Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 74
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 4:48 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #74
champ-l-digest Saturday, December 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 074
In this issue:
RE: Article on Canada (fwd)
Re: Fun w/Nazis
Re: Due South
Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
Living Shadows...
RE: Article on Canada (fwd)
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: EMP
[none]
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Double messages
Re: Living Shadows...
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitations and all...
Re: Magic Lock
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Arctic Fox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:33:52 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Article on Canada (fwd)
At 10:38 AM 12/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>How come those states are so tiny anyway?
>
>BRI
>
>
Because we said you only need 60,000 people to make a state.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:20:58 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Fun w/Nazis
At 08:44 AM 12/4/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Alright dammit, i got the line wrong...there's the lyrics.
>
>It fits the old adage: Tragedy plus Time equals Comedy.
>from: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/4020/spikelyr.html
>==
>Laissez le bon pim roulez! Elliott aka Egyptoid
>_________________________________________________________
>
nitpicking central, here.
I feel I should point out that this song was recorded _before_ the US
entered WWII.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 14:22:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Glen Sprigg <borealis@cois.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Due South
At 12:49 AM 12/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>With all the characters being posted to the list. Can anyone help with a
HERO GAMES version of Brenton Fresier?
>
If you mean the Canadian Mountie from the T.V. show, just use the Mountie
character sheet I just posted, minus the mutant powers ;-) Add a psych lim,
'Extremely naive,' and you've pretty much got it.
Glen
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:52:28 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: CAPTURING SOMEONE
At 04:03 PM 12/4/98 -0600, you wrote:
>> 2. What do you mean "not hurt" him? No Body, or no damage at all?
>Probably
>> no damage at all, right?
>
>They want to use him as breeding stock, so nothing that would prevent him
>from reproducing. Of course, they also have respect for him as a "perfect
>Aryan", so they won't want to damage him more than necessary.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Guy
>
Side thread:
I had a Modern campaign where some neo-nazis made a Dolph Lendgren-esque
Aryan Superman. (kinda like th Boys from Brazil). He started thinking for
himself (always a bad sign) and wound up running away. He set up as a
Hardboiled Private Detective with a eurasian female partner. What really
flamed off his former masters, though, was that he was now a faithful
practicing Jew.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 10:36:40 -0800
From: "lizard@mrlizard.com" <lizard@mrlizard.com>
Subject: Living Shadows...
I have a villain in my current campaign who has, among her other
powers, the ability to animate your shadow and have it attack you.
Since I was pressed for time when writing her up, I took the simplest
route and made it mental illusions, one image only, with enough dice
to make it likely the target would be at the 'takes stun' level.
However, this really isn't as optimal as I'd like. Other ideas?
The other things I've considered are:
a)Adding an Images power, linked, so that other people see the
shadows, but the target still takes Stun due to the mental half.
b)Summoning:The problem is, defining what is being summoned. Do I
define a generic 'shadow beast', or do I come up with the stats for
the shadows of each individual target?
(The other issue is combat itself...if you're battling a mental
illusion, do you run into normal combat time, with rolls to hit based
on ECV, or can I just say that since it's all in your mind, the
illusionist is running the show? Certainly, at the 'no longer
interacts with reality' level, that's what it should be, but that's
not the case here)
Time to dig out UM...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:41:09 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Article on Canada (fwd)
At 12:42 PM 12/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Fair enough, but let's get specific. Texas is big, right? Almost as big
>as Nova Scotia I think <nudge>. Alaska's a good size but that's because
>you guys bought it from the Russians. Say what you want about the
>Russians but they understand big geography. I would never dis Hawaii,
>it's still growing.
>
Well, both Texas and Hawaii used to be countries. Alaska only looks big
'cause it's so far north. The guys who make the maps screw up the stuff up
by the pole all the time. ;)
>Do you realize that I can drive from Toronto to Miami [24hours] in less
>time than it takes to drive across Ontario [about 30hours]. Now I'm
>flexing like Hans & Franz.
>
>
Geez. Are you sure it isn't just those lousy Canadian roads? Car and
driver took two Ford Expeditions from Point Barrow, Alaska (furthest north
in US) to Key West, Florida (furthest south Continental US, not sure about
Hawaii) in about 30 hours.
