Duke Bushido

And was completely rhetorical. Having been asked more than once why I felt INT had anything to do with being tricked when it should be PER: something whose based value is derived from INT. :/ Yes; clearly INT is unrelated in all ways to deception. It's PER; nothing at all to do with INT. Yes. That is my position. None whatsoever. It's a drum I've been beating for several pages now. Also no; that question was in response to the continuous "INT is not related; it should be something derived from INT" ; "yes; that's righ, because INT is not involved" - the separation between INT and Pet that is somehow making sense to people. Are they the same? No; obviously not. Are they closely relate? Well, it's 9+(INT/5) plus whatever levels you've purchased, so..... No? _That's_ what's driving me batty. Completely without sarcasm or malice, I hold the exact same opinion with regard to "immediate PER roll is the best mechanic to use. It makes sense that Bloodhound Man should be able to totally ignore the most startling or skillfully-built Illusions 99.54 percent of the time with no regard for circumstance, focus, lapse of attention, or quickness of wit. " But as stated numerous times, I am totally fine with folks disagreeing. I just wanted to be sure you were disagreeing accurately.

Well yes. I simply meant that comparing the listed sizes of the ship to the amount of area that would actually be-- well, that results in some interesting discrepancies with the old published deck plans.

Not possible. Climate change is completely unnatural and cause entirely by human beings. (/sarcasm)

Agreed. Often to the point that I wondered if they were measuring the volume of space inside the structure without regard for the volume of the materials from which the structure was made. Or perhaps even the other way around: the volume of the materials making up the structure, regardless of how thinly they were spread.

I see. Thanks, Tribble.

You lost me. Displacement tonnage _is_ volume. Roughly. 9 cubic meters in a displacement ton. I found that to be extremely helpful when doing the same thing a few years back.

Cats that can see in 3d being fooled - briefly in most cases, but not all; dogs with incredible olfactory receptors being befuddled by stuffed animals; ducks being lured to their deaths by decoys; people piling their cars up in ditches because "I thought I saw something." There is more at play in deception that how keen your senses are. I totally agree that, once you regain your wits, your senses _are_ the method by which you determine (or ultimately fail to determine) that 'the thing' is fake. The only difference between our lines of thought, do far as I can determine, is that I tend to think people do _not_ pay full attention to their sensory input one-hundred percent of the time, and you do. There is no resolving this, as I don't see either of us changing our minds on this. I have never failed to mean it when I tell you that enjoy this kind of discussion with you, but I think we've reached an unreachable impass. It's time to let it go and leave it to the snipers. Seriously though: I do have to run: Tuesdays and Thursdays are my busiest work days. Have fun! Duke

Per is derived from INT. So why would a smart person be harder to deceive? I tried to hint at that earlier, but it didn't get across: no matter which mechanic you prefer, you are working against INT at the heart of it. The mechamic I prefer does it straight up and obviously, allowing the same opportunities for a Per roll to let the target see the truth, but is weighted a little better toward the caster having at least one successful Phase against the target. It prevents the points invested in non mental illusion from becoming a complete waste of CP in games where special senses and high Per rolls (as I said before: our typical supers Screw this; I am not typing all this out with two thumbs. Hugh: we are always going to disagree on the mechanic because we disagree how the power actually works. There is no resolving that; there is no right or wrong with that either. We will have to agree to disagree and let it go.

Similarly, there is no compelling reason to view his initial confusion as a blown perception roll.

Forgive the interruption, please: I stated before that I never played this game, but I have followed it for quite some time. Because of that, I know that winners are selected on Sundays. Is there a particular time? Thank you. Duke

Excellent example. From 1:20 to 1:50, he is so uncertain as to which is which as to feint with two different copies. So he is unable to tell the real from the illusion. Considering that he watched the illusion being cast, and no one switched places, I'd suggest that INT isn't his best Characteristic, and it wasn't real difficult to get a roll high enough to make him believe the illusions were real, r identical to it. Thirty seconds of wondering which was real. Half a turn. Perhaps PER roll after PER roll? Still, he _immediately_ realized he couldn't tell fake from real: The illusion had overwhelmed his INT at first: it looked real to him. It wasn't util then that the PER rolls began: does this one react to a sword feint? Does this one track my movement? Oh-ho! That one's doing the classic "sweat" thing! But at no time did the others look less than real to him, else he wouldn't have needed the PER rolls.

