Robyn

Re: Santa Claus is coming (and man, is he ever pissed!)

There are (already) a couple of builds for Santa here, and some very good discussion of alternate implementations here.

Re: WWYCD: A Christmas Carol, Champions Style!

As a side note' date=' it WOULD be interesting if Dolphin slipped some Buhdist (sp) ideas into one of his ghost renditions. [/quote']

 

This is the exact reason I refrained from answering . . . the rest of Kaja's team would tackle him and forcibly escort him from the scenario before letting him anywhere near Scrooge

This is assuming it isn't McCoy's campaign, of course. Considering how many characters there couldn't set foot on holy ground, they'd probably each take one role and everyone would end up with a truly odd Christmas.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening.

Jesus wouldnt damn an INNOCENT soul to hell.

Hrm . . . interesting point

The only logical explanation is that this kid isn't innocent. Shame on you!

Raising your own child to be evil, no wonder the adoption agencies all hate you

Re: Mind link to a vehicle

I have a player in a new Star HERO campaign who bought a mecha as a perk (i.e.' date=' a vehicle) for his PC. He bought a Mind Link with the mecha in order to control it remotely.[/quote']

 

In the last session, he used this to have the mech attack an opponent while he was Entangled.

 

Wouldn't be this fellow, would it?

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

If one character is 250 Points (No limitations' date=' No Disads), and another character is 150 Points (No Limitations, No Disads), should the second be less powerful than the first,[/quote']

 

I think the players should be allowed to tailor their characters for strength or flexibility. If the 150-point character spends all his points on two 75-point powers, and the 250-point character diversifies into ten 25-point powers, which is less powerful?

Re: Charges is a limitation?

I'm not sure I agree there are pros and cons to everything. I mean' date=' I can't see any advantage to, say, activation rolls, except the point saving.[/quote']

 

Funny you should say that ; I've already posted quite the rebuttal!

Re: Coming back to HERO...

Just make sure the kid has an easy out once the PCs find the real source. Killing a kid on your first adventure would just suck.

"Have you ever wondered why the villains are always grownups? I'll tell you: it's because growing old makes you evil! That is why I have decided to kill all of them, and create a world where we're in charge."

__________________

"And I would have gotten away with it too, if not for you meddling adults!"

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening.

**Dr. Zoidberg Voice** "Porn! What! When did this happen! Where do you find it! Somebody tell meeee!"

There was this rumor floating around about the palindromedary, but he took Lucius to task for it.

That's a joke above' date=' please no one try to tell me.[/quote']

 

Not to worry, I only told your Doctor Zoidberg voice. Just don't ask him about the video

Re: Age and Sanction?

(We need a fade-away smiley or something like that--)

Ask and ye shall receive

__________________

Found at Pinoy Exchange.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening.

For some things' date=' the only "constructive criticism" is satire or parody that demonstrates why they are idiotic in the first place.[/quote']

 

For some people, Metaphysician - not "things". It's the same difference, again, as between fact and opinion. Perspective matters.

 

At times, I have seen no way to criticize an idea constructively through any means other than a proof-of-concept story that illustrates the flaws I see. But this doesn't mean that no other way exists; just that I wasn't able to see one. Sometimes, one will occur to me later on.

 

So, when I see a satire or a parody, I take any opportunity I can find to help out by articulating the flaws I see. Or, if I can see them but not any other way to do it, I may respond in like vein and continue the parody or satire.

 

Am I the only person who saw the OP as hilariously funny?

 

I enjoyed the meticulously explicit opening post as well, but found myself disappointed with how Pendaran failed to maintain that theme. For instance, he could have responded to criticism with:

 

"Frustrated with not being able to trick his players into answering the way he wanted them to, the GM invents new obstacles to foil their unexpected solutions. Frustrated with being unable to make YOU accept his beliefs about WWYCD's, he abandons his scenario and resorts to invective."

 

To be effective, a parody has to be funny and a satire must provide some new insight into the original subject matter. But instead of continuing the 3rd-person narrative which had served him so well, Pendaran chose to show (not tell). This was neither funny nor new.

 

I also thought the "Slatyn Yar breaks 4th walls" could have been done better. That approach relies on the player accepting the GM's authority, which - at the moment a table is being flipped over - has just been rejected.

