Game Mechanics of Visibility

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

What's your definition of "ordinary" regarding the High Powered Rifle if its being fired a target that's near the maximum range of the weapon?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Ditto. What are you suggesting as "ordinary"? Only weapons that have a maximum range less than or equal to the perception range of a "Normal" human?

 

It's these things that the Hero System does not explain and lead to confusion when trying to discuss builds and comparisons.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

I'm not suggesting anything as "ordinary". It was never part of my argument. I was only quoting the book, which gives an example of a gun: it doesn't have to be bought with IPE, even though you can't see the bullet in flight. I don't see why that should be any different fron any other ranged attack. Thor can probably throw his hammer several miles, does that mean it's IPE? If you zap someone with an EB at maximum range, should that be treated any differently? You can even buy the Increased Range advantage (multiple times, if you like) to shoot at targets several km away.

 

6d6 EB = 30 base points, starting range 30x5 = 150" or 300 m

+1 worth of increased range = 4800 m, for 60 AP.

And if you shoot someone at maximum range, they probably won't be able to see you, except perhaps as a dot on the horizon. Does this require IPE?

 

Ranged powers come with a Range, shouldn't you be able to use that range?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

I'm not suggesting anything as "ordinary". It was never part of my argument. I was only quoting the book' date=' which gives an example of a gun: it doesn't have to be bought with IPE, even though you can't see the bullet in flight.[/quote']

Why? Just because of that one thing in the entire book?

It sounds like you are taking a single thing out and ignoring all the text that talks about "Reasoning From SFX".

 

You can do that. Nothing wrong with it. But that one thing is inconsistent with the intent of "Reasoning From SFX" and the spirit as well.

 

For me, this falls into the same category as the book stating, "Astral Projection must be built using Duplication". You may be fine with that ruling, and it is an official ruling. But for my game I would have ask why? Since not all Astral Projection SFX are created equal, and "Reasoning From SFX" flys in the face of this logic, since it would require different Astral Projection SFX to be built differently.

 

What I am inferring from you, right or wrong, is that the SFX of an "Ordinary Gun" is equal to a "Plasma Gun" SFXwise and thus should be built identically?

 

Perhaps you don't believe this, I'm not sure, but just because you have an example which flies in the face of a build using "Reasoning From SFX", isn't going to convince me or perhaps others that an "Ordinary Gun" SFX build is the same as a "Plasma Gun" SFX build.

 

 

I don't see why that (Ordinary Gun) should be any different fron any other ranged attack (Plasma Gun).

Bold Text added by me for clarification.

 

I think that is where we are getting hung up.

 

You seem to be saying they are both just as visible at all ranges, yet my examples to you above specifically show how they are not just as visible at all ranges. If they are different in this description (SFX), then the build (mechanic) shiould also reflect this difference, especially since it has a game effect, which it does.

 

Thor can probably throw his hammer several miles' date=' does that mean it's IPE?[/quote']

Okay, let's "Reason From SFX", it the hammer is thrown miles in less than second to reach its maximum range, and thus can't be seen or heard with normal senses such that you can't identify the source, then yes.

If the hammer is thown miles and takes minutes to reach its maximum range, thus it may be seen or heard going by with normal senses such that you can identify the source, then no.

 

See the difference? All SFX are not created equal.

 

 

If you zap someone with an EB at maximum range' date=' should that be treated any differently?[/quote']

If that EB is Viisible at maximum range which is beyond normal human perception and still gives you the source of the attack, Absolutely.

You see, it all depends on the SFX of the attack. You didn't mention one, so no "Reaoning From SFX" could actually be done so I was free to presume the SFX that would show that it should be treated differently.

 

You can even buy the Increased Range advantage (multiple times, if you like) to shoot at targets several km away.

 

6d6 EB = 30 base points, starting range 30x5 = 150" or 300 m

+1 worth of increased range = 4800 m, for 60 AP.

And if you shoot someone at maximum range, they probably won't be able to see you, except perhaps as a dot on the horizon. Does this require IPE?