Wait, I probably remembered that wrong. It was just a day or two, but I
think it's like 9,000 miles.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 11:54:40 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> Your players can only rely on getting it back if you tell them they will.
> If you tell them they will or don't make them believe they won't necessarily
> be able to ever get it back you are not doing your job as GM. Other than
> that I agree with you.
If I'm going to do that, though, Independent only causes anxiety in the
players, which I'd prefer to avoid, while not causing a problem for the
characters beyond what the Focus gives them. And I don't like causing
the players anxiety...
I'm not saying this anxiety isn't worth a -2, just that I don't like it
used in that way. It depends on the players, though: some like that kind
of pressure. I also don't think I could maintain that pressure without
eventually taking at least one such item away, at least not forever.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 13:30:34 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: EMP
At 10:17 AM 12/5/1998 -0600, redbf@ldd.net wrote:
> I have a question on how a power would work. The power is:
>
>2d6 RKA, Area of Effect, Only versus electrical circuits.
>
> This is used to represent an EMP. Now, the villian that has this is
>going up against a hero in a battlesuit. What I am wondering is how the
>EMP would work, in game mechanics. What DEF and BODY does the attack go
>against?
> I assume that the Battlesuit does not get to count its full armor
>value against the attack, but I am wondering how this attack works.
> I know how to explain it in terms of special effects, I am just
>wondering on game mechanics.
Here's the EMP, one of eight effects of a nuclear blast as written by Steve
Long (from NUCLEAR WARFARE, printed in Hero System Almanac 2):
6d6 RKA, Area of Effect (9,216" radius [about 12 miles], + 3 1/2), Fully
Invisible (+1) = 495 Active Points. Common Limitations except for No KB
(-6 1/4), plus Only Affects Electrical Circuitry (-1). Cost = 60 points.
Common Limitations (those applicable to all eight described effects of the
blast) are:
OAF Bulky -1 1/2; 1 Charge which Never Recovers and destroys the bomb (-4;
in some cases this Charge will last for more than a single Phase); No Range
(-1/2; the launching system must supply the range for the bomb); and
Requires WF:Vehicle Weapons or Heavy Weapons (-1/2). Total = 6 1/2, less
with a Continuing Charge.
The above stats assume a one megaton nuclear bomb. Scale back the radius a
whole lot and remove the inapplicable Limitations (probably all of Steve's
Common Limitations, I would think, in the case of an EMP built into a
battlesuit) and you should be good to go. Oh, and don't forget to add
Personal Immunity or Hole in the Middle. :)
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:58:12 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: [none]
At 10:17 AM 12/5/1998 -0600, redbf@ldd.net wrote:
> I have a question on how a power would work. The power is:
>
>2d6 RKA, Area of Effect, Only versus electrical circuits.
>
> This is used to represent an EMP. Now, the villian that has this is
>going up against a hero in a battlesuit. What I am wondering is how the
>EMP would work, in game mechanics. What DEF and BODY does the attack go
>against?
> I assume that the Battlesuit does not get to count its full armor
>value against the attack, but I am wondering how this attack works.
> I know how to explain it in terms of special effects, I am just
>wondering on game mechanics.
Here's the EMP, one of eight effects of a nuclear blast as written by Steve
Long (from NUCLEAR WARFARE, printed in Hero System Almanac 2):
6d6 RKA, Area of Effect (9,216" radius [about 12 miles], + 3 1/2), Fully
Invisible (+1) = 495 Active Points. Common Limitations except for No KB
(-6 1/4), plus Only Affects Electrical Circuitry (-1). Cost = 60 points.
Common Limitations (those applicable to all eight described effects of the
blast) are:
OAF Bulky -1 1/2; 1 Charge which Never Recovers and destroys the bomb (-4;
in some cases this Charge will last for more than a single Phase); No Range
(-1/2; the launching system must supply the range for the bomb); and
Requires WF:Vehicle Weapons or Heavy Weapons (-1/2). Total = 6 1/2, less
with a Continuing Charge.
