esampson

Re: Popularity of Superhero Groups in a Shared Universe Current Marvel timeline I believe is around 13 years since the Fantastic Four first went into space (which is sort of their main point of reference). In the mid-eighties I believe it was 7 years, although a lot of people noticed that didn't jibe with certain events. In the mid-nineties they bumped it up to 10.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Actually, as the discussion goes on I am becoming more and more reminded of this painting: [The irony is not lost on me.]

Re: Rogue Syndrome Not sure what you mean by 'from his game world'. It's just an extension of the concept of transferring things from other people/objects. It's actually an idea I had for a character (probably not a PC) years and years ago. The character couldn't steal powers but they could steal knowledge. It was a combination of telepathy and a VPP for skills along with a couple of other powers. Since it was a magical ability I thought about having the character able to absorb information from books, computers, etc. Unfortunately the Transform rules at the time didn't work quite so well for the concept (and it didn't occur to me to make it a Killing Attack with a special effect that the 'destroyed' object was left blank).

Re: Popularity of Superhero Groups in a Shared Universe Yes. And he failed.

Re: Rogue Syndrome Distinctive Feature: Abnormally low body temperature Enraged when told "Sucks to be you".

Re: Popularity of Superhero Groups in a Shared Universe Nah. Tony Stark has been out of arms manufacturing for decades in the comics (with Marvel's sliding time scale it is obviously less then that but he stopped shortly after becoming Iron Man). I mean he is completely out of manufacturing weapon. As in doesn't even manufacture them for SHIELD. As in became Secretary of Defense at one point so that the military couldn't have other people produce weaponry using patents he had lost the rights to (although he did start work on some non-lethal weapons at that time and in more recent years has produced some Iron Man knockoff suits for SHIELD but they were without weapons, I believe).

Re: Rogue Syndrome How about adding into the VPP so that she steals knowledge at the same time she steals powers. Then give her a transform attack that applies to books, computers, CDs, etc. that she touches that wipes out all their data.

Re: Multiform Not sure I'd give you a -1 for Multiform Only as a GM (or do you mean Specific Pre-approved Multiform Only?). Since you can just have the same base stats with whatever powers you want it seems to be one of those 'non-limiting limitations' and in fact seems to boost the VPP unreasonably since each point of VPP translates to 5 points of ability. Why are you using Multiform for that, anyway, or was it because of the boost?

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. OkIfiguredthatifIleaveoffallthespacesandpunctuationmarksIcanincreasemytypingbyalmost10percentDoyouthinkthatwillhelp

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Sorry, Grey. I was actually replying to Blau Stern. I meant that the write-ups weren't strong enough for Spiderman as he envisioned him. Your reply to him snuck in before I was done.

Re: Multiform A bit later than I meant to write it up. http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/91243-Solution-to-Multipowers-within-VPPs

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. Yeah. I can definitely see that. To be fair though you should probably amend "...as I envision him". Trying to figure out what are the extreme cases that should be rejected is hard enough but there's also an issue with the escalation of power that most characters go through. Let's not forget that while Spiderman has soloed the Sinister Six he's also had problems fighting The Enforcers, who consist of someone who originally was just a really strong guy (not even superhumanly strong originally), a guy who knew kung fu, and some dude with a rope. And then on top of all that we get into issues of 'proper benchmarks' that don't really need rehashing. So trying to line up the stats on characters (this isn't limited to Spiderman) means agreeing on scale, time period, and even then dealing with lots of inconsistencies within that time period. Frankly I think its something of a small miracle that we even agree on the power sets (and in fact we don't always).

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

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

Re: Time Frame for Appearance of Superhumans

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs. Thought about that. I was just worried that would make it even more complicated. Assuming it would increase the limitation to -1 1/2 (-2 just seemed too much to me) I come up with: 10 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, (20 Active Points); Can Only be changed in a laboratory (-1/2), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4) 18 - Naked Advantage: No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) for up to 20 Active Points, Limited Effect: Gadgets (+1/4) (50 Active Points); Limited Power: Power can only be changed in laboratory with the exception of approved ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning weapons. May require a full phase action to change powers depending upon special effect. (-1 1/2), IIF (-1/4) So 4 points more that way or 18 points higher on the complete control cost. BTW, I realized afterward that while the control cost increased the size of the pool itself actually decreases. Assuming that the gun was a '40 point multipower' with 3 slots it actually costs you 52 points (yeah, I'm grossly simplifying because we don't have foci or anything else in there, but you get the idea) while the VPP doesn't have to pay anything extra for the 'slots' that are approved.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. I always thought it was more caused by the fact that the writer wanted Spiderman to beat-up Firelord, despite the difference in their power levels (which isn't to say Spiderman's a wimp or anything. Just that he's not on the same level as Marvel's heaviest hitters).

