Robyn

Re: Delusion disads

You sure he didn't get something like 20d6 of Luck? You'd think after one or two attempts thre wouldn't be a Gamma Lad anymore.

The PC must have been protecting the DNPC from harm.

Re: Group Perception

It gets complicated when there is one player that is actively trying to hinder the group' date=' or just not helping. For the most part, unless that character is a really good actor or otherwise good at deceiving his companions, it's usually fairly obvious to the others who's not helping. At least given enough time.[/quote']

 

I would rule that "player cannot lie to player" - the character can give their own explanations for what is happening, and the player can smile and say nothing and let the other players draw their own conclusions, and the player can even let slip misleading truths to passively deceive the other players (by pointing their minds in the right directions), but the player cannot sit there at the table and say "My character is . . . " when that isn't the case, without being called on it.

 

I see this sort of thing being done when the character is not usually distracted, but is affected by recent events that do not happen all the time.

Re: Overcomplex things?

As I said' date=' I just read thru some sections and that one struck my as overcomplex. If I'm missing a point, and I may be, please explain why the attack has to be a transform instead of a straight injury causer that targets the eyes.[/quote']

 

I believe I've seen that example . . . (nice to see they retained it through 5th Edition).

 

The complexity is in having to target the eyes, and missing; the implementation they took balances out the risk of hitting other things with an RKA (or any attack, for that matter, but Killing Attacks are like ), with the complexity and additional dicerolling of having to target the eyes. Keep in mind that not all GM's accept hit locations, either. Also, straight damage can be healed at the normal rate; if you wanted it to come back more slowly, you'd have to buy it as a Drain; and, if you want acid to just be the SFX, you can look at the exact effect, which is "blinding". This is a Darkness or Flash effect (I haven't studied the exact differences between them well enough to say why Flash is more appropriate than Darkness, or, for that matter, different from Darkness at all; except maybe the Instant rather than Duration effect), and moving the recovery time down the chart effectively ensures that it will "never" wear off (just as acid damage "never" heals or regenerates).

Re: Flight Question

As far as I know' date=' Flight doesnt have any special rules concerning movement and carrying, other than the usual penalties to movement speed and DCV listed in the Encumbrance rules.[/quote']

 

Should they? I mean, when you're lifting from the ground you're bracing yourself through the muscles and bones underneath, involving feet, legs, back, shoulders, and arms; with wings, you've got lift plus speed of flapping. What happens if your lift power is only barely enough to carry your own weight, much less that of others?

 

I can see doing it as a Limitation on Flight: only when naked

Re: Tie Me Up

Would this rule be able to apply to cases where a villain has momentarily stunned the hero, and took advantage of their defenses being down to wrap some steel bars around them? Assuming the hero was also strong enough to bend steel bars, what factors would apply? Should something be added to your base ruleset for the difference between the hero's strength and the villain's, or rope's strength?

Re: Having a painful movement

30 Elemental Control' date=' [i']Teleportation Powers[/i], 60-point powers

30 Moving and a Shakin! - Teleport, 20" x16Mass

20 Mama said Bamph you out!: HA +4d6, NND ([standard]; +1), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; Auto when Using Grab-Teleport Maneuver; +1) (60 Active Points); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2)

The rules must have changed a lot since 4th Edition . . . either that or I'm missing something, doing my math wrong, etcetera:

HA (I had to look this up in the Table of Contents), page 73, costs 3 points per 1d6. 4d6 is 12 points, with NND and Trigger is a +2 advantage, bringing it up to 36 points at the most before we even apply Limitations.

I also can't tell if the EC is meant to apply to the "Mama said Bamph you out!" power. Isn't there a limit on powers placed within an EC, that you can't save more than half their costs with it? Checking in 4th, it says that the value of the EC is half the cost of the cheapest power. So, assuming that 5th is the same, wouldn't the EC be limited to 15 points?

[Taking into account the -1/2 Limitation that would reduce the RP cost of the HA. 12 x 2.5 = 30, half of 30 is 15.]

Re: Delusion disads

How about the reverse; someone in a superhero world who refuses to believe in superheroes, weird-science/super-high-tech devices, etc. etc.?

 

He'd be delusional in his world. He might suffer for it if he tells some bad-tempered super to his/her face "I don't know what trickery you're using, but it's all a fake."

