esampson

Re: You Don't Have to be Crazy to be a Superhero, but it Helps! Human beings are not always logical or constant. On average people are more afraid of flying than driving despite statistical evidence that shows that flying is safer in every statistically measurable way. As Agent K memorably said "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." You only have to look at the history of the past 15 years to see examples of how the actions of a small handful of extremists can influence general public sentiment against an entire group of people.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. You know, once again we are derailing badly. I was going to post the definition for Nonstandard from thefreedictionary.com but I don't actually see it resolving the problem. If you are interested in discussing the merits and problems of building PCs and NPCs exactly the same, whether PCs or NPCs should purchase each other as Contacts or Followers, or anything else we recently touched on in this derail then feel free to start a new thread and I will comment on it. Otherwise I think we are going to have to remain at an impasse.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. True, but if you're going to write them in a non-standard way you probably shouldn't expect everyone else to do the same.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Then you are writing in a non-standard fashion (again, as exhibited by the NPCs in the various Villains books). However, if we are going by the logic that there is no way to distinguish between a PC and an NPC rulewise then both Batman and Robin need to list each other as Followers since they can call upon each other for combat reasons. Batman will also need Superman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Flash, Martian Manhunter, Black Canary, Wonder Woman, and a huge list of other people that I'm forgetting as Followers since he can call upon them to come assist him. Of course before you can figure out how many points each one costs you'll have to balance each one with all of their Followers, but what's life without a challenge? At least you'll be constructing them all 'the right way'.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. That's a little silly. You write PC and NPCs differently, as in the example given with the NPC enemies who do not buy each other as Contacts or Followers.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. You've got 4 possibilities in your example: Possibility 1: Batman is a PC and Robin is an NPC. As you said, Batman takes Robin as a Follower. Robin, being an NPC does not need to list Batman as a Contact because he's not going to be doing anything by himself. Possibility 2: Batman is an NPC and Robin is a PC. If Robin can reliably call in Batman to help him then you bet he needs to take him as a Follower for the exact same reason Batman has to take Robin as a Follower in the first example. You don't get to make a character and just give him free backup without spending some points. If Batman only goes along when the GM feels like and it isn't the majority of the time then you could probably get by with Batman as a Contact. That doesn't appear to be what Cassandra wants with the version of Lois she is building. Possibility 3: Both Batman and Robin are PCs. No one needs to take anything. Possibility 4: Both Batman and Robin are NPCs. Uh.....yeah. Don't worry about whether they are Followers or Contacts or anything else. Pretty sure the majority of supervillain teams in to Champions Enemies books don't buy each other as contacts or followers.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. We are discussing building Lois as a character. Sorry, you can't just say that they have a relationship with an NPC where the NPC is forced to appear and save the character at a moment's notice because of limitations on the NPC's sheets. Limitations applied to NPC's (DNPC's, Followers, Summoned creatures, etc.) have to be limitations that affect their value to the player. Limitations such as 'Slavishly Devoted to Character' do not reduce the value of those NPCs. If you are trying to make Lois as a character and you want her to be able to reliably call upon Superman to come save her she needs to spend points on something more significant than 'Contact'. (If on the other hand Superman is a PC then she doesn't need to spend the points on Contact in the first place.)

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Ok, but this all came about because of the concept of Lois Lane paying points for Superman as a Contact, which is fine if all she want's to do is ask his advice, get him to give her interviews, and things like that (and he's an NPC).

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. You require PC's to purchase other PC's as contacts?

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. You can do that as well. Sure. Nothing wrong with it. However this has nothing to do with Contacts or Summons/Followers.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Then I guess he's blowing off the League while he's working a case in Gotham or something.

Re: The Reaper Rule 40: I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable superweapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve.

Re: Would you allow this? Which is why I took the path of 'discouraging it but allowing it' (except as noted with speed). I'd discourage it because I suspect the player will get tired of it after a while, but if there's nothing particularly game breaking about it then they aren't decreasing anyone else's fun so let them be. Maybe they do get some kind of weird fun out of it. Requiring the player to take a lower speed falls into the exact same lines. In that case the problem isn't that they will overshadow the other players and decrease their fun but it is still an issue of them making things less fun for everyone else.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Sure. If he's available it is reasonable for him to show up. Is he controlled by a player? Is the player there? Hey, he's available. Is he an NPC? Do I want him to show up? Hey, he's available (now why did I design an adventure so that the player had to call on my overpowered NPC for help?)

