Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 173
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 1999 11:13 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #173
champ-l-digest Saturday, January 30 1999 Volume 01 : Number 173
In this issue:
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
GenCon 99
LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: A painful question
Re: A painful question
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Multipower Questions (fwd)
Re: Levels and Limitations
Re: How much damage should guns do.
dux and stuff
Re: A painful question
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Multipower Questions (fwd)
Re: dux and stuff
Re: Hero news!
Re: Character: Frodo Baggins
Re: Power set question.
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: dux and stuff
Re: How much damage should guns do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 12:28:07
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:18:05 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>Nevertheless, the person with the "Lim: Only in rain" gets to reduce his
>pool cost _without any penalty whatsoever, while the person with Charges has
>to take additional _severe_ penalties.
The two are in no way similar!
Lets reduce it to a simple case and look at it this way:
Wizzo the Wizard has a Vancian MP
20 60 pt MP One Charge (-2)
2u 12d6 EB, One Charge
2u 4d6 RKA, One Charge
and so on for another 98 powers.
Total 120 pts
Doesn't seem quite right, does it, that he can use the MP 100 times and
still get the 'One Charge' Limitation? It doesn't Limit the MP!
Now let's suppose Wizzo is a lich and is powerless in sunlight.
40 60 pt MP, Not in Sunlight (-1/2)
4u 12d6 EB, Not in Sunlight
4u 4d6 RKA, Not in Sunlight
and so on for another 98 powers.
Now, the *whole* MP is useless if he's in sunlight, so the Limitation
is valid.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 18:49:35
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:44:49 +1000, happyelf wrote:
>gandalf was iir, mistaken for sauraman when he first retunred. Sounds
>more like a distinctive feature than a deffinite individual public id to me.
I wasn't aware of that, but if so, then neither DF nor PID apply.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 12:08:07
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:29:51 -0800 (PST), Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>
>>>Alternately, you can call the Multipower an OIF, since it can be taken
>>>away out of combat (search the guy and remove all of the gadgets). It
>>>comes out to the same amount of points.
>>
>>The MP itself is not limited by the Focus Limitation, therefore no
>>bonus applies.
>>
>>I'm a harsh b*st*rd.
>>
>
>I'd like to think you aren't irrational one. How is the pool _not_ limited
>by the focus limitation if you can take it away out of combat just like an
>OIF?
Because each focus only Limits its own Power, not the MP. Out of combat
is a red herring - it wouldn't matter.
> Because if it's entirely compased of OAF slots, that's what you can
>do.
I disagree - only if all the items use the *same* OAF does the
Limitation apply.
> If you disagree, please show how it's less limiting than making it an OIF.
Because you can take away one Focus and still use the others.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:50:34 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
so i take it you'd never hand out 'distinctive features' for anything other
than an individual? no elves, orcs, or hobbits?
- -----Original Message-----
From: qts <qts@nildram.co.uk>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org&> happyelf
<jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Date: Sunday, January 31, 1999 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
>On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:44:49 +1000, happyelf wrote:
>
>>gandalf was iir, mistaken for sauraman when he first retunred. Sounds
>>more like a distinctive feature than a deffinite individual public id to
me.
>
>I wasn't aware of that, but if so, then neither DF nor PID apply.
>qts
>
>Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 18:41:22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:38:44 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:27 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>> >No, but the beard, hat, clothing, eyebrows, staff and sword make for a
>> >pretty distinctive package. Gandalf is (IIRC) consistently recognized by
>> >just about everyone who meets him, even people who have never met him
>> >before. Nobody ever seemed to say, "Who's the old geezer?" Best way to
>> >model that: Distinctive Features.
>>
>> I disagree - this is clearly Public ID. They all know that it's
>> *Gandalf*, not 'an old geezer with a robe and beard'. Surely Public ID
>> is when everyone knows who you are and DF means that they remember you
>> easily?
>
>No...not quite. Public ID implies that everyone knows who you are, where
>you live, what you're up to. The President of the US has Public ID, for
>example.
>
>Gandalf...people recognize him on sight, but he's not being reported about
>on the Evening News, and almost nobody knows what he is up to...so I'd say
>that Public ID is a bad choice for the big G.
Don't forget the restrictions of the time.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:05:25 -0500
From: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: LS and their effects on attack damage
I was surfing the web this afternoon and discovered a very useful web site -
you pick a major city anywhere in the world, and it will show you the
effects of a nuclear bomb exploding there.
