KA.

Re: Looking for a good name

Will Phoenix

Something like that.

I am thinking that (even without any sort of angsty sub-plots) he might want to "make it on his own" and not draw on his parents' legacy.

So, he should choose a name that indicates a new beginning or a fresh start.

Just some random thoughts,

KA.

Re: What happens whena ctuloid monster swallows an elder star?

Question: What happens when a ctuloid monster swallows an elder star?

Answer: You have the plot of Indiana Jones V!

Oh, sorry, that's what happens when a ctuloid monster swallows an elderly star.

KA.

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

I just want to say thanks for all the nice things people are saying about me.

KA.

Re: Is it worth it to make stuff on your free time without even playing them?

I just wanted to say that someday, when I finally win the lottery, I intend to set up a "gaming preserve".

I will recruit some of the top Hero players from around the country that are currently gameless, and set up some sort of dummy corporation that will pay us all a hefty salary for sitting around playing Hero all day, in a location ideally suited for the purpose.

I will be sure to announce it here when I begin to take applications.

KA.

Re: The Summoned Menace

From the other posters, more familiar with the source than I am, it sounds like this construct does what you intend it to do.

I do have a quibble over one of the Limitations you took:

47 Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Affects Physical World (+2) (105 Active Points); Concentration (0 DCV; Character is totally unaware of nearby events; -3/4), Cannot Be Used With Multiple-Power Attacks (-1/4), Beam (-1/4)

As I read it, this creature is only capable of one attack, which is the attack that you are describing here.

It has no other attack power to combine it with, so how is not being able to use it as part of a Multiple-Power Attack limiting?

I realize that this probably just slipped through the cracks during the re-design process, but I always try to be careful with that kind of stuff as a GM.

We are the ones who set the tone for what is "clever" and what is "munchkinism", in our campaigns, so I try to hold myself to some pretty strict standards.

Not that I have any problem spending as many points as I feel are necessary to make what I want to make.

I just feel better about doing it that way (spending more points) than skating on the edge of what I would let a player get away with.

Again, I am sure it is just an oversight, but since you asked for input . . .

KA.

Re: Thou Shalt Not Speak Its Name

I think the major problem with CLOWN was not their goofiness, but that they almost forced the GM to "bully" the players.

(This may not be Steve's problem with them, but it is certainly mine.)

Basically, by having them be "playful" and not "evil", it meant that the players had to just stand around looking like fools.

If you just let them pull their pranks, things would go on forever.

If you tried to beat them at their own game, the deck was very much stacked against you. (Most PC's do not have a suite of prank powers.)

If you beat the living crap out of them, like you probably wanted to, your characters would look like "bullies".

Which basically meant that the only one having fun was the GM, and that was at the Players' expense.

Just not my idea of a good time,

KA.

Re: Why should I care?

Here are links to pair of brilliant posts on crafting scenarios and involving Players and NPC's alike in them.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=921878&postcount=30

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=925023&postcount=32

And here is a link to a post dealing with new campaigns and 'loner' characters.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=562514&postcount=10

All I can say is the guy who posted that stuff sounds like someone I would like to have for a GM.

KA.

What?

Re: Does anyone use this rule?

While I don't think this should be argued here' date=' I'll make my argument briefly. The PC who uses Images must know what the "image" is in order to create it. Technically, it should only show the image of what the creator thinks should be there, as opposed to what really is there. -snip-[/quote']

 

Wow, this made me think of something totally cool for a horror campaign.

 

Typical setting with characters trapped in a dark and spooky castle, cave, house, whatever.

 

At some point the group is plunged into total darkness, and they have a bad feeling that there are nasty things around.

 

Suddenly, one character 'finds' a 'flashlight'.

(This could either be an actual item (cursed?) or a manifestation of some latent psionic power of the character.)

 

Now the party is able to see, and everything looks okay, still creepy, but no actual danger.

