OddHat

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Yeah' date=' like I haven't heard that before. [/quote']

 

Still, it must be nice to hear it from someone you have yet to sleep with.

Re: The Atlantis city-ship from Stargate:Atlantis -> vehicle or base?

We talk a lot on the boards about mechanics vs special effects. You could make a case that this is "Player Control" vs "GM Control".

If the Players in a Stargate game can freely choose to fly the city of Atlantis, how it gets statted up makes a difference. The players should pay for it, and in exchange should have a reasonable expectation that the GM will let them use it (within the bounds of whatever limits are placed on the mechanics used). If the GM decides when and if the city can fly, and it will only ever come up once or twice in a campaign, how it gets statted up isn't that important. The players shouldn't have to pay for it if they don't get a say in when it's used.

In the "Once in a campaign" case, I'd be willing to let players fly the city with a well roleplayed use of the Power: Alien Science skill, and woudn't likely bother to write it up at all unless I needed to run a space battle.

Re: The Atlantis city-ship from Stargate:Atlantis -> vehicle or base?

I think then that a Base that can move would have to buy multiple Locations then.

Sure, if the GM rules it that way. Or he might just charge for one location (probably the most expensive), then rule that the base loses the benefits of that location when it moves. Certainly if the players want the benefits of their new location, they should pay for them.

The House in "Up" would not immediately get electricity and running water back when it landed. Arguably it would still be in Vehicle form. Alternatively, it could be back in Base form, but hadn't yet paid for the location and therefore wouldn't be hooked up to any external services.

Re: The Atlantis city-ship from Stargate:Atlantis -> vehicle or base?

What can a Base do that a Vehicle can't?

Depends on the base and the vehicle. The House in "Up" had electricity and running water; once the balloons turned it into a vehicle, the Vehicle form was no longer connected to the power grid or water pipes. So, it lost a few powers (Images defined as electric lights, HRRH defined as a TV with cable, any Internet access it may have had if the old man was using a cable or dial up modem, Life Support defined as Air Conditioning / Heat / a Fridge, etc.).

If the Base and Vehicle forms share all stats, powers and disads, no need to write it up as a Multiform.

Re: Mind control question

There is a mechanism for dealing with this...the guidelines suggest a 1 xp penalty for "playing out of character". Meta-gaming of this sort is precisely that...it breaks the illusion of role-play' date=' ticks off the GM, and lowers the "fun level" of the game, imo.[/quote']

 

Or you could just use Mind Control to induce Hunger with the purpose of forcing a character to take an action, which is why Emotion Control has always been built with Mind Control as a base. "Mind Control Induced Hunger" is just a special effect for the mechanic (Mind Control) of forcing someone to do something.

Re: The Atlantis city-ship from Stargate:Atlantis -> vehicle or base?

Oh, and the House from "Up"? Base with a Multiform to Vehicle. In Base form it has access to powers (electricity, running water, phone lines, heat, air conditioning, etc) that it can't access as a Vehicle.

Re: The Atlantis city-ship from Stargate:Atlantis -> vehicle or base?

Along similar lines' date=' would you stat up an RV that rarely gets gasoline to be a base (however small)?[/quote']

 

What is the RV's purpose in the campaign? If the players are regularly going to be driving it around (even if getting fuel is a big deal), it's a vehicle. If the players just use it as a place to sleep and store their stuff, and the GM feels they should pay points for it, it's a really cheap base.

Re: Mind control question

I agree with ShadowEater. "Target remembers the activity and thinks it was his own idea" seems to indicate that it is possible for the target to believe he was hungry, horny or tired. Having him remember "well, I wasn't hungry, but I decided to eat a cheeseburger, then I decided to have sex with a person I found completely and utterly repulsive and after that I forced myself to pee despite having no physical need to do so" seems inconsistent with the spirit of remembering the activity and thinking it was his own idea.

 

A lot like rules lawyers who, when Mind Controlled to "attack your teammate" asserts he may attack with only 1d6 of his 15d6 Blast because the Command was not specific as to the level of power to be used, or that his 5 STR Mentalist commanded to "close and attack that target" will run at his 3" velocity (as he is lame) to Punch his teammate, rather than close with his 40" of Flight and use his array of mental powers, for the move through for the same reasons. Which leads, inevitably, to the same type of extensive legalistic wording applied to Wishes in many D&D games, replacing the excitement, cinematics and heroism of the game with the thrills of contract law debates.

Exactly so.

I suspect that if the GM played along and said "Fine, you become incredibly, unbearably hungry" (due to a Mental Illusion) the same player would refuse to leave his post and go look for food, claiming that there's nothing in the Mental Illusions rules explicitly forcing him to do so.

Re: Mind control question

Again, I'm not saying that you as GM can't let MI give someone a sensation of being Hungry; I'd allow it. The Mechanic works fine. However, if you want someone to actually act on that feeling of hunger, the Mechanic that makes more sense is Mind Control. Sure, there is crossover, and both Mind Control and Mental Illusions can achieve some (not all) similar effects though at different levels on their respective charts. Still, if you want someone primarily to Act, Mind Control is the natural mechanical fit. Acting because you're hungry / tired / thirsty / whatever is just colorful phrasing.

Re: Mind control question

Allowing MI to make someone "feel hungry" is a GM's call. Feeling hot or cold, sure; feeling, touching or tasting a Cheeseburger, no problem. Mental Illusions has no level for inflicting physical needs like Hunger, Thirst, Lust, etc; if you're allowing it at all, it's under the umbrella of Sensory Changes or Illusion Causes Stun (the theory being that if you can cause Pain, you can cause Hunger). Note that I'm not saying that as a GM you can't say "Hot, cold, pain, hunger, whatever"; I'm just pointing out that it makes no more sense to say you can make someone hungry with Mental Illusions than with Mind Control. To me it makes less, as MI is a mechanic all about creating an image or sensation that seems to be external and Mind Control is a mechanic about actually causing someone to do something.