As any good (and Evil) GM would, I started thinking about the applications
of this web site to my game. I know there is LS: Immune to High Radiation.
Now, would having this power make a character immune to the radiation
effects of a nuclear bomb? Of course, they can still be killed by the high
pressure wave that will tear through the area, but I'm asking specifically
about the radiation.
I'd also like to know if anyone has had a nuclear bomb situation in their
games, if the bomb went off, and what happened.
Lisa Hartjes
beren@unforgettable.com
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/daniken/79
ICQ: Berengiere (9062561)
If the GM smiles, run. If she laughs, it's too late...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 18:41:22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:38:44 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:27 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>> >No, but the beard, hat, clothing, eyebrows, staff and sword make for a
>> >pretty distinctive package. Gandalf is (IIRC) consistently recognized by
>> >just about everyone who meets him, even people who have never met him
>> >before. Nobody ever seemed to say, "Who's the old geezer?" Best way to
>> >model that: Distinctive Features.
>>
>> I disagree - this is clearly Public ID. They all know that it's
>> *Gandalf*, not 'an old geezer with a robe and beard'. Surely Public ID
>> is when everyone knows who you are and DF means that they remember you
>> easily?
>
>No...not quite. Public ID implies that everyone knows who you are, where
>you live, what you're up to. The President of the US has Public ID, for
>example.
>
>Gandalf...people recognize him on sight, but he's not being reported about
>on the Evening News, and almost nobody knows what he is up to...so I'd say
>that Public ID is a bad choice for the big G.
Don't forget the restrictions of the time.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 12:09:22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:37:03 -0800 (PST), Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
>>
>>WS> Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
>>WS> more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven
>>WS> things?
>>
>>This one is obvious, Wayne:
>>
>>I take one of the seven weapons away from the first character; he still has
>>six weapons that he can use.
>>
>>I take the seven-in-one weapon away from the second character; he has no
>>weapons left.
>
>Which is a reason to not give the same savings for the multiple weapons, but
>it's not a reason to forbid themj as multipower slots or not say that a
>multipower composed entirely of foci is not more limited than one that
>isn't...or to force someone to buy multiple weapons as entirely seperate
>powers. I can certainly see reasons why the pool should not be counted as
>an OAF in the latter case, but as someone pointed out there's not much
>difference between it and an OIF in practice, and the slots _are_ OAFs.
I would suggest that someone wanting this would be better advised to
use an Elemental Control.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:34:10 -0500
From: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: GenCon 99
I know it's only January, but does anyone have any info about GenCon for
this year? I will be going for the first time this year, so please, be
gentle. :)
Lisa Hartjes
beren@unforgettable.com
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/daniken/79
ICQ: Berengiere (9062561)
If the GM smiles, run. If she laughs, it's too late...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:27:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Brats Incorporated <brat-inc@avalon.net>
Subject: LS and their effects on attack damage
>I was surfing the web this afternoon and discovered a very useful web site -
>you pick a major city anywhere in the world, and it will show you the
>effects of a nuclear bomb exploding there.
>
So where is this website of infinite destruction?
>As any good (and Evil) GM would, I started thinking about the applications
>of this web site to my game. I know there is LS: Immune to High Radiation.
>Now, would having this power make a character immune to the radiation
>effects of a nuclear bomb? Of course, they can still be killed by the high
>pressure wave that will tear through the area, but I'm asking specifically
>about the radiation.
I would have to say that they would survive the radiation, but would sufer
mos of the other efects of a nuclear blast as provided by steve long in hero
system almanac 2 pg 77 to 81
Visit us at http://www.avalon.net/~brat-inc/ ....
"In the words of Socrates... I drank what?" ... Real Genius
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:17:11 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>*cough cough* it's only one guy *cough cough*
And one guy who really didn't mean it as harshly as he took it. I didn't
think there was anything wrong with his adding rules to make Hero do what he
wanted. I just wanted to emphasize that the basic design _was_ cinematic. :P
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:09:22 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: A painful question
>>That's not the issue; whether they're derived from my campaign or not,
>>it's just too many to use regularly. With 12 hunteds in a game, if
>you're
>>using them as intended, you expect about three of them involved _every
>>session_. I just find that too damn much trouble.