 

After a couple of characters (or perhaps NPC's) are killed by monsters, caught in deathtraps, etc. that nobody saw before they stuck, the PC's slowly realize that the 'flashlight' is not showing them what is actually around them, it is showing them what the character using it would 'like' to be around them.

 

In other words, they really are still stumbling around in the dark with danger all around, but they don't see it.

 

So the two choices are, the false, but less terrifying, images the flashlight provides, or being stuck in total darkness with danger all around.

 

Sorry for the interruption,

 

KA.

Re: Not Dead Yet

Since this is a GM creation and not a PC, you can give it as many BODY points as you wish.

Bearing that in mind, you could just create a Zero point Physical Limitation that reads something like:

Dies Two Phases After Reaching Zero BODY.

It would not, of course be worth many points, since, based on damage, bleeding, etc, many things might die after reaching Zero, or especially Negative Body, but on the other hand, most things can be Healed or have their lives sustained in some way.

The reason I like a Physical Limitation for this sort of thing is that it means that, at least according to my understanding of the rules, something just "happens".

It is a good way to avoid a lot of die-rolling and circumstance checking, without going outside the rules.

In my mind the way this would work is that, after the creature takes enough BODY to go to Zero, it will die at the end of two Phases.

If the creature took enough damage (2X BODY) from an attack or coordinated attacks in a single Phase, it would just be destroyed outright, and not get the two phases of "death".

Just a suggestion,

KA.

Re: Super Hero HQ ideas

It would help a lot if you would tell us more about the Hero.

It could be in a cave behind a waterfall, with the 'rainbow' being an effect of the the light hitting the water, or the rainbow could be a magical bridge that leads to a base in the clouds, or in another dimension.

It depends on the Hero's background and concept.

KA.

Re: When should Always On be used

I believe you have to take the whole character into account when deciding the value of things like "Always On".

For example, it appears that Wolverine's regeneration is technically "always on" but that is not a problem for him since he has a fairly Public ID.

On the other hand, the fact that Superman's "Damage Resistance" or "Armor" or whatever made him bulletproof was "Always On" made it a constant battle to maintain his Secret ID.

After all, when the Daily Planet is having a Blood Drive and they notice that the needle keeps shattering against your arm, people are going to start asking questions.

One of my character's had something a -1/4 Limitation like "Always On" or "No Conscious Control" or something like that on their Regeneration, because they had a symbiote that did not want them to get hurt and would heal them automatically if they did, which was something of a problem if you were hit in the face with a baseball and your broken nose fixed itself right in front of the rest of the team.

KA.

Re: How long does tech last after The End?

This may sound like a cop-out, but basically it sounds like a case could be made for as much, or as little, leftover tech as suits your vision of the game.

Obviously there will be some changes, or you wouldn't be playing a PA genre (assuming that is what you want), but unless the virus in question targets everyone who is able to read or has an IQ above 60, it would not be that hard to get tech going again.

One effect of such a massive drain on the population would be huge amounts of spare parts/raw materials for those left behind.

You may want to build in some other disaster/war etc, to explain why nobody was (or more pointedly why everyone wasn't) striving to maintain the tech they had at the point of the disaster.

One idea, off the top of my head, suspended animation.

At some point before everyone is dead, a scientist figures out that the only way to avoid dying from the plague is to be placed in a cryogenic vault until the disease dies off and all the corpses are totally decomposed, along with any animals affected.

(around 40 years)

These are built in a race against time, and every resource is put into creating the vaults and the nuclear power plants that will keep them running.

The plan works fairly well, many survive, but in the meantime everything else has gone to ruin.

At the point that the vaults automatically open, it is found that the reactors must undergo a crash shutdown, which may make it impossible to restart them in the future.

So, you have live humans in an environment where almost everything is in ruins and must be rebuilt from scratch.

Just an idea,

KA.

Re: Heresy: Multipowers and "a limit that isn't limiting" principle

Do you know what the secret ingredient in the spaghetti sauce is?

Oregano!

(Rep to the first person to get the reference.)

KA.