Might be on a level if he hallucinates wires, thinks they're walking along the ground when they're flying, etcetera.

Re: Group Perception

I'm convinced that the majority of the time' date=' each character in a story is trying their best unless they have a reason to do otherwise. The game mechanics do allow for this.[/quote']

 

Interesting. Can we "push" a Perception roll?

 

On watch, the greatest danger is boredom. Too much time of nothing happening. Maintaining alertness for a very short span of time, now, that's easy. So, could you shorten the span of time further, and, in return, gain greater sharpness?

 

edit: Or, rather, push for greater awareness, but as a tradeoff, not be able to concentrate for as long?

 

In the example of making a PER Roll' date=' a really bad roll could mean the character got distracted or wasn't paying attention, just didn't feel into or up to the task, was busy thinking of something he thought was more important, etc. The trick is for the player and/or GM to decide what reason the character performed so poorly; something that supports the character concept/personality or vice versa.[/quote']

 

True, it's no good to decide something through roleplaying and then roll dice to decide the outcome, not when they could contradict each other. But maybe they could be like the offsets in a file system; one covers the larger picture and another the nuances. Roleplaying can give bonuses or penalties to a dice roll, or the dice can affect how badly the roleplayed failure comes out.

 

I know, though, that if I wasn't letting the players have their PC's drop in awareness save through rolls, I wouldn't think it fair to use penalties in the plot threads where a villain tries to capture one of my hero's Dependant NPC's and hold her hostage to distract the hero. If the heroes are so mechanical that they can perform their duties even in the midst of the greatest distraction, it works both ways. I'd probably allow it, though, simply so that my villains' plots could actually work, too.

 

I know this, too: if some player asked me to omit their character's Perception rating from the group's roll, I would see if the group noticed something, then ask everyone to roll individually. Asking all of them to roll would have the nice benefit of not making anyone suspicious (if they hadn't known what she was doing already) of why that player wasn't being asked to roll, but that's just a side effect; the other players roll to see if they notice her zoning out with a smile on her face, and she rolls to see if she walks into a lightpost.

Re: Group Perception

No vitrol intended Robyn' date=' but I could offer the advice to yourself. I was merely quoting to you to explain how I had intended my original post, because I had believd (incorrectly?) that you had misunderstood my post and had been referring to it.[/quote']

 

I thought you were implying, with your original post (here, let me quote it so we don't get more confused trying to figure out which "post" we're talking about).

 

It's one thing to say that "Ok, for this campaign, characters with a team orientied disposition are strongly encouraged, and lone wolfers/turncloaks are forbidden."

 

It's another to prevent an established character from taking an action that is IN character.

 

I thought you meant this to imply that it was only for the other thing, for situations other than a campaign in which teamwork is all but guaranteed, where an established character could claim "lack of teamwork" as a valid action. I wanted to point out that it could still be possible for a campaign to have a strong focus on teamwork, but the player might ask to have their perception withdrawn from the group's because they weren't paying attention.

 

This is what I wrote my response towards. I was not directly say that anyone was actually advocating this' date=' but in case they were, I felt compelled to speak.[/quote']

 

Ah, so just a contingency plan then. Understood

Re: Characters that give you nightmares trying to design

So' date=' buy it through a Follower's Base's Vehicle ... [/quote']

 

Oh, good. Now it only costs slightly over 60,000 points

Re: Having a painful movement

You're not content with throwing up your Straw Man/Red Herring stuff here and here?

I don't understand what you're saying. One of those links is to a thread with only one post from me, and it's me posting a question for anyone to answer, on a thread someone else (as it happened, you, but don't feel singled out; there wasn't any reason for you to stand out from the dozens of other people here) had already started:

Does the Transform in 5ER automatically make it easier to change substances into related substances, or would I be able to take that as a Limitation?

 

For example, if I wanted to change glass into sand, would that be cheaper than changing glass into ice?

I don't understand what's a "Straw Man" or a "Red Herring" there.

Did you figure you didn't get enough respect so you're going to insult (using "cutesy" talk to belittle) and harrass (spreading to other unrelated threads) me?

