ghost-angel

It's been around since 5E, I think there's some intent behind costs and things like Armor/Resistant Defense; or possibly that a single source of a Defense (SFX) needs to be either Hardened or Not.
 
Every once in a while I think of a reason for it to be that way, but most of the time it feels like a rule because someone, somewhere, went Full Munchkin.

I have seen it... but it took a long time, and the players had to learn that they were very powerful, and that they didn't get punished for holding back... nor did they get punished for cutting loose when the situation called for it.
 
One thing I always try to emphasize with supers games is just that... the characters are super... and they should get the chance to feel that way. Maybe a group of heavily armed thugs were a challenge when first starting out... but later, the same situation is a piece of cake. Unlike D&D where all the creatures have to level up to the PCs... I love situations where experienced supers run up against thugs or lesser villains and just easily trounce them... because they should. The game aspect of 'every scenario has to level up to the PCs' concept... that isn't ROLE playing, IMO. Powerful heroes should get the chance to show how powerful they are... often by getting to hold-back and be confident and competent... but this requires the PLAYERS to feel that way, and not like everything is a "gotcha moment." Got to get rid of the GM vs. player mentality to let the PLAYERS feel confident and cool.
 
And it is important to realize the mentality of players who DO NOT know what is going on in the GM's head, and some of them never really learn to trust. I had one long term player who's character was one of the big three, and on track to become an immortal, godlike, and he NEVER felt confident going into battle. Not the character, but the player, because he was so used to every other game being "screw the player" by the GM. One time, he said, "I always feel threatened. I wish we had some easy fights."  I looked at him and said, "Just this evening, you took on a small army of 350 pt cyborg-killing machines. You one shotted several of them and literally out raced the rest, leaving them stranded behind and unable to stop you, practically ignoring them on the way to the big bad. Each one of those was a lesser supervillain, and you destroyed them!"
 
"OH," he said, looking surprised. "But the way you described them... they were so scary!"
 
Seriously.
 
After that, I made it a point to explain exactly what kind of threat and really emphasize where the PCs were more powerful, less powerful, etc., for every adventure. It became abundantly clear that having a meta-conversation about the game and their perceptions of it was absolutely essential for them to feel comfortable in the world, and this lead to much more confident role playing as well.

You have to address the PLAYER mentality... not the characters.

For games that have some focus on Tech, but not total focus (i.e. probably not playing Hackers Hero, but a more rounded Cyberpunk game) I broke down into the following broad skills for flavor:
Programming - actually writing software
Phreaking - phone systems
Networking - all layers (physical and software)
Hacking - part programming, but mostly the actual act of digital B&E (basically a computer only version of Security Systems)
(this on top of Security Systems for physical security, and Electronics gets hardware done.)
 
It's not super detailed, but it gets the job done for gaming. I find it has just enough detail to emulate a small group of tech-saavy characters that each have a field of expertise.

D&D was based on Tolkein and Jack Vance (the magic system is Vance, while the races are Tolkein).
 
The Monk goes all the way back to the Blackmoor release, it's based on Remo Williams, and probably also no small part on the popularity of Kung Fu movies in that era as well. The class totally fits into the utter mish-mish of fantasy and medieval Europe that is D&D.

I think it's a reference to this :
 

Removing this element slows the game down a bit, as you'll find players will (at least attempt) to get a Recovery Action in during the Turn to make up for it. It's not a horrible game changer to do so, but it can frustrate players.
 
Will need to either keep the "Post-12 Only" for negative stun level, or find a replacement, however.

If I were to get into semantics about swords in a game, the long straight blade would add a bit against opponents susceptible to Piercing (stabs), and the curved blades against opponents that slashing attacks worked better against.
 
Otherwise the difference always seems to come down to a bunch of dudes yelling "Katana!" "Longsword!" ala Daffy & Bugs deciding who gets hunted....

If I were to get into semantics about swords in a game, the long straight blade would add a bit against opponents susceptible to Piercing (stabs), and the curved blades against opponents that slashing attacks worked better against.
 
Otherwise the difference always seems to come down to a bunch of dudes yelling "Katana!" "Longsword!" ala Daffy & Bugs deciding who gets hunted....

If I were to get into semantics about swords in a game, the long straight blade would add a bit against opponents susceptible to Piercing (stabs), and the curved blades against opponents that slashing attacks worked better against.
 
Otherwise the difference always seems to come down to a bunch of dudes yelling "Katana!" "Longsword!" ala Daffy & Bugs deciding who gets hunted....

If I were to get into semantics about swords in a game, the long straight blade would add a bit against opponents susceptible to Piercing (stabs), and the curved blades against opponents that slashing attacks worked better against.
 
Otherwise the difference always seems to come down to a bunch of dudes yelling "Katana!" "Longsword!" ala Daffy & Bugs deciding who gets hunted....

