Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 172
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 1999 2:04 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #172
champ-l-digest Saturday, January 30 1999 Volume 01 : Number 172
In this issue:
Re: Dress for DF (Character: Gandalf The Grey)
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Champs Mailing List
Re: Shadowrun Magic to Hero system ?
Re: Mind Link Question
Re: A painful question
Re: Hero news!
Re: A painful question
Re: Multipower Questions
unsubscribe
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Hero news!
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: Mind Link Question
Re: A painful question
Re: Levels and Limitations
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: Tolkien Character Question
Re: Mind Link Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:06:59 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Dress for DF (Character: Gandalf The Grey)
At 04:39 PM 1/29/99, qts wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:29:18 -0500 (EST), Michael Surbrook wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:11:45 -0500, Scott Nolan wrote:
>>>
>>> >10 Distinctive Features,"White-Bearded old Man",concealable,
>>> > minor
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this be Public ID: Gandalf the Grey? After all, being old and
>>> having a long beard isn't really a DF.
>>
>>Yes it is. Gandalf's height, dress, age and hairstyle are pretty
>>recognizable by many. Actually, Gandalf could almost have both a Public
>>ID (many people knew or knew of him) and the DF, since he was fairly easy
>>to ID by many people.
>
>Is there any indication that he *always* dresses that way? If not, then
>no DF. He looks just like an old man with a beard, and there are plenty
>of those. Remember a DF has to be Distinctive - being old and having a
>beard are NOT distinctive.
While I tend to agree that being old and having a beard, alone, are not
distinctive (except in societies where people normally go around
clean-shaven and only live to middle age), dressing a certain way for a DF
does *not* mean that the character has to *always* dress that way. The
character only has to dress that way normally, even in inappropriate
circumstances, though the character *can* and *may* dress in some other way
if he decides to. How readily the character will change his mode of dress
is a of Concealability.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:08:33 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>I could debate that, but it's not really relevant. The person I was
>>originally addressing this to wanted the baseline of the game system to be
>>realistic. It isn't, rather by deliberate design, and if that's what he
>>wants, the Hero System isn't for him.
>
>Since I think the remark was directed at me and I held my tongue once, I
>will not a second time.
>The Hero System IS for me. I prefer it, I like it and it works for any genre
>if used correctly. From the attitude here, I can see why I usually choose
>not to subscribe to this list. I came here to gain and share advice and I
>am told "Hero Isn't for you" once I ask a question. Sounds more like "this
>list" isn't for me. I am very sorry that I wasted my time here.
>So do not decide what game system is for me or is not for me. That is my
>job. Your job is to practice being small minded.
I'm sorry if you took it that way. My point is and was that expecting the
default result to be particularly realistic in a game that is not designed
to be particularly realistic was not approaching the matter in a
particularly useful fashion, and that if that was what you _did_ want, then
you really weren't playing a game designed to your taste. if that's not the
case, then your phrasing was rather...odd.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:45:54 -0600
From: "Keldon Mor" <Keldon@NetNitco.net>
Subject: Champs Mailing List
Hi all,
I'm usually one of the silent listeners and enjoy reading the list but I
have a question. Why do I get mail from about 4 different sources? so far I
have 7 different filters to get the champs list mail into it's folder but I
still get stuff that falls through...Other mailing lists I'm on all comes
from one source. Is there something I can do or is it the way the list is
handled? I get mail from champ-l@sysabend.org, champ-l@omg.org.
champs-l@sysabend.org, among others not to mention that sometimes it in the
cc field, to field, from field....
Is there something I'm missing or are other's having this problem?
Peace,
Keldon Mor
Keldon@NetNitco.net
http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/keldon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:51:13 -0600
From: "Keldon Mor" <Keldon@NetNitco.net>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Magic to Hero system ?
>> From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
>
>> Curt >2) mage's can allocate their spell casting ability so that they
either
>> >get more effect from their spell, or suffer less drain in other words,
>> >a skilled wizard can cast a spell with less effort, or with greater
effect.
>>
>> That's already covered in the existing Side Effects rules -- the more
>> effect you do, the more damage (or other effect) you take.
>> ---
>
>I'm either misunderstanding you or haven't been clear myself.
