Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 301
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 10:04 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #301
champ-l-digest Thursday, April 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 301
In this issue:
Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
Mana as a secondary characteristic
Re: Mana as a secondary characteristic
RE: RE: Einstein & INT
RE: RE: Einstein & INT
That guy had some balls! (Sack of Ball Bearings Power construct)
Re: Lord Vader's Powers
Re: Revamping Secondary Characteristics
Re: Intelligence & Such
Re: say INT ain't so
RE: RE: Einstein & INT
Re: RE: Einstein & INT
Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
RE: RE: Einstein & INT
Re: Lord Vader's Powers
Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (rough)
Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (rough)
Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (rough)
Re: say INT ain't so
RE: RE: Einstein & INT
Re: That guy had some balls! (Sack of Ball Bearings Power construct)
Re: That guy had some balls! (Sack of Ball Bearings Power construct)
the cost of anything [was:Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:37:51 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
In a message dated 4/28/99 7:53:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
voxel@theramp.net writes:
> > With this definition INT would be used to calculate SPD and it totally
> > isnt ... I think the definition doesnt match the actual usage in game
> > ... in game it represents more ones ability with mental skills ...
> > Including Math, Physics etc.
>
> No, it doesn't match the actual usage -- but is this a feature or a bug?
>
> For what it's worth, in my campaigns, I *does* it match the usage:
> * I increase the cost of INT to 2/1, to take into account the changes
> below (mostly the altered SPD formula).
> * As others have already suggested, (DEX+INT)/10 works as a SPD
> formula.
> * Non-physical initiative (including skill uses and mental combat)
> act on INT, not EGO.
> * Offensive Psychic Value (OPV), my home rule term for the clunkier
> "OECV", is INT/3 instead of EGO/3.
>
> It seems to work, at least as well as the current system, and (IMHO, of
> course) it feels more correct.
ok - what do you do with EGO? is it even a stat anymore? does it only cost 1
point? a .5 point?
andy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:53:03 -0400
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@early.com>
Subject: Mana as a secondary characteristic
While the group is on the subject of discussing secondary characteristics,
I've got a question. The Fantasy Hero Companion II introduced the idea of
Mana (EGO*2) and Mana Recovery or MRC (EGO/5 + INT/5) for the powering of
magic spells rather than burning END. Has anyone ever experimented with
using MANA and MRC in a superhero campaign for the powering of magic or
psionic powers?
Len Carpenter
redlion@early.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:40:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: Mana as a secondary characteristic
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Len Carpenter wrote:
> While the group is on the subject of discussing secondary characteristics,
> I've got a question. The Fantasy Hero Companion II introduced the idea of
> Mana (EGO*2) and Mana Recovery or MRC (EGO/5 + INT/5) for the powering of
> magic spells rather than burning END. Has anyone ever experimented with
> using MANA and MRC in a superhero campaign for the powering of magic or
> psionic powers?
I have gotten some mail from a fan in France who has done just this. Let
me find his material and I'll send it to you.
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
Suppose you were an idiot...And suppose you were a member of
Congress...But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:12:59 EDT
From: MWStrong@aol.com
Subject: RE: RE: Einstein & INT
IQ stands for INTELLEGENCE quotient. It IS a measure of processing, problem
solving, and speed. To anyone who does not believe this, please visit the
MENSA site (it should be www.mensa.com or something) befor responding. The
site should (last time I checked) have an online practice test. I work at a
private school, and know for a fact that certian indivuals can not learn or
understand general or special relativity reguardless of the number of books
they read.
Also remember that science skills can be bought based upon INT (9 + INT/5).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: RE: RE: Einstein & INT
>IQ stands for INTELLEGENCE quotient. It IS a measure of processing, problem
>solving, and speed. To anyone who does not believe this, please visit the
>MENSA site (it should be www.mensa.com or something) befor responding. The
>site should (last time I checked) have an online practice test. I work at a
>private school, and know for a fact that certian indivuals can not learn or
>understand general or special relativity reguardless of the number of books
>they read.
And the attribute that distinguishes them isn't represented in the Hero
System at all, just as it isn't in many games. Really, don't get hung up on
the term used for perception/speed of thought; that's a similar mistake that
people who think the power Telekinesis has to be telekinesis make.
