Lisa Nadazdy

Re: The cranky thread

I got through the holiday without killing anyone (as far as anyone knows), and without blowing a blood vessel.

I still hate the world, however. I hate it so very, very much.

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

Soulfly- 2 disc set.

Re: Perks and negative cost

simple enough...

 

one character has 350 pts of good stuff he bought with 150 cp of disadvantages.

 

his buddy sitting beside him has 355 points of cool stuff with 150 pts of disadvantages and -5 points of base with its associated 25 cp of disadvantages, in other words he has 5 more cp to spend but suffers 25 cp more disads.

 

i dont see that as an unfair disadvantage.

 

25 cp more problems for 5 cp more goodies does not seem to be getting an unfair edge to me.

 

as always, assumes the gm enforces the disads reasonably well and makes the player buy them off if they become negligable.

That -5 base should be on the Disads side of the sheet and count as a disad. Otherwise, where's your limit? Hey, why not take a hundred -5 bases and get back 500 points? That's fair, isn't it? That way, I have a 850 point chatacter compared to the 350 point guy. Nothing says I can't, can I?

Do you not grasp how this is someting that can cause problems?

Powers have minimum costs because they're advantageous to character. If it's not advantageous, then it goes on the Disads side of the sheet. There's nothing more to argue about. That's the rules, that's how it works, that's the reasoning of it, and there's no justifiable reason to change it.

Re: Perks and negative cost

Tesuji, no one is saying that you can't do those changes if that's what you want in your game, but none of us here think it's a good idea as RAW. You want to do things that way and make those kind of house rules, then do it. But we've all stated why we think it;s a poor rules change, and so... deal with it.

Re: Perks and negative cost

Lisa' date=' the same could be said to you, since we are not going to persuade him.[/quote']

 

True enough.

 

If Tesuji really want the exception removed, maybe he should acually tell us how he would balance it out so that characters with "negative value bases" don't have an unfair advantage over characters who don't, because all I hear from him is "it's not fair! It should be allowed!".

Re: Perks and negative cost

A minimum cost for powers has always been part of the system, whether you like or not, because the powers system is not one of the ways you get extra points for your character, and it never will be.

If a character gets 150 cp + 100 in disads, that's his maximum character value- 250 points, and nobody here will allow someone to game the system with negative value vehicles or bases so that someone has a character worth 255 instead of 250. If the ceiling for starting characters is 250, then it's 250.

Why still argue this? You're not goung to sway anyone with this, so why keep arguing? Are you trying to up your post count, or something, because that's the only thing your going to change.

Re: Perks and negative cost

Yep.

 

Per the FAQ:

Hell, he's not even asking to take it as a Disad, he asking for his "negative value power" to be listed on the powers side of the character sheet, so it doesn't count towards his Disads. In other words, he's trying to game the system for extra points beyond what other players would have.

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

right, thats the rule. i am challenging.

And we say 'no'. Tough luck.

Re: Perks and negative cost

Tesuji, all you're doing now is arguing for the sake of arguing. The people here have repeatedly told you how it works, but you don't like it, and so you keep making noise. If it's your game, do what you like, but we've all explained how it works, and we don't feel like changing it because you make noise. Why you keep on arguing is beyond me, but I'm lead to believe it's because you're being wilfully obtuse, rather than a failure on your part to grasp what we're saying.

Re: Perks and negative cost

but while his grammar and typing suck he tends to avoid personal attacks.

 

really, how many times have i emphasized on this thread and rpg net that i am not talking about abusive disads or the player taking disads that dont get played or enforced?

 

how many times have i emphasized how the gm still has every right to disallow any disad he doesn't see enforceable, to treat "not playing the disad" the same way he treats the same thing if taken on the character?

 

heck, on many other threads i have stated repeatedly "getting something for less than its worth is a proble, not a success" as a core belief of mine.

 

yet then we get this kind of attack.

Why should you get more points for your character because of your crappy little base? If it has a negative value, and you want to whine about how you should get points back foir it, count it as a Disad and list it there. There are no negatve value powers. Period.

Re: Perks and negative cost

Tesuji is the kind of player, IMO, who would get "missing an arm" as a disadvantage, and argue with the GM why he shouldn't get points for the missing fingers, too. I am glad he's not at my table, because not only doesn't he understand the rules, but he makes it clear that he is uninterested in understanding the rules, either. His grammer is atroucious, too, making sifting through his posts a chore, but I get the idea of what he wants- he wants to argue and argue and argue til we all get beaten down and admit the rules are broken, when in fact, they work fine.

Re: Perks and negative cost

What this is, tesuji, is a rule with an exception, that I and others have explained the reasoning behind. You complain that it's somehow broken, but this isn't the case. What this is, is you complaining about a rule you don't like, but most of us think works just fine. Maybe, just maybe, you should find another game, or if it's such an issue, change it when you run the game. I for one, feel no need to change a rule I feel to work fine.

