badger3k

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

In my very first introduction to Hero System (for a Superherp game)' date=' I was exposed to Character Disdvantages in such a way (system-wise) that the idea forever changed how I think about characters. If there had been no CP attached to them, that connection would have taken longer, and may have never been made. Before Hero System, I never made a character that had any truly negative aspects.[/quote']

 

I've noticed that more and more games are having some kind of flaws/disadvantage system where the players get points of some kind for taking them. The 7th sea system comes to mind, and (naturally) Hackmaster. I think there was a western game with something similar. Ok, so three (maybe) games. Other games had random tables to get bonuses or penalties, Arduin comes to mind, and Rolemaster had tables (they had tables for everything, but I don't remember one like Arduins' Bust size table). I think more games had things like that.

 

I think the idea that flaws were worth something made them a starting point. We had characters pick up (non-point) flaws during the campaigns, but at least Hero (and the random roll games) provided a basis for further development. At least, IMO.

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

It also prevents the character from having The Disad Du Jour.

Like "must appear in every comic the company makes"?

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

You could also read it the other way. In our games we always treated it as "Don't do it without the GM's permission." (which is a little more awkward to read)

 

This prevents situations like, "Oh, didn't I tell you? My DNPC: Sgt. Davis is now a Psych Lim: Distrusts Police." Keeps the GM in the loop.

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

It's that caveat that disturbs me, and it depends on how one defines "superhumans". If the game is Superheroic, all of the characters are "superhuman". They might be superhuman by virtue of being mutants, aliens, or enhanced humans changed by cosmic rays, superserums or what have you. Or they might be "normal humans" whose personal drive, dedication and diligence have allowed them to surpass the limits of 99.9% of the population - without leaving the realm of "ordinary humanity" in the process.

 

That last is the Batman or Tony Stark type. He won't show up on a Mutant Detector or a Superhuman Gene DNA test. He's, by SFX, a "normal human". But he is still a PC in a superheroic campaign. He has 350 points. No normal person (as opposed to "normal human" sfx) can do what he can do. Normal people don't make the kind of scientific advances - in rapid succession -that Tony Stark has made. Maybe teams of "normal humans" do. But compare Einstein's accomplishments to those of Tony Stark, or Bruce Lee to Batman, and it's pretty clear where the realm of normalcy stops. It's well before what we accept as "normal human" sfx in a Superheroic (and even some Heroic) games.

 

To me, NCM should never have made its way to the Disadvantage list. It's got some possible use as a campaign parameter - ALL characters operate under this limitation. But "here's some points for paying double for some abilities" is irrational. Bricks don't get 10 points for having mental powers cost double. Martial artists don't get a disadvantage for having defenses above 12 cost double. GadgetMan doesn't get to take "non-focused powers cost double" for 20 points. Why can't my character with a disparate power set take "no elemental controls allowed" for 5 points? Why should characters who don't buy stats above 20 (without some circumvention mechanic like a limitation - and avoiding NCM using OIF is no less cheesy than avoiding it with the Intense Training -0 limitation, or Samson's "not if he cuts his hair" limit)get 20 points of disadvantages for building their character to their concept?

 

Disadvantages should restrict the character's abilities and actions. They should not restrict the manner in which the player spends points to develop the character. You don't get a disadvantage for not buying mental powers, or high defenses, or EC's, or non-focused powers, or high characteristics. The "benefit" of not buying certain abilities is that you get to spend the points on other abilities - that's the basis of a point buy system.

 

I find most "normal humans" in a Supers game are mentalists - you can get by with 20 Ego. You can buy extra SPD "only with mental powers". So someone who's as abnormal as the rest is a "normal human". How does that make sense? Because NCM is not "You are a normal human" mechanically. It is "you pay double if you buy your stats above this level" mechanically. It's not a concept, it's a metagaming tool.

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

As I understand it' date=' people tend to exert energy when drowning, not freeze up.[/quote']

 

Depends on the situation. Surely you've seen the mythbusters do the special on getting out of a flooded car. All you have to do is sit calmly and wait until it was full, then exit with no problem. So how much energy expended is dependent on the situation. When I remember drowning, I wasn't doing very much at the time, so my energy loss should have been minimal.

 

I don't see PS 12 as "stopping to catch their breath in big gasps". Taking in more oxygen seems to me to be a function of recovery, not of endurance. Take away the oxygen and the recovery stops. A sprinter would probably buy a bit of extra END to get that big push for a short period. A marathoner would spend his points on REC to last the long haul.