It's not.

Hello, my honey-- Hello my Baby-- Hello my ragtime GAAAaaaaallll..... Send me a kiss by wire; Baby my heart's on fire! If you refuse me, Honey, you'll lose me-- and you'll be left _aloooOOOoone..... So Baby, telephone, and tell me I'm youuuurr own.....!

For really large vehicles, remember that a human body has a volume of roughly 0.7 cubic meters and one displacement ton (used for ships, starships, etc) is .99 cubic meters. For smaller vehicles, figure a small motorcycle (to include most sport bikes up to about 700cc) are roughly the size of one person. Consider Shrinking (only to reduce mass: -1) as your model for reducing mass for high-tech vehicles or things that are just naturally really light. Sure: for super vehicles and sci-fi vehicles, you don't have to really worry about realistic sizes and masses, but when (if) you do Heroic stuff, those are just three things that are nice to know.

Is Per bought separately in 6e, or is it still derived from INT?

Once you learn to be calm at my blood pressure level, you really don't have any other choice. It's not biologically possible for it to get higher, so you just can't get riled up any more.

Dang straight! You'll never go back; I promise!

Why? Why does your ability to perceive affect the caster's ability to create?

Because technically they _don't_ do the same thing. A mental illusion provides full sensory input to one target, and one target only (unless advantaged up quite a bit). A non-mental illusion provides input to _one_ sense, and provides it simultaneously to anyone how is able to perceive the location at which is it placed. One is internal, entirely in the target's mind; the other is external, akin to a hologram or a musical greeting card. _however_---- As the newer editions have done a lot of "folding in" of Powers-- re-expressing them as cobbles of other powers, such as Transfer becoming Drain and Aid, or Instant Change becoming T-form, etc-- A fairly solid argument could be made to eliminate one or the other (if you're tracking, I'd say eliminate Mental Illusions, as it's a more "feature-packed" build) and build the other using advantages, limitations, or what-have-you on the one that remains. Assuming that Images stayed and Mental Illusions is to be built as a cobble, you could take Images, whatever modifiers or adders 6e uses to increase the number of sense groups a power affects, then based on ECV, and perhaps a Limitation that it can target only one character at a time--- there you go. Just a suggestion, mind you. I'm not hugely in favor of any of the folding in, but I _do_ understand it.

This is the "old Main" building in Cincinnati in 1874 (caption included because a lot of these things are neater when we know what they are, in case we want to look further into it) Looks like it would be an awesome "secret library" location for some pulp or urban fantasy games.

Any Tarzan book. Any Sci-Fi book, unless by "magic" you mean unproveable enabling device." Most anything by Wells. Eh... Given what Hugh and I just learned, I think it might be best if you first gave us an idea of the particular framing or boundaries on what you are calling "non-magical fantasy," and maybe some hints about what you like in general with regard to action, time period, etc.

