Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 146
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 5:57 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #146
champ-l-digest Monday, January 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 146
In this issue:
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Another Odd Idea for Speed
More Triggered Questions
Re: Broken Kingdoms
Re: superleap attacks
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: More Triggered Questions
Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: CAK (was Bad Habits of Poor Gamers)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Spirits (was Character: Barrow-Wight)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Camp Councilor
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:32:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Curt Hicks wrote:
> I agree that 'in the context of normal superhero campaigns' this is true;
> because in 'normal superhero campaigns' players always buy their defenses
> up, regardless of whether or not they actually have any justification to
> or not. (Note that I am not talking about common sense precautions such
> as armor or a reinforced suit, that should be obvious when considering
> power level.) However, I still don't see the difference between starting off
> with a 12D6 EB and a 4D6 RKA when a character has a CAK.
Well, note that characters powers as such should not necessarily be
affected by their choice of Disadvantages (except in cases like NCM/Age) -
but the way they /use/ such power should be.
IOW, a character with a CAK can have a 10d6 RKA for all I care (and if he
has the points)...but he won't use it to kill people, or if it might kill
people, etc.
A character with CAK could carry a sword (HKA), and use it to disarm and
humiliate his opponents (cutting their belts so their pants fall down,
etc.) Another character (with a slightly more lax version of the disad)
might carry guns, but only use them to wound or cripple and not to kill.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:18:11 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 08:55 AM 1/18/1999 -0600, Curt Hicks wrote:
>I agree that 'in the context of normal superhero campaigns' this is true;
>because in 'normal superhero campaigns' players always buy their defenses
>up, regardless of whether or not they actually have any justification to
>or not. (Note that I am not talking about common sense precautions such
>as armor or a reinforced suit, that should be obvious when considering
>power level.) However, I still don't see the difference between starting off
>with a 12D6 EB and a 4D6 RKA when a character has a CAK.
On average a 12d6 EB will generate 12 BODY, and a 4d6 RKA will generate 14
BODY; not much difference. But the Normal (EB) Damage attack is affected
by ordinary (non-resistant) PD or ED, and the RKA damage is not.
A Competent Normal can be expected to have 5 PD (BBB p.134). Hit such a
character with the 12d6 EB attack and almost half of the damage is absorbed
by the character's normal PD; assuming an average STUN total of 42, that
character would be Out Cold and no longer an immediate threat -- no reason
to beat up on him any longer.
Hit the same target with a 4d6 RKA and *all 14 points* of BODY get through;
the character is dying, and Paramedic rolls to assist him are at -2. If
assistance isn't available immediately, that character will be *dead* in 72
seconds.
How can you not see a difference between the two? A Normal Damage attack
and a Killing Damage attack of the *same* Damage Class only do equivalent
damage against a target with resistant defenses.
I do agree that characters with a CAK should err on the side of caution
when selecting -- and certainly when using -- attacks, including
non-Killing Attacks of potentially lethal power. But the fact that
significant Normal Damage will be absorbed by ordinary defenses gives the
12d6 EB-wielder more leeway than the character with the 4d6 RKA.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:45:51 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Another Odd Idea for Speed
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
<snip>
>This increases bookkeeping, as I said, and anyone who says it is not in the
>rules will be hit with a BBB (hardcover). Other comments/suggestions
>welcome.
Evidently, if I want comments, I shouldn't threaten people.:)
Is it really that bad, that good, or that insignificant?
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:56:53 -0600
From: "Guy Hoyle" <ghoyle1@airmail.net>
Subject: More Triggered Questions
If I cast a Triggered power on something 3 times (for instance), and set
them all to go off with the same trigger (for instance, when I say
"Shazam!"), will they all go off on the same phase? Doesn't this interfere
with the "one attack per phase" rule?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."
- --Charles Fort
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:01:24 -0600
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
Subject: Re: Broken Kingdoms
> From: bobby farris <redbf@ldd.net>
>
> I am going to be starting a fantasy campaing using Broken
> Kingdoms and wondered if anyone else has used the Broken Kingdoms
> setting for a fantasy campaign? Does anyone have a map of it? All I have
> is a VERY crude one.
