|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 13:53:00 GMT -5
It's not that I don't see your point, it's that I feel I should try and move beyond it after acknowledging it rather than treat it as a barrier.
However, for concerns of how the system works, I still gotta agree with you on what the option does. It's simpler that way, it's still a decent advantage at +1 to cost level (garbage at +2), and it leaves a lot of room for the "Unlimited" option to shine.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 13:57:55 GMT -5
For the record, I had a player in my table top game with Mastery of Stone, and the only option he started with was Create/Manipulate... and he made PLENTY good use of it for an AN+1 action.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 26, 2009 14:02:06 GMT -5
Prophet; you'll notice that where there is something other than Barrier/Object creation, it gives SPECIFICS. It gives specific examples (representations of a whole, not whole themselves), nothing more. It provides examples but certainly does not indicate that those examples are the limited functions of the power any more than it indicates elsewhere the additional limitations you assume. The description text for masteries repeatedly talks about using your imagination and talking with the DM. It actively encourages wild speculation; pg 54: "Mastery of an element on the element list means control of that element is an inherent part of you. You will always be looking for ways to have your element help you out." Furthermore, in English, when you use the word "includes" and then list two or more possibilities, that can be the entire list. "Includes" in no way implies that there is more to the set than what is listed, unless theres other verbiage to support that, like "but is not limited to." Really? Are you sure about that? Let's see: #1 References 'enclose', which most definitely is exclusive. An item is 'enclosed within', not itself the operator of enclosure. #2 Part of a whole or group *This is the only one that indicates it may be either the whole or part of it. #3 Between or within; again this is not a whole, but explicitly a portion of something else. Thus, in English, 2 of 3 definitions don't even address the one definition you choose 'include' to mean. The other two explicitly state that it indicates being bounded by something but not part of that bounding itself. That certainly seems to be an implication to me. For that matter, many other applications of the word indicate part of a whole but not the whole in itself. Take <include ____.h> for instance from programming. It makes the other file part of the file where the statement appears. Even common usage indicates a bias towards 'part' rather than 'whole'. If you talk about a dictionary, you have one option for talking inclusively about the whole thing; "A dictionary includes words." Otherwise it's all about parts... and technically even that isn't actually fully inclusive, because it would be Dictionary = {Words, numbers, paper, ink} and maybe more. So, the dictionary definition implies primarily 'part of'. Other non-language usage implies 'part of'. Common usage implies 'part of'. And frankly, the text repeatedly implies 'part of' by telling you to use your imagination, to watch for opportunities, and by giving examples, not power lists. ************* Now for something meaningful: RE: Cheesy insta-kill. That's sucky. Cheesy insta-kill = suckage. I agree. I keep thinking "if I can create fire, then I can create fire in your head. Bwahahaha... but as a player I wouldn't try it and as a DM (which I'm not), even if I allowed a player to try it ("sure, give it a shot"), I'd probably give the opponent a passive save and do more tweaking on the contest. Alternatively I'd say you require line of sight. If you can't already see into their head, you can't burn, freeze, warp, or otherwise directly affect it. Of course, if a Master's eyes were closed or they were blindfolded they would be powerless! BWahahahha again. Sorry. But that could provide some interesting stories... Nevertheless, these are possible ways of allowing the flexibility and creativity that the book talks about repeatedly in reference to masteries and still keep the cheese kill count down. A clever player should be rewarded for thinking outside the box, not handicapped for it, and BIG stuff should be VERY power-intensive. "No, you can't rip a gigantic crevasse into the ground in front of you unless you can move both sides of the tectonic plate that distance. BTW, do you have an AN of 12,000?" Regarding transmuting energy and matter (Phoenix Force), I'm not sure how that applies to this specific discussion. Could you break that out a bit further?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 14:09:31 GMT -5
First of all, nothing in the third definition (except the example of an angle) states that its part of a larger whole. It just says that it contains whatever is listed.
Your insistence that players are encouraged to "get creative" is similar to Dionon's theory regarding Hex Spheres... you're reading the flavor text and mistaking it for a rules box.
(BTW, there is no such thing as a "passive save" in MURPG...)
****************************************************
As far as Phoenix Force... it allows you to transmute matter and energy, therefore, a character with LPF could clearly transmute an amount of Earth into... whatever (air, light, whatever was convenient) and bring it back as his next action.
****************************************************
Your proposal about "rewarding" players for thinking outside the box is easy for you to make... given that you admit to not being a GM.