Sorry, but the repetition of the Multple Power Attack objection just brought it to mind.

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

I have a comment that I hope does not sound snarky, because I don't mean it that way.

I am used to playing the Superheroic genre, but nearly every genre has some type of special ability (Spells, Chi Powers, etc.) that could apply in the example below.

Unless you are talking about some kind of superweapon that can wipe out a galaxy, weapons don't really do all that much in Hero.

Which means that for around 9 points I could buy something like:

Energy Blast 3d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4); OAF (-1) (Any Available Weapon)

which would do as much damage as 75% of the weapon writeups I have seen.

And I could buy all the levels with it I want, because it would be my own power.

Now I am not a munchkin, but I consider it ridiculous to have to spend a large portion of my character points on Familiarities, just to be able to use a variety of the relatively weak weapons that are available.

When it comes down to it, being able to use a variety of weapons is much more of a 'flavor' ability than anything likely to really affect gameplay.

If, as a GM, you really want to have some kind of alien uberweapon that humans cannot operate, you can just give the aliens an extra finger that is needed to operate the weapon, or make each one a 'Personal Focus' that only the individual alien that owns it can operate.

That seems to make more sense than making a ruling that makes it prohibitively expensive to create a Weaponsmaster type character.

KA.

Re: Top 10 Action Hero One-Liners

I humbly submit the following:

Rick: Oh, god! Don't! I've told you everything!

Darkman: I know, Rick. I know you did. But let's pretend you didn't!

KA.

Re: Evil Counterparts

My favorite memory of this sort of scenario happened when I had a group that went on a long hiatus.

Just before the hiatus I was working on having the group gain a government sponsor. They had already been recruited and were in the process of setting up a new headquarters.

Then, real life intruded and we took a lengthy break.

When we began playing again, everyone wanted to create new characters.

After a couple of adventures, the group was contacted by another government liason.

They were asked to try and take down a group of fanatical super-terrorists that were threatening the stability of the entire country.

I'm sure that, based on the topic, everyone sees where this is going, but the players were totally flabbergasted to realize that the 'super terrorists' were their former characters.

This may seem like a fairly nasty trick, but at the time the original campaign ended I had been thinking about the fact that they had not asked for any sort of credentials from the 'government agent' that wanted to sponsor them.

Neither did the do any research on the 'agency' they were joining.

So, since the characters had been 'dormant' for months, I just applied the usual, comic book style, 'worst case scenario'.

Once the players got over the initial shock, they had a blast taking on the characters they had designed months ago.

KA.

Re: Sell me on DC

Man' date=' the guy who started this thread has the right username. [/quote']

 

You are correct because this is the thread THAT WILL NOT DIE!

 

Well, unless someone kills it just out of spite, or people forget about it, or something like that.

 

But otherwise, it WILL NOT DIE!

 

Muwahahaha!

 

KA.

 

Actually, on a somewhat relevant topic, why do people get all upset when someone revives a thread?

I mean if they were just doing it to be silly (like me in this case) and they did it with hundreds of threads (totally unlike me) I can see how it would add to static on the boards, but otherwise, it seems to be an overall positive thing.

 

There is a lot of great information buried around here.

Lots of good threads get lost in the clutter of rants and fads and teapot tempests, and it is great when one of those threads gets the chance to live it deserved in the first place.

Also, I seem to notice a fair amount of 'opinion dilution' going on.

Someone will make a really good post on a topic the first time it comes around.

They make make a decent effort the second or third time.

But eventually they seem to lose the 'fire' of the original post.

Which means that every time we start a new thread on an old topic, the replies, overall, tend to be of lesser quality.

So, what is wrong with bringing back the old thread, with the best posts, and allowing people, especially newcomers, to go on from there?

 

Just wondering.

 

It is not as big a taboo here, but on one of the Sims boards I occasionally post to, it is a major no-no.

They chastise you and then close the thread.

Which seems really silly to me considering the topics they cover there.

