TheDarkness

I would view disarm as an offensive action. Without a held action, if one wanted to do it, I would say they should spend the points to make a triggered disarm or something like that. I view a disarm as not defensive because, in fact, you are not merely avoiding the attack, you are also affecting the attacker(and especially, depriving them of their focus). At that point, the same argument could be used to simply make any attack a defensive action, as an unconscious attacker cannot attack. That's my view on it.

Me: America is a two party system. Random Internet Person: No. Me: It is. And Iceland has a parliament and a president. RIP: Iceland has two parties. Me: I don't think you're understand what a two-party system is. RIP: And Ross Perot ran under another party. You are wrong. It is not illegal to have another party. Me: I don't think you're understanding what a two-party system is. RIP: You are a slave to the two parties. Rinse, lather, repeat. Why, Facebook, why?

I'm not sure. It's jerky. I don't know what jerky. It says spicy.

One GM, in another game, did one where it began in a combat we were actually in the middle of from the previous session(hard to explain how this happened, it was an unavoidable thing, and one of the players was not there for this fifth week game, so we couldn't really continue). A gas grenade got thrown in our midst. We did not know it was a hallucinatory gas grenade. The entire game that day was a group hallucination in a Cthulhu-esque world.

I think gender as a construct becomes much easier to understand when one examines it across cultures, and realizes how many traits that are tied to gender in one culture are not tied in others. But, of course, we come from whatever culture we come from, so it is definitely not simple to just ignore that influence.

Safely used the restrooms in a coliseum is not an assertion I would ever comfortably make, especially for women. I'm gonna guess that the percentage of men going through gender reassignment for rape purposes is probably pretty low...

People will design for the campaign and the house rules they are in. So, if that is the game, then no one is being cheated. If they don't know the rules, and assume RAW(which is almost never the case), then adjustments may be necessary, but I usually this is not a case of attempting to cheat anyone, but more, someone either didn't hear or someone forgot to tell them sufficiently about the campaign being played. Further, set order based on Speed and Dex is not actually inherently fair. It is highly prone to munchkinism. But, in its defense, it is simple for game play.

Heresy! The internet is not over until we all agree on everything! It is foretold! There can be only one!

Okay, I think one point of confusion is, the opening phase is one in which everyone(except the poor surprised folks) would get to act, high and low speed. On your second point, why incentivize the low speeds by guaranteeing their actions, the reason is, by making it roll based, the high speeds, as you point out, are already incentivized. It is a means to mitigate the probability advantage that comes with that. Third, the rationale is, having the Speed chart as a static order of combat has problems of its own. By having the opening be a phase everyone can act in is nice, because that round can certainly be a game changer. However, people who have played a long time can game the system by way of the predetermined order. And they do. If they know the phases of their opponents, they can plan their combat around that, which is more roll playing than role playing. If they do not have absolute confidence they know the order of combat, combat may have more risk and thus, more drama. They are still getting an advantage for what they paid for. Those with low speeds would still be attacking less. Those with high speeds would be attacking more. There just would be no guarantee they knew which phases they would be able to act before those phases occurred.

If I were to go with a roll for speed, I would still maintain that everyone acts in the first phase(barring someone being completely surprised), as per the normal rules. To offset the probabilities, I would probably also allow for all speeds below 6 to have a guaranteed number of attacks a turn, so that the speed 2 people, if they never roll a two, will still be guaranteed two phases in the last two segments(assuming they never rolled their speed). Alternately, I suppose this could be a good case for using a DEX roll instead of a speed roll. Still, the reason I like it is that it offsets the routine of "this is a combat where everyone has either a 5 or 6 speed, or a 3 or 4 speed. Take your places!"

Ghost Angel has a good point. Sometimes, you want to KO your opponent, and you happen to be holding a sword. The pommel would certainly be a good case for such a strike.

You are correct!

I hope you all heard me.

It's too early to decide this is failure. Give it time. We believe in you, errant thread lacking any apparent point.

