Orion

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

It's a balance issue. In a heroic level campaign' date=' the player only gets X number of points to do their concept justice. Most of those points go into stats and skills, with the occasional talent or super-skill power. If you spent a lot of your points on powers built as gear, you would be pretty pathetic if you lost your stuff.[/quote']

 

I would agree on the pathetic, but that's part of the tradeoff of using foci. While you have it, you can do more, but that is balanced by the times you don't have it around. If that is something the player can't deal with, they shouldn't use that type of character. It's a big reason why I don't play them, as it would drive me nuts.

 

As for the points, I realize I have a different outlook on the entire concept. I don't care what the point totals are. I don't even care if the points are ever added up. I only care about what the character can do. Doesn't matter to me if they are a mutant, magician, or rich guy with gadgets - what can they do today, during this scenario, is the key. If allowing a rich guy to buy gadgets makes him unbalanced compared to the other characters, give them more points, or just don't allow rich characters. If a guy off the street can rent scuba gear, but a player character cannot, I would argue it destroys some of the believability in the campaign world.

 

In superheroic games' date=' you get far more points to work with. Some players would be tempted to pump up their character's stats and skills, then drop 5 points on a wealth perk and then claim that they had all these other powers that were just things that he/she could buy at the Spy/PI store or on the black market. [/quote']

 

I'd allow this type of character without a second thought. In fact, I'd say you just described Batman. Whether he goes into his batcave and whips up a new item, or walks down to WalMart and buys it, makes no difference. The thing that seems to be the difference is that I am much more amenable to changes to the character on the fly. If the mentalist wants to pick up the agent's rifle and use it, I have no problem. If he wants to keep it for further adventures (or sell it on the black market), I'll let him. I don't care if he has spare points or not - the gun is just lying there on the ground waiting for anyone to pick it up. Now if the players are sensitive about the gadgeteer constantly revising his character, there can be a metagame agreement to not do these sort of things, or to not allow gadgeteers at all, but as GM I would never disallow it.

 

Also' date=' there is a certain genre consistency that has to be considered. Most superheroes are defined by their powers. Most heroic characters are defined by their training and experience. There is obviously some cross over, as there are superheroes who are essentially highly trained normals (Batman) and there are heroic- level characters that are basically low-powered supers (River Tam), but you get the idea. The question is is the character more about what he can do innately, or is he more about what he has trained himself to do by dint of effort. Though he is formidable without them, James Bond needs guns and tricked-out roadsters. Superman does not.[/quote']

 

Personally, I can't see how that this matters in the least, but will accept that it does to some. While it may matter to the character concept whether they are a trained normal, low-level super, or high-level super, it's what they can do that matters during play.

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

My Teleport player who also has a rich background (only 5 CP’s = 500' date='000 a year) keeps bringing up “why can I not go out and buy X, Y, Z as you can buy this for only a few hundred or low thousands in the shops”. Having repeatedly tried to explain money doesnot buy powers but character points do! I just need to somehow make him happy![/quote']

 

First, decide which is more important: blindly following the rules, or using common sense and making him happy. If the rules matter more, the only answer you need to give is "because I said so". This may or may not settle the problem, but it's the answer. Many players and GMs favor this approach, so it's not like you are going against the crowd. If common sense or happiness matter more, just let him buy anything that could normally be bought in your game world, but require that anything he carries with him be written down on the sheet, and anything in his storeroom be in an inventory list.

 

Allowing flashlights, IR goggles, GPS units, and such aren't going to be a problem. Super tech isn't going to be for sale in most campaigns, and so isn't a problem either. If anything, allowing equipment is a good way to use up his resources as it can be damaged are taken away. If he teleports back to get it, he loses time and action phases, and so is removed from combat.

 

Hero says you can't purchase gear in a supers campaign. No good reason why, but that's what is says, and going against this rule gives many people heartburn. But, agent-level and fantasy campaigns have always been allowed to buy gear. It doesn't hurt them any, so it's not going to hurt your supers campaign either if you choose to allow it.

Re: Character with a symbiote

Or would it make more sense if the character gained the abilities and powers from being a mutant?

This depends completely on a) which you prefer, and what the campaign allows. For example, there are no mutants in my campaign, and never will be. I decided that human genes don't carry anything that out of the normal, so mutants and genetic experiments wouldn't work if I were the GM. Another GM may decide they are fine, but not allow any aliens. It's a flavor thing, and doesn't change anything about what characters can do, only how the backstory is written.

