badger3k

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others Like "must appear in every comic the company makes"?

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others That's how I see it . It's a note to say that "Hydrophobic Man" doesn't suddenly lose his Fear of Water and replace it with Fear of Dust Bunnies without the GM looking at it and approving it. They could have put a Stop sign next to it, but since it wasn't in the powers section, maybe the writer thought a little note might be better. It could have been written a hundred different ways, but that won't stop someone from reading it any way they want. We've always allowed Disads to be bought or swapped out as the story progresses and they can be shown as a result of the campaign.

Re: DEX vs. CSLs That's the whole issue. I've rarely seen NCM used in superheroic campaigns. I'm not sure of published materials, so maybe I'm outdated here. I just looked at 5er and didn't see anything under the description giving any recommendations. Is NCM common in superheroic games that you have seen? NCM is merely a limiter of the average - people can get up to strong bodybuilder or weightlifter class, but it takes serious effort (ie in CP in game terms) to go above that "muscle ceiling". The only issue I remember coming up was the issue of the more intangibles (Int, Ego). I play it that the NCM is the normal for the race (going with fantasy or SF here, but it can work in supers) and that some characters can achieve more, from training, genetics, whatever - making them "super-human" (or super-elf, etc). That's the definition - above and beyond the abilities of most people. How can you say that Disadvantags should restrict the characters abilities then say that NCM doesn't. It does. It restricts them to 20 points except for 2x the cost, the same as Age. Do you think that Age is also a metagaming tool and should not be a disadvantage? Just curious.

Re: What do you think The problem I see is that two different characters can perform the exact same actions, use the same amount of energy, but one is a workout and one isn't. A Brick whose body uses the energy more efficiently is getting the most out of his oxygen than the other guy. If one uses 100% while another uses 10%, unless Mr 10% has lungs 10x the size of MR 100%, he's not going to last longer. Right, and I say that's meaningless. More efficient is more efficient is more efficient. It should carry through the whole system across. If I bought Mr Brick to simulate this with 0 END on his running, it should carry through. If he expends 0 END he is using 100% of his energy intake as muscle power. More efficiency translates as more efficiency. Why is that hard to understand? That assumes there's a break. At 0 END, there will be no break. I agree that using the 1 END brick there would be, but I should bave stayed with the 0 END on running to keep it consistent. Currently, I have no idea, but as I said, I never used the rules, nor do I see the need in any sense, so they can be as bad as they are and it won't affect my game. So, an END Drain, SFX - fills lungs, using the drowning rules when 0 END is reached is too hard? I hat to be a downer, but there have been times when the hulk was dumped in water and his lung capacity let him go on for a long time, ditto for evacuation in space. Then you had him get hit with gas that had to be breathed in, and even when prepared, he drops like a stone. Cherry picking comic books is poor argumentation - it can illustrate and effect, but trying to figure out consistent rules is practically impossible when you have different writers, different power levels, and dramatic storytelling. Unless you play your game the same way, it's not a great thing to do. I'm surprised you're not aware of this. Still, I have to say I don't see this going anywhere, as it all seems pretty circular. You have some points I agree with, and many I don't, and again, I don't see the need to make a new power that can be done with an END drain. If you want explosive decompression, try NND (does not breath) for a 1-second evacuation of the lungs (even Does Body if you want to be more accurate).

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys? Actually, "The Philosophy of Superheroes" does sound like an interesting book, but (I haven't looked yet) one probably exists and probably isn't as good as one we could come up with here. Maybe we need to start a thread. Gaming (as everything else) brings up ethical and philosophical issues all the time, and can be an effective teaching tool as well. I wish I could convince my principal the utility of RPGs so I could game all day! Well, this is what I find first: http://www.amazon.com/Superheroes-Philosophy-Justice-Socratic-Popular/dp/0812695739 Edit - how come when I sometimes edit a post, instead of "save" it has "vote now"?

Re: DEX vs. CSLs Honestly, I agree - for superhumans. For normal humans, I still prefer the NCM, although that does get into the cost/benefit of the characteristics. That's really what I was trying to get at - the whole "intense training time" limitation cheese was meaningless and you don't need that distinction. I probably could have ended without that last sentence since I said the same in the paragraph above it, but I was trying to type while keeping a psychotic puppy from, well, everything. Ever have a juvenile delinquent dog? Sheesh. Anyway, sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Sometimes I get way too long winded and lose people (and myself).