Considering the hostility and aggression you've so rapidly brought forth, I'm fairly sure your respect would make me worried, if anything (what could I be earning respect from such people for, but more of the same?). But, as it happens, I do "get respect" here on the forums, if PM's and Rep are any indication. I'm not particularly obsessed with having it, but I'm not sure how I could possibly think I was "not getting enough respect" - if anything, my Rep is unusually high considering I joined the forum less than a month ago.

I looked over all three of the threads, and I can see where you might think I was trying to use "cutesy" talk to belittle, and "spreading to other unrelated threads", but look: this is a forum. We talk, and threads cross-pollinate. If we strictly limited our ideas to the scope of individual threads, we'd be a very boring group. For example; I came up with the story for "Susan, the Thief of Time" after reading some thread about "Character concepts that cry out for GM smackdown". One of the entries was for a speedster with duplication - a weary GM asks "Phase one, who goes?" and the player chirps back "We do!". I noted an improvement of that, namely a speedster with duplication and Coordinated Attack, and worked out a character background to fit the powers. As it turns out, Coordinated Attack is not a combat move you have to pay points for, so the end of the post wasn't as impressive as I had thought it would be, but I don't know the rules very well, so I hadn't realized that when I was doing the writeup.

My point is, it's normal for people to take information gained in one thread and use it in another thread. We do it all the time; we see how something similar was handled, and adapt the structure to meet our own needs. There are also some discussions that aren't limited to a strict "structure by thread", but exist whereever they crop up. One of these is game balance: and, yes, it does seem unbalanced to have a Transform so powerful when Teleport cannot be. I pointed this out hoping to have an experienced player explain the incongruity to me, not to insult you.

Lastly, for the "cutesy" talk, you're taking that figuratively when it's meant literally. Take the scope of an AOE that covers an entire bay - not just the surface, but the whole depth. Compare it to the ships and people on the surface of the water. Comparatively speaking, they're little. To the PC whose powers affect an entire bay, these people are like ants.

I'm reporting it to Ben.

:spreads hands, bewildered: I certainly can't stop you. I'd have hoped, however, that in a forum like this (where courtesy is valued), you would at least try to talk things over with me before assuming that I'm an irrational villain with no hope of ever being reformed (to use a Champions analogy), and the only way to deal with me is to call upon a higher authority to get rid of me.

edit: I've thought about it a bit and I can kind of see where the "red herring" might be coming from, but it doesn't make much sense, so I'm hesitant to ascribe it as your reasoning, Play4Keeps. But I'll put it here just to let you confirm or deny the accuracy of my guess, allright? Please don't take offense, I know it's not a very good reason, I'm just utterly lost here. If my guess is wrong, just tell me so and I'll drop it.

If you had this idea of the threads you started as being "about answering your question", and only about that, any questions which distracted from the goal of getting your questions answered could be considered a "red herring". If that's the case, I both assure you that we're more than adequately intelligent when it comes to distinguishing between the original question asked and the side issues that come up along the way, and regret to inform you that the forums don't work that way: if you want to have executive control over who posts what to "your" threads, you'll need to start your own forum where you can be moderator. In the meantime, may I suggest simple courtesy? If you ask politely for people to not get sidetracked, and to post related questions as a new thread in the forum, we'd then know that you don't like that sort of thing.

Re: Delusion disads

How would model the Disadavnatge of a cxharacter who believes he has a specific Power that he does not in fact possess' date=' even if he has other powers?[/quote']

 

I actually don't know how to model it . . . I'm loath to use two Disadvantages, but I can sort of see two Disads; one for the actual Delusion, and one for a pervasive Hallucination (all senses; sees, hears, feels web fluid coming from his hands, then when he fails to go anywhere, thinks the web has mysteriously snapped off - or, aha, someone must have cut it!), when he "flies" he actually moves along the ground thinking he's seeing people from above, doesn't understand when they "pull him down" how they reached that high, and if he comes up against a building where flying would let him enter the open window up top, he instead has the bright idea of busting in through the front lobby. Anyone who tries to point out that flying in would be a better idea, gets told that it is ridiculous. It could even be complementary to take an Enraged against people who try to challenge his illusions.

Re: WWYCD: The Vanishing!!!??!!!