 

Yup. And those more efficient muscles mean that use of those physical processes isn't giving them a real cardio workout, so they don't develop higher END or REC, so they have no enhanced ability to maintain consciousness when deprived of oxygen.

 

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.

 

I believe I mentioned "running full out", which I defined as "pushing your running". That's not 1 END per phase, it's 12. He's out of END before he completes the first turn. And he took 4d6 STUN. He recovers 20 END and gets all his stun back in PS 12. With 20 END, he takes 14d6 STUN in the next turn to keep running. That's not all coming back in the second PS 12. [He sure is in a hurry!] Eventually, he runs out of Stun and collapses in exhaustion.

 

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?

I note that a normal human moving at 6" running will also never run out of END. With his 8's across the board, he has 16 END and a 4 REC. His 2 SPD will mean he spends 2 END per turn. He could have a 4 SPD and still maintain perpetual motion. I can't run at top speed for a minute, much less an hour. Of course, unless we're playing Track & Field Hero, this particular failing isn't that big a deal.[/QOUTE]

 

Maybe we need to change the REC rules to more effectively work with normal humans. Unless we're playing Aquaman Hero, drowning rules aren't really needed either, at least not in about 28 years of playing that I've seen. Do we really need a power that will take someone 4 or 5 minutes to affect? most encounters are over long before that.

 

They also

 

 

But that 3 second break is a halt to the Brick's running. He can't spend any END, even the one it would take to move, if he wants to take that recovery. "run/stop/run/stop" is very different from a full out run.

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.

 

There are two issues here. The first is "should the drowning rules be changed?". I'm OK with them as they are, but if you have a better approach, I'm open to hearing it. It needs to be cinematic and playable, of course.

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.

The second is "should there be a mechanical construct in the game to allow a character to create the effect of denial of oxygen to his target, thus triggering the drowning rules?"

 

My answer there is "absolutely - we see this in the source material, and it should be possible, practical and not overly cumbersome to build the same ability in the game".

 

So, an END Drain, SFX - fills lungs, using the drowning rules when 0 END is reached is too hard?

You are unhappy this might effectively take down a Brick. The first use of this power that comes to mind from the source material is the numerous times Sue Storm has taken out the Hulk by blocking his air with a force bubble, so "this takes down Bricks" seems like a feature, not a flaw, to me.

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

Some people have a natural aptitude for the sciences' date=' but can't handle money. Others are very skilled with finances, but not with literature. Aptitudes can be quite narrow, not so broad as characteristics in general. Someone with great gross motor skills has a natural aptitude with skills like acrobatics and dance that often does not translate into marksmanship or working with their hands. All of these could easily be skills/levels with the "natural aptitude" sfx. Really, most non-combat skill levels are just "+5 CHAR, only for these skills".[/quote']

 

That's true - do you feel that the way skills work should be different (being careful not to step on 6e toes and locking the thread)?

 

Which distinction? I don't see any reason for distinguishing between a character who has a high OCV and DCV purchased as a high DEX and one who gets there with skill levels, regardless of whether his SFX are "trained normal human" or "superhumanly fast".

 

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

One of the most frustrating micro-experiences from my game history. I had a roguish thief-illusionist (back in the Glory Days when the class was THIEVES), N'raac. Another character in the game, Morgan, was a highly Lawful cleric who detested thieves. N'raac delighted in getting that vein in Morgan's forehead throbbing.

 

Many levels later, at some point, we were having discussions with some group of NPC's, or maybe a new PC, or something, and Morgan "introduced" N'raac as "a no-good thief". Now, you would think after months or years of game time, and saving his life more than once at N'raac's own risk, he might have earned a little tolerance. But "Morgan hated thieves", so that was the end of it.

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?

It still gives a result of two seperate universes that run consecutively. I agree it makes no difference at this level whether you move or the universe does (although I bet you moving involves a lot less energy) BUT you still have the practical effect that you are not int eh universe you started in. To you it may not matter that much. To the people left behind' date=' however, you've either gone or been replaced by someone else. Either way, unless it is a solo game, the story focus will remain with the majority - to all intents and purposes you've just used a movement power to get yourself out of immediate harm.[/quote']

 

That's one of the things that threw me when I read the Noble Causes storyline, since they shift from one reality to another and leave the old one behind. A bit shocking, but once I understood it, you have to go with the new story, especially since there is no other choice. In a way, it's similar to moving, as I've done, quite a lot. You lose touch with people, but they fade out of your life and go on with their own. It's life. This power (EDM=wish) is just this writ large. It is self-centered - most wishes are, after all, and this moving worlds does fit the genre convention of a bad or negative side effect, in this case it really affects the people left behind or changed.