If someone wants to know how to create a new Sims object, or how to make their own wallpaper, or something like that, and there is a very good thread that explains it in detail, what is wrong with bringing that back up to the top of the queue instead of someone having to post it all over again?

 

KA.

Re: Help me with a villian

I like the group so far, and have a few suggestions.

This is all off the top of my head, so take it with a pinch of salt.

Why not make it a family?

Start with a brilliant, but somewhat crazy scientist.

He has no powers of his own, other than high intelligence, but is obsessed with creating superheroic children.

He invents a serum that he tests on his wife, without her knowledge.

She becomes pregnant with a set of fraternal twins (brother and sister), but there are some complications.

He invites members of the superheroic community to his lab to witness the birth, without explaining what they are being invited for.

(You could use this to tie one of your players' characters in, if any of them have a superheroic parent.)

Due to some sort of major crisis, none of the invited superheroes show up.

As the time of the birth draws near, his wife begins suffering serious problems.

Rather than admitting he may have made a mistake and taking her to a hospital, he does his best to save her in his own lab, but she dies giving birth.

Between his grief and his ego, he decides that it is not his fault.

If the so-called superheroes had shown up like they promised (they didn't, but he is making up his own story now) his wife would have lived.

He continues to experiment on the children during their childhood, carefully screening everything they see and hear to make sure they understand what 'superheroes' are really like.

At some point he realizes that he cannot continue his research and watch over two powerful and unruly children at the same time, so he decides to create a fierce, loyal, and obedient protector for them.

By combining the DNA of some of the fiercest canines available (Pit Bull, Rottweiler, etc.) with the finest possible human DNA (his own, of course!) the scientist creates Wardog.

An unfortunate accident occurs during the DNA gathering process.

One of the dogs bites off his right hand.

However, he uses his engineering skills to create a robotic hand that is superior to the original.

As he sees his children grow, in both age and power, develops a battlesuit and weaponry of his own, both to battle the 'superhero scourge' and to keep his children, whose powers are mostly inborn, from seeing him as 'inferior'.

When Iron Angel and Arc Angel are finally old enough, the scientist decides that the time has come to take the fight to the superheroes of the world to show how weak and pathetic they really are.

Taking the name Lord Tyr (which not only means 'father of gods' but also refers to a god whose hand was bitten off by a wolf), he and his group set out to make life miserable for superheroes everywhere.

Why do I like this?

Making them a family will give them a cohesion that most villain groups lack.

They may snipe at each other, especially the brother and sister, but they will always watch each other's back.

Also, having a manipulative father figure can create some moral dilemnas for your team.

After all, if Arc Angel and Iron Angel don't really realize they are doing wrong, how badly do you really want to hurt them (assuming they aren't cold blooded killers)?

Also, Wardog can be both dangerous and pathetic.

He will protect his 'family' to the point of his own death if necessary, but like most dogs he will also become upset when the family argues with each other.

I think this could work.

KA.

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

The thing is, that when two of the world's most brilliant scientists tell you "You should not do this without allowing us to test the results." in theory, you should listen to those people. They should be trusted. They're superheroes.

 

In effect, the player created an organic nanotech arms race throughout the world, where people were desperately using this technology and trying to keep up with one another.

 

Some results of this:

 

1) The United States Government was forced to double bankroll, developing both this technology and non-collective alternatives. This created debt.

 

2) Warstar, the villain in question, KNEW as SOON as this was released what his course of action was going to be. He had the counteragent, all he had to do was wait. Shadow Lord, seeing Warstar as his archenemy, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN TO RELEASE THIS TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT TESTING. My first thought if >I< were a superhero would be "What if some madman takes advantage of this? More testing is required."

 

3) Third world nations implemented the technology immediately, regardless of the consequences, because that's what third world nations do.