>
>Also remember that science skills can be bought based upon INT (9 + INT/5).
Because some people feel that speed of thought and perceptiveness is a good
enough basis for those skills. The default is still just an 11-.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jason Sullivan <ravanos@NJCU.edu>
Subject: That guy had some balls! (Sack of Ball Bearings Power construct)
I'm working on a villain whose motif revolves around pranks, toys,
and otherwise really annoying stuff.
Aside from the big Ex-Tend-Do Boxing Glove and Pie-In-The Face
Flash attack, and his Martial Arts Style Slapstick (useable with Really
Huge Mallet), he has a sack of ball bearings.
He throws them on to the ground, incapacitating them.
I've decided to use Entangle to model this construct, since it
impairs movement and prevents someone from going somewhere.
Here's what I have so far:
Entangle xD6
a) Entangle takes no Damage from attacks (+1/2)
Pretty self explanatory.
b) AoE: Radius or Cone
Should it be Radius or Cone? I could see it being either.
c) Autofire
Lots of marbles means lots of BODY in varying degrees... also,
this tends to make the power more "chaotic", depending on how well it is
targeted.
d) Continuous
This power stays around between the rounds.
c) Does Knockdown (or Knockback) (+1/4)
This might not make sense...
...but Knockdown would occur if the character was standing still,
or Knockback if he was moving (see below for "additional movement"
addendum). Now couple this with...
d) NND: Characters must be moving along the surface of the AoE. Flying,
Swinging, and Gliding characters are not effected. The Area is often
times easily avoided. Standing still, or moving slowly and cautiously
through the area (1/4 normal movement, 0 DCV) may also prevent the power
from taking effect.
Now, only characters within the Area of Effect along the ground
can be effected by the ball bearings, and even characters without such
powers can manage to circumvent the power.
e) Reduced END: 0 END, Persistent
Charges gets messy. In addition, it stays around, even if the
character is knocked unconscious... and how much effort does it take to
drop a bag?
f) Uncontrolled
This power is "fire and forget." It can be set in an area, and
left there.
The reasonably common way this power can be stopped would be to
clear away the bearings.
Now, the Limitations...
1) Entangle has no DEF
Given enough time, anyone can make their way through this...
either by dispersing the ball bearings or walking through.
2) Does not prevent the use of some Foci
Army Sniper can still clip off shots at our beloved villain. Too
bad for our beloved villain.
3) Can not create "walls"
Obvious reasons...
4) Only works on hard, level ground (-1/4)
Dirt is too soft, sand is too soft... and on a non-level surface
the bearing would just roll away.
5) Range based on STR
This is the proverbial "Sack o' Marbles" here. Throw it or let it
loose at your feet.
6) Backlash, Sticky, Lim: Preventable with DEX roll
What write-up would be complete without a total and unjustifiable
rules kludge?
I want Backlash, but not from using an attack power...
I want Backlash that applies to Running. In fact, in addition to
this, I want to buy Running UAO, so if someone charges head long into the
fray, they might _keep_ on going... and slam into a wall or a team mate.
Addendum (not just for breakfast anymore):
I.) X amount of Linked UAO Running, AoE, 0 END, Persistent,
Uncontrolled, Only Up to amount of running used when entering AoE, Same
direction that character was running in.
II.) As a "side" rule, you might want to add the Entangle stops a Given
Sense, which would be Balance, which is a House Rule from somewhere...
Tell me what you think of this henious abomination which is, in
the game reality, just a sack of ball bearings.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:08:33 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Lord Vader's Powers
At 07:30 AM 4/28/99 EDT, you wrote:
>As for powers, Darth Vader doesnt just use "the force". Theres a reason he
>has the title of "Lord of Sith". Its because he uses a form of dark "magic"
>that was developed by the race called Sith. So, any powers you wanna give
him
>Im all for. As long as you dont go giving him 45 Dex or superleap or
>something.
>
Funny, I was just thinking about Vader this week. Actually, I was thinking
about the Dark Side. I made a comment about the game Colonization and said
"The Spanish have turned to the Dark Side." I thought this analogy very
apt, because the Spanish tactics sacrifice long term gain for short term
gain. That is, the other approaches lead to greater power in the long run,
if they can survive against the Spanish and their vast amounts of early
booty. Hard to model that in Hero, though, and that has been a thread before.
