whitekeys

Part of the point of having a GM is so that we can come up with solutions like this, once the mystery has been laid out and we've done the "legwork". Sometimes the solution is just to hammer a few Nazi craniums, which is what another character is good at. Which is a reason for the supers to be in a team with a mix of talents: they can act on a wide range of potential solutions. But  just saying "My Occult roll means his magic curse bombs are negated by holy water" isn't the way forward. It negates the need for the legwork that others can and have to do, for one.

This I agree with, though problems can arise in many different ways.

Certainly, if I'm the GM, I know far more about what's really going on in the wider world, and why, and how, than my players do

With respect to your games and style (not a criticism), if it's make-believe, who says you know? 

I realize that's a stupid question because, obviously, that's the way your games are set up. That's just a problematic statement for me, personally. As soon as someone says they "know" something, or are convinced, about an imagined world, then there are control issues for me. That's why I don't set my games up like that, and mostly the reason why I haven't get along well in other games set up like that. 

... it's down to them to flesh out their world. 

The perceived ownership of the setting is problematic for me, and, I believe, tends to result in such instances as I previously mentioned where GM's say "Nah, you can't do that." I realize that's probably the standard, for the GM to create the world, but my games always begin with a conversation between all people around the table, coming to some kind of understanding about how the world is supposed to function. You make lots of other great points in your post.

Regarding the example you gave, I have a question. Suppose the GM had not necessarily anticipated the solution struck by the Science-super. How would you perceive the GM's hesitancy to allow such a plan to be executed? Of course, this is a line of questioning heading towards "Whats to stop me from making up those kinds of "solutions" all the time?" where, it may not be as obvious for each problem presented by the GM. 

SFX is all: it could just be a single strike mechanically that looks like a whole bunch of strikes that are blocked, or simply missed.  You actually only make one roll, but you can not necessarily map what happens in the game reality to how the rules express that reality.

 

As to why the cow may attack twice, perhaps there is a held action involved somewhere...

I respect this answer but I don't like it =P

In theory, I totally agree with you: that's how I would play it. But for the task at hand, that leaves too much up to special effects, and takes some of the excitement and the verisimilitude out of casting these has HERO encounters. Of course, they aren't really HERO encounters, but never mind that!

One thing you could try would be to rebrand luck to 'genius!'.  So every time the GM lets you, you can roll 'genius!'and then instead of being lucky, you can make statements about the game world as long as they don't blatantly contradict what's happening.  Similar games (FATE, Savage world, etc) allow for this sort of player editing of the world state, but Hero doesn't have any of this sort of mechanic built in.

 

Another possible rebranding of luck is 'I allowed for that in my plan!'.  So you buy, say, 5d6 of planning for 25 points.  And then when something surprising happens, you can roll your 5d6, and for every 6 you get, you can say something about how your plan allowed for this surprise.

That's so interesting you mention this, Crusher Bob, because that is, in a manner of speaking, my modus operandi constantly, when I play and GM. It's one of the reasons I asked this question because I wanted to know how open other gaming groups were to the idea that players can take creative control of their environment just as much as the GM can. I feel like highly intelligent characters in one instance of player control coming up more frequently. For example:

GM: There's a massive problem that's going to kill a lot of people.

Player: Well, if my calculations are correct, we should be able to get this and that, attach it to the other thing, and it should save the world. (Without rolling, necessarily).

...as opposed to a character who might have had to shake down someone else for the information, a character who was more capable of just evacuating everyone really quickly, or or a character more capable of punching the problem into submission.  It's like... the idea that highly intelligent characters "know" stuff that gives them the authority to come up with pseudo-plausible solutions to problems. I would be crestfallen, to say the least, if I got "Nah, you can't do that" from the GM. It's happened.

Gweenies?

 

Anyways, there powers should not be a joke. The joke should be them misunderstanding human culture.

 

For example, they might think that this planet, much like there planet, is runned as a one world dictatorship. And they don't understand fiction and advertising, as such things almost don't exist on there world. So a scouting party lands and leaves. Then they come back to attack all the McDonald's on the planet, thinking that Ronald McDonald is this planet's dictator.

What the joke "should" be, is whatever the OP wants it to be. We're here to give helpful advice, not convert people to our own way of thinking.

That being said, don't forget zoot suits! The 1930's MUST have zoot suits.

