Time Lord Regeneration

[segerge]

Need a sanity check on an already-designed character in the TASK FORCE universe.  Apologies for the extremely-specific geekiness in advance. 

 

I am attempting to duplicate Regeneration as shown in Doctor Who, and could use some sanity checks on what I've come up with.  This is what I have so far, based on New Who regenerations (Jphn Hurt through Jodie Whitaker) and 6th Edition Build Rules:

 

Regeneration:  Healing BODY 3d6 (standard effect: 9 points), Can Heal Limbs, Resurrection, Constant (+1/2) (82 Active Points); No Conscious Control (only at time of death; -2), 8 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Turn each which Never Recover (-2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (2d6 Drain INT self only constant (for duration of power) recovers 5 points/hour; -2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (10d6 Cosmetic Transform [Change appearance]; -1), Side Effects (Side Effect only affects the environment near the character; 1d6 continuous (for duration of power) Area Effect radius RKA personal immunity no range; -3/4), Resurrection Only (-1/2)

 

The "Drain INT" side effect will subtract on average rolls over the course of 1 turn 28 INT, which won't fully recover for 6 hours.  The RKA side effect rolled over the course of 1 turn properly simulates the damage done to the TARDIS during the Tennant-Smith and Capaldi-Whitaker regenerations, but not what the Smith-Capaldi regeneration did to the Daleks on Trenzalore.  I have no clue how to simulate Tennant's hand regeneration in "The Christmas Invasion" short of a compound power with a trigger and an appropriate 15-hour time limit.

 

Thoughts?

 

{EDIT] Assume the character has a SPD of 4 when looking at the power and side effects.

[薔薇語]

Seems like a possibility. I think rather than an INT drain, you could just go with a temporary Physical Complication: momentary memory loss 

 

Another wild option is a compound power of  Multiform (new regen) and a Heal (Ressurection of self only). To get back that 10 to 15 body shouldnt be too hard.

 

La Rose.  

[Greywind]

Another option is to simply pass the character to someone else that might want to play it. Change of appearance. Change of personality.

[Tech]

Greywind, I'm sure that's not what he's thinking of. It's a character dynamic of uncertainty that could potentially keep the character fresh every so often. With the powers suggested, I might even suggest a small power pool of skills for are unchangeable for that particular Doctor. When a new form appears, the power pool skills can be altered.

[Hugh Neilson]

A simple option is that it's a backstory for a new character who is replacing the dead character.  Why should you pay points for the privilege of continuing to be in the game with a new character?

[bubba smith]

4 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

Seems like a possibility. I think rather than an INT drain, you could just go with a temporary Physical Complication: momentary memory loss 

 

Another wild option is a compound power of  Multiform (new regen) and a Heal (Ressurection of self only). To get back that 10 to 15 body shouldnt be too hard.

 

La Rose.  

yes that seems correct

[Ninja-Bear]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

A simple option is that it's a backstory for a new character who is replacing the dead character.  Why should you pay points for the privilege of continuing to be in the game with a new character?

Because that’s what the OP asked for?

[Hugh Neilson]

He asked for thoughts and a sanity check.  My thought is that paying to be allowed to make a new character when an existing character dies strikes me as wrong.  If a PC without this power dies, how will their replacement character differ from one with this power?  If the answer is "not at all", that seems the appropriate point cost as well.  If there is a benefit, the point cost should reflect that benefit.  That's my sanity check - does the cost reflect the in-game value?

[Duke Bushido]

I tend to agree with Hugh on this.

 

But here's an option I'd like to run by you, Hugh (I will check for an answer later; I need to get to bed):

 

Suppose the replacement character is built on whatever-the-campaign-limit-for-a-new-character-is _plus_ those points "pre-paid" by the previous incarnation?  Would that provide reasonable value?
 

 

[薔薇語]

Duke, I think I can answer a bit of that. 

