When sfx lie

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sorry, but that's bunk. We all know about the mechanics in the game. We're constantly reminded. Every time we pick up the dice or cite their results, we're reminded. Every time we mark off some STUN damage or check to see if our total will be enough to Mind Control the mook into shooting his boss, we're reminded.

 

I'm certainly not so tender that it would eliminate my suspension of disbelief or ruin a game to have a GM tell me "You were right on target. He took that shot right in the chest -- seemed to invite it! -- and he took no damage at all. You're convinced, however, that if you could aim just a bit better, you might be able to wipe that smile off his face. His face. Yeah, that's the ticket. By-the-way, your roll was a miss."

 

 

 

It is not bunk. I read sci-fi, and I **know** that it is not real - but I allow myself to be caught up in the story because it makes good internal sense and is possibly sounds like a reasonable extrapolation of existing science. If the author, eveny now and then, interupted his own narrative to point out that he's talking hogwash, or, more subtly, I notice a lot of apparent inconsistencies within the story where we've been led to believe something works one way and then it works another, that jolts me out of the happy place and I'm probably not going to be reading much more from that author.

 

Of course I KNOW it isn't real, but I don't need reminding constantly- that is the whole point about suspension of disbelief, and that is why what I'm saying is not bunk. You may not agree with it, and you may have a higher threshold for ignoring story jolts than I do, but it is a perfectly valid point.

 

 

We call that bad role playing. It's mentioned often in the rules.

 

'Bad roleplaying' is one way of looking at it - but what if, instead of Slippery Jane, it is her twin sister, Superlative Jan, who has virtual invulnerability who 'Chin Blocks'? Is that OK? Is that good roleplaying?

 

I imagine you think it is - but what if, unbeknownst to Superative Jan the attack she is chin bocking is built as a NND attack with the one substance in the universe that acts on her normally adamantine flesh like a warm spoon through strawberry jelly? She's not to know that the attack 'logically' can not be chin blocked by her, so it can not be bad role playing on her part.

 

Should the GM ignore all that and say the chin block works - even though, logically, it shouldn't - or should the GM say, "My condolences, Slippery Jane, how would you like your sister's headless corpse to be disposed of?"

 

I know Panpiper says that he has seen a chin block, but there is not a martial art in the world that teaches it - for good reason - 9,999 times out of 1000 it does not work.

 

When Superman takes a tank shell on the chest with a grin on his face it is not ebcause he is blocking - he's interposing himself, and taking the damage that he is sure will not hurt him. If he's wrong and the shell is kryptonite, he's dead.

 

We should be creative in describing combat, sure, but we should also be as realistic as we can, because then we wil be far less likely to get caught on the hop when something unexpected happens.

 

As I've said before - creativity is not all about working in a totally open environment where anything is possible - any fool can be creative if there are no limits - true creativity comes from finding the best solution in a situation where there are limits on what you can do. Hero character creation is a good example: sure you can build almost anything - but you are still constrained by the mechanical rules and your point allocation. Making an exciting character in that situation is a challenge.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

It's been mentioned but this is essentially reconstructing D&D's Armor Class, where an attack that would successfully hit AC 10 modified by DEX would actually "hit" but if it didn't overcome the additional AC provided by your armor the attack was considered to have been blunted. Yes, the toolkit is versatile enough to construct a flawed system. There's a marketing slogan.

 

The problem is that the HERO lexicon has "hit" established as successfully targeting, start warming up the damage dice. If you start fuzzying up the agreed upon definition you end up speaking the same language but not communicating, which leads to frustration, which leads to bad gaming, which leads to the door, which leads me to think it is a bad idea unless you renegotiate the definition of "hit" with your players as part of the campaign construction.

 

You mean like having a Shield provide a DCV bonus rather than defenses? Oh wait - a Shield DOES provide a DCV bonus in Hero. In addition to the very specific builds noted by Utech (which can be dismissed as "shouldn't have bought it that way") we have a very common device one interposes between oneself and an attack to prevent damage. Yet it does not require a Block, nor does it provide Defenses.

 

So what? It's still the GM's job to let the players know what is happening' date=' not only "in game" but Mechanics-wise as well. My point remains the same. Even if 90% of us think that an SFX really doesn't fit, (which seems to be the case here) if a GM decides to use that SFX with that Mechanic, but isn't clear about what is happening, the GM is at fault, not the SFX. You can argue that the SFX is inappropriate (which I would in this case), but if a group decides that it works for them that's great, as long as everyone's on the same page.[/size']

 

Why must the GM reveal the game mechanics? Let us posit a very simplistic, and very old, example. Speedster runs amok over the field for several phases, before the PC's, working together, manage to box him in and tag him with a knockout blow. To their surprise, Speedster rises into the air and rapidly flies away, clearly still unconscious.