>
>That's interesting. A Game w/ 12 hunteds would tend to GM itself *for*
>me. All I have to do is figure out a way for the hunteds to try and get
>the PCs, and how the PCs might "get" the Hunteds.'
That's part of the problem; I don't want the Hunteds defining the campaign
to that extreme. In addition, if they're just going to be the theme of the
game, why should anyone get extra points for them?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:12:50 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: A painful question
>>> Funny... I find that to be a great impetus for plots.
>>> In many of my stories, one of the Hunters is the main baddie for the
>>>session, while two others provide plot complications.
>>
>>But that's the point, Bob...I consider Hunteds used as the primary
>>plot element not really part of the Hunted. After all, everyone gets a
>>problem when the main plot involves something. Hunteds as a
>Disadvantage I
>>treat as an _extra_ problem.
>
>Your board, your wave. For me,if a lot of players take hunteds, then I
>would tend to rearrange the game so that the Hunteds were the central
>villains. If they're going to hand you the games like that I see no
>reason not to take advantage of it.
Like I said in another message, it's because I usually already have some
ideas for the campaign and that many Hunteds can easily throw it off kilter.
>
>>> Or maybe two of the Hunters have primary involvement, working either
>>>together or against each other.
>>> (Of course, those 12 Hunteds won't necessarily be all different;
>with
>>>campaign based Hunteds, there'll be a lot of overlap.)
>>
>>Not necessarily. If one character has problems related to organized
>>crime, one related to a supervillain team, one related to supernatural
>>problems, one involving a particular superagency and so on, it's
>entirely
>>possible for 12 Hunteds to not overlap at all.
>
>If that's they way the GM *wants* it.
Or that's the way that makes sense. I run diverse superhero settings, and
don't weave things together particularly just for convenience.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:41:48 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>>Which is a reason to not give the same savings for the multiple weapons, but
>>it's not a reason to forbid themj as multipower slots or not say that a
>>multipower composed entirely of foci is not more limited than one that
>>isn't...or to force someone to buy multiple weapons as entirely seperate
>>powers. I can certainly see reasons why the pool should not be counted as
>>an OAF in the latter case, but as someone pointed out there's not much
>>difference between it and an OIF in practice, and the slots _are_ OAFs.
>
>I would suggest that someone wanting this would be better advised to
>use an Elemental Control.
That's both more costly and more dubious as a construct than the multipower.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:23:10 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
At 02:05 PM 1/30/1999 -0500, Lisa Hartjes wrote:
>As any good (and Evil) GM would, I started thinking about the applications
>of this web site to my game. I know there is LS: Immune to High Radiation.
>Now, would having this power make a character immune to the radiation
>effects of a nuclear bomb? Of course, they can still be killed by the high
>pressure wave that will tear through the area, but I'm asking specifically
>about the radiation.
I raised a question about LS several months back, and the consensus was
that LS is a defense against an unthinking environment, not a cheap way to
be immune to attacks of a given SFX. While this seems sensible from a
cost/game balance standpoint, it also seems to mean that intent is
everything where damage is concerned. That is, if a nuclear bomb is set
off and your character was the actual *target* of the device, his LS counts
for nothing and he suffers all the effects of the blast, radiation
included. If the bomb goes off and your character just happened to be in
the neighborhood when it did (he wasn't the target, just one of thousands
of victims), his LS may protect him against the irradiated local
environment. Not that this will do him much good if he can't survive the
other listed effects of the bomb.
The rationale that came closest to making sense to me had to do with the
abruptness of the potentially damaging effect; some people argued that LS
vs. Intense Heat would allow a character to suffer no ill effects no matter
how hot the local environment got, but a fire-based EB would do full damage
*because the character had no time to adjust to it*.
If you accept this rationale, the character you describe may or may not
survive, depending on where he was in relation to ground zero. Within a
one mile radius, the area takes sufficient RADs to kill a human instantly;
with no time for his body to adjust to the change in environment, his LS
doesn't protect him and he dies with everyone else.
If the character is between one and two miles away, he probably will
survive unscathed (by the radiation, anyway) while people who were standing
right next to him suffer slow, painful deaths over the next few days or
weeks from the radiation they absorbed. Certainly he would be unaffected
by any lingering background radiation in the area after the blast.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:39:41 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>>I'd like to think you aren't irrational one. How is the pool _not_ limited
>>by the focus limitation if you can take it away out of combat just like an
>>OIF?
