NestorDRod

Re: Announcing Kazei 5, Second Edition

Let's give a warm welcome for Sandra Blackmore everybody!

Jagger: "Hey, baby. You're new around here. I like that in a girl."

Re: Pulp Squid Cake

Each their own. Persnally I can't wait to get my tentacles on that sucker !

Um, should we get the two of you a room?

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group...

not gaming' date=' but still fun.[/i']

 

after school in the afternoon, my bus is approaching a speed bump.

 

just before we get there I shush the children,

speed the bus up ever so slightly,

and yell "listen, listen..."

 

of course there's a loud ka-chunk - kachunk

as we roll over the bump.

 

then into the silence I announce to the children: We just ran over a unicorn.

 

there's mixed cries of YEAHH! and YAY!! and Oh No!

and the inevitable argument between groups of

"that's so gross" and "there's no such thing"

You are an evil, evil man.

Ah, who am I kidding? Down right hi-larious!

Repped.

Re: Pulp Squid Cake

That's a cake? Ugh... I'm not eating that.

I'm with the S-Man on this.

I'm afraid it might try to eat me back!

Re: Quote of the Week From My Life.

This was my sig for a while at another board:

Me: "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on which end of the gun is pointed at you."

Friend: "Nice quote. Who said that?"

Me: "ME!!!"

Re: Announcing Kazei 5, Second Edition

Correct. Ran has a really big VPP.

And, yes, the boy is quite a few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

IIRC, in the first campaign, our first encounter with Shion was her walking into the bar we were at after she'd had a brush-in with Ran. Our sawbones ended up taking a chunk of rebar stuck in her side while chastising her for trying to get a drink with an abdominal injury.

Combat medics. They're so wacky.

Re: I have a dream. (and MAN was it wierd!)

I'm one of those unlucky(?) types who never remembers what he's dreamed. I'll wake up with the certainty that whatever was going on in the dream was weird, but with no recollection as to the actual elements.

My wife, on the other hand, gets some doozies, which she happily relates to me afterwards. Since some of the "best" ones have been the few times she's been under pain medicine, we call them "codeine dreams".

The one that stands out most in our memory is the one where she's on top of an overpass with our friends playing a game that involves tossing live frogs down and trying to have them land in a basket. The thing was, if you missed, they exploded.

Then of course, there's the one where she was training women how to give birth while doing forward rolls down an inclined plank.

Re: 6th Ed Source Book for Champions Online

Champions Online: the Roleplaying Game comes out next Spring. dw

Ah, sweet delicious irony.

Re: Cryptic to develop Neverwinter Nights MMO?

FWIW, and in the complete acknowledgment that it's entirely anecdotal, I offer the following experience.

There's a MMO out there, called Wizard 101, targeted towards younger audiences. The setting is basically Hogwart's meets Yugi-Oh (pause for the inevitable gagging noises from the peanut gallery).

Their subscription model is interesting. The first three zones (including the tutorial zone) are accessible for free (you pay nothing for the client app). After that, you need to subscribe to progress.

So, your basic customer (such as my 10 year-old daughter) gets to play the game long enough to develop the addiction, then subscribe to continue feeding it. Worked like a charm in our case; my daughter got a one-year subscription and may very well extend it, depending on her interests at that point.

I, as a die-hard d20-hater, actually downloaded DDO and tried it out, simply because it was free. Will I be joining it? Not likely, but I could see it drawing other, more willing, players in.

So there is something to this micro-transaction paradigm. At least in my experience.

Re: "He's bulletproof", "Fireproof", etc.

Additionally' date=' if you really wanted to spike the numbers beyond this go with something like +4-8 DCV defined as Shrugging off Damage. So although by the rules they dodged the attack the appearance is that it they simply ignored it.[/quote']

 

I had forgotten about that concept for DCV. I've seen it used for a couple of character to represent the "it doesn't do any damage" as opposed to "it didn't hit." Good call.

Re: "He's bulletproof", "Fireproof", etc.

