New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Invulnerability is not a mechanic it is an ability label.

 

In the case of Human Torch it could be expressed in HERO any number of ways but they would all start out similar to the following:

 

30 Invulnerability to Fire: Armor (0 PD/40 ED) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Only vs. Heat and Flames (-1) - END=0

 

Invulnerability to Fire is just a label in front of a HERO mechanic.

 

This build is pretty close to being an absolute effect in a 350 point game.

However, throw the Human Torch into a cosmic level setting and suddenly he may encounter flame/heat attacks (like the original Phoenix) that easily invalidate his self label for this ability.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Invulnerability is not a mechanic it is an ability label.

 

Until March 31, 2002, the same could be said for "Resurrection".

[jtelson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

What's the name of it? What book is it in? I can almost guarentee there is a way to stop it.

 

Utter destruction of Bonds, L6 ritual from the Player's Guide (2nd edition). Have fun

 

 

 

Crap I'm enabeling aren't I?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Utter destruction of Bonds, L6 ritual from the Player's Guide (2nd edition). Have fun

 

 

 

Crap I'm enabeling aren't I?

 

I'm not familiar with the specific spell but it seems like an Antimagic Field or similar effect would negate this.

 

D&D no matter what edition is notorious for describing 'absolute' effects that are then countered by other 'absolute' effects ad infinitum. It's just rock paper scissors with no visibility to any underlying mechanics whatsoever. HERO conflict resolution is first and foremost about mechanics that you can see. There is no purpose in using HERO if you want to ignore it's non-absolute mechanics. A variation of Amber Diceless or any number of other pre-packaged setting specific rulesets would work far better towards that aim.

[jtelson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

I'm not familiar with the specific spell but it seems like an Antimagic Field or similar effect would negate this.

 

D&D no matter what edition is notorious for describing 'absolute' effects that are then countered by other 'absolute' effects ad infinitum. It's just rock paper scissors with no visibility to any underlying mechanics whatsoever. HERO conflict resolution is first and foremost about mechanics that you can see. There is no purpose in using HERO if you want to ignore it's non-absolute mechanics. A variation of Amber Diceless or any number of other pre-packaged setting specific rulesets would work far better towards that aim.

 

 

It's not D&D, it's Vampire: The Masquerade

[Sean Waters]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Absolute abilities in Hero? Life Support. Make it inherent and you can't even adjust it. It turns off the ability of certain things to hurt you.

 

We DO have absolutes but they always sit a bit awkwardly with everything else: I have life support to allow me to withstand heat and fire, but I still take damage from heat and fire? Sorry, that's silly. You can't even run the 'it si the shock' argument because I continue to take damage if the attack is a continuing one.

 

The nearest I'd allow to invulnerability in my games is DC invulnerability: a power that allows you to ignore a certain number of DCs of damage.

 

Say, for instance, for 1 character point you can ignore 1 DC of damage from a particular sfx, whether it be normal, killing, adjustment, whatever.

 

That would make sense and, for example, allow you to buy 20 DCs of fire immunity - more than enough to make you immune to fire in most superheroic games at starting point level.

 

I'm also going to commend sindyr again for sparking a lively discussion, and I have to say I was a bit surprised at some of the harshness his well thought out post was greeted with.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Nice absolute there.

 

How should we be doing life support? The SFX defence you were talking about - we rate everything at a level and then the appropriate life support allows you to walk unscathed?

 

I would probably price your SFX defence a bit higher - 1 pt per DC seems cheap (though this is probably not the place to discuss it).

 

Would you make it additive with normal defences? A choosable alternative? I presume your invulnerability means making it like force wall - if the BODY is stopped then there is no STUN damage either?

 

I agree that the response to Sindyr's original post was a bit hostile (though I blame the sixth edition fora for that) but it was the follow on posts that probably stoked things up a bit...

 

I think we have to remember that this is only a game...

 

 

Doc

[Checkmate]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Okay so there are some absolutes, so I'll amend my statement: There are no absolutes that effect other characters.