>
>Because each focus only Limits its own Power, not the MP. Out of combat
>is a red herring - it wouldn't matter.
Since that's almost the defintion of when you can take away an OIF, I can
agree with that statement. In addition, it's approximately as easy to
disable in combat as an OIF.
>
>> Because if it's entirely compased of OAF slots, that's what you can
>>do.
>
>I disagree - only if all the items use the *same* OAF does the
>Limitation apply.
I think it's _utterly_ unsupported by the rules that the slots wouldn't get
the limitation. You don't apply limitation values to slot costs? Why?
>
>> If you disagree, please show how it's less limiting than making it an OIF.
>
>Because you can take away one Focus and still use the others.
Since you can only normally take away an Inaccessible focus outside of
combat anyway, how is that functionally different in this case?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:09:38 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions (fwd)
This got sent to me privately, but the question is a good one for
list discussion--in a toungue-in-cheek sort of way.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:18:58 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
To: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
At 05:15 PM 1/29/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the logic of
>> the previous statement whatsoever. In fact, I didn't even see a
>> relationship. Even on re-examination, feeling a bit more awake and under
>> the weather, it looks to me like a total non sequitur. You might as well
>> have been asking where we're going to get a duck and a hose at this hour.
>
> At Ducks B' Us, of course. They have a buy one duck, get one hose
>free special.
>
> I thought everyone knew that.
I get mine at Bob's Discount Ducks, they throw in a roll of duct tape with
every mallard. On a game theme: How WOULD you buy duct tape? seriously?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:22:52 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
>
>i wouldn't say that. a lot of setting use superheroic points with
>gunslingers.
>and reguardless, it happens. It's also an issue if a gm is doing write-ups
>of weapons.
But the GM still doesn't really care about the points. He carries about the
specs. And I certainly don't see a lot of Heroic scale games that charge
points for equipment (though Bob is right and you do see the occasional
'equipment allocation' system)
>
>>>your position does not justify the lack of proper limtations, if the power
>>>is in a focus, it's
>>>in a focus. If that focus gets trashed, the power is gone for however
>long,
>>
>>And again, if the focus is the only thing the levels are used with, who
>cares?
>>
>
>
>well you don't clearly. what if it's independant?
In the games I've seen Independent used in, again it'd be a non-issue since
Independent items were largely outside the player purchase issue. I've
never actually played with anyone who permitted them in superheroic games,
for example. As with the equipment option, I'll give you it matters in, for
example, fantasy games where magic items are commonly made by players. But
it isn't likely to make a huge difference even there, not when you're
applying a total -3 Limitation or more.
>>>well, those of us in the know tend not to hand out nonuniversal foci
>without
>>>a
>>>good reason. Also, i don't let anything less than 5 pts get a limit,
>anyway.
>>
>>Then the whole argument is moot.
>>
>
>no, it's an important issue. a focus is a focus is a focus.
My argument was _specifically_ with 3, and especially 2 point levels being
focused.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:36:30 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>>Sorry, but I was quite serious. If he wants a game where the default
>>assumptions are realistic rather than cinematic, he _is_ playing the wrong
>>game. That's not the Hero System.
>>
>
>
>name one game closer in general to achieving that goal. he's got the best
>bet in general
>with the hero system, just becaus he's talking default weapons lists doesn't
>mean he's
>playing the wrong game.
If he can't stand a fundamentally cinematic approach to weapon damage and
combat in the underlaying system, which seemed to be what he was saying, I'd
say that's incorrect. He might well be better off with something like, say,
CORPS.
>>And this relates to what I said in what fashion.
>>
>
>you mentioed str as an example of an unrealism. this is an example
>of how you can counteract that and make strength more realistic.
But that's not the _base system_. He specifically mentioned he wanted the
base system to be realistic, and toggled for genre. That's _not_ the Hero
System. The base system is cinematic and toggled for genre. That's all
I've _ever_ been trying to say.
>>And you'll notice these are none of them in the base rules. i never said
>>the Hero System couldn't be mutated into something non-cinematic...i said
>it
>>wasn't designed that way as a base assumption.
>>
>
>but the issue remains- its closer than anyhting else, via that 'mutation'.
Actually, I disagree. But it would be a much longer issue to pursue than
I'm intending to follow. In any case, it has nothing much to do with the
point I was making.