 

Imagine you are in a campaign with friends. Everyone built 500pt characters. One character has the ability you described. After a year everyone is 550pts but that character has died and come back but now at 600pts. Do you think that would go over well in the group? A player choosing to be below the point cap is a bit different then a single player being allowed to be way above it. I think the simple group dynamics in psychology of it all woodwind or such an idea rather impractical.

 

Beyond that, it also has the benefit of neutralizing death at no cost. If Jane's character dies and she makes a new one, she is still at the point cap but now this new character lacks all of the history that she would otherwise have been able to draw upon in the campaign. But her friend Joe gets to have all of that knowledge, campaign history, and more points after he dies. It just feels like a recipe for disaster.

 

La Rose. 

[archer]

On 9/25/2018 at 7:47 PM, segerge said:

Need a sanity check on an already-designed character in the TASK FORCE universe.  Apologies for the extremely-specific geekiness in advance. 

 

I am attempting to duplicate Regeneration as shown in Doctor Who, and could use some sanity checks on what I've come up with.  This is what I have so far, based on New Who regenerations (Jphn Hurt through Jodie Whitaker) and 6th Edition Build Rules:

 

Regeneration:  Healing BODY 3d6 (standard effect: 9 points), Can Heal Limbs, Resurrection, Constant (+1/2) (82 Active Points); No Conscious Control (only at time of death; -2), 8 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Turn each which Never Recover (-2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (2d6 Drain INT self only constant (for duration of power) recovers 5 points/hour; -2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (10d6 Cosmetic Transform [Change appearance]; -1), Side Effects (Side Effect only affects the environment near the character; 1d6 continuous (for duration of power) Area Effect radius RKA personal immunity no range; -3/4), Resurrection Only (-1/2)

 

The "Drain INT" side effect will subtract on average rolls over the course of 1 turn 28 INT, which won't fully recover for 6 hours.  The RKA side effect rolled over the course of 1 turn properly simulates the damage done to the TARDIS during the Tennant-Smith and Capaldi-Whitaker regenerations, but not what the Smith-Capaldi regeneration did to the Daleks on Trenzalore.  I have no clue how to simulate Tennant's hand regeneration in "The Christmas Invasion" short of a compound power with a trigger and an appropriate 15-hour time limit.

 

Thoughts?

 

{EDIT] Assume the character has a SPD of 4 when looking at the power and side effects.

 

I don't understand the "TASK FORCE universe" reference. If someone could point me in the right direction, it would be appreciated.

 

That final "Resurrection Only" might need to be phrased as "Resurrection (with fully restored Limbs when applicable) Only" or something similar. As it reads, that limitation prevents the healing limb part from working at all?

 

I this idea of a power as a player's way to stay in the campaign at the power level she had before death. She'd be paying 7-9 points up front for the privilege of not losing points after the character death. If the campaign is likely to produce character deaths in significant amounts and the campaign is likely to last a long time, it'd probably be worth the investment.

 

I do like the suggestion of dealing with the INT Drain as a partial amnesia complication which wears off over time.

 

And I'd prefer to deal with the other side effect as a permanent physical complication of the person's body changing into a different body rather than treating it as a cosmetic transform. The cosmetic transform might fail and leave the Doctor in the same body. Part of the fun is the dealing with the new body and none of the people she'd previously met in the campaign knowing her, you don't want to miss that experience due to bad die rolls (or the transform wearing off over time).

 

Not a fan of the RKA thing at all but if you're looking for an exact duplication of the power, I guess something like that is needed. You didn't specify how many dice of RKA so I'd assume it is 1d6? If it is something small, you want or need some kind of penetration advantage to make sure it does some kind of damage to the environment even if the doctor dies in a bank vault or someplace else that's sturdy. I don't remember those episodes to know how destructive the effect was or have a good feel for how resistant the TARDIS is to destructive effects.

[segerge]

11 hours ago, archer said:

 

I don't understand the "TASK FORCE universe" reference. If someone could point me in the right direction, it would be appreciated.

