Negatory

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

what was written in the first Hero Almanac took up only 2 pages

and yes this could have been edited down to maybe a page and 1/2

 

some of the negative characteristics it should be obvious and don't even need to be mentioned

Speed

PD/ED

movement

powers

Comeliness

 

space wise I see as a non issue

versatility wise I see it as a something that is needed

 

I don't presume to speak for Steve's thinking in why he chose to get rid of them' date=' but I can tell you why I also would have gotten rid of them, were it me who wrote H6E instead of Steve. In a nutshell, I don't see their utility justifying the space their inclusion would have taken up in the book. In some cases, there is no logical additional effect to be had from having less than a 0 in some CHA. In other cases, there might be, but it's both rare enough, and sticky enough, that I don't think it's worth bothering with it...[/quote']

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

so at ego 0 the victim gets no breakout roll?

as if they were at -30 ego

 

page # please

 

 

These effects haven't disappeared' date=' they apply at 0 instead of -30.[/quote']

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

At EGO 0 characters will follow any order given to them unless they succeed in an EGO roll. No specific mention of Breakout rolls from mind control though. 6E1 p. 44

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

that is the point of taking a victim to -30

there is no chance of a break out roll

by only going to zero the break out roll stays the same(9-) be it an order or mind control

 

a 9- or less roll is the best you can get as the rules read now

 

 

At EGO 0 characters will follow any order given to them unless they succeed in an EGO roll. No specific mention of Breakout rolls from mind control though. 6E1 p. 44

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

that is the point of taking a victim to -30

there is no chance of a break out roll

by only going to zero the break out roll stays the same(9-) be it an order or mind control

 

a 9- or less roll is the best you can get as the rules read now

 

That is true, but what if was your character who had absolutely no chance of a breakout roll? You might as well forget that session and go watch TV.

 

That said, you could always combine your Mind Control with a Change Environment that gives penalties to EGO rolls.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

When did "change for change's sake" starting meaning that you don't agree that a change was a good idea? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that Steve didn't have a reason other than just changing things.

 

In fact I'm pretty certain that everything Steve changed in 6e was done for what he considered to be a good reason. And that that reason was never "'cause I want to change it".

 

Well I don't recall anyone suggesting there was a problem with negative characteristics. Do you? As there is no apparent justification for the change, as it appears to add nothing to the game, well, I say it is change for change's sake.

 

I'm stating an opinion, to which, apparently, we are all entitled, and will remain so until I get Sean's Law through Parliament.

 

I appreciate that your opinion is that Steve didn't change the rule just because he wanted to, but there is a dearth of evidence on the point. Perhaps you know something I don't? It certainly wouldn't be the first time. If you know a good reason for the change, I'm all ears. I'm not interested in your opinion of my opinon: I can guess that. I'm interested in anything you may have to add to the debate. Do you know why negative characteristics were dropped, or can you suggest a good reason they might have been?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Negatory

 

Too bad the 6e discussion board has disappeared. I'm pretty sure Steve indicated his intention to remove negative characteristics way back in the first post in the Characteristics thread, and it didn't really get much attention then.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

That is true' date=' but what if was [i']your[/i] character who had absolutely no chance of a breakout roll? You might as well forget that session and go watch TV.

 

That said, you could always combine your Mind Control with a Change Environment that gives penalties to EGO rolls.

 

I suspect that the point here is that a character who has been beaten into unconsciousness has no options either. Do you stalk off from the gaming table when your character falls?

 

It is not as if a character with -33 EGO is that useful to an opponent (at -30 you still have a 3- to succeed). Sure he can tell them to attack their team mates and he has no choice but to comply, but unless his team mates are idiots, they are just going to shout 'STOP', and that will be the end of that.

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

Well I don't recall anyone suggesting there was a problem with negative characteristics. Do you? As there is no apparent justification for the change, as it appears to add nothing to the game, well, I say it is change for change's sake.

...

 

I say this thread has presented a dearth of very good reasons for removing negative characteristics.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Too bad the 6e discussion board has disappeared. I'm pretty sure Steve indicated his intention to remove negative characteristics way back in the first post in the Characteristics thread' date=' and it didn't really get much attention then.[/quote']

 

An intention he clearly followed through on - but why? Did they cause a problem? Was anyone up in arms about them?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Negatory

 

An intention he clearly followed through on - but why? Did they cause a problem? Was anyone up in arms about them?

 

I don't recall his reasoning, but I do recall he noted that he was intending to make many of the changes he suggested absent a convincing counterargument. I thought he provided reasoning in most cases.

[archermoo]

Re: Negatory

 

Well I don't recall anyone suggesting there was a problem with negative characteristics. Do you? As there is no apparent justification for the change, as it appears to add nothing to the game, well, I say it is change for change's sake.