>>But that was my point; complaining that the rules aren't particularly
>>realistic is the wrong way to approach it, because they weren't
>particularly
>>designed to be realistic. What you need to do is to figure out what you
>>want to do to make them realistic. But basing it on the inverse assumption
>>will cause you grief.
>>
>
>
>not really. you just have to say 'oh, i shold use a genre-customisation
>method instead'
>not much grief really.
Again, I disagree.
>>As you do in any game. And I doubt seriously anyone would mistake D&D for
>a
>>realistic game. My point was that you have to realize when tweaking the
>>Hero System that it _is_ designed as a cinematic game. Then you can make a
>>deliberate attempt to adjust it to suit on that basis. But if you assume
>it
>>is, or was intended, to be realistic, you'll find yourself quite
>frustrated.
>>
>
>no, it's not designed to be cinematic. it's designed to be customisable.
>if it was cinematic, points total would be based on cast importance as
>opposed to abstract power refrence, ect, ect, ect. The word 'cynematic' is
>wayyy overused.
I'm sorry, but you're essentially incorrect; it was designed as a superhero
game, and really very lightly modified over time comparitively. It simply
came before the idea of that heavy a hand in enforcing cinematic convention
was common, but it was built to model a very stylized type of setting (the
superhero game) and that's still what the core rules are based around. If
you don't like the term 'cinematic' in this context, feel free but I've
heard Steve Peterson use the same term for it.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:05:48 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: dux and stuff
>> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the logic of
>> the previous statement whatsoever. In fact, I didn't even see a
>> relationship. Even on re-examination, feeling a bit more awake and under
>> the weather, it looks to me like a total non sequitur. You might as well
>> have been asking where we're going to get a duck and a hose at this hour.
>
> At Ducks B' Us, of course. They have a buy one duck, get one hose
>free special.
>
> I thought everyone knew that.
I get mine at Bob's Discount Ducks, they throw in a roll of duct tape with
every mallard. On a game theme: How WOULD you buy duct tape? seriously?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:48:10 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: A painful question
>From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
>>>That's interesting. A Game w/ 12 hunteds
>>> would tend to GM itself *for* me. All I have >>>to do is figure out
a way for the hunteds to >>>try and get the PCs, and how the PCs might
>>> "get" the Hunteds.'
>>That's part of the problem; I don't want the
>> Hunteds defining the campaign to that
>>> extreme. In addition, if they're just going to
>> be the theme of the game, why should
>> anyone get extra points for them?
I can see this objection--any game with twelve hunteds would GM itself,
sure--but it would quickly degenerate into a meaningless G.I. JOE
situation, where the Hunteds become all that matters, and the players
are shut off from the real world.....
"Many bears talk"
"Somehow I wouldn't have reckoned they had a lot to say."
"Talk Goddamn head off. Always got something to say about bees."
- --Jonah Hex and Spotted Balls, JONAH HEX: SHADOWS WEST
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "Too Needy" can now be found at MAKE UP
YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:13:23 -0500
From: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
>I was surfing the web this afternoon and discovered a very useful web
site -
>you pick a major city anywhere in the world, and it will show you the
>effects of a nuclear bomb exploding there.
<<So where is this website of infinite destruction?>>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/amex/bomb/sfeature/blastmap.html
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:19:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions (fwd)
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Tim Gilberg wrote:
>
> This got sent to me privately, but the question is a good one for
> list discussion--in a toungue-in-cheek sort of way.
> I get mine at Bob's Discount Ducks, they throw in a roll of duct tape with
> every mallard. On a game theme: How WOULD you buy duct tape? seriously?
Cosmic VPP. With duct tape, one can to anything (excpet fix ducts).
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"You should not confuse your career with your life."
Dave Barry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:27:16 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: dux and stuff
- -- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 1999 5:05 PM
Subject: dux and stuff
>> I thought everyone knew that.
>I get mine at Bob's Discount Ducks, they throw in a roll of duct tape with
>every mallard. On a game theme: How WOULD you buy duct tape? seriously?
Cosmic Power Pool :-) Or possibly an Aid to Body. Or the ever dreaded
catch all Transformation Attack.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:22:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: Hero news!
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> >New Products Coming Soon
> >We just wanted to pass along that there are new products in the pipeline.
> >We've recently received drafts of Kazei Five, The Ultimate Shape
> >Changer, The Kandris Seal, and more. These products should be
> >released in the coming months. Also we're finishing up work on the
> >Cthulhu Creatorsoftware. (By the way, Call of Cthulhu is a registered
> >trademark of Chaosium, Inc., and Cthulhu Creator is produced under
> >license from them.) So we will have a whole host of new products for
> >you very soon.
