Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 315
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 4:35 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #315
champ-l-digest Tuesday, May 4 1999 Volume 01 : Number 315
In this issue:
Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
Int vs. Age
Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
Re: Int vs. Age
Re: AVLD
Re: Cumulative effect question
Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (fini?)
RE: Cumulative effect question
Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
Re: Lady Archer Power Construct
Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
Re: AVLD
Re: Duplication and Multiform
Re: Cumulative effect question
Re: Lady Archer Power Construct
New Hero Website
Re: Duplication and Multiform
Re: Duplication and Multiform
Re: Duplication
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 13:36:08 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
At 03:24 AM 5/5/99 +1000, happyelf wrote:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Svitavsky <bsvitavsky@mln.lib.ma.us>
>To: Hero List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
>Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 2:45 AM
>Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
>
>
>>At 02:37 AM 5/5/99 +1000, happyelf wrote:
>>
>>>From: Lance Dyas <lancelot@radiks.net>
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me but I didnt make up the ideas of fluid and crystalized thinking
>>>its
>>>>common psychology
>>>>
>>>
>>>what disipline? here i was thinking psyc was my area of study.
>>>
>>
>>I believe this is a component of developmental psychologist Jean Piaget's
>>theories.
>>
>>- Bill Svitavsky
>>
>>
>
>*cough* oh i see. Well, as log as you guys don't start talking about
>castration complexes and reinforcement schedules I suppose i can bear
>a little erm, 'nostalgia'.
>(that is unless somebody wants to suggest alternative settings
>where old psyc theories are true, which would make for some pretty
>wierd rping. Example of this is the super-behavoiuralist somebody
>suggested a while back)
>
Perhaps you're opposed to applying Newtonian physics in games as well?
Piaget certainly isn't cutting edge, but to my knowledge he's still cited
fairly often as the major figure in developmental psychology. A quick
search in any library catalog will show how much work is still being done
in Piagetan theory.
The old psych theory game would be cool, though.
All of this is a tangent to the discussion of INT anyway. The fact remains
that the normal characteristic maximum for INT increases with age, so the
rules imply that some aspect of thought which improves with age is an
aspect of INT.
- - Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Int vs. Age
Lance Dyas writes:
> Yes there are no real world indications that people think faster as
> they age or even anything in our Comic Book Mythology to impy this
> either. There is indications in the real world that they gain more
> knowlege but think slower ;) and become crystalized less adaptable
> in their understandings.
I think a visit to the "cognitive psychology" bookshelf might
help clarify this topic. The list seems to be recapitulating the
history of artificial intelligence - the more we explore and learn
what "intelligence" is, the more we draw lines around specific aspects
of "intelligent behavior" and redefine the goal.
With respect to changes in intelligence due to age; consider it
from a pattern recognition perspective:
People learn more patterns (of vision, of movement, of behavior,
of information, etc) as they mature. Adults have a wealth of internal
patterns and (hopefully) the ability to recognize a series of facts as
related to or similar to an existing pattern, and react accordingly.
At the same time, that advantageous behavior can cause problems: when
the pattern only *seems* to resemble a known pattern; when the adult
is fixated on fitting the facts into a known pattern to such an extent
that he or she ignores or discounts facts that don't fit the known
pattern; when it doesn't resemble a known pattern and the adult balks
at learning a new pattern; .
Children are often faster to learn and become proficient in
completely new situations (for example videogames and more generally
computers in the last generation or so :-). In part this is because
they're more open to absorbing new patterns directly, by virtue of
having fewer patterns and less of a history of fitting new situatoins
to known patterns. Put a conventional adult down in front of a
videogame and he or she will start trying to figure out the rules.
Put a seven-year-old in the same situation and he or she (well, much
more likely he if it's a mainstream violent videogame :-) will be much
more likely to just go with it, and learn by trial and error.
In another part, the greater speed children have at learning (as
opposed to, say, analytical decision-making) is physiological. I
don't recall enough to go into details, but I do remember learning
that human neurochemistry goes through distinct changes as we age,
giving us an advantage in learning during the early years.
