Free equipment side discussion.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

I have not read all the posts, but I have read the first page and got a bit of a flavour I wanted to comment on.

 

First off I quite like the idea origninally posted, but it is a somewhat artificial way of differentiating between 'power levels' that already exist simply because superheroes have far more effective abilities then normals. In 99% of cases a normal will only have a chance of having an effect on a superhero if he is using a killing attack, and is particularly lucky with his roll. Change killing attacks, the problem largely goes away.

 

OTOH if you did perceive this as a problem I would have no worries about a little meta-meddling, and allowing a -2 limitation (or even higher) for any defences and such that only work against attacks with the limitaiton 'Real'. Thus a 'real' gun is cheap enough to defend against, indeed a GM might REQUIRE something like 1/2 damage reduction (physical and energy, resistant) 60 points ONLY v attacks with the 'real' limitation (-2): 20 points for a super campaign, perhaps as part of a 'superhero package deal'. It is cheap and it does what you want without changing the way everyone plays the game,

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

I agree this isn't as clear cut as I would like. I've been using a couple of rules of thumb that I haven't formally defined yet. Anything gotten as free equipment is Normal. Anything that can't be gotten as free equipment must be bought with points and can not be Normal so therefor is at least Super. Things that could be free equipment/Normal can be purchased with points and become Super.

 

This last rules basically covers Gunbunny in one of two ways. Either GB owns special versions of otherwise normal weapons such as a pistol designed to take down supers. The pistol would be a one off special version and probably wouldn't look like the normal version. The weapon itself is Super and it's purchased as a standard OAF (-1). Alternately, for some reason, either through intense training, blessed hands, or pure luck, GB is so good with Normal equipment that he can damage Supers with it. In this case the power is GBs and is bought as OIF pistol of opportunity (-1/2)

 

In terms of what is and isn't available as free equipment I plan to allow any items that exist in todays world and are not prototypes as free equipment. Anything that the real me in the real world could get using the right contacts and enough money can be free equipment and can be gotten with the right contacts and money. In other-words anything manufactured today, even if it's just small runs for the military.

 

My character's name is Sherman. His superpowers consist of contacts, money, a base (military factory) and numerous abilities to enhance his normal equipment weapon of choice, the Tank.

 

You have to admit Superman is a special case however you use him. If supes is your campaign benchmark then this scheme is inappropriate. Just pile on the points on and go.

 

:rolleyes:First using Roy Harper is too obscure, then using Superman is a "special case". Numerous powerful characters in the comics get taken out by surprise attacks by other Supers and are much better able to hold their own when they know what's coming. Hulk, Thor, Ms. Marvel, Wonder Woman, etc. etc. etc.

 

If the goal is to make only street level Supers and make them resistant to mundane weapons, they really aren't street level supers any more.

 

Nope they get double damage like everyone else. OK sure' date=' it's effectively 4x the reduced damage but the final effect is only 2x from initial value. It might be more of a surprise for the player than usual (as in unexpected number of dice) but it's not any more imbalanced than a typical surprise attack would be in a campaign not using this.[/quote']

 

Thug with gun catches HeroMan by surprise. Usual damage of 2d6 RKA/2 is adjusted to 4d6 RKA. GunBunny's 2d6 RKA catches HeroMan by surprise. Usual damage of 2d6 RKA becomes 4d6 RKA. They would have done 1d6 and 2d6, respectively, if not surprising HeroMan. Surprise quadruples Thug's damage and doubles GunBunny's.

[tarragon]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

This happens to me sometimes.

...

So someone explain to me again: What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish?

 

I know how you feel.

 

My original intention was to offer the idea that has basically boiled down to "Real X (-1/4) equipment does half damage to supers as a campaign ground rule". This was offered up as an attempt to deal with the problem of free equipment being over powered in a superhero campaign.

 

Reading it again in the first post I spent way to much time describing the system I am working on for getting a certain feel in a campaign and not enough on the smaller idea I wanted to convey.

 

The conversation followed the original post and has spent way more time talking about the full system and not as much about free equipment.

 

At this point several people, Hugh and Sean at least, have suggested roughly equivalent systems using Damage Reduction. So the smaller concept is well

covered mechanically. The question still remains is this smaller idea useful for people in their campaigns?