Oh, in THAT case it's easy. You just store all the characters you're not using in quantum non-observational limbo until they're relevant to the story, at which point they spring back into full existence when the camera points at them.

I can't actually take that article entirely at face value given the immense amount of music that the Roland T303 (and successors) has made in the last 36 years (from today, 31 years as of the article date). The 303 is literally the instrument behind the entire creation of the Electronic Body Music genre, which alongside Industrial, and their much lauded Turntable go on to define a literal explosion of genres and subgenres in the 90s.
 
Sure, the marketing barrier might be the largest hurdle - but mostly I wager that none of these instruments are making new Music (versus just a way to make the same music with a new sound) is a large contributing factor. Maybe what we need with these futuristic instruments is futuristic musical genres to go with them...

I think it goes back to 1e, and so does ignoring the rule.  Practically, I think few groups charge END for using a maneuver (as opposed to the power with which the maneuver is used), as the shock of many replies to this thread indicates.
 
I missed p 54, which clearly states the maneuver itself costs 1 END, and any END for STR is paid separately.  P 131 implies that only maneuvers with no STR component cost 1 END.
 
I do not see anything in the rules which removes the 1 END maneuver cost if the underlying attack is brought to 0 END.  It's a reasonable change, but I think it is still a change.
 
 I don't see anything in the actual rules which requires STR be used for a maneuver to function (Q2; too bad for an MA who gets Drained to 2 STR - he can no longer Legsweep since he does not have the ability to use at least 3 STR, yet he can use Trip instead, which was specifically added (it was in the SETAC discussions) to have a non-martial "legsweep" to knock a target down.  I guess a racing car, charging rhinoceros, or speeding superhero does no damage on collision with a passerby, since he used no STR in the Move Through.  Clearly, no one will interpret the Move Through that way, but if the rule is "no damage from a maneuver unless at least 3 STR is used", that is the result.
 
Q7 seems like it is mitigated by Q1's exception for 0 END powers.  If we take that one step further, having all STR at 0 END (or maybe all STR and movement, given Dodge relies more on movement than STR, and some SFX of Block would as well) should allow all maneuvers to be used at no END cost.
 
But I agree with GA's premise.  Few, if any, use this rule.  It does not properly mesh with many other aspects of the system.  Its absence has not caused any noted balance problems.  Simply removing the "using a maneuver costs 1 END" rule would solve all of the problems, and we'd lose nothing of real value in the process.

I really like the Presence Attack version. Seems the most simplistic.

And the way Steve answered, I don’t have to eat crow about 0 STR and martial arts.

Are you kidding?  Its one of the few major super powers to take down Galactus.  
Supergenius Power Cosmic Infinity Guantlet Cosmic Cube Ability to win and influence squirrels 

Obviously, even with attempts to clarify, and the fact that rules are just really poorly written - the whole thing has convoluted itself in its own attempts to prevent... something, "gaming the system" perhaps, or just trying to prevent a situation where 'firing a weapon' has to cost something... for Reasons™
 
At this point, it'd just be best to tear the whole section out and rewrite it. "Powers cost 1 END per 10 AP." (include the Heroic 1END/5STR here if this inconsistent legacy is even needed); If really needed "Making an Attack Action costs 1END minimum, unless the players have purchased Costs No END on their STR/Powers."
 
But honestly, I see no reason why this section should be so complicated that half a dozen of us have a multitude of interpretations and have come up with multiple situations that they can't even consistently apply themselves to. (And this isn't even just a 5E/6E 'bloat' thing, going at least back to 4E the END rules have been overly complex for no good reason.)

Re: The Last Word
 
It occurs to me Religion and Gaming have one thing in common.
 
Both have a significant, and vocal, portion of their populations whose only real answer to anything is "Kill It With Fire!!"

Man Of Steel was such an atrocious piece of crap it's hard to see any movie being worse, so I'm optimistic.

OK, this requires a little more set-up that the funny one-liners I typically post here, but it was too awesome not to share. This is a low-fantasy FH game set in 11th century Europe.
 
Dramatis Personae:
 
Thyri Torvaldsdottir: PC, Viking shieldmaiden with a mysterious past and serious anger management issues.
 
Father Edmondo: PC, Priest of Rome, the "face man." Edmondo and Thyri have an odd codependent relationship that includes an unspecified level of intimacy. (Hey, it's the 11th Century; celibacy for priests was encouraged, but not mandatory.)
 
Geralt Mac Uaid: PC, Irish warrior, also a chirurgeon (medic).
 
Jarl Calder: NPC, Thyri's nemesis. 5 years ago Calder raped and killed Thyri's mother, had her entire family declared outlaws, seized their lands, and oh yeah enslaved Thyri and tortured her for years before selling her into a pit fighting ring. (The other PCs don't know this part of her backstory.)
 
Hjortur Larsson: NPC, respected elder and neutral arbiter.
 