In champions, as in most role-playing games, the mental aspect of
character definition gets much less space. I won't bother taking two
or three pages to debate why this is so and what the advantages are to
either approach. An anecdotal approach is more fun ;-).
I once designed a game system specifically for an online
roleplaying game, back in '89-90. I ended up leaving out some
attributes - things like wisdom don't really carry over very well into
an online rpg context - and including some rather fanciful ones -
"creativity" defined mostly for use in a magical context - but I still
ended up coming up with just as many mental stats as physical - and
some that seemed mental but were actually physical.
I had perception and technological aptitude split out as separate
attributes, for example, although really technological aptitude would
have been better split out even further (including aspects like rote
memorization, systemic heuristics, analytical thought). The area that
in Champions is covered SPD/INT/DEX, on the other hand, split out into
reaction time (purely psychological), muscular speed (there was also a
leverage-oriented strength stat), hand-eye coordination and manual
dexterity.
Not everything has an elegant solution. Sometimes the model is
messy because the real world is messy.
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 03:53:00 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
>
>Perhaps you're opposed to applying Newtonian physics in games as well?
>Piaget certainly isn't cutting edge, but to my knowledge he's still cited
>fairly often as the major figure in developmental psychology. A quick
>search in any library catalog will show how much work is still being done
>in Piagetan theory.
>
yes. . but i doubt you'll find concepts like crystalisation being used in
contemporary parlance, where entire fields of skill-assesment
have moved past such a concept.
. .. . As for newtonian physics. . the better comparison
term wouldbe physics in general. Gee, there's been QUITE a lot a new stuff
in that
field since newton's day, hasn't there?
>The old psych theory game would be cool, though.
>
>All of this is a tangent to the discussion of INT anyway. The fact remains
>that the normal characteristic maximum for INT increases with age, so the
>rules imply that some aspect of thought which improves with age is an
>aspect of INT.
>
actually, it simply implies that the genre convention of age is, that,
if anything, the maximum possible mental faculties in healthy individuals
raise if
physical ones decline. Since it's a heroic rule usually, i'd say
it originated in fantasy genre concepts. As it is, it's NCM, not stats,
so it's really only talking about a minute percentage of the population-
most would never get even close to the standard maximas of 20.
Not much of a clear 'inplication'.
>- Bill Svitavsky
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 04:06:10 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Int vs. Age
- -----Original Message-----
From: Steven J. Owens <puff@netcom.com>
>Lance Dyas writes:
>> Yes there are no real world indications that people think faster as
>> they age or even anything in our Comic Book Mythology to impy this
>> either. There is indications in the real world that they gain more
>> knowlege but think slower ;) and become crystalized less adaptable
>> in their understandings.
>
> I think a visit to the "cognitive psychology" bookshelf might
>help clarify this topic. The list seems to be recapitulating the
>history of artificial intelligence - the more we explore and learn
>what "intelligence" is, the more we draw lines around specific aspects
>of "intelligent behavior" and redefine the goal.
>
That's got more to do with testing that AI. Testing debates
were where people started to relaise how abstract a concept of
g.e really is.
> With respect to changes in intelligence due to age; consider it
>from a pattern recognition perspective:
>
> People learn more patterns (of vision, of movement, of behavior,
>of information, etc) as they mature. Adults have a wealth of internal
>patterns and (hopefully) the ability to recognize a series of facts as
>related to or similar to an existing pattern, and react accordingly.
So do children. In fact, the majority of such data is recieved in
childhood. That's when people learn most of what the learn.
>At the same time, that advantageous behavior can cause problems: when
>the pattern only *seems* to resemble a known pattern; when the adult
>is fixated on fitting the facts into a known pattern to such an extent
>that he or she ignores or discounts facts that don't fit the known
>pattern; when it doesn't resemble a known pattern and the adult balks
>at learning a new pattern; .
>
Insight problems? I wasn't aware there was an age-based
trend there.
> Children are often faster to learn and become proficient in
>completely new situations (for example videogames and more generally
>computers in the last generation or so :-). In part this is because
>they're more open to absorbing new patterns directly, by virtue of
>having fewer patterns and less of a history of fitting new situatoins
>to known patterns.
gee, it could be because they're primed to learn at that age, too.
