assault

Re: Alignment Issues Going back to original DnD: there was originally no explanation as to what the three alignments meant. There was, however, a list of the various types of critter in each category. It was a modification of a similar list that appeared in Chainmail. There was a brief comment about how chaotic characters should behave in Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, but frankly it looked more as though alignment was more about how NPCs would react than how PCs should. (Incidentally, Assassins were originally Neutral, not Chaotic.) The distinction between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil was beginning to be made by the time Supplement 3 - Eldritch Wizardry was published, although there were still technically only the three alignments. So what does all this mean? Basically, alignment doesn't originally seem to have been that big a deal. There was good, there was evil, and there were some folks who tended to mind their own business. All the other stuff was bolted on later. This fits fairly well with a Tolkien style set up, and particularly with The Hobbit, where the wood elves pretty well defined "neutral". It doesn't fit many other settings as well, but even in those cases there are usually some unambiguously evil critters running around. As originally portrayed, alignment as a game mechanic has no place in Fantasy Hero. Generally speaking "evil" characters are self-limiting. If they are aligned with a Big Evil Faction, they will be subordinate to that faction's leadership, and good luck to them. If not, they are in a situation of being alone against the world. This is not a recipe for a lengthy lifespan. Alienating your allies is bad. Without allies, you die. --- Maybe we should revive the old "wargame" style of campaign. Mindless slashers would quickly find their behaviour penalised by alliances of more diplomatically minded players. This would actually be quite suitable to PBEM, since a lot of the action would be "high-level" rather than individual hack and slash. Hmm...

Re: Alignment Issues The alignment stuff in DnD goes back to its wargaming roots. You have a big conflict, with two sides, and some folks who may join either. Alignment began as "which side are you on"? Putting constraints on "what Good/Lawful characters would do", while not obvious, probably became necessary as soon as PCs were let loose in the world... Evil/Chaotic PCs probably came along a little later.

Re: Making colonization attractive? Living in zero G is bad for you.

Re: Which Villain Do You Want to Play? From present Champions material: none really, but Shrinker or Icicle at a pinch. From past Champions material: Shamrock. From weird published stuff: Nastyman! One of the arch-nemeses of Marvelman (http://www.toonopedia.com/marvlman.htm ). Like Black Adam, but cooler and with a name that becomes more interesting the more you think about it... Unfortunately I don't have any of the stories he appeared in, so I would be forced to re-imagine him. From my own feverish mind: well, actually I would go with the re-imagined "Nastyman". And his supporting characters Nastygirl and Nancy Nasty (the punk supervillain equivalent of Mary Marvel, of course!). I suppose I should write him up, shouldn't it? I need to sort his origin out first, though.

Re: Total lack of ideas, clock is ticking down

Re: On Arcanomechanical Beings (long!)

Re: Kim Possible - Modern Day Pulp Heroine? I'd forgotten Global Justice. KP's own homage to SHIELD and Nick Fury.

Re: Making colonization attractive? The problem here is how often can Things Go Wrong? Of course, if the Thing that Went Wrong was something like falling down a wormhole, once is more than enough. But at that point it's time to start watching old episodes of Space: 1999, Doctor Who, Farscape, Star Trek: DS9 and Babylon 5... Which means that we're way off in Space Opera territory. Or, I suppose the alternative would be to find out Who Made Things Go Wrong. That could go off into lots of interesting places - anywhere from Iain Banks to Phillip K Dick. (Oh yeah, and beyond, but who cares?)

Re: Kim Possible - Modern Day Pulp Heroine? Which is a perfectly superhero-ish origin.

Re: Kim Possible - Modern Day Pulp Heroine?

Re: Making colonization attractive? Possibly. I don't think mixing terrestrial and non-terrestrial species would be a particularly good idea even in this case, or, rather, especially in this case. Most biology is microbiology. That means that two such biospheres would inevitably mutually contaminate. We don't know which would dominate, whether they would coexist, or what such coexistance would involve. Think of it like this: what would happen when these alien bacteria/algae/whatever started colonising Earth? This kind of thing has a lot to do with why I don't think a non-terrestrial life-bearing world would be a particularly desirable place to colonise. And that's without asking any strange "moral" questions.

Re: Kim Possible - Modern Day Pulp Heroine? Personally I always envisaged them more as superheroes, but it's all good.

Re: Making colonization attractive?