> Does anyone have any helpful suggestions or neat little tricks
> for runnging a fantasty campaign?
> ANY help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I don't have Broken Kingdoms, but I do have 12+ years of FH under my belt
:-) Could you be more specific about issues you might be concerned about.
I could bore the list to tears with tricks and suggestions, but most of
them will only apply to a limited set of Fantasy campaigns. Why don't you
tell us a little bit about how you see the campaign going: Amount of
combat, amount of magic, relative power of characters, type of fantasy
(high, epic, gritty, etc.), and so on?
Steven
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:38:49 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: superleap attacks
At 06:21 AM 1/18/1999 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> Here's an alternate method that I just thought of:
> Buy Superleap, with the +1/4 Advantage Bouncable. For each Skill Level
>used, the character can strike something in mid-leap and change direction
>(somewhat like the way Energy Blasts are Bounced).
> One could even add the Cumulative Advantage to this, and allow the
>character to increase his Leaping by the amount of his Superleap with each
>Bounce (and there you have Bouncing Boy!).
> It's probably a little tweakish, but it's also probably a good starting
>point for finding the "right" way. :-]
Bouncing an Attack is a standard combat modifier (+1 to +3 OCV), applicable
to any ranged attack and requiring one Combat Skill Level (applicable to
that attack) per bounce.
TUMA (p.118-120) gives some optional rules for Ranged Martial Arts.
Why not just give the character a Savate manuever or two, built as Ranged,
and enough CSLs with the maneuver(s) to allow as many bounces as the
character wants. Three levels, for example, should allow the character to
bounce off two opponents before hitting the third (hit actual target, and
the only one who will take damage from the attack).
If the above maneuver could be combined with Sweep, the character could do
damage on *each* bounce, affecting all three opponents.
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: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:22:09 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 10:32 AM 1/18/1999 -0600, Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>A character with CAK could carry a sword (HKA), and use it to disarm and
>humiliate his opponents (cutting their belts so their pants fall down,
>etc.) Another character (with a slightly more lax version of the disad)
>might carry guns, but only use them to wound or cripple and not to kill.
This strikes me as naive (not on your part, but on the part of the
character you describe here), but if that naivete was in keeping with the
rest of the character's description, I guess I'd allow it. The player
should be prepared for the consequences, though.
I am not on a rant against guns, nor in favor of greatly increased gun
control, but a realistic viewpoint is called for when you choose to use a
gun. Simply playing the odds isn't good enough, and almost guarantees that
eventually someone you point you weapon at *will* die, regardless of your
intent. The character does not have 100% accuracy with aim, cannot
anticipate all possible variables in combat, and cannot predict with
complete reliability the defenses of his target.
I really believe that guns (all Killing Attacks, I just use the gun as a
convenient example) should be treated as follows:
1. ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded. Treat it as if it is, even if you're
"sure" it isn't. (No, this doesn't mean you should enter combat without
checking to see that your ammo is in place.)
2. NEVER draw the weapon unless you intend to use it.
3. NEVER point the weapon unless you intent to shoot that person.
4. NEVER shoot at someone unless you are prepared to kill that person
(killing that person need not be your intent, but if you aren't prepared
for the possibility, don't bother drawing your weapon.)
I would require a character with an Intensity modifier of +5 or better to
live by the above stricture. A character with a +10 modifier would try to
make sure everyone around him did, too.
A character who thinks he'll always be able to "shoot to wound" is
eventually going to get a nasty shock. Hopefully in the form of a felony
conviction, with jail time and the loss of the right to carry a weapon
after his release.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:50:24 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: More Triggered Questions
At 11:56 AM 1/18/1999 -0600, Guy Hoyle wrote:
>If I cast a Triggered power on something 3 times (for instance), and set
>them all to go off with the same trigger (for instance, when I say
>"Shazam!"), will they all go off on the same phase? Doesn't this interfere
>with the "one attack per phase" rule?