In fact, i'd say that's the major reason for child learning rates.
Remember, a preexistant event schema can aid in learning as well.
Try getting anything out of an advanced physics course when
you've never even done physics 101.
> In another part, the greater speed children have at learning (as
>opposed to, say, analytical decision-making) is physiological. I
>don't recall enough to go into details, but I do remember learning
>that human neurochemistry goes through distinct changes as we age,
>giving us an advantage in learning during the early years.
>
There we are. This is the clear trend in learning, where synaptic
bloom is followerd by a period where many links will die off, but
those that are used stay, and various analagous concepts.
In fact, thw genre convention of a mutent seem sunfortunate in this-
speaking psudoscientifically, if mutants do manifest during
puberty, then likely they've missed the best time to learn to
use their powers, unless the critical period for such things was much
later than is usual, as is suggested by a recent comparison of
magneto and that clone of his.
> In champions, as in most role-playing games, the mental aspect of
>character definition gets much less space. I won't bother taking two
>or three pages to debate why this is so and what the advantages are to
>either approach. An anecdotal approach is more fun ;-).
<snip>
> Not everything has an elegant solution. Sometimes the model is
>messy because the real world is messy.
>
>
Indeedy. a 'real' rpg would be based on a interconnected network of
traits and the character sheet would be about a gig in size. Probably a more
'fun' option would be to determine stats based on the genre convention
of the setting in question, thought tinkering a balance between plausability
and utility is also fun.
>Steven J. Owens
>puff@netcom.com
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 14:03:21 -0400
From: Geoff Speare <geoff@igcn.com>
Subject: Re: AVLD
>>> (As an aside, it would be nice if you could buy AVLD at different levels
>>> depending on the commonality of the defense...)
AVLD (Attack vs. Limited Defense)
New set of defenses, as compared to the default defenses for the power, are:
Far more common -1 1/2 (Adjustment Power that works against PD/ED)
Less common -1 (Adjustment Power that works against rPD/rED)
Somewhat more common -1/2 (Adjustment Power that works against Mental or
Power Defense)
[NOTE: These are really just examples of "Limited Power", included here for
completeness]
Same +0
Somewhat less common +1/2 (Energy Blast that works against rPD/rED)
Less common +1 (Energy Blast that works against Flash Defense
or Mental Defense)
Far less common +1 1/2 (Energy Blast that works against Power Defense)
Geoff Speare
------------------------------
Date:
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Cumulative effect question
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com> on Tue, 04 May 1999
| Then you add the cumulative element...
| 25 +10 STR to TK [Explosion +1/2; UBO - many others +1*][only 'round n'
| 'round -1/2]
| 20 X4 radius to Change Env. [UBO - many others +1*]
I would be down on this concept. If I have a 6D6 EB and you have a 6D6 EB
and we use them together, we do not get a 12D6 EB, we get two 6D6 EBs.
To be fair, this is how I would do it: Two guys with 10 STR TK each can
lift 100kg + 100kg, 200kg, which is equivalent to 15 STR. Three guys would
have 18 STR (300kg), four guys would be 20 STR (400kg), etc.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE3LziIgl+vIlSVSNkRAuw+AKCkSDJG4sNd/zg/GsaHwldEP7BhzgCg2Gyj
edcODa2NE7FeZ2IPicNinvs=
=KYKK
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 14:14:05 EDT
From: Akirazeta@aol.com
Subject: Re: CHAR: Darth Vader (fini?)
In a message dated 5/4/99 1:24:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mitchels@megsinet.net writes:
<< << suming that Vader's costume gives him any powers at all? All
of Vader's 'powers' come from either the Force (not affected by the suit
and not removable) or his cybernetic body >>
>The suit IS his cybernetic body. Which makes it non-removable, IMO. which
makes it impossable to get Dependency points for.
The suit is his body, but the make with life support should give him a
dependency on the mask. I wouldn't make it a focus though.