 

A more realistic approach, IMO, would have been to say "The GM, having anticipated this reaction, took the precaution of bolting his table to the floor."

 

In retrospect, I'm startled that noone has put this disclaimer into a WWYCD thread before.

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

Pyre-Archer's already a fire-user' date=' so he'd be at a bit of an advantage here. But his Code vs Killing would probably stop him from making the initial shot as described. Not good for one's rep, and all.[/quote']

 

Wait, is his CvK motivated by not wanting to have "murderer" reflect poorly on him?

 

Because, you know, if you were in the body of someone else, you might be able to get away with murder - literally - and pin it on someone else

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening.

Suddenly! Out from the ground emerges the giant demon worm Slatyn-Yar, proclaiming that now is the beginning of its ten thousand year reign of terror and despair, in which all humanity will suffer unspeakable torment. The great evil worm is completely beyond your power in any and every way, cannot be reasoned with or persuaded of anything, and you cannot call on friends or allies or contacts or even interested enemies to stop it, who themselves are all beneath the power of Slatyn Yar, and would be helpless to stop.

 

Just then! Jesus Christ himself descends from Heaven above and hands you a syringe full of a lethal dose of barbituates

Kaja has a Susceptibility to holy ground, and the Christians have a lot to answer for. He takes the syringe and stabs Jesus.

It probably won't work, but Slatyn-Yar is immune. Jesus might not be

Re: GMs: Funniest Character Sheet Mistakes You've Seen.

Same character also had a power called "confidance". He thinks he can dance well maybe?

He is one in whom others confide. They trust him with their secrets.

Re: He's right over... Where'd He Go!

Yeah' date=' I invented it before Resurrection existed.[/quote']

 

I recall McCoy using "Extra Life" for 2 points.

Re: Charges is a limitation?

By the way' date=' Advantages and Limitations are [b']not[/b] rendered invalid just because they can offer both benefits and drawbacks in different situations; indeed, this behavior is noted (and approved of) in the book.

Oddly, only the "benefits of Limitations" behavior is noted in 5ER (page 280). Perhaps the author(s) only deemed it necessary to notify players that Limitations might not work as expected?

Re: Charges is a limitation?

To argue simantics is pointless because every advantage or limitation could be proved from perspective to offer pro's and con's thus making them all invalid.

Err . . . semantics incorporates context, which itself includes perspective. If you're arguing semantics with someone who omits perspective, that doesn't prove semantics is pointless, just that they're making a bad argument

By the way, Advantages and Limitations are not rendered invalid just because they can offer both benefits and drawbacks in different situations; indeed, this behavior is noted (and approved of) in the book.

Re: Water, Water Everywhere . . .

At sea level' date=' air is 784 times less dense than water.[/quote']

 

You (and those following the thread) may be interested in this older thread covering the mass, BODY, and weight of air; asking about the DEF and DCV of air; and a formula showing the density of air at sea level and higher altitudes.

Re: Unified Field Theory

__________________

Where's my skull-and-crossbones smiley, dang it?

The new Mood feature has an option for Death, but I tracked down this instead

__________________

Credit due to the BBC for this smiley.

Re: Mind link to a vehicle

Those computers are programmed to obey me (It has a Physical limitation: must obey commands of authorised users that relay proper commands).

"Error: ATTACK not a recognized command."

2 animated seasons and an emerging comic book series. Its writer (the original Gargoyles author), in a nod to (dis?)continuity fans everywhere, is basically pretending the 3rd season never happened

I can't be the only one here who thinks Gargoyles would make a good Dark Fantasy campaign, right? Right?!?

Come on, people. Chime in so I don't feel like the only one interested in converting this to HERO

Re: God Package...

She has some animal handeling abilities with Owls.

Damn Smart.

Although it somehow strikes me as less than smart, unless She clears this "handeling" with the squirrel first

Re: Who are the top 5 most powerful characters in your Campaign.

And' date=' back to the Ignore List with you. If your honestly going to argue that even the writeups for characters [i']native to the Champions universe[/i] aren't fixed canon*, there's no point.

 

*Which a GM can change, yes. . . but this constitutes changing canon ( duh )

Unless every GM who runs a HERO campaign, by default, checks in with every other GM (or a central authority) to ensure that each of their settings are compatible with every other - they're not running "the" Champions universe. They're running a Champions universe, or in other words, their campaign world.