Re: Cat Up a Tree

Well, this seems to assume a superhero clubhouse and publicly available phone line to call them, neither of which happens in my campaign world. If Warhawk was walking by and not otherwise involved, he'd fly up and grab it. Silhouette would use TK. Pretty much everyone else would never even hear about it, and if they did, completely ignore the situation. The kid's parent can get the cat down, or a neighbor, or even the kid can do it. They've got more important things to do, and everyone knows the damn cat will be back up in the same tree tomorrow anyway.

Re: Turbo-Boost Energy Drink

Stock up to ensure my own supply. Ask the company when they are coming out with a strength boost or mental boost flavor. Buy stock in the company. Be surprised when it is shown to have side effects.

Re: Vandaleur Twins

My preference is that canon doesn't mention family and romantic interests, and leaves all that to the GM. If it must be mentioned (DNPC or some such), just mention that a character has a spouse/partner, and let the GM decide if that person is of the same sex or not. Even if a male is specifically said to have a wife, to me that doesn't necessarily mean the wife is a female, as I've met more than one gay male that strongly fit the wife stereotype. Only give details that are critical to the character. For most, the sexual orientation is no more critical than their favorite movie genre, type of car, or preference for dogs vs. cats.

Re: Questions about Money Perk

I only have one character with a Money Perk, but he's more of the really well off type, not a filthy rich individual. As for uses, everything Steamteck lists, but also any gear that is wanted. After all, it doesn't matter how many points they have if they can't afford the price tag. Of course, them wanting gear and having spare cash doesn't mean it's necessarily available. If a character does have a money perk, I will make them deal with that on occasion - they must attend the shareholder's meeting, deal with an economic crisis, wonder if their paycheck will go down with Ogre takes out the main factory, etc.

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

Everybody is good looking to somebody.

As I love to tell people, I'm married because of my wife's bad judgment and poor eyesight.

Re: Bows

What is the general feeling on altering damage based on the type of bow? I know a lot of systems do it, but I've always disliked the idea myself. I figure that any bow strong enough to be used as a weapon can send an arrow all the way through an unarmored person. The damage is based on the type of arrowhead, and location of the hit. Different bows would give different effective ranges, accuracy at range, and even penetration of armor, but would not alter the actual damage. Does this make sense, or am I just off-base?

Re: My Elves Are Different!

(Hi, Jack!)

I think of this as a problem more with Total Commitment Psych Lims in general than specifically a Code of Honor. Here's my read (and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong), in Orion's game sometimes the good guys need to get a little down and dirty and underhanded. A character with a Total Commitment to being Honorable won't be able to participate in such activities, and depending on the character, may try to intercede and stop the rest of the characters from the operation. The problem isn't so much the Lim itself as that the character is utterly inflexible; he can't suck it up and say 'Okay, I don't like it, but if it's the only way ...'. This is a problem with most any Total Commitment Psych Lim; it impedes teamwork and results in logjams because Character A absolutely will not, under any circumstances, yield his point of view. I have considered banning Total Psych Lims for PCs for precisely this reason; that level of fanaticism is usually not conducive to teamwork. Besides, people who think their way is the only way, and that everybody should do things their way ... well, I tend to question their mental health.

I think you have a pretty good idea of my current campaign world, and I do agree it is more total commitment problem than anything else. Some villain groups (Viper and Genocide, mostly) will always shoot to kill, and they aren't shy about taking out a busload or three of innocents to get to the hero. The heroes do not have to be killers, but the average character should have a soldier attitude - try not to kill, but if it is necessary to save the hostage or a teammate's life, the villain dies without a second thought, and it won't cripple them psychologically afterward. If players requested, I would run something that was closer to standard comic book, but it's not the default. I'm not going for the comic book genre, but a superpowers in the real world feel, which comes with different assumptions.

The best campaign I was ever in had a martial artist with a severe honor code, a mentalist with a strong code vs killing, and a casual killer vigilante that favored ambushes. We spent a lot of time arguing and even fighting with each other, and the vigilante (me) even quit the team once because of his disgust with the other characters. Best roleplaying we ever did, and I miss those days. Since then in other groups I've created characters that did not play well with the group, but they fell flat because the rest of the group didn't want within-group bickering. I went against their assumptions for the genre. They wanted the friendly elf and drunken dwarf and the other genre stereotypes, and when I didn't follow them, it caused more trouble than it was worth.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

I realized where a lot of this comes from.

I am a fully actualized, self confessed Genre Fiend.

So are many of the gamers I've encountered and played with before.

I get along well with my own type.

 

I have also played with those who are Genre Defiant.

I understand this position. It is largely my take on mass media.

However, it drives me frickin' NUTS at the game table.

Some people, when they see a trope they just feel compelled to subvert it.

