, but others should always be able to know that the target is being attacked (unless IPE is purchased at double cost, per the book).

 

I don't think the book backs this idea up, but if that's how you want to define it, I guess you could. It does make the Move-by and Move-through somewhat confusing with this definition. But that is beside the point.

If in the case of a movement power, you want to call the character both the "User/Source" and the "Target" you can, but that's just semantics. Move-By and Move-Thru are not Powers, they are Maneuvers. Even if you can't detect the use of my Movement Power, you can still detect the fact of my physical body moving through/by you. IPE doesn't grant Invisibility to the character.

 

Oh, okay, you mean you can remove the Discriminatory part of the sense. Gotcha. The Laser Beam or Muzzle Flash might be seen and the specific location (Targeting Sense) would still be perceptible, but they wouldn't know who fire it (Discriminatory Sense). Okay, that makes sense.

Discriminatory has nothing to do with it. Hiding somewhere makes it difficult to see the person, that doesn't take away anything from your senses. All senses have their limits.

 

I have 5th Edition only. Could you give the section you are referring to so I can at least get on the same page.

It's right there in the description of IPE.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Do you mean' date=' for example, a guy shoots a power out of his finger, but by holding a toy gun in his hand, makes it look like the gun is the source of the power?[/quote']

No. What I am saying is that there can be an SFX such that the SFX is that a gun "appears" to be there fires a real ray from it. So you could restrain the characters arms and keep him from attacking you, but trying to grab the "gun" would be futile, since no "gun" actually exists.

 

But the reliability of other peoples' senses is not the concern of the person who buys the power.

I'm not saying it is. I'm making a general statement that if you are trying to assign a value to some thing, that reliabilty affects the value that is to be assigned to that thing.

 

Yes' date=' it is. It's right there in the description of IPE. Yes, certain SFX might be a little harder to detect, but others should always be able to know that the target is being attacked (unless IPE is purchased at double cost, per the book).[/quote']

So.... Hellen Keller (Deaf, Blind, and Mute) should be able to identify the source of a plain old EB as a another person (Hearing, Sight, and Speech)?

 

Technically, per the rules, she should, but that of course doesn't make any sense.

 

Move-By and Move-Thru are not Powers' date=' they are Maneuvers.[/quote']

Really? It seems you are suggesting that they are somehow distinct and separate from the "Movement Power".

 

So if I decide not to use the Maneuvers Move-By or Move-Thru, and simply Fly into someone using my Flight Power, what happens?

Either you rule I can't do that, which makes no sense.

You rule that I can do it but it has no effect on the Attacker or Target, which again makes no sense.

You rule that the effects of Move-By or Move-Thru are applied, even if I wasn't trying to use them. Sounds like the two things are one and the same.

 

Plus, if they are considered distinct and separate from movement powers, then you have the weird situation where you do a Move-By or Move-Thru in an adjacent hex an never actually move.

 

I don't really believe that you think that.

 

Discriminatory has nothing to do with it. Hiding somewhere makes it difficult to see the person' date=' that doesn't take away anything from your senses. All senses have their limits.[/quote']

Correct. Which the rules really don't cover well under the SFX section, which is where all this needs to be defined.

 

Consider the following:

You have ten different men. One of them shoots you. Later these men are brought into a line up and you are asked to identify the one that shot you. I think this clearly shows that discriminatory does have an effect on identifying the source of an attack.

 

Now consider this:

You have ten duplicate men in a line. All of them fire identical rifles at you, but only one fired a bullet, the rest fired blanks. Discriminatory has been eliminated from the equation, yet the rules state that you automatically know the location where the attack came from.

 

Yes, senses have thier limitations, but the rules don't actually address what those limitations are, especially sight, which is where most of the issue lies when it comes to SFX, Perception, and IPE. Per the rules, a character infinite sight, there is no range limit, only range penalties. Can someone see a rifle flash from over 100 Meters? 200 Meters? 300 Meters? 400 Meters? ....

 

When does it become impossible to perceive? Therein lies the problem. Now add to that the ability buy perception modifiers and enhancements.

 

It's right there in the description of IPE.

Okay, I've reread that section. Much of this discription should have been put in the SFX and Senses section. But it does explain in detail how model different SFX should be modelled. It answers my question of the difference between the Bullet and Laser Beam. One does pay more or less than the other, if modelled using the rules described in IPE.