 

Your cosmology assumes that there is only one universe, although it is mutable and that there is no accessable past. You can use EDM to travel to the past (or are you just resetting the date stamp on the one extant universe?) in Hero. We can logically conclude that time travel to the past is impossible but I'm not sure that we necessarily know enough to have proved that yet. I'm not sure that thinking of the past as a place is necessarily unconscionable even in reality and certainly not in Hero.

 

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.

The problem with EDM as a wish power in terms of game concept is that it does not scale: there is no real difference between moving to a universe where your bullet wound is healed and moving to a universe where you are an all powerful supercool dude who is loved by everyone and basically has it all. the GM can tell you that such a universe does not exist but - and here's the problem - that is entirely arbitrary. Arguably almost everything is but this is more so - there is no guidance or limit imposed by the game context. That, to me, is a major problem.

 

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.

 

There is also tacit support in the definition of EDM that you are not editing the current unbiverse but actually going to another - use of the power breaks line of sight for constant powers. If you were staying here but changing everything then LoS would remain. Arguably you could move to a universe where you already have LoS on a target and are maintaining a constant power...i can see this one iterating forever

 

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.

 

I have had remarkable success with time travel stories - one of the best we were involved in the Crown of Persephone had been stolen from the past so Persephone could not descend to the underworld, Hades becames hacked off and started awar and the Gods came to the future, because that is where they had divined the Crown to be, met the PCs and demanded that they find and return the Crown.

 

The only place they knew it to be was in the past, so they traveled there and stole it, retunred tot eh present, gave it to the Greek Gods and they took it back to the past, creating a loop that was still consistent with the existing narrative reality of the universe.

 

I'm running an even riskier sort of game at present where the PCs are not time travelling much but where they are doing quite a lot in flashback, cinematically. It is all a bit of a balancing act but working well so far...

 

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 think that may be my point, to an extent. I would not want to live in a reality where I was the author of my own meaning. If my life, my family, my friends, my dog, my hobbies were all something that I somehow created or controlled then the only meaning is myself, and I need outside context, which I suppose informs my approach to EDM as a wish fulfilment power.

 

Really good discussion BTW - I think we often should look pretty deeply into the consequence and origin of powers and abilities in Hero - it gives a much richer understanding of what it is we are doing.

 

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

You assume they don't panic' date=' just remain calm holding their breath.[/quote']

 

Nope - I assumed that that is reflected in the variable nature of the die roll. Of course, if you mean they are not doing anything that requires END, then yeah. Doesn't mean they are not panicking, since I've seen people freeze in fear as well as run around crazily.

 

If they are spending more END, such that they need that higher END, then throwing fire seems to be more taxing than punching someone. I typically see Energy Projectors with less END, but they buy Reduced End on a lot of their powers. Of course, if you have a had AP limit, they'll probably take less reduced END and more END to power their attacks.

 

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.

They have less END because you chose not to buy them END, not because they have 0 END on their STR. Maybe you should buy your energy projectors reduced END and less END too.

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?

Running out of STUN is blacking out, isn't it?

Isn't that what I said?

If this doesn't sit well with you, I suggest it is because you are building Bricks who quickly become exhausted and Energy Projectors who do not. If you strip them both of their powers and make them run at top speed, 6" Running, Pushing their running all the way so they spend 12 END per phase, and let's call that 48 END per turn, who will be exhausted first?

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?

Does it sit well with you that the Brick is never tired - he has 40 END and 20 REC, for example, so after collapsing from exhaustion, he's up and running again in a few seconds? That seems no more accurate. I think you're focusing on a very micro issue, and I suggest the problem sits more with a lack of verisimilitude in the END purchased for the Brick and the EP, than with any flaw in the drowning rules.

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.

There we have it. Recovery requires oxygen. The Brick is a superior aerobic performer, but the EP is a superior anaerobic performer. Perhaps greater verisimilitude would be gained by requiring all characters to have a more consistent ratio of recovery to END.

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

Neither would that +15 "training DEX".

In other words, tomato-tomato?

if this were common, the Training DEX should be entitled to a limitation to reflect its reduced utility. So should the skill levels.

But not a +0?

Let's posit two characters. One has DEX 18, and Acrobatics (13- base roll) and +4 with acrobatics. His acrobatics roll is 17-. The second has DEX 38 and Acrobatics (17- base roll). Their acrobatic skills are indistinguishable.

 

Both are hit with a 15 point DEX drain. Both acrobatics rolls fall to 14-.

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?