I don't know why you even bother putting me on an Ignore list. You apparently haven't had any difficulty before now with ignoring the point I repeatedly called your attention to: namely, that you are assuming Catacomb contradicted canon when neither his alleged contradictions nor alleged intent to do so have been factually (or logically) evident. This is the context which prevents your allegations from having any status more legitimate than opinion.

Re: Daler Mehndi: Pop Sensation and Elemental Warrior

I think Charleton Heston said it best when he said

 

"You did it! You finally did it! Damn you all to hell!"

 

I blame Susano

Re: Who are the top 5 most powerful characters in your Campaign.

This whole "Apokalipse/Thanos" debate reminds me of the circular "Superman/Hulk" arguments from the "Superhero Hype Boards" ! Comic characters WILL vary in power during their "lifetime" depending on the needs of the story and/or the wims of the writer. One issue "Thanos" will fight all the gods of Asgard to a standstill' date=' a month later he will be handed his backside by "Squirrel Girl" in the space of two panels, That is the nature of comics.[/quote']

 

Fighting. Such is the nature of men. Power determined solely by who can hand whose backside to whom.

 

Another conflation (and common misconception) is that of power with points. A character with a 200d6 RKA (3,000 AP) is more powerful than a character with a 50d6 RKA (750 AP). If, however, the former has -20 in Limitations and the latter has only -2, the 50d6 RKA character will cost more. Both of them, however, cost less than the well-travelled "normal" character who has befriended so many supers, organizations, and other influential individuals that all these Favors, Contacts, and Followers easily exceed the cost of either RKA.

 

This last example may stretch suspension of disbelief beyond the snapping point. But consider this: even setting the points aside for one moment, what is the true measure of power? The hero who can fly through galaxies and blow apart planets, or the one who can ask around and have people do something?

 

The former, trying to imitate the latter, is reduced to threats:

"Do this or I destroy everything you love!"

"Keep trying my patience and YOU will be the one to die!"

Effective, perhaps, but the character is still nothing but a bully.

 

The latter, trying to imitate the former, calls in a team for support and they defend Earth against whatever superpowered bully is trying to convert "cosmic power" into "ruler of the world" this time

Re: Who are the top 5 most powerful characters in your Campaign.

Simple: "The default assumption is that' date=' if a GM is using a preexisting character not of their own creation, then he is using that character as he exists in canon, up to the point of campaign start, unless specified otherwise."[/quote']

 

Mostly a paraphrasal, not a new/different premise. Canon doesn't cover original characters; it neither forbids the existence of characters not specifically mentioned, nor establishes official descriptions of said characters. Your premise is still "canon by default", whether you feel a need to declare that canon applies only to existing characters or not.

 

Your "point of campaign start" is the only difference I see, and it too is something you cannot know; you may believe that a campaign starts at the exact moment along a timeline where the players begin to roleplay, but even without time travel the exact time a campaign "starts" is all too easily an opinion to all but the GM, who alone will know

 

Its the same assumption by which one figures if someone mentions they used Dr Destroyer' date=' that he is the 2500 point megavillain we all know and love ( or hate ), and not, say, an avatar of Shiva or a distributed AI intelligence, unless they specify that such is so.[/quote']

 

No, actually, those are different assumptions. You're conflating character concept with mechanical point value. The latter can vary just by what points a GM charges for different abilities - a value that is not dictated by canon.

 

IOW' date=' the problem isn't that he isn't declaring his campaign is his own campaign, its that he's saying his own campaign uses characters that are otherwise preexisting. . . in a manner distinctly in contradiction to their actual preexisting history and nature.[/quote']

 

Really? Amazing. And you got all that from, what, a paragraph or two?

 

You inferred that he was ranking Apocalypse above Thanos; this was your opinion, not consistent with the actual facts of what he said. I don't see this, now, as any different: you're claiming things that aren't backed up by what he actually said.

 

Maybe the chain of logic is obvious to you, so much that it seems needless to waste everyone's time mentioning steps B, C, D, E, F, and G you took between points A and H; but such is the burden of the enlightened, forever required to explicate their insights for the benefit of those whose intellects lack Superleap, 6"