wylodmayer

Re: Modern Age vs Silver Age Well said, Trebuchet and Spidey. I tend to agree with you guys, although I *do* like exploring some ambiguous morality in my games sometimes. Still, even at my "darkest" (barring Dark Champions games) I tend to be Bronze at worst. Yeah, in my games, there are cynical heroes who are only in it for the cash or whatever, sometimes, but these people are the exceptions who prove the rule. Even in my games where I tend to run with the idea that "you have to be a somewhat damaged personality to try and put on tights and fight crime," most of them are **sincere**... if crazy. Plus, impenetrable plots and lack of ability to have an effect on the game world is a problem for any GM. Players need "payoff" points! Even in a game like Vampire, PCs need to occassionally need to feel as if they have done something. We had a GM who was just plain BAD about crud like that. He ran Shadowrun for us just a few times, and he was horrible about throwing out pointless, go-nowhere clues that weren't actually supposed to lead us to anything so much as signal to us that things we couldn't impact were happening just "off screen." He had the annoying tendency for his generic, minor NPCs to suddenly sprout enormous EGO and PRE (in HERO terms) to resist intimidation and interrogation attempts that might move the plot forward faster than *he* wanted it to move. It was crap.

Re: [Campaign] The Last Dominion Tonight's game was great. I even enjoyed being gutted.

Re: Modern Age vs Silver Age As I mentioned, I trashed their metaplot in general, especially the bit-players feel and the lame sterilization thing, but I did kind of use their setting, in as much as I started from the event that (in my game) caused novas to appear and went with that. The whole first two sessions were spent with the PCs figuring out what to do about their new conditions. It was fun; the players got to witness firsthand, and take part in!, the shaping of the world's response to novas. I enjoyed the hell out of it. On the whole, I prefer HERO's mechanics, but one thing I miss - as a player of "face men" characters - is Aberrant's Mega-Social characteristics. I finally had a really useful "face" character. I could do stuff in combat, even, like arrest enemy's actions in mid attack and so on. It rocked. It's just too much of a pain to create in HERO. Not that I'll stop trying...

Re: Modern Age vs Silver Age

Re: Modern Age vs Silver Age I think those evaluations are pretty solid. I note the Wild Cards one not because I disagree with it, but because I think "Mind Controlling Voodoo Fetuses" would make a killer band name. Also, and not to push this off topic, but I've always thought that Aberrant tried too hard for its Iron Age 'cred'. I mean, the conspiranoiac set up in the game, a theme that White Wolfers were single mindedly carrying through all their games, was ridiculous. When I ran it, I set it right at the first appearance of novas, but even if I had used their setting, there's no way any one group would have been able to track and sterilize all the novas and whathaveyou. Hell, among the four characters in the party alone, two would have been immune to any drugs they tried to give them, one would have sensed any plotting against him with his freakin' cosmic awareness-like Danger Sense, and one would have... well, he had enough Mega Charisma, they wouldn't have WANTED to hurt him. I'm not saying that there's no way to have a conspiracy in that world, but, really, all you need is one NPC with some Mega Intelligence and Mega Perception to blow the lid off your "secret plans." The typical White Wolf set up just didn't work with it. Other than that, though, the game had some strong points. Tossed out their ridiculous setting, and I had fun running it.

Re: Looking for suggestions for a night out. The crucial - but missing - information here is, "What does she consider fun?" For all we know, if she's in Reno, she might spend the night playing slots. Or seeing a Celine Dion show.

Re: Superhuman women and normal women I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the way Lois has occassionally been written borders on the psychopathological. Some of the male writers in comicdom have problems scripting strong women who aren't, well, b*tches. However, check out Brian K Vaughn's fantastic "Y the Last Man" for a male writer who can write women.

Re: Superhuman women and normal women Heh - well, Promethea was a bit weird for my tastes, especially the ending, but I went into that with my eyes open. I mean, it was small press, Alan Moore, and a kind of oddball premise from the start. I didn't expect anything less than, well, the unexpected. But Supergirl? I don't pick up a DC Comic with the word "Super-" in the title expecting grim and gritty crime stories, or slapstick silly stories, or metaphysical self flagellation. I expect superheroics, by god. Move the Earth out of the way of a comet or something. Sheesh.