Re: Mind control question

There's a tendency, especially in board discussions but also sometimes in games, to get to lawyerly in interpretting what Mind Control and Mental Illusions can and can't do. More so I think than with most other powers, and probably because there are few things Players hate more than looking foolish or losing control of their characters. "You feel hungry; go get something to eat" sounds like a perfectly appropriate use of Mind Control to me; it's primarily compelling the target to take an action, not primarily compelling him him to feel a sensation. "Feeling Hungry" is trivial, and works fine as a special effect.

Of course, I remember flame wars over whether having a Ninja pop up, hit someone and vanish was an appropriate special effect for an Energy Blast. These long arguments are part of Hero.

Re: Mind control question

Which is a perfect rationale for buying Mental Illusions to make all of those things happen.

 

With Mind Control, you could give commands like "go into the bathroom and pee", "eat some food", "twitch your right leg", "go try to have sex with that person over there", "go to sleep", etc. But making them feel a full bladder, hunger, pain, horny, sleepy, etc., is Mental Illusions. The latter are physical sensations, not emotions.

 

Mind Control is a Power, a mechanic. "Someone who can take over another's mind via psionics, brainwashing, hypnosis, etc." is special effects that would be handled by multiple Powers, among them Mind Control and Mental Illusions. The rulebook is explicit that Mind Control covers actions and Mental Illusions covers sensory changes.

There's room for creative interpretation by the GM. "Target will believe statements that directly contradict reality under direct observation" (6thEd, p.253) is right there in the rule book. Some things will fit better as Mind Control, some as Mental Illusions, but a given GM has space to make that call without going outside of the rules as written.

Re: The Atlantis city-ship from Stargate:Atlantis -> vehicle or base?

Base with a movement power if I didn't expect it to get involved in space battles; Vehicle if I thought I'd want the players using it in combat.

Re: Mind control question

There is some crossover between Mind Control and Mental Illusions, as with many other powers. I have no problem with Mind Control used to say "You think [Object] is beautiful" without actually changing the way the object looks; Mental Illusions would be used to actually change the object's appearance. Going the other way, a Mental Illusion can trick a target into attacking an ally by changing the way that ally looks, or even (with a good enough roll) convince the victim he's being held by someone who is forcing him to take some physical action (step through a doorway, stay still, whatever); Mind Control would do roughly the same things, using different means.

This is even built into the Mind Control Effect Table: Mind Control +20 achieves "Target will believe any statement that doesn't contradict strongly held beliefs", and +30 achieves "Target will believe statements that directly contradict reality under direct observation". 6thEd, p.253

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Her making good on that promise

Yup, they talk a good game, but as soon as you mention the married thing most of them back down. Um, then there are those few that don't; those I run away from, because in some ways I'm kind of a traditionalist.

Re: A Thread for Random Musings

A young would be pickpocket bounced off of me today and onto the sidewalk. He smiled, apologized, got up and walked away. He got nothing; I'd blocked him in time to keep his hands off of me. I felt foolish and very angry. There was nothing else I reasonably could have done. Now I'm feeling stressed out.

Re: Campaign tools need editorial review by interested parties.

they could have nicknamed HIM the profesor

Well, yes, they did.

Re: Campaign tools need editorial review by interested parties.

I made a few changes' date=' including the decision to make the Ancient Ones aquatic (or at least amphibious) and changing the picture to something rather more slug-like. There are lots of other tweaks, including some revision of poor, troubled Roy Hinkley's biography.[/quote']

 

When I was doing Roy Hinkley in my WN timeline, the running joke was that almost every movie or TV show the actor (Russell Johnson) appeared in was something that The Professor had lived through. This was easy, as Russell Johnson had a long string of Scientist roles in B movies and TV shows.

Re: A Thread for Random Musings

Spent a great weekend with Hooligan X and the lovely Vicky X; gaming, hanging out, and learning the darkest secrets of CT. Thanks, Xs!

Re: Musings on Random Musings

...I thought you were still talking about compassion at that point. Which explains the confusion. I'm sorry for getting on your case about it. I *Hate* confusion.

No worries.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

...What, I'm not supposed to disagree on compassion not being part of group identity?

 

It's called "honest confusion". If he's not saying what I think he's saying, I'd like to know what he meant.

I did not say that compassion was part of group identity. If you're interested in what I actually said, re-read the full comment. If not, fair enough.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

@Narf - I never said it did. What I'm typing does not appear to be what you're reading.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

That last sentence makes the most sense.

Does it? And what is it about the rest of the musing that fails to make sense to you?

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Then I don't understand the purpose of your post.

As Von said, the post's purpose was to muse.

As to the post's meaning, it meant what it said. The brain has a limited capacity for emotion, including "Love"; "Love" here used in the sense of both Infatuation and Attachment. When people talk about Loving All Mankind, they're at best describing compassion; as compassion also has physical limits (your mirror neurons can only fire so much for so long in response to stimuli), the claim is still more an expression of an ideal (and an expression of group identity) than anything else. If not backed by action, claims of "love" become empty noise.

Re: The Classic Justice League starting members on 350 points

It always depends on the source material you choose to accept into your personal canon. Never read that fight; was GL "stronger" or did he use kryptonite to overcome Supes? If he was stronger, I'd put that down to the same Evil Makes You Stronger rule that lets Superboy Prime smack around or kill Lanterns casually.