>The *base* drain is always a *fixed* amount. Regardless of the
>effect /power level / damage you achieve the drain would be the same.
>The *actual* drain is dependent on how well you resist it.
>So, you always
>
>Curt
>
Actually with SR3, the drain isn't fixed anymore... Combat spells have a
drain based on the damage level cast. Cast a Deadly force spell, resist a
Deadly force drain, Light force, Light Drain, etc. Casting area affect
spells kicks the drain level up one or force up two for deadly spells...
Casting that Force 8 Deadly Manaball sure takes care of things, you among
them. (drain=10D)
Peace,
Keldon Mor
Keldon@NetNitco.net
http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/keldon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 06:14:38 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Mind Link Question
At 07:12 PM 1/29/99 -0600, Tim Statler wrote:
>Is Mind Link persistant, It says in the description that mind link can
>be turned off by either party, but does it go away if one of the 2 is
>knocked unconcious.
>
>I assume that mind link is already always on. and that it costs no
>endurance. Or am I wrong here?
Strictly going by the book, the Mind Link is Persistent; it stays in
place until one of the two parties decides to "hang up" (as the book
describes it).
I think you're also right in that it costs no END, though I'm not
absolutely convinced.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:39:15 -0800
From: Jay P Hailey <jayphailey@juno.com>
Subject: Re: A painful question
>That's not the issue; whether they're derived from my campaign or not,
>it's just too many to use regularly. With 12 hunteds in a game, if
you're
>using them as intended, you expect about three of them involved _every
>session_. I just find that too damn much trouble.
That's interesting. A Game w/ 12 hunteds would tend to GM itself *for*
me. All I have to do is figure out a way for the hunteds to try and get
the PCs, and how the PCs might "get" the Hunteds.
Basically, I wouldn't have to come up with an all original game plot for
years behind that. I'd just have to figure out interesting twists on the
"get me/get you" theme.
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!>
God was my co-pilot, but we crashed into the mountains and I had to eat
him.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:35:42 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Hero news!
At 12:45 AM 1/30/99 -0500, Michael Surbrook wrote:
>Heh... found this on the Hero Games website!
>
>New Products Coming Soon
>We just wanted to pass along that there are new products in the pipeline.
>We've recently received drafts of Kazei Five, The Ultimate Shape
>Changer, The Kandris Seal, and more. These products should be
>released in the coming months. Also we're finishing up work on the
>Cthulhu Creatorsoftware. (By the way, Call of Cthulhu is a registered
>trademark of Chaosium, Inc., and Cthulhu Creator is produced under
>license from them.) So we will have a whole host of new products for
>you very soon.
>
>Ahem... check line two!
Aw, c'mon, Michael. That's old news. The item's been there for a
couple of weeks now. It's what started that whole discussion about what
the heck is The Kandris Seal, and Lisa got to explain it all, remember?
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:42:44 -0800
From: Jay P Hailey <jayphailey@juno.com>
Subject: Re: A painful question
>> Funny... I find that to be a great impetus for plots.
>> In many of my stories, one of the Hunters is the main baddie for the
>>session, while two others provide plot complications.
>
>But that's the point, Bob...I consider Hunteds used as the primary
>plot element not really part of the Hunted. After all, everyone gets a
>problem when the main plot involves something. Hunteds as a
Disadvantage I
>treat as an _extra_ problem.
Your board, your wave. For me,if a lot of players take hunteds, then I
would tend to rearrange the game so that the Hunteds were the central
villains. If they're going to hand you the games like that I see no
reason not to take advantage of it.
>> Or maybe two of the Hunters have primary involvement, working either
>>together or against each other.
>> (Of course, those 12 Hunteds won't necessarily be all different;
with
>>campaign based Hunteds, there'll be a lot of overlap.)
>
>Not necessarily. If one character has problems related to organized
>crime, one related to a supervillain team, one related to supernatural
>problems, one involving a particular superagency and so on, it's
entirely
>possible for 12 Hunteds to not overlap at all.
If that's they way the GM *wants* it.
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!>
God was my co-pilot, but we crashed into the mountains and I had to eat
him.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 06:30:15 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
At 06:13 PM 1/29/99 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the
logic of
>BG> the previous statement whatsoever.