 

Ranged powers come with a Range, shouldn't you be able to use that range?

Unfortunately, the rules say no, you aren't guaranteed to be able to use a weapon at maximum range effectively. The rules specifically state that if you can't perceive the target at a certain range, your chances of hitting the target at the range start approaching zero. That doesn't mean you can't fire the weapon in that direction. And if the SFX is such that the attack it clearly visible to the maximum range, then you better beleive that anyone near the maximum range of that attack is going to perceive it and know where it came from. If that doesn't make sense SFXwise, then you better buy some level of IPE to reflect that.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Why? Just because of that one thing in the entire book?

Again, it isn't my example. You'll have to ask Steve. I haven't read all of the books on the subject, such as the Equipment Handbook, but AFAIK, none of the writeups for RW guns have IPE, except to model silencers and flash suppressors. If you disagree with that, take it up with Steve. Off hand, I'd say it a good thing for genre considerations:a real-world gun should be buildable as simply as possible - a plain RKA should do it.

 

It sounds like you are taking a single thing out and ignoring all the text that talks about "Reasoning From SFX".

To me it sound like you are taking one thing out of my posts and ignoring everything else I've written on the subject. A gun is a physical object that is plainly visible. It gives off a loud sound when fired. You can see the hand holding and aiming it and the finger pulling the trigger. That's visible in my book.

 

For me, this falls into the same category as the book stating, "Astral Projection must be built using Duplication".

If so, then it would seem you haven't understood anything I've said. I never said that any particular power or concept must be built a certain way.

 

What I am inferring from you, right or wrong, is that the SFX of an "Ordinary Gun" is equal to a "Plasma Gun" SFXwise and thus should be built identically?

I have no idea why you would infer that. I might infer from your statement above that you're confused as to what SFX means. I certainly understand that a small piece of metal moving a very high speed is a very different SFX from atoms heated until their electrons come free from their nuclei.

 

Perhaps you don't believe this, I'm not sure, but just because you have an example which flies in the face of a build using "Reasoning From SFX", isn't going to convince me or perhaps others that an "Ordinary Gun" SFX build is the same as a "Plasma Gun" SFX build.

I don't see how Steve's (not mine, Steven S. Long's) build flies in the face of reasoning from SFX. There's more to the game than SFX, you also have to interpret the rules correctly.

 

You seem to be saying they are both just as visible at all ranges, yet my examples to you above specifically show how they are not just as visible at all ranges.

I'm not saying that at all. I am saying, among other things, that they both become less visible at greater distances. They can also become less visible under circumstances other than distance. These circumstances are often dependant on the SFX. The gun may be less visible on a battlefield with lots of other guns being fired and "bang" sounds. The plasma beam may be less visible in the midst of other sources of blight light and energy.

 

If they are different in this description (SFX), then the build (mechanic) shiould also reflect this difference, especially since it has a game effect, which it does.

On the contrary, a central idea of HERO is that different SFX can be built the same way. A fire bolt, an electric zap, a laser blaster, a magical beam, and an alien-tech ray, all have different SFX, but they can all be built with EB vs. Energy. And based on their differing SFX, they may in some circumstances have advantages or disadvantages over the others: the fire bolt won't work in a vacuum or underwater, the electric zap might be stronger in water, Mirror Woman is practically immune to lasers, and a summoned demon may be especially vulnerable to magical attack. That doesn't mean any of these powers has to be built differently from the others. Likewise, various circumstances, again often depending on SFX, may increase or decrease their visibility: fire stands out brightly in darkness, a magic beam might be hard to see against the background of a magical realm.

 

You see, it all depends on the SFX of the attack. You didn't mention one, so no "Reaoning From SFX" could actually be done so I was free to presume the SFX that would show that it should be treated differently.

It also depends on the rules of the game. There's more to reason from than SFX.