Today's comment is: Vader doesn't act very "Dark Side", IMO. The Dark Side
is all about anger and passionate response. Luke is warned that if he acts
out of anger it will become harder for him to resist acting when he is
angry. Vader, however, doesn't seem to get angry. He does not kill the
Admiral because he is angry with his failure, he kills him because he is
expendable and it will serve to make other officers afraid of him. Not
emotion, just effective management techniques. Vader is certainly evil,
but he doesn't seem to follow the Dark Side.
Now, the Emperor seems to enjoy inflicting pain and suffering, so he does
seem to follow the Dark Side.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
So this is Earth. Not what I expected. Oh, well, I'll have to make do.
"Behold Earthians! Your new lord has arrived!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:04:46 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Revamping Secondary Characteristics
At 01:58 PM 4/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I had a thought awhile back about secondarycharacteristics and how they're
>computed. Let me toss it out to everybody for some feedback. This has not
>been playtested.
>
>Currently, most secondary characteristics and character-based skills are
>computed based on a single characteristic (except, of course, for Recovery,
>Endurance, and Stun). What if we reworked that a little bit so that the
>other Secondary Charcateristics and the Characteristic-based skills were
>based off of more than one characteristic?
>
>PD=(STR+BODY)/5
>ED=(CON+BODY)/5
>SPD=((DEX/10)+(INT/5))/2 (INT doesn't contribute as much to SPD as DEX
>does, but it's a component)
>
Um, as written, INT is _more_ important to SPD than DEX.
INT 10
DEX 10
SPD=((DEX/10)+(INT/5))/2
SPD=((10/10)+(10/5))/2
SPD=((1)+(2))/2
SPD=(3)/2
SPD=1.5
INT 20
DEX 10
SPD=((DEX/10)+(INT/5))/2
SPD=((10/10)+(20/5))/2
SPD=((1)+(4))/2
SPD=(5)/2
SPD=2.5
INT 10
DEX 20
SPD=((DEX/10)+(INT/5))/2
SPD=((20/10)+(10/5))/2
SPD=((2)+(2))/2
SPD=(4)/2
SPD=2
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
So this is Earth. Not what I expected. Oh, well, I'll have to make do.
"Behold Earthians! Your new lord has arrived!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:56:28 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Intelligence & Such
At 02:45 PM 4/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Ben Brown wrote:
>
>> And we're not even getting into one of my favorite gaming topics:
>> can one really play a character that's more intelligent than one's self?
>
>It's difficult, but I think it's possible. There are various ways to help
simulate
>it:
>1) Science and other intelligence-based stuff is usually already covered
by very
>high rolls;
>2) The addition of Lightning Calculator, Eidetic Memory, and similar
advantadges;
>3) Taking more time to make decisions the character makes in a split-second
>(easier to do in PBeM);
>4) Receiving extra information from the GM as 'brillant deductions';
>5) Having a bit of GM help when you're about to do very stupid things your
>character would know better (also useful for when the character knows more
than
>the player, such as about the way the GM's world works.)
>
>And so on. Most of them require the GM's help, but it can be done.
>
>Mathieu
>
And of course it is easy for a GM to play a character who is smarter than
himself. The simplest example came from a GM who had to design the lair of
an ancient dragon of superhuman intelligence where the PCs were going. He
began to try to think of every plan the PCs might come up with and prepare
for it, then realized this shortcut: any plan the PCs actually do come up
with, the dragon has already thought of and prepared for, so just place
obstacles and traps in their path. Sure it's cheating, but the GM doesn't
get 900 years to prepare.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
So this is Earth. Not what I expected. Oh, well, I'll have to make do.
"Behold Earthians! Your new lord has arrived!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:37:21 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: say INT ain't so
At 10:02 PM 4/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>* Akirazeta@aol.com on Wed, 28 Apr 1999
>| Than your trying to say that Einstine has average human perception and
>| memory,
>
>Actually, Einstein's was below average. He is, after all, the prototypical
>absent-minded professor.
>
>| even though he SINGEL HANDEDLY the rules of the universe into words with
>| very written down and nearly no experimentation at all?
>
>And it took him only about 30 years to do it.