This is not an invalid gaming style, but it isn't mine.

Genre fiend - I love it! I couldn't put it into words, but this fits me to a T. I can do typical AD&D, Tolkien, Deryni, Conan, etc. in a fantasy campaign. But, that is the style of the campaign, and no deviation is allowed. If something outside that genre trope is wanted, then a new campaign must be started. As a player, the world background, history, and feel is as important as the type of character I play. As a GM, the world is the most important thing, and where I derive most of my enjoyment. I have never been a GM in a generic, anything goes campaign for any genre, and the closest I've come to playing in one was loosely based on He-Man and Thundercats cartoons.

Re: Icons - The Costume and Superpowers Store

How would gun control types respond to a human capable of blowing up a mountain with a gesture?

I think they'd be in the lead trying to repress the use of powers. Anything that could be used as a weapon, they don't like. But more interesting, to me at least, is what would all the firearm advocates be saying? I own several, and while not a member of the NRA, I agree with many of their policies. I'd be all for letting people with powers go about their life. If they choose to use them publicly, I'd be okay with it - what they do is the important part, not the fact that are using them. However, many of my fellow gun nuts, and an even higher percentage of hunters, are quite conservative and religious. I think many in this group would be against the use of powers on religious reasons, and many more would be against them because the gun suddenly cannot defend you any more.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

As I am much more likely to do low fantasy, or even historical fiction, it would be rare to have anything but humans. The non-humans are there to bring out the little bits of magic and wonder in the world. The people I've played with wouldn't mind, but they also wouldn't mind having a world with lots of non-humans, and having few or no humans in the party.

CrosshairCollie is right about the humans being generic, and that seems to have been the key reason they were not chosen by myself and the people I've played with in the past. Being non-human gave bonuses, and at least in the games I've played, never had a downside. If they had been more balanced, a lot more humans would have been played. It was also an easy way to declare differences among characters in groups that were light on roleplaying and characterization. The dwarf was assumed to action like a normal dwarf, the elf like an elf, etc. In one group in particular, the race/class archetype chosen could have been used as the character name, for all the effort that was put into characterization, group interaction, etc.

Re: What power ideas/concepts do you get from these code names?

Code Red - paranoid, always ready for an attack that will probably never come, but when it does they know exactly what to do

Livewire - hyperactive, can't sit still, speedster, leaves electrical pulses and sparks behind as sfx

Throwback - intelligent ape or caveman, has anger mgmt issues, brick

White Out - blizzard/frost/storm powers or time manipulator that can redo recent actions

Supernova - energy projector, emits intense radiation and heat

Revolution - conspiracy theory nut and anarchist, ultra-libertarian, intensely private, but willing to help anyone that asks

Re: New group of characters.

One issue I always wondered about was how should the GM of the day's character be dealt with for that session. We were a small group' date=' that were good friends to begin with (only 3 of us which was why we did the rotation thing), so we just let the GM play his own character without worrying about it. But, I kind of wonder what a large group and/or people who might be only acquaintances would handle it.[/quote']

 

In college having the GM run full player characters was standard procedure. Usually it was him and 3 of us players, on rare occasions we had a 4th player. We started out as random strangers at the comic shop, and grew to be good friends (and two became roommates) over the years. This GM liked to have large, diverse teams. He thought it important that no matter what was going on, every player should have a character that would want to be involved in the action or discussion. He was pretty good about not stealing the spotlight, and would use them to reveal plot points we somehow missed. I liked this enough that I prefer to run a character as well on the rare occasions I GM, although I tend to prefer 1 character per player, and not 3 per player, like he did.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. What do you mean by "honor complexes". Do you mena an honor code? Do you meant something really inflexible and not useable in a commando style game? I would think a superhero with some code of honor would be way to iron age for me. I have areal trouble playing a character with some code of honor myself.

To, me, the standard honor complex is that of the stereotypical martial artist. Always wants to fight matches in the open that no one else can interfere in. His honor is more important than law or justice. It may have a code vs killing, but often does not. It always makes things more difficult, which is often part of the fun. It is a personal set of rules that must be followed, no matter what. It does not have to be understood or even followed by teammates, although many with a personal code will try to force it on associates. It would not surprise me at all to find others in this discussions mean something very different.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

It may not be an objection to guidelines - it may be an objection to your specific guidelines.

Yep - I thought of that about a half hour after I posted. I know of a couple people that delight in turning stereotypes on their head. Their orcs would be misunderstood, but good, and elves would be vicious forest cannibals.