So under the Multiform thread the issue came up with GMs allowing Multipowers under VPPs in certain specific situations (such as my VPP is used to copy other people's powers and they have a Multipower). This has been an issue with me less for the purposes of a power copy VPP but for purposes of a gadget pool VPP. I had stated that I would probably allow it as a GM with some very tight controls as to what Multipowers would be allowed. This was so a character could take something like a gun with clips of standard, armor piercing, and rubber bullets or a kusari gama which can (at least in a superhero comic) be used as stretching + hth attack, stretching + hka, or swinging. Both exceptionally well suited to a Multipower but which become a bit awkward if you try to fit them into a standard VPP. Despite the fact that I said I was making the decision as a GM and it would be tightly controlled I was sent a link warning me about the evils of allowing a Multipower under a VPP and people seemed to have a fairly negative view (in their defense I didn't go into full detail with two examples of what I was going to allow and they may have been trying to save me from being steamrollered by my own players). Of course the other half of my problem is that I'd like to be able to do such things as a player and while I'm comfortable about making such decisions as a GM there's no guarantee that my own GM will be quite so comfortable. So how to work it out so that I can get the effect I want while being legal (and without trying to do anything that feels to me like a loophole such as placing a Multiform within the VPP and then a Multipower as part of the Multiform). That's when it suddenly occurred to me that a VPP really is a more advanced form of Multipower and with a little thinking I can achieve the effect I want without being completely overpowered. Long story short: Base 'gadget pool' VPP control cost: 10 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, (20 Active Points); Can Only be changed in a laboratory (-1/2), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4) Of course that is more or less the one everyone is familiar with. New 'gadget pool' VPP control cost: 24 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) (60 Active Points); Limited Power: Powers can only be changed in laboratory with the exception of ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning objects (alternate ammo and abilities must be approved at the laboratory. New powers cannot be created in the field). May require a full phase action to change powers depending upon special effect. (-1), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4) 14 points more for the control cost isn't that big a deal. Hurts a little since it more than doubles the control cost but since I'll have a minimum of 40 points in the pool (bringing the totals to 50 and 64) and quite probably more the true cost ratio isn't nearly as high. Obviously there might be disagreement as to whether or not the limited power limitation is a full -1 but considering that without it I can change my powers whenever and however I want and that with it I still need approval of all the powers I'm going to take with me into the field and can very easily have to spend a full phase changing my power (to represent changing clips) and I'm pretty comfortable with -1. In fact I might even find it a little bit low. So, thoughts? Suggestions? Death threats?

Re: Multiform Yes, but as I said I wouldn't the Multipower within the VPP in all cases. In fact I probably wouldn't allow it in most cases, and pretty much for the reasons shown in that thread, but there are going to be some things that will probably be modeled best by allowing the Multipower (although as I think about it I just realized there is a solution that accomplishes basically the exact same thing except it makes the control writeup a huge headache. I'll write it up tomorrow in a new thread). If I was going to take a RAW stance against allowing a Multipower within a VPP I wouldn't let you take the Multipower as part of a Multiform within the VPP because that does nothing to prevent the problems illustrated in that thread (and it is easy to argue that you are still placing a framework within a framework).

Re: Multiform Not sure why you provided that link. As I said I would probably only allow it in certain circumstances such as a gun with multiple settings (your example of applying variable special effect doesn't always work since I might want to include an energy blast and RKA). On the other hand I wouldn't allow you to create a larger 'gadget' multipower and place all your VPP gadgets into that. I would also probably smack you down if you tried to use your VPP to build the Amazing OmniGadget that shoots, flashes, stabs, slices, dices, and even makes Julien fries (whatever the Hell those are). All of which seems to mirror Steve Long's feelings. Does it require me to make a judgement call as a GM? Sure, but then I have to do that all the time anyway. Otherwise as soon as someone notices some new way to break game balance the whole game goes down the tubes.