>
Einstein stopped wearing socks because he couldn't remember to change them.
Einstein filled his closet with identical clothes so he wouldn't have to
decide what to wear today. He certainly was a genius, as he through isight
figured out some of the basic rules of the universe, but he didn't finish
proving all of his notions in his lifetime. His IQ is a subject of much
debate, but I've heard it lower than 180. The best way I've heard it put
is that his intelligence was of a kind that the IQ test would not measure
properly. Einstein's gift, IMO, was not that he thought better or quicker
or clearer than others, but that he thought differently. As in, in a
different way. Very different.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
So this is Earth. Not what I expected. Oh, well, I'll have to make do.
"Behold Earthians! Your new lord has arrived!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:28:58 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: RE: Einstein & INT
At 01:12 AM 4/29/99 EDT, you wrote:
>IQ stands for INTELLEGENCE quotient. It IS a measure of processing, problem
>solving, and speed. To anyone who does not believe this, please visit the
>MENSA site (it should be www.mensa.com or something) befor responding.
www.mensa.org in case it's important.
MENSA agrees that the standard IQ test doesn"t nessicarily measure
intelligence, that's why they made their own test.
However, I also disagree with the statement that IQ tests measure
knowledge. They went to great lengths to design them to not be biased by
knowledge or education.
IQ isn't how fast you think, it's how you think and how well you think.
>The
>site should (last time I checked) have an online practice test. I work at a
>private school, and know for a fact that certian indivuals can not learn or
>understand general or special relativity reguardless of the number of books
>they read.
>
That doesn't mean they have a low IQ, although I'd guess that folks with a
low IQ are more likely to fall into that group.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
So this is Earth. Not what I expected. Oh, well, I'll have to make do.
"Behold Earthians! Your new lord has arrived!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:03:14 -0400
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@early.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Einstein & INT
MWStrong writes:
>IQ stands for INTELLEGENCE quotient. It IS a measure of processing,
problem
>solving, and speed. To anyone who does not believe this, please visit the
>MENSA site (it should be www.mensa.com or something) befor responding.
The >site should (last time I checked) have an online practice test. I
work at a
>private school, and know for a fact that certian indivuals can not learn
or
>understand general or special relativity reguardless of the number of
books
>they read.
>
Obviously, your work doesn't include the teaching of spelling.
Being familiar with some of the critical writings on the use--and
misuse--of IQ testing, including The Stranglehold of the IQ by Dr. Benjamin
Fine and The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J. Gould, I find this argument
laughable. Credible IQ tests are designed with specific, limited goals in
mind. Within its limited range of goals, an IQ test can prove quite
useful. But treating the results of such a test as a true and complete
measure of intelligence (a concept so abstract and so hotly debated it's
hard to find more than a handful of scientists who can even agree on a
common definition of the word) is a farcical notion that has done more harm
than good through the decades of IQ testing in American schools.
Forgive me for coming across so harshly, but far too many persons have been
screwed over by testing misuse. The horror stories are endless. Some have
succeeded despite the judgements of "professional educators" who used a
test score as an excuse to discourage a student from making any attempt at
academic achievement. Too many other students weren't given the
encouragement to press on and ignore the advice of a lazy or incompetent
guidance counselor. And a human mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.
On the subject of Einstein's INT in Hero, I would rate him as above average
as Hero uses the term, though not necessarily extraordinarily high. So
much of his genius wasn't a matter of being able to learn new things
quickly or to process information rapidly or to decide on a resolute course
of action in a crisis without hesitation, but to view the world in new ways
and to ask questions no one else had pondered. Such genius is truly
immeasurable, either by IQ tests or by Hero's definition of INT.
Len Carpenter
redlion@early.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:21:02 -0500
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
At 11:37 PM 4/28/99 EDT, AndMat3@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/28/99 7:53:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>voxel@theramp.net writes:
>
>> For what it's worth, in my campaigns, I *does* it match the usage:
>> * I increase the cost of INT to 2/1, to take into account the changes
>> below (mostly the altered SPD formula).
>> * As others have already suggested, (DEX+INT)/10 works as a SPD
>> formula.
>> * Non-physical initiative (including skill uses and mental combat)
>> act on INT, not EGO.