I can see where you'd rather not allow this for attack Powers, but what
about other sorts of things? Should I not be able to go around to each
entrance of my castle and set an Entangle-based trap with a Trigger at each
entrance? It is, of course, unlikely they'd all go off at the same time,
even though they'd all have the same Trigger (when someone comes through
the door). Trigger needs to have the same parameters no matter what type
of Power it's applied to.
Earlier it was suggested that you not be able to use the Power again until
the Trigger is tripped on the first one you set. That wouldn't allow me to
set multiple traps around the castle, so I don't like that.
END is paid for the Power when the Trigger is set. Suppose the character
could not recover those END points until the Trigger was tripped? That
won't automatically keep multiple attacks from going off in the same phase,
but it will limit the strength and number of such attacks.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:54:36 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
At 12:08 AM 1/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 02:28 AM 1/18/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>> 48 4D6 Killing Attack HTH,"Claws",vs physical defense,Reduced
>>>> Penetration
>>>
>>> Gods!! This thing is doing 7 1/2 dice killing!! With sword or
>>>without. At the cost of 11 endurance a swing.
>>
>>It is the Balrog. 'nuff said.
>
>Thats why I was a bit mystified that someone said it was underpowered. I
>dont know what kind of hero games HE plays but that would totally
>obliterate any PC in MY Fantasy Hero game.... shrugging
Right. I might actually up it to 50% Damage Reduction in the final
write-up. To enter into a superhero game, he'd need higher resistant,
hardened defenses to keep his nasty rep.
>by the way, thanks for straightening me out about Istari and stuff, I never
>knew thata bout them :) Comes from reading the Silmarilian in Junior High,
>oh my thats a while ago
Me, too. I read it in 8th grade, about 20 years ago. I just make a point of
re-reading every few years. I always notice something new!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
whose body Nature is, and God the soul."
Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:33:11 -0800
From: Lizard <lizard@dnai.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Your recommendation makes sense in a 'realistic' universe. However, in
a cinmeiac universe, this is not the case. Cinematic heroes CAN always
shoot to wound, do 'stunt shots', etc.
Rules should enforce genre, not reality.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:59:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
> On average a 12d6 EB will generate 12 BODY, and a 4d6 RKA will generate 14
> BODY; not much difference. But the Normal (EB) Damage attack is affected
> by ordinary (non-resistant) PD or ED, and the RKA damage is not.
>
> A Competent Normal can be expected to have 5 PD (BBB p.134). Hit such a
> character with the 12d6 EB attack and almost half of the damage is absorbed
> by the character's normal PD; assuming an average STUN total of 42, that
> character would be Out Cold and no longer an immediate threat -- no reason
> to beat up on him any longer.
>
> Hit the same target with a 4d6 RKA and *all 14 points* of BODY get through;
> the character is dying, and Paramedic rolls to assist him are at -2. If
> assistance isn't available immediately, that character will be *dead* in 72
> seconds.
>
> How can you not see a difference between the two? A Normal Damage attack
> and a Killing Damage attack of the *same* Damage Class only do equivalent
> damage against a target with resistant defenses.
>
These are all valid points. However they are also all based on mechanics,
not in-character experience with the power. I think it quite possible that
a character might not know whether his 'Meson Blast' is a 'killing attack'
and bypasses 'non-resistant' defenses, or an 'energy blast' with even
Joe Normal having some innate resistance.
But I do agree about the defenses thing. I missed that.
> I do agree that characters with a CAK should err on the side of caution
> when selecting -- and certainly when using -- attacks, including
> non-Killing Attacks of potentially lethal power. But the fact that
> significant Normal Damage will be absorbed by ordinary defenses gives the
> 12d6 EB-wielder more leeway than the character with the 4d6 RKA.
>
> Damon
>
OK.
Curt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:34:51 -0500
From: Mike Christodoulou <Cypriot@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: CAK (was Bad Habits of Poor Gamers)
At 10:32 AM 1/18/99 -0600, Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>A character with CAK could carry a sword (HKA), and use it to disarm and
>humiliate his opponents (cutting their belts so their pants fall down,
>etc.) Another character (with a slightly more lax version of the disad)
>might carry guns, but only use them to wound or cripple and not to kill.