Agreed; one-hundred percent. Not just the unclear terms, but the fact that we can quote precisely what we are responding to, but no part of the conversation before that. It's difficult to track. Factor in the natural need to verify or confirm individual points of any reply, and it gets messy fast. I swear, I am dropping this after this post before we waste a lot of time muddying the waters for each other again. "Lesson learned" and all that. But no; not _exactly_. I believe the mechanic for whether or no the non-mental illusion (hereafter referred to as the NMI, to avoid confusion) is _believed to be real_ by the target should be similar: was the NMI so shockingly / naturally real to the target as to create a momentary lapse in judgement that lead to him not immediately questioning what he perceived? That is the mechanic-- "Determining the realism"? Does that seem explanatory enough? At any rate, I believe that this mechanic should not have been changed to its current incarnation. There are a number of reasons for that, but as I said: I would like to drop this so I won't go beyond this one reason: If someone has enough dice / rolls high enough (up to x14 INT or higher in older editions; up to INT +40 in later editions) to gain deceive that character-- even if it's just for that one single Phase the target will stand in awe--- , well as dumb as it sounds, the attacker _deserves_ that small reward. He _earned_ it with good rolls; he _paid for it_ when he bought enough dice to make it possible. Things that I _think_ muddied the waters here; I have made a couple of re-reads to try to find out why we were still stuck on the same points (other than the obvious "each of us _prefers_ a different mechanic, but realistically, neither of us has a real problem with that; the discussion is the fun part. ) : I tracked the history of the development of the power from it's house-rule variants (sure we weren't the only ones) of using some version of "mental powers based on CON" or removing the "based on ECV" component or what-have-you from Mental Illusions through it's first appearance as Light Illusions, and its formal appearance as Sounds opening the way to apply NMI to other senses. For whatever reason, I think you keyed strongly on the "Light Illusions v Sight" aspect of that with neither of us actually realizing it, and I was picturing an NMI build that worked against all the senses (primarily because, outside of fantasy and sci-fi, that's what most of my players with NMI super powers build: multi-sense experiences). Problematically, I had not actually _stated_ that, and we both simply assumed that we were on the same page. This lead to some confusing (for both of us) discussion of PER rolls. So, if I may, just to clear the air on that: I am _totally_ in favor of a PER roll based on an un-affected sense to aid a character in realizing that what he is seeing is false. Throughout the course of our conversation, it had not occurred to me that such was precisely what you were saying: the use of an unaffected sense. However, as I noted, I will not let it be instantaneous-- If the attacker doesn't provide a convincing illusion, then the target needs no assistance and will recognize it as an illusion immediately. If the attacker _does_ provide a convincing illusion, then for the remainder of the target's Phase, he will consider it to be real-- the momentary confusion / lapse in judgement I referred to several times. He may, however, get his "breakout rolls" (I usually do INT roll modified by the attacker's success level, with-- well, it doesn't matter, as that wasn't part of the discussion: I don't want to open up something else! ) At any rate, his breakout rolls / PER Rolls will begin on his next Phase. Another thing that muddied it was, without a clear statement otherwise, for the _longest_ time I thought you were talking about PER rolls v Mental Illusions, and that was driving me crackers! It was actually at the point that I realized that you _weren't_ talking about MI that I said "well, this conversation, at least as it is, needs to be tabled for a bit" and began wandering through the upthread trying to figure out where we got crossed up. Not a lot of luck, but lots of, as you say, "talking past each other." Cases in point: I have no idea what that's referencing (no, Amigo; please don't tell me: we'll take it up again at some other time. Right now, it's just an example of frustrating the quoting system is: I can see what you said, but not what you said it about, or what _that_ was said about. It gets maddening, and the more points are made, the more difficult it gets, particularly when you actually have things in 3d land important enough to garner the bulk of your mental faculties. You know: when you're grown ups. That. That right there. That was the _moment_ I knew we were considering two radically-different NMI builds. What-- four? Five pages into the conversation? It had never occurred to either of us clarify terms, post, or request a sample build for discussion. It's only funny because it actually _happened_. It's only hilarious because we _both_ know better. So yes: I think we have both made some _excellent_ points that had nothing to do with what the other guy was talking about. We should both go home and congratulate ourselves for remembering that establishing some parameters results in _way_ less time wasted. Still, though: It's always a real hoot discussing things like this with you, Hugh; even when we screw it up.

Thank you, Sir. I am flattered. As for an image: well, I've already admitted I am terrible at finding them. Fortunately, Scott's image is awesome and already up here. I move that we use his.

Hugh: It appears that we agree on the vast majority of the many points and bits of this conversation. Given that, and given the number of splitting-outs of this discussion, I am not going to attempt to quote all that has gone before from either of us: at this point, I don't feel there is anything to be gained, as all we seem to disagree on-- at least right now ( )-- is the need for a unique mechanic for Light Illusions / Sounds / Images. As always, it has been a high-water mark of the experience here, and I thank you for it. unfortunately, I have devoted all the time I can-- and some I really couldn't afford-- to the discussion, and I have tend a few things then get ready for the work week coming, so I must let it go. Until next time, my friend!

Was the DCU in some sort of danger?