 

Well, I'm done here.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

OK, one way to address the liquid silliness of the senses/powers thing we have dicussed previously is to assume an approach like this: using a power allows a PER roll with 3 senses to detect its use and associated information. The PER roll is made at a bonus of +2 for each sense you can detect.

 

Depending on how well you roll, you can get more information: making the PER roll by 4 will get you an exact location the power originated.

 

You can buy IPE to reduce some or all of the PER roll: +1/4 allows you to reduce the PER roll by up to -12 (with penalties applied to a targetting sense costing ddouble. Once you have assigned the penalties, that is it - you can't change them. This means that you could have the targetting sense reduced to -4 and the non-targetting ones remain at +2, or whatever combination you fancy.

 

Each +1/4 gives you more points to play with to reduce the PER rolls of opponents.

 

How does that sound?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Oh, and attack powers, being harder to hide, only get half the PER penalties to apply per +1/4.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Perhaps what's needed is an advantage that conceals the source, but leaves the workings of the power itself still visible?

 

That's already built into the description of Invisible Power Effects. For half the normal cost of the Advantage (minimum +1/4), you can either hide the Special Effects of the Power but not the source, or the source of the Power but not the Special Effects.

[zornwil]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

OK, one way to address the liquid silliness of the senses/powers thing we have dicussed previously is to assume an approach like this: using a power allows a PER roll with 3 senses to detect its use and associated information. The PER roll is made at a bonus of +2 for each sense you can detect.

 

Depending on how well you roll, you can get more information: making the PER roll by 4 will get you an exact location the power originated.

 

You can buy IPE to reduce some or all of the PER roll: +1/4 allows you to reduce the PER roll by up to -12 (with penalties applied to a targetting sense costing ddouble. Once you have assigned the penalties, that is it - you can't change them. This means that you could have the targetting sense reduced to -4 and the non-targetting ones remain at +2, or whatever combination you fancy.

 

Each +1/4 gives you more points to play with to reduce the PER rolls of opponents.

 

How does that sound?

Too complicated.

 

Not necessarily bad, though, if one wishes that level of granularity.

 

Personally, neither I nor the play groups I've been in have ever challenged the visibility of powers to the degree suggested by the rules, and I think a far looser approach adequately fits MOST (not all, I entirely admit) situations. I would rather the guidelines remained a bit malleable if broken than get more detailed, though, as I think that getting more detailed suggests that such attention should be paid in most/many situations, whereas I think that we have to find places in the system to cut the details out.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Personally I and the groups I play with tend to just ignore the visibility of powers rules, or just use them for flavour. I'm not sure the concept adds much in most games. If you do want it in there though it might as well be quite closely defined using game terms: at present all sxf have the same 'intensity' unless you buy IPE. There is no such thing - theoretically - as a quieter gun that still makes a noise. Seems like an easily addressed lack if it is a pooint of concern at all.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

I can see this being done as convenience' date=' but it breaks the "Reason from SFX" and makes certain SFX more useful (combat bonuses) than other SFX.[/quote']

I don't see how. And I certainly am not advocating combat bonuses (without comensurate penalties) based on SFX.

 

SFX 1: RKA - Plasma Beam is shot a mile away on a sunny day and the beam is visible along it's entire path. There is no question where the shot came from.

SFX 2: RKA - Sniper Rifle (no silencer or muzzle flash reduction) is shot a mile away on a sunny day but the bullet is not visible along it's entire path. There's a big question where the shot came from.

 

This leads to non-sensical application of the "Reason From SFX" rule.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the "Reason from SFX" rule. The example is already nonsensical. How well can you see someone a mile away? What do you mean by "sniper rifle"? Do you mean a sniper with a rifle? That is, a guy with a rifle firing from a hiding place? Are you comparing that to Plasma Beam Man standing out in the open?

 

If you're just standing there, and a plasma beam whizzes through your field of vision, you didn't see it being fired. You can turn your head and maybe you'll see Plasma Beam Man standing there in his brightly-colored spandex. Or maybe you'll see a high rise building with many windows. You might be able to roughly estimate which of those windows the plasma beam came out of, but you won't necessarily no the exact spot, nor who fired it. Does this mean the plasma bean had to by some type of IPE Advantage?

