Omcv 1?

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

At least I can LOOK polite

 

That's good enough for me.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

May I rephrase that?

 

Thank you.

 

How do you justify buying the OMCV down to one when the typical man on the street has an OMCV of 3? Plain English that passes the GM Cheese barrier and explains why this character is seriously deficient in this area as compared to the average man on the street who has, and likely will, never be exposed to mental combat in any form?

 

First off, you assume that I even care arbout the man in the street. You see an issue. I don't. You can add all your little silly house rules to prevent someoene from taking a six point exploit. Frankly, to me, it's just not worth the trouble. But if I'm playing in your campaign, I'll follow your house rules, even if I would never bother with them in my own campaigns.

 

Or maybe, I'll just consider the man in the street to have an OMCV of 1 and six more points of Skills. But probably not because I rarely consider the man in the street to be much more than window dressing.

[jtelson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

My first thought was - 'There's that Attack vs. Alternate Combat Value thingy which ought to create a disincenitve for this kind of thing.' At this point, as it turns out, it does not but perhaps in the APG there will be guidelines for targeting OCV's, if not they shouldn't be too hard to add - it'll expand game options and resolve this issue.

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

You can add all your little silly house rules to prevent someoene from taking a six point exploit.

 

 

OOOhhh hark at her.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

OOOhhh hark at her.

 

Huh?

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I was pointing out that your post was condescending and out of line and a bit silly all at the same time.

 

'Hark' means 'look at' or 'pay attention to' in the Scottish dialect.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I was pointing out that your post was condescending and out of line and a bit silly all at the same time.

 

'Hark' means 'look at' or 'pay attention to' in the Scottish dialect.

 

Ah. I know that. It was more the phrase "Hark at her" and in particular, the "her" that was a bit confusing.

 

In any event, I'll apologize for "your silly little house rules". That was condescending. I should have just said "your house rules". But I don't feel the rest of the post was condescending or out of line.

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Thinking about it hark actually means 'listen to' - carry on.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Hark the herald angels sing. From middle English rather than Scottish

 

'Ooooh, hark at her.' is used contextually as a very mild derogation to imply an element of bitchiness in the comment being responded to but has no particular gender connotation int his usage: it applies to both male and female but is a bit 1970s in that it is probably not that politically correct as it uses the feminine pronoun as an insult, by implication, women are bitchy, or at least catty. It is used quite a bit by the Pythons and, IIRC, Les Dawson, but usually whilst they were in drag, muddying the waters further.

 

Hopefully that has distracted everyone sufficiently from the slanging match.

 

I will say this: I can see no good reason for normals to have 3 OMCV other than it seemed like a good idea at the time because that is what they had under 5e.

 

If you are playing in Champions, a setting where normals DO have 3 OMCV, I think you probably need to have some justification for clawing back 6 points. In a custom world, where normals do not have 3 OMCV ont heir template, not so much.

 

Even then it is not difficult to come up with a justification: my powers are based on psionic energy, and my innate facility with that has been turned inwards, constantly powering my body but making any offensive use of my mental energies almost impossible.

 

I personally do not see buying back OMCV to 1 (or zero if you can get away with it) as any more inappropriate than buying characteristics that control skills to their 3/8 breakpoints. Efficient design within the rule structure is not a sin, at least not until we get the Book of Sins, the 19th 6e supplement.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

The precedent of min maxing, rules raping and general nastiness that is designing a character to play the numbers and exploit holes in the system rather than design a character 'cos that's how you envision that character being.

 

How do you justify buying the OMCV down to one? Plain English that passes the GM Cheese barrier?

 

Star Hero Space Opera with Psionics.

 

I'll make a Psionic Null, not only do they not have psionics, but their mental accuity (their "mental muscle" in that arena is atrophied - even when hooked up to psionic-booster machines designed to enhance even the layman's abilities they are found to have no potential at all - which is even less than the normal person. This, however, does not affect their subconcious will power and resistance.

 

OMCV 1. DMCV 3.

 

Your campaign is not my campaign and a blanket statement of "rules raping" in your game may be legit in another game. What one GM finds acceptable within their campaign another will not. The System is not your babysitter - game balance is your decision.