They could be led by someone who is smart, but the execution of plans goes horribly wrong based on a few, seemingly-minor misunderstandings. I think that's a pretty common trope. Incompetent cronies.

They could be doing something which they themselves believe to be secondary to their attempt to conquer and not particularly harmful to the world, but for humans would be terrible or devastating. For example, capturing humans and making them do a range of awful things. So, all the while they're attempting to conquer the world by buying up all the stuffed animals and attempting to mind control people with them (Charm, 6-), but in the background, they've kidnapped children and are "sucking the fountain of youth" out of them in order to sustain their power source.

Maybe it becomes apparent that their techniques are useless on humans, but that they plan to move onto another world where their abilities will be much more devastating. Now the PCs have to try and stop them tactfully because they are essentially an unarmed foe.

The links are great guys, thanks so much. Especially the ones from Powerlisting.wikia with the reference to characters.

You can try reading here, but that is mostly comments about writing intelligent characters.  Also realize that part of what you may be asking about is the 'social stereotype' of intelligent characters, not 'actual' intelligence.

 

So, for example, we may note that knowing how to win fights by knowing where to make your character move and who to hit first and how to get the other people at the table to follow along would generally make your character good at combat, but has nothing to do with what's written down on your sheet. 

 

So, are you asking something similar about player vs character intelligence?  If the character is supposed to know something (like who the guy to hit first in fights is) but the player hasn't the slightest idea, then what do you do about that?  Some things can be easily handled by skill rolls, like, say knowing how to fix automobiles.  You can just say, I roll my auto mechanic skill and do the best fixes with the time and tools available.  But people tend to start making frowny faces when you try to do the same thing with stuff that is normally much more tied to player actions (like social skills, or what actions to take in combat).  Alas, that quandry has spawned a million arguments.  So the best advice I can give you is have a discussion with the other players about how your table is going to handle that sort of thing.

Yes, it's more of about player vs character knowledge. But not knowledge that would be meta-game knowledge, I'm talking esoteric information that your character is familiar with but no one else is, including people in real life.

I'm aware that it doesn't pose a hindrance to the flow of a role playing game to lack some tidbit of knowledge, like how the Lorenz Transforms are supposed to be calculated in Special Relativity. You can ignore this paradox by simply rolling the dice to determine success and stating "My character knows how to do this." But I feel there are more creative ways of tackling that issue, it's more gamey that way and less role playey in my opinion. I wanted people to comment on how they view that, not necessarily how they overcome it. 

Furthermore, I also strongly object to the idea that the GM is supposed to fill in all those gaps, as was suggested by a previous comment. I feel like that gives all the creative license to the GM, when the players are just as creative, not to mention the increased burden of having to improv on the spot. I feel like the players become actors who don't know their lines or their roles. 

I feel like if you're going to write a character who is familiar with esoteric information of some kind, you should have something to say on the subject. And that goes beyond esoteric information, as well. It's your schtick, after all. That's a little bit like building a combat-heavy character but not bothering to describe any of your combat maneuvers... you just roll the dice and say "I hit". Thoughts on that?

I thought I was being funny when I said "real life fictional". I think it's a funny phrase 

But what I meant was characters from fictional works, comics, movies, etc. as opposed to characters that you've created for your own role playing games. Sorry for the confusion. I will edit original post.

Three requests:

1. Are there currently any guides, here or elsewhere, on how to play/create highly intelligent characters, or characters that have access to information that other characters do not?

2. Can you list any fictional characters such as described above? Sleuths, detectives, savants, highly evolved aliens, or characters who regularly use technology to aid them, like techies. Not ones from your own role playing games.

3. How do you view the apparent role playing paradox that a character knows something a player does not? Not in regards to the narrative story, but in regards to their own character's knowledge. For example, a character that can fix internal combustion engines should be able to answer the question "What parts do you need to fix it?" but the player may lack the lingo. It's also not something the GM would necessarily provide with a skill roll since the GM may lack that same knowledge. 

I can't see there being much effect on society. As with most things in this diverse culture we live in, some people are really into some things, where others are not.

In America, I see a market in people who already own guns, and for the same reason they own and carry a gun, they own and wear POW. In Canada, I see no such market.

Ya, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around some of the scenes. 