 

And the conversation about the full system rages on.

[tarragon]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

My character's name is Sherman. His superpowers consist of contacts, money, a base (military factory) and numerous abilities to enhance his normal equipment weapon of choice, the Tank.

Sure, no problem. Are you implying it would be overpowered? Sherman will either do half damage to every supervillian he meets or he has to buy the tank with points. I'm explicitly reducing the effectiveness of normals and normal equipment in a superhero world so a free tank shouldn't hurt anything.

 

And... I don't think any GM will accept "OIF tank of opportunity (-1/2)"

 

:rolleyes:First using Roy Harper is too obscure, then using Superman is a "special case". Numerous powerful characters in the comics get taken out by surprise attacks by other Supers and are much better able to hold their own when they know what's coming. Hulk, Thor, Ms. Marvel, Wonder Woman, etc. etc. etc.

I didn't say Roy Harper was obscure, I said I had to look him up. You brought up a specific scenario from a book I don't read involving a character I don't read. Even so by adding a rule for dropping the scaling with surprise I think the scaling system handled the scenario well while still keeping to the intended feel.

 

On the other hand Superman is a special case at least in terms of the surprise rules. You said it yourself "Taking Superman by surprise has never seemed to have a lot of impact". Either Supes has enough points of defense that even surprises doubled damage doesn't bug him or he's not effected by the surprise rules. As you say other heroes deal with the surprise rules normally.

 

Thug with gun catches HeroMan by surprise. Usual damage of 2d6 RKA/2 is adjusted to 4d6 RKA. GunBunny's 2d6 RKA catches HeroMan by surprise. Usual damage of 2d6 RKA becomes 4d6 RKA. They would have done 1d6 and 2d6, respectively, if not surprising HeroMan. Surprise quadruples Thug's damage and doubles GunBunny's.

Fine, sure, call it quadrupled damage. But... The important point isn't what we call it. If the Thug's 4d6 from surprise isn't unbalanced without this system it's not unbalanced with.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Um...

 

First, the PC would buy the Tank as a Vehicle (1:5) and be good to go. But there are many, many ways to simulate that, including OIHID (while in a tank) and, yes, OIF: Tank of Opportunity.

 

With the right concept? I'd allow it. I allow OIF: Weapon of Opportunity. A tank's not so different.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

I know how you feel.

 

My original intention was to offer the idea that has basically boiled down to "Real X (-1/4) equipment does half damage to supers as a campaign ground rule". This was offered up as an attempt to deal with the problem of free equipment being over powered in a superhero campaign.

 

Reading it again in the first post I spent way to much time describing the system I am working on for getting a certain feel in a campaign and not enough on the smaller idea I wanted to convey.

 

The conversation followed the original post and has spent way more time talking about the full system and not as much about free equipment.

 

At this point several people, Hugh and Sean at least, have suggested roughly equivalent systems using Damage Reduction. So the smaller concept is well

covered mechanically. The question still remains is this smaller idea useful for people in their campaigns?

 

And the conversation about the full system rages on.

 

Well, actually, I was the first one to suggest the whole thing be done as Damage Reduction 50%, Only v. Normal/Real Weapons. That was me. And that was dismissed at the time in favor of something that seemed to me, and may be IMO, overly complicating a simple issue.

 

For me, this was always a genre specific example, which I feel given the nature of what we're discussing, still holds. The issue isn't that HERO isn't simulating this well without this rule; it's that comics are hard to simulate, no matter what. I've seen Big Blue shrug off tank shells, I've seen him get blown through buildings. I've most assuredly seen Hulk ignore just about every kind of damage imaginable, and I've seen the X-Men get plastered and be afraid of Real Weapons; you don't see them get shot terribly often because not all of them have Resistant Defense.

 

The reason I say this isn't going to work for what I do is just that; when I do supers, I do Iron Age (or at best, Bronze). This is very Golden Age to me, and would have a very specific application. I don't think it's a bad idea; I just don't think it's a question for the rules, but for the genre.

 

The other bit I don't get is why there's such a hooplah over it; I think Diamond Spear had a good point, which is why I've stood behind the DR 50% concept; anything else becomes a case of excessive bookkeeping. The whole "a super picks it up" vs. "a normal picks it up" to me rests on genre conventions, and not rules manipulation.