>>
this is the 3rd time ive recieved this messsage. anyone else get it over an
over?
anyhow. :)
If the mask is removable, its a focus. if luke can take it off, so can anyone
else. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 14:31:07 -0400
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com>
Subject: RE: Cumulative effect question
Okay, fair enough. It's loose, I'll grant you that.
However, look at it this way, the +1 for the UBO pretty much matches the
10STR + 10STR = 15STR point cost, doesn't it?
There's lots of examples that have popped up here on the list or in
publications where part of a power has different advantages/limitations that
other parts of the same power.
Alternately, the cumulative element could look like this
XD6 Aid to Wind TK - [radius +1][linked to WindTK -1/4]
XD6 Aid to Change Env - [radius +1][linked to WindTK -1/4]
XD6 Aid to the other Aid's - [radius +1][linked to WindTK -1/4]
So, every phase that you're maintaining you're wind and rain, you're wind
and rain, combined with all your buddies' wind and rain get bigger and the
more of you standing together doing it, the faster it gets bigger. I imagine
you would do this with small Aid's with the maximums cranked up. Thus
allowing for a dramatically different rate of storm growth depending on the
number of guys around.
I haven't tested the numbers on these two methods but, all else being equal,
the first one looks like a lot less paperwork.
If you're not comfortable with the geometric progression of the first
method, put some advantage on it to increase the cost. Perhaps something
similar to Cumulative for Maj. Transforms.
I'm working on a similar effect for a group of storm mages in my own game. I
expect that two dozen of them should be able to successfully pound hell out
of a medium sized city. However, in my game, they all use VPP's and my house
rules for channeling.
] * Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com> on Tue, 04 May 1999
] | Then you add the cumulative element...
] | 25 +10 STR to TK [Explosion +1/2; UBO - many others
] +1*][only 'round n'
] | 'round -1/2]
] | 20 X4 radius to Change Env. [UBO - many others +1*]
]
] I would be down on this concept. If I have a 6D6 EB and you
] have a 6D6 EB
] and we use them together, we do not get a 12D6 EB, we get two 6D6 EBs.
]
] To be fair, this is how I would do it: Two guys with 10 STR
] TK each can
] lift 100kg + 100kg, 200kg, which is equivalent to 15 STR.
] Three guys would
] have 18 STR (300kg), four guys would be 20 STR (400kg), etc.
] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
] Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
] Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
]
] iD8DBQE3LziIgl+vIlSVSNkRAuw+AKCkSDJG4sNd/zg/GsaHwldEP7BhzgCg2Gyj
] edcODa2NE7FeZ2IPicNinvs=
] =KYKK
] -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
]
] --
] Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy
] Fun Ball should be
] Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special
] container and
] PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
]
]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:59:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
On Wed, 5 May 1999, happyelf wrote:
>
> *cough* oh i see. Well, as log as you guys don't start talking about
> castration complexes and reinforcement schedules I suppose i can bear
> a little erm, 'nostalgia'.
> (that is unless somebody wants to suggest alternative settings
> where old psyc theories are true, which would make for some pretty
> wierd rping. Example of this is the super-behavoiuralist somebody
> suggested a while back)
How about a character (cheerfully stolen from Terry Pratchett) who has the
power of Retrophrenology? He can hit you on the head with a mallet and
change your personality!
(Phrenology was the 'science' of studying the bumps on people's heads,
which supposedly told you what you were good at. Retrophrenology, of
course, is whacking people on the head to make bumps int he appropriate
places...)
I'd buy it as Mind Control linked to an HA, with the limitation (?) that
once the damage from the HA is healed, the Mind Control is broken.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 05:22:27 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Nuncheon <jeffj@io.com>
To: happyelf <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Cc: zHero List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
>On Wed, 5 May 1999, happyelf wrote:
>>
>> *cough* oh i see. Well, as log as you guys don't start talking about
>> castration complexes and reinforcement schedules I suppose i can bear
>> a little erm, 'nostalgia'.