 

TASK FORCE is a side project I've had since 2012 when I rediscovered Champions.  Wanting to re-learn it, I started by revisiting characters I had played back in the 1980s with friends in a "Where are they now?" manner.  I ended up getting so carried away with it that I gave them their own timeline starting with the Champions Universe in 1982 and then running forward in time 35 years to 2017.  The story archive (fanfic only for what should be obvious licensing reasons) should be in my forum signature.  A second site which includes background material on the characters and answers to some frequently-asked questions can be found at task-force.droppages.com

 

11 hours ago, archer said:

 

That final "Resurrection Only" might need to be phrased as "Resurrection (with fully restored Limbs when applicable) Only" so something similar. As it reads, that limitation prevents the healing limb part from working at all?

 

That actually gets around the whole "hand gets chopped off but regrows since he's within 15 hours of his regeneration" problem from "The Christmas Invasion."  I like that.

 

11 hours ago, archer said:

And I'd prefer to deal with the other side effect as a permanent physical complication of the person's body changing into a different body rather than treating it as a cosmetic transform. The cosmetic transform might fail and leave the Doctor in the same body. Part of the fun is the dealing with the new body and none of the people she'd previously met in the campaign knowing her, you don't want to miss that experience due to bad die rolls (or the transform wearing off over time).

 

An interesting take.  This handles the 10th Doctor's aborted regeneration in "The Stolen Earth" now that I think about it...

 

11 hours ago, archer said:

 

Not a fan of the RKA thing at all but if you're looking for an exact duplication of the power, I guess something like that is needed. You didn't specify how many dice of RKA so I'd assume it is 1d6?

 

1d6 each phase for 4 phases.  On the whole point of adding the RKA as a side effect, it's worth noting that regenerations in Classic Who (including the McCoy-McGann regen from the 1996 movie) were nowhere near as traumatic to the surrounding environment as they have been potrayed in New Who.  Though now that I write that, I remember that in the two regenerations I listed to justify its inclusion the Doctor was trying VERY hard to forestall it from happening.

[Duke Bushido]

18 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

Duke, I think I can answer a bit of that. 

 

Imagine you are in a campaign with friends. Everyone built 500pt characters. One character has the ability you described. After a year everyone is 550pts but that character has died and come back but now at 600pts. Do you think that would go over well in the group? 

 

 

It's pretty clear we handle death and character generation far too differently to continue this conversation.  For us, if starter characters are 500 pts, then a year later you're u to 550, then you die--

 

your new character is a starting character.  500 pts.

 

 

Using this model--

 

your reanimated guy would start at 500 plus whatever he spent on the power.

 

 

Taking just a minute to address the most common complaints that we don't let experience points drift up off of dead people and fall onto new ones--

" But the character is lower powered than the others!

 

No; he isn't.  He's built on less points.  His power level or effectiveness or what-have-you is not a direct function of how many points he or anyone else spent.  Granted, one person making two characters based on two different amounts of points will likely end up with the more expensive character being more powerful, but that's most usually because he has a particular pattern or build technique he favors and it will express itself in both characters.

 

But that player earned those points!

 

No; he didn't.  His character did.  His character did heroic things; saved people from fires; fought dangerous outlaws; was a beacon of hope; kept kids in school.  The player sat at a table with his friends, playing a game.  That character is dead. The points went with him.

 

Further, that player quite likely has more than one character.  This brings two more points:

 

For the most part, I can swing the story here and there to work in an understudy, even make an arc out of meeting and working with him, him becoming accepted, etc.

 

Second:  The dead character earned experience points.  The understudy earned experience points.  The third and possibly even the fourth character at some point or other earned experience points.  The same people who think I should allow experience points from a dead flash out onto a new guy are the same people who look at me as if I have three heads when I ask them why the experience can't be shuffled from one living character to another, or why it isn't just given to all of them.  It is precisely the same thing.

 

Given that we are on opposite ends of the concept of bringing in an understudy, we will most likely not achieve any equal ground to actually have an enjoyable discussion-- GAD!