 

And if the rifle is fired, you can hear the direction it came from. When you turn your head, you may see Gun Man standing there with his gun, or you may see a shadowy clump of trees. You may then conclude that whoever fired the gun was among those trees somewhere. The gun is no more invisible than the plasma beam source.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

No. What I am saying is that there can be an SFX such that the SFX is that a gun "appears" to be there fires a real ray from it. So you could restrain the characters arms and keep him from attacking you' date=' but trying to grab the "gun" would be futile, since no "gun" actually exists.[/quote']

OK. How is that different from what I said? The power's Point of Origin is concealed. And that's the only part of the power that is concealed. There is no way to buy that "Aspect #2 Invisibility" by itself in the current rules.

 

Robyn? (I want to go on record that I am not posting under two different names. Robyn and I are two different people. I have never even met Robyn. I am however, a hot lesbian gamer chick. Tee Hee. Winx.)

 

I'm not saying it is. I'm making a general statement that if you are trying to assign a value to some thing, that reliabilty affects the value that is to be assigned to that thing.

I seem to have completely missed your point here. Let my try to make my point clear: Visibility of a Power means that others can determine the 6 things I enumerated about the power. It doesn't matter specifically how they are determined, or what specific senses are involved. If you don't have IPE, then those 6 things are knowable. That is not to say they will always be known. A person might not be looking in the right direction, the user could be hidden somewhere, etc.

 

So.... Hellen Keller (Deaf, Blind, and Mute) should be able to identify the source of a plain old EB as a another person (Hearing, Sight, and Speech)?

Where are you getting this? Is it based on something Robyn said? I certainly never said anything like this.

 

Technically, per the rules, she should, but that of course doesn't make any sense.

Huh? Nothing in the rules says that a blind and deaf person can perceive everything that a sighted and hearing person can. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

Really? It seems you are suggesting that they are somehow distinct and separate from the "Movement Power".

As do the rules. That's why "Combat Maneuvers" are in a separate section from "Powers."

 

So if I decide not to use the Maneuvers Move-By or Move-Thru, and simply Fly into someone using my Flight Power, what happens?

What happens is the GM slaps you. Or maybe he simply swings his arm so his hand hits you, without using the Strike Maneuver. Maybe you could raise your arm to block the blow, without using the Block Maneuver.

 

Plus, if they are considered distinct and separate from movement powers, then you have the weird situation where you do a Move-By or Move-Thru in an adjacent hex an never actually move.

 

I don't really believe that you think that.

Then why bring it up?

 

Consider the following:

You have ten different men. One of them shoots you. Later these men are brought into a line up and you are asked to identify the one that shot you. I think this clearly shows that discriminatory does have an effect on identifying the source of an attack.

No. Discriminatory has an effect on identifying the *identity* of the source of an attack. If they're all wearing masks, you won't be able to identify them, but that doesn't mean their guns are invisible.

 

Now consider this:

You have ten duplicate men in a line. All of them fire identical rifles at you, but only one fired a bullet, the rest fired blanks. Discriminatory has been eliminated from the equation, yet the rules state that you automatically know the location where the attack came from.

It has nothing to do with Discriminatory. It has to do with the limits of your senses. You don't "automatically know which one fired the real bullet.

[Lucius]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

 

So.... Hellen Keller (Deaf, Blind, and Mute) should be able to identify the source of a plain old EB as a another person (Hearing, Sight, and Speech)?

 

 

 

She would, except that her Physical Limitations trump the rule that she should be able to identify the source of an Energy Blast. She will, however, know if she's been hit.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that she'll know, but she won't necessarily be able to tell you about it.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Yes' date=' senses have thier limitations, but the rules don't actually address what those limitations are,[/quote']

Right. And with my proposal, they won't have to. If you buy Invisible for aspects 1, 3, and 5, then those aspects are invisible. If you buy Invisible for 1-6, then the whole power is invisible, etc. And you can still buy "Invisible in particular circumstances" to account for special senses and the like. And then you don't have to worry (as much) about how often other characters will have unusual senses. You can just let common sense rule. Much simpler.

 

When does it become impossible to perceive? Therein lies the problem. Now add to that the ability buy perception modifiers and enhancements.

