Just Joe

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim? I agree up to a point, but consider these examples: 1. A strict chivalric code of honor. Probably not too big of a disadvantage in a society where such a code is common and respected, but maybe close to a death warrant in many Dark Champions games. Still, a psych lim may be the best way to model it if it seems appropriate for the character to get an ego roll to avoid acting on it when it looks particularly disadvantageous. 2. Kleptomania. Little or no disadvantage in a radicial anarcho-socialist society, but maybe close to a death warrant in just about any medieval society (and quite a few others). Still, a psych lim may be the best way to model it if . . . [ibid.]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

Re: Sci-fi wear swords? After rereading Mister E's idea, it is less radical than I initially thought (though I still like it). I thought the combat he was discussing took place solely in the Astral plane. As I now read it, his answer to the original question is essesntially a cultural one (albeit a peculiar and interesting one).

Re: Sci-fi wear swords? I think many of the points made about knives, machettes, and other "dual use" tools are excellent. As for swords themselves, I am inclined to agree with Marcdoc that if you want to justify their prevalence, one must "make up magitech, legal or cultural" reasons for them. (Though one can also use a combination of reasons, and some of the reasons rejected by Markdoc might help tip the scales slightly toward sword use). As for the legal and cultural reasons, I have nothing to add that others haven't already written, but on the "magitech" subject I have more to add: First of all, consider "far out" ideas like Mister E's (which I love). Consider the liberating effect of an openning like "Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . ." Star Wars' blasters were inferior to 20th century assault rifles in almost every way. But they didn't have the option to use them, because they hadn't been invented yet, and probably couldn't work according to the physics of that galaxy at that time anyway. Arguably, I'm giving Lucas too much credit here, but the point is that if you aren't basing your game on an imagined future for Earthlings, or if you're willing to allow some radical changes in the future of physics, you can have whatever kinds of weapons you want be more effective. (Ironically, I'm currently trying to work out why swords and crossbows aren't more prevalent in my next campaign -- given that nothing like gunpowder exists and one needs psychokinetic powers to use firearms. My current best answer is that psychokinetic powers are actually quite common). For more realistic games, if you want swords to be more prevalent than they are now, but still not as commonly used as firearms, consider an approach along these lines. Kevlar, as I understand it, is not nearly as useful against swords as it is against bullets. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine that common Sci-Fi armor might not be as effective against swords as it is against beams and bullets. Because of all of the limitations of swords, they might be uncommon, and so for engineering and/or economic reasons, it might be inefficient to bother making most armor very effective against swords. Combine this with even modest cultural considerations, and you can end up with some sword-users. Note. however, that there will probably be some people with good anti-sword armor, and if swords became more common, this armor would become more common.

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim? I agree with with most of what's been posted here, but I have a thought about how homosexuality could play out a lot like a psych lim in some game worlds. Suppose you're playing a closeted gay character in a game world where being gay is a substantial social limitation. If the character never acts gay in any way (e.g., dates only people of the opposite sex), then the limitation might not be worth any points. (It might stink for the character, but would not effect actual in-game actions). But if the character does not completely suppress his or her homosexuality, then the limitation becomes more significant. Arguably, when trying to hide signs of being gay, an ego roll might be appropriate. Even if an actual roll is not made, it could play out like a psych lim that is role-played with no ego roll actually being made: it is in the character's nature to react in such-and-such a manner, but the character tries to resist doing so because doing so can have bad consequences. And the moderate/strong/total distinctions have some applicability here. The "totally" limited character is (almost) completely unwilling or unable to hide her or his sexual orientation (a major disadvantage in some times and places). The "moderately" limited character suffers a relatively small limitation (in terms of points), even in some oppressive game worlds. The "strongly" limited character is somewhere in between. Whaddaya think?

I can see why draining raw PD/ED or resistant PD/ED would cost double, given that everyone has at least some of the former and many have at least some of the latter. But in a game where force fields are not incredibly common, should a drain FF really cost double? Sure, it's nasty against characters that rely heavily on force fields, but it's utterly useless against players without them (including many who have plenty of resistant defenses through armor or damage resistance). I would ask the same questions about drain armor and drain damage reduction (though in my particular experience the former is much more common and the latter is so rare that nobody would be tempted to buy it).

Re: Desolidification or Tunnelling? Do you think that's official somewhere, or are you just expressing an opinion? That's a good point, but I'm not persuaded. Leaving the area of a no-range AOE is analogous to being out of HTH range of a no-range power that is not AOE. The fact that those constant de facto AOE powers inherently have the limitation we're discussing does not mean it's not a limitation. (Compare: some powers are inherently no range). And if we were to go with your interpretation, we'd need to add a new advantage if we want to be able to build powers that do continue to work once you leave the area (e.g., an "invisibility bomb" that coats everyone in the area with invisibility dust . . . OK, not a great example, but you get the idea).

Re: Usable on Others Questions His answer to your question (part 2, in particular) answered my question (self-quoted above) as well. The no range lim is worth -1 for a constant power if moving away can stop a power that was activated at no range. I infer that a power that is already no range (whether AOE or not) gets a -1/2 lim if it stops working when an affected target moves to range (i.e. away from the user or out of the defined area, as applicable). Thanks, S.W.

Re: Desolidification or Tunnelling?

Re: Usable on Others Questions Ugh. I think I will ignore that issue when I'm GM' date=' but it might be a legitimate concern if one wants to follow the rules strictly. But it would be [u']really[/u] annoying if you can't make a UAA AOE. I would think that at the very least, one could buy multiple targets as per UAA and then add AOE on top. If there are too many targets in the AOE, either some method would be needed to be determined which are affected, or the power just wouldn't work in that case. But that would be awfully expensive.

It's hard to imagine this hasn't come up before, but I did a search and didn't see it. Isn't -1/2 way too small of a limitation for concentate (throughout use of a constant power)? 1/2 DCV, PER roll penaltiers, can't do much of anything else. This is extremely limiting.

Re: Desolidification or Tunnelling? I am. I think Dust Raven's approach is the best. Furthermore, using his reply to my "Usable on Others Questions" post (supported by others), I am persuaded that Desolidification, Area of Affect (one Hex), Usable as Attack is probably the best way to go for the power as I initially described it. Assuming I go that way, what limitation would you give for the fact that the power stops affecting a character as soon as he leaves the area? (Normally, UOU can keep working while LOS is maintained. This is something I've also asked in the UOU Questions thread.) And any opinions on how much a limitation of "user can move at most 3 hexes per phase" should be worth? My gut says -1/4 in games where movements much over 6" are rare and -1/2 in games where they're common. But it's not nearly as limiting as concentrate throughout, which is only worth -1/2. (Though -1/2 is probably way too little for that limitation . . . hmm . . . I think I'll do a search and start a new thread on that one if there isn't one already).

Re: Usable on Others Questions OK, I was already leaning toward buying this approach after Hugh Neilson's post. This removes any remaining reservations (for me, at least). It still strikes me as odd that this kind of thing is not addressed more directly in the rules, though. That still leaves at least one issue: UOU (of any sort, I believe) standardly stays in effect until the target (1) is released by the person with the original power, (2) moves out of LOS, or (3) moves out of range. (I might not have those precisely right, but as long as I'm close, my following point is still pertinant). But the AOE UAA we're discussing stops affecting a character the instant she leaves the area. Presumably that's a limitation. How much should it be? Ideally, I'd like to see an official answer to this, but assuming it's not there to be found, opinions are welcomed. Actually, a similar issue could arise with regard to UAA that are not AOE. Suppose, for example, I want to build an invisibility or desolidification attack that not only has no range, but stops working as soon as the target breaks free from the attacker's grasp/touch. Actually, come to think of it, this is something that could come into play with a non-attack UOU too. A character might need to stay in physical contact with his teammate to keep her invisible. I think there's an example close to this in Gadgets & Gear using a shield to defend others and no limitation is given. This seems wrong to me. Opinions?

Re: Desolidification or Tunnelling?

Re: Usable on Others Questions I think that leads to a few problems. The biggest might be that UOUAA may not be used on oneself (5ER, p. 275).

This is related to the "Desolidification or Tunnelling" question I just posted, but here I'm asking a more general question. How does one build a power (e.g., desolidification, invisibility, or mental defense) that affects the user and everyone in a fixed area (e.g. certain radius) around the the user, costs END to the user only, and stops affecting someone as soon as they leave the set area? It seems to me to be a very natural class of Usable on Others powers, but I don't see how to build them with the UOU rules.

I want to build a device that creates a bubble that temporarily desolidifies matter that passes through it. Everything that starts out on the inside is solid. Everything that passes through the bubble is rendered desolid from the time it passes through the surface of the bubble until it passes back out. At least for initial discussion, assume that the bubble is a one hex area sphere, and that the person operating the device must be inside of the sphere. One possibility is tunelling, with the "close automatically" advantage and a limitation (-0, according to Steve, asked in a similar context) that the tunnel MUST be closed behind. This approach is fairly simple and economical. It also has the advantage that movement can be kept fairly slow (not stated in my initial description of the device, but still my preference). I would add a bunch to the DEF that could be tunnelled through. It has the disadvantage that it provides no protection (not the main point of the power, but still part of my conception of it). The second possibility is desolidification, usable on others. Even though my conception is that the people inside the bubble are not desolid, they might as well be. I might have to put on some limitations (e.g., reduced movement, partial or no protection vs. energy attacks), but the basic idea might work. But I run into problems with the question of which version of the UOO advantage. The user of the device is affected, as are all who start inside the bubble. The user (or device) pays END or uses charges, not anyone else. The mass that can be inside the bubble is unlimited; it is the volume which is fixed. Anyone who leaves the bubble almost instantly reverts to the state of everyone else outside (i.e., no longer desolid, in game-terms or otherwise). Suggestions?

Re: Your "Character Sheet Resources" I don't have the electronic version handy, but the idea is more important than the details anyway. I have an "NPC control sheet" for NPC's more important than most agents but not worth a full sheet of their own. I fit three NPC's per page, each taking up the full width and 1/3 the height of the page. The main idea is three columns: 1. characteristics, 2. powers, skills, talents, etc., 3. A catch-all (it says something like "disadvantages/equipment/notes"). At the top of each NPC, I have a bit more info.: name, "descriptor" (technically a specific mathematical term, but I couldn't think of the right word -- a few words to identify the NPC's nature, e.g. "Dr. X's bodyguard"), OVC and DCV. If you like the idea, just take the character sheet of your choice and truncate it as you see fit.

Re: Ever have one of those moments when... I agree with others who said that you should talk it over with your players. Communicate what kind of game you want to run and how their actions are incompatible with it. Try to determine how much (if at all) they are willing to move toward the kind of game you envision. Think about how much (if at all) you are willing to move toward the kind of game they are playing. If, after discussion (or further playing) it looks like it won't work, then try to find another group. And BTW, here's one possible source of miscommunication that I don't think anyone has mentioned. In many four color comics, heroes do/did things that realistically would have caused (or at least risked) civilian casualties, but were protected by the writer from such consequences. At least some of your PC's might be assuming that you will (or should) be doing the same for them. Might be worth discussing . . .

Re: Purely Positive Thread I am overall quite pleased with FrED and even moreso with 5ER. This has been my one and only system for a long time. Though there is no one support book I'm jumping up and down about, there's some nice stuff in most of the one's I've bought or been able to looked in.

Re: The Art Of Myers-Briggs I seem to recall that extroverts are are much more common than introverts, and I believe that at least one more of the pairs was not split nearly 50/50. I think there might even be two or three personality types that collectively account for something like 50% of all people.

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END I'm gratified that some of you agree with me that there is a problem. Some of your suggestions are useful ways of getting around that problem, but require me to change my conception of the power. I don't think I should have to do that. I think something like this is what the system needs, but since I've been trying to minimize my tinkering lately (because I find it's generally more trouble than it's worth), I'm just going to rule that in this case and in others where it seems appropriate, the "costs END" limitation will not automatically imply the "visible" lim. If I were a player rather than the GM, I would try for that or for WhammeWhamme's -1/4 to play it safe. This would still leave the problem that the invisible FF would be inferior to armor in one way (costs END), superior in no ways, and cost more points.

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END I'll look up details of side effects and fuel charges sometime in the next 24 hrs or so. My guess is that I'm not going to be satisfied. My current suspicion is that we're dealing with a bad rule here.

Re: Invisible FF or Armor that Costs END As I conceive of the power, only the second of those three is true. So invisible is a +3/4 advantage. Besides, there's still a more general problem.