Who would buy a "skills drain"? Good question. More likely, they would buy Change Environment, reducing all DEX rolls by 3. Same 14- rolls.

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).

If this were truly important, I'd do it by first enforcing the need for all characters to define "natural aptitude" and "trained skill" separately (for both characteristics and skills - "he's just a natural acrobat", so he has +2 to the roll, is just as viable as "he trains long and hard" so his DEX is increased by 10).

 

Second, if loss of trained abilities were much more common than loss of natural aptitude, I'd have to consider allowing a limitation on abilities purchased with the SFX of Trained Abilities. If he's going to be denied the benefits of his abilities with significantly greater frequency, he should pay less.

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

Actually, normal STR adds a number of DC's to an Advantaged HA up to equal the original number of DC's of the HA itself (4 in this case).

 

So a character with a 20 STR (or higher) and a 4d6 HA w/AP could do a 8d6 AP attack.

 

As pointed out, even this relatively low number of DC's (8) is compared to the average PD of a 'normal' (2) it will do an average of 6 Body. Applying the AP Advantage only increases that by 1 more Body. AP also means that a relatively 'tough normal' with a 10 PD would still take an average of 3 Body from such an attack even though they wouldn't normally take any Body from an 8d6n attack.

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

Now we are back to imposing certain SFX on certain abilities. "Skill comes only from training. Characteristics are always innate." In my games' date=' SFX are independent of mechanics. A handgun and laser vision (SFX) are both Killing Attacks (mechanic). Why can't training and skill be just as much a SFX for characteristics as for skill levels?[/quote']

 

They can...but if the situation is where that when possessed the possessor can only use the innate abilities but not skills, then skills that require mental ability (not just innate physical, even trained physical skills, such as martial arts that become reflexive or operate at an almost "subconscious" level) would not be accessed. If this were common, then the abilities, such as combat skills would be better represented by skills and not Dex.

 

And as Sean brought up, Dex (physical ability) can be drained, but I doubt that many have "skill drains", although I can't see why not. Training as skills in that case would still give the character skilled acrobatics, even if he became clumsier (his training can compensate for his disability, much like a skilled athlete or fighter can compensate). Getting older (and have difficulties) can make you more aware of how much is learned as opposed to innate.

 

Now, I admit such distinctions probably are not needed for most games, but if that is important, then that is how I would do it. Does that make sense?

Re: Genre-crossover nightmares

Guess Who's Commando To Dinner

Does that go with "What's Eating Raoul" ?

Re: Questions from a New Hero

I think you are confusing Armor Piercing (AP) with Killing damage.

 

The Advantage AP halves the target's defenses (normal or resistant) vs. the attack it is applied to.

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?

Transform works better in my opinion' date=' at least for wishes that do not directly affect yourself. puts the cost up to the power level and value of the wish fulfillment.[/quote']

 

The problem with that is when you get to the nebulous things. Wealth is easy (cost is the perk), power is a bit more nebulous (the cost of a base, wealth perk, followers?), but how do you go for "happiness" or "revenge on my enemies"? What is the Body for that? What is the cost?

 

There are too many subjective (and objective, too) variables to make real "wish" powers easy to price. Of course, you could do mega-mega-megascale for universe wide Major Transform of lots and lots of dice. Maybe that is what wishes do need to be, with a point cost that is really in the thousands. Thinking about it, it would make wishes back into what they really are intended to be (IMO) as plot devices rather than "give me treasure" abilities that in many games they have become (not mine - I just use the Deck of Many Things. Near TPK, that one. But, my players wanted to do it )

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys?

All?

 

No, that's more like a transporter accident sending Kirk into a universe where Spock has a beard, for goodness sakes.

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.

Almost not worth mentioning, but EDM is a movement power rather thana universal re-arrangenment power. Setting that asidfe for the moment, any competent wisher with the ability to change everything would presumably start off by wishing that no one else got any wishes, just for a bit of existential stability. noe even if we could change the present and, in doing so, change everyone's memories of the past, that is not he same as changing the past. You could make everyone remember that we moved the Eiffel Tower to London last Tuesday, but it would still be in Paris (unless this is a consensus reality after all).

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 think the biggest problem with the 'multiple universes being constantly created' idea is where all the energy comes from . Ultimately the existence of a power like EDM requires that somewhat deep questions about the game universe are answered by the GM, and decide for THEIR game universe whether there are multiple time streams or not. It is also highly relevant to the question of time travel. If you can travel in time, specifically backwards, then are you able to change anything or is what you do already part of the tapestry of existence: were you ALWAYS going to travel back in time and do what you did there so that the here and now is the way it is, or do you change the there and then and have an impact ont he here and now, and if you can, is there only one here and now (the collapsing wavefronts theory) or multiple realities or, well, something else?