Re: Perks and negative cost

and from where i stand having the player take all the problems of the disadvantages and gaining to use from them only 1/5 of the points, that doesn't sound like s free lunch to me.

 

When he wrote "watched by gummint 10 pt" on the left side under disadvantages and gained 10 cp to spend on stuff for the character, neither he nor i thought "free lunch"

 

so when another character wrote "hunted by gummint 10 cp" on the right side, unde base, and in theory if it was a cheap base he got -2 cp to spend on stuff for his character, that did not suddenly become a freebie.

 

"aint no free lunch" is a nice sound byte, but I dont see how it applies here.

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but a base's disads are not a character's disads. If a player builds a base and never visits or uses it, he suffers none of the effects of a base's disads.

I really cannot understand the issue of paying one little point. I think you're arguing just for the sake of making yourself a pain.

Re: Perks and negative cost

Why is the base i described above with two labs and a -2 cp cost to the player "stupid math tricks" wherweas the same base with sixn labs and a 1 cp cost not "stupid math tricks"?

 

As a GM, it seems to me paying 1 cp fr six labs is not "more accurately priced" than having two labs for -2 cp when both give you the similar degree of headaches from the dnpc and the watched.

 

I wholly understand the concept of "these can be abused" and "these should be double checked" and could even buy into "only with gm permission" but having them outright banned, or telling the player "you dont get to use the costing scheme" or "rework the concept or lose points" seems extremely overworried for a game which even treats "how many cp can my multiform be" with discretion to be over campaign limits.

If you don't like the framework and guidelines, you either change them if you're running the game, or play something else. From where I stand, there are no free lunches.

Re: Perks and negative cost

I agree with the minimum cost = 1 point. A vehicle with no real abilities and huge disadvantages (vulnerabilities' date=' susceptibilities, etc.), left at home, should not provide the character with extra points.[/quote']

 

Exactly. There ain't no free lunch, or more to the point, using stupid math tricks to try and game the system for points should never be allowed. If a player wants a base or vehicle that has a negative number value, he still pays something, and if he doesn't like that, then he's free to rework the concept. Or not. It still costs at least one character point to aquire, so he can choose which alternative he wants.

Re: Perks and negative cost

I seem to recall that's roughly the way it worked in the Champions III days, when you paid for the net cost of the vehicle or base, rather than the base cost.

 

Also, just spending the 5 positive points while taking 100 points of Disadvantages doesn't seem wise. If the Disads offset positive points spent, then the net is 0.

You're right, it's not. A constructed vehicale can dip below zero in it's constructed cost, but the character who buys the vehicle still has to spend at least one point to acquire the vehicle, so the aforementioned Canoe is constructed so it has a negative cost, but a character who buys the Canoe still has to pay something for it. Point-wise, it's not very efficient to construct a vehicle with less than 5 points using disads, as you're still going to pay at least that one point, but some vehicle concepts may end up that way. There's no bottom limit to disads on vehicles or bases, but a good GM should step in if it looks like the system is being abused for maximum gain.

The system was designed this way to prevent clever little munchkins from milking the game in odd ways for extra points (which could theoretically be done if a vehicle or base was disaded all to hell to drive the item well into the negatives), but forcing characters to pay at least one point for something keeps that from happening.

Re: Perks and negative cost

In the Ultimate Vehicle book, the lowly Canoe (on page 61) has a total vehicle cost of -1. However, no item, vehicle, or base can cost less than 1 point. You can game a base if you like, but you're still going to pay a basic cost of one point, no mattter how far in the negatives you go on the value of the thing.

Re: Things I Have Learned Playing a Hard Boiled Detective

"I had six shots in me that night; five were bourbon and one was lead."

Re: Making a Post-Apoc "logical"

I will have to check out the book.

 

I think that what we have is a basic philosphical difference in man's abilility pull out of the miasma. It think it would take more than a generation (20 years or 40 years) to destory the memories and beliefs.

 

There are just too many books. Low humidity places, the books could last for a very long time. Even abused books these days last for a long time. With the literacy rate as high as it is (even in the USA) people would be collecting, reading and caring for books for a very long time.

 

Maybe the best plan is to kill (or transport) most people off and make the enviroment so bad that those left do not have time to think of anything but survival for a very long time.

 

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but I greatly enjoy the dialgoue. BTW - I realize that realism does not necessarily make things more fun. It may be that I would just have to decare it via a fiat, without offering any explanation (even to myself).

