Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 70
Desmarais, John
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 10:14 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #70
champ-l-digest Friday, December 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 070
In this issue:
Re: CHAR: Piccolo
Re: Independent non-Focused powers...
Re: Fantasy Hero armor
Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Fantasy Hero armor
Re: FH armor deux
Re: some dumb questions for the list.
Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
RE: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
AP/Penetrating question
Re: some dumb questions for the list.
Re: some dumb questions for the list.
Hm..just saw first book of new marvel superheroes game
Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
Re: some dumb questions for the list.
Re: NEED IDEAS: FUN WITH NAZIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:01:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Piccolo
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> At 12:00 AM 12/4/98 -0500, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> >As a side note, Piccolo's name is obviously derived from the musical
> >instrument. At one point, the Evil Demon King Piccolo had a host of
> >flunkies, with such names as Tamborine, Cymbal, Piano and Drum.
>
> I guess one would have to be a non-musician (or, at least, one not very
> intensely into the variety of instruments) for this to be obvious before
> seeing the names of the flunkies -- though I don't really see any clear
> logic the other two possibilities for the name's origin that I'm aware of.
Actually, I always identified his name with the piccolo flute, which I
have always known as the 'piccolo'. I didn't know there were multiple
varieties.
> See, the instrument familiarly known as a piccolo is technically a
> piccolo flute. There are also piccolo trumpets, piccolo saxophones,
> piccolo recorders, piccolo banjos, and other instruments which are smaller
> than their normal (soprano) counterparts, and play an octave higher. After
> all, the word piccolo derives from the Italian word for small.
Uhm... okay. Well, in this case, Akira Toriyama was pretty obviously
shooting for the musicl instrucment angle.
> Neither of these seem like an appropriate term for a guy 7' tall with
> aspirations of godhood; but then again, who knows?
Right.
> On the whole, an interesting character. On my own perusal, I certainly
> didn't see anything wrong (except for maybe a few misplaced homophones).
> I'll probably take a closer look a little later on today. :-]
Sure. I hope to start getting these guys up onthe website soon.
Michael Surbrook / susano@otd.com
http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:09:29 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent non-Focused powers...
>>I don't know about the Darkness, but the Witchblade seems more like a
>>character origin idea than an actual Independent focus.
>
>*blink* Independent Focus?
>I must have been unclear. It's my position that it'd be an "Independent
>non-Focused power," as I put in the subject line.
Sorry, mental hiccup. You weren't unclear. Whether it's Independent or not
would depend on other things in the campaign that used something similar to
it. If any power, focused or not, that you were going to pass on to another
character in a campaign that spanned generations had to be Independent, then
it would be Independent and some idea would need to exist for the transfer,
for example. Normally, I'd allow it to be transferred from character to
character without it being Independent in such a game, and avoid the
possibility of the family line (or whatever) losing it. But it depends.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:28:08 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Fantasy Hero armor
Well, obviously the writer needs or enjoyed the complication...
(-;
JAJ, GP
>>ARMOR AND SHIELDS FOR JOLRHOS FANTASY HERO
>
>Not bad but who needs the complication?
>qts
>
>Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 14:30:04 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
At 12:31 PM 12/4/98 -0600, Guy Hoyle wrote:
>Here's another puzzler: I need to be able to capture a player character
>without hurting him. He's too strong just to be jumped by goons, and he's
>a savvy-enough hunter that he could probably see any snares I set for him.
>Any neat tricks or favorite tactics come to mind? The campaign is a pulp
>type adventure, set in 1936. The villains are Nazis.
My idea: kidnap his DNPC (or, lacking that, someone else important),
leave clues to a particular location, lure him in, and gas him. Sure, it's
a cliche, but sometimes those work best (and they had to start
*somewhere*). :-]
- ---
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, 4 Dec 1998 05:59:28 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
>To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
>Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 12:50 PM
>Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>
>
>>
>>> I have to go along with Guy here. Just because something *can* happen,
>>>doesn't mean that it *must* happen.
>>> My own tendency would be to let the character have the Independent
>Focus
>>>for a while, then take it away for a period, and then have an opportunity
>>>to get it back. It would be during the absent period that the Limitation
>>>of its being Independent would be underscored; a normal Focus could be
>>
>>But how is this different from an Indestructible focus, which also can't be
>>replaced except by getting the original back? This is the problem, it
>looks
>>like some people are proposing giving an extra -2 Limitation for situations
>>that would occur with one of the two standard kind of Foci without
>Independent.