The above stats assume a one megaton nuclear bomb. Scale back the radius a
whole lot and remove the inapplicable Limitations (probably all of Steve's
Common Limitations, I would think, in the case of an EMP built into a
battlesuit) and you should be good to go. Oh, and don't forget to add
Personal Immunity or Hole in the Middle. :)
Damon
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|************* Beware of geeks bearing .GIFs ***************|
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|Damon & Peni's homepages: http://www.txdirect.net/~griffin |
| Children's Books -- Dolls -- X-Files -- Pulp Magazines |
| Computers -- Gaming -- All Human Knowledge |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 11:32:56 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> >Then it's a Psych Lim, not a limitation on the powers or other disad. If
> Makes more sense to me to base the amount of points saved on the amount of
> points that could be lost. Any Disad is going to be a fixed amount of
> points that have no relation to the number of points in the powers.
You missed my point, I think: I'm saying that if the character never has
the real danger of losing the points, then it should not be worth the
Limitation. If the danger exists, it should CERTAINLY be the Limitation
that is taken. If it modifies the character's behavior, but the danger
does not actually exist of losing it (or having one of the other
acceptable problems happen), it is a Psych Lim.
> >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).
>
> There is more to Independent than 'you will eventually lose the use of this
> power.' I can't say it any better than I already have.
Have you read all of my recent posts? I was giving examples of things
that make it worth the limitation that do not include losing it
permanently. In fact, that's what I said above. Keeping it locked up in
the safe is not losing it: it is choosing to take such extreme
precautions that it is of reduced utility and therefore worth the
limitation. I am AGREEING with you. Now, I know the Hero List has a long
reputation of people never changing their mind on an issue, but that is
not the case here. There are a number of ways for it to be worth the
limitation, not just at some point losing it. I still believe that the
willingness to lose it MUST be there (only if it makes sense, though),
but that the actual permanent loss is not necessary beyond that
willingness and possibility. The long term but temporary loss is enough
to make it worth the limitation, but that is only another example. There
are others. Losing the use of the power is, however, a VERY appropriate
use of the limitation, and keeps the character working towards recovery
or whatever.
You (plural) won the argument, I have won greater enligtenment and a
loss of prejudice.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 11:50:26 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> It is both an advantage and limitation of Independent. Don't forget
> Independent powers are not merely turned off by Dispel, they are destroyed.
> Agreed, a reasonable house rule. Not that house rule is a bad thing. Just
> the opposite, house rules are necessary.
True, so Independent could use all the help it can get...
> Your belief in this oversight, which doesn't directly matter to me since I
> don't play in your game is unreasonable to me. I do like and agree with
> your house rule in most if not all instances that derives from your belief.
We'll all see when the new book comes out. There have been numerous
versions of Independent, and it used to be that it couldn't be used
outside of Foci. Dispel used to be able to destroy those foci. All that
would be required is for them to have ported the Dispel over without
adjusting the paragraph on the subject to include other uses of
Independent. I can see that happening.
However, since you just agreed that my house ruling (which it is,
oversight or otherwise) was reasonable, I'll shut up about it now.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:30:06 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Double messages
Is anyone else getting double messages?
James
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 14:59:49 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Living Shadows...
At 10:36 AM 12/5/98 -0800, lizard@mrlizard.com wrote:
>I have a villain in my current campaign who has, among her other
>powers, the ability to animate your shadow and have it attack you.
>Since I was pressed for time when writing her up, I took the simplest
>route and made it mental illusions, one image only, with enough dice
>to make it likely the target would be at the 'takes stun' level.
>However, this really isn't as optimal as I'd like. Other ideas?
>
>The other things I've considered are:
>a)Adding an Images power, linked, so that other people see the
>shadows, but the target still takes Stun due to the mental half.
>
>b)Summoning:The problem is, defining what is being summoned. Do I
>define a generic 'shadow beast', or do I come up with the stats for
>the shadows of each individual target?
Or it could just be an Ego Attack, with the shadow as the special effect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Posterity shall triumph in this day's business,
even though we may regret it. I trust we shall not."
John Adams. 2 July 1776
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:04:20 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> I am unable to find the reference in the book to it being unique. In my
> game we have at least one unbreakable focus that has a duplicate unbreakable
> focus. A pair of swords that were made at the same time. With a proper
> adventure/quest the knowledge could be retrieved and more swords could be
> made. If unbreakable foci must be unique I have a problem.