For example, in the Kung Pow scene 0:51, the Cow gets in about 12 kicks in a row, all of which are blocked by the Chosen one. Is that a special effect of a Multiple Attack missing on the first try, so all subsequent kicks also miss? Or does the Cow have some crazy SPD/ Marital maneuvre/ etc? The Chosen one should go first automatically in the next Segment in which both have a Phase. But the Cow gets another kick. Soooo.... The Chosen One's SPD is much lower, correct?

Quick thought: Charles X wants to coordinate a mental attack with Psylocke.

 

Psyclocke has a high DEX, Charles does not.  Both have a decent INT though.  They both have mental powers and the ability to sense mental powers.

 

Should it be difficult for the world's premier telepath to coordinate an attack with another telepath?

 

Let us assume that he has not bought Teamwork and nine skill levels in it, shall we?

 

Would it be OK to use INT rather than DEX for the Teamwork roll?

 

OK, now Charles wants to coordinate with Wolverine.  W does not have mental powers or the ability to sense them and has a very high DEX.

 

This is going to work against them.  Wolvie can not sense when the mental attack is going to land, so has to go ahead and attack and hope that Charles manages to get in at the right time.  The fact that Wolvie is so quick might make it more difficult to coordinate: it would probably be easier to coordinate with Colossus as he is slower and hits more predictably.

 

How would you deal with that?  Simply not allow it?  Have just Charles make a teamwork roll, albeit at a penalty?  Have them both make a roll (with a penalty)?  How would you decide the penalties?

In my last post, it became clear the the typical effects of capital "C" Coordinate are to combine STUN totals to increase the chances of Stunning a target. This cannot be done, therefore, with attacks that don't do STUN Damage. The regular kind of coordinating, merely "happening at the same time", can be done whenever and with whatever. So, you would need to stipulate exactly what effect you were going for in each example. Anyone wouldn't have a problem with attacks happening at the same time, but the effects are a different story.

1. Furthermore, Teamwork is a skill typically used to capital "C" Coordinate, but is not absolutely necessary. You pose the question as if INT can substitute, but no substitution is necessary. The GM determines what characters need to do in order to coordinate. Otherwise, 6e2 152 suggests that mentalists should use EGO to simulate their ability to coordinate with each other. Probably a better option, anyway, since it will likely be higher than INT for a mentalist character, but INT should be acceptable, too. 

2. Again, to what effect are they coordinating? The GM determines what they need to do in order to Coordinate: Teamwork is not absolutely necessary. I like Surrealone's suggestion of Charles using a Held Action, but it could happen like this: Charles yells "Now!" and Wolverine must make a DEX roll to react sufficiently and with accuracy given the surprised nature. The book rules that Physical attacks cannot be capital "C" Coordinated with Mental attacks for the purposes of increased STUN totals, for a reason that I suspect has something to do with each attack happening in a different realm of reality. But they can still happen at the same time. 

Common sense, dramatic sense, game balance, GM permissions, etc. But I don't see any need for penalty. They're still acting in a normal fashion, and each should be able to do what they need to do, whatever that winds up being.

Kung Pow,

Not particularly experience with this sort of thing, but this seems like something I would disallow as a GM. I can't seem to wrap my head around the justification for obtaining the bonuses from a Martial Arts Maneuver if its being done at Range with Telekinetic Strength. I picture the Telekinesis being invisible, providing no opportunity for a foe to properly defend itself... that's already enough of a bonus, I think. Maybe when I consult the books, I'll have a better answer, but my PDF program is not responding.

I would allow STR to be combined. I would total them separately, but I think it depends on how you see that working... if the TK is pushing the arm, or if they're two separate attacks hitting the same point.

This would be something I would expect hope my players would play along with, realizing, for example, that the first encounter with the ultimate baddie shouldn't end in victory - it needs to be teased out. And go with that.

I'm a do less, be more, kind of guy though 

Dry erase mats are cheaper and will last longer due to the reusable nature...

I agree. I don't like disposable things in general. I wouldn't feel comfortable spending that much on something that is essentially waste. You could easily go through those sheets in a few weeks if you have more than 1 encounter in a session.

I see your point about other characters moving the Entangled character. And while that may have not been enough to convince me that special effects, common sense, and dramatic sense, wouldn't give us a clear idea about how that should work, dmjalund's comment about the cost is hard to argue with.

However, I'm still confused about the Knockback then. Since attacking an Entangled character means that the Entangle takes damage first, then by the time damage is getting through to inflict Knockback, the Entangle should be destroyed at that point (depending on special effects). It seems like a moot question to me.