>
>Unbreakable Foci, not only can be gotten back, they will be. If not a
>similar item will be made accessible, as per description of Unbreakable
>Foci. You can play it different but that is modifying/making a house rule.
>
>Alan
At which point we're right back to the original point: either you're going
to actually take the focus away, or you aren't. If you aren't really going
to do it, it's the same as the unbreakable one. If you are, they're
permanantly out the points. At no point in the Unbreakable Focus rules do I
see where it says they aren't going to have to work to get it back. So
again, how is the Independent Focus different in any way that is meaningful
to the character, or the player? The vague threat that you're permitted by
the rules contract to keep it away from them? I suspec this only works
until they notice it's only being used as a plot device.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 15:31:35 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Fantasy Hero armor
>>ARMOR AND SHIELDS FOR JOLRHOS FANTASY HERO
>
>Not bad but who needs the complication?
it honestly doesnt end up being all that complicated. Once you have your
suit of armor, you write the info down, its set. Then if you get damaged,
its not that tough to keep track of, and it feels more ... believable?
Instead of having indestructable equipment, you need to do repairs, spend
time, money, and effort finding and obtaining new armor, etc.
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 15:33:03 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: FH armor deux
>> Forgot the final section with the optional rule I use for most Fantasy
Games.
>>
>> PARTIAL PROTECTION
>
>I would like to point out that there are some suits, specificially late
>period suits of full plate, that *do not* have gaps or weak spots that
>would fall under these rules. Henry VIII's suit for the Field of Cloth of
>Gold tourney is one such suit. It is so well made and fully covering that
>NASA took a look at it while working on ideas for hard space &
>pressure suits.
exactly, and that is why the rules give the ability to have someone (for an
extraordinary expense and extra weight) make armor that doesnt have the
gaps. I rule all magic armor is of superior construction, and lacks this
as well (why enchant crap?)
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:54:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hayden <mhayden@tsoft.com>
Subject: Re: some dumb questions for the list.
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Tim Gilberg wrote:
> Try PC Pine. Nice and consistant font for everything.
Or be a real man and telnet into a Unix shell account where you can use
the -original- Pine. ^_^
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Michael "Doc" Hayden -- mhayden@tsoft.com -- http://tsoft.com/~mhayden/
Hey, I use Procmail (with Spam Bouncer), so spam away! (^_^)
"What you are about to see is real. These are not actors; they're directors."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:09:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> >Right. Okay. Well, I'm hoping my "Perfect Cell" will beat your "Devourer
> >of Worlds" (1297 to... 1500? 2000? Dunno, but he's got 430 points in
> >Characteristics alone...).
>
> OK, so The Devourer only has 241 in Characteristics. OTOH it's written
> up as a self-aware Vehicle, so it has fewer Characteristics to worry about
> (like, it doesn't have any STUN).
Darn... got me there.
> >But you do have 998 meters on him... OTOH: Perfect Cell can blow up
> >planets too... (90 BODY, right?)
>
> Something like that. I'm not sure; perhaps it'll be in Hero5. ;-]
Yeah. Under 'breaking things'.
> Of course, we may be getting into something like Jackie Chan vs Godzilla
> here (and frankly I don't think Jackie'd do much better than Bambi did).
Dunno, Cell's got 50 PD and can toss around some pretty big attacks.
Besides, we all know that jackie would snag a ladder or something, and
swat Godzilla into the ground.
> Perhaps at some point along here I'll post the Devourer of Worlds just
> to see what kind of reaction comes around.
Oh yeah, that would be amusing.
Michael Surbrook / susano@otd.com
http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 07:27:51 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: RE: Independent Limitation
>Since we've been talking about independent powers, let's talk about
>making that -2 count. Any power that's independent can be used by
>anyone. So anyone who can control/acquire this power will want to do so
So can any Universal focus whether Independent or not. That's not just a
feature of Independent Foci.
>
>Which brings me around to this whole limitation conversation about
>whether a disad will occur or may occur. I don't understand the
>confusion. If your powers don't work in a vacuum, they don't work in a
>vacuum. If you're just neurotic about being in a vacuum, then it's a
>psych lim, right? Taking an activation roll doesn't mean you eventually
>fail your roll, it means you check the activation roll each and every
>time. I think that being arbitrary about enforcing disads is a huge
>mistake. It's okay to be rough on your characters but you can't be
>arbitrary about it.