You're right: as promissed I checked it when I got back home. It doesn't
say that they must be unique. It used to, though. However, it DOES say
that Breakable foci can be repaired/replaced, specifically. This
strongly implies that the Unbreakable ones cannot be, otherwise, why
mention that Breakable ones can?
In this case, though, by "unique" I do not mean "singular" (which was
not clear). It is still a unique pair of swords, in your example, and so
is perfectly appropriate. If both are stolen or destroyed, you are not
likely to replace them without a great quest and so on. In my game, I
have a house rule on multiple foci (that have no additive effect): pay 5
points to get a doubling of immediately available foci (you have a spare
gun on your person, and don't have to go back to the base: then you
wouldn't have to pay the points). The sword would fall into that
category, but in the official rules, I'd let it go.
> It was a combination of the way you stated that it could be done because it
Yes, I frequently have difficulty communicating what I am thinking,
especially by e-mail. Very frustrating at times. But I'm working on it.
I'm sure this is the source of your confusion.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 11:45:43 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> To me real chance still implies randomness. Without randomness there is no
> chance, only destiny.
By "real chance", I mean that if it is logically lost during the game,
it really is lost, permanently. The GM and the player must accept that
possibility and be willing to live with the consequences if it comes up.
If you are pre-destined to keep the item, in game terms that is not
Independent, so it doesn't come up (I am only discussing items -
Independent in use to enchant a place or a person is perfectly
reasonable and works fine). If the plot is that you lose it long term,
so long that it goes against the spirit of Foci, that is one example of
Independent also working. But that willingness should be there.
> We are still on different sides of the meaning of 'can' and 'will'. I am
> not going to change mine, and I don't think you are going to change yours.
Actually, I already have. You are prolonging this past its necessary
end. Read carefully: I refer to willingness, which I think is necessary
to the limitation, but it is not necessary to contrive plots to get the
item (never thought it was, actually), nor is it necessary that the item
be lost. But if there is no danger, there is no limitation, unless the
reason there is no danger is obsessive protectiveness on the part of the
character (for example).
> You and some others told this guy that
> if you took Independent on a power you would eventually lose it forever.
And that is a very real possibility, if it is run well. But, no, I admit
that it is not a necessity. However, it is still not appropriate for
Iron Man or a similar character that can rebuild it to take the
limitation: the possibility of losing the Focus should be there in that
case, without crippling the character. If Independent is taken, this
either protects the armor from destruction or theft because the GM
doesn't want to cripple the character, or the character is in great
danger of being crippled in the normal run of the game. So it is still
very much inappropriate, most likely, to take the limitation. Most of
the other limiting factors (protectiveness of the device, for one) are
also inappropriate.
>I
> disagree. You may lose it forever and that is sufficient reason for him not
> to take it in the context that he was asking about. But, Hero is difficult
> enough to learn without receiving misinformation about its rules.
I agree. And appologize: you start thinking of things in certain terms,
and no matter how well you know the rules it starts seeping over. Still,
a modification of my original stance is appropriate: does he want the
possibility of permanently losing the item, or does he want to be able
to rebuild it? In a superhero game, a powered armor character's armor
getting trashed is very in genre, and that will criple the character if
it is Indepenedent.
> high-level bickering over the finer points of a limitation that he shouldn't
Yes, he probably isn't. Hope not, though.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:29:19 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> Do you mean willing 'to make it happen' or willing 'to let it happen?'
I mean willing to let it happen, I'm reasonably sure he does as well:
could be wrong, though.
Hey, I said I was going to respond to every post: sorry about the
bandwidth.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:27:47 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> >And the fact that Superman avoided being exposed to its energies and
> >being stripped of its powers made it a boogeyman.....
>
> You say that like it is a bad thing. Boogeymen are some of the most
> fearsome creatures in the nine planes. Their breath alone is enough
Thank you. Needed levity.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:53:36 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> FOR GOD'S SAKE LET THIS THREAD END!!!!
Oh, bother. He's annoyed. Sorry. Thread's ending soon, I expect.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:33:28 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> I don't see where this is a problem if you don't want the possibility don't
> let them take Independent. If you are going to force the loss don't let
> them take Independent. Simply hit them over the head with a rubber bat. It
> would hurt less. Only let them take Independent if you are going to play it
> fair. What happens, happens. Whatever will be, will be.