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others That sucks, to be frank. But it also reflects reality - I've seen racists work side by side with a guy, even seem to be good friends, but then they turn around and say "he's an XXXXXX". It's sad, but that's the way some people think. In a way, the player could have been playing that type of person. But it still sucks and to me runs counter to the goal of bringing the players together and having fun. That's the same thing that I used to see with the "dwarves hate elves" bit, and the old "racial preferences" table. Between that and the alignment system, I saw people who thought they had to play that way. I even saw this (for a moment) in my group when we looked at 4e and one player started reading her race's description and thought that was how she had to be. I took care of that quickly. My experience with Hero was different, maybe in part because the traits were both chosen by the player and better defined (EGO roll to resist, etc). While it can work the same way and straitjacket the player (if they feel that way), they can also work to make the character think creatively. We had a barbarian who hated dwarves, and when the dwarf player saved his life in a spectacular fashion, he had to work a way around it. Instead of the typical "I hate all dwarves but this one", he took the "He is an honored member of my tribe and honorary human, and my blood brother". Other dwarves were still regarded with suspicion and hatred, but it was a start. I think he was planning to buy that off or trade it in for another one eventually, but our group broke up, so I don't know what happened to him.

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys? I agree - the argument I'm proposing relies upon the supposition of one universe, or else it would just be another multiversal theory. For our own world, I don't think it can be proven yet, and I'm not sure it will be, but from my own readings and thoughts on the matter I don't see how. Theoretically, according to a new paper out this year, scientists somewhere have proposed that time travel via wormhole might be possible, but only from and to the moment the wormhole was created. You wouldn't be able to go to a time before the wormhole was constructed. I think this was in a Scientific American podcast in the last few months, and it may have been in the magazine itself. I agree. It creates a lot of problems, but to me it has always been more of a plot device. Either the effects are minor ("heal me" or "give me gold") to major ("Send the arch-lich to Hell!!! or "Stop the Orc Armies from ravaging the forests!"). Either they are of no real consequence to the game world in whole, or else they are a major event that the GM has to work out the consequences. The Transform can work, as a huge cost power, if you can get past the intangibles, and may accurately reflect the true worth of the power. I would never let the characters get anything close to this power on a regular basis or have this as a power. Even in wish-crazy D&D campaigns, they were not dime-a-dozen in any of my games. I think that the normal usage of this as a wish is stated as "you move to a universe with x". That's pretty tacit to me. Considering the nature of wishes as game breakers, I'd consider any LoS issues to be handwaved. To me, those are probably minor issues. Such is the nature of the wish. Sounds interesting. I have not really tried much with it, but I dislike some of the ideas behind the "change the past, change the future" - from the butterfly effect where a dead insect can turn humans into intelligent dinosaurs, to the "great man" theory of history where only certain people or events could change the future and little details were "worked into" the timestream without changing anything (or anything of real value). This is usually the way most stories and shows go, such as the whole Dr Who series. I haven't watched enough of Heroes to see how they handle the time travel issue. And with my group, and time travel will end up with a lot of dead bodies. Way too many fantasy, apocalypse, or war games (and we all tend to be combative or militaristic, to be honest). I'm 180, but I think philosophy more rightly belongs in the NGD, although since I've been delving into philosophy and ethics a bit in the last few years, it is interesting to discuss (even if many people cannot, more is the pity). You have an interesting idea for a series of articles, or even a paper. I can see the PhD Thesis on this (seriously, since it addresses many issues, why not?) I've heard of weirder ones, to be honest.

Re: What do you think To summarize: if EP's spend the most END, their powers ARE more physically taxing, and they have greater reserves of END before they need to stop and catch their breath. That being the case, they WILL logically last longer in an anaerobic environment than someone who recovers more quickly - he is denied that recovery due to the lack of oxygen. Or they are more fit and can take in more oxygen while they are working, and don't need to stop and catch their breath in big gasps. I see what you're saying, I just don't agree with the mechanic for it. No, they have more efficient physical processes that power their muscles, enabling them to strike at full strength continuously. You do see how that works, right? Isn't that what I said? But the Brick doesn't get exhausted. That's the point. With 0 END Str, at most (assuming 6" running and 4 SPD), they could spend 4 END per turn. If they have 40 END and 20 REC, they will not run out of END. Give them 20 and in normal circumstances they won't run out of END. They can keep it up all day and night, if need be. But, according to you, this is the wrong way to go about it? But the Brick would not be exhausted. That's the point. Also, do you seriously think that a character taking a recovery collapses in exhaustion? Hell, with a 4 speed, that's a 3-second break. He'd be fine before he was halfway down. Sorry. Doesn't sit well indeed. The fact is that the drowning rules were meant to try to simulate normal humans, and when you get into different situations (as you will with supers and other powered characters), they break apart. It seems like you hate that I disagree with your pet project, but sorry, I do. Or that the drowning rules could be changed to accommodate a larger variety of situations, or else we have to accept that there will be situations where the rules break down because that's the limitation inherent in the rules. Adding a power to simulate this game effect seems to me a waste of time. Sorry it bothers you so much.