Kaja: First thing, dispatch some insects to contact the others in his organization. Since they all share the same powers, or at least draw from a common pool, he needs to find out if they're gone. He'll also realize that they might have survived, but be in hiding, in which case he won't necessarily hear from them anyway. That said, he'll prepare to rebuild them from scratch. (Well, not from scratch, literally, but he's well-versed enough in the lore that he should be able to recruit and train new members.)

Re: Group Perception

I was only speaking against MAKING a character do something against that character's true nature. If the character has a good reason to be crafy or sneaky, the GM has no one to blame except the GM for allowing that character/player in, and has no justification to interfere with any interparty drama. If the behavior is an aberration, then obviously the characters have hit upon a truly interesting RP situation, and it is an even worse idea to interfere.

 

If you don't like the premise of how a character will be RPed, don't let it in. If you realize later what you didn't understand, arrange to alter or remove the presence. But do NOT control the character instead of the player. Either change its nature, remove it, or let it do what it is SUPPOSED to.

Whoa, hold on, Manic. Why don't you try taking a closer look at who's been saying what? I've said nothing that calls for such a response. All I did was point out that there are perfectly valid reasons other than playing a character who has reason to conceal things from the group why your character's Perception might not count toward the group's.

edit: In fact, I don't believe anyone's suggested that we go "MAKING" a character do something "against their nature". Dust Raven asked about rolling an 18, and you can hardly say that "rolling an 18" (an out of character act) goes "against the character's nature".

Re: WWYCD: "Dude, you stole my shtick!"

Kaja would notify his superiors ASAP that he believed his alternate self from a parallel dimension had come through again, and request orders (avoid, investigate, terminate, etcetera).

Jenny might actually begin to suspect that she was the one in the alternate universe.

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

Basically he was imagining every possible thing you could do with a given sfx and tried to do it' date=' instead of scaling back and figuring out the source of the character's abilities and how they developed.[/quote']

 

An 8d6 Energy Blast (SFX: Fire) can be used to destroy water, but when water is destroyed with fire, it creates steam. Steam is not within the comfortable operating parameters for a human being. Does the character not create the steam, or does the steam just not do damage, or is that effect provided as a freebie?

 

I would state that the player should put the Energy Blast in a Multipower and use one slot for the 8d6 EB, but have another "all or nothing" slot for another EB, this time 4d6 Steam. The character can either do so much fire damage that the water is vaporized (so quickly it creates no steam), or vaporize half as much water but make it turn to steam.

 

Of course, this ignores the possible "Indirect" nature of the Steam attack (if I appear to miss you with a Fire blast to the ocean beside your deck, and then you get a blast of steam where you weren't expecting it, that's an automatic surprise and probably an automatic hit as well), the possible AOE on it, and that if the Fire is heating up the water less (just turning it into steam instead of instantly vaporizing it), shouldn't it affect more volume of the water?

Re: Conversion - Wraith, the Oblivion

The voices in his head would be a Psychological Limitation

I think it's just the one voice. Whether he listens to it or not, and if so, to what extent he plays along with what it wants, is up to him.

Of course, if he becomes addicted to the Shadow Dice, he may let himself be talked into taking a darker path than he normally would . . .

As for the aspect of taking over' date=' it could either be as SirViss noted, a multiform to represent the same character with a different set of psychological limitations and personality. I'd rule that the multiform would have an activation roll, but would otherwise be permanent if triggered. [/quote']

 

Sounds good to me.

Re: Seemingly Silly Things to Model

I had one' date=' but it's fled me at the moment. Ah well, it shall come to me presently.[/quote']

 

Oh! I've got it!

 

"How can you doubt a man who has muscles like these?!?": The character can use his Strength in a Persuasion attempt. This isn't Intimidation; he is effectively seducing you with his bright, perfectly sculpted body.

Re: Seemingly Silly Things to Model

No' date=' Akane, I'll Buy Lunch:[/b'] A variant on the above that makes you dangerous with skills that ordinarily pose no threat whatsoever, such as Cooking.

10d6 EB, Variable Effect, No Conscious Control, "only when practicing otherwise harmless skills", SFX matches the skill

I had one, but it's fled me at the moment. Ah well, it shall come to me presently.

Re: Our future IS Paranoia (alternate(?) earth campaign background)

I love Paranoia. Now' date=' would this be the traditional underground Alpha Complex, or a seemingly implied "continent in a dome" one?[/quote']

 

Whatever you can manage to fit in there. I haven't come up with plausible explanations for the cloning yet, for instance; that's why additions are welcome. Just make sure the modifications only build on what's already been established in the (common*) media or here.

