Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. He's a Russian operative threatening USA Democracy I find it a bit ironic to find a super villain who is mirroring the current political unrest in the USA. But it fits. Russia would send a meta operative to destabilize the USA and so we get Professor Possessor. One thing I like about him is it is mentioned he got a mind wipe that went wrong and took out the wrong memories. But did they? That is just what they told him and apparently no one has decided to go in and find if it is really so. This makes for a perfect amnesiac NPC scenario. Maybe they even implanted certain commands to go off at certain times. Or even better, he's been given mental blocks to make him weaker than he really is. Then at a command he's let loose (complete with TK and Pyro powers) and the Deadly Dozen needs to call heroes to stop him. The options are endless. For powers as written he's a straight up mentalist. His most dangerous ability is the AE Sleep (AE mind control), then his Illusions and straight Mind Control. Note his DCV bonus is him making illusions of himself nearby so people miss him. I find this villain more compelling than Electra, as, if his memories are true, he has more justified reasons to dislike USA than Electra.
  3. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the people who post to those threads are among the more motivated of gamers, and more willing to express their opinions. We see generally in society that the most vocal proponents of any position tend to be only a small portion of the people involved. Just based on sales, "generic universal" games seem to be in decline in popularity within the tabletop hobby. It's possible that's a pendulum effect which may reverse at some point in the future. Some things go out of fashion for a while, then return, like vinyl records. But like vinyl, tabletop RPGs facing competition from computer games, will probably never regain the popularity of their heyday.
  4. Today
  5. Congrats Archer .......you win! The twist of him being a mentalist is fantastic. The name on the other hand .... Honorable mention goes out to steriaca, your twin/split personality idea was very interesting.
  6. I don't see Comeliness and Striking Appearance in conflict at all, they're just two different ways to approach the issue -- you could even use them in conjunction if you wanted. SA gives you a mechanic for imposing results on die rolls, COM gives you a relative stat for role playing interaction. They both have their place, and can be used by GM's. My only argument is that it ought to be considered an optional rule rather than flat out banned from the game or deleted. Something GMs can use if they wish, or not, especially given the genre variations.
  7. This is an interesting discussion, full of some great ideas and points.
  8. I could use some assistance for the ANG units. Anyone have some experience and background with said unit types?
  9. In a nod to my favorite cop show, the San Angelo Police Department has been given special "rockers" designating specific precincts and some special units. Here they are.
  10. I've been playing with some award and medal designs and doing mock-ups of uniforms, using Photoshop to add agency patches, etc., to actual uniform shirts. Here are a couple of samples.
  11. In honor of the recent National Police Week, we present the San Angelo area law enforcement agency patches. Enjoy.
  12. Taking your military characters to Southern California for an exercise or deploying them to Southwest Asia? Try these patches. Cheers!
  13. And for those who are wondering, "What would the subdued versions for Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) uniforms look like?" Here you go. Enjoy.
  14. One of the things I've been doing of late is updating some of the military material for San Angelo: City of Heroes Vol. 2. Specifically, the military units at Forgan AFB. Here are the unit patches we created. It's not every unit, but we did logos for the 967th Airlift Wing, the main Groups, and a few of the squadrons that characters would be most likely to interact with in-game. Enjoy.
  15. Since the OP, Christopher R Taylor, is being referenced here, it may be helpful to reproduce his post: Now let's consider the description of the Striking Appearance Talent, from 6E1 p. 116: "A player can describe his character’s appearance and attractiveness however he wants, but the description has no effect in the game. A character can be “one of the most beautiful women in the kingdom” or “so ugly he can only get a job in a circus sideshow,” but that provides no modifiers to Skill Rolls or any other in-game benefit. Characters who do want their appearance to provide a specific benefit in the game can buy this Talent. It provides a bonus to Interaction Skill rolls and Presence Attacks, but exactly which ones depend on how it’s defined. If a character’s defined as “beautiful” or “handsome,” then the bonus applies to many uses of Skills like Charm, Conversation, and Persuasion, and to Presence Attacks that might work better coming from an attractive person (such as, “Won’t you please help me?”). If a character’s defined as “ugly,” the bonus applies to many uses of Interrogation and to Presence Attacks based on fear or disgust. Each +1/+1d6 that can be used against all characters in appropriate circumstances costs 3 Character Points, and must be defined as “attractive” or “ugly” when purchased. If the character’s appearance only benefits him with regard to a limited group of people (for example, only Denebians regard him as attractive, to all other species he’s ordinary-looking), Striking Appearance costs 2 Character Points per +1/+1d6. Characters can purchase Striking Appearance multiple times, thus indicating relative “levels” of attractiveness — a character with +2/+2d6 Striking Appearance is prettier than one with only +1/+1d6. If desired, the GM can establish an “upper limit” on this so characters know what it takes to be “the fairest woman in the land” or “the ugliest mutant in America.” If a character wants to make another character more attractive (or uglier) as an attack, he can do that with a Cosmetic Transform." And from the accompanying sidebar: "The GM determines whether Striking Appearance applies, and to what extent. Not all forms of interaction between characters can be influenced by a character’s attractiveness (or lack thereof). and in many respects “beauty” and “ugliness” are highly subjective; what one NPC finds attractive might not interest another at all." The implications of these statements appear to support a character's appearance functioning in a Hero System game more or less as Christopher describes Comeliness, suggesting that COM does not add something to the experience of Hero gaming that it otherwise lacks. So we once again come down to what a particular game group likes and prefers, rather than an inherent fundamental distinction.