Re: Multiform Oh. I see what you're doing there. Yeah, as I GM I'd probably beat you for trying to end run around the rules by sticking a Multiform within the VPP and then a Multipower within the Multiform. On the other hand I'm inclined to allow people to put Multipowers within VPPs if there's a reasonable amount of control to them (build a rifle that has a Multipower to simulate regular bullets, armor piercing, hollow points, etc. and you want to buy it with your Gadget Pool VPP? Probably ok. Pick up a Multipower because you're mimicing someone else's powers and they have a Multipower? All right.) I try to be less Rules as Written and more Rules as Intended (and in the case of nested Multipowers I think the intent is to stop bigger abuses than those, but that's my opinion and your mileage may vary).

Re: Multiform One could probably build them to avoid the nested Multipower issue by letting them use their VPP to 'replace' the multipower (i.e. Parasite steals someone's powers. He has restrictions as to how he can switch around his VPP to simulate the target's powers but within those restrictions he's free to employ any slot in their multipower at any time as long as he has the points available).

Re: Multiform Why would you need Multiform with that? I always envisioned them more as large VPPs but never thought that they would need Multiform.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. As I said, they are not identical. However there is a strong similarity to them (exploding shells of roughly the same size) and so the damage ratings probably shouldn't be that far apart. The specific differences would probably take effect more in the form of explosion with increased radius as opposed to AP with a much smaller explosive radius. Would the damage definitely be 5d6 both times? No, but you're talking about adding 8 more damage classes and armor piercing. That's an awful big change.

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. I think you are largely right. Just to further confuse the matter, however, is the fact that even the 'benchmarks' are rather inconsistent. As I pointed out earlier you've got such issues as a howitzer shell being listed as a 5dk RKA explosion in one book and a tank shell being listed as a 7 1/2d6 AP RKA in another. Yes, they aren't identical attacks but they should still probably be a lot closer to one another in terms of effect. Adding in to the confusion you have Firewing who is categorically stated as being "generally acknowledged to be the most powerful energy projector on Earth" with a 24d6 blast. Sure, we could take those benchmarks at full face value and assume that the most powerful energy projector on Earth is actually almost 5 full DCs weaker than a WWII tank, but for cosmic level heroes I suspect that we want tanks to be weaker than our strongest characters (NPC or PC). So what are the right benchmarks and what needs to be changed? Probably depends on your campaign. Strange as it sounds I think that in a Golden Age campaign you probably want to leave the tank where it is. In a Golden Age setting generally getting hit with a tank was a Very Bad Thing . In a Bronze Age campaign however tough characters get hit by tanks now and again and sort of shrug it off (and I'm not just referring to Superman. Look at the first Iron Man movie). Now yes, you could simply increase the point totals of people in those campaigns to ridiculous levels an then adjust up the damage that doesn't agree with your baseline (the tank shell) but you're probably going to run into problems of getting bogged down with the number of dice ("Firewing hits you. Can somebody run out to the store to buy another couple of cubes of dice?") and you're still making adjustments to some of your benchmarks. I personally would probably use the 5d6 Howitzer shell as my baseline and adjust around that, but that's just me. End result winds up being pretty much the same (Toughest heroes can be shot by a tank with minimal injury). Alternately you can view the benchmarks as sacrosanct (a tank shell is more powerful than the most powerful energy projector on Earth in a cosmically powerful campaign and those howitzer shells are clearly referring to very tiny howitzers) but I think that's a mistake. There's good reason for the inconsistencies in benchmarks in the Hero Game system and if you're pulling something that was possibly meant for a different style of campaign (such as a Golden Age style when you are playing Bronze Age) then you should probably adjust it. Unfortunately vehicle/weapon/character designs are almost never fully noted as to what sort of campaign they are intended for. (BTW, all of this talk about adjustments is really intended primarily for 'outlier' cases. Tanks, Firewing, etc. I would probably leave the more common end of the range of handguns, knives, swords, etc. pretty much in place. Otherwise it's just too much work and those damage levels tend to work pretty well regardless of campaign settings. If there's something you find really off with them, leave them where they are and then toolkit weapon damage as a whole. They give you a good starting point for your damage. Decide where the upper end should be and then adjust intervening damages as needed)