 

Unfortunately, the rules say no, you aren't guaranteed to be able to use a weapon at maximum range effectively. The rules specifically state that if you can't perceive the target at a certain range, your chances of hitting the target at the range start approaching zero.

This is completely off the subject. I wasn't talking about the likelihood of hitting a target. I'm talking about the visibility of a power. (And there are plenty of ways to hit a target at huge ranges: telescopic sense, No RMod advantage, size of target, AoE, etc.)

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Again' date=' it isn't my example. You'll have to ask Steve. I haven't read all of the books on the subject, such as the Equipment Handbook, but AFAIK, none of the writeups for RW guns have IPE, except to model silencers and flash suppressors. If you disagree with that, take it up with Steve. Off hand, I'd say it a good thing for genre considerations:a real-world gun should be buildable as simply as possible - a plain RKA should do it.[/quote']

So, I take it from this, that if you see any example in any supplement, you would take that as canon by the rules. Hey, feel free to do that. Just know that Steve Long has stated that he won't enforce any rules from the core book on any build in any of the supplement beyond active points and cost calculations.

 

Now why are all the real world weapons built without IPE?

Fairly simple explanation. I beleive it's because in most genres where real world weapons are the "norm" or have a "major" role in the campaign, don't have any "game effect" differance than any other weapon as far as perceiving the weapon.

 

When it comes to Superhero games, real world weapons have a different "game effect" from scads of non-normal weapons, as far as perception is concerned. If you don't agree with this, fine. I'm not going to argue with you about it. I was simply trying to show you how I see a normal gun should be built differently than a Plasma Gun, due to the difference in perceptiblity beyond normal perception range. If you can't or won't understand this, fine, I'm not here to make you understand.

 

You are trying to add some granularity to the system concerning Perception, and I think that is very good idea. Don't allow difference of opinion on some minute thing that may or may not have an actual game effect depending on genre sidetrack this thread. I'm not wanting to do that.

 

I'll only address the responses that might actually be constructive to do so.

 

A gun is a physical object that is plainly visible.

Only within a certain range of normal perception. The book doesn't touch on this and it should, since maximum range of certain weapons far exceed this.

 

I've never disputed that a normal weapon is "visible" to sight within normal peception range. So you are going down a rabbit trail here. It's obvious I've misunderstood your stance on some thngs as well.

 

It gives off a loud sound when fired.

Only within a certain range of normal perception.

 

I've never disputed that a normal weapon is "visible" to hearing within normal peception range.

 

You can see the hand holding and aiming it and the finger pulling the trigger. That's visible in my book.

Yep and yep. Has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

(8^D) Are you understanding any of words that I'm typing here! (8^D)

 

BTW: I understand what you've said here, and obviously, what I've said iin posts above have absolutely no effect on what you've stated. I made the false presumption that you were understanding what I was saying.

 

Okay, I'll try again. I'll boil it down to a bare minimum.

 

SFX:

High Powered Rifle (no silencer or muffler)

Mehanic: RKA

It has a maximum range that the bullet can reach when fired.

It has a maximum range that the Rifle can be seen. (Size, Human Sight)

It has a maximum range that the Rifle can be heard. (Loudness, Human Hearing)

 

Presumption: Maximum Range of Rifle exceeds the Maximum Range of both Sight and Hearing.

 

Conundrum: Bullet is fired and while in flight reaches the Maximum Range that the Rifle can be seen and heard. From this point on is the Bullet visible in that it will tell the viewer where it came from?

 

SFX Answer: No, the bullet is moving too fast to be seen and even if it is heard whizzing past, it won't give the person the location where the bullet came from.

 

Mechanics Answer: Yes, the power is visible at masimum range and grants those that perceive the power the exact location of its source.

 

This is all that I've been trying to point out to you. Agree, disagree, it just doesn't matter.

 

I am saying' date=' among other things, that they both become less visible at greater distances.[/quote']

And this is where you made your mistake. And my mistake for not clealy stating what I was talking about.