  16. So you're making an assumption, then. I say this because, within that context, he could just as easily have intended to use 2 sentences to indicate books Seduction was not in. I don't read minds … and I try my best not to assume … hence why I seek clarification from the actual author of the text. Your assumption is, of course, noted and appreciated -- but it's still just an assumption. Surreal P.S. Sorry to digress.
  17. Largely true. Tho I think we largely agree too which is funny. Was this thread actually supposed to like...cause something besides that to happen? OP hasn't really come back to "defend" his position. A position I don't think needs defending because, as LL has said, it's a preference. The Great Com Debate is so well known it's called the Great Com Debate or words to that effect. Was this really the thread were we were going to do more than explain our positions and interrogate other positions? The thread were we finally, collectively, *solve* the Com discussion? Have I not been clear that: Folks should solve it how they want to? That's just my opinion though. I don't find replacing COM with SA a big deal. Or COM a big deal. It's all good. Those are jokes to illustrate what I consider the strawman of, "But what about the guy that took Disads but gets a RP benefit when the guy that paid points gets penalties in the same situation?". Which is to provide a counter argument to the idea that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical costs. Like I said: "Hugh seemed to me to be saying that if points don't produce mechanical-combat (aka non-RP because RP is never mechanics, I guess) benefits then those points are wasted." You're saying he's saying that if it's "just" RP then it shouldn't cost points. I'm saying it's fine to spend points on stuff that's "just" RP, even if it has no in-game in-gameplay mechanical effects. IF (if, if, if, as you say (and correctly so as I put in repeated statements that, "IF it doesn't work for you, IF it doesn't fit the play style, IF...") the players want to spend those points. Largely it seems like a preference. Every point MUST serve a mechanical function or it's wasted VS Points are used to describe stuff and so if it furthers the description it's a good use of points. OPs point seemed to be basically that, right? COM doesn't do much, so it's mostly RP, so it's fine, because it doesn't do much, so it's just RP. Right? Versus Hugh's position that COM points are "wasted" 'cause no mechanics. My position is I don't find either position really compelling and that folks should do what works for them. My point to Hugh is that: HE should play how he likes, how his players like, and should spent points how he wants to. If Hugh doesn't want to spent points on COM or background skill or other "roleplaying" things that won't help him mechanically ("wasted" points) in the game...clearly he should do that. It IS hyperbolic to suggest that Hugh is 100% focused on char-op and hates RP and only wants to minmax and smash. That's why it's a joke. Because he doesn't likely actually feel that way. Also this bit from Hugh: " So, if we will throw out the mechanical results of interaction skills (for which people paid points) in favour of role playing, will we also throw out the mechanical results of combat rolls (for which people also paid points) in favour of good role playing? The dice say you are KOd, but you role played determined heroism so well that you are still conscious, not stunned and get +3 OCV and +3 DCs on your attacks. Why not toss all mechanics and resolve everything based on role playing and character description? All that resolution mechanics do is provide an objective methodology for determining success and failure so that we can say "I am playing a serious strategic game" and not admit that this is pretty similar to 5 year olds playing "let's pretend" in the sandbox. " was a touch silly so I figured we'd both reached the point in the internet debate where we begin to disingenuously represent each others positions (even tho we both actually quite understand each others positions) for humorous effect. I wasn't suggesting we do away with mechanics, at any point. Or that we all play Amber Diceless. Or anything like that. I'm not suggesting getting rid of Perfect Pitch or reducing it's costs. I'm saying: "If you don't want to pay for it, don't. Or do it you do. Or if it fits the game, or doesn't fit the game, or It Depends..." and all the usual stuff. Maybe paying 10pts for Striking Appearance could be a disadvantage in some specific scenario ("Kill the pretty one!" or Striking Appearance Reflection or who knows). Maybe it's fine if your PC gets bonus Presence Attack dice that he didn't pay for just because he took a DF: Hideous complication. Even tho that would go against the very fundamentals of the Hero System! Benefits for Disads!!!?? *I* am ok with that in my games. Hugh may not be. You may not be. You guys shouldn't do that then. Same for COM. Again. Only 4 cases I can see. Two of which are basically irrelevant. Playing 5th, like COM: Do nothing. Playing 6th, prefer SA: Do nothing. Playing 5th, prefer SA: Use SA (use COM as a complimentary roll, or, or, or) Playing 6th, prefer COM: Use COM (and SA and, or, and, or) The purpose of the hyperbole is to extend the idea until it becomes ludicrous, right? Hugh's base position: If you spend point they should do stuff, is quite reasonable. The extended position: Points that don't do stuff (real, in-game, mechanical stuff) are "wasted", seems more open to preference. So in contrast my base position is: You can use spent points purely for RP. You can use pure RP to create mechanical effects. The extended position: Why even have points and rules if we're just gonna RP everything seems kinda silly to me. No one has suggested that as far as I can tell.
  18. You're both arguing past each other, so far as I can tell. Hugh's stance is that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical cost. If (if, if, if, if) being pretty or having been a model or being in the FBI or having red hair or etc etc etc don't have defined mechanical effect and can just as easily be negatives, they shouldn't consume character generation resources. They can still be character traits, still be roleplayed, just not at the expense of things with actual mechanical impact. And you've been arguing your views. But now your tone has started to change. You're arguing in bad faith with your portrayal of him in your last post and the hyperbole you use. You're throwing up some pretty blatant strawmen. When you say things like "If, to you, any points not spent on 100% combat related mechanical aspects of the system that are not 100% utilitarian and optimized then...play that way.", you're accusing him of rollplaying to the exclusion of roleplaying. You're committing the Stormwind Fallacy, and using it as an attack on him directly.
  19. Finally - one with actual art but for some reason on green paper....took what we could find then I guess...
  20. If I recall correctly, the king who had it commissioned ran out of money...
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...