Well, as it has already been discussed in the Damage Negation thread, 12rPD with an additional 24 PD, Stun only, pretty much covers it for me.

But then, the flat "x3" modifier for KAs has been our group's House Rule for so long it's become the de facto standard.

It's become the base build for almost all my bricks.

Re: Quote of the Week From My Life.

Reading posts in the "Not Always Right" thread reminded me of this story from a previous job, but I think it fits better here than there.

A little set-up: this job was at a software retail shop back in the mid-80's, when the concept of a store that sold only software was very new. The store was in downtown DC, about a block away from the White House and (relevant to the story) three or four blocks away from the red-light district.

Also, at that time, one of the hottest software items were text-only adventures from Infocom. They covered a range of genres, from fantasy (Zork and Enchanter) to SF (Planetfall and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). A big feature of the games was that they ran on pretty much any platform available at the time, and were available in a number of media formats (which back then meant floppies, commonly 5.25" and 8" in size).

So, the store's staff included one sole woman who had to put up with the rest of us. One day, she was up front handling customers while the rest of us were in back attending to various tasks.

A customer came in asking for the game Enchanter on an 8" floppy formatted for CP/M. The woman told the customer she'd check and went back to yell through the office door, "Do we have an eight-inch Enchanter?"

There was a couple of seconds of dead silence, followed by raucous laughter from us as her face turned red once she realized what she'd just said. The store owner, wiping tears from his eyes, suggested she check down the block.

Yeah, yeah, I know, we were horribly sexist and probably liable for harassment by today's standards. But what can I say? It was downright hi-larious.

Re: 6E1 & 6E2 help

Nuts covered in chocolate, according to Google.

 

Sounds more like Southpark.

 

Hmm.

But hey, they melt in your mouth, not in your hand. It's good to remember that.

If I were to make a blanket comparison between M&M and Hero, it would be that M&M is still focused on emulating the "comic-book" genre, while Hero attempts to fulfill the "Quest For The Universal Game System."

Mechanically, Hero is a lot more concerned with the gears and wheels in the guts of the system, which is why I can understand that moving to it from M&M might be overwhelming...

Re: Quote of the Week From My Life.

Ah yes. I lurved working the Faire. Brings to mind yet another quote I told a friend of mine:

 

"If you can't get laid working at the RenFaire, you can't get laid."

 

Heh. I'm living proof of that.

Er, I mean...

Never mind.

Re: Quote of the Week From My Life.

Trainee (looking at a list of titles): You have Japanese porn?

Me: Yeah. Japanese porn is really... odd. If you're ever curious about it, I can show you how to look some up.

Trainee: Yes! Yes, I am curious! Show me!

 

 

Doesn't hurt that the trainee is a cute little blonde thing...

"Dude! Porno movies start this way!"

"Yeah. So do horror flicks."

Now you're going to make me tell my Ren Fair story.

Now, one of the things you find out working the Ren Fair circuit is that most people's perception of Old English comes from watching Monty Python, Benny Hill and Masterpiece Theater. Because of this, things tend to get a bit bawdy when in character.

A SYT (Sweet Young Thing) I was working with told me how Ren Fair was taking over her life. Earlier that week, at her office, a UPS delivery guy had dropped off a package. As the guy was getting ready to leave, he'd asked her, "Hey, have you got the time?"

Reflexively, she saucily responded with a Cockney accent, "Sure, luv, 'ave you got the place?" then turned beet red as she realized what she'd just said.

Sure made the delivery guy's day, I bet.

Re: Black and White

My perception of the book, too.

To be honest, it sounded like some of the games I've played in, and how I wish some of the games I've played in had gone.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

By any attack' date=' do you mean [i']any[/i] physical attack (or energy), the power in its base form, or any chemical attack? Negation does not simply apply to every attack form by default.

My only exposure to the power is through the threads in these forums; I don't have a copy of 6E. So I ask in return, what sort of limitation does Damage Negation have in its base form?

Damage Reduction already reduces damage from certain NND's. Are you opposed to that power as well?