 

If you look at the absolutes that have been presented so far: The spell that opens anything, and Life Support, neither one of them deals with conflict resolution. Neither one would involve another character at all.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Okay so there are some absolutes, so I'll amend my statement: There are no absolutes that effect other characters.

 

If you look at the absolutes that have been presented so far: The spell that opens anything, and Life Support, neither one of them deals with conflict resolution. Neither one would involve another character at all.

 

I'm on your side here but you made an absolute statement to deny the existence of absolutes!

 

To show that even your concession is not absolute, LS is often an absolute defence against some NND attacks.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Nice absolute there.

 

How should we be doing life support? The SFX defence you were talking about - we rate everything at a level and then the appropriate life support allows you to walk unscathed?

 

I would probably price your SFX defence a bit higher - 1 pt per DC seems cheap (though this is probably not the place to discuss it).

 

Would you make it additive with normal defences? A choosable alternative? I presume your invulnerability means making it like force wall - if the BODY is stopped then there is no STUN damage either?

 

I agree that the response to Sindyr's original post was a bit hostile (though I blame the sixth edition fora for that) but it was the follow on posts that probably stoked things up a bit...

 

I think we have to remember that this is only a game...

 

 

Doc

 

 

Cost....functional immunity to energy damage for 12DCs. By functional I do not mean 'what you could roll', but what you are likely to. I will work with average figures: if you have 42 points of energy defence on top of your base ED not much is going to get through and it won't last long it it does.

 

SO

 

12d6 = 42 stun on average

 

Buy 42 ED

Make 14 points resistant (average KA damage) that is 49 points.

 

Now we need 10 points in KBR as the average KB is 12" and the average deduction is 7" we need to cancel out 5".

 

Now we need to look at AVLD attacks. An AVLD on 60 points gives you 4 1/2d6 of damage so 16 points in PowDef, FlashDef and Mental Def is another 48 points.

 

Total is 49+48+10=107 points.

 

We probably ought to have some of that hardened and maybe a bit more in powe Defence - let us round up to 120 points.

 

SO for 120 points we are funtionally immune to energy damage. Sure you can get round that - NND attacks, quadruple penetrating,t hat sort of thing, but for practical purposes (and assuming you tone down the excesses of killing attacks) nothing is going to hurt you.

 

That works out at a nice 10 points per 1d6 (I've previously calculated it costs over 60 points to be completely immune to 1DC of damge, IIRC, taking into account maximum possible rolls - but that is pointless - except for very low dice attacks you are never going to approach the maximum roll)

 

So 10 points gets you immunity to 1 DC or energy (or physical) damage, pretty much. Assuming there are a number of different energy sfx in your game, I might go for 2 points for immunity to 1DC of a common sfx (like heat/fire) or 1 point for immunity to an uncommon sfx, like sonics.

 

That means that under the point cap you could buy immunity to 30 DCs of a common sfx (like fire or falling) or 60 DCs, which is overkill, of an uncommon sfx.

 

I'd ditch life support and replace it with this DC Immunity system. We'd have to work out how many DCs you need to be immune to to survive in vaccuum, or the cold of space, but it would have far more general applicability, be easy to administer* and should satisfy those who want immunity without unduly upsetting those who dont want absolutes.

 

 

 

 

* In play if you have 6DC Immunity to fire and got hit with a 12d6 fire blast, you just roll 6d6. Gets a little more comlpicated with advantaged powers - you'd either just ignore the advantage, and subtract 6d6 (an approach I would favour) or subtract 30 character points from the attack, almost like an instant suppress - more accurate but more comlpicated.

[Checkmate]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

I'm also going to commend sindyr again for sparking a lively discussion, and I have to say I was a bit surprised at some of the harshness his well thought out post was greeted with.