That was actually both condescending and unfair, especially when you got
to the rubber bat. All Mr. Shaw has ever said is that the GM must be
willing to take the thing so limited away, and that the player must be
willing to live with that consequence should come up. I'm the only one I
know of that sounded like he insisted the item be purposely taken away,
and I didn't mean it, either, and have moderated my statements and my
opinion. I agree with what he said: the GM must be willing to take it
away.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 15:04:33 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>> Your players can only rely on getting it back if you tell them they will.
>> If you tell them they will or don't make them believe they won't
necessarily
>> be able to ever get it back you are not doing your job as GM. Other than
>> that I agree with you.
>
>If I'm going to do that, though, Independent only causes anxiety in the
>players, which I'd prefer to avoid, while not causing a problem for the
>characters beyond what the Focus gives them. And I don't like causing
>the players anxiety...
>
>I'm not saying this anxiety isn't worth a -2, just that I don't like it
>used in that way. It depends on the players, though: some like that kind
>of pressure. I also don't think I could maintain that pressure without
>eventually taking at least one such item away, at least not forever.
In my campaign, I don't let PCs buy Independent. It is a limitation on things
introduced into play by me, the GM. It is my license to take away whenever I
want, not my notice that I'm going to do so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Posterity shall triumph in this day's business,
even though we may regret it. I trust we shall not."
John Adams. 2 July 1776
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 13:02:55 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> I think that it is indeed winding down.
> Actually I'm glad it happened, and at this time. It will become the
> basis for a discussion of Independent in The Ultimate Gadgeteer. :-]
Then some good will come of this mess. That's a relief.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 13:06:44 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitations and all...
> Wow. What a response I got to my initial question about Independent
> Limitations. I can see that this is going to be a great list to be on.
> Thanks for your input, everyone. I don't think I'll be using it on this
> character (The guy in the battle armor).
It is such a relief to hear you say that. In the heat of the moment, I
forgot the original point of the thread. When the heat subsided, I got
worried you might have been scared off.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 13:15:45 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Magic Lock
> 40 STR Telekinesis, Area Effect , x2 area , uncontrolled,
> only to lock and secure doors and windows, 1 continuing
> 1-day charge.
Another possibility would be Entangle, Area, Entangle targeted
seperately, Only to seal doors.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:48:13 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
> That is completely reasonable. I hope that I never inadvertently disputed
> that fact. I never meant to imply that the loss of the item shouldn't be a
> possibility just that it didn't necessarily have to happen.
Not to the best of my knowledge. As I've said, I changed my mind. It
happens. Not often on this list, though. Now all I have to do is track
down the original poster and appologize for scaring him off.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:26:36 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
"J. Alan Easley" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
> To: <champs-l@sysabend.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Independent Limitation
>
> >However: the Limitation does not actually include this modification of
> >behavior. The limitation is, "You can lose the points permanently". The
> >item can be stolen, or destroyed, or dispelled, and in that case, the
> >points are GONE. This is all the limitation is. Period.
>
> Let's assume, for a moment, that both you and I completely agree with the
> above paragraph. The difference of opinion that still exists between us
> then is that you then infer that the character will lose the points
> permanently.
Nope: I don't think the character WILL lose the points permanently. Just
that the real possibility must exist, barring extreme behavior on the
character's part. That possibility means that if the game is run for an
infinitely long time, it will eventually be lost. But that is
increasingly hypothetical, and no, the item does not have to BE lost for
the possibility to exist.
Actually, I also believe I once again mispoke in the last paragraph,
anyway: I should say, the limitation is, "The points are seperate from
the character". Period. This implies a great number of possibilities,
the gravest of which is the possibility of the permanent loss of the
item (or the fact that you have just pumped points into a location or a
person). There certainly are others.
> Of course, I think you are wrong and I am right. I won't ever agree that
> 'can' and 'will' are the same, in this context.
And I've agreed, except in the case of that theoretical infinitely long
game. Willingness to take it away, if it is appropriate for the events
of the game, is all I ask.