Well, I might take exception on that last part (A player would have a
hard time convincing me to accept that.), but in general you're right.
I have a character with an overdeveloped CAK, but who knows a martial
killing maneuver. (Technically, it's just a very powerful AP attack.)
He simply won't use it against a living being. He tried it once, and
very nearly killed his opponent, and won't ever risk that again. (Ok
... In fairness, it wasn't the blow that almost killed him. It was
reverting back to human form and falling off a 60mph truck.)
====================== =================================================
Mike Christodoulou "Never doubt that a small group of committed
Cypriot@Concentric.Net citizens can change the world. In fact, it is
(770) 662-5605 the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
====================== =================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:31:54 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 11:33 AM 1/18/1999 -0800, Lizard wrote:
>Your recommendation makes sense in a 'realistic' universe. However, in
>a cinmeiac universe, this is not the case. Cinematic heroes CAN always
>shoot to wound, do 'stunt shots', etc.
>
>Rules should enforce genre, not reality.
Point taken, but if you'll permit the nitpick: *Genre* rules should
enforce the genre; core rules should apply equally to all types of campaign
unless superceded by a genre sourcebook.
If we're all discussing, specifically, how CAK should be handled in a
Cinematic Hero game -- rather than how CAK should be handled within the
broader Hero System -- I'll withdraw my comments.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:04:29 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Spirits (was Character: Barrow-Wight)
At 08:39 AM 1/18/99 -0800, Christopher Taylor wrote:
>>Hey Scott...?
>>
>>Did you maybe forget something important here?
>>
>>Like... his desolid? (or were you just donating all of those extra
>>'affects real world' points?)
>
>No he's using the spirit rules, which I really dislike. Really really
>dislike, and hope they leave out of the system. They arent needed and make
>there to be two classes of characters (oh joy, back to the pre 4th edition
>rules).
There are already more than two classes of characters (in this sense of
the word "class") in 4th Ed. You have your regular characters, and your
Automatons. Add in computers, AIs, Vehicles (and in TUV I expand this to
also include computerized and self-aware Vehicles), and even Bases.
Throwing Spirits into the mix as yet another entity type (as I call them)
wouldn't hurt things that badly.
- ---
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: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:39:42 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 12:59 PM 1/18/1999 -0600, Curt Hicks wrote:
>These are all valid points. However they are also all based on mechanics,
>not in-character experience with the power. I think it quite possible that
>a character might not know whether his 'Meson Blast' is a 'killing attack'
>and bypasses 'non-resistant' defenses, or an 'energy blast' with even
>Joe Normal having some innate resistance.
Hmmm...yes, you're quite right. Unless we're talking about a "mystery
powers" game, the *player* can't help but know what kind of damage his
character's attack can be expected to dish out. But you could easily
roleplay situations where the character didn't know the parameters of his
own abilities.
This is in fact very appropriate for the follow up to many character origin
stories. Many campaigns skip from "lab accident" (background history) to
"full-fledged costumed superhero with a rep and two hunteds" (first game),
but for those who roleplay the Year One stuff, there's no reason most
heroes *should* know exactly what they're capable of at that point.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:59:13 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
At 11:04 AM 1/18/99 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> To forbid the second character from using his Aid on the first *for no
>BG> reason other than campaign point caps* is unfair, illogical, and
violation
>BG> of genre.
>
>It is fair and logical to allow some characters in a 12DC campaign to have
>24d6 Energy Blasts and 8d6 Killing Attacks, but not others.
>
>I will remember that next time you tell me that one of my interpretations
>is grotesque.
Remember too, though, what I said (and you snipped, for the sake brevity
I assume) about checking these things at the time of character creation.
That said, if you manager get your hands on a copy of TUV at a store or
something (it's probably too much to ask you to actually buy a copy), look
up "Mega-Attacks" in Chapter One (assuming Bruce and Steve don't snip it)
for my take on how a 24d6 Energy Blast or 8d6 Killing Attack in a 12DC
campaign can be perfectly reasonable.