>> (that is unless somebody wants to suggest alternative settings
>> where old psyc theories are true, which would make for some pretty
>> wierd rping. Example of this is the super-behavoiuralist somebody
>> suggested a while back)
>
>How about a character (cheerfully stolen from Terry Pratchett) who has the
>power of Retrophrenology? He can hit you on the head with a mallet and
>change your personality!
>
>(Phrenology was the 'science' of studying the bumps on people's heads,
>which supposedly told you what you were good at. Retrophrenology, of
>course, is whacking people on the head to make bumps int he appropriate
>places...)
>
"She has the cranial bumpige of a stagecoach tilter!"
>I'd buy it as Mind Control linked to an HA, with the limitation (?) that
>once the damage from the HA is healed, the Mind Control is broken.
>
That could be very interesting. I'm just trying to imagine what
that character could do if he hit wolverie on the noggin with thors uru
mallet.
>J
>
>Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
>Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 14:22:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Lady Archer Power Construct
On Tue, 4 May 1999, Jason Sullivan wrote:
> New shots are fairly easy, and cheap, to learn... with a maximum of
> 60 AC and a max ultra-slot cost of 6.
>
> 60 point Archery Skill Multipower, 8 Recoverable Charges (0), OAF
> (-1)
Awful skimpy on the charges, honestly. If I were an archer, I'd be
carrying more arrows into combat with me. /Especially/ if you think
you'll /ever/ use the variable advantage on Slot 4 for 'Autofire'.
> 1) "Arrow Meets Gun Barrel"
> 6u 15d6 Dispel (3), any firearm (+1/4); OAF (-1)
>
> 2) "Pinning Shot"
> 6u 2d6 Entangle (10), Takes no Damage (+1/2), Backlash (+1/2,
> Backlash damage is the same as Linked RKA); OAF (-1), Only works when
> target is near a wall or other large, sturdy object (-1/2), Victim may
> still be able to use some Accessible Foci (-1/4), Cannot create "walls"
> (-1/4);
> 1d6+1 RKA; Linked (-1/2)
>
> 3) "Maximum Pull Shot"
> 6u 4d6 RKA
You might still want to go with HKA + ranged, and just drop the 'Range
based on STR' limit. That'd let you add STR to your damage...
> 4) "Various Accuracy, Skill, and Trick Shots"
> 6u 1d6 RKA, Variable Advantage: +2, (+3)
>
> Any number of combinations are possible with the Variable
> Advantage, within reason.
1d6 RKA is pretty skimpy for a supers campaign - it's not going to have a
lot of effect. You might consider making the variable advantage only a
+1, which will still let you do plenty of tricks, and going for a bigger
RKA. Hmm, except you'd only get a 1d6+1 out of it, so it might /not/ be
worth it.
> Can TK be used to represent anything else with a bow an arrow
> aside from knocking things over and knocking weapons out of hands?
The other idea I can think of is an arrow with a line attached to it -
shoot it into something and pull said something towards you.
You might consider a 'Blunt Arrow' EB slot in case you want to knock
people out - on the other hand you could do that with an NND (or even lots
of increased stun mult) on your slot 4, too.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:24:14 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: The Acceptance of Powergaming (was re RE:Darth Vader)
At 01:59 PM 5/4/99 -0500, Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>On Wed, 5 May 1999, happyelf wrote:
>>
>> *cough* oh i see. Well, as log as you guys don't start talking about
>> castration complexes and reinforcement schedules I suppose i can bear
>> a little erm, 'nostalgia'.
>> (that is unless somebody wants to suggest alternative settings
>> where old psyc theories are true, which would make for some pretty
>> wierd rping. Example of this is the super-behavoiuralist somebody
>> suggested a while back)
>
>How about a character (cheerfully stolen from Terry Pratchett) who has the
>power of Retrophrenology? He can hit you on the head with a mallet and
>change your personality!
>
That's a great concept. I'd probably go with the Good Humour Man, able to
change his abilities, personality, and physical type by altering the
balance of humours in his body, varying between phlegmatic, melancholy,
choleric, and sanguine.
- - Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:29:18 -0700
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: AVLD
>AVLD (Attack vs. Limited Defense)
>
>New set of defenses, as compared to the default defenses for the power, are:
>
>Far more common -1 1/2 (Adjustment Power that works against PD/ED)
>Less common -1 (Adjustment Power that works against rPD/rED)
>Somewhat more common -1/2 (Adjustment Power that works against Mental or
> Power Defense)
I wouldn't ever give it a -1/2, but I can see a -1 level for AVLD for sure.
Your examples are cryptic to me though, I would be more inclined to do
something like this:
>Far less common -1 1/2 (Adjustment Power that works against hardened POW Def)
>Less common -1 (Adjustment Power that works against Ego DEF)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:30:57 -0700
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Duplication and Multiform
>That's like asying the intent of followers is to control the earth's
>population. There's no maxmimum to the number of followers. I't's
posible, but the cost
>prohibits it? yes, because it's a very powerful ability.
No, the intent of Followers is to give you people who follow and obey you,
the maximum number is never given. Just like Multiform. The point of the
power is a simple concept, as you full well know. Multiform = change forms
to different kinds, thats what it does. You know as well as I do that it
is against the intent of Hero rules to use a different construct than a
power strictly presented in the rules. You COULD use a lot of limitations
on KA to simulate an energy blast and probably get it cheaper than energy
blast, you COULD use transform to act as teleport, technically. But there
are already powers to do so, in the rules, and its a violation of the rules
to do such a thing.
>>You just seem to dislike the idea of someone using MULTIFORM to do this,
which seems oddly inconsistent.
>Not if you grasp the entire POINT of this game. An energy blast is not
>nesecarily a blast of energy. Many killing attacks do not sucessfully kill.
>Teleport is not an alchaholic beverage that doublee as a phone.
Thats fascinating but again, his complaint is with using Multiform to
simulate a power that it was built to make, yet costs too much, and has no
problem using other powers to _simulate_ Multiform.
>Compromise- both options are valid. But neither can be reformed based soley
>on a parties refusal to accept the other option as possible.
The point is not the option isn't valid, but that Multipower is so
expensive you are FORCED to do that, and thus the power is overpriced
>>Its not possible to do that undermost cost limitations, but nowhere
>>can you demonstrate that wasn't the intent. Clearly the intent of the
>>power was to allow you to build characters that had several diverse forms,
>>one at a time.
>
>and like all powers, that effect is limited by the points available.
>
>>I cannot conceive how you come up with the idea that this
>>was intended to be limited to a small number. The only reason it tends to
>>be is that campaigns don't give out 1500 points to build a character with.
>>This is a cost issue, not a concept issue for the power. You dont mind
>>people building that power bypassing multiform, so it clearly isnt a power
>>level issue either.
>>
>
>yes it is! a vpp/shapeshift is far mroe limted than a distinct character.
>multiform c's can have an immense amount of points total.
'immense" being limited by the points of a standard character (under the
same active cost limits as the power pool/multipower approach), and thus
being roughly similar, wouldn't you say?
>>>Yes. He could easily deal out many times the damage the equivelent energy
>>>projector could, at compareable accuracy.
>>
>>Ah he had more damage dice? Or he had multiple attacks (like, say
>>autofire... for example?)
>
>look, the more guys you have, the weaker they have. You can't have a whole
>team in one c with the same points as a comparable c. That isn't fair.
>
>yes, after all, he's a wimp. sorry, but if you want a mass-dupe
>or mass-multi with the powers of a 250pt character, you need a game with
>higher point totals. OR, you can take advantage of the powers.
>A team of dupes can kick ass, if their player thinks a bit.
I wasnt complaining about his power level, just pointing out that His
estimate of the character was untrue.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date:
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Cumulative effect question
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com> on Tue, 04 May 1999
| However, look at it this way, the +1 for the UBO pretty much matches the
| 10STR + 10STR = 15STR point cost, doesn't it?
Well, no. The UBO cost covers the UBO cost.
Look at it this way: it costs me 90 points to get 60 Strength TK. If you
add straight out as you suggest, it costs you 30 points for TK and 20
points for 8 cheap followers. I spent 90 points, you spent 50 points for
the same effect. Do you think that is fair? I do not.