 

The examples I kept giving specifically were of weapons that would not become less visible the farther they travelled. Sure, you could say that both attacks become less perceivable as they travelled away from the point of the source location. But my examples were questioning the perception of the attack specifically at the maximum range location where the attack was aimed.

 

SFX Examples Given: Laser Beam, Plasma Beam.

 

Since I was the one selecting the SFX examples, I define what I intended, thus the Reasoning From SFX for these two would be that they would not dissipate as far as visiblity is concerned. So they would both be equally perceivable at the maximum range of the weapon.

 

Have I made any headway here. You seem to be agreeing with me, even though you don't understand what I am saying?

 

They can also become less visible under circumstances other than distance. These circumstances are often dependant on the SFX.

I was specifying the circumstances, so the only variable for visibility was range for purposes of explanation. So the rest of you paragraph doesn't apply.

 

On the contrary' date=' a central idea of HERO is that different SFX can be built the same way. A fire bolt, an electric zap, a laser blaster, a magical beam, and an alien-tech ray, all have different SFX, but they can all be built with EB vs. Energy....[/quote']

Not what I was talking about an you know it. (8^D)

You know I was talking about SFX that would have different "Game Effects" which would entail having different builds.

 

I'll let it this one go.

 

It also depends on the rules of the game. There's more to reason from than SFX.

True. You can build powers without a SFX in mind and get wierd results that make no sense, and you can't build a SFX without rules to build with.

 

Doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying.

 

Reasoning From SFX entails taking a SFX and deciding what Game Effects it has and choosing the bests Rules to support that. That is what I was trying to show through examples.

 

This is completely off the subject. I wasn't talking about the likelihood of hitting a target. I'm talking about the visibility of a power. (And there are plenty of ways to hit a target at huge ranges: telescopic sense' date=' No RMod advantage, size of target, AoE, etc.)[/quote']

And this is completely off the subject of what I was talking about and even said so before. I doesn't matter if you can have all those things to be able to perceive further, it has no effect on what the actual range of a power is per the rules. Just because you can't perceive to the maximum range of power, doesn't mean the attack suddenly disappears (effect wise) at the range of perception.

 

Hope this clears things up. If you still don't understand, don't bother with further replies to this, since it is derailing the thread for no constructive purpose.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Here's one possible interpretation: both the gun that fires the bullet and the bullet itself are visible, just differently so.

 

The gun can be seen and heard in operation, the bullet can be felt and possibly heard.

 

SO, sight, hearing and touch are all relevant here.

 

Now the problem with the mechanics, from a Real World Experience (RWE) POV is that bullets are capable of moving faster than sound, so cannot be heard until after they arrive and the atrget may not have the shooter in theri arc of perception, or there may be some other reason, why muzzle flash cannot be seen. Moreover, sensing a bullet by touch is, at best, of limited utility: where you were hit might give you a clue as to where to look next time.

 

The fact that an attack is visible does not mean that it can necessarily be reacted to, so having all these special effects is not going to stop a surprise attack getting all those juicy bonuses.

 

All having visible special effects means (according to 5ER p 102 is that it must be obvious that a character is using a power, and where it comes from. It does not say obvious to whom: someone standing nearby might well be able to perceive the power whereas a target a long way away may only perceive the effects. This seems to be supported by the rule book discussion on IPE and on special effects.

 

Ultimately there is no defeined and absolute rule: it is a matter for discretion, but that, I would argue, should be very much a matter of responsibly defining your power's sfx. A long range rifle and a plasma beam will have very different sfx, but, overall, neither should have an advantage over the other in terms of visibility or in-game effect based on sfx, unless there is a consequent balancing limitation.

 

Perhaps we should look at three categories, as the sfx discussion mentions:

 

1. Visible source: you can see exactly where the attack comes from

2. Visible power: you can see the power in effect and this provisdes good circumstantial evidence of the source

3. Visible effects: the target can perceive the effects i.e. they know they have been attacked (a character attacked with an invisible odourless gas might only reaslise it when they fall over...)