Re: Superhuman women and normal women In re: comics addressing these issues: That's pretty cool, and a little (pleasantly) surprising! Despite my love of all things superheroy, I have, of late, essentially given up hero comics out of bitter disappointment in the writing. Nice to know things are taking an upswing, at least in part. Peter David, whom I like but find an uneven writer at best, touched on this a little in Supergirl*, but only in a very tangential way. She had an agent who booked her to speak at events and who tried to get marketing tie ins and stuff. I think there was an issue about this in Superman, too, but that was years ago. The one who's reaction I'd really like to see to marketing is Batman. ---- *Note that this was before David steered his comic over the cliff by embarking on a decidedly off-genre, metaphysical, Heaven-v-Hell storyline so convoluted that it went on for over a year and a half without the direction of the plot being one iota clearer than when it started, with no payoff in sight. I stopped collecting at that point. Shortly after that, faced with positively dismal sales, he brings back Kara Kent and, according to his own words, planned on introducing Power Girl into the comic to turn it into "three blonde powerhouses kicking around the universe and having fun." Perhaps he got the message that something along those lines just might be what people are expecting when the pick up a Supergirl comic, rather than some endlessly labrynthine meditation on God and Satan. If he did, as his wounded-sounding protestations after his title got nuked indicate, then he certainly could have shown a little of that while wanking off to his own amateurish meditations on theodicy. I'm all for deep thought, but when I pick up a comic about a blonde girl in a short skirt who can fly and lift tanks, I don't intend to stick around for a something that sounds like a tract on Kierkegaard written by someone who smoked too much dope.

Re: Superhuman women and normal women I think I read that article, too, ghost-angel. That was an interesting result. Men of all ages from all cultures tended to rank women with a 0.7 waist to hip ratio as the most attractive, regardless of other factors. Weird. That especially makes me feel like a freak for likin' the stick-figure-y types. And yeah, as g-a notes, there are plenty of beauty signals in other cultures, too - I was just hedging my bets by restricting my comments by invoking "Western culture," which I meant in a variety of ways: *to note I was referring to Western standards of beauty; *to emphasize that most campaigns are set in Western cultures; *and to allow for the possibility that other cultures might mark some women as more desirable primarily for non-physical reasons, such as obedience or fertility or whatever. In other words, it was C.Y.A. on my part.

Re: Superhuman women and normal women Dude, I tried to rep Matt, Trebuchet, AND OddHat... but I have to spread some around first. At least I could get Karmakaze. I love you guys.

Re: Superhuman women and normal women

Re: Superhuman women and normal women

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

Re: Obvious/Inobvious Okay, well, as to the incorrect pricing, it just goes to show you shouldn't post things without proper sleep. But I still stand by my general point, which is the disparity between out of combat pricing. And yes, ghost-angel, individual campaign style of course matters, but I was attempting to show that there's a pretty broadly applicable difference for "obvious" that won't be too sensitive to individual campaign variances unless we assume some REALLY unusual practices for those GMs in question. I maintain that my pricing scheme is more fair to people who buy things that are clearly weapons vis-a-vis those who buy items which will become apparent once they are used. The fact that I forgot that IIF and OIHID are the same price, though, does change the equation a bit. However, in response to whoever it was that said that Power Armor people would be getting -3/4, I don't think they would. Although I didn't explicate this point, I was construing Inaccessible in the same way as in current use - that is, even out of combat, it can be removed by someone else in one turn if the owner isn't resisting. This seems false of most powered armor; I'd imagine if Iron Man were unconscious, it still might require special knowledge and/or effort to get the damned armor off of him. Powered Armor, I would say, gets no bonus for accessibility, making it an OUF - Obvious Unaccessible Focus, I guess. -1/2. Anyway, just a thought.

