Markdoc

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics I did give an example. You can't generate more points than you invested, but you can generate points - without limiting the power itself. No other construction lets you do that. 10 STR costs you 5 points if you sell off STUN, 3 points if you sell off leaping as well. However that 10 STR is fully functional - in every way comparable to the 10 STR of someone who didn't sell off STUN. In contrast, you can reduce the 10 points for 2d6 HA to 5 (or 3) by taking another -1/2 or -1 1/2 limit or for EB by taking a -1 or -2 limit, but those two attack forms are going to be significantly less effective than the unlimited forms. A smart player will use those saved points to offset that limitation, but the powers themselves are still limited: it's a fundamental difference. You could say the character who sold down his STUN is limited, but that's still fundamentally different from the way power limitations and advantages work - and compared to the guy who bought EB, he's not limited at all - he still has a better Stat line and an attack of the same size. cheers, Mark

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Because you can't use those 300 at the same time, nor can you have 300 AP of powers active at any time. What you actually have is 60 AP of powers on which you paid a 50% premium for increased flexibility. That's still a pretty good deal, but - in good hero system fashion - you are paying points for flexibility. Someone who spent those 90 points on a single power is less flexible, but they have way more oomph in that power than any power owned by the guy who put it in a framework. STR functions quite, quite differently, as has been repeatedly pointed out in the last few posts. There, you're getting a price break in exchange for .... ummm... getting more good stuff. In short, with your example, 90 points spent on the framework gets you a choice of 60 active point powers. 90 points spent on STR gets you 189 active points of Attack, movement and characteristics even before you figure in grabbing, lifting and breaking things. Again, the math is incontrovertible:characteristics are the only buy that nets you more active points than the points you spent - and STR gives you more than any other CHA, exaggerating that difference. cheers, Mark

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Two reasons for the distinction. First: Ubiquity. While many characters will have either martial arts, a powerframework or a skill enhancer, everybody has STR. That means it's an issue with every type of character. Secondly, STR not only gets you a much bigger price break than any of the above, as Sean pointed out it's the only one of thse 4 which actually has a negative point cost: in other words, it gets you more than you paid for. Those two points are substantial differences. cheers, Mark

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics In my earlier post, I pointed out of the multiple GMs in our game, one DID find equipment pools suited his style of play and retained them. The majority did not. On the Fantasy hero board this topic comes up at least once a year and plenty of players and GMs weigh in. The conclusion is always that the majority of the GMs find it intolerably restricting and a giant PITA - but there are also always those who find it suits their style of play. Thus, I conclude not that I am inevitably right - merely that my experience mirrors that of the majority of GMs - which is exactly what I wrote. And my initial point regarding STR applies to equipment pools. If you think the idea has merit, try it. If it works for you, cool. If it doesn't - dump it. I've tried equipment pools - extensively - in multiple genres, both myself as GM and as a player with multiple other GMs. Though the idea sounded reasonable, in practice, I don't like the way they function. I've tried STR at 2:1 - extensively - in multiple genres, both myself as GM and as a player with multiple other GMs. I like the way it functions very much indeed. For me, the choice of which to use really isn't a hard one. cheers, Mark

Re: Modeling world of "Girl Genius" DuPree's pretty easy to do. She's a normal human, maybe at the upper end of human norms (tho' maybe not: she was subdued by airman Hobbs multiple times and KO'ed - or at least stunned - by Wooster with a punch). She has a really bad attitude and a fine collection of weapons. That's about it, really. She mostly gets by on attitude and efficiency, as far as I can tell - people are scared of her because she's a psycho who works for the Baron, not because she's combat machine. In a fight, she was clearly no match for von Pinn. For Sparks generally: a gadget VPP, size depending on "sparkiness" with the limitations "signature: limited powers" (-1/4), OAF and "requires lab/tools to change powers" (-1/2), "extra time, 1 turn". (-3/4) and "RSR:Spark" (-1/2). Top it off with "Side effect" - at least 1/2: Spark gadgets tend to explode/fail/run amok on a regular basis. The limited powers thing reflects that not all Sparks have the same abilities to build gadgets or replicate the gadgets of another and also that another spark can potentially recognize a particular spark's handiwork. Lucrezia, for example, seems to specialize in gadgets that give Mindcontrol. That doesn't means she can only do that: simply that she is much better at it than her contemporaries. The Baron and Agatha seem to specialize in Clanks - but can clearly do other things. The Heterodynes seem to have been big on constructs. I'd handle the signature power by a custom limitation meaning that the Spark must choose a defined speciality: only in this speciality, can they use a power that takes up more 30% of their VPP (hence only a -1/4) For Clanks and Constructs themselves, I'd use Summon, so as not to overload the pool: that way, given time and resources, a Spark can make hundreds or even thousands of clanks (or Jægers). Finally, Sparks have an automatic air of command and outrageously high INT/PER. I'm not sure I'd buy the air of command as Mindcontrol - even the most powerful of Sparks don't seem to be able to actually force people to obey them: it's more persuasion. In that regard I'd exempt Sparks from NCM on PRE, INT and EGO - maybe from NCM in total - the Baron (for example) appears to be both inhumanly resistant to damage and inhumanly strong (though that may be because That would let them have the very high INT (and thus PER: Sparks of all kinds seem to work things out very fast) they need. It'd also let them buy their PRE up very high. A good PRE attack would duplicate the air of command from the comix more efficiently than mindcontrol, frankly. If you exempt Sparks from NCM, normal humans should still have it compulsorily - but get points for it. cheers, Mark