 

Forgive me!  That came out potentially _far_ more dismissive than I meant it to; really it did.  I am simply saying that rather opening up what I thought might be fun thought experiment, I am concerned that the polar difference in our philosophies on the subject would result in more frustration than fun for both of us, and don't really want any conversation to be unpleasant; typing is too hard.

 

At any rate, I withdraw the suggestion solely on the grounds that the conversation may likely be more argumentative than productive.  Still in all, thanks for taking a minute to respond.

 

(Didn't you have a different avatar a while back?  The "knife ninja woman" from the Perks header in BBB?  Or was that a different Rose?)

 

 

 

Quote

 

Beyond that, it also has the benefit of neutralizing death at no cost. If Jane's character dies and she makes a new one, she is still at the point cap but now this new character lacks all of the history that she would otherwise have been able to draw upon in the campaign. But her friend Joe gets to have all of that knowledge, campaign history, and more points after he dies. It just feels like a recipe for disaster.

 

La Rose. 

 

 

There is a cost: the character lived and fought the good fight for ever how long, and he did it without whatever he could have bought for all those points he sacrificed by pre spending them (or "holding them") for later.  He might get through the entire campaign and never actually use those points.  Seems like sacrifice enough to know a few things when he's resurrected.

 

Though I will also tell you I have no idea if this is any reflection of the source material, as the few times I sampled the source material, I was hugely turned off by it, and haven't made any serious efforts to become familiar with it.

[薔薇語]

On 9/29/2018 at 8:01 AM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

It's pretty clear we handle death and character generation far too differently to continue this conversation.  For us, if starter characters are 500 pts, then a year later you're u to 550, then you die--

 

your new character is a starting character.  500 pts.

 

 

Using this model--

 

your reanimated guy would start at 500 plus whatever he spent on the power.

 

 

It is clear we are different. I normally allow and play in games where we allow new characters to be roughly on par with eachother in points. Akin to an old and popular DnD trope of '1 level below' or 'at the lowest group level'.

 

Even taking the creation concept you imagine, I worry if ir would still cause intra-group concerns:

 

Start 500pts

At 550pts

2 characters die. 

One comes back at 500

The other at 500 plus a bonus pack. 

 

And of course that ignores the potential oddity of the character dying in the first few sessions and now being many points ahead of still living characters. 

 

To me, I worry this could cause meta issues regarding fairness that Hugh's comment of "Why should you  pay points for the privilege of continuing to be in the game with  a new character?" avoids well. All that stuff is fluff for back story and justification for point allocation. 

 

 

Quote

(Didn't you have a different avatar a while back?  The "knife ninja woman" from the Perks header in BBB?  Or was that a different Rose?)

 

I believe there are two or three accounts that use 'Rose' in some manner. I am perhaps the only poster, however, who signs each post with "La Rose" or any derivation. 

 

The most notable other Rose in my mind is, I think, BlackRose. She is actually from France, I believe. 

 

As to my avatar, it has been this for a few years at least becausr I haven't been active for a few years. Came back only because I had a game potentially starting up and wantes some input. Prior to this it was a blue glass rose since the mid 2000s. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 9/27/2018 at 8:19 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I tend to agree with Hugh on this.

 

But here's an option I'd like to run by you, Hugh (I will check for an answer later; I need to get to bed):

 

Suppose the replacement character is built on whatever-the-campaign-limit-for-a-new-character-is _plus_ those points "pre-paid" by the previous incarnation?  Would that provide reasonable value?

 

As your later post notes, this will depend on the group's manner of handling new characters, so if I pay "x" points, I can avoid having a massive power drop if my character dies (short-term pain for long-term gain).  It is definitely paying points to avoid a campaign standard, or part of the group social contract, at that point, but then so is any form of regeneration or healing that comes with resurrection.