> loss there doesn't have to be one. I understand that you believe that if
> the GM doesn't ever force it that the threat is meaningless,
Not "force it": merely be willing to do it. Subtly different.
>that it should
> be represented with a Psych Lim.
Indeed. As I am unwilling to do it, I would require just the Psych Lim
and a normal Focus. But that's different, and I have moderated my
opinion.
> I still disagree. Psych Lims don't
> enforce a punishment for disobeying them.
I am maintaining that if you are not going to enforce said punishment as
the GM, that it is only a Psych Lim. If you are, it is a Limitation, and
well worth it I might add. But you have to know ahead of time whether or
not you are willing to enforce the punishment to actually be able to do
this: I am not, at least not for a large item, so I know which choice I
would require (I'm flexible on this: if someone REALLY wants one for
character conception, I'm ok with that, but it should be a good reason).
If there is no "inescapable long term consequence" to losing the Focus,
because you will get it back in the short term, it should be a Psych
Lim. If the potential is there to lose it permanently or long-term, you
take major steps toward protecting it that actually reduce its benefits,
and so on, it is a Limitation.
> Secondly, to my way of thinking a -2 limitation is justified if it makes the
> power useless for 2 out of 3 games. 'I only paid a 3rd normal price, I
> should only get to use it a 3rd of the time.' An Independent power placed
> in a place such as a base or dungeon that is off-camera most of the time
> should be enough to justify the limitation without it ever being taken away.
In a place or as a Curse or Blessing or whatever on a person is a
perfectly reasonable use of it in all cases that I have seen: you are
seperating yourself from actual points to enchant that place. Only in
the case of Foci was there ever a dispute, which is over now.
> When I made statements earlier about random chance you said you weren't
> talking about random chance. Now you start talking about possibilities
> again.
Possibility as in GM's willingness to remove the item, not as in random
chance.
> I accept that it isn't an explicit part of the limitation. I wish
> you would accept that a definite, eventual, permanent loss of the power
> isn't either.
I did, two days ago. Only the willingness do I think is necessary, and
even then it doesn't actually have to happen. Though I think a long-term
quest for, say, a 50 point item (if an OAF, a 200 active point
doohickey) would be fun.
> If you can give me one quote that says the power WILL be
> lost, I will accept it.
There is no such quote.
> We are getting closer to an agreement in this past paragraph, the part that
> still separates us is your feeling that it is impossible to make a -2
> limitation worth it unless the power completely goes away at some time.
No, it is impossible to make it a -2 limitation without recognition and
willingness to lose the item. There are many other measures, and keep in
mind I am focusing of Foci, here. Long term loss, extreme
protectiveness, permanent spells on people or places: all make it worth
a -2. It's over, dude.
> This just doesn't make sense to me. I can get a -2 Limitation by picking a
> combination of other limitations that combined will simply make the power
> many times unusable, but would never completely strip me of the power.
But only Independent includes the possibility of completely stripping
you of the power, so that wasn't quite fair. But a possibility is only
that, and isn't necessary: only willingness to accept the possible
consequences.
> My initial reaction was "NO!, how can you possibly buy off the Independent
> limitation?" The points, strictly speaking are not yours any longer. Then
> on second thought as long as the character is already at a points deficit
> because of creating an Independent power and is merely reabsorbing points,
> whether or not they are from the same Independent power that was originally
> created. Of course the storyline justification should be good enough to
> justify the buying off of a limitation, which is true regardless of what
> limitation is being bought off. Thanks for the idea.
That's kind of my thought on the matter, as well. But only if you've
ever made an Independent item.
Yes, I am going to reply to each and every one of your posts with "I
agree", almost, until I find one that says you noticed...
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 15:18:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Glen Sprigg <borealis@cois.on.ca>
Subject: Arctic Fox
Here's the leader of the Canadian Shield East team; after this, I'll do the
members alphabetically.