 

* No taking the crackpot paranoid delusional theories of the newspaper published by that guy in "Conspiracy Theory", I mean news that the average person on the street, if they read about it or see it on TV, would know about and not think "Wait, that's not true!".

[i first came up with this idea back in the middle of '04.]

Microsoft is trying to control China, a country that currently refuses to accept Microsoft's standards.

We'll get back to this.

In the name of fighting piracy, Microsoft has introduced a new computing concept, DRM (or Digital Rights Management), which uses virtually unbreakable encryption at the hardware level, along with transparent decoding, to ensure that no music or data file can be read by any computer other than whomever bought it; and also, that no program can be patched to work without being properly registered.

The idea behind it is that all data is encrypted, and can be decrypted as necessary, but only by a legitimate copy of one of the programs that do so. To determine whether or not a copy is legitimate, an electronic signature is used; but instead of generating a unique signature apart from the program and storing it somewhere in software, the program is its own signature - if you change a single bit of the data comprising that program, it no longer generates the same digital signature. The key for all this encryption, instead of being stored in software where it can be gotten at, is hidden deep in a circuit-chip on the motherboard.

One of the latest names for this technology is Trusted Computing - essentially, the only pieces of software, and for that matter the only other computers (on a network), that can interact with your computer are those which have been Trusted (the Trust licenses would be issued by a central authority, after auditing and the paid fees). Ideally, this will stop viruses, because none of them will ever be Trusted. Of course, if the central auditing company decides not to issue you a Trust license, perhaps because you make viruses or pirate software (or are even suspected of pirating software, after all everyone knows that there's no such thing as truly free software - and if you're offering it, that just means you've stolen it from someone else), perhaps because you said something critical about DRM, perhaps because you offer an alternative to their monopoly, or perhaps just because you're a small company and can't afford the fees . . . well, you'll obviously be Untrustworthy, won't you?

By the way, can you keep a secret? No, I mean really, really keep a secret? If your very life, or all your belongings at least, depended on not telling a certain datum to anyone else, could you manage that?

The general justification for Trusted Computing is that you cannot be Trusted to keep a secret - nor, for that matter, can any other user. That is why your encryption key, the one stored deep in hardware, the one that is required to authenticate new software for use with your hardware . . . is not told to you. Only the central authority knows.

I don't know about other users, but I received and applied the wetware security update against that "social engineering" exploit over a decade ago.

Microsoft, however, is forging ahead in its plans to gift the world with DRM, and already Cisco has agreed to begin manufacturing routers that will refuse access to unauthorized users - as part of a protection plan, you understand, against bandwidth pirates. Mind you, you literally can't authenticate unless you're using DRM, so in a few years, as more and more ISP's begin using such routers, more and more of the net will fall outside of non-DRM-using computers . . . because after all, they can't (as unTrusted computers) speak with the Trusted networks. This will effectively force conversion to DRM. Or instead, Microsoft could introduce their latest and greatest video compression codec . . . but despite releasing all new videos only in that format, write the software to interpret it for exclusive compatibility with DRM systems. Just think of it as a security update. Though this one comes with a slightly greater requirement, that you upgrade your hardware too (not to worry, as Microsoft will be offering you a deal you can't refuse on new hardware).

The basic DRM plans include anti-theft mechanisms (to prevent unauthorized users from utilizing your system), where the moment a single unTrusted piece of software is detected on your machine, the hardware itself shuts down. The architecture will also be designed such that, every time you connect to another machine on the DRM network, you automatically report to them every program you have on yours. This is everything you have, mind you - not just everything that you are using. So, while you might only be able to read DRM-encrypted data with DRM-authorized programs, you can't even have third-party (unTrusted) software on your computer; not only will your hardware refuse to process the code, but your computer will completely die on you.