 

Selling back to 1 is a perfectly good Mechanic. It may not fit every game equally. But thanks for assuming how others have their fun.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

GM: So this new character is...

Player: Yes, she's a psionic null.

GM: They are incredibly rare, you know.

Player: Yes, and I want to play all of them...

 

One man's wonderfully textured, flavoursome cheese is another man's stinky pile of rancid cow juice.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

One man's wonderfully textured' date=' flavoursome cheese is another man's stinky pile of rancid cow juice.[/quote']

 

Which was my point. One mans crappage is anothers oppprtunity.

 

The System doesn't presume which is which, and thus has nothing to seriously say on the topic of selling back except to say they must remain positive.

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

So if a character has 40 metres of flight, what should he pay (assuming it is not in a framework) for 40 metres of teleport?

 

Whilst teleport does stuff that flight doesn't, and so has ulility, a lot of the utility of a movement power is, well, moving. If you can already do that, should you pay less for a second mode of movement? It is relatively less useful to that character than to a character who doesn't have another mode of movement.

 

As to your question, I'd probably let the character away with that one: he can only use his energy blast when he's taking side effects from his defensive powers. Looked at relatively or absolutely that has to be worth a limitation.

 

Let us trot out the classic: do you get full points back for being blind if you've bought a compensating sense?

 

teleport flight - using 5e ,ath, simply because i am too lazy to double check 6e movement costs thats 20 inche so buying teleport cost an additional 8 or so points, turning the flight into a flight and teleport multipower.

 

see even another example where cost is not an absolute, where the system recognizes the difference between treating powers independently and not.

 

a character can only use so much movement at one time, even though he may have 3-4 or more types of movement so the system doesn't cost it the same... having two 40m movement powers is not as effective as having one 80m one and so you can reduce the cost.

 

blind for compensating sense - not full price. look thats as simple as the core mechanics - frequency and severity.

 

if i am blind with no compensating sense, i will have more frequent problems. thats worth more than if i have say targetting hearing... if for no other reason than sometimes i will not be as adversely impacted. less frequency and less severity means less points.

 

but the basic idea is this - if i have to pretend the character's traits dont affect the frequency and severity of other traits, then i have very little to go on for estimating frequency and severity in a consistent manner.

 

if i have to tell one guy his "only vs fire powers" aid gets treated the same value as another character's, when one of them actually has fire powers and the other one doesn't, then i sound pretty silly telling them "yeah but i have to ignore the effects those fire powers would have on the frequency because he bought them.

 

so oto me the premise fails at the start.

 

we disagree, for sure.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

teleport flight - using 5e ,ath, simply because i am too lazy to double check 6e movement costs thats 20 inche so buying teleport cost an additional 8 or so points, turning the flight into a flight and teleport multipower.

 

see even another example where cost is not an absolute, where the system recognizes the difference between treating powers independently and not.

 

a character can only use so much movement at one time, even though he may have 3-4 or more types of movement so the system doesn't cost it the same... having two 40m movement powers is not as effective as having one 80m one and so you can reduce the cost.

 

'Useable as a second mode of movement': cool. The fact that the system is willing to give you a break doesn't mean the full value price is wrong. If you decide your flight and teleport have different mechanisms and so could not be drained by the same adjustment power, you buy them seperately, rather than advantage a single power.

 

You don't get a cost break, despite the utility overlap.

 

blind for compensating sense - not full price. look thats as simple as the core mechanics - frequency and severity.

 

if i am blind with no compensating sense, i will have more frequent problems. thats worth more than if i have say targetting hearing... if for no other reason than sometimes i will not be as adversely impacted. less frequency and less severity means less points.

 

but the basic idea is this - if i have to pretend the character's traits dont affect the frequency and severity of other traits, then i have very little to go on for estimating frequency and severity in a consistent manner.

 

It is not though: you are deciding you can not see. Sure someone who doesn't have a compensating sense will be more disadvantaged than someone who does have a compensating sense, but then the'll have spend another 20-30 points buying that compenating sense: they won't have those 20-30 points to spend on other stuff.