 

Why would there be any onus on the GM to explain the mechanics? The PC's can's read speedster's character sheet - they can only see what happened. This could be Triggered 0 END Unconctrolled flight. Maybe it's the SFX of a Triggered Teleport (perhaps limited so he could be hit as he flees, perhaps not). Or maybe there's a tiny shrunken character with Flight carrying him away and the PC perception rolls were not good enough to perceive this.

 

I find GM's explaining the mechanics often spoils the gaming mood rather than enhancing it.

 

To DCV as indestructibility, I'd like to see an explanation why a 25d6 EB does no damage and a 5d6 AoE can hurt. That allows me to describe the situation in appropriate terms in game, rather than mechanics. If the character seems to shift and twist as attacked to better interpose his armor, that's a cue that a more accurate hit could avoid his armor and hurt the target. Perhaps the millions of tiny scales on his armor move to converge over the point of impact - hmmm...maybe an AoE would overwhelm them, since it would not strike a small point on the opponent's body.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I find GM's explaining the mechanics often spoils the gaming mood rather than enhancing it.

 

To DCV as indestructibility, I'd like to see an explanation why a 25d6 EB does no damage and a 5d6 AoE can hurt. That allows me to describe the situation in appropriate terms in game, rather than mechanics. If the character seems to shift and twist as attacked to better interpose his armor, that's a cue that a more accurate hit could avoid his armor and hurt the target. Perhaps the millions of tiny scales on his armor move to converge over the point of impact - hmmm...maybe an AoE would overwhelm them, since it would not strike a small point on the opponent's body.

There have already been multiple examples of how to word things like this in this very thread (at least 2 so far). The examples posed both let the Player know that technically their shot missed despite the SFX of it hitting, without stepping out of game description and blatantly saying, "it looks like you hit but going by the game mechanics you missed" (not that anyone would actually say it that way, there's plenty of ways to convey the information without breaking mood/character).

 

As far as explaining DCV as indestructibility, I think you answered your own question with a better idea than I could have. Personally I still don’t like DCV as indestructible, but your example actually made me more likely to consider it as an option.

 

EDIT: Also, I don’t think I ever implied that the GM must disclose the Mechanics behind anything and everything that happens in game. Hell, a lot of times Doomsday/Plot Devices may not even have mechanics. My comments about letting the players know what mechanics were involved were specific to this conversation and the supposed concern about “tricking players” with “SFX that lie”. I think that a player should (generally) know if they hit or miss. That doesn’t preclude missing have the SFX of attacks bouncing off, nor does it imply that the GM must reveal, in detail, the mechanics behind everything that happens every moment of the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I think we agree that you don't have to spell out what mechanics are in operation - in fact that is likely to be counterproductive tot eh mood of the game unless you are basically wargaming it.

 

OTOH I think we also agree that the sfx are the language that threanslates mechanics into game terms, and so there is an onus on the GM and the players to have sfx that properly reflect the underlying mechanics - even if that means you have to use modifiers on a power to better make it fit your concept for the sfx.

 

The 'shield' example is a pretty good one wehre DCV can be used to prevent damage by making you harder to hit - but I do not see a conflict there with what I've been arguing. I'd expect an AoE to defeat a shield, in most cases. I'd also expect the DCV to be, perhaps, restrainable, and, perhaps, to only coverattacks from a certain direction, and so on. in that case the underlying mechanics are accurately being translated into game terms by the sfx. Cool.

 

However an apparently solid hit that causes no damage because it - in fact - missed is very different, at least to my mind. It is a mis-translation, making the perceiver in-game think that something else entirely is happening. It is the difference between translating 'The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak' accurately from English to Russian or, instead, saying 'The meat is a bit off but the vodke is good'. Both MIGHT be technically accurate (my Russian is not good enough to know if this is a mistake that really could be made) but the second one completely mis-represents the intention.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I TOLD you that this would cause a fight...

[Greywind]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Only because Sean's threads lead to thinking...

[BNakagawa]

Re: When sfx lie

 

No, that is because their insurance company is risk-adverse. You could potentially blind someone with a baseball, if it hit just right, and 2d6 normal can deliver up to 8 BODY on a VERY lucky set of rolls.

 

8 body enough to kill someone outright? I suspect not.

[Greywind]

Re: When sfx lie

 

8 body enough to kill someone outright? I suspect not.

Normals, 5th and earlier, statted at 8, rather than 10.