Re: DEX vs. CSLs In other words, tomato-tomato? But not a +0? So in other words, the only difference is what is in the skills, and what is in the physical dexterity? Seriously, since they are the same to you, where's the problem you have? Actually, mindwipe comes to mind, temporary amnesia of the comic book kind, a character that leeches skills, the old "idiocy field" - hell, even the superfriends cartoon where Dr Frankenstein drained Batman's detective skills to put into his robot (well, he drained his intelligence, which in practical terms was the same thing). In fantasy settings such things as curses can easily affect skills. Odd that I never thought of those things before (or course, the mechanics aren't as simple as a characteristic drain, so that helps). About the only thing I would say is that natural aptitude is your characteristics - you can't get more natural than that. If you have training that improves your body to that point, it's characteristics. If you have a high skill level (something that generally includes a conscious mind), then that is skills. Simple. I don't see any point in what you describe, especially because I see no way that "he trains long and hard" is any kind of limitation. "Hey Bob, did Flying-FoxMan train long and hard today" "Yep, sure did" "Ok". Some limitation. Unless you play your heroes every second of the day, or plot them out that way, it's a fake limitation. Giving it +0 is a cop out. Most training lapses take days or weeks for the effects to be really felt...if it is less then that, give him the dependence disadvantage. Then buy the characteristics that way. Make it a meaningful limitation. In 3.5 D&D, as proto-4e they had a martial character who had magic-like abilities that could only be used once per encounter. An easy limitation...but they gave an out - he could recharge them by making an attack. So, he could pretty much recharge his encounter abilities multiple times. A meaningless limitation. Why bother with the pretense? If your game enforces training time, then maybe there's a point to such a gesture, but I can't see that being a meaningful distinction, and if it serves no real game purpose, why bother? If you want to be more realistic, make every character suffer effects of a lack of training, but what that would be, I have no idea. Considering all the superhero games I have run have been pretty much episodic, there is usually ample time for training or pretty much anything else that is needed for normal upkeep. In the end, I just don't see any reason for the distinction.

Re: Questions from a New Hero Wow -- I had to look that up. I don't think this ever happened in any of my games, but it's nice to know. She would get to use the advantage if she kept her active point cost of strength equal to or less than the unmodified active total of the advantaged attack. But the minute she uses more strength, she can't use the HA AP. I never knew that. Thanks.

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

Re: Genre-crossover nightmares Does that go with "What's Eating Raoul" ?

Re: Questions from a New Hero It would still be a 12d6 attack, even if only 4 dice are AP. You'd have to keep them separate, or else pay for the naked advantage for her 40 Str. Might not be a bad idea. Normal person (8 stats)...ahh, never mind. With a 2 PD, either way he's going to be toast...or maybe jelly might be better . Of course, that is why you don't hit norms with full STR attacks...at least not if you want them in one piece.

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys?

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys? Just reverse your thinking. What if the transporter malfunctioned, and those within the field were held in place, while the universe outside the field were moved. The end result is the same, just looking at it from a different perspective. That assumes a few things. First, if you use EDM as a wish, it becomes an matter rearrangement power from the structure of the universe. You can call it what you want, but if you move from one reality to the next whle the rest of the universe is rewritten, then it really functions as both. So what? Second, who says that anyone gets the option to prevent anyone else from getting wishes? Third, you have got to stop thinking of the past as something that still exists in some form. Once it's gone, it's gone. We only have the remnants of the past. There's no going back in this universe, since there is nothing to go back to. People on a distant star see light from 1,000 years ago. They might see the past, but if they could instantaneously teleport to Earth, it would be 1,000 years gone from that place. So a wish that changes the world can indeed change the past by changing the remnants that exist. It is like going back in time and making the changes. If the wish is for the Eiffel tower to be in London, then it will be there. Of course, what powers the wish or enables it to do this...that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax. I haven't really done much in my world with time travel, precisely for the paradox effects. I go with the multiple reality (as used in the FF comics, with the parallel reed richards/thing storyline). It's a lot easier, and if changes are made in the past, it is not the prime worlds past that is changed, it is another world entirely. Of course, whether the characters can return to their world.... Without getting too philosophical (not on this thread), why should we be looking beyond our lives for meaning? What kind of meaning can we derive from matter in another universe? My life, my family, my friends, my dog, my students, my hobbies...all give meaning. It's like trying to get meaning (purpose) out of dark matter. Meaningless. (Sorry, I listened to a BBC eithics podcast on the way home and this kind of topic came up. That's the last I'll mention it on this thread, and my apologies, but I couldn't let this pass without comment and still be me.)