 

Now do we assume that each part of the process has to be perceiveable by three senses? That would mean we need to define 3-9 senses for the sfx of every power: very silly.

 

I'd argue as follows: 1 and/or 2 must include sight.

3. Can simply be a kinaesthetic or touch sense: you know you have taken damage and the rough direction the damage came from, but it would be insufficient to identify the attacker without other sense evidence.

The other sense can be attacked to any part of the process that makes sense. Probably 1 and/or 2. I'd also argue that if the third sense is an unusual one it should apply to stages 1 and 2 (and three as well if it makes sense)

 

Will that do you, Madam*? Something for the weekend?

 

 

 

 

 

*I'm sorry I have a cold.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

So, a gun: sight and hearing apply to the weapon itself (the source). Touch/kinaesthesia and, to a lesser extent, hearing applies to the bullet.

 

I'd say all source sfx are detectable with a PER roll at +4 from the point of attack, and all power sfx are detectable with a straight PER roll along the entire attack vector. Target sfx are automatically detected.

 

This allows some overlap: you might not be able to detect the bullet except by its effects but you can still detect the gun in use of you are close enough.

 

OK, I'm making this up but is sounds good, doesn't it?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Now the problem with the mechanics' date=' from a Real World Experience (RWE) POV is that bullets are capable of moving faster than sound, so cannot be heard until after they arrive and the atrget may not have the shooter in theri arc of perception, or there may be some other reason, why muzzle flash cannot be seen. Moreover, sensing a bullet by touch is, at best, of limited utility: where you were hit might give you a clue as to where to look next time.[/quote']

To expand on what you said here, this what I see the problem with mechanics, from a RWE POV, is that bullets have to be visible to Normal Sight for the rules to work as described. Based just on the rules, the Bullet itself needs to be able to grant the target, or near target, the exact location of the attack. Since the rules specifically say that Normal Sight is the only Targeting Sense by default, all SFX must allow someone to perceive the SFX of an attack through the full range of the power itself. The only conclusion one can come to, is that the Bullet itself must be visible to Normal Sight in order for the rules to be satisfied, unless of course you add IPE to the power to reflect that the Bullet is actually not visible to Normal Sight.

 

Now you can talk about different interpretations and different ways to allow one to perceive the attack, but it still means ignoring the certain sections of the rules in order for common sense and dramatic sense to prevail. Which isn't a bad thing.

 

Most of what you've proposed would seem to work. But really doesn't address the root problem as I've described above. But that's just my opinion.

 

BTW: Hope you get better. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Philosophically, I would ask, is HERO at a suitable granularity to really get into this level of detail of visibility? Bearing in mind that 1/4 is the greatest level of granularity in assigning effects and considering the "physics" of HERO and the modes of play, even in a, say, WW II soldier game, I would question if there's really any fruit to bear by getting this detailed? And a bolder question - if you want to be this detailed, is HERO really the right system?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Philosophically' date=' I would ask, is HERO at a suitable granularity to really get into this level of detail of visibility? Bearing in mind that 1/4 is the greatest level of granularity in assigning effects and considering the "physics" of HERO and the modes of play, even in a, say, WW II soldier game, I would question if there's really any fruit to bear by getting this detailed? And a bolder question - if you want to be this detailed, is HERO really the right system?[/quote']

 

And if the campaign is such that normal bullets are a major concern for player characters it doesn't seem likely that the characters are 'super' and therefore shouldn't have to be concerned with the point value/accuracy of equipment other than possibly as a perk for how much they get to carry on mission/adventures.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

So' date=' I take it from this, that if you see any example in any supplement, you would take that as canon by the rules.[/quote']

Take whatever you like. It seems to me we aren't having a discussion at all. I was trying to answer *your* question. The gun issue was never my issue. It seems to me you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

Now why are all the real world weapons built without IPE?

Fairly simple explanation. I beleive it's because in most genres where real world weapons are the "norm" or have a "major" role in the campaign, don't have any "game effect" differance than any other weapon as far as perceiving the weapon.