 

Depending on the GM and the stun roll, you could easily be looking at a coma or a downward slide to death.

[jtelson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I TOLD you that this would cause a fight...

 

Part of the issue here is that "Indestructable" isn't a Special Effect it's just an Effect (and as an absolute generally an inappropriate one for Hero), the Special Effect is 'Why/How are you Indestructable?'

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

8 body enough to kill someone outright? I suspect not.

 

A fall from 2 meters in Hero can inflict, at most, 2 BOD (4 on a head hit), and that is before defenses. Yet people do hit their heads in a fall and die. The system does not perfectly emulate reality in most respects.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Anything that has an absolute term in it is an invitation for a fight!

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Obviously we've got strong disagreement here. I think it's fair to say that while some people can't abide the particular sfx-DCV combo described in the OP, others have no trouble with it at all. Neither camp is likely to persuade the other. Best advice: make sure your group agrees on what is and what is not acceptable. That's all that really matters.

 

Game on.

[BNakagawa]

Re: When sfx lie

 

A fall from 2 meters in Hero can inflict' date=' at most, 2 BOD (4 on a head hit), and that is before defenses. Yet people do hit their heads in a fall and die. The system does not perfectly emulate reality in most respects.[/quote']

 

True, but we're straying far from the original ludicrous statement that started this side-discussion, namely that a baseball represented 1 or 2d6...

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

True' date=' but we're straying far from the original ludicrous statement that started this side-discussion, namely that a baseball represented 1 or 2d6...[/quote']

 

For what it's worth, I mostly agree with Sean, but also see that where the GM clearly explains what is happening game mechanically using appropriate narrative terms, that it's not unreasonable to use DCV to represent a form of resistance to damage. I think the main issue is really just a semantic one - it wouldn't necessarily be a good build for "Invulnerability" (unless it was part of a suite of Invulnerability abilities that also included negation and DEF), but it would be a ok build for "Roll with the blows".

[Matt Holck]

Re: When sfx lie

 

an acrobat should be able to end a roll with the blow standing

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sure it does. Someone attacks' date=' they "miss", it is described as a "hit" -- the GM makes it clear that mechanically it was a "miss" -- and the character seems to be practically invulnerable. You'll have to roll much better to find the chink in that armor.[/quote']

 

GM: "OK, actually Corporal Punishment misses, but he sees his attack bounce off - he's apparently invulnerable to bullets!"

Mind Lass. "OK, my TK is BOECV. I hit him with a thrown rock."

GM: "Ummmm, well, he's invulnerable to bullets, and Mighty Man's steel crushing blows ... but not to thrown rocks."

 

Mighty Man. "Say guys, look! I bough the new d20 Star Wars book! What say we play Star Wars instead?"

Corporal Punishment "Can I be a Jedi?"

Mighty Man "Sure buddy, you can totally be a Jedi!"

 

As far as I can see, DCV really doesn't map will to invulnerability - as your example shows: there's a ton of ways to get around it - many of which don't correspond to doing more damage or even hitting more accurately.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

A better roll to hit.

 

The GM very clearly indicates (examples earlier in the thread) that you failed to be accurate enough to damage the target. You are in no way duped -- you understand that a better to hit roll would have succeeded in doing damage. Honestly, what's difficult about this?

 

The difficulty is the poor match of SFX to concept. "Wait, to hurt invulnerable guy I should use an attack that does less damage (for example AoE)?" I don't think it that people cannot grasp the concept of the GM explaining it's a miss that looks like a hit - it's more that " a miss that looks like a hit" is a poor mach for "invulnerable" - conceptually. "He dodges aside so that the hit barely grazes him" or "He stops the hit with his shield" both evoke the response - "I need to hit more accurately" or "I need to get around his defence". "You hit him fair and square in the eyeball and it does nothing" - even if the players understand "it was actually a miss" evokes a response which is not in-game appropriate (in this case "use an attack that doesn't target DCV").

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

No, that is because their insurance company is risk-adverse. You could potentially blind someone with a baseball, if it hit just right, and 2d6 normal can deliver up to 8 BODY on a VERY lucky set of rolls.

 

That can cause injury sufficient to cost a lot of money.

 

However, if they were throwing cars at each other then they would be suffering very significant damage much more frequently.

 

I'd be more inclined to watch the game, though!