I think you need to reread the initial responses to his post again. First post, while blunt ghost-angel stated his case with things to back it. Second post was an attempt to understand the language, an attempt to show the same thing could be accomplished without absolutes, and an opinion on absolutes in general. Third and fourth post were supporting the idea. The fifth and sixth aren't even to the OP. THEN we have the OP making comments like:

Not a single helpful reply. I guess I will have to chalk that up to the principle of self-selection - that Hero System has always lacked Absolute Abilities, and that it's core audience are those who must be strongly anti-Absolute. Perhaps this is the equivalent to discussing evolution in a church.

and

I must be honest, I am disappointed in the responses. Very disappointed. They range from attacking the goals, to those who didn't read the whole thing (which is understandable, its long, but why reply if you don't read the entire thing?), to people attacking the solution without making any suggestions for how to accomplish the goals.

The second quote is really disturbing, because at least 2 of the six previous posts DID offer suggestions. Not to mention, no one really attacked his solution (with the possible exception of Overcomplicating, and solution to no problem, but I don't take that as an attack) they were attacking the idea of Absolutes in general, and I think attacking is too strong a word.

 

No I don't think the initial responses were harsh, it was his second post that people may have started to get uppity.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

It is an interesting system and granular (which makes modelling stuff much easier) but there would have to be lots more guidance on the costing campaign by campaign.

 

ED gets broken down into quite a few categories (fire/sonics/cold etc) PD gets broken down into much fewer and so physical immunities would be more expensive?

 

It would be 10 points per point of ED immunity and 10 points per point of PD immunity? You thought about how the physical side might break down?

 

In play if you have 6DC Immunity to fire and got hit with a 12d6 fire blast, you just roll 6d6.

 

What about if you had 6DC immunity and 15 ED? Apply it all against the remaining 6D6?

 

Doc

[jtelson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Okay so there are some absolutes, so I'll amend my statement: There are no absolutes that effect other characters.

 

If you look at the absolutes that have been presented so far: The spell that opens anything, and Life Support, neither one of them deals with conflict resolution. Neither one would involve another character at all.

 

The first rays of the predawn sun are beginning to spill across the shattered remains of my haven; I struggle to hold closed the vault door that will protect me from that destructive light, I only need to outlast the vile invaders, they too shall need to flee or perish. Suddenly the pressure stops, I hear vaugly the sounds of chanting, a wretched scream cut short and the door begins, slowly to open. I pull with all my might, exerting every influence, even muttering a prayer to the uncaring God I long since turned from but still the door opens, and I begin to burn...

[Sean Waters]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Thinking about this another way - a suppress field. We would be looking at:

 

Suppress 10d6, all [special effect] powers simultaneously (+2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2) (225 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Only to 'cover self'; -1/2)

 

That is 112 real points, for 35 points of effect on average, or about 7DC of effect, so that works out at 16 points per 1d6 (arguably more because I should have included invisible effects, which ups the cost to 137 points or about 20 per DC). In addition that already takes into account the sfx, so it is MUCH more expensive.

 

Mind you that is using a power in a very unusual way, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised if the figures are out.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

I think you need to reread the initial responses to his post again. First post, while blunt ghost-angel stated his case with things to back it. Second post was an attempt to understand the language, an attempt to show the same thing could be accomplished without absolutes, and an opinion on absolutes in general. Third and fourth post were supporting the idea. The fifth and sixth aren't even to the OP. THEN we have the OP making comments like:

 

....................

 

No I don't think the initial responses were harsh, it was his second post that people may have started to get uppity.

 

My view was that we have a new poster to the boards who has clearly put a lot of thought and effort into this area and we were less than encouraging, which is unusual for the Hero boards. There are ways and means of disagreeing with people's POV, and I just got the impression that the tone was what might be expected in response to someone we know a lot better. Not having a pop at anyone I'm just passing on my opinion and trying to ensure that sindyr and others looking in keep on posting.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

The first rays of the predawn sun are beginning to spill across the shattered remains of my haven; I struggle to hold closed the vault door that will protect me from that destructive light' date=' I only need to outlast the vile invaders, they too shall need to flee or perish. Suddenly the pressure stops, I hear vaugly the sounds of chanting, a wretched scream cut short and the door begins, slowly to open. I pull with all my might, exerting every influence, even muttering a prayer to the uncaring God I long since turned from but still the door opens, and I begin to burn...[/quote']

 

 

The only absolutes in this situation are setting specific (ie: spell that breaks barriers & vampires die in sunlight).