Re: Obvious/Inobvious I think we're agreeing here. My point is that *as the rules currently stand* IIF Ring guy gets a total Limitation of -1/2, while OIHID guy gets a total limitation of -1/4. I think those two situations are roughly the same and should get the same limitation. Although I've never explicitly formulated it, I've likewise always assumed that if OIHID is to be a Limitation worth anything, there must be some way to prevent someone from getting into hero ID in the first place. In other words, out of combat and if you know about the Limitation, you can deprive the hero of his powers, more or less. This seems to be the situation for both IIF Magic Ring guy and for OIHID. In neither case is the Limitation obvious without special knowledge. It's not at all obvious from seeing Captain Marvel lift things, fly, and bounce tank shells that he needs to utter a magic word to gain access to his strength, flight, and invulnerability. Likwise, from seeing IIF Magic Ring Man cause things to burst into flames it's not at all obvious that he needs his ring to do it. Figuring those things out requires extra knowledge. But as it currently stands IIF Magic Ring Guy pays less for his powers, even though neither can be reasonably denied in combat and neither Limitation is obvious. [several people below point out my mistake in pricing here, so if that's what you're about to reply to, it's been done and I gave my "oops" below. However, I still like my pricing scheme proposed below, since it doesn't change that particular issue.] I'm inclined more and more to go with the latter scheme I proposed: Obviousness -1/2: Obvious before use -1/4: Obvious during use -0: Not obvious without special senses or knowledge Accessibility -1/2: Can take away during combat -1/4: Can take away out of combat -0: Can't take away without spec procedures or knowledge And now an IIF has the same pricing as OIHID, which seems reasonable to me.

Re: Rejected Superhero Names I've actually got one from a game. We had a guy who was new to superhero games and only loosely grasped the genre, but was highly enthusiastic. He had a trained normal who used a bow, and in a moment of thematic glory, he named him... Quiver. The jokes started immediately, and by the end of the first session, after merciless ragging, he announced he would be changing his name. To Shaft. More jokes followed him out the door. He didn't play superheroes any more after that.

Re: Obvious/Inobvious OddHat - I see it. Those make sense, and I agree, the IAF Gun Cane guy is getting shafted a bit by special effects in comparison to the IAF Magic Amulet guy. The solution you proposed for the OIF GL Ring is great. The amount of fidgeting and leeway that needs to be done to accomodate the out-of-combat advantages accruing to the OAF Gun Cane guy over the OAF Gun guy definitely show that it's a borderline question whether the out-of-combat obviousness is worth any points or not. I think this one would have to come down to campaign focus. If you play fast and loose with noncom situations, then it would make sense for the GM to call the gun and the gun cane both Obvious, because they are both equivalently obvious in the dominant situation for that game - combat. But if the game focuses a lot on noncom stuff, and/or there's a high degree of realism in such interactions, I can see erring to the Inobvious side, and making players buy even gun canes which are obvious in use as Inobvious to account for the freedom with which someone can carry the focus. I tell ya, though, in my campaign, I think I may switch to: 1) Obvious even when not being used -3/4 2) Obvious when in use -1/2 3) Not obvious even when in use -1/4 Frankly, though, after one player I had who really abused the IIFs, I'm tempted to go: 1) Obvious even when not in use -1/2 2) Obvious only when in use -1/4 3) Not obvious even in use -0 That seems more fair to me, really. I mean, looking at it not from the rules as they stand but just from common sense, if no one can tell it's the source of a power even when it's being used, then there's really no Limitation it's getting in terms of Obviousness, right? Getting a -0 for that seems logical. If it's a Magic Amulet thing then it still gets a -1/4 because it could be Inaccessible. But, I think this establishes parity with accessibility - if something is accessible only in principle, like surgically implanted items, then there's really no accessibility limitation. Same thing for obviousness - if it's not obvious even when you're using it, then there's really no obviousness limitation. It's on par with Only in Hero ID, then, and honestly still sounds like you get off paying less points for more usefulness, to me at least.

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

Re: Obvious/Inobvious Well, that doesn't seem to be entirely true. I mean, sure, culture is part of the story, but we can make some assumptions about what is and isn't obvious based on the dominant culture of the campaign. Again, I refer you to the gun cane example. Unless we assume it has elaborate flash and sound suppression systems, a gun cane's "inobviousness" is based entirely on it not loooking like a gun when it's not in use as one. And it does seem that the gun cane therefore has some advantage over the gun in that case - I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with allowing someone to buy a gun cane as an Obvious focus. I think that's probably the way it *should* be done, but the rules appear to pull in two different directions on this.