>
>Okay... if "lots" of one limitation (Charges) on the slots translates into
>an advantage on the reserve, then lots of other limitations (END use,
>Focus, what have you) on the slots should likewise translate into an
>advantage on the reserve.
>
>The flaw is in the invention of an exception for the handling of Charges in
>Multipowers when no such exception exists in the rules. The stupid logic
>presented is my attempt at restoring consistency to the system in the face
>of that exception (or to show just how stupid I think the exception is,
>take your pick).
Oh, I see -- you were focusing on the basic structure, and ignoring the
end result, which was the basic point of the remark you were responding to.
Look at the end result of:
Multipower, 50 point pool, 8 charges (-1/2)
u - Attack #1, 8 charges
u - Attack #2, 8 charges
u - Attack #3, 8 charges
u - Attack #4, 8 charges
Result, I have 32 charges, which normally would be a +1/4 Advantage.
But because of the structure, the ruling that the Charges Limitation
affects each slot separately rather than the Multipower as a whole, the
Multipower effectively gets 32 Charges for a -1/2 Limitation.
Add a slot, and the character gets 4 more charges.
Looking at your counter-example (or rather, the equivalent to correspond
with my example above):
Multipower, 50 point pool, 2X END (-1/2)
u - Attack #1, 2X END
u - Attack #2, 2X END
u - Attack #3, 2X END
u - Attack #4, 2X END
Each slot costs 10 END to use.
Now suppose the character has 50 END. The character has enough END to
use the entire Multipower Reserve five times without Recovering (though of
course he can still Recover and use it more). He can use the same Power
five times, or one Power four times and another one once, or three of them
once each and the other one twice, or any other combination.
Add a slot, and the character gets no additional uses; he just gets a
different selection.
On the other hand, if the ruling on Charges is that applying it to the
Pool means that's how many shots the character gets, period, and the slots
are only what he gets to choose from, then that more closely matches what
happens with the Increased END counter-example.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jan 99 11:12:53 EST
From: Oscar <o-tibor@usa.net>
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:44:19 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
- -----Original Message-----
From: qts <qts@nildram.co.uk>
>>Alternately, you can call the Multipower an OIF, since it can be taken
>>away out of combat (search the guy and remove all of the gadgets). It
>>comes out to the same amount of points.
>
>The MP itself is not limited by the Focus Limitation, therefore no
>bonus applies.
>
>I'm a harsh b*st*rd.
>qts
>
>Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
>
Okies, put it in these terms:
situation: no rain, no focus.
limt on pool: not raining, no slot works.
limit on slot: not rainig, other slots work.
limt on pool: take the focus, no slot works(pool is focus).
limits on slot: take the focus, other slots work(one slot uses focus, i.e.
magic wand.
remermber, limits only on slots give JACK discount. , we're talking
1/5th at the base rate, so those limtaitons realy aren't that substantial.
If a power in a mpp has a limtation, the real way to represent that is to
apply it to the pool-
but as a tradeoff, you have to tighten the concept and have other slots
vunerable to the
same thing.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:58:27 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
>
>WS> Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that
much
>WS> more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven
>WS> things?
>
>This one is obvious, Wayne:
>
>I take one of the seven weapons away from the first character; he still has
>six weapons that he can use.
>
>I take the seven-in-one weapon away from the second character; he has no
>weapons left.
hence: seven-in-one is a limt on the mp pool, seven ones is the limt on each
slot, not the pool? There is a minor advantege to seven in one- damage.
If the focus is tougher due to higher ap, small er powers wil be better
protected.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
>iD8DBQE2skMigl+vIlSVSNkRAquCAJ9bkVCkZEwozNrinYc8bVnQK5aiCACdGuPM
>K8Upv4mNGmETZULKMcSnooo=
>=hOyW
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--
>Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
>Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture,
should
>PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked
at.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:44:49 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
gandalf was iir, mistaken for sauraman when he first retunred. Sounds
more like a distinctive feature than a deffinite individual public id to me.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Nuncheon <jeffj@io.com>
To: qts <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org&> Michael Surbrook
<susano@otd.com>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:27 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>> >No, but the beard, hat, clothing, eyebrows, staff and sword make for a
>> >pretty distinctive package. Gandalf is (IIRC) consistently recognized
by
>> >just about everyone who meets him, even people who have never met him
>> >before. Nobody ever seemed to say, "Who's the old geezer?" Best way to
>> >model that: Distinctive Features.