 

Heck, a nuclear bomb is near instant PC death most Champions games.

However, you can build a character that can survive it.

But how many GM's would let you play the character?

 

Sunlight is not absolute death in a vampire game if you aren't playing a vampire (having not ever played that system I am not sure if this is an option or not but it seems reasonable).

[jtelson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

It was the opening the door ritual that was absolute, in relation specifically to someone trying to keep a door closed. An irate teen locking himself in the bathroom's as valid but somewhat less dramatic.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

It is an interesting system and granular (which makes modelling stuff much easier) but there would have to be lots more guidance on the costing campaign by campaign.

 

ED gets broken down into quite a few categories (fire/sonics/cold etc) PD gets broken down into much fewer and so physical immunities would be more expensive?

 

It would be 10 points per point of ED immunity and 10 points per point of PD immunity? You thought about how the physical side might break down?

 

10 for PD and 10 for ED. Physical distinctions are more difficult than energy ones - crushing, impact, cutting, penetrating, twisting, falling - and we might even re-cost a little -

 

We could break it down to 5 for a VERY common sfx (killing damage, for instance), meaning for 60 points you could be immune to physical killing damage.

 

3 for common sfx

2 for uncommon sfx

1 for rare sfx

 

I'm just really making suggestions people might like to run with - the exact costs are not yet fixed - the aim is to allow immunity to a certain sfx within campaign active point cost levels.

 

Also probably make it a special power to keep it out of frameworks without GM permission.

 

 

 

What about if you had 6DC immunity and 15 ED? Apply it all against the remaining 6D6?

 

Doc

 

Yes, that would be the idea, so 12d6-6DC = 6d6 against 15 ED (averaging 6 through defences).

 

In effect it is 'fire resistance' (or whatever sfx it is) until you buy enough to exceed normal campaign levels at which point it becomes functional invulnerability/immunity.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

We could break it down to 5 for a VERY common sfx (killing damage' date=' for instance), meaning for 60 points you could be immune to physical killing damage.[/quote']

 

'cept 60 points gets you 3/4 damage reduction...

 

120 points probably scales about right...

[Checkmate]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

The first rays of the predawn sun are beginning to spill across the shattered remains of my haven; I struggle to hold closed the vault door that will protect me from that destructive light' date=' I only need to outlast the vile invaders, they too shall need to flee or perish. Suddenly the pressure stops, I hear vaugly the sounds of chanting, a wretched scream cut short and the door begins, slowly to open. I pull with all my might, exerting every influence, even muttering a prayer to the uncaring God I long since turned from but still the door opens, and I begin to burn...[/quote']

The power effect the door not the perrson on the other side. What happens as a result of the door opening, is a completely seperate conflict. You're also talking about a system I have no experience with, so I don't know if there really is a counter for it or not.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

SO for 120 points we are funtionally immune to energy damage. Sure you can get round that - NND attacks, quadruple penetrating,t hat sort of thing, but for practical purposes (and assuming you tone down the excesses of killing attacks) nothing is going to hurt you.

 

That works out at a nice 10 points per 1d6 (I've previously calculated it costs over 60 points to be completely immune to 1DC of damge, IIRC, taking into account maximum possible rolls - but that is pointless - except for very low dice attacks you are never going to approach the maximum roll)

 

So 10 points gets you immunity to 1 DC or energy (or physical) damage, pretty much. Assuming there are a number of different energy sfx in your game, I might go for 2 points for immunity to 1DC of a common sfx (like heat/fire) or 1 point for immunity to an uncommon sfx, like sonics.

 

First off, maybe this should not include Knockback Resistance. The fact that you can't be burned doesn't seem inherently linked to the idea that you can't be pushed back by the pressure of the attack. I'm inclined to include it but have a limitation if it does not stop knockback, but that's no more than -1/4. We could exclude it and have knockback resistance add 1 point to immunity to a spectrum of attacks (PD or ED).

