Markdoc

Re: The original War Wheel 1917

Re: Antimatter produced naturally. Giga whats?

Re: What Have You Watched Recently? Hey! My brother made that coat! cheers, Mark

Re: Skills. How much is too much? What did you start with? Shrug. If skills are useful, in-game, players will buy skills. If they are not, players won't. If the GM compels them to buy skills that are never used, they will - rightly - resent it. My own experience with GMs who compel skill buy is that they don't actually use skills in their game particularly, more that they want them as window-dressing so that they feel they are "roleplaying". Equally, players who end up with PCs who have skills they don't actually want, won't use them. In contrast, players who buy skills willingly will use them, because they wanted them in the first place. cheers, Mark

Re: Fantasy Art Thread [ATTACH=CONFIG]37804[/ATTACH] Here's what I did while the Hero boards were down. This is my Monk/Paladin Caillé from Fitz's game: she's one of the Little Sisters of Carnage Cheers, Mark

Re: Valdorian Age in 6th Edition? I'd get it. I think it's the best of the Hero FH books so far. cheers, Mark

Re: Why We Really Shouldn't Laugh at Shadow Destroyers Shark Headed Minions Nope - instead of "Kill the cultists!" it turned into "Escape the giant tentacle monster!" It's the first time in a while that we came very close to a PC death. cheers, Mark

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field That's the new (6E) version of deadly blow you are thinking of: these guys are still playing 5E, where deadly blow was outrageously cheap and effective - so yes, 10 points got you +1d6 HKA with all attacks (shucks, you could get +1d6 HKA for some of your attacks for 4 points!). And as the poster above noted, once you allow that version into your game, every fighter will buy some form of it: it's so cost efficient, it becomes a must-have. cheers, Mark

Re: Why We Really Shouldn't Laugh at Shadow Destroyers Shark Headed Minions [ATTACH=CONFIG]37775[/ATTACH] And here's a picture - this was the scene that the PCs stumbled onto a few sessions ago. cheers, Mark

Re: I hope we have cooler looking cars than this in the future. I don't think that's necessary - these things are not a great deal smaller than the 2 seater Smart car, and you find those everywhere in Europe, including on the motorways and major roads. As gas prices rise, and congestion gets worse, you may see an acceleration of the trends that are already underway. If more cities enact congestion charges but exempt small-footprint vehicles and if gas hits 10 bucks a gallon (neither impossible or even that unlikely in the relatively near future) then the people driving larger vehicles in cities might be in a distinct minority. Modern cities sprawled as direct consequence of cheap gasoline and government support for widespread car manufacturing. If economic pressures start pushing in other directions, cities will reconfigure themselves accordingly. cheers, Mark

Re: What does a "20 Comeliness" look like to YOU? Oh, that reminds me: I've had this sitting around on my hard drive for a while .. [ATTACH=CONFIG]37761[/ATTACH] I think I'd be less intimidated by her physical appearance, than by the fact that she could splinter every bone in my body by just thinking about it cheers, Mark

Re: Kill the Dude with the Thing I think that's a different thing, dude.

Re: I hope we have cooler looking cars than this in the future. This part was cool: "It's bristling with GPS antennas and motion sensors, so it can autonomously sense possible collisions and avoid them on its own. (And because it can drive itself, you can retrieve it by telling it to come to you.)" I can see going to work in something like this (though a little more practically designed and a little less cutesy) and then send it off to a parking/recharging building. When you finish work, you call it. cheers, Mark

Re: My kingdom for some (pictures of) armor Ah, OK. Sounds like you have sorted it out, but here's some useful pictures should more reference be required showing evolution over that period. As you have found googling "armor" and "knight" is not very useful, but you can rapidly find what you need if you google specific period (for example "knight + hundred year's war") or a specific part of the armour ("Knight + hounskull" for example). That'll bring up what you need. cheers, Mark

Re: What does a "20 Comeliness" look like to YOU? I'd call it PRE + COM. Some people I've met (Bill Clinton, Desmond Tutu) have the former, but not the latter. A larger number seem to have the latter but not the former (Tina Cross, lots of non-famous women and a few non-famous guys I have met: oddly and perhaps significantly, I don't think I've ever met anyone really famous like this) and a few lucky people have both. cheers, Mark