However, in this case the _only_ real distinguishing trait about Independent
Foci over others is that it can be permanantly, irrevocably taken away. The
issue isn't whether it will ever actually happen; the issue is whether the
GM will let it happen if it makes sense. If he won't, then he's handing out
the limitation for free. If he will, given the nature of the Independent
Foci at least, it probably will happen sooner or later...and at that point
the character, if wrapped around the Focus, is pretty much hosed for good.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 11:29:29 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
At 08:41 AM 12/4/98 -0800, James Jandebeur wrote:
>> Unbreakable Foci, not only can be gotten back, they will be. If not a
>> similar item will be made accessible, as per description of Unbreakable
>> Foci. You can play it different but that is modifying/making a house rule.
>
>
>And if you always get the Independent item back, it is the same thing.
>If you can rely on getting it back, you don't modify your behavior.
>That's what it sounds like people are describing: purposely avoiding, as
>a GM (not talking about player precautions), taking the item away
>permanently. Therefore, it would be worth no additional limitation. If
>you always get it back, it is Unbreakable, not Independent. This has the
>side benefit of letting you re-spend the points if ever you DON'T get it
>back. But not immediately.
The larger an Independent item is, the less likely I am to take it away
on a truly permanent basis.
On the other hand, the larger an Independent item is, the more crippling
it is to do without for four months.
Bowl of Daily Cereal? No problem. Ring of Invisibility? A problem,
but not a major one. Suit of powered armor? You might as well retire.
- ---
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, 04 Dec 1998 14:49:04 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
At 08:24 AM 12/4/98 -0800, James Jandebeur wrote:
>So, are you saying that it is inappropriate to take away someone's focus
>for a few games? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. And it does
>not require that the item be Independent, or even Unbreakable: in the
>course of the adventure, logically run, the character might not be able
>to get the spare suit. If clever, and the item wasn't Independent, then
>he might be able to jury rig something in the villains lab and use the
>points to buy something new and temporary. I would prefer this, in fact,
>to not being able (within the rules) to jury-rig up a replacement. The
>point was: this kind of plot-line does not require Independent
>limitation. The difference is that the Independent item can be lost.
Technically speaking, the difference is that the *points* from the
Independent item can be lost. With just plain Focus, the points aren't
tied up in the Power itself; if it's lost, the points can be re-spent. You
even give an example yourself in the paragraph above of how a character
sans his non-Indepedent Focus can use his points to jury-rig something in
the villain's lab. If it's Independent, then he can't do that.
- ---
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: 04 Dec 1998 17:44:39 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"BW" == Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com> writes:
BW> Paralysis 1:Entangle vs. CON [I'm not sure if there's an advantage for
BW> this]
It's called "Energy Blast".
BW> Paralysis 2:Mind Control vs. CON -only to issue paralysis command
Yer basic "don't move" schtick. The SFX for it are innumerable.
BW> Subdual 1:Drain vs. DEX (continuous) [makes for a nice couple of phases
BW> while the hero freaks out and tries to run while cursing his feet for
BW> failing him. As his SPD goes down, he's forced to just wait around for
BW> phase 12 while the assassins kick him into unconsciousness]
Point 1: You don't want Continuous on this. You want Uncontrolled
Continuous or Gradual Effect.
Point 2: Adjusting a primary characteristic does *NOT* affect secondary
characteristics.
Point 3: Defensive maneuvers remain in effect until the start of one's next
action phase, so even if you did reduce his Speed, he is *not* going to
just "wait around" while being kicked into unconsciousness.
BW> Subdual 2:Drain vs. REC [then the assassins have to chase him to tire
BW> him out]
A soporific.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNmhln4JfryJUlUjZEQIoWgCg0zchkMkM2u76qgtgwsixH4H9yFsAoIZm
p+gUlTTIK8ia8C+5cuVgZNbO
=kw0Y
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 07:39:22 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>At 10:50 AM 12/3/98 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> I have to go along with Guy here. Just because something *can* happen,
>>>doesn't mean that it *must* happen.