>>
>> I disagree - this is clearly Public ID. They all know that it's
>> *Gandalf*, not 'an old geezer with a robe and beard'. Surely Public ID
>> is when everyone knows who you are and DF means that they remember you
>> easily?
>
>No...not quite. Public ID implies that everyone knows who you are, where
>you live, what you're up to. The President of the US has Public ID, for
>example.
>
>Gandalf...people recognize him on sight, but he's not being reported about
>on the Evening News, and almost nobody knows what he is up to...so I'd say
>that Public ID is a bad choice for the big G.
>
>J
>
>Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
>Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:06:30 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the
logic of
>BG> the previous statement whatsoever.
>
>Okay... if "lots" of one limitation (Charges) on the slots translates into
>an advantage on the reserve, then lots of other limitations (END use,
>Focus, what have you) on the slots should likewise translate into an
>advantage on the reserve.
>
nope. all he's saying is that since of four slots, each one gets used four
times,
equals 16 times total, it's 16 slots vs 4 slots the other way.
>The flaw is in the invention of an exception for the handling of Charges in
>Multipowers when no such exception exists in the rules.
It isn't an exception. if you place a limt on that pool (only use 4 times,
only in rain)
and the limt comes into effect (no rain, used four times) then all the slots
don't work.
> The stupid logic
>presented is my attempt at restoring consistency to the system in the face
>of that exception (or to show just how stupid I think the exception is,
>take your pick).
Hmm, here's an idea. if you think something is stupid, say so. I do it all
the time. For
instance, i think the quote above is stupid. Have a nice day.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
>iD8DBQE2skCdgl+vIlSVSNkRAsrQAKCjUhAcqGISawf4vMlYAuQzvWHRDQCg4DeI
>qlDIzNUNfMAPFlzFvmSOu8g=
>=a7He
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--
>Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
>Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture,
should
>PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked
at.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:43:27 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Hero news!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "When the stars threw down their spears,
> and water'd heaven with their tears,
> Did he smile his work to see?
> Did he who made the Lamb make thee?"
> William Blake, The Tyger
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blake, eh?
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:46:28 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
- -----Original Message-----
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
>>what large discrepancy? it's just number of uses, not even a qualititative
>>difference.
>
>
>Having gone over your post, I must conclude that the original poster's
>claims got misplaced. Lets try this again.
>
>First, the rules state that if all slots in a Multipower have the _same_
>limitation, then the pool cost can be reduced by the Limitation.
>
>Example:
>
>30 Multipower (60), Only in the rain (-1)
> 3 u 12d6 EB, Only in the rain (-1) (Lightning)
> 3 u 45 STR TK, Only in the rain (-1) (Wind Blast)
>Total Cost: 36 pts.
>
>The original poster to whom I was responding agreed with the above. He
>agreed that any Multipower with the same limits on all powers can use that
>Limitation to limit the pool cost. However, he also stated that, if the
>Limitation could be applied to the whole pool _in addition_ to applying to
>all individual slots, that it should be applied to the pool as well.
>
I'm not sure about that, it seems like semantics. all that really has to be
said is that if
you apply a limitation to the pool, it should effect all the slots. While
you could argue that
the slos-share-charges persepctive is unfair, remember charges is a
construct of it's own,
with it's own issues.
>Example:
>
>30 Multipower (60), 4 charges(-1)
> 3 u 12d6 EB, 4 charges (-1)
> 3 u 45 STR TK, 4 charges (-1)
>Total Cost: 36 pts.
>
>If I designed the above, he states that the charges would apply to the
whole
>Multipower, not just the individual slots. If I wanted to have a Multipower
>with each slot _independently_ having four charges, I'd get this:
>
>Example
>
>60 Multipower
> 3 u 12d6 EB, 4 charges (-1)
> 3 u 45 STR TK, 4 charges (-1)
>Total Cost: 66 pts.
>
precisly. you're getting double the charges, you spend more points.