[sbarron]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

[1] The problem appears to basically be that the weapon familiarity and skill levels need to use and the contacts needed to get a powerful item are a lot cheaper than to buy that item with points. This also leads to problem with returning weapons and Foci after they have been taken away when they have been bought in different ways and it gets into meta play issues like: "how come when we lose our equipment Bob (who paid points) is always seems to find a rifle to buy first' date=' even though he's got the worst interaction skills and least money out of all of us (who use free equip)?"[/quote']Aren't the free equipment genres (basically all heroic games) and the supers genre mutually exclusive?

 

I realize it creates a bit of a logical disconnect when supers don't hold onto nice "free equipment" they come across, or when they put Dr. Doom's freeze gun in a safe rather than putting it to good use fighting crime. But that's the genre, isn't it?

 

You seem to be bending over backwards to enforce the comic book convention that normal weapons don't hurt supers, but totally ignoring the convention that supers generally do not use conventional weapons, and certainly don't keep another characters items as their own.

 

RPGs are different than comic books in a lot of ways. This issue is a big one for supers RPGs, however, because it so flys in the face of conventional gamer wisdom. Allowing "free equipment" to play a large role in your supers game might be the real problem here.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Sure, no problem. Are you implying it would be overpowered? Sherman will either do half damage to every supervillian he meets or he has to buy the tank with points. I'm explicitly reducing the effectiveness of normals and normal equipment in a superhero world so a free tank shouldn't hurt anything.

 

And... I don't think any GM will accept "OIF tank of opportunity (-1/2)"

 

Have a look at some of the military equipment stats. 1/2 damage is pretty good as a no cost baseline. Now I buy superskills like GunBunny to bring them into the Super realm in my hands. Or I just spend all those points I saved by not having to buy my attacks or defenses (I'm feeling pretty safe in my 20+ hardened rDEF tank that I got for free) or movement (tank, maybe not - maybe a fighter helicopter...) to buy obscene numbers of skill levels that I use to bump damage. Doing a 3d6 - 4d6 RKA sounds pretty good if I always get close to max damage.

 

And, since I have access to all that military equipment, I'll pick the one appropriate for the game at hand. Atlanteans Attack? Time for the submarine. Or I'll just get my hands on a decommissioned Soviet nuke or two. That should help take down Doc D.

 

On the other hand Superman is a special case at least in terms of the surprise rules. You said it yourself "Taking Superman by surprise has never seemed to have a lot of impact". Either Supes has enough points of defense that even surprises doubled damage doesn't bug him or he's not effected by the surprise rules. As you say other heroes deal with the surprise rules normally.

 

Supes, the Hulk, Wonder Woman, Thor - all take little or no effect taken by surprise by a normal (Hulk got clipped by tanks and jet's rockets pretty frequently in the past), but are disadvantaged taken by surprise by more competitive characters.

 

They have enough defenses to ignore conventional weaponry - surprised or not.

 

The real mechanical problem, IMO, is the high stats afforded military HW in current editions. Characters in the comics are able to demolish tanks. Try building a 350 point character with no hand wavy constructs (like NND's or Damage Reduction that only work on real tech) who can do that. The solution, to me, is to ensure the writeup of mundane tech reflects the fact that it IS mundane tech, to which Supers are highly resistant at their typical defense levels.

[sbarron]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

My original intention was to offer the idea that has basically boiled down to "Real X (-1/4) equipment does half damage to supers as a campaign ground rule". This was offered up as an attempt to deal with the problem of free equipment being over powered in a superhero campaign.

I don't have a problem with this ground rule at all. However, as others have pointed out, you could also look at this as the problem is that some superheros are underpowered in a superhero campaign given how powerful the free equipment is.

 

There are some other issues that should be considered, I think. The average cop in most HERO settings would have a 3-4 OCV. Even if you give him that LAW rocket discussed earlier, what are the chances he'll actually hit a 350 pt. super with it? Especially if you're playing with heroic rules like weapon fam. To me, the Viper agent is more dangerous for two reasons. 1) He has better equipement than the cop, and 2) he's more points than the cop (so his CV is better).