Re: Why horses?

Re: Return of the blimp/zepellin Actually Kristopher was complaining about the people who inflict misery on other travellers. And he's right. I travel a lot (I was in Goteborg in Sweden last week, I'm going to les Diablerets in Switzerland tomorrow, my next month's travel includes Seattle, Palamaner, Hampi and Bangalore). I AM that one-bag, belt-off, loose-shoes, computer-ready-for-the-bin guy who knows where he's stashed his tickets and passport, who goes through security in 30 seconds. When I finally get to the front of the queue. There are far too many people traveling with kids that they either will not or cannot control - to everybody else's discomfort. They load themselves down with all sorts of kiddie crap that's strewn over the aisles and floor, they can't find everyone's tickets, they take enormous strollers that can't be folded into standard luggage lockers which delay the flight while staff try to load them, they have 3 bags each and don't see why they can't take them onto the plane, they carry formula into security and then spend ages arguing with the security checkers that they should be allowed to take it onto the plane, despite the giant "no liquids" signs (and I've seen one hurl it to the floor, leaving formula splattered everywhere - including on other people), etc etc. THESE people make air travel far slower and less pleasant than it could be. Not everyone with kids falls into this category. But the majority of unpleasant flight experiences I've had in the last many years featured people traveling with kids to a greater or lesser degree - and it shows a basic disregard of other people on the part of the parents. cheers, Mark

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics It's a good point, but it's also telling that you needed a fairly contrived example to make the point, whereas problems with with equipment pools arise regularly and routinely. So yes, I agree that there is a logical disconnect in both cases but the fact that players acquire - and equally importantly, lose - equipment on a regular basis (often multiple times within an evening's play) means that the problem with equipment is a far, far worse problem. This is no theoretical consideration - I have played in and GM'ed multiple games over several years, with equipment pools, or even "equipment" bought full price (in this case you don't buy "a sword" or a mace, but a HKA (with or without variable advantage) defined as "combat skill with X". It can work, but that's greatly outnumbered by the occasions where it was giant roaring PITA - and where the GM waived the rule (a tacit admission that the rule did not, in fact, work as desired). Basically, why make a change that is much more complicated and irritating to partially solve the problem of STR, when the issue can be dealt with fully by changing the cost of STR? Me, I changed the cost years back and have been a happy camper ever since - and more importantly, so have my players. As I mentioned before, I no longer need an alternate solution, because I no longer have a problem. I'm offering my experience here in the hope that it offers solution to GMs with the same problems I had. I'm a fairly practical chap: I prefer to only make changes that are needed. The question of cost is often an indicator of a potential problem. But - as I noted, in the Ego Attack thread, that's not always the case. Ego Attack seems to be grossly underpriced, but for various reasons, it doesn't seem to be an issue in-game. STR also seems to be grossly underpriced, and it very often IS a problem in-game. Hence, I altered one and not the other. My suggestion would simply be to try running several games with the altered cost and see how it flies. If it doesn't work for you, you have your answer. But it does seem to me that the people arguing against the change have never tried it - and the people who have tried it are largely in favor of it. Even allowing for selection bias, that suggest strongly to me that it's a good idea. cheers, Mark