I reworded the question to Steve and included some other special effects of Entangle. We'll see what he says!

If the special effect of my Entangle is a glue-bomb, spider web, melting someone's boots to the ground, or melting the ground under them so they sink and then solidifying it again, is it really necessary to purchase Clinging UAA Linked to the Entangle in order for the GM to rule that the character can't be moved without breaking the Entangle? Doesn't the special effect cover this game effect?

Regarding Knockback, the rules state that when attacking an Entangled Character, the Entangle takes damage first, up to its PD+BODY. Is it not a moot point whether the character takes Knockback while Entangled, since, once BODY damage "gets through" to the character in order for Knockback to be calculated, the Entangle has been destroyed at that point? Advantages aside, why would Clinging UAA Linked to Entangle be necessary to prevent characters from taking Knockback?

Seems like AE 1m would do it; that way you and what is nearby is entangled.  Otherwise, you only wrap up your target like a cable around their arms and legs.

Again, dependent on special effect. Arms and legs are wrapped by default, but the character is also totally immobilized and at 0 DCV by default as well. There's no need to add the Area of Effect Advantage if you want a character to become immobilized. 

If my Entangle is a Triggered spiderweb, and my target falls into it, how can the GM justify allowing the character to move locations if the web is anchored to the walls? 

If my Entangle is a freeze gun that encases people in a block of ice, how can the GM justify allowing the character to wriggle around as if only tied up with cables?

Question, if Entangles don;t stick you to a surface, what is stopping a superman-type flyer from flying while entangled?

The effects of Entangle are heavily dependent on the special effect. The answer provided by Hyper-Man is only correct if the special effect of the Entangle allows flight. Grundy, after all, isn't anchored to the ground*. The example from the book is handcuffs: a character with handcuffs can fly around but it doesn't free him from the handcuffs. If the special effect of your Entangle is a force field, like the one trapping Superman at the beginning of Justice LEague Unlimited Season 2 Episode 25 "Starcrossed", then you can't fly around. 

All of this is in the rule book**. 

*The most salient difference between a Grab and an Entangle, other than that one is a Power and one is a Maneuver, is that Grabs are defined as only wrapping legs or arms, while Entangles warp all four by default (again, also dependent on special effects).

**In some cases, the character may retain the ability to move, but remain entangled when he does so. For example, a character with Flight could fly while handcuffed - but this wouldn't free him from the handcuffs, he'd just take them with him. But if his Flight had the Gestures Limitation, he couldn't fly, since the handcuffs prevent him from making the proper gestures. (6E1 215)

It seemed that the OP was about trying to limit the number of times an attack could be used by using the LTE rules. Maybe I misinterpreted. I started to say that I couldn't see much use in the whole idea, but it would make sense for an attack or other power that tires the character out for longer than just taking a recovery. They can use this (these) power(s) as much as they want, but they'll reach a point where they're just tired and have to rest for quite awhile instead of just a few seconds.

The latter is correct.

"What's your name, anyway?"

“I was not named by my creator."

"...What am I supposed to call you, then?"

"If you were to follow the human protocol of referencing untitled poems and lyrics by their first line, then my name would be ([init:001]-[defcrit remnant]) as that is the first line of my code. Otherwise, I have been given many names, titles, and epithets from the Autochthons of this world. Would you like me to list them?"

"Um... Sure?"

"Some in the geographic territory known as South America refer to me as Salvar. Others call me Kynnyksella. Still more call me Hypereos and Pelastus. I have been called Christ, a Saviour, a Messiah, and many permutations of these titles. I have been called the Codebody and the Codebeing. Knowers of my creator, the Oracle of Rhodes, call me ORC*, or simply Remnant. Perhaps you will determine a title for me yourself."

* Oracle's Remnant Code 

How about a Limitation that goes something like "X4 End, only for counting toward LTE"? Just a thought.

In order to achieve what?

One for you to play imaginative license with is the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog. Sure it looked boring in the movie, but when you consider that this was a battle between two deity level beings, the real fight was likely not on the same plane as the poor mortal characters, so it looks like they just stood there staring at each other, when in the overall reality....all hell was breaking loose.

True, and then there was the whole falling down to [that place under middle earth] which wasn't depicted in great detail, but we're to understand that they fought each other the whole way down.