System cap on creativity

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Ahem ... What about the Two Weapon Fighting (ranged) Skill?

Does this allow you have two totally different SFX attacks for two different targets that are not adjacent nor within a 60 Degree arc?

If so, then it would certainly qualify then. But no one has ever brought it up before as a solution to this specific situation.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Shike019]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

I think it does. It allows you to wield a weapon in each hand (and perform sweeps with your attacks) I see no reason why you have to have the same weapon in each hand (or use the same power with each hand) it just means that you can use both hands equally well at the same time.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Have I done something to offend you' date=' Schir1964? If so, please inform me. I am getting an impression of hostility and well... perhaps condescendcion... and I would like to know what I have done to earn such enimity (if it exists. I might be misreading the situation entirely).[/quote']

I decided to finally come back and read this post. (I didn't see anything beneficial from the discourse so I just stopped)

 

No, you haven't done anything to offend me. I was just tired of what appeared to be an attempt to force me to defend a viewpoint which Robyn holds. I'm not going to defend a viewpoint that isn't even mine. At least that is what it seemed you were trying to do. I was offering up something for Robyn to evaluate (based on the viewpoint he has expressed). So anyone trying to argue a point on my post is essentially arguing with Robyn's viewpoint, not mine. Why should I even bother with that? (8^D)

 

Anyway, it was getting depressing that you weren't understanding that. If it came across as hostility, my apologies, that was not my intent.

 

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm trying to have a discussion with you' date=' and anyone else who would care to contribute as well.[/quote']

Well, it certainly came across that way. I made an observation about a restriction to Tunneling and the effects that may have as far as concepts. This observation was challenged by presenting another power as an alternative. This didn't make a lot sense because that wasn't the point of the post. Whether there are other ways to do something doesn't change the fact that there is a restriction on Tunneling.

 

If you were just offering up a way a GM could make it work with an unconventional use of another power, that's fine, but it doesn't address the point of this thread. And if you want to know for certain what that point was, you'll have to ask Robyn. I'm only going off of my own interpretation of what his intent was, so it is pointless for me to offer that since it could be totally wrong.

 

Actually' date=' I did. I referenced your statement "If the Gm allows Transform to be used in this unconventional way, then the system supports it. If the GM allows Transform to not be used in this unconventional way, then the system does not support it." You chose to interpret that as applying only to Transform, when I had applied it to the system as a whole.[/quote']

I chose to use Transform because you chose to use it as an example. I know that the idea presented can be applied to the whole system. And if you do that, then the GM might as well use the unconventional decision to ignore the restriction on Tunneling and move on from there. But again, I don't think that answer would address the point of this thread.

 

All I was doing was pointing out that at least some of what you were saying was actually contradicting' date=' not supporting, your other arguments.[/quote']

And again, I was making no arguments, so there can be no contradiction. I was making an observation and presenting it for Robyn to evaluate. If wish to disagree with the possible effects of that obvservation, you would in fact be disagreeing with Robyn's viewpoint on the matter, not mine. So again, I'm not going to be forced into defending someone elses viewpoint.

 

Also' date=' saying that the post was "for Robyn" contributes nothing to the conversation and just acts as a dismissal with a false basis. If you meant it was "for Robyn's benefit and no one else's," then you would have PMed him.[/quote']

No, Robyn asked for posts about possible concepts being stifled by the rules, so I'm not going to Private Message him about something I can post. I don't care if anyone disagrees, since they aren't disagreeing with me, but Robyn.

 

Since you put this on a public forum' date=' you were offering it for consideration by all. So, I have as much of a right to speak in regards to the issue and examples as Robyn.[/quote']

Sure, I never said you couldn't. But you were asking me questions about a viewpoint that wasn't mine, it was Robyn's, why should I defend Robyn's viewpoint? I'll let Robyn do that.

 

Your posts were coming across in a way that seemed to imply that I must defend a position, but unfortunately the position you wanted me to defend isn't mine.

 

I hope I'm expressing this well enough to get across what I'm trying say. I'm not angry, but I don't see any point in trying to defend something that has nothing to do with me.

 

Please' date=' please don't try to make it appear that I am supporting a position that I am not, especially when I clearly indicate that I favor the opposite position. I believe that the GM is crucial to creating game balance.[/quote']

Sorry. It just seemed that you were trying to make it appear that I was supporting a position which I clearly don't.

 

In some systems' date=' the GM must create balance in spite of the rules. In some games, the GM actually has very little official control over the rules. I agree with you there. However, I contend that HERO is not one of those systems. HERO encourages the GM to establish this balance.[/quote']

Totally agree with you. Which is as I figured to start with. You and I aren't really in opposition as far as how we view the system. But our viewpoint has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread. Our viewpoints don't apply to what was being requested by Robyn.

 

Sorry for the confusion. Seems like I tend to cause that sometimes.

 

And this is why I didn't want to argue with you. All of these posts and what benefit did they serve?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Manic Typist]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

 

And this is why I didn't want to argue with you. All of these posts and what benefit did they serve?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Eh, we discussed some interesting ideas, I became just a little bit more familiar with the HERO system, a few minutes were whiled away, communication, and clarification.

 

Overall, I'm glad.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I confess that I really did not understand what you were saying (but now I do: that you are simply adopting positions for the sake of presenting them to Robyn- I had thought you actively supported it, and was trying to discuss it with you to try to analyze it's strengths and weaknesses. But you're right, since it wasn't actually your stance, it makes no sense for you to provide arguments defending it etc. Sorry I didn't get you at first).