Sean Waters Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Is it just me, or is NND a tad confusing: you're not supposed to define being a particular thing/creature as the 'defence' (being a martian), or NOT being a particular thing or creature as being the defence (not being a dwarf), but it is OK to make 'not being undead' the defence by saying that 'having a soul' protects you from the effect. 6.1.326 That's just wrong, isn't it? Not only that but NND needed overhauling and - whilst we have AVAD, which is nice - we've still missed a trick or two here IMO. 'All or nothing', the bit that makes an attack NND, is -1/2. Cool. The trouble is you are supposed to define the defence as something common and obvious. That is massively restrictive, isn't it? The examples are all things like 'resistant defences' or 'hold your breath' - stuff that is common and obvious but what if I want to create a poison that works on skin contact? I make the defence 'impermeable defences' but that is hardly common, is it, even if it is reasonably obvious? Similarly it might make perfect sense for people who have over 30 STR to be immune to my gravitic crush power: that is something else you can not define an NND as though. How about this: -1/2: common and obvious defence -0: common but not obvious or obvious but not common (although obtainable) +1/2: uncommon (or hard to obtain) and not obvious +1: unobtainable (something you've got or you haven't - like being a martian, not being a dwarf, having a soul, having over 29 STR, or poison immunity) OR requires you to take some action that would cause you other problems - like switching off your Resistant Protection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naanomi Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND The NND rules could use a touch-up... However, No Soul defense also covers Robots, Golems, Undead (but probably not incorporeal undead... those ARE souls), Inanimate Objects (unless your character is an animist I guess), possibly Animals, possibly aliens, plants, demons, angels, most other supernatural beings, possibly extensive cyborgs, anyone who has sold their soul (on some models)... very limiting actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND You worry too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND You worry too much. If Sean stopped worrying about details of the rules, half his posts would disappear. That said, his worrying often generates useful insights. I admit I don't have 6E yet, but previously a NND could have as its negation conditions "a set of uncommon Defenses." Breadth of the chance that characters can have a Defense seems to be key here. I've also noticed that in published examples some NND have "being or not being X" as one defense condition, but usually also include others. The impression I've gotten is that "being X" is okay as one of the conditions, as long as it's not the only one. In the example you cite, Sean, is that the only Defense condition mentioned? Regardless, Steve Long's mantra has always been "with GM's permission" for any exception to the rules. Ultimately it's up to the GM as to what Defenses are appropriate and "reasonably common" for a NND in his game -- that's bound to shift a lot depending on a given campaign's ground rules. Heck, I've seen Steve Long break his own default rules a number of times in published books when it suits the effect he wants, so I figure if it's good enough for the Line Developer it's good enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND "Having a soul" could probably be at least temporarily achieved by a Spiritual Transform, or perhaps by somehow binding a spirit to the thing in question (some form of Entangle?). So that case may not be completely a question of "what you are and cannot change." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND The NND rules could use a touch-up... However, No Soul defense also covers Robots, Golems, Undead (but probably not incorporeal undead... those ARE souls), Inanimate Objects (unless your character is an animist I guess), possibly Animals, possibly aliens, plants, demons, angels, most other supernatural beings, possibly extensive cyborgs, anyone who has sold their soul (on some models)... very limiting actually. ...but it contravenes the NND rules. Yes, LL, that is the only condition and, Pres, even if you could temporarily gain a soul by transform, you could also, by the same mechanism, stop being a dwarf, or become a martian, so I'm not sure that works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND ...and' date=' Pres, even if you could temporarily gain a soul by transform, you could also, by the same mechanism, stop being a dwarf, or become a martian, so I'm not sure that works.[/quote'] True. I guess I never let those restrictions worry me too much. If it works, it works. You don't want something that's too horribly difficult for someone to achieve once they figure out how your attack works. Good enough a baseline for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND True. I guess I never let those restrictions worry me too much. If it works' date=' it works. You don't want something that's too [i']horribly[/i] difficult for someone to achieve once they figure out how your attack works. Good enough a baseline for me. So, ask yourself, if we don't need them, why are they there? We don't need restrictions: we need cost structures for whatever we want to do. Want to hit every single time and damage the target, no matter what their defences? Sure: +11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND I thought the new AVAD rule (which, if I understand correctly, is how to model the NND effect in 6e) had a sliding scale for cost based on how common the Defense was compared to the attack the Advantage is being placed on. Did I miss something? Did I misunderstand how that was explained to me? Does that sliding scale not apply when defining an "all or nothing" defense instead of an "alternate" defense that still blocks some damage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND I thought the new AVAD rule (which' date=' if I understand correctly, is how to model the NND effect in 6e) had a sliding scale for cost based on how common the Defense was compared to the attack the Advantage is being placed on. Did I miss something? Did I misunderstand how that was explained to me? Does that sliding scale not apply when defining an "all or nothing" defense instead of an "alternate" defense that still blocks some damage?[/quote'] It does: doesn't extend to NND where you wer not using a numerical defence. That has not changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND I thought the new AVAD rule (which' date=' if I understand correctly, is how to model the NND effect in 6e) had a sliding scale for cost based on how common the Defense was compared to the attack the Advantage is being placed on. Did I miss something? Did I misunderstand how that was explained to me? Does that sliding scale not apply when defining an "all or nothing" defense instead of an "alternate" defense that still blocks some damage?[/quote'] Yes, it is a, "sliding scale," of sorts. However, "Most NND defenses are considered Rare, as specified in the AVAD Table. However, the final decision is up to the GM." (6E1/CC p. 326). Since most NND attacks start with a Power that by default acts against a a Very Common defense (PD or ED), that puts most NND attacks at an Advantage value of +3/2-1/2=+1 (there are three levels of +1/2 difference between Very Common and Rare, and NND is -1/2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND Does it allow for a group of less-common defenses in place of a single common and obvious defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND Does it allow for a group of less-common defenses in place of a single common and obvious defense? "...a reasonably common and obvious power or circumstance, or a set of uncommon powers or circumstances..." (6E1/CC p. 326). It also leaves enough up to the GM's judgement that I think things like that are quite reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND See, to me the use of the word "usually" means it should be cautioned against and that you might want something more concrete to work with. But it doesn't outlaw anything specifically. If the GM decides his Fantasy Campaign needs a series of "Undead Slaying Magic" where the defense is "Living Being" or "Not Undead" then so be it. Mold the system to fit your campaign. There's two entire chapters in 6E2 about using the system to define your game. The rules don't need to be a straight jacket, they're supposed to be open, even ambiguous in some places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND The rules don't need to be a straight jacket' date=' they're supposed to be open, even ambiguous in some places.[/quote'] YES! Ambiguity is the source of literary creativity! It's one of the key strengths of the Hero System IMO. Rep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted October 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Re: Clever definitions for NND You don't have to be overly proscriptive to retain clarity. Mt whole thesis is the starting point 'you can do anything - if you can pay for it'. IMO the way this rule is are drafted doesn;t lead to creative ambiguity, it leads to inconsistency and confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.