>> * Offensive Psychic Value (OPV), my home rule term for the clunkier
>> "OECV", is INT/3 instead of EGO/3.
>>
>> It seems to work, at least as well as the current system, and (IMHO, of
>> course) it feels more correct.
>
> ok - what do you do with EGO? is it even a stat anymore? does it only cost
> 1 point? a .5 point?
It still costs 2 points, and is still the basis for DPV (DECV), the primary
defense against Mental Powers, an optional defense against PRE attacks, the
roll made for Pushing (in Heroic games), etc.
- --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:21:12 -0500
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: RE: RE: Einstein & INT
At 01:12 AM 4/29/99 EDT, MWStrong@aol.com wrote:
> IQ stands for INTELLEGENCE quotient. It IS a measure of processing,
> problem solving, and speed. To anyone who does not believe this, please
> visit the MENSA site (it should be www.mensa.com or something) before
> responding. The site should (last time I checked) have an online
> practice test. I work at a private school, and know for a fact that
> certian indivuals can not learn or understand general or special
> relativity reguardless of the number of books they read.
IQ is a measure of how well you click to standardized IQ tests. It *claims*
to be a measure of intelligence, but it's worth as such has been criticized
since about 1 day after the first IQ test was written.
And I say this as someone whose tested at 160+ before -- if anyone would
*want* to think IQ tests were a valid measure of intellect, it'd be me.
(Well, actually, it'd be Marilyn Vos Savant, but ...)
- --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:21:14 -0500
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: Lord Vader's Powers
At 12:08 AM 4/29/99 -0400, geoff heald wrote:
> Today's comment is: Vader doesn't act very "Dark Side", IMO. The Dark
> Side is all about anger and passionate response. Luke is warned that
> if he acts out of anger it will become harder for him to resist acting
> when he is angry. Vader, however, doesn't seem to get angry.
"Anger, AGGRESSION, fear ... the Dark Side of the Force are these."
(emphasis mine). Vader's casual, trivial use of violence, even when it
doesn't benefit him (killing Captain Antilles at the beginning of STAR WARS,
for example, thereby destroying any chance of extracting useful information
from him in better circumstances) is definitely Dark Side level aggression.
> He does not kill the Admiral because he is angry with his failure, he
> kills him because he is expendable and it will serve to make other
> officers afraid of him. Not emotion, just effective management
> techniques.
His officers are already afraid of him, and he knows it. Being "expendable"
is not an excuse for discarding something -- killing the Admiral is
*wasteful* (the Empire only has so many), and waste is not the most
effective way of handling things. I wouldn't call this effective management,
except in the Dilbert sense where "management" means exactly the opposite of
what the Management thinks it does.
I think it's a reasonable statement to say that Vader IS angry, but that he
hides it well (not surprising, considering he's got virtually no human
method of expressing his emotions).
==
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:20:07 -0700
From: Rick Holding <rholding@actonline.com.au>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (rough)
David A. Fair wrote:
> > Missile Deflection: Up to Energy Attacks (seen in ESB)
> When he reflected Solo's blaster shots, did they fly off, or were they
> absorbed? I seem to recall them just disappearing into his hand...
I've been thinking about this and I think that missile deflection is
the wrong mechanic for what happened. He has missile deflection with
the light saber but what he did on the cloud city was somewhat
different. Han shot at Darth who raised his hands and "caught" the
blasts. What I would use would be force wall with gestures. If you
call the blasters 2D6 KE, a 13 defence force wall, energy only, would do
the trick nicely. It would need to be adjusted for visiblity details
and other factors but it would be the best way of doing what he did.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:33:23 -0700
From: Rick Holding <rholding@actonline.com.au>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (rough)
Bryant Berggren wrote:
>
> At 06:28 PM 4/28/99 -0700, Rick Holding wrote:
> > Swords are balanced, have a certain amount of weight and inertia and
> > hence can be controlled by anybody who knows how to swing a pool cue.
> > Not well I will grant you, but the heft is there. A light saber is a
> > handle with a very efficent cutting device coming out of it which makes
> > it very easy to lose a foot or something. Major disincentive number
> > two.