 

Moreover if you compare the build of a blind person with a compensating sense to a non-blind character, they are 'equal' in terms of utility, in game.

 

Not really: point wise the first one has to spend 20-30 points from their total point allocation to compensate, meaning that instead of being built on 350 points (or whatever) they are built on 330. The only trade off for that is that they get the Disadvantage (now Complication) points, and you want to take that away too: they are doubly weakened.

 

By the same token every additional sense you buy should cost less: it is less likely to be needed (a better example than the movement one as, being 'special' you can not put senses in a framework, or use some cunning advantage to double them up).

 

if i have to tell one guy his "only vs fire powers" aid gets treated the same value as another character's, when one of them actually has fire powers and the other one doesn't, then i sound pretty silly telling them "yeah but i have to ignore the effects those fire powers would have on the frequency because he bought them.

 

so oto me the premise fails at the start.

 

we disagree, for sure.

 

If a character has 'only v fire powers' aid and another character joins the team, this new character having fire powers, does the first have to up the cost of his powers because they are suddenly more useful? Not in my game: that would be unfair.

 

To my mind the fact that one guy bought a fire aid when he has no fire powers is admirable concept realisation (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, you understand) but that's no reason to stick the guy whose concept did include other fire powers on the basis that he has created a more efficient overall build.

 

With respect that is like saying (under 5e) that you need to spend more on your STR because you've got a lot of DEX: the DEX makes it more likely you will hit, so it makes the STR more useful. On the bonus side you can get a cost break on defensive powers because you're less likely to be hit, so they are less useful. Seems to me that is the principle you espouse, and, whilst it makes sense, it is completely impractical: it assumes that all points spent have equal value. They do not, nor should they, and trying to balance on an ad hoc basis one power cost based on overall personal and team synergy is an excercise in futility.

[archermoo]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

blind for compensating sense - not full price. look thats as simple as the core mechanics - frequency and severity.

 

if i am blind with no compensating sense, i will have more frequent problems. thats worth more than if i have say targetting hearing... if for no other reason than sometimes i will not be as adversely impacted. less frequency and less severity means less points.

 

So to take one example, there is a character that is blind. They purchase a power that exactly mimics normal sight to compensate. No more useful, and no less useful. So being blind isn't limiting to them at all, as they have another sense that completely replaces it.

 

If they get no points back for not having normal vision, then they have exactly the same capabilities as a normal person, but have had to pay more points for it than a normal person. That seems contrary to one of the core tenets of Hero System. You get what you pay for, neither more nor less.

 

Edit: It is worth noting though that the official way of doing this in 6e is rather than taking a Physical Complication: Blind, you just sell back your Normal Vision for 35 points.

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

So to take one example, there is a character that is blind. They purchase a power that exactly mimics normal sight to compensate. No more useful, and no less useful. So being blind isn't limiting to them at all, as they have another sense that completely replaces it.

 

If they get no points back for not having normal vision, then they have exactly the same capabilities as a normal person, but have had to pay more points for it than a normal person. That seems contrary to one of the core tenets of Hero System. You get what you pay for, neither more nor less.

 

Edit: It is worth noting though that the official way of doing this in 6e is rather than taking a Physical Complication: Blind, you just sell back your Normal Vision for 35 points.

 

FWIW why isn;t this just sfx?

 

why isn't "instead of sight i have flugazle awareness which in all ways exactly mimics normal sight" not an issue of points at all and not just sfx? do i have to sellback running and rebuy running because my character is a robot with treads vs legs?

 

so my way of handling blind but exactly countered would be to charge you exactly 0 cp for the new sense and call it sfx.

 

now if there are real issues making this not the exact mimic you describe then they get a comp for the problems and pay for the advantages the sense gives.

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

 

'

Not really: point wise the first one has to spend 20-30 points from their total point allocation to compensate, meaning that instead of being built on 350 points (or whatever) they are built on 330. The only trade off for that is that they get the Disadvantage (now Complication) points, and you want to take that away too: they are doubly weakened.

sean you seem to be operating on the assumptopn that while i DO adjust the cost of the comp for the lessened frequency i then charge an inappropriate value for the compensatory sense? "doubly weakened" is only true if my costs are wrong when compared to effect seen in game.