Re: Toolkitting: Relative versus Absolute We did actually play a game where all PCs (and most NPCs had the same speed) and used powers to simulate fast reactions (my character, for example had autofire and area effect selective attacks to simulate "rapidly shoot everything in sight"). It was an interesting experiment but the game lapsed after three sessions: by common agreement we decided never to do it again. It simply "flattens" combat too much and becomes "I attack you, you attack me". The manuevering and positioning that can be a fun part of combat is difficult to simulate if everyone gets as many moves. Cheers, Mark

Re: PC that can see death on people Precognition, only to detect impending death (-1), no conscious control. I actually had a PC who had precisely this power*, but in his case, he actually saw the effect - so at one point, he's riding on a wagon, and he suddenly sees a ghostly arrow through the guy's neck - shortly before an attack by bandits. In another case, he meets a little girl, and sees her overlaid with pustules and rotting flesh: she has the plague. The -1 limitation on "only to detect impending death" is because it serves as somewhat non-specific danger sense: but I could easily see it as worth a -2, if it is generic and thus gives no clues. One caveat. It was a cool power and as GM, I had fun with it, but it requires some fine pacing to make it work. cheers, Mark *this was in my Powers of the Tarot game: the PC was Death.

Re: What Happened to Independent? In general, Independent isn't a good solution to building an instrument of some sort that can be used by different party members - universal focus does that fine. Independent comes into its own when a character is (for example) infusing something with his life force, or transferring - permanently - something worth points to another character. A good example of the former is Sauron and his ring. He buys down all his stat.s and buys them and his powers through a focus, making himself über-powerful. Of course, when the ring is destroyed he loses all those points: he can't build or acquire a new focus. He's hosed. Another, less tongue-in-cheek example is operating in my current FH game. People can obtain "magical gifts" by making a deal with a godling. They can transfer those magical gifts to other people - but then, of course they lose them themselves. UBO has quite specific restrictions, which make this sort of unlimited-and-forever transfer a bit difficult to play: (that's a euphemism for impossible by RAW). Independent provides a simple and elegant approach to cover these eventualities. One possibility to address the latter, if you are playing 6E where UOO has been greatly expanded, you could simply treat it as an extended form of UOO, with the +1⁄2 Advantage, Lasts Through Unconsciousness (listed as an optional) and a new -1 less advantage "power cannot be used unless it is returned". That'd give you a fully transferrable power, and would likely end up costing you +1/4, but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome. It's probably easier to just retain Independent. cheers, Mark

Re: Why We Really Shouldn't Laugh at Shadow Destroyers Shark Headed Minions Creatures that look exactly like this have been some of the main bad guys in my fantasy campaign for the last few years. The inspiration didn't come from Njoo (though I have that picture fav'ed) but from Astro city - specifically the newspaper story about "a dead shark was found on the tracks" cheers, Mark

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field Depends how you do it. It's entirely rules legal, but does offer some potential for abuse - particularly when combined with things like power frameworks. I don't allow that in my game (I build talents or spells as complete powers, instead) but I know other GM's do allow it. So for example, instead of granting (let's just say) area effect to a bow letting it fire a "rain of arrows" from a single arrow (naked advantage: Area affect for up to 2d6 RKA, usable by 1 other, 38 active points) I'd build the spell as 2d6 RKA, area affect usable by 1 other, for 75 active points. If you use frameworks for spells, the real cost of the two spells is only likely to differ by 1 or 2 points, but the mage will have to devote more points to his framework to accomodate the second version, decreasing his flexibility somewhat, and if you use skill rolls, making it a bit more difficult. Even if you don't use frameworks, pile on a few limitations (let's say Bow:OAF, concentration: 1/2 DCV, incantations) and the naked advantage costs you 13 points (or 10, if it's for personal use only). An archer who knows that spell can potentially hit multiple targets with one arrow and they are all essentially at DCV3, since you target the area - so an archer with with that spell could potentially devastate a warband of 30 or 40 warriors in 1 or 2 phases. A small squad of archers with the 10 point version of the spell or including one mage who bought increased levels of usable by others, could lay down machine gun levels of fire, for about 15 real points, (1 point in a multipower) so for my taste it's a bit cheap. Tastes differ though: in a high fantasy campaign, that might be entirely appropriate. cheers, Mark

