Pattern Ghost

Re: Naming the baby I agree. Shall I put you down for an Egbert then?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I haven't regarded any of it as a preview so much as Steve chatting with board members and some confirmed stuff coming down to us through the forum. I don't know if Steve's even far enough along with the project to give an actual substantial preview yet. I'd expect something along the lines of a press release or website announcement as far as a preview goes. Anything else, even confirmed by Steve, I'll take as tentative till the thing goes to press.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Hunteds aren't the only things with frequencies, though a lot of builds stack up three or more on a character to make up the Disads total... which is a sign of a problem right there. I'm inclined to limit Hunteds to two, with one of them being a common group Hunted.

Re: Naming the baby There are some good suggestions out there, but I'm just going to call it Egbert. That's a good, solid name, IMO.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far And I'd imagine that if he used everything at the frequencies given, that his games would be overrun with dealing with those disadvantages. I've never seen a GM use the actual frequencies in a game at the level laid out in the rules. Think of it this way: He has 12 players. If each of them has two disadvantages with just an 11- frequency, which is a bit over half the time, then he's got 12 disadvantages in play, having an impact on the characters, every session. Now, I'm a fan of Mattingly's work, and maybe he could do that and make it look organic to the plot, but I'm betting he doesn't actually follow the frequencies that closely.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Understood. The point of having the suggestion changed in the core rulebook is that you're not always the GM, and more often than not, if you game with a group online, the GM will simply use whatever the default value listed in the book is. I probably won't run an ongoing game of 6th, but will likely set up a short online game to playtest the rules. If I do, I'll be using whatever the defaults are, since it will essentially be a play test campaign.

Re: Starting Point Totals

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Another issue is that if your group has a large total number of disadvantages, they simply won't be put into play as often as their point values would indicate, barring things like group hunteds. Less Disads makes the GM's job easier to a degree.

Re: Starting Point Totals Well, you're the one who started the thread preaching to the choir, one based on the assumption that the people you were speaking about were ignorant of a very basic tenant of a game system they are intimately familiar with. So, are people touchy? What compelled you to start this thread, if not a bit of touchiness? Anyway, I think you're probably a swell guy, and didn't mean to be offensive. I'm only pointing out that you sound that way. So, I'll beg off this thread, with apologies back to you, and yours accepted.

Re: Starting Point Totals You know, CTaylor, you were still acting like everyone who said that they'd like the defaults changed was some sort of idiot. You were still being condescending. I'm in that group you were just condescending to. Just because you don't understand why the defaults in the published rules have value for some people in some situations, does not mean that the rest of us are idiots who don't know that we're free to change those numbers if we want to. Your post was utterly pointless.

Re: Starting Point Totals I can't believe you felt compelled to start a thread on this. Do you really think that the people who frequent this board don't already know how the point totals work? Do you really not understand everything that Ghost Angel just pointed out above? Look, most of us are middle aged gamers. For a lot of us, that means that we game when we get a chance. Maybe we get to go to a con, or we get into an online game. In those circumstances, many GMs simply tell people to create characters based on the published guidelines. This is one reason why the published guidelines are important.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I didn't know this. Thanks!

Re: The Clown Guild - The First Clan for the new MMO Here's a link to the fansite kit: http://files.champions-online.com/FanSite/CO_Fansite_Kit_current.zip It's 324 MB. Here's the link to the page with the terms on it (or linked to it): http://champions-online.com/fansite_kit/

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I'm hoping that Steve reduces the default values for Disadvantages -- Complications. I always hated trying to come up with 150 pts of them.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Took me a little bit to get used to having that extra hundred points to play with. Not a lot, but a 350 pt. 5th Edition character looks a lot less sparse than a 250 pt. 4th Edition character. The disconnect this time probably won't be as much. We're just going to be spending a few extra points to get to the same level of character that we're used to now.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Yeah, you're probably right. I wasn't thinking too well when I posted that. Come to think of it, I don't think it'll go higher than 450 for a standard super, and probably only that high if there are other changes that affect character building costs.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I'm thinking it's going to look weird with starting characters having huge point totals. I mean, 250 to 350 took some getting used to, and I imagine this will require a bigger jump. Not that it's functionally or logically any different... it'll just look funny.

Re: The Clown Guild - The First Clan for the new MMO We could always throw up a site on Guildportal or something for the new Supergroup. (Or whatever they're going to call it in CO.) I think CO may have a fansite kit available already.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I'm totally not debating COM. I don't care enough to debate an aspect of a game I probably will never get a chance to play anyway. =P But thanks for the additional info! Might be useful for those who want to tweak the COM rules in their own games. =)

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far That's an interesting idea. I wonder how that could be codified into a rule? As you note below, it may not always be relevant between species. Then again, GMs are there for a reason. Like, to decide when something is relevant. You don't need a rule for cross-species use of COM. All of the applications of COM are conditional anyway. I'd consider it part of campaign design to define how one race views COM in relation to another. That's more a detail of setting than anything else. I agree. I'm not strongly opposed to the change, but I'd like to see an expansion of COM, and hope that's the case with the new talent. If it's just a roll modifier, then that's a step back IMO. I can live with it, in that case, but would say it's less than ideal.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Ah! This is perfect. I was in favor of keeping COM, defining it differently, and raising the point cost to a full point, along with giving it some function outside the Complementary Skill Rolls, to merit the cost increase. First, negative COM would have to go. COM would be redefined as the intensity of the character's appearance, not just beauty. You could chose three broad special effects (making the stat fit with the reasoning from effect philosophy) for your COM: Beauty, Ugliness, and Nondescriptness. For complementary rolls, you could apply your COM roll as per your focus. (Nondescript characters would be better at Shadowing and other skills requiring one to be discrete or blend into a crowd.) Likewise, you could use the GA Hero rule to add to different types of PRE attacks. (Again, obvious for pretty or ugly characters, for nondiscript, the PRE attack may go along the lines of appearing as an inconsequential or unthreatening target, with an exeptional result of being regarded as a simple bystander in the right circumstances.) Of course, COM can also be used to adjucate modifiers for mental powers, like Mind Control. You can already do that (target more inclined to obey a "kiss me" command from an attractive target or to attack an uglier target, etc.) with COM, but the rules don't really suggest it anywhere that I can remember. That gives COM (or a rename to Appearance/APP may be in order) a solid three areas of benefit, justifies getting rid of the stupid negative scores, and justifies a normal price cost, which adds granularity since people can now buy any value and not just even numbers. That's the fix I'd want to see for COM in 6th. The Golden Age rule of adding to PRE attacks is the final piece of the puzzel that would make COM viable at a full 1 point cost. (It'd also help flesh out PRE attacks a bit more, I think.) Not gonna happen, but I really like that GAC rule, so I just tossed it out there.

Re: The Clown Guild - The First Clan for the new MMO I'll join any guild that will get me a Beta invite, regardless of name. =) Just let me know if you set it up and I'll PM you an e-mail addy for the form on the site. Edit: Actually, I just PMed it to ya. Go for it! And rep to you!

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Ok, I didn't catch that in your post. Still, wouldn't it be pretty easy to just slip the COM stat back in there?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Ok, so you've already added to the game to accommodate your playstyle. According to this, you use COM, and something like what you think Striking Appearance will be. So, you have half of your solution now. In 6th, you'll just have the other half. It sounds like you need to houserule something to fit your playstyle either way you slice it.