 

'

If a character has 'only v fire powers' aid and another character joins the team, this new character having fire powers, does the first have to up the cost of his powers because they are suddenly more useful? Not in my game: that would be unfair.

sean this is a red herring.

 

ANYTIME a new character is added, for many different reasons the addition has to be evaluated and problems looked at.

 

easiest example is adding a total code vs killer to casual killers. the interactions between those traits create many ptential problems which have to be assessed.

 

it is NOT unfair to charge a character for abilities based on their impact and severity.

 

If circumstances change and those impacts and severity change then the costs might also.

 

it is equally unfair but to everyone else to allow a guy to keep saving -2 lim on "only in strong mag fields now that strong mags fields are common, for instance.

 

 

'

To my mind the fact that one guy bought a fire aid when he has no fire powers is admirable concept realisation (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, you understand) but that's no reason to stick the guy whose concept did include other fire powers on the basis that he has created a more efficient overall build.

i do not see charging a character based on frequency of utility and impact as sticking anyone.

 

i think thats a key difference between us.

With respect that is like saying (under 5e) that you need to spend more on your STR because you've got a lot of DEX: the DEX makes it more likely you will hit, so it makes the STR more useful. On the bonus side you can get a cost break on defensive powers because you're less likely to be hit, so they are less useful. Seems to me that is the principle you espouse, and, whilst it makes sense, it is completely impractical: it assumes that all points spent have equal value. They do not, nor should they, and trying to balance on an ad hoc basis one power cost based on overall personal and team synergy is an excercise in futility.

 

sean, i certainly dont claim inflibility, but if i am supposed to ignore whether or not someone has fire powers when assessing the value of "only works on fire powers" then you have gone just as far into the land of folly on your side.

 

there is no single magic formula that works every time absolutely but what matters is the practice and consistency.

 

if i say "i will not count "your other powers" when assessing freq and severity for lims and comps and values in general, then i feel i have lost a critical element practically any meaningful criteria on which to assign cost.

 

 

i may not be able to fine tune this down to the "what impact does dex have on strength" and thats true, but going as far as you suggest the other way is imo too crippling.

 

i cannot stick my hand in shower water and get the temp to the single degree but i can tell if its warm or hot or cold... and thats better than just jumping right in blind.

 

imo.

 

ymmv

 

etc...

[archermoo]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

FWIW why isn;t this just sfx?

 

why isn't "instead of sight i have flugazle awareness which in all ways exactly mimics normal sight" not an issue of points at all and not just sfx? do i have to sellback running and rebuy running because my character is a robot with treads vs legs?

 

so my way of handling blind but exactly countered would be to charge you exactly 0 cp for the new sense and call it sfx.

 

now if there are real issues making this not the exact mimic you describe then they get a comp for the problems and pay for the advantages the sense gives.

 

So if the new sense isn't identical to normal sight how to you just pay for the advantages it gives?

 

For instance a character who is totally blind, but has spatial awareness that replaces it. Being blind isn't very limiting to the character, as they have a sense that compensates. They have to buy that sense at full cost to have it, and while it has some advantages over normal sight it also has some disadvantages.

 

In 5e you would have to take Physical Limitation: Blind to show that you couldn't see normally. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you would then have that Disad be worth less points since the character has a compensating sense. Which seems to me to be double punishing them, as they're having to pay for a sense which is in some ways not as good as normal vision, and as a result are getting fewer points back since they spent points to be better.

 

I much prefer the 6e way of doing it. Selling Normal Vision back gets you 35 points, which you can then use to buy your compensating sense. If the replacement is better than Normal Vision, you end up spending the appropriate extra points for it. If it isn't as good, you end up saving some points overall.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Tesuji: I'm not saying your approach does not have merit, but it fragments the game into completely individual rule sets with no common basis. That can work for an individual game, where everyone knows what to expect, but it destroys the rule set as a Universal system. What one person assesses as the impact of having someone with fire powers in the team is unlikely to be the same value as someone else would assess. As you say - and very appositely in this instance - YMMV: it will - for everyone.