I had a thought that turned into a discussion that was threatening to drag another thread quite far afield, so I figured I'd start a new thread for it. I'm having a little trouble parsing the definitions of "obvious" and "inobvious" for foci. Before anyone starts quoting rules, let me state that I've been over them thoroughly - the problem does not result from not knowing what the rules say. It's a matter of feeling that they are perhaps unclear or, maybe, unnuanced. Okay, so, the rules say that a ring which glows while being used - that is, which is obviously a source of power - is an Obvious focus. That seems fair. Likewise, a ring which does not is Inobvious. Again, fair. What I am concerned about is that a ring which glows while being used does not seem equally as Obvious as some other Obvious foci, like a gun for instance. A ring which glows while being used cannot be easily identified as something to worry about until it is used. A gun, on the other hand, can be. It can be singled out as a focus before you ever fire it, and taken away from you. The "obvious" ring focus cannot be, at least without involving Detects, and that's not what we're talking about here. Commonly used senses cannot detect the ring, but can detect the gun, ahead of use. That seems a pretty clear disparity in usefulness of the foci. The ring seems like it should have less of a limitation than the gun. But in terms of obviousness at least (accessibility is not at issue), it does not. What makes this more complicated to me is that an example given of an Inobvious focus - the gun cane - seems like the main reason for making it Inobvious is that it is not clearly a focus for a killing attack; in other words, its categorization as an inobvious focus seems more based on obviousness ahead of use, not during use. The assumption would be that it would be at least reasonably obvious during use. Of course, as ghost-angel suggests, maybe it's not. I suppose an Inobvious gun cane could have such flash and sound suppression systems that it is not clearly a KA even when fired. I don't think that was what was intended when it was made Inobvious, and even if it were, we are left with the original problem, but more sharply defined now: should a gun be "just as obvious" in game terms as a gun-cane, even one without such flash and sound suppression systems? It seems crazy that it should be so. The whole point of a gun-cane is its clandestine nature; if the party is searched for guns, the pistols will be confiscated and the cane left in the hands of its owner. But if Obviousness is predicated solely on Obviousness during use, it would be, well, Obvious. The rules seem unclear on this issue. In the ring examples, obviousness seems wholly predicated on obviousness during use. In the gun cane example, it seems predicated on obviousness ahead of use. I'm inclined to say that we should be more concerned with the latter, but I'm half tempted to suggest we establish another category of obviousness, for three total: 1) Obvious before (and presumably during) use 2) Obvious during use but not before 3) Not Obvious during use or before Unfortunately, there's no 3/8 Limitation for that middle one. Thoughts? Which should we be rightfully more concerned about? Obviousness during use? Obviousness before use? Neither? Does anyone care?

Re: Experiments in Character Construction Cybernetics... oops. Yeah. I'll start a new thread for this other discussion. Sorry.

Re: Experiments in Character Construction

Re: Expirments in Character Construction I'm well aware that the rules say such a ring is an Obvious focus. I mentioned that in my post; if you didn't see it, please look again. I can read rules. The rules also later say that a gun cane is an Inobvious focus, which contradicts your example. Thus, faced with an apparent ambiguity, I'm asking an interpretive question. What vexes me is that an apparently identical situation - the gun cane - is listed as an Inobvious focus. The ring and the gun cane both appear normal accoutrement until used. Both are obviously the source of some power when used. The ring is considered, thus, Obvious. When you use it, it gives some signal of being the source of the power. Fair enough. But the gun cane, even though this is not explicitly stated, would be an idential case. When used, it would be clearly the source of the Killing Attack. Yet it is called Inobvious. THAT is the problem I am having. The section on the Obvious/Inobvious split is unclear. The rules say one thing; a notable example indicates something precisely the opposite. And what I was inviting comment on was which of the two definitions of "obvious" should we be more interested in. Should we decide all things which show themselves as a source of power when used are Obvious, even if some of those items are the sort of thing that could be openly worn or carried without alarming an enemy and some are not? That hardly seems fair. The two cases are not equivalent. It is to the detriment of the man who carries the gun that his Focus is something that would be confiscated upon sight, rather than something that would only be deemed dangerous once it is used. The opposite interpretation, that an item is Inobvious unless it is clearly, to casual inspection, the bearer of some power contradicts what the rules seem to say. But if examples are of any use, they are to show us how to apply the rules that are stated. The rule that is stated would seem to indicate that the ring which throws lightning bolts is an Obvious focus. The example of HOW TO APPLY THAT VERY RULE, in calling the gun cane Inobvious, contradicts that. Which has precedence? The bare rule itself? Or the example which is supposed to flesh out that rule and help us understand it? THAT is what I am considering. In other words, Premise 1) The book claims a ring that throws lightning bolts is an Obvious Focus because when it throws the lightning bolts, you can tell it's coming from the ring. Premise 2) The book also claims, less explicitly but just as definitely, that a gun can is an *Inobvious Focus*, even though we can and should presume that when it's shooting, you can tell that the shot is coming from the cane. Conclusion) The definition of Obvious is thus unclear. Restating Premise 1 is not an answer to the question at hand. I know Premise 1. If I didn't, it wouldn't be Premise 1, now, would it? So telling me that doesn't help. The questions at hand are: Is there really a contradiction in the case of the ring and the case of the gun cane? If so, is there a way to parse "obvious" that saves the rule for both? If not, which has precedence? THESE are the questions. This is not a simple rules enquiry. This is something more subtle. Thus, I opened it to the boards, for thoughtful analysis.