Re: Making colonization attractive? My guess would be that colonies would begin as outposts, where people would go to live and work for a while and then move on. After a while, assuming that there are appropriate facilities and appropriate work for them, they might start settling down on a long term basis. The real change over point would be when people start quitting their jobs or retiring, and not having to leave. These outposts would necessarily need to be either economically profitable or scientifically valuable enough for their massive costs to be subsidised. The latter seem much less likely to grow into full colonies, but I suppose it could happen. Utopian and penal colonies, and similar neat story settings probably won't happen. The economics wouldn't work. You might, however, get some exercises in "pyramid building", where governments or corporations engage in massive ill-conceived prestige ventures, which would either end up failing, or needing to be massively subsidised. Earth is the only place in the universe for which human life is adapted. That means that even Earthlike worlds like Mars are incredibly hostile environments. Realistically, colonisation is difficult, and quite possibly irrational. None of this should stop you in an SF game. After all, as GM, you have complete control of the economics, the technology and even the laws of physics. That means that after you decide what you want your setting to be like, you can adjust the universe to match. I doubt I would ever have the energy to design and use the setting, but one of the more interesting solutions to all this was that used by Iain Banks in his Culture novels: http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm

Re: ORCS! What makes them our favourite enemies??? I've considered doing a "proper" writeup of Orcs, based on Tolkien's various accounts of their origins mixed with some nasty ideas of my own. Sooner or later, of course, a bunch of PCs would end up meeting the Father of Orcs himself. Yes, the very first Orc ever would still be around... Not all of my Orcs would necessarily be "fundamentally evil", so much as psychotically insane, armed and violent, and/or dominated by the will of the Dark Lord. Anyone who wanted to get wussy about them would soon get what they were leaving themselves open for.

Re: ORCS! What makes them our favourite enemies??? Hack and slash is easy and fun, and Orcs are made for this purpose. Really. No matter how clever we pretend to be, it all comes down to this. Eww! The problem is arranging it, of course. Very difficult, but interesting, to do in their original setting. Less difficult, but usually less interesting in others. I once commented long ago that the difference between hobbits and goblins was that hobbits paid their taxes. In short, I was suggesting that they were all really just peasants, as viewed by their social superiors - bucolic yokels when they were well behaved, and rampaging, probably cannibalistic, monsters when they rebelled. Without being this extreme, you could probably muck about with a situation in which legitimate authority is contested, and "good" forces are in conflict with each other. In Tolkien's world, the Arthedain/Cardolan/Rhudaur conflict would be a possible example. The PCs could end up as part of a garrison of Big Folk in an area settled by hobbits. This doesn't have to be the Shire or Bree, as there were mentions of other areas where hobbits had lived in Tolkien's work, and hints that at least some hobbits still lived outside the known areas. In any case, Bree would work just fine. File off the serial numbers for other settings. Nasty thought, incidentally. I have considered setting campaigns in various bits of Tolkien's world, with the serial numbers "lost" of course. The area around the Shire and Bree would work quite well all by itself. You would need to provide some detail on the areas around them, so you don't have too drastic an "edge of the map" problem. You could probably fix that by moving certain other areas in closer. Another neat campaign area could be based on the area between the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood, down to Dol Guldur and Lorien. You would have Orcs, Elves, Dwarves (in Moria!), and various flavours of humans. You could run a whole Lord of the Rings/Hobbit type story line in this area alone, since all the major elements are here, and the rest could be plugged in without too much drama. Hail Oddhat, Hammer of the Hobbits!

Re: Dogs, monkeys and robots My current thoughts: Leader: Captain Mike Jackson. Change his title if "Captain" is inapproriate for your setting. A normal guy in a strange world. His name is obviously inspired by OddHat's comment about him living alone with a young boy and a monkey. Kid: Snowy. A basic sidekick type. Dog: Crime Dog, the crimefighting dog. He wears a mask to conceal his secret identity, and has a Crime Kennel. Love Goddess: Glamour Girl, aka Turan of Arcadia. The most powerful member of the team, although her powers are presently at a relatively low ebb. Once pwned Mechanon by giving him the ability to love... Robot: Silver/Sylvia. Originally an emotionless machine, she was given the ability to Love (and by extension, feel other emotions) by Turan. Unfortunately, she has fallen in love with Mike Jackson... Monkey: Gary the funky Gibbon. Crime Dog's streetwise sidekick. ... While Turan is potentially extremely high powered, and Silver is a fairly typical superbeing in most respects, most members of the team would be fairly low-powered, with powers like: "speech", "walking upright" and "has opposable thumbs". Crime Dog and Gary probably have some degree of telepathy with other animals as well, though. Should Gary wear a mask? Crime Dog does, of course, but it may not actually be all that useful. Gary is probably also the team pilot. Because, you know, gibbons and supersonic aircraft go together like, uhh, butter and plutonium...

Re: Dogs, monkeys and robots

Re: WWYCD: The Darkest Hour Ironically, Assault would do fairly well. That pesky 'Protects Innocents" limitation would be extremely helpful. What he would probably do is loaf about in a pub, being obnoxious and cynical. He might, unintentionally, goad people into attacking him through this, but he wouldn't do them any harm. He might break some stuff though. Oh, and he would eat a whole lot of glass, and do other "freak out the straights" kind of things. How long until he breaks free? Well... hmm... He does have a relatively high Ego, which might help. Catching a teleporting mentalist would be tricky. First of all, he would try and dig up a mentalist ally of his own from amongst his contacts, in order to get some degree of protection from the bad guy's powers. He would then try to set up a situation where he would be where the mentalist was, and attempt to ambush him.