>The first example gets to apply the -1 Limitation to the pool for no
>additional limitation,
you mean a conceptual, as opposed to numeric limtation, yes?
> just as the rules state you can. However, the second
>penalizes you for doing exactly the same thing.
no. the second imhho, gives you twice as many charges. If you adopt the
charge-on-pool-means-slots share-charges perspective, then it makes perfect
sense.
> The only reason he gave for
>why this should be is that he claimed that the pool should be limited by
any
>Limitation placed upon it, in addition to the limits the Limitation placed
>on the slots, _if it reasonably limited the pool more than just placing it
>on the slots would_. Otherwise, it was placed on the pool as a "freebie".
>With some Limitations it was a severe additional Limitation on all powers
in
>the Multipower, in others it was free points.
Hmm. who said that? I'll chave to look back. The standard limtation for
the pool is that all slots have to match up, as well as maintenence
concepts like, imhho, charges. If you exaust your charges, you can't use a
power.
BUT, if you have one slot with charges and others with other charges, you
get
more charges, based on how many slots you have- you get to apply the
limtation
multiple times to the same points. Since this is a numeric issue- charges,
not a
conceptual one- rain, that is more of an advantage than it otherwise would
be.
>
>I submit that either it A) shouldn't apply to the pool as well as the
slots,
>limiting both, or B) it shouldn't be able to be placed upon the pool,
unless
>it creates an additional Limitation. Otherwise, the same degree of
>Limitation (a -1, in the example) gives dramatically different results in
>degree of limitation created.
>
Prove it. right now you haven't. In you rain example, you miss the main
point of pool limits-
say you add a slotwich doesn't have that limit. In the case of the pool
limt, you can't. BUT
if you only limit slots, you can. you can still use your pool, despite the
rain. Now, it runs like this:
assuming limting the pool with charges makes slots share charges.
pool limit:
no rain, no slot in use. no charges, no slot in use.
rain all slots worrking, charges all slots working.
no pool limt:
no rain, some slots still workable. no charges, some slots still workable.
rain, all slots, all slots.
assuming limiting the pool with charges does not make slots share charges:
pool limit:
no rain, no slot in use. no charges, all slots in use, apart from the one
depleted slot.
rain/charges: all slots, all slots.
no pool limit:
no rain, some slots still workable. no charges, all slots in use apart from
depleted slot.
rain:/charges: all in use.
see? the charges has a massive advantage now, not the rain. the rain
limtation
takes into account all slots but the charges limitation does not if used
that way.
You get multiple versions of the same limtation, which is what you get for
not
buying the pool limt that way.
>I further submit that the rules as written appear to support A. If you
>prefer B, fine, but don't give some Limitations a pass while others become
>much more severely limiting.
>
the rules do not support either. The rules support the idea that a
limitation on the pool, when in effect
(no rain, or no charges) should prevent all the slots- if the limtation
value on the pool, is
is 'no rain', then with no rain, no slots work. If the value is '4 charges',
then with no charges,
as in 4 spent, no slots work.
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 03:38:03 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
*cough cough* it's only one guy *cough cough*
- -----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Vickers <redroach@sprynet.com>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org&> Wayne Shaw
<shaw@caprica.com>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>I could debate that, but it's not really relevant. The person I was
>>originally addressing this to wanted the baseline of the game system to be
>>realistic. It isn't, rather by deliberate design, and if that's what he
>>wants, the Hero System isn't for him.
>
>Since I think the remark was directed at me and I held my tongue once, I
>will not a second time.
>The Hero System IS for me. I prefer it, I like it and it works for any
genre
>if used correctly. From the attitude here, I can see why I usually
choose
>not to subscribe to this list. I came here to gain and share advice and I
>am told "Hero Isn't for you" once I ask a question. Sounds more like "this
>list" isn't for me. I am very sorry that I wasted my time here.
>So do not decide what game system is for me or is not for me. That is my
>job. Your job is to practice being small minded.
>Thomas Vickers
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:29:16 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Mind Link Question
> From: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Bob Greenwade)
>> Strictly going by the book, the Mind Link
>> is Persistent; it stays in place until one of the
>> two parties decides to "hang up" (as the
>> book describes it).
>> I think you're also right in that it costs no
>> END, though I'm not absolutely convinced.
