Manic Typist

Why would you want to penalize PC death? Why would I want to play in a game where my play experience becomes limited because my character chose to sacrifice himself to save the others, and my next one must be weaker than the rest of the group? It creates a metagame where I'm forced to weigh my future play experience against my character's psychology, and you don't want that. If the players are invested in their PCs, the loss of a PC is penalty enough. If the players aren't invested in their PCs, this won't make them and you still have that problem.

Well...

Not attached!

Never said it made sense, just that it was how it was depicted in that narrative. After all, how could the Cullen's be in high school if they had to avoid sunlight? So the author used a contrivance.

My understanding of the "sparkles" was that they only manifested in direct sunlight- so if you were in the shade or an overcast day, no problems. Hence why they chose the Pacific Northwest as their home since, according to this narrative, the area is frequently overcast. So all those battle scenes that took place during the day were obligingly under cloud cover.

Ghost-Angel, Lucius' idea is already horrifying enough. He doesn't need more Nightmare Fuel!

I'm not why the magic users are dealing with behind cover penalties and the fighters aren't.... unless: 1) The magic users are smarter than the fighters 2) (this follows from one) The fighters are just counting on magic users to replenish their health 3) The magic users lack the same level of protection as the fighters. This can be fixed by investing in defensive spells. Let's be clear- getting the fighters to use magic more will in no way address your issue. It just doesn't follow. It sounds like the fighters are using the magic users almost like NPC heal-o-matics. That is a interpersonal problem, not a mechanical build issue. However, some useful suggestions have been offered that could give more meaningful attention to your magic users: 1) Enemies that they are most effective against (spectral/Desolid, something vulnerable to magic or clerics, something that needs to be dispelled, etc.). 2) Introducing a group that doesn't trust fighters either because they're violent, non-religious, or inferior (a mage's guild that views them as stupid and ignores them in favor of talking to the obviously important people, the magic users) 2) Splitting the group more. 3) Having a conversation about the issue. 4) Having the magic users say "No, we're not doing X. If you're going to go off and engage in an act which we believe to be wrong, we will not follow your leadership and you can find someone else to stop you from bleeding out on a muddy patch of roadside in the wilderness. Good luck with that."

Are they having fun? If so, perhaps they don't want to pursue the plot thread you had in mind. If that's the case, you might need to change things up. Most importantly: have you talked to them about the issue? If they are having fun but you aren't, that needs to be communicated. I would personally be very upset if I was having a grand time playing with 11 of my buddies as a group of adventuring swordsmen and then all of a sudden was punished out of nowhere with a plot contrivance that made my character useless (a curse that makes all metal brittle) for an extended period of time. This could be a case of different expectations, which CANNOT be solved by trying to force them to play your way.

...are the swords magic? I'm confused as to why they become less effective the more you use them.

Since you asked, I will answer. I will note, however, that I am not saying you are wrong in your grammar- there are regional differences and heated debates about the Oxford comma. I'm personally a fan, as I hope my argument below makes clear as to why. (Emphasis added) When I first read this sentence, it didn't make sense to me because I read it as "Without expelling something, neither pushing nor pulling something will allow one to move their center of gravity." It didn't make sense to me because first I know that to be factually untrue, but also there was no connecting thought that made it clear why expelling something suddenly allowed pushing/pulling to move the center of gravity. Then I realized that if I read it like a non-Oxford comma user, then the meaning of the sentence is transformed: "Without expelling something, pushing something, or pulling something, a person is not going to be able to..." Again, I'm not saying you were wrong, but rather our stylistic differences led to my confusion for a bit.

Ranxerox- Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough answer. I will go with your interpretation of what the writers intended for the characters to do, even if perhaps the visual delivery wasn't as thorough (perhaps they'd think most of the audience would go "Why the hell is he doing that??"). CQB is the name of the most recent episode, or at least it was at the time of my post. I apologize for not making it clear. (Also, I had to read your first paragraph 3-4 times before it *clicked* that you weren't using the Oxford comma, and finally I understood what you were saying. How funny is that?)

Question of a zero grav technical nature, keeping things vague to avoid spoilers. The CQB episode features a moment where two characters suddenly experience the loss of gravity but are wearing suits and they start floating away from the catwalk. One character clips himself to the person floating in front of him, lifts his legs off, and kicks off that person to send himself back to the catwalk where he can gain leverage to pull his personal booster (get it???) back. Overall, I liked this. It was a nice nod to how gravity, inertia, and "equal and opposite force" works. However, how could he have lifted his legs up like that? It seems like he managed to just change his orientation to pull of the maneuver without having any surface/object to use as a brace. So it seems like he was "swimming" for a second there. Couldn't they have just had him use his hands to smack himself in the top part of his helmet/suit/head, thereby giving him a minor degree of spin?

Suggestion: have a Xeno-probe crash land in the campaign area with a single, elite specimen inside, and then unleash a version of the Predator movies on them so that they are appropriately terrified when the reinforcements show up later.

The difference being that the gun isn't active (ideally!) when holstered, as compared to the wand example in which the focus provides its effect.

Huh. This could be the way to build the adaptive shields of the Borg- except how would you make it require multiple attacks before the ability activated? Hm.... Perhaps I should start building things again to refamiliarize myself with the rules.

True- but wouldn't a dragon without wings just be a huge fire breathing dinosaur? (or ice, or acid, or no breath weapon at all, etc.).

Well, I imagine they would have a couple of maneuvers related to aerial combat and fighting aerial opponents- suck as tricks for disabling opponents' wings, for instance.

Well, I'm used to the idea of paying points for equipment is less about "how it is built" (who cares, really? As long as it has the functionality that player and GM agree upon it's not that important) but more about "This is mine, this is part of who the character will be in the game, and barring extreme stupidity on my part I can only lose it temporarily unless we come to an agreement ahead of time." So, Luke's lightsaber might get destroyed, but it's a temporary thing and he eventually makes a new one (and doesn't have to pay points for it).

It's important to understand that this sentence is logically inconsistent, depending on whether that piece of equipment is paid for with points. If it was paid for with points (I had assumed it was) then it is a part of the character. Batman's utility belt is just equipment, but it is also a part of what makes up Batman- and the same could be true for a cowboy lost through time toting a magic revolver. Hence my question.

Why would you change a PC without consulting the player?

Is it fair to say that, to the extent that you CAN boil this down to one idea, that the drive for "detail" (whether historical or simply thorough world building) is simply a desire to create an immersive, entertaining experience which offers the players opportunities to get excited about the material by latching onto whatever piques their interest?

Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think of situations where rational people are willing to sacrifice their own safety/preferences in the name of adhering to their faith's mandates?

Reproductive fluids. Seriously! Pens, paintbrushes. Other tools used to make things.

I thought I recalled something in the facing rules about how you can change your facing as a zero phase action (essentially, you are facing any direction you want to face should you be aware of your environment, and thus it makes narrative sense that you are able to block a particular blow), unless you have already committed to an action (or are unaware of what's behind you). So, I am sort of Schrodinger's Facing until I commit to block a guy, and then I am committed to that facing until I have another Phase (or I suppose Abort my next Phase, but that's the same thing). Or am I mixing this up with Pathfinder? Only other system I've played.