 

4) Some of the people who were affected by the counteragent were OTHER HEROES! Shadow Lord effectively released into the environment the power and ability to KILL HIS OWN ALLIES! While I don't like to talk about GMPC's often, one of mine did have this concept and almost died outright. I was a !@#$$@!@ to myself, because I always am, you can't play favorites with GMPCs, you have to be just as mean, if not meaner. So I rolled randomly to see if anyone was with her when she fell over, looking for the other half of her intestinal tract. She was lucky. She rolled the 8-. And I never make a roll like that that hinges on PC survival without at least three witnesses. Doesn't matter who the PC is. But what if it HAD been a PC and not mine? There's a scenario for OOC resentment that will fester FOREVER.

 

5) With science, GOOD, HEROIC scientists don't just release untested technologies upon the general public and say "Here. Use this." If a bunch of aliens invade the earth, you should trust your superheroic buddies when they say "I think this needs some more testing." Even Reed Richards doesn't just throw out random technologies for people to use, and he's the most irresponsible high tech scientist in comics. Shadow Lord took that decision out of their hands, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

6) A villainous organization (Who we shall call Talks Through Skulls People For Fear of Violating Contracts until Balabanto comes up with a better name) used this technology to construct a giant flying robot octopus and blow up the Pentagon with it. My gameworld now has something called "The Dome" instead.

 

 

7) Needless to say, the United States Government wished to activate the counteragent right then and there, but the UN, and the massed outcry from third world nations, prevented them from doing so. As a result, thousands more died between the pentagon blast, and the Superhero team that destroyed the Octopus, AND the fact that when the UN Superteam went after it's replacement, the Giant Robot Manta Ray, Warstar had finally had enough. These things were a threat to his conquest of the world. THAT was when he released the counteragent, regardless of the consequences, killing the Giant Robot Manta Ray, which also paved the way for his invasion of Africa, the Middle East, and most of Central Asia.

 

8) Warstar had INTIMATE knowledge of everything the US would do, because he had spent close to 50 years GENETICALLY engineering the US President.

 

9) However, despite his own Megalomania, he considered himself to be a warrior. He didn't want to fight helpless sheep, but he pretty much figured that it would be acceptable if he needed to. So, when the discussion came, Warstar said "I really don't think you should do that. I think it would be a mistake." Warstar would have only conquered about 30 percent of the world instead of the amount that he got because he would have actually had to fight real armies, instead of dying chunks of neoorganic vegetable matter.

I have some comments on this.

I am not completely in agreement with Hugh, but I do see what appear to be problems on both sides in your campaign.

The player in question, either out of a desire to roleplay his character as he conceived him, or a desire to 'blow up' the campaign, took an action that the rest of the players disagreed with.

Or at least he wanted to.

I know that it might be difficult to tell a player that their character can't do something that they have the in-game resources to do, but it is still your game.

If you did not want the gameworld reshaped in the wake of a nanotech revolution, you could have done any one of several things to prevent this from happening.

Warstar could have prevented to release of the information, or altered it so as to make it useless, because he wanted to develop a more durable version of it for his own use.

Some government agency could have stepped in for the same reason.

A member of the Hero group could have realized what Shadow Lord was going to do and taken steps to prevent it.

Etc.

While we were not present at the gaming table, it seems like the sequence of events was:

a) Shadow Lord says he is releasing the information about the nanotech.

The GM, possibly with the help of some of the other players, comes up with the absolute worst outcomes possible, and then puts them into play.

It is like me telling a player that it might not be the best idea to try to shoot the tires of an escaping vehicle.

He chooses to anyway, because his character is Overconfident and Impulsive.

I then proceed to tell him that the bullet missed, bounced off the street, went clean through the mayor's skull (who just came around the corner), nicked the gas main at the Children's Hospital (there were no survivors of the massive fire that erupted), and then put a small hole in the hull of a ship full of aliens that were coming to cure all human diseases but are now going to destroy the Earth.

Of course none of that is my fault as a GM, because I had planned to have the Mayor walk around the corner ahead of time, he was suppposed to end up a hostage, and the Children's hospital just happened to be in the line of fire, and the aliens were scheduled to appear months ago, but were delayed by a cosmic storm.