>>> My own tendency would be to let the character have the Independent Focus
>>>for a while, then take it away for a period, and then have an opportunity
>>>to get it back. It would be during the absent period that the Limitation
>>>of its being Independent would be underscored; a normal Focus could be
>>
>>But how is this different from an Indestructible focus, which also can't be
>>replaced except by getting the original back? This is the problem, it looks
>>like some people are proposing giving an extra -2 Limitation for situations
>>that would occur with one of the two standard kind of Foci without
>Independent.
>
> If an Unbreakable Focus is stolen or destroyed, it *can* be replaced
>with an expenditure of the same character points. See BBB, p. 106, fifth
>paragraph, fourth sentence:
> "The GM should be careful with an Unbreakable Focus; if he destroys it,
>the character should have some way (a quest, prehaps?) to get it remade."
So in practice, if you _aren't_ going to actually destroy or hide the focus
indefinitely, then it's no different at all.
> This *cannot* be done with an Independent Focus; when it's gone, so are
>the points it was made from.
See above.
> If an Independent Focus is gone, so are the character points; none of
>the above options are available, except for the last (trying to get it
>back).
And the point is, unless the GM is actually willing to take away
permantantly the focus, none of this means a thing. And if he is willing,
he cripples the character. This is what I've said from the start of this
discussion.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:16:37 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> If an Unbreakable Focus is stolen or destroyed, it *can* be replaced
>with an expenditure of the same character points. See BBB, p. 106, fifth
>paragraph, fourth sentence:
> "The GM should be careful with an Unbreakable Focus; if he destroys it,
>the character should have some way (a quest, prehaps?) to get it remade."
> This *cannot* be done with an Independent Focus; when it's gone, so are
>the points it was made from.
However, what is being said here is that IF you are just going to give it
back anyway, it should not get the Independent limitation. The GM knows
whether he is willing to take the focus away or not: if he is not, the
limitation must be disallowed. Note I said "willing": the willingness is
necessary, not the actual act.
There are other possibilities that have been gone over to also make it worth
the -2, but then it is almost a different limitation, really. Still, why
have a bunch of different limitations when the one will do it?
> If an Independent Focus is gone, so are the character points; none of
>the above options are available, except for the last (trying to get it
>back).
If the focus is taken, adventures to get it back are common enough. I have
not seen anyone sit down and just decide immediately, "I don't like that
hammer I got off of that broken rainbow. I think I'll just move on". The
idea here is that while the Independent would indeed force the character to
try if he wanted it back, it is not necessary: Focus is sufficient, and in
fact appropriate in certain circumstances. No one is arguing that a regular
focus won't give the refund of points if lost, merely that if what you want
is an adventure that it is taken and returned, it is not necessary and may
even be innappropriate.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 12:00:29 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
At 08:44 AM 12/4/98 -0800, James Jandebeur wrote:
>> Gold Kryptonite was used against Superman several times. He didn't take
>> actions which would have exposed him to its effects. In other words, he
>> altered his normal actions to prevent himself from being exposed and
>> stripped of his powers.
>
>Then it's a Psych Lim, not a limitation on the powers or other disad. If
>it is never going to really be used, and he just avoids it, it is not
>worth the limitation on all of his powers. It might be another type of
>Disad, though. Same thing with Independent: if you want the character to
>behave a certain way, but are never going to lose the Focus, or if the
>GM doesn't want to really have the chance of you losing it, take a Psych
>Lim, not Independent.
Whatever Gold K is for the Silver Age Supes, it was *not* a
Psychological Limitation. If he had to take special steps to avoid its
effects, then he was still subject to those effects and is affected by its
presence even if he never lost his powers because of exposure to it. It
may have been a Susceptibility for Kryptonians, or a free-floating Power on
its own, or something else, but its effects were as real as bullets are for
anyone else.
A Psychological Limitation is fine for an effect which is imagined, but
not real. If a character believes himself to be Hunted by VIPER and takes
ridiculous steps to avoid them, when in fact the organization has scarcely
even heard of him, then it's a Psychological Limitation. If that same
character believes it and it's true, then it's a Hunted even if he goes to
such great lengths to avoid VIPER that the organization never actually
finds him.
>That said, I can see it if you will be without it a lot of the time: it
>is locked up in a safe 90% of the time, or it is taken from you and you
>go on a year-long quest to get it back. Then it's worth a -2. But if you
>get it back quickly, within a few games, it is not (unless you also lose
>it very frequently).