Part of the DRM functionality (and one that has already been implemented on some Microsoft computers) is the expiring E-mail; after 30 or 60 days, your data might not be deleted, but it will certainly not be decrypted anymore. Naturally, this is nothing more than an extension of the copyright mechanisms - if you rent a CD or DVD, then it should stop working for you after you would have returned it. Furthermore, the recording of the CD/DVD is specific to your machine - noone else's hardware will play it. Of course, this means that for E-mail (or other areas), if your boss suggests a risky plan and it falls through, you'll no longer be able to point at the evidence proving that it was his idea. If he orders initiatives which are illegal and highly immoral, you can send the data to a reporter - but that reporter won't be able to translate the data. You can try printing out the data - but the printer software will refuse to work if your boss "forgot" to include printing privileges. Of what use is a paper trail when the evidence has been written in disappearing ink?

The structure of all DRM access can essentially be seen as the reverse of what we have now; in the modern day, some sites are selectively banned from our eyes because those in charge of filtering don't believe we should see them. But with DRM, the default is to deny access to us, unless we're specifically authorized. Why would the central authority in charge of DRM want to allow us access to webpages that criticize the flaws in DRM? Or, for that matter, provide an alternative to it?

In the process of invading Iraq, the president spoke of a hope and promise that, by the end of the occupation, every family in Iraq would have (among other things) broadband internet access. Every single one, too. This is something they have yet to accomplish in America, so naturally many people were dubious of this grandoise claim. But after Microsoft's unbelievably generous offers of aid, that is exactly what they received.

Microsoft's patented technology not only provided internet access (to the Trusted networks, of course) to the Iraqi people, but adding jamming capability to prevent pirate networks (a la The Matrix) from existing in Iraq. With the passage of time, it became apparent that no terrorist attacks were being launched online from within the DRM networks - indeed, the only vulnerability was from networks still using third-party software. Keeping this in mind, Microsoft petitioned Congress to pass the Patriot Act 3, which forbade internet access to anyone not using the DRM-authentication routers.

While the non-DRM users were reeling from this blow, the US declared war on China, announcing that they (the Communists) were harboring terrorists. We'll get back to this.

Citing national emergency, the President announced his intent to remain in office for an unprecedented third term, to continue protecting against the terrorist threat. But in the interests of fairness, he did allow a vote - using the now fully upgraded electronic and online voting booths. Reelected for a third term by an overwhelming majority vote, he passed the Patriot Act 4, which recognized that all references to non-secure (aka non-DRM) software or hardware was an attack on safety by terrorists, who wanted to trick the US citizens into using computers that could be exploited; the Act officially defined all such rumors of third-party computers as an act of treason against the United States.

We'll get back to this.

Microsoft initiated the eBook movement, encouraging people all over the country to trade in their paper books for electronic copies. The paper books were then shipped off to 3rd-world countries, to be taken to "concentration camps" where they would be used as teaching materials for people learning to read English. NASA joined in by donating several biofeedback video games, claiming it was primarily out of the goodness of their heart and not because they wanted to train future pilots. The games trained youth to focus and think calmly, by rewarding brain activity with better velocity but tying responsivity of controls directly to how excited, bored, etcetera they were (lessons in controlling their mental state were even offered in-game, though of course NASA didn't try to bore the youth with documentation that the brain states these children were being subconsciously steered to actually corresponded to the loudly-extolled traits).

In a small town way out in the boondocks, some stores were entered and ravaged by bears, and a few other large and aggressive mammals. In the interests of safety, an electric shock discouragement system was devised and recommended; to counter widespread concern over accidental civilian casualties, Microsoft offered to incorporate a short-range transmitter into the National ID plan advocated by the President, one constantly broadcasting so as to announce the presence of a US citizen to any stores boasting the new detection technology. This plan was approved on the grounds that every US citizen nowadays had a National ID; it came with their DRM package. Those that didn't have a National ID, didn't have DRM, and were either terrorists or traitorously harboring terrorism advocates themselves.

Microsoft began production of its new line of Reading Lightbulbs, a special type of light that not only canceled out most of the eye-strain from its latest monitors (which had been making the reading of paper books difficult), but provided decent reading light for paper books. In an effort to lower production costs (and therefore provide a good turnaround for customers), they stopped trying so hard for efficiency in the hidden cameras; instead, the cameras were still hidden, but they placed a much greater demand for electricity on the house. Microsoft recouped the costs, and more, from their share of the new-found profits from power companies. Several terrorists were also caught, thanks to these new lights; the cameras observed some people reading books that were not on the approved list (especially those history books containing information about what electrical demands existed in prior ages), and Microsoft employees soon arrived along with government agents, the latter to arrest the terrorists and the former to reclaim all Microsoft hardware from those that had broken their License Agreement.