- ---
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: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:07:11 -0600
From: Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org>
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Rat writes:
>> Given that I'm in the second camp, and Rat's in the first (with Tim?),
>> do some of our disagreements now seem like cross-misinterpretations?
>
>You do misundersand, but you do not understand what it is you misunderstand.
>There is only one camp: caps are tools GMs use to ensure that nothing
>unbalances their campaigns. They should be used during all aspects of the
>game, not just character creation, not just during play.
Does the existence of people outside The One True Camp not give rise to
a *suspicion* that Your Opinion is not The Universal Opinion, Rat?
Pushing, unusual maneuvers (haymakers, move-throughs, fastball specials),
one-shot gadgets, ... all of these things have often been used to exceed
the campaign DC caps of the thirty or so campaigns (ten or so groups of
people) I've been in. And some of these groups have included Hero authors,
advisors and friends of GMD and SP, etc.
If you build a character with two separate 12 DC attack powers (with
compatible targeting), you have a character who can legally activate 24
DC of attack powers. Your GM is obligated, if he's running a 12 DC game,
to tell you to "fix it" so you can't, or disallow the character.
One way to "fix it" is to put a psychological limitation on the PLAYER,
which says "oh, this is a 12 DC game -- of *course* I can't activate
more than 12 DC of attack powers".
BUT THIS IS ONLY ONE WAY, AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST WAY.
In my opinion, putting the powers (if appropriate) into an Elemental
Control will accomplish that. You could even create a house rule that
says "attack powers in different slots of an Elemental Control can go off
together, but only up to a total number of DCs equal to the largest such
power".
Sheesh. Please, quote out of the Holy Book where it says that DC caps
should be enforced "during all aspects of the game"? And then see how
many people really consider the BBB to be holy scripture, instead of
merely construction rules + campaigning guidelines...
Donald
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:13:18 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
>I agree that 'in the context of normal superhero campaigns' this is true;
>because in 'normal superhero campaigns' players always buy their defenses
>up, regardless of whether or not they actually have any justification to
>or not. (Note that I am not talking about common sense precautions such
>as armor or a reinforced suit, that should be obvious when considering
>power level.) However, I still don't see the difference between starting off
>with a 12D6 EB and a 4D6 RKA when a character has a CAK.
Because the one expects to seriously injure and potentially kill some of his
common opponents and the other doesn't? My point was I if the CAK character
walks into a situation and there's an obvious supervillain doing something,
I wouldn't penelize him for tossing the 12D6 EB at him but I might well look
at him askance if he opened up with the killing attack. He has no reason to
expect the former to be even dangerous to the target, let alone potantially
lethal.
Personally, I think buying defenses up some is quite in genre and being
fussy about it within some sane limits is just chafing against the genre
conventions. Admittedly I tend to look askance at a martial artist with a
20 PD without some rationale, but I don't even blink at a 12-16.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:20:30 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
>
> From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
>
>> On average a 12d6 EB will generate 12 BODY, and a 4d6 RKA will generate 14
>> BODY; not much difference. But the Normal (EB) Damage attack is affected
>> by ordinary (non-resistant) PD or ED, and the RKA damage is not.
>>
>> A Competent Normal can be expected to have 5 PD (BBB p.134). Hit such a
>> character with the 12d6 EB attack and almost half of the damage is absorbed
>> by the character's normal PD; assuming an average STUN total of 42, that
>> character would be Out Cold and no longer an immediate threat -- no reason
>> to beat up on him any longer.
>>
>> Hit the same target with a 4d6 RKA and *all 14 points* of BODY get through;
>> the character is dying, and Paramedic rolls to assist him are at -2. If
>> assistance isn't available immediately, that character will be *dead* in 72
>> seconds.
>>
>> How can you not see a difference between the two? A Normal Damage attack
>> and a Killing Damage attack of the *same* Damage Class only do equivalent
>> damage against a target with resistant defenses.