Re: What Happened to Independent? Steve didn't like it, in the final analysis. It's one of those things that can be abused, and which is often inappropriate - but occasionally very useful. Fortunately, it's easy to add back in as a custom limitation and it's already clear that many GM's do. I use it rarely, so it doesn't really bother me that it's gone, since I can easily add it back on those occasions when I want it. cheers, Mark

Re: What does a "20 Comeliness" look like to YOU? Not really: the original question that started this subthread was "are celebrities really more attractive than ordinary people?". The only way to answer that question is by comparing one group (celebrities) with another (just folks). To me it's like asking "Does smoking cause lung cancer?" The answer is yes, but that answer only applies at the group level. Actually it does work. I've cut out the math you posted, but it's completely accurate. But if you look at the numbers you posted (and it doesn't really matter if you use 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, the principle is the same), let's say that 1 in 100 people meet the "20 COM" level. Yup, that's 3 million people. Toss out the really old, and the wee kiddies you still end up with 1.5 million attractive adults. But that means you would need to screen about 150 people to get one 20 COM. Go to a launch party, or an exclusive club, or anywhere where celebrities gather and you'll find the same level of pulchritude at a rate of about 1 in 3 (based on my admittedly limited experience ) So, are "celebrities" (a group) more attractive than normal people (another group). Yeah, they are. I am. The notion that people selected for their physical attractiveness are not physically attractive, is an odd one to me. The only real media celebrity I've met in real life has been Angelina Jolie. She was most definitely not photoshopped, nor perfectly groomed - in fact she was a wee bit dusty and sweaty enough for her top to stick to her (you may contemplate that thought, if you like ) She not only looked gorgeous, but if you scanned the crowd, she sort of "popped" out of the background: even when surrounded by people (which was pretty much all of the time) your eye tended to linger. I've met non-celebrities with the same sort of eye-catching effect .... but very rarely. So yes, there are many very attractive non-celebrities. When you look at the population as a whole though, the balance tips the other way. cheers, Mark

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field Nope. It's never been in the rules, as far as I know, but it has been recommended by many fantasy GMs cheers, Mark

Re: My kingdom for some (pictures of) armor Composite plate/chain? Sure, easy. What kind of era/feel are you looking for? By that I mean, like Germany, 1200, western europe, 1300, Byzantium 1400, or Japan 1600? Footman or horseman? All plate/chain composite armours but quite different in appearance. cheers, Mark

Re: What does a "20 Comeliness" look like to YOU? Have to go with Megaplayboy on this one. Media celebrities* are not generally born with "celebrity" stamped on their butt. They are selected out of the general population, and one of those reasons -probably the commonest one - is physical attractiveness. They don't start out photoshopped and pampered by teams of stylists. The second thing that occurs is active screening out of traits considered less attractive: that means the lower percentiles in terms of physical appearance are absent in the media celebrity population, pushing the mean even higher. Seriously. Look at the actors chosen to play "fat" people in movies. Typically they'd rate "slightly overweight" in the general population. When was the last time you saw a genuinely obese person in a movie that didn't include Michael Moore? Look at the actors or actresses chosen to play "ugly people". With a few exceptions, they are on the whole merely "not hot". Look at "Ugly Betty". Yeah, that's the media's idea of an ugly woman ..... In short, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Media celebrities are a population selected for physical attractiveness from the get go. Not surprisingly, they tend to be ... more than normally physically attractive. Of course, the pampering, surgery and photoshopping push that from "more than normally physically attractive" to "more physically attractive than is actually possible" but that's on top of, not instead of, the starting material. cheers, Mark *note: media celebrities. George Soros is a celebrity, and he looks like Ghandi's willy. But he's a celebrity because he has billions of dollars not because of his physical attractiveness.