 

When it comes to Superhero games, real world weapons have a different "game effect" from scads of non-normal weapons, as far as perception is concerned.

You're absolutely right. There are no Viper agents, no mooks, crooks, thugs, common criminals, no Punisher, no cops, and innocent bystanders are all bullet-proof. Clearly, guns don't have a major role in superhero campaigns. And enhanced senses don't come into play in the superhero genre either. Guns are different from other weapons in superhero games, but they're the same as other weapons in non-superhero games. In a sci-fi game, zap gun rays are just as imperceivable as speeding bullets. In a western game, arrows are just as imperceivable in flight as speeding bullets. In a modern fantasy game, fireballs are just as imperceivable in motion as speeding bullets.

 

You are trying to add some granularity to the system concerning Perception, and I think that is very good idea.

To be precise, I'm not trying to add granularity, I'm trying to make IPE, Visible (Noisy), and the basic visibility rules, based on actual game effect results, rather than on sense groups, which often don't reflect their true utility.

 

Only within a certain range of normal perception. ...

Only within a certain range of normal perception.

And the same is true for *any* SFX. There is a distance at which any power won't be percievable to one or more of the 6 aspects of visibility that I enumerated in the first post of this thread. In fact, power being used in an adjacent hex won't be seen in the range of normal perception, if you're facing the other way.

 

(8^D) Are you understanding any of words that I'm typing here! (8^D)

I was going to ask you the same thing.

 

Conundrum: Bullet is fired and while in flight reaches the Maximum Range that the Rifle can be seen and heard. From this point on is the Bullet visible in that it will tell the viewer where it came from?

Somewhat. From the impact, you can tell the general direction where it came from (1, somewhat). Since it's a bullet, and leaves a typical bullet hole, you can assume it was fired from a gun (2). You know it's a bullet (3). You can see the bullet hole (4). You can see the size of/damage done by the bullet hole (5). You know the effect on the target (6).

 

SFX Answer: No, the bullet is moving too fast to be seen and even if it is heard whizzing past, it won't give the person the location where the bullet came from.

 

Mechanics Answer: Yes, the power is visible at masimum range and grants those that perceive the power the exact location of its source.

 

This is all that I've been trying to point out to you. Agree, disagree, it just doesn't matter.

This is it? This has nothing to do with anything I was trying to say. This problem exists in the rules already! This "problem" is not in any way exacerbated by my proposal.

 

And this is where you made your mistake.

What mistake is that? Are you saying that it is just as easy to see someone a mile away as it is close up?

 

But my examples were questioning the perception of the attack specifically at the maximum range location where the attack was aimed.

Since I was the one selecting the SFX examples, I define what I intended, thus the Reasoning From SFX for these two would be that they would not dissipate as far as visiblity is concerned. So they would both be equally perceivable at the maximum range of the weapon.

And in my very first post, I enumerated 6 aspects of perceivability. You seem to be isolating just #3. It will be hard to see a plasma gun from a mile away, even though you may be able to see the beam along its path as it is fired. Since the power is Instant, there's no reason to assume that a glowing trail of plasma "bread crumbs" hangs around in subsequent segments to guide you back to the shooter.

 

I was specifying the circumstances, so the only variable for visibility was range for purposes of explanation. So the rest of you paragraph doesn't apply.

My point is that distance is only one possible way to hide the source of the attack. There are many other ways. Why is range the only one that troubles you?

 

You know I was talking about SFX that would have different "Game Effects" which would entail having different builds.

If you want to talk about something else, feel free to start your own thread. I'll indulge you for a moment and list a few basic ideas that I would have assumed we could all agree on:

 

1. Different SFX can have different minor advantages/limitations based on circumstances.

2. These minor differences do not change the build of the power, i.e., you don't have to have any Advantages/Limitations applied.

3. Some possible "circumstantial SFX advantages" might be: increased base points of power (extra dice), or advantages like Explosion, or even Area Effect, or Armor Piercing, etc.