I think the actual connection costs endurance but, like with a local
phone call, once you've got your party on the line, billing
stops....*smile*
"Many bears talk"
"Somehow I wouldn't have reckoned they had a lot to say."
"Talk Goddamn head off. Always got something to say about bees."
- --Jonah Hex and Spotted Balls, JONAH HEX: SHADOWS WEST
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "Too Needy" can now be found at MAKE UP
YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:57:04 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: A painful question
> >But that's the point, Bob...I consider Hunteds used as the primary
> >plot element not really part of the Hunted. After all, everyone gets a
> >problem when the main plot involves something. Hunteds as a
> Disadvantage I
> >treat as an _extra_ problem.
>
> Your board, your wave. For me,if a lot of players take hunteds, then I
> would tend to rearrange the game so that the Hunteds were the central
> villains. If they're going to hand you the games like that I see no
> reason not to take advantage of it.
Actually, for my campaigns, a player never just takes hunteds. I
assign them, though with some feedback. That way I can tailor things.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 03:32:56 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
- -----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
>>To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
>>Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:03 PM
>>Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
>>
>>
>>>>*grabs somebody's plasma cannon and shoots them with it*
>>>>volia.
>>>
>>>And, as I pointed out, nothing requires him to make the focus Universal,
a
>>>choice that's considered just that, a choice, rather than a different
level
>>>of limitation?
>>>
>>
>>yes, but if he has a common object like a mass-manufactured weapon,
>>it's pretty common for them not to be hard-wired to a particular level.
and
>>in any event, there are exceptions- what about his evil twin?
>
>Who says it's useable even by him? And most of the games where mass
>manufactured weapons are present the points are largely irrelevant anyway,
>so the question of what sized levels are used is moot.
>
i wouldn't say that. a lot of setting use superheroic points with
gunslingers.
and reguardless, it happens. It's also an issue if a gm is doing write-ups
of weapons.
>>your position does not justify the lack of proper limtations, if the power
>>is in a focus, it's
>>in a focus. If that focus gets trashed, the power is gone for however
long,
>
>And again, if the focus is the only thing the levels are used with, who
cares?
>
well you don't clearly. what if it's independant?
>>>I'm sorry, but I might buy this if the system showed any sign of
>>considering
>>>the ability for a focus to be used by others other than a break
even...but
>>>it doesn't.
>>>
>>
>>well, those of us in the know tend not to hand out nonuniversal foci
without
>>a
>>good reason. Also, i don't let anything less than 5 pts get a limit,
anyway.
>
>Then the whole argument is moot.
>
no, it's an important issue. a focus is a focus is a focus.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 03:14:08 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the
logic of
>BG> the previous statement whatsoever.
>
>Okay... if "lots" of one limitation (Charges) on the slots translates into
>an advantage on the reserve, then lots of other limitations (END use,
>Focus, what have you) on the slots should likewise translate into an
>advantage on the reserve.
>
nope. all he's saying is that since of four slots, each one gets used four
times,
equals 16 times total, it's 16 slots vs 4 slots the other way.
>The flaw is in the invention of an exception for the handling of Charges in
>Multipowers when no such exception exists in the rules.
It isn't an exception. if you place a limt on that pool (only use 4 times,
only in rain)
and the limt comes into effect (no rain, used four times) then all the slots
don't work.
> The stupid logic
>presented is my attempt at restoring consistency to the system in the face
>of that exception (or to show just how stupid I think the exception is,
>take your pick).
Hmm, here's an idea. if you think something is stupid, say so. I do it all
the time.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
>iD8DBQE2skCdgl+vIlSVSNkRAsrQAKCjUhAcqGISawf4vMlYAuQzvWHRDQCg4DeI
>qlDIzNUNfMAPFlzFvmSOu8g=
>=a7He
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--
>Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
>Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture,
should
>PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked
at.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 03:24:41 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>
>>>>* I reject the excuse that the damage values given are what they are
>>>>because they are intended for "comic book" or "cinematic" damage. The
>>core
>>>>rules -- including damage values for common weapons -- need to apply
>>>>equally to all genres, not just comic book or cinematic/high adventure
>>>>games. If you want to modify the damage ratings, or the way damage is
>>>>calculated, within a genre book, fine.