Re: Expirments in Character Construction People seem to be missing my question here. Make no mistake; this is not a simple lack of understanding of the Focus limitation. I've been playing this game since second edition, and I know my way around. I'm asking about something more fundamental. I'm gonna restate my question so that we're perfectly clear on this. I was starting from the premise that "obviousness" was a function of whether it is obvious that the item is a focus for some kind of effect upon casual examination, without seeing it in action. For example, a gun is an obvious focus, given the right cultural knowledge, so is a wand, and a flamethrower. A ring that does not obviously have any powers before they are manifested would not be obvious in that sense, because you don't look at the guy wearing it and say, "hey, that ring does something." Not until, at least, he does it. I think we can all agree that it is "better" - i.e.: less of a limitation - to have a Focus that is inobvious in this sense because even if people search you, they may not think to remove it. It doesn't appear to DO anything when it's not, you know, actively doing something. But an obvious focus would; even when not being used, it would be clear that it is a focus of some kind. Again, that's the operative difference between a gun and a gun cane. The last two posts seem to be arguing that obviousness has to do with obviousness when the power is being used. A ring that clearly shoots fire from it is, according to that theory, an Obvious focus because, well, the fire comes from the ring. And the initial wording of the Focus limitation *seems* to support this, speaking of "source of powers" and all. But the gun cane is given as an example of an Inobvious focus!! Clearly, a gun cane is **obviously** firing a bullet - when it is being used. You use a gun cane to shoot someone, and people don't say - "Wow, where did that bullet come from, and why is he pointing his cane?" No, they say, "Oh, wow, he had a gun concealed in that cane." We're dealing with two different shadings of the word "Obvious," and while one seems to be the kind endorsed by the rules - the interpretation given by the last two respondents to my question. But the actual example given falls in line with the version of "obvious" I'm talking about. The former is obviousness during/after power use. When you use the power, can people tell where it's coming from. The latter is obviousness before power use. Can anyone tell by looking at this thing that it will be the source of some power. Let's look at our example. I have a magic ring. It looks no different from any other ring. No one who can't detect magic or isn't paranoid about rings is gonna confiscate it from me when frisking me for weapons. It's just not ***obvious*** that this is something that will let me throw fire, unlike, say a flamethrower. They don't have to see it in use to know it's a Focus. I don't see how it's reasonable to classify this as an obvious focus, compared to other obvious foci. Furthermore, the given example of an inobvious focus, the gun cane, is "obvious" when used, so the magic ring that throws fire bolts from the ring seems a pretty clear case of an Inobvious Foci. (That is to say, there's a clear disparity in the value of the limitation between an item that can be identified as a tool for throwing fire before it does so, and one that can't, even if that latter item can be so identified WHILE throwing fire) But the rules also state that a ring which glows when used, say, is an Obvious Foci! So how can a Gun Cane, which clearly SHOOTS A BULLET, be Inobvious, and a ring, which is completely inconspicuous except that it glows while being used, be Obvious? It seems to me that there's a confusion in the rules about Obviousness. They claim that one item - a gun cane - is Inobvious, but another item which is obvious in the same way is Obvious! I don't think I'm crazy here. There's more than one kind of obvious, and the two examples *from the book* seem to construe the term in opposite ways. Thoughts?