That all depends if there's much of anyone left to teach any of it. Even if someone knows how to read and write, that doesn't mean they have the ability to understand the language in technical manuals or the science in many of the textbooks. For instance, my SO is an astrophysics major with a background in nuclear engineering, and has dozens upon dozens of manuals and textbooks on engineering, astronomy, gravitation, optics and other subjects, but if I crack one of these books open, I can honestly say that I would have only a vague idea what any of this stuff means, and that's only because I have a bit of scientific knowledge to help. A person who only has a basic education might never understand it- it might as well as be an alien language.

The reason knowledge continues to flourish in the modern world is because there are people trained to teach the stuff, to disseminate the knowledge interpret the texts and to help other people understand what's being taught. It's possible to learn this stuff without such aids, but it becomes that much more difficult, because to learn stuff like astrophysics, I'd need to learn calculus, advanced calculus, a host of lesser physics texts and so forth before I can begin to really understand what's written in an astrophysics text. If you don't have someone to guide you through that process, then the textbooks are just so much gibberish.

I've heard it said that less than 5% of people alive today understand how all the stuff that makes everything we rely on work. How many people sitting in front of a computer understand how an operating system works? How many people understand the principles of electricity so that could wire a machine to an alternate power source other than a wall socket? Much of what we rely on in life we really don't understand, and in a post-apocalypse world, that lack of knowledge could hurt us.

Last thing- modern civilization is a huge anomoly historically- history has been recorded mankind's progress for around ten thousand years, but the modern world has only existed for about perhaps 100 to 150 years. If we fell back into barbarism, are we really so sure we'd pull out of it quickly?

Re: Making a Post-Apoc "logical"

Some thoughts:

Let's assume for discussion that the apocalypse in question was a moderate NBC sort (nuclear, biological, chemical) that targeted major cities and military bases, leaving small towns and the like intact.

Initially, there would be panic, looting, etc. and breakdown of order, but eventually most people would start looking to their local community to find a way to survive and rebuild, especially in the closer-knit small towns.

Here are some of the problems they would have to overcome-

1. Power. Modern communities rely heavily on electricity, from heating homes to cooking food and so forth. It is estimated that there would be a total collapse of the power grid throughout North America within 24 to 48 hours. That means no power to run the stoves, or heat homes or light up the dark at night. Also, this means no water, and the pumping stations would shut down along with the power grid. So, no more baths or clean clothes for a while. Water would have to be taken from odd sources, like bottled water (whatever can be scrounged) or the back of the toilet (it's pretty clean, actually). Also, no refridgeration, and that means most perishable foods would be unedible within weeks. Canned food would likely be a staple for a number of months.

Some of this can be solved with portable gas or diesel generators, but then we run into the next problem...

2. Fuel. With the power grid down, so do the refineries (assuming there any left after the nukes), meaning no more fuel production. This means that small communities will have to ration what's left, taking most of it from abandoned vehicles and the like. Gasoline stations are more problematic, as without electricity, the pumps won't pull fuel out of the tanks in the ground. A clever community will find a way to get, either by hooking up the power to a portable generator, or using a generator to siphon it out of the ground. Depending on how much fuel is in the community, they could stretch it out for some time, and even go abroad to get more.

3. Clean Water. I touched on this before, but it bears it's own category. Clean water will likely be the one thing that makes or breaks a community's survival. Even if the local pumping stations still functioned, it extremely difficult to say if the water would remain drinkable, what with fallout and other contaminants seeping into the ground water after the war. It's very likely it wouldn't be safe, so what then? I mentioned bottled water and toilet water, but those won't go far, and within months a community will have to find another source. If the community is near the mountains, they could use the runoff from melting snowcaps to get water, but there is no way to be certain that it's clean, either- fallout is insidious that way. There's no easy answer to this one- the community is going to have to take it's chances and use whatever water purification systems they have and hope for the best.

4. Food. Not as crucial as water will be, but still important. Once canned goods dry up (within 6 months, very likely), they'll either have to travel abroad to get more canned goods, or find other ways to feed the community. Hunting and gathering can be used to a limited effect, but a smart community will turn to agriculture (farming) to feed a community. Assuming the ground soil isn't too contaminated, this will work. Work will have to be done by hand, unless the community wants to expend precious fuel to run farm machinery.

Livestock will be a harder affair- bio weapons could have untold effects on animals, and make them dangerous to eat, or even pass on diseases to the community.

5. Environmental difficulties- Plagues, fallout and freak weather changes can all affect the survival of a community. Even a a robust community can be laid low by fallout- radioactive dust and regular dust look exactly the same, and breathing in fallout can be fatal.

6. Outsiders- not everyone will perish in the apocalypse, and the survivors will do whatever they can to survive- for awhile they'll scavenge what they can, but eventually many will fall into a community of some sort or another- safety in numbers. Some of these groups won't be very interested in simple survival- there will be those who will believe that the strong should have the right to rule the weak- using force of arms to take what they want. Seeing a surviving community, perhaps with clean water and the like, outsiders may plot to take this away from them...