>
> Generally speaking, MORE weight makes something HARDER to control, not
> easier. I want to put my arm and hand just *so*. I want the tool to go where
> the arm and hand is. The weight of the tool (specifically, the inertia,
> resistance to changes in motion, created by its mass) fights me in this. The
> greater the mass of the tool, the more effort I have to use to move it into
> position AND the greater effort I must exert to make it STOP once I've got
> it there.
You missed my point. What is one of the two "weapons" everybody has
familiarity with? One is unarmed combat, the other is club. Why?
Because from the day we are born (almost), we pick things up and swing
them around. The body knows what it is going to do, more or less, and
does it.
Now, pick up the light saber. You can see that there is 3 feet of
glowing stuff waving around in front of your face and you act
accordingly. Until you get familiar with it, it is going to be a hazard
as you overcompensate for what you "know" should be there.
>
> This is probably the real heart of the matter: the question isn't "why
> doesn't everyone use lightsabers", the question is "why DO Jedi use them?"
> The answer seems to be linked to Obi-Wan's description of the lightsaber as
> a "more elegant" weapon than the blaster. Blasters are easy, and the choice
> of weapon of those who WANT to fight. Lightsabers are difficult to use
> *effectively* (in the same way that a rapier is less effective than a modern
> firearm); linking Jedi training with an intentionally ineffecient weapon is
> a way of weeding out the "hey, when are we going to kick some ass?" Ed
> Grubermans from the Jedi ranks in favor of the truly sincere and worthy
> students seeking enlightenment.
I dont know if I would call it an intentionally ineffecient weapon. I
think it is closer to being a weapon that needs skill and control to
use, just like what is needed for proper use of Jedi powers. Learning
the use of Jedi powers and the use of a light saber compliment and
enhance each other.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:20:16 -0500
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (rough)
At 06:33 PM 4/29/99 -0700, Rick Holding wrote:
>Bryant Berggren wrote:
>>
>> Generally speaking, MORE weight makes something HARDER to control, not
>> easier. I want to put my arm and hand just *so*. I want the tool to go
>> where the arm and hand is. The weight of the tool (specifically, the
>> inertia, resistance to changes in motion, created by its mass) fights
>> me in this. The greater the mass of the tool, the more effort I have to
>> use to move it into position AND the greater effort I must exert to
>> make it STOP once I've got it there.
>
> You missed my point. What is one of the two "weapons" everybody has
> familiarity with? One is unarmed combat, the other is club. Why?
> Because from the day we are born (almost), we pick things up and swing
> them around. The body knows what it is going to do, more or less, and
> does it.
I didn't *miss* your point -- I'm directly denying it. What the body knows
how to swing is its ARM; everything else is understood as an extension of
that, and has to be learned.
> Now, pick up the light saber. You can see that there is 3 feet of
> glowing stuff waving around in front of your face and you act
> accordingly.
I can see it's 3 feet of glowing stuff. I can FEEL that it's a flashlight
with a lethal fashion sense, and the FEEL of it in my hand is going to
affect my actions more than the sight.
- --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 04:32:09 -0400
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@early.com>
Subject: Re: say INT ain't so
Geoff Heald writes:
>Einstein stopped wearing socks because he couldn't remember to change
them.
> Einstein filled his closet with identical clothes so he wouldn't have to
>decide what to wear today. He certainly was a genius, as he through
isight
>figured out some of the basic rules of the universe, but he didn't finish
>proving all of his notions in his lifetime. His IQ is a subject of much
>debate, but I've heard it lower than 180. The best way I've heard it put
>is that his intelligence was of a kind that the IQ test would not measure
>properly. Einstein's gift, IMO, was not that he thought better or quicker
>or clearer than others, but that he thought differently. As in, in a
>different way. Very different.
In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond puts forward two
arguments that "primitive" man is, on the average, more intelligent than
"civilized" man. One is based on evidence that forms of passive
entertainment like television, radio, and movies don't provide the early
stimulation of the mind offered children by a fully active life in a far
more challenging environment.
The other argument is genetic. For civilized Europeans, living in densely
populated societies among several species of domesticated animals,
infectious epidemic disease was historically the major cause of death, far
more than murder or war. The differential mortality from diseases has had
little to do with intelligence, being essentially a matter of genetic
resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. Most Europeans who
escaped fatal infection also escaped other potential causes of death and so
passed on their genes. In the modern age, most Western infants survive the
fatal infections of childhood and reproduce regardless of their
intelligence or their genes.