Is mine better? A little. Still a bit unfair, but not as drastically.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE3L0uZgl+vIlSVSNkRAjxNAJ925ILbFfk7kaRWQdrlq1CeqE5XWQCgkIQy
n+kVZeMCjF048DhqIAJk9Jw=
=xc+B
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:38:44 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lady Archer Power Construct
In a message dated 5/4/99 3:23:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jeffj@io.com
writes:
> You might consider a 'Blunt Arrow' EB slot in case you want to knock
> people out - on the other hand you could do that with an NND (or even lots
> of increased stun mult) on your slot 4, too.
hey! an arrow with a boxing glove on the end of it! there's an idea! :)
andy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:50:46 -0400
From: Geoff Speare <geoff@igcn.com>
Subject: New Hero Website
Okay, I'm bored enough to open my website. :)
I set up a page whose main purpose is to serve as a central reference for
house rules. Submit your house rules, get them indexed, then people can
easily find and compare house rules on a given subject.
http://www.shalott.com/hero
Tell me what's broken, I'm sure I messed something up!
Geoff Speare
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 06:18:41 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Duplication and Multiform
- -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Duplication and Multiform
>>That's like asying the intent of followers is to control the earth's
>>population. There's no maxmimum to the number of followers. I't's
>posible, but the cost
>>prohibits it? yes, because it's a very powerful ability.
>
>No, the intent of Followers is to give you people who follow and obey you,
>the maximum number is never given. Just like Multiform.
So you're saying that it's ok to have 1,000,000,000,000 followers, in fact,
that's it's purpose.
After all, there no limit on doing that apart from the points required.
>The point of the
>power is a simple concept, as you full well know.
Concept is exactly the wrong word. it's a mechanic,
given an easy handle, that is *deliberatly* divorced from
preconceptions about it's purpose, so that it can be
used in a multitide of ways, limited by factors like
cost, not what peolpe think it's purpose 'obviously' is.
A sfx is a concept, an idea about a power. The mechanics
are used in conjunction to model that concept. The concept
is *never* inerent in the mechanic.
>Multiform = change forms
>to different kinds, thats what it does.
No, what it does is set up a secondary, tertitary, ect, character sheet,
with a set of powers, skills, ect of it's own, based on
trictures limiting the overally number of forms based on points available.
Anyway, what about change froms to identical kinds? There's nothing
stopping you from doing that, and there are reasons to do it.
>You know as well as I do that it
>is against the intent of Hero rules to use a different construct than a
>power strictly presented in the rules.
WHAT? ok, that is really, really missing the point.
The intent of the hero rules is to do the exact OPPOSITE,
to free the mechanics so no option or interpretation is inherently
superior. The mechanics do what they do, that's all. That's like saying you
can't
have clinging and running to get up a wall, becasue that's what flight does,
or vice versa. there are ZILLIONS of examples of overlap in sfx vs power
mechanic
, just because some people are blind to those possibilties has nothing to do
with the system.
>You COULD use a lot of limitations
>on KA to simulate an energy blast and probably get it cheaper than energy
>blast, you COULD use transform to act as teleport, technically. But there
>are already powers to do so, in the rules, and its a violation of the rules
>to do such a thing.
>
Wrong, incorrect, not true. The second example is another ridiculous
extreme,
and is not worth even replying to(it also isn't true). The first is a
misrepresentaiton.
It isn't about cost, it's about what mechanics mesh best with your sfx, in
your opinion.
For instance, A ka stun multiplier makes for an interesting 'lotto effect'
for stun, and does less kb
than an eb, while allowing for increased stun multiplier. Actually if i were
to design an unreliable stun weapon, i'd likely use a hka that does no body
with increases
stun multiplier. Another person might just use an eb with a set of
activation rolls,
both are fine.
And anyway, nobody's talking power vs power. IT's sfx vs power,
you can't grasp that but that's not my problem.
>>Not if you grasp the entire POINT of this game. An energy blast is not
>>nesecarily a blast of energy. Many killing attacks do not sucessfully
kill.
>>Teleport is not an alchaholic beverage that doublee as a phone.