 

Whilst I further acknowledge that simply treating all characters as if they are born in a vacuum can also lead to problems, my approach favours a broader brush. I tend to look at frequency within the campaign, primarily, and then look at actual utility.

 

For example: fire powers only is supposed to be -1/2. I disagree and would put it closer to -2 (which probably reinforces your point more than mine). If someone has Aid Fire Powers and has fire powers themself, they get to use it pretty often - but if I felt teh power was too cheap for the utility in practice, I'd find other ways to balance the cost: perhaps VIPER (or whoever) are field testing a range of extinguisher equipment.

 

Whatever method you employ, we both agree (I think) that points should reflect utility, at least to a reasonable degree of approximation, and, presumably, our players are used to our play/GM styles and so know that if they have a power that is creaming everyone things are going to get looked at.

[Vulcan]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

May I rephrase that?

 

Thank you.

 

How do you justify buying the OMCV down to one when the typical man on the street has an OMCV of 3? Plain English that passes the GM Cheese barrier and explains why this character is seriously deficient in this area as compared to the average man on the street who has, and likely will, never be exposed to mental combat in any form?

 

How do you justify buying the INT down to 1 in a way taht passes the GM cheese barrier? Some people are just going to be totally deficient in a given area, that's jus the way things are.

 

But I see it as the GM's duty to, at some point, give the character some sort of grief over their sellback. After all, they are getting an added benefit out of it, so they should also get some extra hassle out of it too.

 

Now if I had a player who always sold his OECV back, then perhaps a talking too would be in order. For a character who is 'flagrantly psi-blind' (and maybe spend a bunch of points on MD or mental DR to simulate it), perhaps it makes perfect sense to sell back the OECV.

 

(Sorry, make that OMCV. I know how that misspelling annoys some people...)

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

 

Tesuji: I'm not saying your approach does not have merit, but it fragments the game into completely individual rule sets with no common basis.

here is perhaps ur core difference.

 

to me, hero isn't a game at all. its a game building toolkit.

 

tere is no inherent similarity between my game, the campaign on thursday, and your game, and my other game, the one o saturdays, even if they all use hero.

 

the value for "only vs magic" WILL BE VERY LIKELY different between my fantasy game as my supers game as my shadowrun game - even though magic exists in all three.

 

thats why i stick to the principles, and assess frequency and severity with all eyes open and no blinders on as best i can.

 

were i to instead say "well only vsmagic is supposed to be at -1/4 so..." regardless of the actual game i am playing then i am letting the syswtem run the game, not using the system to reflect the game.

 

That can work for an individual game, where everyone knows what to

to be universal the system has t be able to run a wide variety of genres, not run them the same.

 

from one game to the next from one genre to the next, the value for "only vs magic" should vary based on the frequencies commonly encountered in that genre.

 

to insist the values remain neutral from one game to the next is to homogenize the genre, to homogenize the source, which is not imo what a universal system, a good one, does.

expect, but it destroys the rule set as a Universal system.

 

What one person assesses as the impact of having someone with fire powers in the team is unlikely to be the same value as someone else would assess. As you say - and very appositely in this instance - YMMV: it will - for everyone.

absolutely and get this - they both may be right for their own games.

 

there is nothing wrong with that.

 

the problems occur when one assings a value and then has the value prove wrong.

 

it is just as bad to stick with "book value" when thats not appropriate to the campaign as to assign your own if they both prove wrong.

 

Whilst I further acknowledge that simply treating all characters as if they are born in a vacuum can also lead to problems, my approach favours a broader brush. I tend to look at frequency within the campaign, primarily, and then look at actual utility.

 

For example: fire powers only is supposed to be -1/2. I disagree and would put it closer to -2 (which probably reinforces your point more than mine). If someone has Aid Fire Powers and has fire powers themself, they get to use it pretty often - but if I felt teh power was too cheap for the utility in practice, I'd find other ways to balance the cost: perhaps VIPER (or whoever) are field testing a range of extinguisher equipment.

so rather tha assign a cost appropriate to the campaign actualities ou will alter the campaign actualities so you can keep the book value.

 

that is imo letting the system use you. its like deciding to put a 1/8 inch screw in the 1/4 inch hole because you dont want to have to put down the smaller screw and get the right sized one.