 

I personally have a problem with making everyone too competent in my games. So if normal people have base stats of 8 or 10, beat cops will have 12-13, swat teams and soldiers have 15-18, viper agents and special forces have 18-20s. Buy the time I'm done statting up my "mooks", they're 150-200 point killing machines that could easily down many supers by themselves. And on the flip side, I'm constantly asking my PCs to tone down their stats. If the characters main power is an energy blast, I'll suggest that his STR and DEX have no reason to be in the 20s, because his power is that he can shoot EBs, not that he's a super-tough SOB.

 

As a result, I realized a long time ago that if I'm going to tone down my supers, I need to tone down everything else (mooks, guns, tanks, you name it). Or, if I'm going to play with Dark Champions rules and guns, I need to allow my supers to be really super (damage reduction, very high or no point caps, again, you name it).

 

Lastly, let me just say that if I were going to design a supers game today, I'd tone down the damage normal weapons do. Normal pistols would max out at 1d6+1, most rifles at 1 1/2d6. Even RPGs and LAW rockets might only get 2-3d6. Though I'd give them AP. Viper agents would use EBs rather than killing attacks, but I'd make all those be AP as well. I think that would go a long way to solving any problems the PCs might have with "normal" weapons, but still allow the military and "agent" level teams to be a threat.

[sbarron]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

My goal was to make a system for a supers campaign where vastly different power level can interact in a meaningful way but to prevent very un-comic booky situations like a lucky shot killing a super villain. In one campaign a beat cop killed Red Rapier after he helped defeat the heroes. As a side effect this system should make free equipment work well in HERO.

How did this happen?

 

A beat cop with a regular pistol or shotgun (a beat cops traditional weapons) shouldn't be able to kill anybody in a standard supers campaign, with one or even two shots, and certainly not a super. Unless he's using really heavy duty equipment for which he probably doesn't have the WF, or, you're using all the more dangerous rules that HERO provides you, and specifically suggests you not use in superheroic games. Even Viper agents have standard 6PD/6ED armor on, which will prevent death from 1d6+1 and 2d6 reduced penetration shots almost all day long.

 

I ask because I wonder if you're using the more dangerous, unpredictable optional damage rules. And if you are, and are now looking to add more rules to tone down those optional rules, you might be making things needlessly complicated.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

You know it occurs to me that if the concern is the possibility of having normal-type NPCs take down supers than the GM controlling those normals could just, you know, say they miss or that they hit but the bullet glances off the supers armor/force field/natural defenses. After all if the goal is to make sure that “normals” don’t damage supers with their weapons than just handwave the whole thing and then there’s no need for any new and controversial rules. Just a thought.

[Raizer]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

In a campaign I ran I probably wouldn't use this, but if I decided to adopt this I would make it genre specific and use the following ruling:

 

Scale

1-4

Scale 1: Normal

Scale 2: Agents/Low Powered Super (or something along these lines)

Scale 3: Super Powered

Scale 4: Galactice Power

 

And then apply damage reduction based on the difference in level:

1: 25%

2: 50%

3: 75%

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

I personally have a problem with making everyone too competent in my games. So if normal people have base stats of 8 or 10' date=' beat cops will have 12-13, swat teams and soldiers have 15-18, viper agents and special forces have 18-20s. Buy the time I'm done statting up my "mooks", they're 150-200 point killing machines that could easily down many supers by themselves. And on the flip side, I'm constantly asking my PCs to tone [u']down[/u] their stats. If the characters main power is an energy blast, I'll suggest that his STR and DEX have no reason to be in the 20s, because his power is that he can shoot EBs, not that he's a super-tough SOB.

 

And let's not forget CON...

 

Now, if we said those normal people have DEX 8, the beat cops have DEX 10, SWAT teams and soldiers get DEX 11-12, and agents/special forces get 13 - 14, Supers wouldn't need DEX 20 just to be a bit better than Normals.

 

And if only those agents/special forces could push their Speed all the way up to 3, maybe some of that inflation could be curtailed as well.

[Vulcan]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Of course, if we downgrade the official writeups of 'real' weapons to make them harmless to supers (1&1/2d6 RKA for assault rifles) then Dark Champions-type games become a lot less lethal, and loose some of their flavor.

