I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

[Robyn]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

Gods who' date=' for some bizarre reason, wish their plaything to be bludgeoned to death, not stabbed to death. Or killed by a flame based Energy Blast, but not a flame based RKA.[/quote']

 

Are you familiar with any of the ancient mythologies in which humans existed for the entertainment of the gods? Gods who were not aloof, inhuman entities but very much like powerful children?

 

That was the simple inspiration and setting for my build. If taking it in that context doesn't make a difference for you, read on:

 

Gods play games with the lives of men. They also have fun. Very primal fun, if you know what I mean (and if you don't, you definitely don't want to read this). Sometimes, this fun leads to a development of their long-term interest in some part(s) of the world. (Other gods, jealous or mischievous or what-have-you, may take an interest themselves upon learning of this.) So, after a while, they have a world that is positively crawling with various supernatural creatures, effects, and other "here-there-be-dragons" possibilities.

 

Gods don't always get along. Alliances and rivalries can be quick to form, shift, and dissipate. Direct opposition (between gods) is not unknown, but more common is their earthly agents working out local disputes by proxy. Also not unknown is direct intervention (god to mortal or god to agent), but usually this is when the other god is occupied elsewhere (through distraction or their own initiative) so an escalation will not occur. More frequent is the indirect intervention, going down in disguise to give cryptic hints or pretend to be a damsel in distress, or even challenge the agent to a battle of wits (it should be noted that even mortals have outwitted the gods before).

 

Gods appreciate subtlety. If one of them can be sneaky enough to intervene without any mortal (or agent) the wiser, this is often allowed even if another god notices. (They all watch over their earthly areas of interest, when not visiting elsewhere for some purpose, this is after all what they do for entertainment.) If, on the other hand, they are caught (identified), the mortals/agents can resist their ploys, and the god may retreat in shame. Getting caught is bad form, and receives a penalty in the gods' game. Just don't ask who keeps score.

 

Gods want to be respected. Mortals may fear the gods instead of (or in addition to) respecting them, and to some gods fear counts as respect. But mortals don't last very long. In addition to being rather squishy, they don't live for more than a few decades anyway. Gods, on the other hand, live forever, and are likely to be around a very long time from now, still aware that they were bested in some contest or another. Respect from other gods counts for a lot more than respect from mortals.

 

Gods don't get no respect. Not even from themselves. When you can squish a mortal into the ground with scant effort, there's no challenge to it. No chance of failure. It gets boring - real fast. Other gods are just as likely to be unimpressed by such feats. The imposition of handicaps (limitations on the power that can be brought to bear on a given contest) makes things more interesting. The more a god manages to accomplish with the less they have used to do it, the more respect they earn from other gods. Thus the "battle of wits", agents, and other developments in the evolution of the gods' game.

 

My build, Plaything of The Gods, is about the next step in this evolution: using mortals, not agents, as proxies. The gods select a single mortal whose life they will make very interesting, and then proceed to wager on the outcome of his adventures. Each of them has their own agenda, and these interests may conflict, agree, or be irrelevant to one another. If the mortal disappoints a god, it may oppose him in his next adventure, seeking to punish him for failure. For the most part, though, the gods recognize that mortals go squish easily, and have taken measures to ensure that he will not be killed for a meaningless outcome.

 

If he were simply difficult to kill (at all), he would be the equivalent of an agent; there would be no challenge in it, and therefore his accomplishments would not be worthy of any respect in the game. He must earn his victories, through his own skill and cunning, else there is no "mortal" factor (merely the cheating by various gods). Unpredictability is desired, but not that he suddenly (and unexpectedly) be eliminated from the game mid-play by some thug in an alley with a knife. Stopping all the thugs and like dangers would be a waste of their time, not to mention the level of interference it would require (what use the game when rigged?), so the gods agreed upon a manner of protection that would preserve his value as a gamepiece (for future adventures, since survival would be no guarantee of success in the endeavor at hand) when anyone ever tried to slay him outright, but would allow him to perish under all other conditions.

 

For their criteria of "slaying the mortal outright", they used - the Killing Attack. The one type of attack which, by the rules and by the resulting perception of characters* within a campaign setting, is specifically meant to kill people.