Now if the player was trying to roleplay his character as he saw fit, he has been unfairly punished at the expense of your gameworld.

If he was trying to blow up the gameworld, he has succeeded.

But in either case, you could have prevented the outcome.

I think that it is possible that your campaign has become too unwieldy, and that you may have an underlying desire to 'blow it up' and start over on a smaller scale, possibly with a smaller group of players who enjoy the same genre that you do.

Without getting too deep, it may not be that you were trying to punish the 'bad' player, it may be that you use his rash actions as an excuse to do something you wanted to do in the first place.

KA.

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

Balabanto,

If, out of 50 players, you are only having problems with a few, perhaps you should just ease them out of the campaign.

I want to make sure I have a decent grasp of your situation, so please bear with the following questions that you have probably already answered, here and elsewhere.

1) Are you running a face-to-face campaign with 50 players, or is that a misunderstanding?

2) If this is split up into smaller groups (not 50 people at a time) does all the action take place in a single game-world where all of the players' actions have to fit together into a cohesive whole?

3) Are you the only GM for this world or are other people helping?

4) Does any of this take place online, or are you physically going to a different game session every night to keep this afloat?

If the situation is as described as above, I am amazed that you are able to hold it together at all.

KA.

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

I really think this is a social class problem, where I belong to one social class and see things one way, and my players belong to a different social class and see things differently in the way that money works.

I have some comments on this topic, but before I make them I would really like some clarification on this point.

Are you from a higher social class than your players?

Are they from a higher social class than you?

How would you describe the difference in opinion as far as how money works?

Every time too many people buy something up above the level that I consider reasonable, I put it on my "War of Escalation' list.

 

Primary on this list are DEX, INT, and SPD. Wealth is still only getting there.

My main problem with 'escalation' has always been that I don't want all the players to end up the same.

Holding back on both player experience points and villain experience points seems to help.

If one player is always left in the dust because he is 'slow' compared to the other players and the villains, he is going to put points into speed.

If the player who was formerly 'fast' sees the 'slow' player acting as often as he does, he is going to put points into speed.

A lot of it has to do with making sure that all the players feel effective at their current level.

KA.

Re: Prisoner Transport Vehicle

I would say that the ideal Prisoner Transport Vehicle would be a Lotus Seven Series II.

License Plate KAR 120C optional.

KA.

Re: KISS vs MEPD

1. I utterly LOATHE the acronym: KISS, that extra 'S' is ridiculously contrived and makes no sense, unless it is as some sort joke. Thing is, jokes are meant to be funny at SOME point in their life cycle. Moreover, you do not persuade someone to your POV (see: it isn't acronyms in general, just this one) by insulting them. I can't think of a level it does work on, although enough people seem to like it that I must be missing something.

Agreed and repped!

Even though I have heard the context and the various explanations about the acronym, I still find it highly irritating.

I always have.

I probably always will.

I consider it like one of the many songs that have been #1 hits because they 'caught on', even though they were crap.

I also find it contradictory.

If the idea is to 'keep it simple', why would you tack on an extra, unnecessary word that is potentially insulting.

That is like 'improving' a ham sandwich by the addition of a chunk of mud.

Sorry for the rant, but, hey, that's what the internet is for.

KA.

Re: Good-by Brick

The Good-bye Brick.

A touching movie in the 70's with Richard Dryfus playing Simon Williams (aka Wonder Man), a struggling superstrong actor.

While I enjoyed that film, I was less enthusiastic about the more recent Brickback Mountain.

KA.

Re: Great idea

That is an excellent suggestion and I don't know why I didn't think of changing the original post myself. The campus map was just from a google search of college campus maps. I can't remember exactly what school it is, but it's somewhere in London. Please don't vilify me, it was an honest mistake and being persecuted will just limited my contributions to the collective and I do have many more contributions that I would like to add.

 

The Doctor

Thanks for fixing the first post.

Anyone can make a mistake, a good person works to correct it.

You did.

KA.