AAMOF, I do have some issues with Damage Reduction, but that's not a can of worms I'm willing to open at this time.

Funny...if I had 30 points to spend on defenses from physical attacks, in a game where attacks from credible opponents average 12 DC, I'd be more inclined to take 20 rPD (or maybe 16 rPD and +6 PD) than 6 levels of physical Damage Negation.

 

Against that 12DC attack, Negation leaves me taking 19 STUN, 4 BOD (after my base 2 PD), while the PD leaves me taking 20 (or 18) and 0 BOD. 50% Damage Reduction would mean I take 20 STUN and 5 BOD.

 

All the choices are about equal in defending from a standard attack. The PD better protects against BOD, while the other two protect against some exotic attacks. The Reduction is more useful against higher powered attacks,and the Negation against lower powered attacks.

 

I don't see where one of the three is the automatic best choice for an abusive character.

I'll take your word in terms of the math. As I said before, I don't have the rules to check against. I am confused, though.

On one hand, I'm told that the current power choices cannot provide an equivalent to what DN does. Yet you're showing me numbers that say it isn't that much different than other types of defense. So which is it?

Would a better (and more illuminating) example have been to apply those defense choices against a, say, 6 DC attack? Or perhaps, an attack with one of the Advantages we were discussing, such as NND/AVAD?

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

If it boils down to opinion and it's neither good or bad then why are you using terms like "twink power"? That kind of implies those who use it or allow it are "twinks" then as well.

In my case, I mean that it is the kind of power that will appeal more to that sort of player.

In other words, buying the power doesn't mean the player is a twink, but if the player is one, he's more likely to choose that power to his own purposes.

Does that help?

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

How would that be any different if the character had extra defenses "only vs chemical attacks"?

Because in that case, one could compare the existing defense as it applies to the attack, as opposed to having this twink power that automagically nerfs any attack thrown at it, regardless of the type (normal, killing, AVAD, etc.)

Now the argument shifts to whether the AVAD in question should be resisted by LS: Chemical Attacks when the character has defined it as AVAD: Need Not Breathe. But we still have the same argument.

 

Besides, Sean's vision for the character was not "immune to chemical attacks", but "resistant to chemical attacks". The LS is all or nothing.

In the case of NND, yes. But that's a function of the NND; it's an all-or-nothing attack. In fact, that's the whole idea behind the Advantage. Suddenly introducing a defense that subverts the concept works against that in a detrimental way, IMO.

As teh_bunneh said, it's strictly a matter of personal preference. For me, I still have not seen any benefit to this power that outweighs the added complexity, risk of abuse, and unintended consequences of implementing it.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

I'd say we need it because, when someone builds a NND attack, the defences they think of might not be the defences that someone else might think of.

 

For instance someone might buy a poison gas NND and decide that the defences are LS: Poison and LS: Self Contained Breathing, but Elemento has neither. His concept is, however, that he is highly resistant to chemical attacks, so has DN 6 (chemical attacks only). Whilst his PD and ED are not going to help against the poison gas, and whilst he still has to breathe and isn't actually immune to it, it is still logical that a poison is a chemical and so he should not take full effect from it. DN allows (in this case) decent resistance against ANY chemical attack, no matter how it is built.

 

To use a different example - it isn't ONLY useful for NND - if you build 'Heatstroke' as a Stun and INT drain with the sfx 'overheats the target' it is logical that someone with 'heat resisrant' against heat should have less effect. Unfortunately if the target doesn't have PowDef, they are scuppered, even if they are supposed to be largely immune to heat - DN steps in again.

 

The point is having DN (which works in that respect in a similar way to Damage Reduction) means you do not have to think of every possible defence and circumstance - you can just say 'this sfx affects me less than others' and you know you are good.

 

The way I think on it is this: 'normal' defences provide 'external' defences - something to stop damage getting to you. DN (and DR) provide (or can model) 'internal defences'. It is the difference between a superhero growing a rocky skin - which will stop damage getting through but won't stop (say) microwaves heating up the meaty middle, and a superhero who can turn completely to stone - there is no meaty middle so he's actually much harder to hurt with that kind of attack.