>>
>
>These are all valid points. However they are also all based on mechanics,
>not in-character experience with the power. I think it quite possible that
>a character might not know whether his 'Meson Blast' is a 'killing attack'
>and bypasses 'non-resistant' defenses, or an 'energy blast' with even
>Joe Normal having some innate resistance.
I think he'll know pretty quickly once he's in the super arena. And since
in my opinion the mechanics reflect the in-game 'real world' properties of
the abilities, most likely anyone but a raw newbie is quite aware of how
deadly...or not...his attack is.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:43:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin wrote:
> At 10:32 AM 1/18/1999 -0600, Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
> >A character with CAK could carry a sword (HKA), and use it to disarm and
> >humiliate his opponents (cutting their belts so their pants fall down,
> >etc.) Another character (with a slightly more lax version of the disad)
> >might carry guns, but only use them to wound or cripple and not to kill.
>
> This strikes me as naive (not on your part, but on the part of the
> character you describe here), but if that naivete was in keeping with the
> rest of the character's description, I guess I'd allow it. The player
> should be prepared for the consequences, though.
>
> I am not on a rant against guns, nor in favor of greatly increased gun
> control, but a realistic viewpoint is called for when you choose to use a
> gun.
That, I think, depends heavily in the genre. In a realistic game or a
Dark Champs game, I completely agree. In a four-color (or wilder) game,
though, this sort of 'Pacifist Weapons Master*' is easily an appropriate
character concept. Of course, you should always make the character with
the skills to back it up: I'd suggest they take several levels of OCV with
'only to offset hit location penalties' for example (allows you to hit the
hand as easily as the body).
In fact, Batman's razor-edged batarangs have been brought up - he's used
them to cripple foes before, yet he certainly has a Code Against Killing.
Yet we don't get the impression that every time Batman uses them, he
thinks 'I might kill that guy' - nor do we think that Batman's code is
easily shrugged off. I mean, in _Dark Knight Returns_, I recall him using
the batarangs on a person - yet he is unable to bring himself to kill his
arch-enemy the Joker. Sounds like someone with a Total CAK using an RKA
to me...
J
* - many thanks to S. John Ross for that term - it's used in his "Beyond
the Grip of Realism" article, which is a set of Action-Movie advantages
for GURPS. http://www.io.com/~sjohn is the base URL...the article is on
the 'Gunmetal Blue' page.
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:06:11 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
>>I can't agree with this. There is such a thing as following the letter
>instead of the spirit of a rule, and I think spotting a loophole in what
>the GM set up and using it against him without finding out if he considered
>this was kosher is simple abuse of process, and ought to be smacked around.
> It's often one of the worst signs of a compulsive power gamer.
>>
>>If the GM clearly wants to limit damages to the 12DC range, and sets
>things up to do that, but through an oversight misses a way around it you
>can regularly, what are you doing by utilizing that but making things hard
>on him and moving against his desires for the campaign? What excuse is
>there for that?
>
>Actually, Wyane, I agree pretty much 100% with what you said here, and I
>apologize if my earlier posts had given the impression I wouldn't.
>
>The point I was trying to make was that the players shouldn't be penalized
>because the GM did any of the following things:
>
>1) Didn't bother to establish a DC cap or other campaign limits until
>mid-game, at which point he decides on a limit that denies the character
>full use of abilities he bought and paid for in good faith.
>
>2) Established a DC cap in his mind but didn't tell players what it was, or
>that it existed. Players would only find out during the course of the game
>that they'd spent more points on attack Powers and combat abilities that
>they'd be able to use.
So far so good.
>
>3) Told players there was a 12 DC cap in place, but *not* explained where
>the cap comes in. This may give some players the idea that a 12d6 Normal
>Damage, or 4d6 Killing Attack, is the maximum *base* attack damage, but is
>still modifyable with combat manuevers such as Offensive Strike or
>Haymaker; other players may assume that no combination of
>attack/manuever/other bonus will *ever* allow damage beyond the 12 DC cap.
>Either interpretation *could* be legitimate, so the GM should have made it
>clear at the start which interpretation he'd use.