Re: Return of the blimp/zepellin We can, but simple physics tells us that lighter than air craft are always going to be structurally weaker (and larger in section) than heavier than air craft. That places a limit on rough weather tolerance we can only partially offset. OTOH, lighter than air craft have greater endurance : imagine if there's a storm over Chicago. A jet has the choice of making a bumpy approach or diverting elsewhere. A zeppelin could "hang around" until the storm passed by. Imagine the phone call "Hi honey, we're going to be a little delayed because of the weather. Yeah, I know. It's OK here right now but the captain says it'll probably be a couple of days before we're cleared for approach. Yeah, I know - but even if we diverted to Denver, it'd take a day and then another day home for the train. Probably best to wait 'til it blows over." cheers, Mark

Re: Fantasy Cosmologies Or you could have two heavenly bodies - a sun, which sheds light, pursued by a moon that consumes light - bringing darkness in its wake. cheers, Mark

Re: what types of injuries could result from forge accidents? I actually have a fair sized scar on my leg from a stream of molten lead released by a faulty mould. Sadly, it happened after character creation, so I got no points for it cheers, Mark

Re: Fantasy Cosmologies I like option a)simply because it gives the disc a sort of "natural boundary" of ice snows and monsters of the outer dark, before you get to the edge of the disk. However, I'd move the orbit slightly closer to the centre so you get a really Arctic wilderness around the rim and a cooler - but still habitable area in the centre. One point though - if you had such approach, that would kind of imply you had no night - the best you might manage would be twilight when the sun was at the far extent of its circuit from you. You could, I suppose put a really big mountain at the centre to provide more darkness when the sun went behind it and you could increase it further by keeping the sun relatively low, so it would be obscured by the horizon.... cheers, Mark

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: PA hero interest: Life Without People If you go with plague, the survivors bury the dead - moving on to mass graves pretty swiftly - and as the population falls to the point where nobody is bothering to bury the dead any more, you're also down to the point where the number of corpses lying around can be swiftly taken care of by rats and hungry, unfed cats and dogs. Haven't seen the program, it just sounded plausible...... cheers, Mark

Re: Custom Equipment in Heroic Campaigns Basically, for me as a GM, if it's equivalent to standard equipment, it costs nothing extra. Luke's X-wing is like every other X-wing. He gets it for free and the GM can (and probably will) sink it in a swamp, shoot holes it it, etc Han's Millenium Falcon can outrun any standard ship, has some nifty non-standard features and tho' it may be stolen or impounded, he can usually count on getting it back. He pays points for it. If he wants an X-wing at some point, just like Luke, he can get one (game circumstances permitting) for free Likewise, Marv's pistol in Sin city, is just a pistol with a name. He gets it for free - just like anybody else can get a pistol with the same stat.s. But nobody has a blaster quite like Johnny Alpha's, with its 4 cool settings - he has pay points for it. Like anyone else, he could get a regular blaster if he wanted - but with his gun, he's not going to use a regular one much, anyway... And so on. cheers, Mark

Re: Power Thresholds It used to bug the hell out of me that we didn't see more mentalists or more EA, given it's apparent advantages - I can't fault your math on the cost. However, in game, mentalists tend to be support characters with useful out of combat abilities. They certainly don't dominate combat, and the best combat mentalists I have seen don't use EA much if at all: the rely on illusions and mind control. Indeed the only mentalist I had almost never used his EA - I ended up putting 2X END cost on it to reduce the cost, since it was there mostly because I felt I "should have it". Oddly enough, though his primary attack was an AVLD HA (vs mental defence). Building that character gave me some insight into why EA perhaps is not as effective as it looks at first glance. In addition to the high base cost, there's also the fact that it requires ECV you need to spend points on ECV - plus OCV/DCV to stay competitive in combat. The much hated mental sniper tries to avoid by hiding away where his DCV isn't relevant, but in-game that's often awkward: being a km away from the other players an be a pain. If that's the case, it suggests that BOECV is no bargain: and that gels with my experience - I rarely see it used. I'm open to other alternatives, but my gut feeling right now is that NND is priced about right compared to EB and EA - just based on the way they play in-game. cheers, Mark

Re: Power Thresholds I was also concerned about the cost of Ego Attack compared to EB + AVLD in the past, but having seen it in action, I'm a bit more relaxed because it does not seem to be a gamebreaker. The reason, I think, is the high active points cost: at a starting cost of 10 rather than 5+advantages, further advantaging it is pretty expensive. That means most people take their ego attack straight, no cheese. On the original topic, I agree that the threshold effect is annoying (and Regen is one of the worst offenders because 1 point of regen is so useful - and cheap if you limit it with a smidgeon of extra time) but in practice, every solution we've come up with was more intrusive than original annoyance, so I just leave it alone, these days. cheers, Mark