4. Another possible "circumstantial SFX advantage" could be one that makes the power harder to perceive, i.e., some form of IPE.

5. And of course there are "circumstantial SFX limitations" as well: reduced base points (fewer dice), Reduced Penetration, Reduced by Range, loss of Advantages, etc.

6. And the "circumstantial SFX limitations" could include increased visibility of the power (Visible/Noisy).

7. Of course, GM's have to be careful to apply these "circumstantial SFX modifiers" fairly.

8. Of all the possible "circumstantial SFX modifiers," there is no reason to assume that ones pertaining to visibility are not allowed.

 

From what you have said, it seems you disagree with 4, 6, and 8. You're certainly entitled to do so, but you've presented no reasons why.

 

And this is completely off the subject of what I was talking about and even said so before. I doesn't matter if you can have all those things to be able to perceive further, it has no effect on what the actual range of a power is per the rules. Just because you can't perceive to the maximum range of power, doesn't mean the attack suddenly disappears (effect wise) at the range of perception.

Excuse me. I was responding precisely to what you said:

 

"Unfortunately, the rules say no, you aren't guaranteed to be able to use a weapon at maximum range effectively. The rules specifically state that if you can't perceive the target at a certain range, your chances of hitting the target at the range start approaching zero."

 

Are you having trouble following your own argument? You're the one who brought up the "chance to hit the target" argument. If you acknowledge that it has nothing to do with visibility, then why did you bring it up?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Removed for being overly forceful.

 

My apologies.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

To expand on what you said here, this what I see the problem with mechanics, from a RWE POV, is that bullets have to be visible to Normal Sight for the rules to work as described. Based just on the rules, the Bullet itself needs to be able to grant the target, or near target, the exact location of the attack. Since the rules specifically say that Normal Sight is the only Targeting Sense by default, all SFX must allow someone to perceive the SFX of an attack through the full range of the power itself. The only conclusion one can come to, is that the Bullet itself must be visible to Normal Sight in order for the rules to be satisfied, unless of course you add IPE to the power to reflect that the Bullet is actually not visible to Normal Sight.

 

Now you can talk about different interpretations and different ways to allow one to perceive the attack, but it still means ignoring the certain sections of the rules in order for common sense and dramatic sense to prevail. Which isn't a bad thing.

 

Most of what you've proposed would seem to work. But really doesn't address the root problem as I've described above. But that's just my opinion.

 

BTW: Hope you get better. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

 

5ER p98 specifically ssays that visibility of a power can include simply the source of an attack being perceivable, not necessarily the attack itself, and that must be right. A target cannot necessarily identify their attacker (I could not find the rule that said they could): Zarathustra has en EB bought with No Range Modifiers, and LOS, and has astonishing telescopic vision. Standing on the roof of his moonbase he fires a shot at The Human Target, standing driectly above/below/whatever, on Earth.

 

He hits.

 

THT knows he has been hit. He is even aware that he was hit by a beam of corruscating green light from the sky, but his eyesight simly is not good enough for him to see Zarathustra on the moon, so he has no idea who attacked him.

 

A daft example, perhaps, but I hope it shows that there are situations in which you cannot simply apply the rules as writ.

 

I would say a similar situation occurs with a sniper rifle: even without sound and flash baffles, the target, even when hit, will only know where the shot came from generally - they will not have enough data (in all liklihood - them may have enhanced senses that help) to ID and target the shooter.

 

I do not see that as inconsistent with the word or spirit of the rules.

[zornwil]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Speaking as a mod - let's cool down - immediately.

 

Thank you.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Reinforcing Zorns post -- cool it or we'll lock it.

 

Thanx!

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

5ER p98 specifically ssays that visibility of a power can include simply the source of an attack being perceivable' date=' not necessarily the attack itself, and that must be right.[/quote']

You are correct. But it creates inconsistencies. I'll have to start another thread to delve into this deeper. It's not right to continue to derail this thread.

 

A target cannot necessarily identify their attacker (I could not find the rule that said they could)...