Well, isn't that basically what we were talking about? The character
either loses it and then gets it back after a reasonable period of time
(the more vital the item is to the character, the shorter this time needs
to be for its absence to be effective), or he goes to such great lengths to
avoid losing it that he ends up being nearly as crippled.
Going around to the magnetic field example from earlier in the
discussion, "Power doesn't work in magnetic field" is functionally the same
as "Must avoid magnetic field or loses Power."
If a character takes extra steps to avoid the effects of a Limitation or
Disadvantage, then that Limitation or Disadvantage is still affecting the
character. True, the specifics of the effect is different from what's
written; but still, if the character lets his guard down for long enough,
the written effect will take place.
- ---
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, 4 Dec 1998 14:32:36 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>>It is called Unbreakable. Sorry. Which means that it is unique and
>>irreplacable.
>
> No, Unbreakable means that it is unbreakable -- it cannot be broken,
>except by some unique and special means. It may or may not be unique, but
>according to the BBB (as I quote elsewhere) it *is* replaceable.
It's replacable as far as using the points are concerned, but the item
itself is unique. The fact that it is unique is the drawback to having it be
indestructable. I'll be sure to look it up later to be sure. What I am
saying is that Independent is not necessary to make the item a unique thing
that you have to hunt down after it's taking, and you just agreed with that
premise, since you said it could be defined as unique. The difference is all
point accounting.
> Obviously points can be reduced by the GM for an adventure. This
>doesn't require the mechanics of Independent, Focus, Drain, or even any
>game mechanic at all; the GM can do it by fiat. The mechanics are there as
>tools for the GM (and players) to use.
Of course this is true: it is also true that you don't need fiat to do this
most of the time. And, yes, it is also true that you need to do this type of
thing with great caution: players need to have fun. But nevermind that...
> Besides that, what you apparently meant as a rebuttal didn't refute what
>I said in any way. Take away a non-Indepedent Focus, and the points can be
>respent; take away an Independent Focus, and they cannot.
You are wrong about what I was rebutting, which was that Independent was
necessary on the power to be able to run an adventure where the character
lost a focus or other power and needed to get it back. You mentioned that
you would use Independent in that way. This implies that if it didn't have
Independent on it that it couldn't happen, so I argued that it could. I also
believe it is reasonable, as long as it isn't too long term. If it is,
Independent becomes more attractive. Take away a non-Independent Focus, or
anything else for that matter, and the points can be re-spent when the GM
and the situation and the fun factor allow them to be; take away an
Independent Focus, and they cannot.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:53:21 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>If you're the sort of GM who insists on creating a situation
>specifically to exploit each disad that every character takes, yes this
>will begin to look contrived.
"Insists"? No. However, if the villains learn a weakness in your character
that she could exploit and does not, that itself is contrived. If the
problem would otherwise logically come up, that also is contrived. However,
as I said earlier, the villain who exploits it by creating situations that
take advantage of this (a maze you need to avoid your problem in, your DNPC
in the middle of a magnetic field you need to get him out of, and so on) is
interesting, and any number of situations can come up that work without
seeming contrived. In other words, I've already mostly changed my mind on
this point: but this kind of thing does not work in all cases.
>Since we've been talking about independent powers, let's talk about
>making that -2 count. Any power that's independent can be used by
>anyone. So anyone who can control/acquire this power will want to do so
>if it meets their needs, right? For example, a suit of power armour that
>can make a two-bit hood into Iron Man would be a pretty hot ticket. Any
>criminal element who knows this thing exists is going to want it for
>themselves and may come up with complex plans and hire on specialists to
>steal it and use it for their own dire purposes. Likewise, if you've got
>an independent END battery or something based on location, wouldn't you
>expect someone to take control of that area and build a bunker around
>it?
All of this is covered by taking the power as Universal, and does not
require the Independent to get either the drawback of bad guys using it nor
the advantage of friends using it. The difference is is that when the bad
guys steal the Independent item, you have to get that item back: you can't
replace it.
I would also argue that if the bad guys take a non-Independent item that is
Breakable and Universal, you can then replace it AND they have it as an
Independent item. THEY, of course, can't replace it, but can use it against
you in the next fight. The alternative is to have the armor magically
disappear when you rebuild it at home (which might be within special effect,
as well :)
>To me, taking any -2 limitation on a power is like taking a 25pt. Disad.
>They should be prepared for serious hassle because of it.