 

Second, rather than pricing this per DC, what about pricing it per BOD stopped and making it the same as a Force Wall - no BOD through means no STUN through. The system presently has Armor (or PD/ED/Dam Res) and Force Field, but there is no Armor equivalent to Force Wall.

 

Finally, pricing at 1 or 2 points for a single SFX implies a -4 to -9 limitation for a single SFX, which is not consistent with the current rule of -1/2. That said, that -1/2 needs to be revisited. ED against fire only is not worth 2/3 of ED against all energy attacks. I think we need a limitation for "common", "uncommon", "rare" and "extremely rare" SFX, and they need to be based on the frequency with which the defense will not apply due to this limitation - that's likely way more than -2 for all but the most common SFX.

 

I'd ditch life support and replace it with this DC Immunity system. We'd have to work out how many DCs you need to be immune to to survive in vaccuum' date=' or the cold of space, but it would have far more general applicability, be easy to administer* and should satisfy those who want immunity without unduly upsetting those who dont want absolutes.[/quote']

 

I don't see this as a big issue, however there are some facets of LS that need to remain. Breathing, for example. 1 DC would mean I don't need to breathe, versus how many DC for survival in the Arctic? Diseases also need to be considered. A lot of the LS choices are about more than simple DC's damage that would be taken.

 

* In play if you have 6DC Immunity to fire and got hit with a 12d6 fire blast' date=' you just roll 6d6. Gets a little more comlpicated with advantaged powers - you'd either just ignore the advantage, and subtract 6d6 (an approach I would favour) or subtract 30 character points from the attack, almost like an instant suppress - more accurate but more comlpicated.[/quote']

 

Force Wall approach fixes this. Count the BOD. If less than DC, it does not get through. If more, you get only the FW defense. However, this approach does mean attacks in excess of your invulnerability will do considerably more STUN than under your approach.

 

Ideally, I'd see this system and FW working the same way, but maybe that's done by revising FW to subtract DC's rather than having this approach mimic the current FW approach. The FW would still drop if it takes more BOD than it has, so that would remain a drawback offsetting the range and area aspects of FW.

 

ED gets broken down into quite a few categories (fire/sonics/cold etc) PD gets broken down into much fewer and so physical immunities would be more expensive?

 

How often do you get hit with an electrical attack in your game (a fairly common energy power)? Now, how often do you get struck with a punch, kick, movethrough or other physical damage? I think common physical attacks are WAY more common, so it should cost more to resist them. There are simply a lot more SFX of energy, so restricting to one is more limiting.

 

'cept 60 points gets you 3/4 damage reduction...

 

Perhaps Damage Reduction also needs to be revised so it scales. 60 points of physical damage reduction could alternatively pay for +50 PD, 20 of which is Resistant. Which purchase will be a better defense in most games?

 

Assuming you started with 10 defenses, none resistant, 70/20 would seem to make you much more resistant than 10, and take 25% of whatever is left over. They break even at 90 base STUN and 26 - 27 BOD. How often do you see that level of damage in your games? That's between 25 - 27 DC's for Damage Reduction to be the more cost-effective choice.

[Markdoc]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

I'm looking for a way to add mechanics to the Hero System. Is there a way I can be any more clear?

 

Yeah, I read what you wrote. I also read the sentence where you suggested the absolute "can't hit me" ability whether bought as combat luck, desolidfication or levels in DCV should interact with an "always hits" attack equivalently. That - to me - says pretty clearly that you're not interested in the mechanics, because the mechanics underlying those three approaches are totally different.

 

When you essentially state "The mechanics are not important, the special effect "absolute" is what's important" it seems to me like you are not really interested in mechanics. Isn't that clear?