 

I really shouldn't think about this stuff before bed...

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....

I like that. Our universe is feeling the effects of actions in a seperate causal reality. It is not that our lives are meaningless, but that we are simply not looking in the right place for meaning....hmmm...

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

Even an exotic END reserve build used to feed a character's STR? Clearly, this is not a common issue, but it should be addressed.

 

Besides, UMA reccomends just such a build (END Reserve, REC linked to personal REC) to simulate holding your breath for extended periods of time.

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

END is also what powers long-distance running and other tests of (what other word is there?) endurance. STUN is more like pain tolerance. The Wizard may be a lousy boxer, but a spell system where his spells require END use implies they are more physically taxing than just waving a pointed stick around, so logically such wizards have greater cardiovascular fitness and could reasonably hold their breaths longer.

 

That's a function of the magic system requiring the wizard to spend large amounts of END to cast spells - we have made use of magic physically taxing, so wizards must be fit to be successful. That low END wizard will sit at home and be exhausted by casting very simple spells. If you want frail, unhealthy wizards to be the norm, spells should typically be reduced or 0 END, and not be so taxing on their stamina.

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

Just do a Google search' date=' or a search on YouTube. It's in both places. There is also a www.leeroyjenkins.net site.

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

I'm not sure that follows. I see no logical reason to allow a PC to draw END from an END Reserve for things happening to the PCs own body since END Reserves are designed to supply Powers with sufficient END. Of course' date=' if he bought the appropriate Power that draws upon the END Reserve (such as Life Support) then that's a different issue.[/quote']

 

Sorry- I wasn't thinking of that when I wrote it. I meant that if they had a lot of Endurance (in general - I meant "reserve" as in capacity, not the power), then they could hold their breath longer. If the character drains power from their END, as most supers do, then they could hold their breath longer, despite being (more than likely) physically inferior. Most fighters don't need a lot of END - all they need is enough to cover them for several turns. A mage who casts spells may need a high END (just like any other energy projector). This would give the mage an advantage in resisting suffocating and drowning over and above that of the more physically fit fighter.

 

If the drowning rules used Stun, then you would have a more direct correspondence between physical fitness and the capacity to stay alive underwater (in gas, etc).

 

Hope that clears that up. Didn't realize it could be taken that way.

Re: DEX vs. CSLs

Sorry' date=' misinterpreted a part of what you were saying, I only use NCM as a ground rule, either everyone has it or no one, but if a player wants to make a batman type character in a super campeign I would rather see a dex 15 on the sheet with +20 dex "Intence Combat Training" so if I decide to have him possesed I know that the body he is in has the dex 15 not 35, where the flash might have a dex 35 strait by concept. Note that while I do give some advantages to this I consider it normaly a +/- 0[/quote']

 

Ok . . . I think. I don't see any reason to have such a distinction. Of course, the issue there would be the possession - why would someone be able to access the Flash's abilities but not Bats? Look to Titans issue 4 (I think) where a character who mimicked powers basically got Barry Allen's at the height of his power, and it proved more than he could handle. If it takes time to master the abilities of someone, why would the source matter? Batman may have trained his body to move fast, but it is his body. If it is the intense training, then that should be skill levels to represent that.

 

I think part of it is that I see "intense training" as something most heroes need to do to keep themselves in that shape. If characters were out of the loop for a while, I'd have no problem penalizing them a bit until they got back in shape (this is story-driven, really). If it was a magical ritual that needed to be done every day, or an "hourman" injection, or something like that...I could see. If it is the normal human limitation of having to stay in shape...I just don't see that as being different enough to make the distinction. You know, a change to the body is a change to the body. A bodybuilder can go to flab if they break training for a long time, but I'd never design one with such split characteristics.

 

Just different philosophies, I think.

 

I'd argue (or maybe I am) that Bats has a combination of both.

Re: What do you think

I would say that the problem is that suffocation/drowning rules are made of Handwavium and should be changed to be a power construct' date=' something that [b']can[/b] be emulated by the rules. Would be a lot easier to tackle that aspect of the problem rather than a retooling of the Adjustment Powers or something similarly extensive and drastic.

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

I actualy go more than allow (Well not necesarily those numbers, but the concept), but favor it.

 

It is a nice distinction for when someone has taken complete "You have no mind left" control over where skill stops and natural ability starts

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

Tick vs. Thundarr

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