I won't dispute that. There are times, though, where a limitation that is a
"boogeyman" is better bought as a disadvantage, such as the Gold Kryptonite
example, rather than limitations, since it gives you so many more points if
you buy it on a significant amount of your equipment.
>Which brings me around to this whole limitation conversation about
>whether a disad will occur or may occur. I don't understand the
>confusion. If your powers don't work in a vacuum, they don't work in a
>vacuum. If you're just neurotic about being in a vacuum, then it's a
>psych lim, right? Taking an activation roll doesn't mean you eventually
>fail your roll, it means you check the activation roll each and every
>time. I think that being arbitrary about enforcing disads is a huge
>mistake. It's okay to be rough on your characters but you can't be
>arbitrary about it.
Part of this was the idea that if your powers don't work in a vacuum, but a
vacuum never comes up or you can avoid it completely with reasonable ease,
that this is better represented as a Psych Lim or nothing at all. You have
the Psych Lim because if you ever entered it, you would have no powers, but
since you will never enter it, it isn't a limitation. That, however, is
something that is difficult to predict.
Again, as I said before, I don't recall saying anything about being
arbitrary. The threats to the Independent focus, while I firmly believe they
must exist (save if you do something to almost completely eliminate them,
which will limit its effectiveness in and of itself, so that's okay) must
fit into the campaign. Logically and reasonably. If they won't fit without
creating arbitrary threats, the Independent limitation should not be
allowed. If there is no situation that the Magnetic Field will logically
effect you during the campaign for whatever reason, whether it's by causing
you trouble by getting in your way or by shutting down your powers, without
forcing the situation, it should likewise not be allowed.
Of course, it's hard to predict the future: the GM might end up being wrong
about what will come up during the game. So, you might get away with having
limitations that never affect you, or getting less for the limitation than
you should have. Ah, well.
JAJ, RP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 20:38:17 -0500
From: "Geoff Depew" <mephron@idt.net>
Subject: AP/Penetrating question
General question for the list:
Can you stack AP and Penetrating? As in, can you buy an AP Penetrating EB?
There's nothing that says you CAN'T... but it would appear hideously
twinktastic on the face of it.
Opinions?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 20:43:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: some dumb questions for the list.
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Michael Hayden wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Tim Gilberg wrote:
>
> > Try PC Pine. Nice and consistant font for everything.
>
> Or be a real man and telnet into a Unix shell account where you can use
> the -original- Pine. ^_^
Heh, that's what I do...
Michael Surbrook / susano@otd.com
http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:37:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: some dumb questions for the list.
Michael Hayden writes:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Tim Gilberg wrote:
> > Try PC Pine. Nice and consistant font for everything.
>
> Or be a real man and telnet into a Unix shell account where you can use
> the -original- Pine. ^_^
Pine, hell, if you're gonna be a *real* man, why not use mail? :-).
(Actually, I use elm, I find the interface "cleaner" than pine's
and very easy to use; though I could wish for reverse searches and
better multiple mailbox management)
"Mail is barbaric." - The guy who introduced me to Elm and later
became my boss at my *second* computer job (working at a college
computer lab for the CS department - my *first* computer job I got in
part because at the job interview I noticed the interviewer using mail
and I taught her how to use elm :-).
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:25:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Hm..just saw first book of new marvel superheroes game
Didn't actually see a copy of the _game_ system (nor did I very much care), but
as a resource for the characters it's perfectly useful anyway...
Has four base stats (strength, agility, intelligence, willpower); for all of
them the 'human' range tends to be 1-10, beyond that gets superhuman fairly
quickly. Of course, that's comic-book human, not human human, but ;). Then
adds a bunch of abilities, which are either at a flat level or a +level (in
which case, at a guess, it adds to some stat). A lot of the abilities seem to
basically be multipower equivalents (things like 'energy control'). In most
cases the effects of powers are reasonably obvious from the power description,
and the active point level of the power can be inferred from the power level
(rule of thumb looks to be about (power-3) dc, though that breaks down for
midrange strength. Of course, there appears to be about a 20X difference
between a 10 str and a 12, so...). Figure raw CV is equal to agility, ECV
equal to willpower, etc.
Fairly usable resource, even if you don't want to use the game system.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:03:33 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
>> >But you do have 998 meters on him... OTOH: Perfect Cell can blow up
>> >planets too... (90 BODY, right?)