 

That is not the only use, of course, but I think it is enough in itself to justify the existence of the power.

 

There is also the additional complication: you can buy 'Damage Negation Negation. Not sure how I feel about that to be honest. I can see some potential uses (an oxyaceteline cutting torch, perhaps - not much damage but it damages anything). The enemy of concept is different concept - I'm immune to radiation v my radiation attack is so powerful it can ahrm anyone. At least Hero has an answer to the question - what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object?

 

The answer is - it depends on build and who has spent the most points

Sorry, Sean, but your argument only serves to cement my opinion that allowing DN in the game would risk having the game devolve into rules-lawyer discussions, as, using your example, the player and GM argue over what constitutes a "chemical attack."

Besides, if the concept of the character is that he is resistant to chemical attacks, that is much better modeled by buying the appropriate LS: Immunity. For any AVAD, buying the appropriate defense (whether it be Mental, Power or LS) is already available to provide defense. How is buying DN a better choice than that?

It comes back to the fact that the system already has the tools to model the effects. Damage Negation looks like the kind of power that shouldn't have a magnifying glass or stop sign next to it, but a big radiation hazard sign that indicates "Use only at great risk".

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

Here's why we need DN: it is the only universal defence against AVAD (NND as was). Nothing else will do that for you. That makes it worthwhile, even if it is a tad expensive as a way of actually defending yourself against the most common attacks.

So the question then becomes, why do we need that? Why provide a universal defense for an Advantage whose only purpose is to create an attack that isn't universally defensible?

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

If any Body damage gets through your armour' date=' you don't have armour any more (unless it has other powers too, in which case it might survive the hit). Not a lot of people know that.[/quote']

 

Since when?

 

Edit: That's what I get for firing off a response before reading the rest of the post.

 

Y'know, I made the joke in another thread about the game's design philosophy being "whenever possible, make it more complicated."

 

Now I'm starting to wonder who the joke is on...

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Either way, I think that we may be stumbling upon a slightly new spin on certain design philosophies in HERO.

 

That is to say, Transfer ceases to exist because it can be made with other powers through such discussed methodology, but many new constructs could be made that way as well.

 

Not to say that these ideas did not technically exist before, but I think that we are bringing it to light.

I thought the design philosophy was clear...

Whenever possible, make it more complicated.

Re: Escapist reviews CO.

So' date=' is Champions Online a Silver-Age game? Bronze Age? Iron Age? Or did someone just throw everything into a blender and serve it up as a milkshake?[/quote']

 

I'd venture to say... that last one.

Re: Escapist reviews CO.

Yes! I have felt VERY Super-Heroic many times playing CO. Picking up a Truck and throwing it at a distant Crook, Zombie, Alien, Demon, or yes... even a Cowboy Robot, makes me feel heroic. Not to mention then Flying in, fist first, and begin to lay a serious smack-down on whatever unsuspecting mob I choose to unleash my Fists of Freedom on.

 

To be sure, there are a few things that I could quibble about, (sometimes I feel, unless totally out numbered, a little too super-powered) but all in all, I'm having a blast.

 

And I have to say also, having played CoX, this game kicks it's ASCII. Those missions were soooooo redundant I was bored to tears after a week. This game has at least quadruple the number of enemy types, not to mention mission types. Not to mention a PvP element that can be fun (as long as your build doesn't blow). Not to mention it looks far better (and for you non-comic book fans who don't like the outline, you CAN turn it off). The Environments are far more detailed. It is just better.

Some parts of the game are a bit more Silver-Age-Silliness than others' date=' but it's definitely Silver Age in tone. If you were going in expecting a more Bronze Age feel, as apparently the reviewer was, you're going to be a bit disappointed in that aspect. That said, I'd expect upcoming expansions to look at adding a helping or two of darker-and-grittier to the mix.[/quote']

 

Thanks for the info, guys.

 

My finances are such that CO is just not a feasible investment for me right now, but I have been trying to follow its development and state. I appreciate the feedback.