This is my fault due to using imprecise wording. I'm was referring to the Point Of Origin. I'll be more careful from now on.

 

And I agree with your example. The character may not be able to perceive the actual attacker, but they would be able to track back to the point of origin.

 

Sometimes I don't have the time to fully edit my posts and things come out wrong. Sorry about that.

 

Although I was surprised when someone mentioned that Normal Sight isn't Discriminatory. Not sure why that is.

 

A daft example' date=' perhaps, but I hope it shows that there are situations in which you cannot simply apply the rules as writ.[/quote']

 

I would say a similar situation occurs with a sniper rifle: even without sound and flash baffles' date=' the target, even when hit, will only know where the shot came from generally - they will not have enough data (in all liklihood - them may have enhanced senses that help) to ID and target the shooter.[/quote']

Again, my fault for not being precise. You are correct. They can't ID or target the shooter, but they can track back to the Point Of Origin. At least that is what I get from the rules.

 

I do not see that as inconsistent with the word or spirit of the rules.

Well, do you think that a two weapons in my examples, as I've described them, should be built identically, or differently?

 

Just Curious

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Well, do you think that a two weapons in my examples, as I've described them, should be built identically, or differently?

 

Just Curious

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Gun and laser beam?

 

Gun visible at point of origin, and loud there, and the projectile not particularly noticeable.

 

Laser, visible at POO () and along line of attack, but not particularly loud.

 

I'd probably rule they were both acceptable sfx that required no advantage or limit. The laser probably makes it easier to trace back to the shooter, but I could also see the laser being used for communication in a difficult situation, which you could not really do with the gun. A guard 50 metres from the shooter, and not the target, would probably notice the gun firing from the report, but would only notice the laser firing if he was looking that way. Feels balanced.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Mechanics of Visibility

 

Gun and laser beam?

 

Gun visible at point of origin, and loud there, and the projectile not particularly noticeable.

 

Laser, visible at POO () and along line of attack, but not particularly loud.

Yes, but I'm not talking about observer being at or even near the POO. I'm talking about the observer being just inside the maximum range of the weapons.

 

Gun: Projectile not particularly noticeable and doesn't give POO. And sound muted and not giving POO direction for the observer (Hearing is not a targeting sense).

 

Laser or Plasma Beam: Beam is particularly noticable and gives POO. Sound muted and does not give POO direction for the observer (Sound is from the beam which in not the POO).

 

Does this make more sense from this viewpoint?

 

Do they feel more balanced from this side of things?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Another Visibility Issue

 

Another thing about the visibility of powers that IFAIK, isn't explicitly covered in the book (at least not in FREd, maybe in 5ER?): What mechanical aspects of the power are visible/detectable/knowable? By that, I mean things like Advantages and Limitations, and perhaps other aspects of the power. And to me, "knowable" is really the main thing. It doesn't really matter whether a piece of important information is directly perceivable with the senses, or whether it is deduced from sensory observation.

 

For example, if you're hit by a power that Affects Desolid, and you aren't Desolid yourself, can you tell that it would affect your buddy, Ghostman?

 

If you're attacked by an Armor Piercing power, but you ignore the AP because you have Hardened DEF, can you tell that the power was AP?

 

Likewise for other Modifiers: can you tell if a power is bought with Increased/Reduced END cost?

 

Some things will be somewhat obvious, or at least detectable with effort, based on mechanics. If someone is throwing darts at you, you can probably assume, he only has so many Charges. If he's firing them from a dart gun, the gun only holds so many, but you might not have any clue as to the number. If it has fire as the SFX, then it obviously goes against ED, rather than PD. If it's a gas, it's probably NND, or AVLD. etc.

 

And of course, even if we decide that some/all modifiers are "visible", that doesn't mean the GM can't be misleading in which ones are present. But must all Modifiers have some visible effect on the power used? (Except IPE, of course) It seems to me that at most, *some* modifiers are detectable in *some* circumstances.