 

Defining power levels ("cosmic" vs. "superhero") is partly a campaign issue to reflect the way "absolutes" seem to work in source. The Beyonder can create heat hot enough to burn the Human Torch' date=' but [i']in the typical session[/i] fire won't touch him. He never has to cross his fingers and hope the GM doesn't roll a 3, or hope that the GM didn't buy Affects Desolid, or hope that there's not some other mechanical gremlin hiding out somewhere waiting to bite him.

 

I see your point here, but this just looks like semantics to me. If he buys his fire immunity as desolid, then in the typical session, fire won't hurt him. Rolling a 3 won't have any effect, but attacks built with "affects desolid" will. Would it help if we simply renamed desolid "Invulnerability" and specified that invulnerable characters had to add a +2 advantage to their attacks and renamed "Affects desolid" "Cosmic"? And if we did so, the advantage would be .... what, exactly? This is precisely the sort of near absolute we can easily build now.

 

The sorts of things I'm asking about are common in source' date=' specifically in the types of source that Hero has always tried to emulate. We have ways of describing rough character power levels; Heroic, Standard Superhero, High Powered Superhero, and so forth. [/quote']

 

Right, although, it's important to note in source that absolute powers are almost never absolute: the Beyonder is immune to Johnny Storm's Fireblasts, but not to Dazzler's light blast (well, not immune to it all the time, maybe she just rolled a 3, the time she pasted him).

 

We have an attack that' date=' if you have the appropriate defense, never does you any damage; if you don't have the appropriate defense it always damages you fully. Its cost is not related in any way to the maximum Active Points, DC, or DEF of a setting. [/quote']

 

See again, here, you say you want a mechanistic effect - but one which isn't tied to the underlying mechanics. Can you sense my confusion?

 

If you're going to argue that we shouldn't have it, you're in the same position of those 10 and 15 years ago who argued that we shouldn't have resurrection effects in Hero. If you're going to argue that we should or can use existing effects to get close, and let the GM handwave the last inch, you're in the same position of those who argued 10 and 15 years ago that the current power set was sufficient, and all you needed to do was get close enough and let the GM handwave the last inch. If you're going to argue that it will unbalance the game, there were people 15 years ago saying the same thing about resurrection as well.

 

Your arguments don't hold any more water than those did.

 

Fortunately, I'm arguing no such thing. I'm pointing out that you seem to want an mechanic, which by your own description is divorced from the mechanics of the system: an attack whose cost is unrelated to all other atatcks, a defence which supercedes all other defences, an attack that doesn't use the attack rules, etc. You can no more create an integrated mechanic that isn't mechanically defined than you can create a logical solution to the various paradoxes of the absolute that logicians have discussed for the last 3000 years.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Posted some of this to 6e, powers F-K, for consideration.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Perhaps Damage Reduction also needs to be revised so it scales. 60 points of physical damage reduction could alternatively pay for +50 PD, 20 of which is Resistant. Which purchase will be a better defense in most games?

 

Assuming you started with 10 defenses, none resistant, 70/20 would seem to make you much more resistant than 10, and take 25% of whatever is left over. They break even at 90 base STUN and 26 - 27 BOD. How often do you see that level of damage in your games? That's between 25 - 27 DC's for Damage Reduction to be the more cost-effective choice.

 

Hmmm. So you reckon damage reduction is too expensive for most campaigns? You reckon that's supposed to price it out of the reach of PCs or to try and campaign proof it so that high point games still see it as a significant purpose. 3/4 damage reduction is, after all, a pretty absolute kind of power....

 

 

Doc

[jtelson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

The power effect the door not the perrson on the other side. What happens as a result of the door opening' date=' is a completely seperate conflict. You're also talking about a system I have no experience with, so I don't know if there really is a counter for it or not.[/quote']

 

Person A wants the door open, person B wants the door closed is the conflict. An absolute effect is employed to resolve it.

 

It's not realy relevant there's also a ritual that makes you immune to all fire for 1+ years, which is pretty absolute even considering the dodging goalposts.

 

That you're unfamiliar with the system is not something I can help save to suggest perhaps not making claims about all RPG's without being familiar with at least the major 10-12. (If I was talking about Nightlife or the Justifiers RPG I could see it mattering)