************************
ARCTIC FOX
Val Char Cost 100+ Disadvantages
15 STR 5 20 VUNLERABILITY: 2x STUN from fire/heat attacks
29 DEX 57 15 PSYCH LIM: Showoff, loves publicity
28 CON 36 15 PSYCH LIM: Overconfidence
12 BODY 4 5 PSYCH LIM: Claustrophobic
26 INT 16 10 HUNTED: Chillblade (As Pow, 8-)
15 EGO 10 5 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES: White hair
20 PRE 10 10 STYLE DISADVANTAGE: Karate
26 COM 8 15 WATCHED: Canadian Government (Mo Pow, NCI, 14-)
14 PD 11 10 REPUTATION: Publicity-hungry heroine, 11-
12 ED 7 15 SUSCEPTIBILITY: 1d6 STUN/phase from intense heat
7 SPD 31 5 ENRAGED when confined, 8-, Rec. 11-
15 REC 12 15 SECRET ID: Colleen Lorentz
60 END 2 10 DNPC: brother Michael (norm, 11, useful)
40 STUN 6 142 EXPERIENCE
Pts Powers/Skills/Talents/Perks END/Roll
25 KARATE PACKAGE OCV DCV Damage/Effect
Block +2 +2 Block, Abort
Disarm -1 +1 45 STR Disarm
Dodge -- +5 Dodge, Affects All Attacks, Abort
Punch/Snap Kick +0 +2 9d6 Strike
Knifehand Strike-2 +0 1d6+1 HKA (2d6+1 w/STR)
Side/Spin Kick -2 +1 11d6 Strike
16 +4 DC w/Karate
22 +11" Running (17" total) 1/5"
16 8 PD/8 ED Armor, OIF - Costume
9 +3 to all PER Rolls
5 Discriminatory Smell
20 2 BODY Regeneration
8 +8 PD/+8 ED vs. cold attacks only (-1)
15 1d6 HKA (2d6 w/STR) Claws 1/3
3 LS: Intense Cold
3 Acrobatics 15-
3 Breakfall 15-
3 Computer Programming 14-
3 Conversation 13-
2 KS: Karate 11-
3 Oratory 13-
3 Persuasion 13-
2 PS: Model 11-
3 SC: Biochemistry 14-
3 SC: Biology 14-
3 SC: Genetics 14-
3 Streetwise 13-
4 Contacts: Prime Minister 11-
Premier of Ontario 11-
OCV: 10+ DCV: 10+ ECV: 5 Phases: 2,4,6,7,9,11,12
CHAR + POWERS = TOTAL = BASE = DISADS
215 177 392 100 292
NAME: Colleen Lorentz, Model, Geneticist
PERSONAL DETAILS: Born: December 12, 1967. Height: 5,8". Weight: 61 kg.
Hair: White, long. Eyes: Silver-blue.
BACKGROUND: From her earliest days, Colleen was beautiful. Her parents
entered her in modelling contests from the cradle. She grew up in Toronto
with the knowledge that she was a beautiful girl.
However, since her fourteenth birthday Colleen had understood that
her looks would not last forever. Also, she did not want to be remembered
as a typical model with nothing going for her but a great body. What most
people didn't realize was that under that beautiful figure lurked a very
impressive brain. She didn't care for people who saw her solely for her
looks; she preferred to date the boys who recognized her intelligence as
well as her beauty. This, of course, made her appear somewhat cold to many
of the young, hormone-infested boys in high school. Soon she had earned the
nickname, Arctic Fox.
As she got older, her beauty only enhanced, and she became a
professional model at the age of fifteen. Everyone said she could become a
supermodel. Six years later, she was Miss Canada, and the world seemed to
be her oyster. At the Miss Universe competition tha year, she placed third,
the highest finish ever by a Canadian.
Colleen had excelled in school, particularly in science. She was
fascinated by biology and biochemistry, and studied them at the University
of Toronto. She also got involved with genetics, and enjoyed herself
tremendously. When she won the Miss Canada contest, she took a brief break
from her studies, but kept her hand in by reading a lot of journals during
her cross-country jaunts.
As superheroes became more and more prominent, and Canada's lack of
superpowered protectors became more and more evident, Colleen felt an urge
to join the never-ending battle with the badly-dressed forces of evil. She
had no superpowers, but she had read a recent article on animal genetics
that had given her some ideas. Her old high school nickname sprang to mind,
and Colleen began to study the genetics of the northern creature. She would
indeed become an Arctic Fox.