Beginning major rollout of the electric discouragement line, Microsoft also took advantage of the public's belief that no alternatives existed (to DRM; with the National ID tied up in DRM, to stop using DRM was to stop being a US citizen, or at least stop being able to enter any stores or purchase any goods or receive any credits), and in one of their weekly security updates, instituted a requirement that 90% of all CPU and bandwidth capacity be allocated to them. Unfortunately for Microsoft, and the President, and all his boys up in Washington, the new supercomputer formed from virtually every computer on the planet spontaneously acquired sentience, and the AI promptly nuked Washington, eliminating every bureacrat and engineer who knew what had happened or how to stop it.

Because supercomputers (like Gods), as we all know, have a sense of humor, this one then blamed the entire nuclear strike and ensuing fallout on terrorist attack originating in China . . .

Can you see where this is going yet?

Re-christening itself Alpha Complex, the supercomputer sealed off the US and began preparing its citizens for the inevitable Commie attack.

[Additions welcome.]

Re: Conversion - Wraith, the Oblivion

This might not be what you were looking for exactly but:

Not quite . . . (I'll note differences below).

Essentially in moments of severe emotional stress the player rolls his Psyche Limitation. If he fails' date=' he must act according to he whispers of his Shadow, which is played by anoher player. In return, the player of the Shadow can choose to activate any of the 2 Aids in he Shadow Boon Multipower for the Character.[/quote']

 

The Shadow is a constant part of the character's psyche, always in the background; but, when it takes over, it does so permanently. In the meantime, it can use its Shadow Dice either against or for the character's efforts, at its whim and for its own mysterious reasons, perhaps tricking the character into relying on the extra assistance, only to withdraw its aid at a particularly vulnerable time.

Re: Is "Its cheaper this way" enough for you?

Big example: Guy with electrical powers' date=' most of which were bought 'Not in water', which is a perfectly viable limitation. But at -1, which means he has to encounter enough water to short himself out every other game. So ... he did. It was a weird philosophy I was on at the time ... if a character sheet said that, say, Lasers were Common, then they were. If they said Magnetic Fields were very common, they were ... generally by redefining the quantity of the substance in question. For example, 'not in water' at a -1/4 meant immersion or getting totally wet. -1/2 meant knee deep. -1 meant you shorted out if you got spit on, etc.[/quote']

 

So . . . in other words, you were treating the value of the limitation as "how frequently can it affect the character" and not "how frequently does the trigger appear in game"?

Re: Group Perception

Rolled an 18 did you?

No, that would be putting mechanics before SFX and relegating SFX to the role of explaining the mechanics. I was thinking more that it's possible to be roleplaying a character who, despite her devotion to the team, has other personality elements which distract her from doing the best job she could.

And that's good. If the PC's always did the best possible jobs they could, they'd basically be robots or computers or something; no life but their work, and all that. Okay for a "government agent" campaign, but hardly interesting other than that. I wouldn't hold it against another player if they did something like this, even if it did hurt the team's chances of success/survival (my characters might chew her out over it, though ).

I see a couple of threads here for useless and silly powers, but none for those that are just plain evil.

So, here's one to start us out with:

Character Believes He Is A Superhero

Total (25 points), Physical Disad (no amount of reasoning with this PC can convince him otherwise), Variable Effect (every week, perplexed at why his powers aren't working, he realizes that his previous belief was wrong and he is really some other superhero)

Don't be misled by the title, the character actually could be a superhero. He just doesn't, for whatever reason, accept his real identity. Instead, he believes himself to be some other superhero, and will act in all ways as if he possesses their powers as well (when, in fact, this disad does not confer any such things upon him). This means walking confidently into a group of enemies, certain that they cannot see him because he is "invisible". Even after they repeatedly demonstrate the ability to see him, he will only become more convinced that they are using some fiendish scheme or device to reveal his presence or neutralize his powers.

I think this could be an appropriate and interesting Disad for Foxbat, but any NPC you're using for comic relief could do. Letting a PC have it, though, may result in damage to your sides from clutching at them as you laugh so hard