 

I'm stating an opinion, to which, apparently, we are all entitled, and will remain so until I get Sean's Law through Parliament.

 

I appreciate that your opinion is that Steve didn't change the rule just because he wanted to, but there is a dearth of evidence on the point. Perhaps you know something I don't? It certainly wouldn't be the first time. If you know a good reason for the change, I'm all ears. I'm not interested in your opinion of my opinon: I can guess that. I'm interested in anything you may have to add to the debate. Do you know why negative characteristics were dropped, or can you suggest a good reason they might have been?

 

Calling something change for the sake of change isn't an expression of opinion. It is a statement that there was no reason for a change to be made other than a desire to change things. Not that there wasn't a reason that you agree with, not that you don't think it should have been changed, but a statement that there was no reason other than a desire to make changes.

 

I don't remember exactly what Steve said in his post about it, and as the 6e discussion forum is no long accessible I can't go check, but it was one of the things he listed that he was planning on changing. Since he included reasons for changing everything that he was planning on changing (and for that matter he included reasons for making changes that he didn't agree with too) I think it is safe to assume that he had a reason for making the change.

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

I suspect that the point here is that a character who has been beaten into unconsciousness has no options either. Do you stalk off from the gaming table when your character falls?

 

It is not as if a character with -33 EGO is that useful to an opponent (at -30 you still have a 3- to succeed). Sure he can tell them to attack their team mates and he has no choice but to comply, but unless his team mates are idiots, they are just going to shout 'STOP', and that will be the end of that.

 

Depends on what's on TV

 

Seriously though, if a character at EGO 0 has to succeed with an EGO roll every phase to take an action I think that's plenty of penalty for being in that state. I don't see a point to having explicitly negative EGO just to make it even harder to take an action.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Calling something change for the sake of change isn't an expression of opinion. It is a statement that there was no reason for a change to be made other than a desire to change things. Not that there wasn't a reason that you agree with' date=' not that you don't think it should have been changed, but a statement that there was no reason other than a desire to make changes.[/quote']

 

Semantics. I don't think there was a reason for making the change other than making the change: that is my opinion. It may well change if I can think of, or have pointed out to me, a good reason for making the change. Until then it will remain what I think, and therefore my opinion.

 

I don't remember exactly what Steve said in his post about it' date=' and as the 6e discussion forum is no long accessible I can't go check, but it was one of the things he listed that he was planning on changing. Since he included reasons for changing everything that he was planning on changing (and for that matter he included reasons for making changes that he didn't agree with too) I think it is safe to assume that he had a reason for making the change.[/quote']

 

Now that sounds to me very much like 'I don't remember what it was, but I'm sure there was a good reason'. I do not recall the post myself, so I don't recall seeing any reasons for the change.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Depends on what's on TV

 

Seriously though, if a character at EGO 0 has to succeed with an EGO roll every phase to take an action I think that's plenty of penalty for being in that state. I don't see a point to having explicitly negative EGO just to make it even harder to take an action.

 

I do get that, and yet I've seen someone roleplay a mind controlled character brilliantly - perfectly encapsulating someone who doesn't WANT to do what they are being told to do but has no choice...and yet wants to minimise the negative impact. Massively enjoyable piece of gaming. The fact is that Hero allows for characters to do things against their will, or things to happen to characters that they would not want. I see no useful purpose to pulling the teeth of this one any more than we should ban mind control with too high an effect, or negative skill levels for you EGO roll or, for that matter, a mental transform, or PRE attacks. Actually I would ban PRE attacks, at least in their current form, but that is another story....

 

The rule is a bias toward damaging powers (like Blast): you can never defeat an opponent with an EGO Drain. I don't like any rule that constricts charatcer design like that. I want to be able to hit an opponent with a power that can render them (eventually) mindless, incapable of independent thought - why should I have to do that with an attack that does Stun damage and contrived sfx?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

After this talk of -30 EGO... I'm glad Negative Char are gone.

 

At 0 you follow orders without even needing to be Mind Controlled. Anything else is just insult to injury.

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

The rule is a bias toward damaging powers (like Blast): you can never defeat an opponent with an EGO Drain. I don't like any rule that constricts charatcer design like that. I want to be able to hit an opponent with a power that can render them (eventually) mindless, incapable of independent thought - why should I have to do that with an attack that does Stun damage and contrived sfx?

 

I think someone drained to 0 EGO is pretty much defeated. Especially considering that the defense against it is less common then the defense against STUN damage.

If you want overwhelming defeat you you could always drain them to 0 INT & 0 EGO.