Re: What do you think If you have an END reserve for this purpose, and had a REC not linked to personal REC, would that allow you to take a recovery despite the rules? I wonder if this could make a low-grade oxygen extractor or filter mask - it works, but slowly. Anything more would be life support, of course.

Re: What do you think As it stands, I really don't think the use of END for drowning doesn't represent anything really well. Your average 8 characteristic person has 16 END and 2 SPD. When drowning, they would be able to hold their breath for 8 turns, or about a minute and a half. A little short, but not too bad. Then they lost 1d6 stun per every 12 seconds after that, so they could be out of stun in as little as 36 seconds, or as much as 192 seconds (approx 3.2 minutes). So far, from 2 minutes to nearly 5 minutes. Then they give up their breath and start drowning, dying in about 48 seconds. I don't like it. Add in that the highest END people I have seen have been energy projectors. These are the guys with usually lower physical characteristics than the bricks and martial artists. You can argue all you want that throwing fire is more taxing than punching someone, but I don't see it. Yet they will be the ones who can survive the longest. I can see (and have built) bricks that were 0 END on their STR and had less END because of it, yet can fight all day (especially if they have a higher REC), but the scrawny guy shooting flames can hold his breath longer? Ok, granted his stun and body will be left, but that just means he takes longer to die. Not exactly the same thing. You can say that the STUN part is the character blacking out from lack of oxygen, but it still doesn't sit well with me. (pre-edit - the projector could run a bit more due to his END, but thanks to a lot lower REC, he had no staying power. The brick could outlast him every time - and that assumes he pays END for running). I can see what you're saying, but the way the rules are written...I don't care for them. I'm not sure what would be better, though. I don't see any need to simulate that odd mechanic in other game situations either. But, as we say, YMMV.

Re: Unreal Darwin Awards Is this supposed to mean something? It looks like it's something to do with a WoW character. Does he die in funny ways or something? Edit - I looked at the wikipedia entry. You really have got to be kidding me. That tripe becomes an "internet legend"? Seriously? Sorry, I'll never understand what becomes popular.

Re: What do you think

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

Re: What do you think I was going to say that. The rules for drowning seem to be something intended to allow players to simulate being trapped underwater (or diving deep, or some other dramatic effect). I don't see this as the same situation where someone is trying to kill you by cutting off your air. One is a lot more forceful than the other. Personally, I see the problem is on the suffocation rules - they should be rewritten (I'd go for stun damage right away, no END cost, no Rec until they get air). The current rules reward those with huge END reserves (in a Fantasy setting, the scrawny mage could hold his breath longer than the brawny fighter, for example). (I'm going by what I read here - I haven't looked it up myself) I've never see a problem with the rules as written, and see no need to try to emulate the drowning rules. For most common effects, NND attacks fit the bill, in other cases, maybe a drain or suppress. For the "filling his lungs" - that does seem more like an NND KA; Same thing for forcefully removing the air from around somebody, especially if it happened in one second. I'm not sure why you'd want to build a power that takes minutes to work. I can see why you'd want to build such a power. Anything that prevents you from taking any recoveries is very powerful, even if it does nothing else. To me that says it should be expensive.

Re: DEX vs. CSLs Instead of making them drop NCM as a disadvantage, you'd allow them to take a limitation, for no value, that penalizes them in no possible way (unless their 'training regimen' came up in game time), that let's them circumvent the disadvantage they themselves took? Wow. That makes absolutely no sense whatseover.

Re: Genre-crossover nightmares Totally uneven - a nigh-invulnerable hero vs a guy whose energy sword has never done any damage to anything alive. Ever.