>>
>> Something like that. I'm not sure; perhaps it'll be in Hero5. ;-]
>
>Yeah. Under 'breaking things'.
Uhm, guys? Do we really want our planet to have a single body score so it
can be blown out from under us easily?
Oh, wait: game rules do not affect reality. Must keep that in mind.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:55:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
Guy Hoyle writes:
> Here's another puzzler: I need to be able to capture a player character
> without hurting him. He's too strong just to be jumped by goons, and he's
> a savvy-enough hunter that he could probably see any snares I set for him.
> Any neat tricks or favorite tactics come to mind? The campaign is a pulp
> type adventure, set in 1936. The villains are Nazis.
It's always easy for the GM to stack the deck against a player,
the trick is to do it believably.
The Old Sherlock Holmes Approach
If you need to do it for plot purposes and it's not going to do
the player irreparable harm, I'd say just have him wake up in a locked
room somewhere.
The name comes from a story that the author got tired of Holmes
(the stories were being published a chunk at a time in a magazine) and
decided to leave him in an inescapable trap (walls closing in, water
rising above their necks, etc) at the end of the final episode. The
magazine got a flood of reader letters and the author reconsidered.
But how to get him out of the inescapable trap? He started the next
episode with:
"After I got out of the trap..."
You're not trying to "get away" with anything here, it's just the
setup necessary for the next scenario. Establish, preferably by
quietly mentioning it to the player a little ahead of time, that he'll
have a chance to get out of the trap as soon as the scenario gets into
full play. Heck, maybe even offer him an extra experience point if he
role-plays it well.
The Magician's Force
This is something of a misnomer, but in principle it's the same.
The magician's force is a showman's technique where you seem to give a
person a choice, but in fact no matter which answer they give, it
works out the same.
The classic example is having two cards face down and asking the
sucker to "pick a card". He picks the one you want, great! He picks
the other one, you just remove it and turn over the remaining one -
note that your phrasing of the question is noncomittal and that you
just suavely and assuredly assume you actually asked him to pick a
card to _remove_.
As a GM this is even easier. You set up a couple of possible
choices and simply decide that they're *all* wrong. No matter which
door the player chooses, it's the one with the knockout gas behind it.
Of course, it's better not to make it as obvious as two doors. For
example, setting up a "new love interest" that may be a Nazi spy,
while at the same time setting up a ploy to sucker the player into
venturing into a dark warehouse at night. If the character suspects
the love interest, make her innocent. If he suspects the dark
warehouse to be a trap, it's not, but when he gets home his love
interest puts knockout drops in his drink.
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 20:59:51 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: some dumb questions for the list.
> > Try PC Pine. Nice and consistant font for everything.
>
> Or be a real man and telnet into a Unix shell account where you can use
> the -original- Pine. ^_^
I'd love to, but they don't give shell access to students here at
OU. I'd had it for a few years at Illinois College before this, and for a
year at Northwestern before that. But PC Pine is much better than any of
the other Win e-mail programs.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:38:48 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@usa.net>
Subject: Re: NEED IDEAS: FUN WITH NAZIS
Thank you. I figured that it would be true. Nobody _would_ expect the
Spanish Inquisition.
Filksinger
- -----Original Message-----
From: Lockie <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: NEED IDEAS: FUN WITH NAZIS
>*bows* The perfect response *L*
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
>To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
>Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 7:22 AM
>Subject: Re: NEED IDEAS: FUN WITH NAZIS
>
>
>>From: Lockie <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
>>>To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
>>>Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:32 AM
>>>Subject: Re: NEED IDEAS: FUN WITH NAZIS
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Ell Egyptoid <egyptoid@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Definitely use a Zeppelin, but: Don't fill the Zeppelin with
>>>>>hydrogen, use helium, sure its more expensive, but its worth it.
>>>>>Remember: good zeppelins have compartmentalized envelopes and
>>>>>can't be "popped" with one shot. Also the Nazis will have a supply
>>>>>of patch kits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Alternately, _do_ fill it with hydrogen. Have it blow up. Have the
heroes
>>>>cheer. Then, when they turn around, they discover the SS, weapons
>leveled,
>>>>grinning at them.
>>>>
>>>>Filksinger
>>>>
>>>
>>>and then the french resistance turns up.
>>
>>
>>Followed by the Spanish Inquisition.
>>
>>"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
>>
>>Filksinger
>>
>
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #70
****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 03:32 PM