>>>
>>>Stop right there. You're playing the wrong game.
>>>
>>
>>woah there!
>
>Sorry, but I was quite serious. If he wants a game where the default
>assumptions are realistic rather than cinematic, he _is_ playing the wrong
>game. That's not the Hero System.
>
name one game closer in general to achieving that goal. he's got the best
bet in general
with the hero system, just becaus he's talking default weapons lists doesn't
mean he's
playing the wrong game.
>>
>>>I'm quite serious; while there are various rules to make this less so,
the
>>>base assumptions in the Hero System are and always have been cinematic in
>>>nature; this goes all the way from the strength values to the damage
>>
>>add a pip of hka with every point of strength past 20, manditory for
>>character creation.
>>you quickly get proper or effective lethality- it costs more, as it
should.
>>Hence, a guy with str 30 is doing 2d6 hka should he wish it.
>
>And this relates to what I said in what fashion.
>
you mentioed str as an example of an unrealism. this is an example
of how you can counteract that and make strength more realistic.
>>
>>> to the
>>>fact people can dodge bullets as effectively as thrown rocks.
>>
>>add a bonus to ocv of guns based on their speed. again it will result in a
>>more
>>expensive construct, but it's possible, and quite viable.
>
>And you'll notice these are none of them in the base rules. i never said
>the Hero System couldn't be mutated into something non-cinematic...i said
it
>wasn't designed that way as a base assumption.
>
but the issue remains- its closer than anyhting else, via that 'mutation'.
>>
>>> If you don't
>>>realize that, trying to address this sort of thing will cause you
enormous
>>>frustration, because it's too well embodied int he core design of the
>>rules.
>>>
>>
>>nope. i'd turn his suggestion around, and tell him to think of a realistic
>>genre-book.
>>As it is, this ain't htat non-deadly. I mean if you have enough points,
you
>>can kill
>>somebody. how many time have you heard somebody that just got beaten up
>>saying:
>
>But that was my point; complaining that the rules aren't particularly
>realistic is the wrong way to approach it, because they weren't
particularly
>designed to be realistic. What you need to do is to figure out what you
>want to do to make them realistic. But basing it on the inverse assumption
>will cause you grief.
>
not really. you just have to say 'oh, i shold use a genre-customisation
method instead'
not much grief really.
>>>The Hero System was designed initially around the superhero genre, and
the
>>>basic assumptions in it support that sort of feel. The fact it is
useable
>>>for other settings is largely an artifact of the fact the superhero genre
>>is
>>>so all encompassing. But if you expect it's assumptions at the root to
be
>>>truly genre/style neutral, you're in the wrong game.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>well, i'd tend to say this is as realistic as anything, considering you
can
>>tweak it to
>>suit what you think of realism. Take cyberpunk- armor=invincible. Take
ad&d=
>>kicking people in the head wears off. at least we have the option to make
>>adjustments.
>
>As you do in any game. And I doubt seriously anyone would mistake D&D for
a
>realistic game. My point was that you have to realize when tweaking the
>Hero System that it _is_ designed as a cinematic game. Then you can make a
>deliberate attempt to adjust it to suit on that basis. But if you assume
it
>is, or was intended, to be realistic, you'll find yourself quite
frustrated.
>
no, it's not designed to be cinematic. it's designed to be customisable.
if it was cinematic, points total would be based on cast importance as
opposed to abstract power refrence, ect, ect, ect. The word 'cynematic' is
wayyy overused.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 12:31:47
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tolkien Character Question
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:57:41 -0500, Scott Nolan wrote:
>I'm beginning to think that I've overstated the size of
>VPP's that should be available to Elrond, Celeborn,
>Galadriel and Gandalf.
>
>And I haven't even gotten to Saruman or Sauron.
>
>I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
>
>What do you think?
Try modelling the biggest power they demonstrate and adding 25%.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:11:38 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mind Link Question
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
To: <tstatler@igateway.net&> <hero-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 1999 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Mind Link Question
>
> I think you're also right in that it costs no END, though I'm not
>absolutely convinced.
Yes, he's right. Mind Link is a special power and special powers don't use
END unless an exception is made.
Alan
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #172
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:16 PM