 

*I mean "perception of characters" as in "the perception that characters have", not "how the characters are perceived".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

Simply put, we disagree philosophically. For a "plaything of the gods" approach, I would either look to grant the player the defenses required to avoid death (ie defenses that act solely vs BOD) and, if I (as The Gods) wanted some specific type of attack to be able to inflict lethal damage, I would further limit those BOD only defenses to not apply against specific SFX. Having them not apply against specific mechanics makes no logical sense to me.

 

YMMV

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

There are a few issues with using AoE to simulate shooting two attacks at once:

 

1) it's vs DCV3, not the targets DCV

 

Use Selective AoE - problem solved, and you don't target everyone in the hex either.

 

One approach used in a 3rd ed supplement (IIRC - might be 4e) was to purchase extra DC's only usable for spreading. In a Heroic game, that would become a form of Naked Adder to equipment, I suppose.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

I grasp the concept - but I have no grasp of the implications. Who are the PCs? Why would I want to play in a game where random crap happens because "a G-d" intervened?

[Robyn]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

I grasp the concept - but I have no grasp of the implications. Who are the PCs?

 

I was originally thinking of a single-player game, like Sinbad, but as I wrote it I noticed how "game" might have multiple meanings.

 

How about the Gods themselves?

 

Why would I want to play in a game where random crap happens because "a G-d" intervened?

 

Is there any difference between that and the GM? If the mythology of characters in the campaign setting firmly believes that everything (good and bad) which happens to anyone is the work of some deity or another, does it matter whether this belief is right or wrong?

 

(By the way, I found the missing review, and the post above has been corrected to point to the URL.)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

It isn't that I don't get it - I get it. I think in this case and based on what i know of your mind set, you would probably find it more interesting to do the full RP heavy G-d aspect, rather than the 'adventure' side where a full group of PCs would be more involved.

 

I recently (... last year, two years ago?) and the (mis)fortune of playing in a friend of mine's Conspiracy X style game. His ideas just didn't translate well into good gameplay - the same way I've seen GMs come up with "THE SCENE" only to discover other than some pretty background, it's very difficult to keep players in with the vision. That's why I don't compose complete story arcs - just visions of where PCs may go, and what may happen when they get there.

 

However, as a Solo Piece, I can see where this could be very successful.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

Use Selective AoE - problem solved, and you don't target everyone in the hex either.

 

One approach used in a 3rd ed supplement (IIRC - might be 4e) was to purchase extra DC's only usable for spreading. In a Heroic game, that would become a form of Naked Adder to equipment, I suppose.

 

The discussion is how to achieve the effect under 4E rules.

 

And DC for Spreading still doesn't solve the problem of "Two Guns, One Target" under 4E. Doubly so for the Heroic Game where the Player does not build the equipment.

 

The concept is thus: Pick up any 2 Guns, yours, theirs, anybodies, and fire both at once, ala John Wu (jumping and explosions optional) movies. And for those who weren't watching Hong Kong cinema in the early 90s refer to Mel Gibson in Ransom.

 

It is, was, and always will be, a very simple cinematic feat that, until 5E officially introduced MPAs, many GMs simply balked at for no reason that I could explain.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

And that's the core of the "philosophical difference" argument. GMs who are willing to manipulate the system to best create the effect would simply assign penalties as necessary. GMs who insist on adhering to RAW would of course say "There's no written way to handle this."

 

obviously we know where i stand.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

Re: Plaything of the Gods and defending against Killing attacks but not against Normal attacks.

 

This is a case of not reasoning from effect, and the build for the situation is simple.

 

What is described in the first post is someone that's simply hard to kill. You can stun them, beat them senseless, whatever, but they survive.

 

So, hard to kill = what? It means you don't lose body easily.

 

Easy way to handle it: Armor (or whatever resistant defense), Only Vs Body Damage (-1). Just buy enough Armor to handle whatever level of abuse you think your character is capable of.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

Re: Plaything of the Gods and defending against Killing attacks but not against Normal attacks.

 

This is a case of not reasoning from effect, and the build for the situation is simple.

 

What is described in the first post is someone that's simply hard to kill. You can stun them, beat them senseless, whatever, but they survive.

 

So, hard to kill = what? It means you don't lose body easily.

 

Easy way to handle it: Armor (or whatever resistant defense), Only Vs Body Damage (-1). Just buy enough Armor to handle whatever level of abuse you think your character is capable of.

 

Except that they're specifically wanting the BODY from Normal Attacks to affect them normally. For whatever reason.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

Except that they're specifically wanting the BODY from Normal Attacks to affect them normally. For whatever reason.