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

time give bonuses to the break out roll

 

it has been done to my characters, and my characters have done it to the villians

stuff happens

 

 

That is true' date=' but what if was [i']your[/i] character who had absolutely no chance of a breakout roll? You might as well forget that session and go watch TV.

 

That said, you could always combine your Mind Control with a Change Environment that gives penalties to EGO rolls.

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

I think the use change enviroment is a bit cheesy

but hit your target with this and then a 12d6 mind control

would be the one two punch to make mind control effective

 

granted that this will on average only work on a target with a 12 ego at most

anything above a 12 will need to be drained down to be effective if you want an ego +30 effect

 

 

will sapping field: Change Environment (-10 to Characteristic Roll or Skill Roll, Long-Lasting 1 Hour), Costs Endurance Only To Activate (+1/4), Alternate Combat Value (uses OMCV against DMCV; +1/4) (60 Active Points)

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

yes but the any ally can simply countermand the order also

so the victim just keeps turning from 1 target to the next,back and forth like a malfunctioning robot

mind control will give an order that only another mind control can countermand

 

After this talk of -30 EGO... I'm glad Negative Char are gone.

 

At 0 you follow orders without even needing to be Mind Controlled. Anything else is just insult to injury.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Negatory

 

I think it's kinda funny that they got rid of neg characteristics at the same time they revised the rule on draining SPD--they let you drain it to zero now.

 

If you drain INT/EGO/PRE to 0 each, that should pretty much be a severe effect--catatonia, or madness, or perhaps a blandly submissive state.

Ditto for 0 STR/DEX/CON--coma, paralysis, bedridden with a severe flu.

 

Sure, you can technically overcome each one individually with a 9- roll, but if all three are drained, won't you face situations where you have to make 3 consecutive 9- rolls every time you try to do something? I think that's a less than 1 in 10 chance, right?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Negatory

 

Made a brick trick once like this:

 

Knock You Silly: Drain INT 6d6; Requires A Brick Tricks Roll (-1/2)

Base Cost: 60

Active Cost: 60

Real Cost: 40

 

Lotsa fun.

 

Thanks for that!

 

Been playing since-- 81-ish? To date, no one in any group I've been with has ever tried something like that. It's never occurred to any of us, I reckon. But thanks for the build! That one's going in my "watch out of this kind of stunt" list. I might allow a heavily crippled one-shot use of something like that, but as a build---- wow!

 

I'd rep ya, but I'm all out.

[The Main Man]

Re: Negatory

 

Thanks for that!

 

Been playing since-- 81-ish? To date, no one in any group I've been with has ever tried something like that. It's never occurred to any of us, I reckon. But thanks for the build! That one's going in my "watch out of this kind of stunt" list. I might allow a heavily crippled one-shot use of something like that, but as a build---- wow!

 

I'd rep ya, but I'm all out.

 

Thanks for the thought though.

 

It can be a great equalizer for a lone brick.

[archermoo]

Re: Negatory

 

Semantics. I don't think there was a reason for making the change other than making the change: that is my opinion. It may well change if I can think of' date=' or have pointed out to me, a good reason for making the change. Until then it will remain what I think, and therefore my opinion.[/quote']

 

No, it isn't semantics. Whether or not Steve had a reason isn't a matter of opinion. It is like saying that it is your opinion that the sky is green, and that if anyone points out that it isn't getting huffy and explaining that it is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

 

And what does it being something that you consider a good reason have to do with it? You not thinking a reason is a good one isn't the same thing as there not being a reason.

 

Now that sounds to me very much like 'I don't remember what it was' date=' but I'm sure there was a good reason'. I do not recall the post myself, so I don't recall seeing any reasons for the change.[/quote']

 

If it sounds like that you should get your ears/eyes checked. Steve had a reason. He presented it to all and sundry on the boards. I agreed with him on negative characteristics so I didn't particularly pay attention to what his posted reasoning was. You may not agree with that reason, you may not even be able to think of something that you would consider a good reason. But that doesn't change the facts. From your POV "change for no good reason" would potentially be a reasonable statement. But "change for the sake of change" is factually incorrect, opinion or not. You can certainly say it all you want. You can say the earth is flat and the sky is green too if you want. However you saying it doesn't change the facts.

[phookz]

Re: Negatory

 

I recall that Steve posted something about it. I recall that he gave some reasons for everything that I looked at, but I don't remember them now. I recall that he's the one who made the decisions about what did and didn't happen in 6E. I recall that he didn't have to justify his reasons to any of us, but he did ask for input on what he was doing, which is far more than most company's would do for something like this.

 

This thread is much ado about nothing. There are 0 characteristic values, and they fit the bill close enough. The difference between 0 and -30 wasn't worth the printing to put them in the book, IMHO.