She drafted her younger brother Michael, who also had a keen
scientific mind, as an assistant. They worked for four solid years until
her final test was ready. She injected herself with the serum, and entered
the radiation chamber. When it was all over, she passed out. When she woke
up, she was thrilled to discover that it had worked; she was incredibly
agile, and had lost none of her beauty or looks. She felt very...foxy.
Donning a costume of her own design, she began her private war on
the slime that infested the streets of the city. She was successful enough
to draw media attention, which didn't bother her in the slightest. In fact,
she reveled in it. She LOVED being a superhero.
One day, several months after her debut, she was tracking a drug
smuggling gang when they surprised her. Outgunned and in serious trouble,
Fox had nowhere to go. The gang raised their guns in unison, and Colleen
had a sudden flash of impending mortality. She tried to leap away, but it
was too late; they fired.
The bullets didn't hit her, though. Somehow, they had been
deflected away. Looking up, Arctic Fox saw a figure clad in red and black,
looking awfully like an RCMP officer. He looked down to see she was unhurt,
then waded into the drug runners, fists flying. Somehow, the gang members
ouldn't hurt him, either. Colleen saw the hazy nimbus surrounding him, and
realized he was projecting a force field. Another superhero! She gleefully
leapt into the fray.
After the brief battle, the Mountie introduced himself, and offered
Arctic Fox a position in the new Canadian Shield team. She accepted
instantly. Her brother Michael was brought on in the support division.
For a few months, Arctic Fox served proudly with the team, as their
most public figure. Then, during a battle with Master Stroke, Arctic Fox
was almost fatally injured. Despite her quick-healing abilities, she spent
several weeks in hospital. When she got out, she suffered a confidence
crisis, and took a break from active superheroing. Colleen returned to the
lab, remaining with the Canadian Shield as a support team member. She spent
a lot of time working behind the scenes. Deep down, she wanted to get back
into action, but something held her back.
When the Asesinos were sent to destroy the Canadian Shield, they
defeated most of the team. Ocelote and Tombstone Kid got to the lab where
Colleen was working, intent on destroying the place. However, Colleen's
costume was still in her locker, and she donned it and surprised the two
killers. Off-guard, Tombstone Kid was no match for her speed, and fell
easily. Ocelote was more of a challenge, but Arctic Fox triumphed after a
hard-fought battle. Her confidence restored, she immediately rejoined the
team, and has been active ever since.
She has never tired of the spotlight, but over time she matured to
the point where she was offered leadership of the Eastern team when the
Canadian Shield was divided. Her nomination was a surprise; she had
expected Huron or Slapshot to be offered the position, but the Mountie
supported her fully, and she accepted the job.
QUOTE: "All looks and no brains? Not likely."
PERSONALITY: Arctic Fox still has the excitement about being a superhero,
although it is tempered somewhat by the memory of her near-death. She loves
the spotlight, and will go out of her way to look good for any camera crews
nearby. Her injuries dampened her enthusiasm, but after her battle with
Ocelote she hasn't looked back. She's not as overconfident as she used to
be, and is more careful. Still, she'll do what she has to do to look her best.
Colleen has a bubbly personality, but tried hard to cultivate her
intellectual side as well. She hates to be seen as a dumb blonde, and will
go out of her way to embarrass anyone who treats her as such. Otherwise,
she is friendly and highly extroverted. She has dated several men,
including members of the team. She is not promiscuous, just looking to have
fun. When she is off-duty, she can often be found dancing the night away at
the Hard Rock Café, orother popular Toronto night spots.
POWERS/TACTICS: Arctic Fox has heightened dexterity and speed, as well as
highly improved senses. Her fingernails have hardened into claws, and she
is an expert in karate. Her body is adapted to cold, and she heals very
quickly. However, the adaptations of her body have left her with a
vulnerability to heat and fire, and she avoids opponents with such capabilities.
In combat, she will generally go after slower opponents, such as
agents, using her speed to best advantage to make them look foolish. She
will also deal with other martial artists and other 'wildcat' types. Since
becoming the leader of the team, she tries to concentrate more on overall
tactics, although her tendency to show off is always present.
****************************
Constructive criticism will be appreciated. Flames will be snuffed.
Glen
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #74
****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 01:51 PM