>
>Thats fascinating but again, his complaint is with using Multiform to
>simulate a power that it was built to make, yet costs too much, and has no
>problem using other powers to _simulate_ Multiform.
>
Nobody's simulating multiform. they're portraying an sfx using their
choice of power mechanics. Again, you attach a preconception of
sfx to a mechanic. That's your error here. IF you stop making that mistake,
your argument evaporates.
>>Compromise- both options are valid. But neither can be reformed based
soley
>>on a parties refusal to accept the other option as possible.
>
>The point is not the option isn't valid, but that Multipower is so
>expensive you are FORCED to do that, and thus the power is overpriced
>
But that assumption relies on your claim that multiform is a valid
power in this case. by dint of it's high cost, it isn't. And you clearly
stated
that the other option is a copy of multiform, and that multiform is the way
you're supposed to do it. Both are wrong.
>>
>>yes it is! a vpp/shapeshift is far mroe limted than a distinct character.
>>multiform c's can have an immense amount of points total.
>
>'immense" being limited by the points of a standard character (under the
>same active cost limits as the power pool/multipower approach), and thus
>being roughly similar, wouldn't you say?
>
As they stand, yes. With your suggested rate of extra forms, no.
A character with multiform is relativly compeditive
with a vpp version. The vpp character has more possible form concept
shape options, but they do not have the multiform's option for a more
detailed character sheet. Not to mention a combat alternative-
The multiform character cna be minmaxed for optimal combat,
while the vpp character is nto nearly as compeditive, unless it's an
expensive
variable power pool. What you ahev to realise is that, the vpp option is
better,
it's cheaper and allows you to have an unlimted set of forms. The multiform
option
is clearly not designed with that in mind. You can choose either, but don't
expect the
points to be shifted to cover the weaknesses in your choice. that's like me
saying
i want the 'less kb' part of an rka to be removed so my unreliable stun
weapon can do more kb,
or aid to be based on a static number and not a dice, so i can give someone
a
predictable strength bonus ('why not have str bought usable by others?'
'because aid is
clearly the power they intended for use there!') and so on.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:19:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication and Multiform
On Tue, 4 May 1999, Christopher Taylor wrote:
> >That's like asying the intent of followers is to control the earth's
> >population. There's no maxmimum to the number of followers. I't's
> posible, but the cost
> >prohibits it? yes, because it's a very powerful ability.
>
> No, the intent of Followers is to give you people who follow and obey you,
> the maximum number is never given. Just like Multiform. The point of the
> power is a simple concept, as you full well know. Multiform = change forms
> to different kinds, thats what it does. You know as well as I do that it
> is against the intent of Hero rules to use a different construct than a
> power strictly presented in the rules.
I think the problem here is deciding what, exactly, the 'intent' of
Multiform is.
Personally, I think the intent of Multiform is 'transform character into
completely different character(s)'. Multiforms have different character
sheets, different stats, different disadvantages. The more things overlap
between the forms, the less appropriate the Multiform power is.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 13:34:26 PDT
From: "Jesse Thomas" <haerandir@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication
On Mon, 03 May 1999 Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net> wrote:
>Multiform is even MORE outrageously not represented. Look at who has
>multiform, and count the number of forms they are able to take. The
>purpose and intent of the power is to represent someone able to change
>shape and abilities, but anyone who wants to have that with any range of
>flexibility (for example, animal man! He can be any animal!) has to buy it
>using other power constructs.
I disagree. The proper power for being able to assume a multitude of
alternate forms is Shapeshift. Multiform isn't intended to make Animal Man,
it's intended for the Hulk and his ilk. It performs that function very
well.
Personally, I am comfortable with the powers as written. If you want to
play a changeling, use Shapeshift and a VPP. If you want to be a reasonable
hero in your own right, but create hordes of less powerful duplicates of
yourself, use Summon. Use Multiform to create alter ego characters like the
Hulk, and Duplication for relatively small numbers of powerful duplicates,
like Dr. Manhattan. You'll do fine.
Jesse Thomas
haerandir@hotmail.com
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #315
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 03:54 PM