7. Survival skills. This one is perhaps the most debatable, as everyone thinks they can survive if push comes to shove, but the fact is, most people can't make fire without a lighter, and they really don't have much in the name of survival skills. Without these skills, a communities survival becomes questionable.

Something else to note- rebuilding civilization will not be as simple as some people think- how many people have engineering skills sufficient to build stuff from scratch? How many people are skilled enough carpenters to build new homes and other structures? The biggest problem rebuilding civilization is that not very many people have the knowledge and skills to start building from scratch. Hell, how many people know how to work metal and do basic blacksmithing? How many people can tan leather or sew clothes? How many people can weave fiber into cloth? Not very many, and it would take some time before we relearn these things.

So us coming back from the war in a few generations? Not likely, IMO.

Re: Battlestar galactica pistols.

Excellent thinking. Rep earned.

 

I think there was SOME knowledge of the cylons before the attack, BTW. Adama didn't seem too surprised that Leobon was a cylon, maybe the colonials had some inkling as to what they were doing, but that's another issue.

 

There really needs to be a prequel to the new BSG showing the creation of the cylons and the first cylon war.

There were a few who never believed the Cylons were gone forever. There was never any peace treaty between them, only an armistice that only the colonies observed, and after 40 years, it seemed like pointless ceremony, since no one had seen a Cylon in all that time.

Re: Battlestar galactica pistols.

Something to keep in mind- by the time of the miniseries and the full series, the Cylons hadn't been seen for nearly 40 years, and most people thought they were gone for good by that time. Only a few thought they were still a threat, but they didn't make policy in the colonies. It's easy to imagine that weapons had changed to deal with the more immediate and realistic threat- other humans. The standard sidearm ammunition might have been considered quite sufficient in dealing with a more-or-less human enemy. When the Cylons returned, they had redesigned Centurian models that standard ammunition was incapable of dealing with.

Re: The cranky thread

My contempt is only exceeded by my loathing. My hate would blacken stars in it's wake, and my rage is as deep as eternity.

Plus, I have a sinus infection, and I'm *****y as a result. That is all.

Re: Complicate the Person Above

Scientific fact: if the Main Man ceases to exist, so will the rest of us.

Re: Star Trek Online (Star Trek's new MMO)

Honestly, with the experience I've had with players in MMORPGs, I really don't think a Star Trek MMO will work very well. Several things make such a thing problematic:

Ganking

Language

Gamers vs. Roleplayers

Canon vs. Freeform

Names

I'll explain each in turn.

Ganking- one of the most difficult things to eliminate in any MMO is the problem of griefers or gankers. These are people that get their jollies making other people's gaming experience miserable. They'll screw up your missions and drag hostile mobs to you or outright kill you, just for fun. While their are many ways to limit this kind of activity, it's just about impossible to eliminate them entirely. About the only way to do so is to put the whole game on rails and control what the players encounter. This kind of thing will frustrate players looking for a game they can make their own.

Language- When I say language, I mean the players that shout out such gems as "OMG WTF U R A -insert slur here-" and other sorts of drivel that will kill the immersion in the game. Can you imagine Spock going "Capten, yuo suxx0r lol"? This would be a deal buster for me, and I don't know how they'd stop it from happening.

Gamers vs. Roleplayers. In a MMORPG these can be two different things. An actual roleplayer is quite rare, but they do exist. They're the ones that try to avoid speaking too much "out of character". They won't brag about stats, or game mechanics, or leak through too much of RL. A gamer is typically interested in 'gaming' the system- they'll try to get the best gear and skills and maximize their character in various ways in order to complete in-game goals. They're more interested in what your character can do, not who your character is. Most times, these two types can get along, but sometimes not- roleplayers get annoyed when gamer types frequently speak out of character, and gamers get irritated when they think fellow party members have substandard equipment or abilities.

Canon vs. Freeform. This will likely be an issue in a Star Trek MMO. There will be players who are intimately familiar with ST and will ***** if something doesn't follow the ST tech manuals or story to a 'T'. They'll ***** if the game designers don't keep things 'canon'. Freeformers aren't near as obsessive, and simply want a fun game to play.

Names. This is a big bugaboo for me. You can bet your bottom credit that there will be a dozen variation of 'Kirk', 'Spock', or 'Picard' running around on every server, because for some stupid reason there are those who will not or cannot come up with an original name. Then there are the stupid names, names that are some kind of stupid joke. After playing FF XI for quite some time, I've seen dozens of variations of 'Legolas', 'Drizzt', 'Cloud' and others. It's quite annoying.

Fact is, players being the strange animals they are, you'll see tons of obnoxious behaviour, and anything short of controlling the players will result in any or all fo the behavior above. Seriously, do you really want someone named 'Ensign Playahkillah' handling the phaser banks of a starship? I think not.

This is why such a game is doomed to failure.