 

Or in other words: downgrading things to match the superheroic game ignores the probems that will cause heroic level games.

 

I think the scaling issue is a reasonable optional rule, either for the Supers sourcebook or for whatever reincarnation Digital HERO recieves once 6E is up and running. Should it be in the main book? Certainly not; it is far too genre specific for that.

[jtelson]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Of course, if we downgrade the official writeups of 'real' weapons to make them harmless to supers (1&1/2d6 RKA for assault rifles) then Dark Champions-type games become a lot less lethal, and loose some of their flavor.

 

Or in other words: downgrading things to match the superheroic game ignores the probems that will cause heroic level games.

 

I think the scaling issue is a reasonable optional rule, either for the Supers sourcebook or for whatever reincarnation Digital HERO recieves once 6E is up and running. Should it be in the main book? Certainly not; it is far too genre specific for that.

 

It's not really that genre specific. It has applications in Fantasy, Pulp and Ninja Hero as well as in many non booked genres like Western, Military and Spy. Any place where some versions of the genre have single or small groups of heros handling large numbers of lesser opponents while remaining fairly unscathed can benefit from scaling.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Aren't the Western, Military, Fantasy, Pulp, and Spy genres generally at least somewhat more lethal then Champions? I mean, one of the staples for a lot of people in Fantasy games is running around killing things, and Western and Military result in death from common weapons all the time. If the PCs are allowed to be more lethal than their superhero counterparts usually are, then shouldn't their opponents also have an increased level of lethality, especially if they are all using the same weapons? I can understand applying this scale to supers (even though I don’t think it’s really a necessity) but why should it be twice as hard to kill Gomer Pyle in the military game? If the answer is, “because the PCs are the heroes and the heroes shouldn’t die all the time,” then I’d argue that’s what combat luck is for; that’s why it’s considered a Talent not a Power.

[jtelson]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Aren't the Western' date=' Military, Fantasy, Pulp, and Spy genres generally at least [i']somewhat[/i] more lethal then Champions? I mean, one of the staples for a lot of people in Fantasy games is running around killing things, and Western and Military result in death from common weapons all the time. If the PCs are allowed to be more lethal than their superhero counterparts usually are, then shouldn't their opponents also have an increased level of lethality, especially if they are all using the same weapons? I can understand applying this scale to supers (even though I don’t think it’s really a necessity) but why should it be twice as hard to kill Gomer Pyle in the military game? If the answer is, “because the PCs are the heroes and the heroes shouldn’t die all the time,” then I’d argue that’s what combat luck is for; that’s why it’s considered a Talent not a Power.

 

Sometimes yes and sometimes no, thus an optional rule. Combat luck works fine for the Hero System baseline Heroic Game but if I want a world where a handful of Samurai destroy hundreds of bandits, a Spy can dash across an open courtyard while dozens of Mooks fire automatic weapons at him, or a small squad of hastily recruited misfits stand against a Nazi battalion then I may want to use a single optional rule rather than make significant changes to character generation, pregenerated adversaries and/or published gear. I mean I'd rather use a bleeding optional rule, than try to model it on every character built as a disad; This is the same idea.

[sbarron]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Of course, if we downgrade the official writeups of 'real' weapons to make them harmless to supers (1&1/2d6 RKA for assault rifles) then Dark Champions-type games become a lot less lethal, and loose some of their flavor.

 

Or in other words: downgrading things to match the superheroic game ignores the probems that will cause heroic level games.

 

I think the scaling issue is a reasonable optional rule, either for the Supers sourcebook or for whatever reincarnation Digital HERO recieves once 6E is up and running. Should it be in the main book? Certainly not; it is far too genre specific for that.

I would only downgrade weapons in games where I wanted a tailored game with less lethality, but still low powered supers that were hard to hurt with normal weapons. If I were going to play DC, military, spy, or modern pulp game, or a supers game where normal weapons are a threat, I'd leave the weapon damage alone.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Agreed. And now we are back in the realm of genre specific house rules with no standard that will change from group to group. I gotta stick with "this just isn't a Core Rule Book option."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

I think Supers is less lethal than other genres because Supers tend to higher defenses. Run a Fantasy game where the drawbacks of armor are enforced, and Combat Luck is not permitted, and I think it becomes pretty lethal.