Some people do have a problem with the concept that an entire race of apparently "natural" (as opposed to undead or demonic etc) human-like apparently free-willed people are universally irredeemably evil.

I can see this point. But, in my defense, orcs are created beings in the setting (Harn) I use. I would argue they are also created and irredeemably evil in the source material (Tolkien) I use, but maybe not all read it that way.

I think for a lot of people' date=' "honor complexes" is the whole[i'] point[/i] of playing superheroes, much more so than having flashy powers. I'd say in this case, it's you who are playing against stereotype in wanting a world set up that way. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play in it, but I can see why some people wouldn't....and I'll admit to a certain nervous curiosity about why you'd see a need to ban Code vs Killing. Will I be expected to kill on a regular basis or something?

I think I could play an honor complex in a superhero game....if I had to. It's always seemed one of the silliest and least fun things about the genre, and I admit to not being able to see why you'd want to. To me, playing a superhero is about being more than human, and bringing in the bad guys. Playing an honor complex is just one of many personality quirks that can be chosen, but it certainly isn't the most important. But I have seen exactly 1 honor code character in my gaming career, and even his player thought the honor code was silly. Started as a loaner character from the GM as I remember. I have no doubt many people love honor complexes and play because of them, but I've personally never met a player like that.

I don't have a problem with CvK characters in other campaigns, just my current one, and for the simple idea that powers are bestowed upon individuals by universal powers. They are chosen to be the soldiers in the fight against chaos and crime. This is the key - they were chosen, and not always by the squeakly clean powers, either. You don't chose pacificists to be soldiers and cops, and this is what my campaign is about. My campaign is much closer to Dark Champions than straight comic book (though why this makes CvK more palatable to so many, I don't know), and so killing is expected to happen, although that is not the point of the sessions, and not required. Demons get stakes through the heart. Sentient robots get blown up. Alien invaders and Viper agents get shot. Death happens. If they cannot do this, they simply wouldn't get recruited, and someone who could, would be.

gah...will add more later...carpool and all that...

Okay - edited the above, and will add more now.

While I don't buy the idea that most people play superheroes because they want CvK or honor codes, I would agree most want to be heroes. However, what defines a hero is very different between people, and I have no doubt my definition is not agreeable to all. I'll try to start a new thread on this topic some time soon, but for now, I'll just say CvK and being a hero are separate issues that often have no overlap to me.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

Well' date=' firstly, 'playing the rules' and 'cooperative storytelling' are not mutually exclusive or inversely proportional. Just because you want a mechanically efficient and useful character doesn't mean you're bad at roleplay, and having a good roleplaying character doesn't mean it has to be weak. Let's get that fallacy out of the way first and foremost.[/quote']

 

I would never suggest they are exclusive, but every set of rules is aimed at a slightly different crowd. And in my experience, every player has a preferred sweet spot they like to be. Gamists tend to love systems like Hero more. Low fantasy simulationists often love Harn. There are rules light systems that stress storytelling. I like Hero because it allows almost anything to be built, but have zero interest in trying to figure out the most efficient way of doing so. When I create a character I rarely put down any points - I have literally no idea how much some of them would cost. I don't think I've tried to balance points on a character sheet in 20 years. It is not until they are used in combat that I bother with the points, as that is not the point of the character.

 

I would never want to limit my PCs that heavily. I'm a big fan of extending as much freedom to my players as possible; if they want to play an offbeat character' date=' that should be inspiring to a GM, not troublesome. I like diversity and individuality in PCs.[/quote']

 

But you still have limits, right? If it is a fantasy campaign and I show up with a 300 point superhero, I bet I get shown the door. The only difference between us is where the limit is drawn. I like diversity and individuality as well as you, but there is a limit. No Lobo in the Marvel Family. No Spiderman in a Punisher campaign. I value the interactive storytelling part of roleplaying far more than anything else. A character has to fit the story. I've been the disruptive player, bringing in characters that did not fit because I wasn't paying attention to the other characters already being played and the style of play the GM preferred. I didn't have fun, and neither did they. I've learned from my mistakes. A player can be a diverse and offbeat as they want. But if they don't want to play something that fits in the campaign world, they should be asking for a new campaign, not trying to force a bad fit onto the rest of the group.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

Is this just a local thing' date=' or have any of the rest of you noticed a tendency in fantasy games for Human player characters to become an endangered species?[/quote']

 

I have somewhat seen it, but more so with character archetypes. A plain fighter is exceedingly rare, and dressing in anything but full plate and using a bastard sword even more rare. Every system seems to have a favorite archetype, weapon, and armor, and using anything but those penalizes you in some way, so very, very few people are willing to use anything but them. And in the cases where weapons all do about the same damage, they seem to get ignored completely. Since the weapon doesn't matter, there is no need to even declare what type it is.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

Well as long as you make these known before hand I can't see the players really being upset. That said I'd probably decline to play.