When common sense says so. You don't see what's going on behind you. You can't hear a single gunshot amid continuous loud noises and explosions. etc. My proposal doesn't change this aspect at all. In neither the current rules, or my proposal, would you need to pay extra (for some form of IPE or anything else), to use your power from a hidden position or to take advantage of a target's or witness's distracted or blocked senses.

 

It answers my question of the difference between the Bullet and Laser Beam. One does pay more or less than the other, if modelled using the rules described in IPE.

Only if you buy a silencer or flash suppressor for the gun, or something like that. If it's just an ordinary gun - you can hear the bang, you can see the flash, and you can see the gun itself and the hand aiming it - then it's bought exactly the same as the laser beam: as a normally visible power.

 

Senses are not like independent subsidiaries of a company. They all work together. There doesn't have to be one individual sense that detects a piece of information. Any or all of the senses, working together, gives a perception of aspects 1-6 of the power.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Phil, (sorry if I pasted the wrong name previously (8^D))

 

I don't have a problem with your proposal, even if my posts appear to be challenging it, I'm not. If anything I'm challenging the way the current rules don't actually spell out what the assumptions are for perception concerning SFX. And a slight grievance for putting information under IPE when some of it should have been mentioned under the SFX section. But that my issue, not yours. (8^D)

 

I think your proposal of breaking down the IPE into more flexible parts is commendable. I just got sidetracked on the ancillary effect it had on perception in general, and the lack of definition under SFX.

 

As for the difference between a High Powered Rifle (I've been told there are some that reach over a mile) and a Laser Beam. Based on the IPE section, it is obvious that the Laser Weapon would get a Visibility Limitation due to having a perceptible effect beyond the normal Perception Range.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

And a slight grievance for putting information under IPE when some of it should have been mentioned under the SFX section. But that my issue' date=' not yours. (8^D)[/quote']

And I certainly agree with you there.

 

As for the difference between a High Powered Rifle (I've been told there are some that reach over a mile) and a Laser Beam. Based on the IPE section, it is obvious that the Laser Weapon would get a Visibility Limitation due to having a perceptible effect beyond the normal Perception Range.

I read the same passage and get a completely different meaning: that both the laser and the gun are purchased normally, both are considered equally visible, neither needs a Visible limitation or Invisible advantage. And if you want a silencer/flash suppressor on the gun, you can do that by buying IPE.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

I read the same passage and get a completely different meaning: that both the laser and the gun are purchased normally' date=' both are considered equally visible, neither needs a Visible limitation or Invisible advantage. And if you want a silencer/flash suppressor on the gun, you can do that by buying IPE.[/quote']

I guess I haven't clearly expressed what I am saying.

 

Reaoning from SFX:

 

High Powered Rifle: RKA

SFX is presumed Visible to the maximum range of a character's perception. Regardless of the Maximum Range of the weapon.

 

High Powered Plasma Beam: RKA

SFX is presumed Visible to the maximum range of the weapoon, or perhaps even beyond.

 

Extended Visibility -1/4 Per Level

Allows the SFX to be Visible beyond normal perception.

-1/4: SFX is visible to Power's Maximum Range.

-1/2: SFX is visible at twice the range of Power's Maximum Range

 

Now you can argue what the "Normal Perception Range" is, but the book is completely silent on the matter, so it would be pointless.

 

So these two powers are clearly different as far a SFX Visibility is concerned, and IPE clearly suggests that they built differently to reflect this in game effect.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I'm not disagreeing with your builds of the high-power rifle or the plasma beam or laser beam. I'm merely stating what seem to me to be the obvious meaning of the examples given in the description of the IPE Advantage.

 

When I read that passage, I see two examples: a Fire Bolt and a Gun. The passage discusses how neither one of them is invisible. Even though you can't see the bullet in flight like you could for the firebolt, you can still see and hear the gun being fired. It then goes on to say how either of these powers could be made invisible by applying the IPE Advantage: the firebolt wouldn't be seen and you wouldn't be able to see who it came from, and the gun itself could be invisible and fire silently. (How one justifies fire becoming invisible, I don't know.)

 

My only claim was that an ordinary gun does not have to be purchased with IPE just because you can't see the bullet in motion.