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Ok. First off if we are going to put things into game terms we need to establish what Superman is. Is he a PC or an NPC? If he's a PC then you don't need Summon. He shows up when the player is available to play him. If he's an NPC then I wouldn't be putting him on the same team as a bunch of PCs because that just turns into 'this week's adventure: GM's NPC comes in and beats the snot out of all our opponents for us again'.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

Re: You Don't Have to be Crazy to be a Superhero, but it Helps! No. She's more terrifying and dangerous than Thor, but that's because Thor is a recognized hero. If you're part of the general public you've got no reason to believe Thor is going to harm you and in fact you probably have faith that Thor is going to protect you from harm. The Hulk and Thor may be in the same class, but they aren't interchangeable.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Actually, I think it depends a lot more on what the subject does. If the subject is a contact then their influence is primarily out of combat (IMO). They might offer advice or even equipment. Maybe they'll show up to save your bacon, but that's a very rare occurrence (which is not the case with Lois. Superman is saving her all the time). Summon and Follower on the other hand are for someone who will defend you if need be (ok, some people will use them for servants and the like, but those servants would still fight for them, usually). In the end it's a question of balance. A character shouldn't be able to press the 'I win' button because they spent 21 points. Being able to reliably call upon Superman to come fight for you is a massive ability and so it should cost massive amounts of points.

Re: Would you allow this? Kind of a similar answer there. I figured out a while back a good way to 'balance' damage. Take the chance the player has to hit (using their OCV againt a theoretical average DCV) as a value between 0 and 1, multiply that by the average damage they will do (usually figured by dice * 4 - theoretical average defense but that can change depending on things like armor piercing, NNDs, etc.) and multiply it by the characters speed. That gives me a rough idea how much damage a character might do in a round. If they have autofire, AoE's or other advantages it gets trickier but I have formulas to work that out as well. Sample characters in the book seem to range around 70-90 points of damage in a turn using this method. This guy? He's going to average less than 40. Nothing game breaking about that. Of course if he's got other abilities like Martial Arts that could change the picture considerably, but for now we're just assuming all he can really do is run around with a very high speed inflicting minimal damage. That said I would probably force him to lower his speed anyway simply because of the headaches it can cause other players when someone has a ludicrously high speed. Having to wait while he decides 3 different actions that have negligible impact every time you want to make an action is going to get old in a hurry for a player. That's more of an OOC concern, however. (edit: By OOC what I really mean is it is more of a practical consideration [players won't have fun because they have to wait so long] as opposed to a game balance issue.)

Re: Would you allow this? I would discourage him from playing the character because I don't think he'll enjoy it all that much, but since he isn't game breaking in any way that I can see I would allow it. So he taunts the bad guys. So what? They take a 0-phase action to soliloquy "Careful buddy. You might hurt my feelings," and then shoot his friends once they realize he can't actually do anything to them. This isn't an MMO where NPCs have to mindlessly attack whoever taunts them. If he becomes too much of a nuisance someone will eventually entangle him, grab him and throw him, gas him, telekinesis him, or otherwise remove him from combat.

Re: What if there are no super-prisons? The U.S. Government doesn't have any jurisdiction in the Marianas Trench, as near as I'm aware. As other people have pointed out the issue of exactly how to classify Valak is also very up in the air since he is an alien and not a human being. Neither of which are going to have much at all to do with public opinion. People are going to scream that Valak has not even been charged and arraigned, much less stood trial. The fact that he's being detained by a private citizen rather than a branch of the Government is going to make things even worse. The idea that Supernal can just come down and pluck someone up and lock them away for the rest of their lives without due process is going to make lots of people really, really nervous. Sure, it was a super alien this time but what about the next time Supernal decides someone can't be locked up in a regular prison? Likewise, the fact that the Government might not have jurisdiction (though actually I believe they would since the crime was committed on U.S. soil) won't enter all that much into the fact that the U.S. Government is going to want control of the situation. Take all the type A control freaks who tend to populate government as well as those people who will entertain unsavory ideas as to the use of Valak and add in those who are genuinely concerned about what happens if Supernal gets killed (how long before the technology breaks down and Valak gets freed? What if another alien shows up and Supernal is no longer around?) and you'll have an awful lot of government people trying to convince Supernal to turn Valak and the mirror cell technology over to them. Now assuming that Supernal roughly fills the role of Superman in that world the government probably won't be bringing any real pressure to bear. They'll ask nicely and offer incentives and that's about it. Of course should Supernal not oblige them they will probably feel no reason to try to protect him from the public backlash. The Government doesn't keep suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay because it doesn't want them in the states. It does it for legal reasons to try and get around certain aspects of law. It is similar to the reason they classify them as 'enemy combatants' (because then they can be detained without trial as prisoners of war). Would the Government want Valak kept in the states? Probably, but even if you went to the extreme of deciding he was so dangerous that the U.S. Government decided it was better for him to be detained outside the states the Government would still want to be in charge. They would just set up their Stronghold or whatever they decide to call it in Guantanamo or Antarctica or on an specially designed ship that sails international waters or something else.

Re: What if there are no super-prisons? The problem in this case is probably going to be less the government actively pressing a legal case (although they eventually will) and more a problem of public outcry. Even as destructive as Valak was you will get groups like the ACLU with quite valid concerns that if Valak is not accorded the same rights as a human being then the government will be legally allowed to grab any visiting extra terrestrial off the street and dissect them.

Re: What if there are no super-prisons?

Re: What if there are no super-prisons?

Re: You Don't Have to be Crazy to be a Superhero, but it Helps!