jtelson

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics So only those rules changes that will be supported by the majority of players should be considered viable? And once again bringing up context, the disruption argument is a general one. If you feel something is working then it shouldn't be changed, if you feel it isn't working then disruption is a poor argument against change. Either way that STR cost works is NOT a given.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Sorry context is king, this comment stemmed from Nekkidcarpenter's comment about how if any aspect of a system is out of balance it should be handled in play rather than by adjusting the system, otherwise you're a bad GM. Which led to Sean Waters saying that STR isn't costed right but it shouldn't be changed because of the disruption. Which brings us back around to my comment which is essentially 'If something is broken in a system then fix it rather than work around it in play just because a change might be disruptive.' It's not about is STR broken or not, it's more general than that.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics The more x's I can fix on the front end the fewer y's I need to juggle on the back end, which means I can focus more on other things related to the game. Change always creates disruption and that's probably the worst reason not to fix something.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Hmmm, So you believe a good GM would tailor every situation to place a systemically overpowered ability at a disadvantage rather than address the root cause?

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics The issue(s) that I've seen generally stem around Bricks completely dominating combats in Supers games. So for me increasing the cost of STR makes both mathmatical and practicle sense. The Supers games I've run with STR costing 2 still had bricks, they were still effective, they just weren't the bright and shining center of all things combat. Now, my experience may be different than most as the groups I've played with have had Bricks using power frameworks since the late 80s.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Actually I covered most of those by using the fuzzy 'MAY' in the result.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics The analogy is fundementally flawed, there's no allergy component to Hero rules. So it goes Person 1 has tried chocolate without peanut butter and chocolate with peanut butter. Person 2 has tried chocolate without peanut butter, and has not tried chocolate with peanut butter. Person 1 may think chocolate with peanut butter tastes better. Person 2 may suspect that chocolate with peanut butter does not taste better. Somewhat less compelling when you take out the 'Someone will get sick and die' element.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Given the belief STR is overpowered, using the tools provided in the book to rein it in seems a reasonable approach. 1. The Throw Objects effect on OCV is clearly discussed in the book. 2. Has anyone said it doesn't take a phase to grab an object to throw or weild? I recall saying I thought it was a grey area but I would tend to agree it required an action (Hadn't Read/Recall the FAQ entry) 3. The reason we were even talking about the AOE aspects of held or thrown objects was in comparison to spreading ranged attacks ability to improve OCV vs high DCV targets. Large objects increasing OCV has the same effect. 4. You seem to want to alter how STR is written and say look when we use it this way it's appropriately priced, others seem to be saying here's how STR is written and it's underpriced. How many alternate, optional or house rules do you use to make STR appropriately priced? I use 2; Str 2:1, HtH Attack 5pts no forced limitation.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics I find this statement confusing in that nothing I've mentioned are GM freebies but rather abilities that all characters have access to.

Re: New Pulp Hero Game on Hero Central And Lord Seymour is ready, if called, to serve.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics The Paradigm seems to be that Characters Have 3 basic Components 1. Things that are present on/in all characters/genres (Stats/Movement) 2. Things that can by learned or aquired by any character but vary from genre to genre (Skills/Perks/Gear) 3. Things that are inherent or aquirable by some characters that vary from genre to genre (Talents/Powers) Certainly a system can be made more customizable if you opt to vary item 1 from genre to genre (ala FUDGE) but something needs to exist that defines those things ubiquitously present in all characters in any system (Movement, Strength, Damage Capacity, etc)

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics 1. This I think falls into a grey area, does equiping an impromptu weapon require an attack roll, thus making it a terminal action. I'd tend to agree with you on this one. 2. WFs are usually only used in Heroic level games [pg382]. Also I've seen no indication that WF Thrown Car either exists or would be required. It should recieve the penalty for being unbal/nonaero, however. 3. Yes is the default. The GM can opt to use alternative methods of course. Yes, If you opt to change rules or use alt rules you certainly can reduce the value of STR to where it is 1:1. Although, even if you removed the throwing component completely I don't believe you'd be close to making it worth less than 2:1. Sweep is a maneuver that has costs associated with it, that they are different costs than spread doesn't remove the maneuver from play. Swinging a car or a telephone pole like a cllub will also allow the Brick to affect multiple targets. BTW if we're using Rapid Attack, you can half move and sweep.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics I have run Supers campaigns with STR costing 2. The last one still had 2 bricks on the roster and they were every bit as effective as the rest of the team, rather than overshadowing combat as had been my experience in the past.

Re: Power Thresholds This was my understanding of why there were minimum costs in previous editions (Thus requiring you to purchase 2 points of Regen, 5" of Flight or Teleport, 5 points of Flash/Power/Mental defense etc). When I'm running a campaign where this concerns me (a low point one) I generally enforce the old minimumns. It's easier than building all powers like EDM (Pay X points then add features).

Re: Range Based on STR

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Throw Car/Bus/Tank/Sofa/Dumpster; Need a 15 less Range Sweep; multiple targets no reduction in damage.

Re: Range Based on STR It's actually the Unseen University way.

Re: Range Based on STR Remember; Wild, uncontrolled bursts.

Re: Time Travel Wish List? Saronic Gulf, September 480 BC Rome, March 44BC Yucatan Peninsula, February 1519

Re: Low-Action Hero? Requiem for Rome for the NWoD has about 12 pages on Debate including 'Manuevers' like Humiliating Attack and Defensive Argument. It's interesting and worth taking a look at if you get the opportunity.

Re: Low-Action Hero? I don't think it would be very difficult to adapt Hero to include Social Combat (PRE determines your Social Combat Value, put together some basic social combat maneuvers, add social martial arts maneuvers). Someone may have already done so. This other uses for fudge fu article points in that direction for fudge, it might inform someone who wanted to go in that direction for any number of conflicts. http://www.fudgefactor.org/2006/01/other-uses-for-fudge-fu.html

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion