zornwil

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Well' date=' the axe does make it more difficult, for real compliance, thermite.[/quote']

I think that would pass.

Re: What Fantasy/Sci-Fi book have you just finished? Please rate it...

Rage! Still the crazy Kiwi?

Rage and Bozimus in one thread again - it's MADNESS!

I'm doing well, guys, very well. I hope you're the same.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

We use an axe to "encrypt" hard drives that are slated for disposal.

 

Seriously.

Hmmm, I wonder if that's PCI compliant? I don't think so, though.

Re: What Fantasy/Sci-Fi book have you just finished? Please rate it...

The Dresden Files is a very good series. Only one of the books has disappointed me thus far...and it really wasn't that bad. It was simply not as good as the others, IMO. Butcher redeemed himself in my eyes with the very next book and I have high hopes for 'Proven Guilty'.

 

I am enjoying Butcher's fantasy series (halfway throught the first book). The man is not a 'one-trick-pony' and is capable of successfully writing in two very different genres.

Good to see you online, haven't in quite a while! Hope you're well.

Re: Superhero Images

I'll Post this one here To.

 

Game day doodle, Scanned and colored in Corel Painter

 

I really like this in general but specifically the eyes on the left as well as the coloring.

PS - just saw the above, like that too.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Thanks for answering re Bill!

Re: Musings on Random Musings

What's Bill's profession? I've forgotten, obviously.

Re: With even greater power....

It's the Istvatha V'han quandry...

 

She comes in, conquers you, most likely uplifts you and removes a lot of poverty and strife, puts part of her bureaucracy in charge and goes off to the next dimension...

 

You could quite likely have higher technology and standard of living than before, your army become Istvatha's army instead of your countries army, your laws are her laws now, your leader is her instead.

 

In the end, have you really given up freedom? Or have you simply exchanged one leader for another? Does the idea of a foreign entity ruling you in name cause that much difference at the ground level?

 

Or is it a matter of pride?

Well stated, good scenario.

Re: With even greater power....

Fair enough, but, if the PCs are running the world, there will be a perception that everybody else is some form of slave. Granted, they may be incredibly comfortable slaves whose lives are no different than they were before they took over, but still slaves.

 

Yes, it would be nuanced, but you'd still have lots of people standing up against the PCs, regardless of how good their motivations are. And yes, I think there would be loads of rich RPGing fodder in such a situation, as you'd have the PCs facing down people they respect and admire who have chosen to make a stand for freedom.

PS, I would also note an interesting aspect is that I don't think that most anyone will notice if the PC who wants to directly run the world gets his way. Just as a small number of people say the US democracy is all appearance and really a big sham (and I am NOT saying I agree with them), that's how the world is likely to be.

Re: With even greater power....

Fair enough, but, if the PCs are running the world, there will be a perception that everybody else is some form of slave. Granted, they may be incredibly comfortable slaves whose lives are no different than they were before they took over, but still slaves.

 

Yes, it would be nuanced, but you'd still have lots of people standing up against the PCs, regardless of how good their motivations are. And yes, I think there would be loads of rich RPGing fodder in such a situation, as you'd have the PCs facing down people they respect and admire who have chosen to make a stand for freedom.

I think this is what made Miracleman especially interesting.

Re: With even greater power....

To put it another way - is Ozymandias in the Watchmen really a villain? If yes (which is a pretty fair reaction and I would say more or less yes), would he still be a villain if his plan involved the deaths of no one but "merely" the manipulation of the world powers to be convinced of an external threat and to move towards what he believes is the best for mankind, i.e., globalization, an end to US-USSR either/or options, etc.? And if in the meantime he becomes the master behind these puppet powers guiding mankind to peace and prosperity? What of a super character who "merely" uses massive powers of logic and persuasion to subtly, even subliminally, convince the world to move to this? Where is this magic line?

Re: With even greater power....

Evil? Good will try to stop you. If you try to take over the world, regardless of your motivation, the other heroes will stand in your way. The old saying of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" has a ring of truth to it; if you take over, you're going to cease being the good guy.

 

What it winds up being is "birthing a golden age for your fellow man, whether or not you want it. You will be living in paradise, even if I have to shove it down your puny little throats."

I think the reaction of other heroes would be a lot more nuanced than that as "regardless of your motivation" is hardly a true statement in regard to how they will gauge their reactions. Some other "good guy" (if we can make such a clean distinction) heroes will be against it, some won't, I would posit, especially depending on what the alternatives are. And of course the world setting. If/where the superbeings and specifically PCs are effectively gods, with no humanity and very few (if any) peers able to effectively challenge them, this all, I think, gets quite interesting and complex.

Re: With even greater power....

Sure it has. It's pretty much the default for establishing new governments; gather a bunch of your buddies, remove the old guard, and announce that you're in charge. Follow by stomping on as many friends of the old guard and other challengers as you have to in order to hold on. Eventually, people get used to your boot on their throats and tell themselves that you have the mandate of heaven. Maybe you even lift the boot after a while, or apply it lightly.

 

And yes, plenty of role playing possibilities. Just not ones I want to explore in a game about Super Heroes.

No, I was specifically referring to where those rulers democratized or otherwise led in a fashion which opened society against their own originally-despotic approach.

PS - which isn't in reference to whether it's suited or not for superhero play, simply stating that #3 can be heroic

Re: With even greater power....

I'd say that I look at the ethics pretty much the same way I look at the ethics of real world power.

 

#1 is how real politics usually worked, when I was in a position to observe them. Offer a favor (cash and support) to get a favor (legislation). It's no less (or more) ethical than what real world "respectable" power brokers do every day.

 

#2 is something I never really saw; that cinematic "bribe and blackmail" approach. It's ultimately an unethical means, though possibly for ethical ends.

 

#3 is super villainy, whether for noble ends or no. It could be fun to role play for a one shot, but its not a campaign I'd enjoy GMing.

Historically, albeit rarely, #3 has been exercised and worked. Some would argue that's going on in Russia right now, which isn't to get into that or indicate anyone should agree ro disagree, it's just to say that it's an interesting historical happenstance that can be visited in RPGing.

Re: With even greater power....

That's interesting, as I find #1 and #2 somehow more distasteful in roleplaying than #3. Though I wouldn't mind exploring any of the 3. One PC, Laughton, is bent on world domination, through surrogates (some of whom are actually alternate identities of himself), as he sees himself as most capable to protect and guide humanity through these times, another, Nexus, doesn't really like the idea but accepts it as the least of all evils and is willing to support him within some ethical bounds, and tries hard not to examine too deeply what is going on. Nexus sees himself as a dimensional/universal guardian more and tries to look out for Earth on the macro-level. The other PCs are less interested in political games, though of course still bent on helping in general.

Re: With even greater power....

There will be an attempt by an alien race to enable people to do something that the PCs will have to make decisions about. Actually, now that I think about it, a couple.

Spoiler not for Justice Squad players:

One trend I've seen in the couple campaigns I've run is that as the PCs become so powerful that they are the greatest heroes on Earth, some portion of them start to get more involved in running the world, or wanting to take over the world for its own good, and each time behind the scenes and undemocratically. While the Authority and such have been declaimed for a number of reasons, some nothing to do with the point they're making, I wonder if it isn't a reasonable extrapolation that with even greater power comes even greater responsibility, and for many this means going behind the scenes and manipulating the world in some way(s)? Then again, I am not at all saying some of that effect isn't driven by ways I GM, too. But I'm curious, more generally, how has it gone where campaigns track the PCs' ascendance to godlike status/ability on Earth?

Re: to whom it may concern

Do it at a convention' date=' that'll surprise him. And you better hit hard; so he can't ignore your subjective perception of the objective reality of you hitting him with his subjective reality.[/quote']

LOL.

 

But maybe we're all just figments of your imagination...

Re: to whom it may concern

Reality is what it is' date=' whether I'm sure or not. [/quote']

 

Probably (I think this is where some quantum physics theorists can say things to the contrary that neither you nor I understand well enough to comment on), but the unknowable is not something we can effectively deal with.

 

All this said, nothing I've said is stating that we shouldn't use what we commonly perceive as reality as a measuring stick.

 

But to Hegel's original point, we've found where theories have been found to be correct because we mis-appreciated "the facts" and so there is a place here in general where "what are the facts" can be a reasonable pragmatic exploration. In other words, practically speaking, disbelief isn't always a wrong thing or approach.

 

If this were a Zen story, this would be the point where I'd hit you over the head with a bamboo rod.

 

Not that I ever actually would, of course.

 

Oh, you're no fun anymore.

 

 

 

Re: to whom it may concern

When the train actually hits Person A' date=' he will go squish, whether he perceives the difference between his own subjective personal / social reality and objective reality or not.[/quote']

Yes but people's reactions to this event will be very different as they may not share the same view of the evidence.

 

I heard about this one guy got crucified to death and they're pretty sure he was up walking around a few days later...

 

PS - more to the point, actually, as you know, someone may deny that you're right, even if they also saw the event. How do you know they're wrong for sure? What you know for sure is that video evidence and other witnesses all swear you're right and the other person insane. The only logical course of action is to go with the "obvious" reality. But does that matter to the person denying it? Does it matter to the person who walks into the train thinking he'll live? Effectively, it does not, so reality's immutability is not really effective.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Witnesses are unreliable; so' date=' yes, we might differ on how, when, and why the train hit us. You could say that our experience of being hit by the train or our social realities as related to the train are subjective. I'd say that's because we (humans) are poor observers, rather than saying that physical reality is subjective.[/quote']

Shrug, since we have nothing but perception, I don't think there's an effective difference.

Re: Stats And Hero Purity

Depends on how well its built from the ground up and at what stage it ends up being presented to the end user.

 

Regeneration was rebuilt from the ground up to fit in with healing; personally, I liked the end product better when it was a straight 10 points per BOD per Turn, without facing players with an overly complex presentation.

No, that's not a real example. Building from the ground up includes "And we're ignoring this rule because..." But at least it starts from the rationalized basis, which is then suspended or altered as need be.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Well, we may be having a terminology disconnect. I'd say that Social Reality definitely has a big chunk of subjectivity to it. Consensus social reality also has a lot of exteligence constructs that are arguably subjective: Why is money worth something? Because we say it is.

 

On the other hand, my subjective belief that I can bounce bullets isn't going to impress reality if a bullet hits me.

Maybe or maybe not. My point is that our sharing of reality is more tenuous than I think you might think. It doesn't mean a train wouldn't hit us both. But your or my appreciation for the reality of that might differ as to how, when, why, etc., even whether being hit by a train is "typically" fatal, even if you show me study after study as to how in fact it is fatal.

Like I said, it doesn't change my own (or anyone's) annoyance at people not accepting what is clearly so commonly accepted as fact that rejecting it is nonsensical.

Re: Stats And Hero Purity

The crux of your argument falls into the various kinds of strength that Oddhat mentioned - none of those factors are inherent in the system, to model them would bring unneeded complexity to both Character Creation and Play.

 

"Wait, are you using your Explosive Strength to run after Devastator, or just the lifting Strength you built up in the Superbases gym?"

 

 

... and just to be sure - we're talking about believability in a system that wants to help model laser beam eyes right? OK, just checking. Because those are not believable and should probably be removed because of that....

I think, but might well be wrong, the crux of his argument is not realism but the purchase of a lot of ill-defined capability, which may - or may not - make a characteristic more or less worth its cost.

I think in general there should be a re-genericizing of the "toolkit," back to basics (but devoid of being specific to superheroics). Revert to fewer absolutes (maybe Desolid should be 8 BOD/phase, e.g., and not have free rein as an invulnerabilty tool and so on). Critically examine for an effective 5 points/1d6 paradigm, with allowance, of course, for certain allowances, but at least know from a design principle we want those - e.g., I have long argued STR is worth 1 per 1 for the simple reason that STR is such a common and necessary virtue in the heroic fiction we model. But shouldn't we (not necessarily us personally, but we-who-know-the-design) be proceeding from that explicit decision and understand the broader implications across different play groups? (Such as, the commonly high perceived value for bricks in so many play groups - and how that plays against the system's absolutes, such as Damage Reduction?)

Re: Stats And Hero Purity

From a philosophical point of view, I agree with the point of view that you don't need characteristics, the SPD chart, or skills. You could model everything with a list of basic Elements (Move, Act, Target, Avoid, Damage, Sense, Change, etc). It would work fine.

 

As a longtime Hero fan (like you and most people still playing), I wouldn't want to see a version of Hero that drops Characteristics, SPD and Skills, even if they're then rebuilt from the ground up. It wouldn't be the game I've been playing for the last two and a half decades, and I'm not convinced it would be an improvement.

 

As to the much more modest proposal of just separating Damage, PD, REC, STUN and Jumping from Lifting, I have nothing philosophically against it. It could work fine, and I expect some of it to happen eventually. I don't think it makes the game more playable, and I don't like the idea, but mechanically it works well enough.

I think you're missing the point - if it's built from the ground up, how would you know the difference?