I'm of two minds about this. Yes, the GM should have clarified this. I did
in my Rule of X document. But it's also the player's job to be sure, and
his mouth isn't paralyzed, so he could ask rather than jumping to
conclusions. If he does, and guesses wrong, I consider him as much in the
wrong as the GM here.
>
>None of this means I think it's okay for players to twist the GM's rulings
>to allow things he or she *clearly* did not intend. Players should
>certainly obey the spirit of the GM's campaign rules, rather than the
>letter, as long as (a) the GM does the same, and (b) the GM has made an
>honest effort to inform the players of his or her intent.
>
>I can't help but feel that the onus for establishing the campaign
>boundaries are on the GM, but it *is* hard to anticipate every possible
>situation in advance. Most [decent] players will cut the GM some slack if
>they believe he's sincerely tried to keep them informed ahead of time, and
>not let them waste points on abilities they'd have no chance to use in his
>game. As for complusive power gamers...not much can be done about them.
>They'll always be looking for an angle.
Sure, but a policy of "If the GM didn't say I couldn't do it, I can" feeds
their worst habits.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:46:43 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Donald Tsang wrote:
<Much snippage>
> Sheesh. Please, quote out of the Holy Book where it says that DC caps
> should be enforced "during all aspects of the game"? And then see how
> many people really consider the BBB to be holy scripture, instead of
> merely construction rules + campaigning guidelines...
I for one have never put hard caps on my games, but generally go for
a mid-range. That way you have people with great damage, but lousy
shots etc... Occasionally you'll get the person that wants to push
the envelope, so you guide them back to something reasonable. Or you
just let the average go up.
In all my playing champions, I don't remember seeing Rat's ruling ever.
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:55:08 -0500
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com>
Subject: Camp Councilor
This made me laugh.
] >There is only one camp: caps are tools GMs use to ensure that nothing
] >unbalances their campaigns. They should be used during all
] aspects of the
] >game, not just character creation, not just during play.
It's attitudes like this that lead to religious wars and ethnic cleansing.
I'm so far out of this camp that I haven't bothered to comment until just
now. In my camp, we laugh at AP maximums. I've never had AP maximums in any
of my campaigns. The only thing that changes is that the campaigns get a
little more dangerous.
Mind you, most of the games I've ran have been FH games but even in a
supahero genre, you find toadies with one off-balanced power they can only
use at a full moon with the wind from the south. If you make those
limitations count and lean on their weak spots, players stay in line. I had
a player in my first champs game that [after a dozen sessions or so] had a
110pt. multipower with an activation roll and full sideFX. Since his
character was demonic in origin, his side effect was a summon that called up
a couple of his old demonic secret police buddies to come and kill him. Once
the multi got that big, he was afraid to use it, just in case he blew the
roll.
It's like I always say, 'If you wanted to be safe, you should have made a
cobbler'.
Aside from that, nobody in my games ever seems to want a code against
killing.
Right. That's it. I've buckled up my flame retardant underoos so fire away.
BRI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:04:24 -0800
From: Darrin Kelley <backflash@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
I agree
Curt Hicks wrote:
> >> From: Darrin Kelley <backflash@mindspring.com>
> >
> > Scott Bennie wrote:
> >
> > > I can see characters with a code vs. killing possessing a killing attack
> > > (examples, Superman, and his heat vision; Batman and his sharp edged
> > > batarangs).
> >
> > Yes, I agree. But both Batman and Superman use those attacks in very careful
> > manners. As should any character with a strong Code Against Killing.
> >
> > But there have been all too many circumstances in Champions games where I
> > have seen Killing Attacks used simply because of mechanical convenience. The
> > "STUN lotto" comes immediately to mind....
> >
> >
> Use a fixed STUN multiple for the STUN lottery. Actually, IMO ANY attack
> should be used with care if you have a Code Against Killing. There's not
> much difference between 12D6 Energy Blast and 4D6 RKA to a normal.