 

Remove combat luck from a Western game, and it will also be fairly lethal.

 

Part of the problem with high lethality is that heroic/cinematic fiction tends to be low lethality compared to a more "realistic" approach. However, it is often low lethality only to major characters. Simulating that in game would probably require lowering the "typical" BOD of a mook/normal (say, to 3 so a 1d6+1 gunshot can mean instant death, or maybe to 6 with a rule that only heroes can survive negative BOD, or can survive it without a CON roll), while leaving heroic characters at 10 base, plus whatever they purchase. Alternatives exist (maybe any 'normal' taking half his BOD in one shot needs to make a CON roll, or a BOD roll, to survive, or maybe they don't even get the roll to save themselves). Of course, BOD now starts looking a lot more like hit points that rise markedly for important characters.

[Vulcan]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

It's not really that genre specific. It has applications in Fantasy' date=' Pulp and Ninja Hero as well as in many non booked genres like Western, Military and Spy. Any place where some versions of the genre have single or small groups of heros handling large numbers of lesser opponents while remaining fairly unscathed can benefit from scaling.[/quote']

 

IMO, in the case of Heroic games that is handled just fine by giving the heroes a few more points than the mooks. If the mooks are 25-50 points, 150 point heroes should have little problem wth them.

 

The reason I see scaling as potentially important to the superheroic genere is large-caliber (.30 cal and up) weapons can potentially do lots of STUN damage. But in the source material, even heavy weapons (missiles and tank main guns) fail to do more than annoy high-powered supers - say, Dr. Destroyer level. But for Dr. D to ignore a 105mm tank gun (7d6 KA +1 ISM, according to Dark Champions) would require giving him a 252 PD (with 42 of it resistant)!

 

What scaling does is give the superheroes a reason to go in, rather than just wait for the military...

 

Of course, all this is moot if 6E fixes KA.

[Vulcan]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

I would only downgrade weapons in games where I wanted a tailored game with less lethality' date=' but still low powered supers that were hard to hurt with normal weapons. If I were going to play DC, military, spy, or modern pulp game, or a supers game where normal weapons are a threat, I'd leave the weapon damage alone.[/quote']

 

Yes, but (I'm assuming) we are experienced HEROS players. We understand that specific rules can be rendered null and void by the GM for whatever reason, so long as it leads to a better gaming experience.

 

New players (and GM's) might find a tool like scaling to be very useful.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Let's not forget, and this builds off of something (I think!) Diamond Spear was saying, and it's this:

 

You can go ahead and nerf down the weapons in SuperHeroic games. Go ahead. I think we've committed this sort of bizarre error, that for the sake of convenience we're going with the assumption that a .50 cal Desert Eagle should always deal 2 1/2d6 (or 2d6+1, whichever) regardless.

 

Those rules are GREAT; they can certainly make the weapons consistent from game to game. But they can also stop making sense in certain genres. One way is to say "the supers take less damage."

 

Another is to "Golden Age" the weapons themselves. Instead of giving the Supers crazy defenses, nerf the guns.

[jtelson]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Let's not forget, and this builds off of something (I think!) Diamond Spear was saying, and it's this:

 

You can go ahead and nerf down the weapons in SuperHeroic games. Go ahead. I think we've committed this sort of bizarre error, that for the sake of convenience we're going with the assumption that a .50 cal Desert Eagle should always deal 2 1/2d6 (or 2d6+1, whichever) regardless.

 

Those rules are GREAT; they can certainly make the weapons consistent from game to game. But they can also stop making sense in certain genres. One way is to say "the supers take less damage."

 

Another is to "Golden Age" the weapons themselves. Instead of giving the Supers crazy defenses, nerf the guns.

 

Changing the weapons has two weaknesses-

1:Mook on Mook action ends up being needlessly prolonged

2:The buy in; I can set a few guidelines for scale in 2 minutes or spend a few hours reworking the weapons charts.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Changing the weapons has two weaknesses-

1:Mook on Mook action ends up being needlessly prolonged

2:The buy in; I can set a few guidelines for scale in 2 minutes or spend a few hours reworking the weapons charts.

 

I'm not promoting one over the other; I'm saying there's more than one way to knit a sweater.