 

There seems to be a side issue here on whether the new character has "x" points as pre-defined when the power was purchased, or the same points that the previous character had.  I interpret it to be the latter.  That is, I can't sink all of my points in "when this 500 point character who spent 400 points on a power boost for the new character if the old one dies", rush Character 1 into danger so he croaks ASAP and come back next week with my new 900 point character.  Whatever points he had, and however they were spent, he comes back with those points.

 

I'm not a fan of "death means a new character of a much lower power level than the old character" school of gaming.  This hardly feels like the appropriate result of a heroic character death, and all of the players are at the table to have fun,  not to compete on whose character can survive longest.  It also disincents retiring a character whose story has run its course, and punishes a player who has grown tired of this character and wants a new one.  A "radiation accident" could result in what amounts to a brand-new character.  Viewed from that angle, character death is a form of radiation accident,

 

On 9/28/2018 at 12:18 AM, archer said:

I this idea of a power as a player's way to stay in the campaign at the power level she had before death. She'd be paying 7-9 points up front for the privilege of not losing points after the character death. If the campaign is likely to produce character deaths in significant amounts and the campaign is likely to last a long time, it'd probably be worth the investment.

 

At that point, it starts to feel like a character tax - pay these points or watch those who did gain more powerful characters while your succession of new characters fall further and further behind.

 

FINAL NOTE:  On the "new character has less points", it's funny how often this gets justified with " not to worry - the GM will maintain balance between the characters".  Sounds like the character who came back as a 500 point character in the now 550 point game spent the extra 50 points off-character sheet on some " no conscious control" powers to get special dispensation from the GM.

 

RPGs in general seem to have evolved away from "competitive xp" where I can, through skillful play, luck, or what have you, end up with the most powerful character, to "cooperative xp" where we want all characters on a roughly equal footing because it's about the PCs against adversaries, and we want all the players to be able to contribute to a similar extent.  Note that I am not saying one or the other has the goal that "everyone has fun".  That's subjective, and no one is choosing their style in the hopes some players will have less, or no, fun.  A highly competitive group may find "everyone advances at the same pace" much less fun.

[freakboy6117]

could you do it with duplication? basically, create a dupe at the instant of death use the change duplicate adder lets you adjust complications and alter powers

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, freakboy6117 said:

could you do it with duplication? basically, create a dupe at the instant of death use the change duplicate adder lets you adjust complications and alter powers

 

Potentially. Multiform provides a bit clearer way to proceed given the general lack of remains. 

 

La Rose. 

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, freakboy6117 said:

could you do it with duplication? basically, create a dupe at the instant of death use the change duplicate adder lets you adjust complications and alter powers

 

18 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

Potentially. Multiform provides a bit clearer way to proceed given the general lack of remains. 

 

La Rose. 

 

Focus, Dead Time Lord, Expendable?

[Duke Bushido]

[segerge]

On 10/1/2018 at 8:11 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Focus, Dead Time Lord, Expendable?

 

You made me do this...

 

If we assume the Dead Time Lord is OAF Fragile immobile and make it Extremely Difficult to obtain, that's -3 1/4 of Limitations and lowers the Real Point Cost from 9 to 6.

 

That's almost worth including  

[dmjalund]

but if someone steals the time lord (as you can because its a focus)

 

who are you taking it from?

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, segerge said:

 

You made me do this...

 

If we assume the Dead Time Lord is OAF Fragile immobile and make it Extremely Difficult to obtain, that's -3 1/4 of Limitations and lowers the Real Point Cost from 9 to 6.

 

That's almost worth including  

 

 

I am the last person on earth to get all book-legal (particularly since I don't even understand the last book ), but I have to object:

 

You can't take Fragile.  No matter how you fold, spindle, or mutilate him, he's not going to get any deader.

 

I also have a quibble with "Immobile."  I will, however, accept a STR-Minimum and "Bulky."

 

 

[segerge]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I also have a quibble with "Immobile."  I will, however, accept a STR-Minimum and "Bulky."

 

 

 

Deal