 

Yeah, I missed that long post #101 before I posted this.

 

The last line there about Killing attacks still makes me think that Robyn doesn't understand reasoning from effect. ALL attacks can cause death. The situations cited can be handled with an additional modifier of "Only to prevent unheroic death" at whatever value is appropriate based on frequency. Probably not worth much, IMO. A simple custom limitation does the trick though, but I think the game mechanics dictate the special defense be on both resistant and non-resistant levels to get the desired result.

[Robyn]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

Robyn doesn't understand reasoning from effect.

 

That used to be the case, but after ghost-angel's explanation, I started to get a better grasp on it.

 

ALL attacks can cause death. The situations cited can be handled with an additional modifier of "Only to prevent unheroic death"

 

Which, and I should not have to mention this, is a subjective measurement. Disagreement can arise over what constitutes a "heroic death", because that is solely in the minds of the players (and GM). Game mechanics are not subject to such interpretation.

 

The modifier you suggest leaves all death open to debate; "if we can talk the GM into it". A resistance to Killing Attacks does not necessarily confer advance knowledge of whether a given attack has a chance of killing, though, because only the GM knows how that attack was built.

 

I think the game mechanics dictate the special defense be on both resistant and non-resistant levels to get the desired result.

 

The game mechanics don't "dictate" anything about my "desired result".

[Robyn]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

I will place a question in the 5ER Rules FAQ for Steve to give us an explicit answer on.

 

An explicit answer has been provided:

 

The rules for the BODY of a Focus are on 5ER 294' date=' bottom left and top right. Since a Physical Manifestation is typically only going to involve one power, a single point of BODY damage past defenses is usually enough to destroy it.[/quote']

 

I will mark the section as having been addressed

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

 

Which, and I should not have to mention this, is a subjective measurement. Disagreement can arise over what constitutes a "heroic death", because that is solely in the minds of the players (and GM). Game mechanics are not subject to such interpretation.

 

The modifier you suggest leaves all death open to debate; "if we can talk the GM into it". A resistance to Killing Attacks does not necessarily confer advance knowledge of whether a given attack has a chance of killing, though, because only the GM knows how that attack was built.

 

In other words, you don't want to leave the GM room to do his job or you fear contentious players. It's still the simplest construct. Only the GM knowing how the attack was built will be out the window the second the dice hit the table in combat, and whether that attack should have been a Killing or Normal attack will also be subject to debate. By using such a counter intuitive construct, you're asking for MORE problems IMO.

 

 

The game mechanics don't "dictate" anything about my "desired result".

 

Not literally. As I said, you can do the effect several ways. I was trying to find a nice way to say that the way you are insisting on is not logical and doesn't flow naturally from the game mechanics. The more sense your solutions make, the more easily they're understood down the road. IMO, anyone familiar with the game should be able to pick up a character sheet and looking at the power write up be able to get a good idea of what a power does, and why, based on the descriptive text and the power mechanics write up, without having to dig through a lengthy explanation in the background section.

[Robyn]

Re: I finished reading 5th Edition, Revised

 

In other words' date=' you don't want to leave the GM room to do his job or you fear contentious players.[/quote']

 

Those are actually the opposite of my way of playing (and GM'ing), but given past criticisms, I find that catering to people who are afraid of exactly that is a more conciliatory approach

 

Only the GM knowing how the attack was built will be out the window the second the dice hit the table in combat

 

Unless they're being rolled behind the GM screen

 

and whether that attack should have been a Killing or Normal attack will also be subject to debate.

 

If a consistent method is followed to determine whether attacks are Normal or Killing, and that method is openly shared with the players (which, IMO, it should be, if they are to use it), revealing an attack as Normal/Killing will give an insight into the character wielding that attack.

 

I was trying to find a nice way to say that the way you are insisting on is not logical and doesn't flow naturally from the game mechanics.

 

Well, we may have a different understanding of the game mechanics, then. I see the purpose of a Normal/Killing separation to be for, as the text informs us, attacks meant to "kill or maim". In the closest thing I've seen to a contradiction of HERO's "toolkit" approach, the text explicitly directs away from a Killing Attack characters who do not want to seriously injure or incapacitate their opponents. This specifically invokes the intent of a character when determining how to design their powers.

 

To me, extending this definition through the rest of the game is not only logical but natural to HERO.