It's too early to decide this is failure. Give it time. We believe in you, errant thread lacking any apparent point.

I recall reading one house rule, might have been Marcus', in which each phase, if you rolled your speed or less on 2d6, you could go that segment. This still allows some to have better speed, while not making it set in stone which segments you get to go, all fairly simply determined, so reducing the in-gametime work.

My beautiful, yet deadly bodyguards do not just make themselves.

I think the problem here, for the party, is substantial. Trump has, essentially, absconded with the 'righteous anger' crowd, cutting into Tea Party elements and turning all the other candidates into 'establishment shills' if they win the nomination through party machinations. Which will severely undercut their presidential runs if Trump does not accept a loss and urge his supporters back into the party fold. GOP elections, for a long time, have depended on the idea of 'restoring America', it's hard to sell that idea if the winning candidate wins by being seen as part of the problem. The early loss of Jeb Bush was a big hit. They are now totally without a viable candidate anywhere near the center right. Mobilizing their numbers while not mobilizing in fear their opponent's potential voters was important. The fact that Trump is probably closer to the center, socially, than Cruz, does not bode well for them. The fact that they clearly have no better idea on whether Trump is actually genuine in a word he says will not help their position either, imo.

Any plans on doing Marshal Law?

The GOP is in quite a bind on all this. They need those Trump votes, whoever the end candidate is, and backroom deals, or even the specter of them, is going to be a huge problem for them in convincing Trump voters to vote with them.

Thanks. Being out of the country, and given that this forum tends toward less flaming and insanity in the discussions, sometimes I like to read the election discussion that is going on, even if I don't contribute a lot. So thanks for making a thread for it. Beyond that, I've got nothing. I occasionally find myself speculating what super powers the different candidates might have. Obviously Sanders' would be fire related("feel the Burn!"), Clinton, depends on if you accept she's a reptilian overlord or not, not sure on Cruz, Trump undoubtedly has some werd related powers. That's all I got.

I am jealous of your collections. Your bookshelves, on the other hand, need better brackets.

The campaign I've been working on is populated by a number of groups with a fairly strong need to be competitive, so that it is seen as a weakness that can be exploited for a group to lack a teleporter, a mentalist, a blaster, etc. In addition, these groups know some about each other, less about the players, who are newcomers. So they know, oh, this group has this mentalist, and this could be a problem, how do we mitigate this? Additionally, there is a group, called The Outfitters, who sell gadgets to all size, including mental gadgets to groups lacking mentallists. Anyway, in this context, I would be absolutely okay with someone selling back these stats. I don't need to add an element at all to put it into play, it's already in there. They will encounter mentalists AND gear that mimics mental powers. In a game where mental powers don't come up, I think the stat should just be dropped. If it isn't, not only should selling it back be worth very little, but buying it up shouldn't cost much, either, since it's useless in game terms at that time. I wouldn't actually do the latter, just because it would be annoying to track, though it would probably motivate more player mental powers, but it would be better to have just made mentalism part of the world in the first place. In short, if selling back OMCV is occurring in a game where that is munchkinny, then that's probably a better argument for dropping that stat entirely in that campaign than for keeping it. UNLESS mental powers are meant to be rarer than most others or gear that mimics mental powers does not exist. I guess my view is, for a character with no mental powers and no design plan to develop them in a world where, barring that, they can absolutely never make a mental attack, the stat is pointless. Drop it. Whether you let them take the handful of points(which I would say, barring the character being designed to be munchkinny past those points, I personally would), or not, the stat is pointless in the campaign, and it is the GMs job to say, "okay, you'll never, ever meet any mentalists in this game, so..."

Still, wish I had some of my old comic collection. Even the not so good ones. I'm pretty sure I had around the first twenty issues, so I never say the later stuff you were talking about.

It's funny, it's been years since I've seen the Vigilante comics, but I've always wondered if I remember them more nostalgically, because I remember nothing story wise.