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

When Superman takes a tank shell on the chest with a grin on his face it is not ebcause he is blocking - he's interposing himself' date=' and taking the damage that he is sure will not hurt him. If he's wrong and the shell is kryptonite, he's dead.[/quote']

 

It also raises the interesting question that if a character who bought "invulnerable as DCV" is interposing himself to "block" the shell and it fails to hit him because of his DCV - meaning it missed him - what happens to the people he was interposing to protect? Does it miss him, and kill them? Or does it him him and stop, doing no damage because he's "invulnerable", even though it'd kill him if it actually hit him? Or since he's interposing himself, he drops his DCV to zero and just dies? (my call as GM, in this case: a heroic but oddly pathetic death).

 

This is simply another good reason that while in theory you can model invulnerability as DCV, you almost certainly shouldn't.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

This is simply another good reason that while in theory you can model invulnerability as DCV' date=' you almost certainly [b']shouldn't[/b].

 

Unless, as indicated, you model it that way simply to get a guage on how many points you intend to charge for invulnerability and then play it, in game, straight as invulnerability...

 

Just wanted to add that to keep its profile there. After all - if you, the GM, agree with a player that what he has bought makes him invulnerable then it should, in play, make him invulnerable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

GM: "OK, actually Corporal Punishment misses, but he sees his attack bounce off - he's apparently invulnerable to bullets!"

Mind Lass. "OK, my TK is BOECV. I hit him with a thrown rock."

GM: "Ummmm, well, he's invulnerable to bullets, and Mighty Man's steel crushing blows ... but not to thrown rocks."

 

Is TK BoECV appropriately constructed? Why is ArachidMan able to dodge Corporal Punishment's mighty blows, ElectroLass' lighning bolts and LaserMan's LaserEyes, but not a thrown rock?

 

It also raises the interesting question that if a character who bought "invulnerable as DCV" is interposing himself to "block" the shell and it fails to hit him because of his DCV - meaning it missed him - what happens to the people he was interposing to protect? Does it miss him, and kill them? Or does it him him and stop, doing no damage because he's "invulnerable", even though it'd kill him if it actually hit him? Or since he's interposing himself, he drops his DCV to zero and just dies? (my call as GM, in this case: a heroic but oddly pathetic death).

 

This is simply another good reason that while in theory you can model invulnerability as DCV, you almost certainly shouldn't.

 

This is the more significant issue to me. You haven't actually created "invulnerability". The character will take damage if he's out of combat, since he's at 0 DCV. Hmmm...I'm reminded of Marvel's Gladiator. Disrupt his "invulnerability" by shaking his confidence or by psionic dampers, and he's not so invulnerable any more. Still, if the SFX were "he's invulnerable", then I think the in-game interaction should match this. The attack "misses" and due to SFX does not pass beyond the invulnerable body of the target. Similarly, if a character with +30 PD and +30 ED with the SFX "he twists out of the way" interposes himself, I question whether the attack that does no damage due to his extra defenses should actually be stopped. By SFX, didn't he twist out of the way?

 

Unless, as indicated, you model it that way simply to get a guage on how many points you intend to charge for invulnerability and then play it, in game, straight as invulnerability...

 

Just wanted to add that to keep its profile there. After all - if you, the GM, agree with a player that what he has bought makes him invulnerable then it should, in play, make him invulnerable.

 

In such case, I don't think the character sheet needs any more mechanic than "invulnerable". At the end of the day, if the player concept is "he is invulnerable" and the GM agreed to the build and the character, then the character should play in accordance with the SFX which have been agreed to for the build.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

In such case' date=' I don't think the character sheet needs any more mechanic than "invulnerable". At the end of the day, if the player concept is "he is invulnerable" and the GM agreed to the build and the character, then the character should play in accordance with the SFX which have been agreed to for the build.[/quote']

 

Absolutely - this is a way for the build to be presented both to player and GM but the principle of using the purchase of DCV to model invulnerability needs to be recorded somewhere if the GM is to stay consistent!

 

I dont think anyone has disagreed with this approach as such and I only repeated it so that it did not get lost in the general argument...

 

I do think it needs more than simply invulnerability. I think it needs to explain the nature of the invulnerability and indicate where there may be story elements whereby the character may be less invulnerable than others....that may be a good reason to guage cost by one mechanic rather than another.

 

Doc

 

Doc

[Greywind]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Why not just notate the value of DCV that represents the invulnerability? If you barely hit, by the numbers, and say DCV 10 to 8 represent the invulnerability, then the attack bounces. If you hit at 7, then you hit for effect.

 

Just make a note on the character sheet what the threshold is for the character.

[Egyptoid]

Re: When sfx lie

 

anyone besides me notice the absence of the OP now ?

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

anyone besides me notice the absence of the OP now ?

 

He's not absent, he's just bought Penalty Skill Levels against your Perception roll