I really can't see why you would not want this. Why would a player not stay within the guideline for a world? If we give them guidelines for points, DCs, and power levels, why not for character types and background? If the group decision is to run a Marvel Family campaign, and someone shows up with the Punisher or Lobo, I think it would be a Good Thing to require them to make another character.

In my view, before any new campaign starts, an entire session or more must be spent discussing the possible campaign flavors. Genre is the easy decision, but after that it gets hard. The level of silliness, how much romance, how much killing, is death permanent, power levels of heroes vs average villains, etc. Once everyone has decided on the type of world, campaign, and story they want, then it's on to developing characters for that combination.

I've been a part of campaigns as player and GM where the entire planning process was "bring a new character next week, 250 points". Every time, the characters didn't gel as a group, and the campaign fell apart very quickly. By random luck two would fit the GM's ideas perfectly, another would sort of fit, and the last would require all motivations and characterizations to be ignored to have a chance of fitting it. I won't even begin to create a character these days unless I have a good understanding of the campaign world - it just seems pointless. I can't create a character just to play with the rules any more. As a GM, the fun for me is in having detailed worlds, and playing true to that world. When using Harn, there is one set of expectations. When using Forgotten Realms, there is another. Drizzt is encouraged in one, forbidden in the other. I can't see how this is a bad thing.

Re: Star Wars: i was wondering...

Okay' date=' why "Requires a Skill Roll?" Granted I've only seen half the movies, but I don't recall many times when a Jedi tries to do something and goes oops, fizzle.[/quote']

 

I'm thinking it would be to replicate the early learning. Luke could move the X-Wing, but doesn't believe he can do so, and therefore fails. Don't see much use for it later on once they know what they are doing. But then, I see Jedi as having powers, not skills.

Re: Lostorum - "Steampunk Fantasy in a Savage World"

I'd quite enjoy a campaign of this sort. I'd see the magic as being much like Heinlein's Magic, Inc. or Garrett's Lord Darcy.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

Maybe you just like what they look like. Maybe you want to subvert the stereotype. Does it really matter? So long as the player's having fun with the character' date=' it's not a big deal.[/quote']

 

To an extent, this is usually true. It's when the player insists on playing something so different than the norm that it starts to interfere with either the campaign concept or the enjoyment of the GM and other players that it becomes a problem. With some players, you know this will never happen. With others, you have to be more careful. I think it also depends a lot on the style of the campaign. If it is more about playing the rules, then it will have less of an effect. If it is more about cooperative storytelling, then the characters need to be more in tune with the world. I've never cared why a character type was chosen, just what was done with it after.

 

My orcs are evil. Every last one of them. The stereotype cannot be subverted. Doesn't matter how good of a concept for an orc character someone has, it cannot work in my campaign world. There are also certain expectations for elves and dwarves. My superhero world does not allow player characters to have strong codes vs killing or honor complexes. There's a whole slew of character types down, just right there. Doesn't matter how good the concept is, how much fun the player would have, or why they want to play that type. Won't be allowed in my current campaign world. Doesn't mean we can't start another campaign world where it is allowed, but the players are expected to stay within the world guidelines once those are established.

Re: My Elves Are Different!

Problem is' date=' players who want to play elves usually want to play [i']elves,[/i] not different elves.

It has always annoyed me greatly when some writer creates something new, and then gives it the name of something widely recognized, yet very different. Yeah, your elves are different - because they ain't elves! Superman better have a reporter girlfriend and have a code vs killing, and Conan must love wenches and beer.

I have no problem with the creating of new stuff, but it comes off as a bait and switch when they use the old name for something new. You tell me I'm going to be battling orcs, and I will have certain expectations. Doesn't matter how many times you explain to me these orcs are completely different, it will still cause a disconnect when you tell me an orc does not act as they always have in my past experience. New Coke would have been an easier sell if it hadn't been called Coke, and reusing a old name is no easier to accept.

Re: Where is your campaign based?

In college, we typically used New York City with a heavy Marvel influence. But since noon of us had been there, it was really just a generic large fictional city. The world and the campaign background were pretty generic and flavorless, as the GM wasn't interested in that. My current campaign world has individual heroes scattered about, with no city having more than a single hero. Four new heroes are about to be created, and while they'll start in the San Francisco Bay area, they'll eventually move to a base near Austin. Most of their adventures will happen elsewhere, but leaving the US will be rare.