> >
> >Ahem... check line two!
>
> Aw, c'mon, Michael. That's old news. The item's been there for a
> couple of weeks now. It's what started that whole discussion about what
> the heck is The Kandris Seal, and Lisa got to explain it all, remember?
Uhm... yes and no. I remember the Kandris Seal discussion, but I just
found the K5 reference yesterday.
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"You should not confuse your career with your life."
Dave Barry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:31:42 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Character: Frodo Baggins
Scott Nolan wrote:
>
> At 08:57 AM 1/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >> The "bonus with missiles" comes from Dungeons and Dragons.
> >
> >Isn't there a reference to a unit of hobbit archers that
> >fought in an old war in Arnor? Like in the appendix of
> >Return of the King? I had always assumed the dex/missile
> >bonus idea had been extrapolated from that.
>
> In Arthedain, actually. Arnor had fallen by that time. It
> probably is a result of that line that D&D hobbits have
> their archery abilities. But is thin evidence forwhat I'm
> trying to do here, which is recreate the characters seen
> in the Lord of the Rings. None of the hobbits seen there
> exhibit anything beyond a mere weapon familiarity.
It has been a LONG time since I have read LOTR (which could explain why
a large percentage of the names being listed draw a big blank) but when
the remains of the Fellowship return to the Shire and free it, there
were a lot of very good archers coming out of the woodwork to kill of
the mercs.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:30:57 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Power set question.
Tim Statler wrote:
>
> As related to my OIHID and FOcus thread. (too many loose threads.)
>
> Here is a power construct for a sword.
>
> The sword will cut thru most inanamite objects but not living creatures.
> For living creatures it passes thru them and stuns them. I don't believe
> I have it written up properly yet. So here it is for the list to rip
> apart and put back together (hopefully in better shape.).
>
> 20 2d6 HKA, not vs. living creatures(-1/2),OIHID(-1/4),OAF(-1/2), 0
> END(+1/2)
I keep thinking that there is a better way of doing this but cant
bring it forward. No matter. Go with what you have. Its not that far
off to worry about. However, the not vs living would be closer to -1.
How many times do you swing a sword at a wall compared to a living
enemy.
Ah, got it. If it is possible, for instance, to swing the sword at a
man in armour, cut the armour to pieces while only stunning the
occupant, then buy a power destruction against the armours defence.
> 16 +6d6 HA, only vs. Living Creatures(-1/4), Stun Only(-1/4), OIHID
> (-1/4),OAF (-1/2), 0 END(+1/2), Linked to HKA(-1/2)
As most objects don't have stun, buying an attack as stun only will
take care of the second part of the power. It does depend, however, on
how common androids or undead with stun are. If very rare, then its not
really worth the -1/4 living only.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:33:11 -0800
From: Scott Bennie <sbennie@dowco.com>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
I've also pretty sure I've heard George MacDonald refer to guns as doing about
half the damage they should do if it were "realistic", but that was a long time
ago.
One thing I've done for Gestalt is steal an idea from Carl Rigney and reduce a
normal's BODY from 8-10 to 5; this allows a pistol shot to leave them dying, but
still keeps the heroes at a pretty tough level. Of course, for campaigns where
you want the supers to compete on a more level playing field with normals, this
may not be a desireable option.
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> >>Sorry, but I was quite serious. If he wants a game where the default
> >>assumptions are realistic rather than cinematic, he _is_ playing the wrong
> >>game. That's not the Hero System.
> >>
> >
> >
> >name one game closer in general to achieving that goal. he's got the best
> >bet in general
> >with the hero system, just becaus he's talking default weapons lists doesn't
> >mean he's
> >playing the wrong game.
>
> If he can't stand a fundamentally cinematic approach to weapon damage and
> combat in the underlaying system, which seemed to be what he was saying, I'd
> say that's incorrect. He might well be better off with something like, say,
> CORPS.
>
> >>And this relates to what I said in what fashion.
> >>
> >
> >you mentioed str as an example of an unrealism. this is an example
> >of how you can counteract that and make strength more realistic.
>
> But that's not the _base system_. He specifically mentioned he wanted the
> base system to be realistic, and toggled for genre. That's _not_ the Hero
> System. The base system is cinematic and toggled for genre. That's all
> I've _ever_ been trying to say.