In contrast, for primitive man, living in societies where numbers are too
low for epidemic diseases to evolve, the major causes of death are
accident, tribal warfare, murder, and difficulty in procuring enough food.
Intelligent persons are more likely than less intelligent ones to avoid
such causes of mortality. Natural selection promoting genes for
intelligence has been more ruthlessly at work in New Guinea, say, than in
Europe, where natural selection for body chemistry has been far more
critical.
Might an Einstein who had been born in New Guinea have been intelligent
enough to survive and so pass on his genes? Possibly not. One of the many
ways to view intelligence is as the mental capacity to cope with one's
immediate environment. Imagine what might have happened to a young
Einstein in New Guinea who too often pondered the mysteries of the wondrous
world about him, while oblivious to the poisonous snake at his feet or the
enemy's ambush set along the trail ahead of him.
Failing a PER roll in a lecture hall can be amusing. Failing it in a
jungle can prove fatal.
Len Carpenter
redlion@early.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:22:32 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Einstein & INT
At 10:04 PM 4/28/1999 -0700, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>IQ stands for INTELLEGENCE quotient. It IS a measure of processing,
problem
>>solving, and speed. To anyone who does not believe this, please visit the
>>MENSA site (it should be www.mensa.com or something) befor responding. The
>>site should (last time I checked) have an online practice test. I work
at a
>>private school, and know for a fact that certian indivuals can not learn or
>>understand general or special relativity reguardless of the number of books
>>they read.
>
>And the attribute that distinguishes them isn't represented in the Hero
>System at all, just as it isn't in many games. Really, don't get hung up on
>the term used for perception/speed of thought; that's a similar mistake that
>people who think the power Telekinesis has to be telekinesis make.
Or who think that having a Killing Attack automatically violates a
character's Code Against Killing....
- ---
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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:45:16 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: That guy had some balls! (Sack of Ball Bearings Power construct)
At 02:04 AM 4/29/1999 -0400, Jason Sullivan wrote:
>
> I've decided to use Entangle to model this construct, since it
>impairs movement and prevents someone from going somewhere.
>
> Here's what I have so far:
>
>Entangle xD6
>a) Entangle takes no Damage from attacks (+1/2)
> Pretty self explanatory.
>
>b) AoE: Radius or Cone
> Should it be Radius or Cone? I could see it being either.
I'd make it AE:Any.
>c) Autofire
> Lots of marbles means lots of BODY in varying degrees... also,
>this tends to make the power more "chaotic", depending on how well it is
>targeted.
Sensible.
>d) Continuous
> This power stays around between the rounds.
Arguably unnecessary. (See below.)
>c) Does Knockdown (or Knockback) (+1/4)
> This might not make sense...
> ...but Knockdown would occur if the character was standing still,
>or Knockback if he was moving (see below for "additional movement"
>addendum). Now couple this with...
Consider what might happen if, instead, you use the Stops Touch Sense
(or, if you prefer, Stops Balance Sense) adder, and apply the Entangle to
the ground. If one can't feel the ground, one can't get one's footing....
>d) NND: Characters must be moving along the surface of the AoE. Flying,
>Swinging, and Gliding characters are not effected. The Area is often
>times easily avoided. Standing still, or moving slowly and cautiously
>through the area (1/4 normal movement, 0 DCV) may also prevent the power
>from taking effect.
> Now, only characters within the Area of Effect along the ground
>can be effected by the ball bearings, and even characters without such
>powers can manage to circumvent the power.
A good idea using your construct, though (obviously) not for mine.
>e) Reduced END: 0 END, Persistent
> Charges gets messy. In addition, it stays around, even if the
>character is knocked unconscious... and how much effort does it take to
>drop a bag?
In your construct, I think Continuing Charges would work fine. Or
better yet, 1 Charge and some permutation of Sticky.
>f) Uncontrolled
> This power is "fire and forget." It can be set in an area, and
>left there.
> The reasonably common way this power can be stopped would be to
>clear away the bearings.
Of course, 0 END Persistent Uncontrolled powers are very dangerous
things to have. (OTOH, it's very expensive, and for this reason.)
>Now, the Limitations...