Re: Dogs, monkeys and robots Too serious. I kind of like OzMike's idea of Gazza the Gibbon. He definitely sounds funky. I've toyed with the idea of the robot having sonic powers. He would also be able to play mp3s! The adult human character would, of course, be the "straight man" to all the comedy characters on the team. The token voice of sanity and so on. I've considered the possibility that he mightn't actually be a traditional superhero at all, but rather some poor guy who has drawn the short straw of being the government's freak wrangler.

Once again, I am trying to get my version of "The World's Greatest Superteam" down on paper. I've tried before, but it has never worked out. For those unfamiliar with this joke, it goes: "To solve this case, I will need... a dog, a monkey, a robot... and a small boy." Since my original version of this, I've been reminded that Marvel's 1950s Avengers also included the love goddess, Venus. Obviously, a team without a love goddess is like a team without a monkey. It just doesn't work, does it? So, my team will consist of: a non-powered team leader, a dog, a monkey, a robot, a kid and a love goddess. I've got the team leader, kid and love goddess roles pretty well filled, and I have a potential candidate for "dog", but I really need a "monkey" and a "robot". I'm not going to use direct copies of published characters, but homages are a really good idea. But they require names. Here are some examples of the type of characters I am looking for: "Dog": http://www.toonopedia.com/rex.htm "Monkey": http://www.thrillingdetective.com/eyes/bobo.html "Robot": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Archie Just for laughs, insert Batman and Robin homages for "Team Leader" and "Kid", and the old Marvel character Venus for "Love Goddess". An... interesting... team, don't you think? So far, I have "Captain Justice" as team leader. He is a fairly unsubtle combination of this character (http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/captainjusticeoz.htm ) and Ranger (http://www.dcuguide.com/who.php?name=ranger , with a picture at http://dcworld.itgo.com/ClubofHeroes.html - he's the lame one in a slouch hat at the back). In short, I have him as "the Australian Batman". I've given him a sidekick, who I've called "Snowy". Snowy fills the "kid" spot. His name is derived from a well-known tacky Australian poem. Hideously cheesy, but appropriate for what I was looking for. Provisionally, my Love Goddess is going to be an Empyrean named Turan. The name is "borrowed" from an Etruscan love goddess. If I can't come up with anything better, and if nobody else does, my Dog will be called "Crime Dog". Just because. At one level, all I really need for my robot is a name. But if I get one with enough flavour, it may imply a concept all of its own. My worst problem is actually "the Monkey". What species should he (almost certainaly he) be? What is his role in the team? Once I have the concepts nailed down the mechanical builds shouldn't be a drama. Any ideas? (Yes, I have asked this question before, but... )

Re: What power sets do you like, but never play?

Re: Childhood Skill Packages The other thing is to consider that many historical societies set the threshold between "child" and "adult" rather lower than present day western societies. In many cases it would be quite appropriate for a twelve year old to have a functionally complete adult set of skills. Not always, of course. Skilled crafts, for example, may take longer to learn. Of course, part of the problem here is that you are really dealing with "Everyman Skills" here. While you could build a skilled farmer with a 3 Point PS: Farming, why would you bother? Just throw a couple of familiarities at the character and don't worry about it. I think you are overanalysing, in other words.

Re: What power sets do you like, but never play? OIHID, and even focus limitations, are very useful for this kind of thing. Of course, they can also be used by other types of character, which can ruin the effect somewhat. I have never quite been cheeky enough to try "Not in the presence of X" (where "X" is something like fire, radiactive plot meteorites and the like). I've seen builds that have used it though. The obvious thing about it is that "X" then becomes a major factor in the game. That's not necessarily a problem, but you have to sweet talk your GM, and make sure that you have at least one Hunted that has access to it. Obviously that's less of a problem when "X" is something common like fire, and more so when "X" is something relatively uncommon like the stereotypical plot meteorite. The other thing, of course, is that you need to trust your GM! After all, you are asking him to hose your character every now and then. That can suck after a while. But that's like any limitation, isn't it? Being hosed is part of the genre, and you need to learn to appreciate it when it happens... Having an arch-enemy that can turn your powers off can be pretty scary though! I guess a lot of the effectiveness of this stuff really depends on what other PCs there are. Essentially, what we are discussing is controlled munchkinisation, where we are grubbing points to buy extra stuff. Of course, since our hearts are pure, that extra stuff mostly won't be all that useful in combat. Mostly.

Re: combat luck and armor........