 

i have no problem with treating hero as a toolkit and that means not just limiting my games to ones which meet its defaults but bending folding spindling and doing whatever it takes to make system and toolkit reflect my game.

 

each hero powered game is unique in my experience.

[torchwolf]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Fictional "Thieves' World"-type FH game example on the OMCV issue:

 

Dendriel is a clever conman/rogue (INT 18, EGO 13, PRE 18, OMCV 1, DMCV 3).

Barabian is a stupid barbarian (INT 8, EGO 13, PRE 15, OMCV 3, DMCV 3).

 

Since the campaign features magic, the GM has decided to incorporate MCVs, and Dendriel's player has been allowed to buy down OMCV for his character based on the rationale that Dendriel is so focused on the physical world that he would not be able to grasp "mental accuracy" (after the GM rolled his eyes). The GM has also already stated that PCs may eventually develop magical abilities during the campaign.

 

Later in the campaign, Dendriel manages to swindle a trader out of a magical ring - he has heard that the ring allows its wearer to compel people to do his will, provided the wearer turns it three times and spits over his shoulder three times (8d6 Mind Control, Gestures, Full Phase, mechanics known only to the GM).

 

Dendriel tries it out several times but it never works. Barabian asks "Can I have pretty ring?", and buys (overpriced) it from Dendriel. He tries to imitate Dendriel, successfully activates it and manages to get Dendriel to give him all his money (high roll!). Barabian realizes he must have a real gift for magic and rushes off into the wilds to find his old tribal shaman to teach him! Naturally, Dendriel rushes after him to get his money back...

 

 

I could see this happen.

[Vulcan]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Fictional "Thieves' World"-type FH game example on the OMCV issue:

 

Dendriel is a clever conman/rogue (INT 18, EGO 13, PRE 18, OMCV 1, DMCV 3).

Barabian is a stupid barbarian (INT 8, EGO 13, PRE 15, OMCV 3, DMCV 3).

 

Since the campaign features magic, the GM has decided to incorporate MCVs, and Dendriel's player has been allowed to buy down OMCV for his character based on the rationale that Dendriel is so focused on the physical world that he would not be able to grasp "mental accuracy" (after the GM rolled his eyes). The GM has also already stated that PCs may eventually develop magical abilities during the campaign.

 

Later in the campaign, Dendriel manages to swindle a trader out of a magical ring - he has heard that the ring allows its wearer to compel people to do his will, provided the wearer turns it three times and spits over his shoulder three times (8d6 Mind Control, Gestures, Full Phase, mechanics known only to the GM).

 

Dendriel tries it out several times but it never works. Barabian asks "Can I have pretty ring?", and buys (overpriced) it from Dendriel. He tries to imitate Dendriel, successfully activates it and manages to get Dendriel to give him all his money (high roll!). Barabian realizes he must have a real gift for magic and rushes off into the wilds to find his old tribal shaman to teach him! Naturally, Dendriel rushes after him to get his money back...

 

 

I could see this happen.

 

This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about. No, nothing in the rules stops one from selling back OMCV. It's up to the GM to make it a problem periodically.

 

Just saying 'No, don't do that' misses the opportunity to add a plot complication to your PC's lives.

[casualplayer]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Every decision made in constructing your character is a sign to the GM that "I want the game to go here at sometime" whether it's the blatant Hunted or DNPC or selling back stats or leaving an aspect underdeveloped or an exceptionally strong feature to make the ladies swoon. If you are using any other criterion for making your character, IMO, that is cheese. Drama comes from overcoming your limitations not playing only to your strengths.

 

If you claw back 6 points out of an area, expect to get 6 points of GM's attention over the course of the campaign.

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

 

Selling back to 1 is a perfectly good Mechanic. It may not fit every game equally. But thanks for assuming how others have their fun.

 

Are you serious?

 

You can have any fun you like but any time I post, I post my opinion. You may have fun any way you want. Your game, your rules. I thought this forum is where we posted our opinions? I'm not going to keep schtuum just 'cos you, or anyone else may have a different opinion.

 

If any player came at my with that drivel as a back story I'd tell him to eff off btw.