 
Our Heroes have returned to Thyri's native Sweden, where of course they run into Calder. Thyri goes Berserk and attacks Calder; after a lengthy fight, Thyri succeeds in beating the shit out of him, but Edmondo convinces her not to kill him.
 
Afterwards, Elder Larsson appoints himself as judge to hear their dispute and decide if Thyri should be punished for assaulting a Jarl and generally being an outlaw, or if her charges against Calder are justified. Thyri tells her emotional story, the first time the other PCs/players have heard any of it. Calder of course tells a completely different story, and several of his men are willing to back up his version of events. Edmondo on cross-examination is able to poke a few holes in their story, but nothing conclusive. And since she's been declared an Outlaw, she doesn't have the right of trial by combat so the fact that she already defeated him isn't considered conclusive. So it's basically He They Said, She Said, which of course is likely to go down in favor of the noble.
 
Geralt: [grasping at straws] "If he enslaved and tortured you for that long, do you maybe have any scars that can substantiate your story?"
 
Edmondo: [sudden realization] "Oh, is that what that's from?"
 
Thyri says nothing.
 
Edmondo walks over to Thyri and reaches towards her. Thyri shoots him a Back Off look. Edmondo returns a Trust Me look. Thyri, suddenly looking vulnerable for the first time since they've known her, nods.
 
Edmondo pulls Thyri's hair aside revealing the scar on the back of her neck that she always keeps hidden - where Calder had branded his initials into her with a hot knife.
 
Calder: "Uh..." [blank stare]
 
Elder Larsson: "...Well that seems pretty conclusive to me."
 
And Larsson rules in favor of Thyri. (Sentence TBD.)
 
 
I love it when minor bits of character backstory written months before, and which the GM had honestly forgotten about, become a big dramatic reveal and wind up being crucial to the plot!

Actually, yeah. That seems such a betrayal of the whole idea of what Nancy Drew represented.

Ostensively - it's specifically because they are iconic mythic characters that are embodiments of high ideals. Easily recognizable and instantly convey specific kinds ideas about character and attitude.
 
Representation matters. The Face Of America. The God Of Thunder. The Billionaire Crimefighter. The Man Of Steel. Once you open up the idea that anyone can wear these mantles you break down the barriers that they are just one kind of face, that 'normal' isn't so myopically represented.
 
And before we go there; create a secondary character that reflects these mantles and you get the 'they're just a knock off of...' arguments. Catch-22.
 
It doesn't change the fundamental nature of a mythological character, to be honest. It expands it, sure. But change?
If Captain America is supposed to represent an ideal of The American Way, or Fighting For Justice, or however you break down his basic nature, how does making him a Black man over a White man alter that sentence?
 
Borrowing this from a Tumblr post:
Q: Why does that character have to be gay/bi/black/Asian/Hispanic/etc?
A: As opposed to what?
I’ve found this to be a useful response, because many people will hesitate before saying “white” or “straight.” That hesitation comes from the realization, however subconscious, that they have defaulted all characters to white and straight, and are thereby declaring this normal, while everything else is other. From here, if they choose to acknowledge their internalized (unintentional but still harmful) supremacy rather than going on the defensive, they will begin to understand the real value of representation.

Ultron is my least favorite movie in the franchise (well, I haven't seen Ant Man yet... technically); Whedon did a good job, but the editing felt discombobulated and truncated, and caused more than a few issues I have with how some characters were portrayed.

Ah, now I remember why I stopped posting here for a few years... jerks.
 
Was there really a reason for that kind of insult? Seriously? We're expressing opinions on entertainment.

Ostensively - it's specifically because they are iconic mythic characters that are embodiments of high ideals. Easily recognizable and instantly convey specific kinds ideas about character and attitude.
 
Representation matters. The Face Of America. The God Of Thunder. The Billionaire Crimefighter. The Man Of Steel. Once you open up the idea that anyone can wear these mantles you break down the barriers that they are just one kind of face, that 'normal' isn't so myopically represented.
 
And before we go there; create a secondary character that reflects these mantles and you get the 'they're just a knock off of...' arguments. Catch-22.
 
It doesn't change the fundamental nature of a mythological character, to be honest. It expands it, sure. But change?
If Captain America is supposed to represent an ideal of The American Way, or Fighting For Justice, or however you break down his basic nature, how does making him a Black man over a White man alter that sentence?
 
Borrowing this from a Tumblr post:
Q: Why does that character have to be gay/bi/black/Asian/Hispanic/etc?
A: As opposed to what?
I’ve found this to be a useful response, because many people will hesitate before saying “white” or “straight.” That hesitation comes from the realization, however subconscious, that they have defaulted all characters to white and straight, and are thereby declaring this normal, while everything else is other. From here, if they choose to acknowledge their internalized (unintentional but still harmful) supremacy rather than going on the defensive, they will begin to understand the real value of representation.