>
> >>And you'll notice these are none of them in the base rules. i never said
> >>the Hero System couldn't be mutated into something non-cinematic...i said
> >it
> >>wasn't designed that way as a base assumption.
> >>
> >
> >but the issue remains- its closer than anyhting else, via that 'mutation'.
>
> Actually, I disagree. But it would be a much longer issue to pursue than
> I'm intending to follow. In any case, it has nothing much to do with the
> point I was making.
>
> >>But that was my point; complaining that the rules aren't particularly
> >>realistic is the wrong way to approach it, because they weren't
> >particularly
> >>designed to be realistic. What you need to do is to figure out what you
> >>want to do to make them realistic. But basing it on the inverse assumption
> >>will cause you grief.
> >>
> >
> >
> >not really. you just have to say 'oh, i shold use a genre-customisation
> >method instead'
> >not much grief really.
>
> Again, I disagree.
>
> >>As you do in any game. And I doubt seriously anyone would mistake D&D for
> >a
> >>realistic game. My point was that you have to realize when tweaking the
> >>Hero System that it _is_ designed as a cinematic game. Then you can make a
> >>deliberate attempt to adjust it to suit on that basis. But if you assume
> >it
> >>is, or was intended, to be realistic, you'll find yourself quite
> >frustrated.
> >>
> >
> >no, it's not designed to be cinematic. it's designed to be customisable.
> >if it was cinematic, points total would be based on cast importance as
> >opposed to abstract power refrence, ect, ect, ect. The word 'cynematic' is
> >wayyy overused.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're essentially incorrect; it was designed as a superhero
> game, and really very lightly modified over time comparitively. It simply
> came before the idea of that heavy a hand in enforcing cinematic convention
> was common, but it was built to model a very stylized type of setting (the
> superhero game) and that's still what the core rules are based around. If
> you don't like the term 'cinematic' in this context, feel free but I've
> heard Steve Peterson use the same term for it.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:38:36 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: dux and stuff
>>I get mine at Bob's Discount Ducks, they throw in a roll of duct tape with
>>every mallard. On a game theme: How WOULD you buy duct tape? seriously?
>
>Cosmic Power Pool :-) Or possibly an Aid to Body. Or the ever dreaded
>catch all Transformation Attack.
Actually I was thinking of Entangle. Holds the material together, stays in
place, once its broken its useless...
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:47:19 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
At 05:33 PM 1/29/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I've also pretty sure I've heard George MacDonald refer to guns as doing
about
>half the damage they should do if it were "realistic", but that was a long
time
>ago.
>
>One thing I've done for Gestalt is steal an idea from Carl Rigney and
reduce a
>normal's BODY from 8-10 to 5; this allows a pistol shot to leave them
dying, but
>still keeps the heroes at a pretty tough level. Of course, for campaigns
where
>you want the supers to compete on a more level playing field with normals,
this
>may not be a desireable option.
Yet again, we have an example of not using the optional rules. Lets take a
D6+1 KA against a regular joe, BOD 8. This does an average of 4 Body and 8
Stun per shot, of which Joe gets not defenses against, owie. Now lets add
in hit locations. Joe is hit in a normal body shot, the chest (for
example) and takes 4 Body and 12 Stun owie, he's stunned. Add in bleeding,
Now Joe takes 2D6 NND every turn, full damage, until paramedics stop the
bleeding (and he doesnt move or do anything else to reopen the wound). Now
lets add in Impair/Disable. Joe took a disabling wound to the chest,
losing some stats temporarily (the disabling chart is poorly written,
durations should be considerably longer).
OK so you just got shot in the chest with a small calibre weapon, stunned,
and inactive for 12 seconds. Each 12 seconds you take on the average 2 BOD
and 7 STN, until you die or are patched up (this bleeding accellerates as
your BOD total goes down).
Now what happens if you are hit in the Head? The body is doubled to 8
(impairing) and the Stun becomes 20. This knocks Joe totally out, reduces
him to 0 BOD and in the rules the GM can rule him simply dead. Either way,
in a few moments he WILL be dead from bleeding. Unlike what the movies
like to portray, it actually does take a while to bleed to death, one
almost never dies instantaneously from an attack (especially not bullet
holes).
How does this seem unrealistic to you?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #173
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:16 PM