>
> Curt Hicks
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:44:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
> From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
>
> At 12:59 PM 1/18/1999 -0600, Curt Hicks wrote:
> >These are all valid points. However they are also all based on mechanics,
> >not in-character experience with the power. I think it quite possible that
> >a character might not know whether his 'Meson Blast' is a 'killing attack'
> >and bypasses 'non-resistant' defenses, or an 'energy blast' with even
> >Joe Normal having some innate resistance.
>
> Hmmm...yes, you're quite right. Unless we're talking about a "mystery
> powers" game, the *player* can't help but know what kind of damage his
> character's attack can be expected to dish out. But you could easily
> roleplay situations where the character didn't know the parameters of his
> own abilities.
>
The *player* can't help but know, but the *character* doesn't know.
This might actually give some benefit to playing out 'lab testing' the
use of your powers. You have some justification for the *character*
knowing that she has a more 'lethal' attack. Otherwise, the character
might only know that her Meson blast put a 2" hole in the brick wall.
The thing is, you'd probably be testing your powers against inanimate
objects and only know how it works against living creatures after much
experience. Unless the character is ruthless enough to gratuitously blast
stuff.
> This is in fact very appropriate for the follow up to many character origin
> stories. Many campaigns skip from "lab accident" (background history) to
> "full-fledged costumed superhero with a rep and two hunteds" (first game),
> but for those who roleplay the Year One stuff, there's no reason most
> heroes *should* know exactly what they're capable of at that point.
>
I'm actually in an emerging powers game right now, and trying
to roleplay this. Vortex can 'dematerialize' things and then
're-materialize' them somewhere else. It took several sessions before he
used the power on a living being, a dog, and longer before he used it on
a person. And this was after 'piping' computers and other electronic
equipment and the like and then running diagnostic tests on them to see
if they'd been affected in any way.
Curt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:58:56 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
From: Acid Rainbow <samael@clark.net>
>On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:06:14 -0500, Mike Christodoulou
><Cypriot@concentric.net> sent these symbols into the net:
>
>>BAD HABITS OF POOR GAMERS or LIMITATIONS OF CHAMPIONS MECHANICS
>
><snip>
<snip>
>
>>* Exposing an innocent with an Ego or Stun Only blast because it
>> doesn't really do any damage.
>>
>> Let's say you've got an area effect stun grenade. The bad guys
>> have been considerate enough to group themselves together, but
>> darn it if there isn't a pregnant mother walking into your target
>> radius. "Oh well ... She'll be fine after she recovers her stun."
> IMNSHO, the pregnant woman's a bit of a straw man here. If there *is*
>one in the crowd, make sure the players know it before-hand. It's extremely
>unfair to have one pop up in the middle of the crowd after the hero lets
>fly.
I definitely disagree. Take a quick look at any crowd. Any pregnant women?
Guess what, you probably can't tell if there are, and you _definitely_
cannot tell that there are not. Even obviously pregnant women are not going
to be recognized as such if they aren't standing at the _front_ of the
crowd, or at least can be seen to the waist.
Any player who _assumes_ that there are no weak people in a crowd deserves
what he gets, so long as the GM doesn't overwork it or do it maliciously.
>BTW, this *is* why they developed rubber bullets, 'instant
>banana-peel' tear gas, etc IRL. In other words, if an attack's bought
>stun-only, it's meant to be something Our Hero can fire into a crowd
>without fear of excessive casualties.
Rubber bullets can kill. Tear gas can be bad for people with asthma, heart
conditions, or pregnancy, as well as children and the elderly.
If a nasty but completely normal man were to were to use the "Pull your
punch" maneuver, he could slowly beat the average person unconscious
_without doing any body_. However, if he did this to a pregnant woman or
someone with a weak heart, very bad results are not unreasonable. The same
goes for STUN-only attacks.
The problem here is defining "STUN-only". A person who inflicts so much pain
that people pass out, and a person who causes people to become dizzy and
pass out painlessly both have "STUN-only", but the possible side-effects are
very different. I'd suggest making up good reasons why a pain inflicting
STUN-only attack would be a good idea, and if the person requests it, then
let him live with the consequences if he uses it on someone who can't take
rough handling.
Filksinger
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #146
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:12 PM