>
>1) Entangle has no DEF
> Given enough time, anyone can make their way through this...
>either by dispersing the ball bearings or walking through.
Works under either your construct or mine.
>2) Does not prevent the use of some Foci
> Army Sniper can still clip off shots at our beloved villain. Too
>bad for our beloved villain.
Strike "some"; at worst, it'd be "most" Foci. I can't think of a whole
lot that don't deal with Running.
>3) Can not create "walls"
> Obvious reasons...
Yes, quite -- though some schools of thought say that Entangle must be
defined as a wall-builder (and not an entangler) at the time of construction.
>4) Only works on hard, level ground (-1/4)
> Dirt is too soft, sand is too soft... and on a non-level surface
>the bearing would just roll away.
Quite sensible.
>5) Range based on STR
> This is the proverbial "Sack o' Marbles" here. Throw it or let it
>loose at your feet.
Ditto.
>6) Backlash, Sticky, Lim: Preventable with DEX roll
> What write-up would be complete without a total and unjustifiable
>rules kludge?
The more complex or non-standard a Power is, the more you need them! :-]
> I want Backlash, but not from using an attack power...
> I want Backlash that applies to Running. In fact, in addition to
>this, I want to buy Running UAO, so if someone charges head long into the
>fray, they might _keep_ on going... and slam into a wall or a team mate.
This kind of thing would, I think, be considered by the Stops Touch
adder described above.
>Addendum (not just for breakfast anymore):
>I.) X amount of Linked UAO Running, AoE, 0 END, Persistent,
>Uncontrolled, Only Up to amount of running used when entering AoE, Same
>direction that character was running in.
Stops Touch was intended (by me, anyway) as a way to eliminate friction,
so this would be covered IMO.
>II.) As a "side" rule, you might want to add the Entangle stops a Given
>Sense, which would be Balance, which is a House Rule from somewhere...
It's not so much a "side" rule as an alternative.
> Tell me what you think of this henious abomination which is, in
>the game reality, just a sack of ball bearings.
I think it'll take us a while to get our -- well, never mind. ;-]
- ---
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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:54:37 -0400
From: "Beren" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: Re: That guy had some balls! (Sack of Ball Bearings Power construct)
<<>b) AoE: Radius or Cone
> Should it be Radius or Cone? I could see it being either.
I'd make it AE:Any.>>
Would it be appropriate to put something in about it being limited
byexisting walls? If you're in a room that has a low dividing wall or some
other solid object, you're not going to be able to cover the entire area -
at least not easily.
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:02:28 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: the cost of anything [was:Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming]
In a message dated 4/29/99 3:15:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
voxel@theramp.net writes:
> At 11:37 PM 4/28/99 EDT, AndMat3@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 4/28/99 7:53:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >voxel@theramp.net writes:
> >
> >> For what it's worth, in my campaigns, I *does* it match the usage:
> >> * I increase the cost of INT to 2/1, to take into account the changes
> >> below (mostly the altered SPD formula).
> >> * As others have already suggested, (DEX+INT)/10 works as a SPD
> >> formula.
> >> * Non-physical initiative (including skill uses and mental combat)
> >> act on INT, not EGO.
> >> * Offensive Psychic Value (OPV), my home rule term for the clunkier
> >> "OECV", is INT/3 instead of EGO/3.
> >>
> >> It seems to work, at least as well as the current system, and (IMHO, of
> >> course) it feels more correct.
> >
> > ok - what do you do with EGO? is it even a stat anymore? does it only
cost
> > 1 point? a .5 point?
>
> It still costs 2 points, and is still the basis for DPV (DECV), the primary
> defense against Mental Powers, an optional defense against PRE attacks, the
> roll made for Pushing (in Heroic games), etc.
ok. you charge 2 points for INT; you charge 2 points for EGO -
what do you charge STR? how is INT (or EGO, or BOD) twice as
much as STR? Now, I've had this discussion before; and my point
remains the same... STR is free. For 10 points of STR you get 11
points of other (cool) stuff.
I really don't have ANY problem with changing the costs of stats;
but I think that before anything gets more expensive - STR needs
to be adjusted.
By the way, I like you Speed formula. Spreading out the figured
stats is one way to make STR, CON & DEX less important.
andy
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #301
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 10:16 AM