I've been doing this for almost two decades now, and facts are facts. Players abuse rules loopholes. If players would "think outside the box" ONCE and let it be a great moment in the history of gaming, that would be one thing. However, that is not the reality. The reality is that once you let a player get away with something like that, they'll keep doing it over and over.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 26, 2009 14:23:59 GMT -5
Yeah, knew there wasn't a "passive save" but it seems like there are some cases where it's just appropriate. It seems weird that you could be walking down the street and can't notice something off to the side without having stones assigned to do so. Can't agree on the flavor text vs. rules thing. I feel I've laid out why pretty clearly above. As far as Phoenix Force... it allows you to transmute matter and energy, therefore, a character with LPF could clearly transmute an amount of Earth into... whatever (air, light, whatever was convenient) and bring it back as his next action. Yeah, something like that could certainly do whatever. But shouldn't a master of a specific element be able to well... manipulate that element (yes, this comes to our fundamental disagreement on that point)? Yeah, you dig a hole and you get a big pile of dirt, it doesn't just dissappear, but you still have your hole. **************************************************** As for the rest with players and such... I have to laugh (in agreement). Note: I'm not a DM of MURPG, but I've DM'd and experienced such problems before. Wheel of Time D20, for instance was... <shudder>. Now as far as doing something repeatedly... SIMPLE example. Player has great idea: "I won't go through the door, though it's open, I'll go through the window!" Great, it works, yay. Next time player confidently goes through a window - alarms go off, badness occurs. There are always consequences and things they should learn. You opened a hole, filled it in, and killed the bad guy? Good for you! Other times the enemies may get out of the way, fly, or learn other tactics. Or maybe it's just like this: "Good job Super-Rockman! You opened a hole in the ground in the middle of the city, dropping debris onto a subway track and throwing a train off it's tracks. Oh, AND the bad guy got away when he fell down into the subway."
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 14:30:26 GMT -5
... and then the player complains that he's been cheated by GM fiat (which, in reality he has... unless you can honestly say you knew for a fact that there was a subway tunnel there BEFORE he moved the Earth).
Again, you're far better off to simply not allow players to succeed with things that are clearly out of bounds for an AN+1 Action, than to let them get away with it on some occasions and not others.
To me, thinking outside the box is zapping the water tower to drown the Human Torch and put out his flames for a while. Not going "off menu" to get permanent, additional uses for your powers that you never paid for in the first place.
If every player who could logically justify why his power should be expanded in a certain direction was "rewarded for thinking outside the box", soon everybody would twist Social Skills into God-Like Powers. Players are, if nothing else, genius when it comes to obtaining power.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 14:34:38 GMT -5
Attack vs. Ability = Passive save
If the PCs are making up attacks with their Create/Manipulate option, then you should be making up defenses.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 14:36:47 GMT -5
Plus, Toughness & Reflexive Dodge are passive defenses to begin with. Most characters have some of one or the other. Maybe both.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 26, 2009 14:56:36 GMT -5
As far as reaction to "GM Fiat": Well, that does depend on the player. A smart player should also realize that doing things like that in the middle of a city is a Bad Thing and that there will be consequences. I don't need to know ahead of time that there is a gas line right there for it to be reasonable that said player busts it while digging up chunks of the street. The environment is a city. If a player says "are there any cars around?" I'll probably say yes. If they ask if there's a gas line I'll say sure, but you don't know where. So when they don't think about where they are and bust that line (which gets ignited by their fire-covered buddy or something) that should be a natural consequence of their action in that environment. If they were playing in Boston or D.C., sure there's a subway there, maybe (certainly not every time but enough to make them think about what they are doing). Sorry player you shoulda thought of that. Baltimore? HECK, NO! {Stupid city} I'd say as a GM it's a disservice to the players to not take that sort of thing into account and use it. It makes for a more full world and more interesting play for the GM too. BUT: if your players are the whiney type (we have one) then you may need to tweak it. Fortunately, he one whiney for us is outweighed by the rest.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 26, 2009 14:59:11 GMT -5
Oh yeah! Toughness especially would counteract the 'fire' thing I was saying! Good to know about the vs. ability as well. That's kinda what I was thinking. You want to start a fire in their head? Uhmm... ok. Then we see if they can beat toughness + durability, maybe modified a bit. What did the 'unlimited' do in 1.0? I mean, the only mention I recall seeing was maybe with the Collector... like he could create working devices. If you had basic do barriers and objects, then unlimited be full scale for a few more cost levels, that would make sense to me, tentatively. Really want to here from Dionon on this so I'm going to shut up for a while. Got a project to finish anyway!
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 15:01:19 GMT -5
I have power gamers, more so than whiners... but I've had an abundance of whiners in the past, over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 26, 2009 15:08:22 GMT -5
Hmm.. One of my players are a Earth master with Area Effect and all the traditional options.. He once wanted to raise the ground and a house of stone.. Would that be impossible for the normal Create/manipulate?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 16:37:34 GMT -5
Arguably, it could be considered a barrier. Just a really well-shaped one. In other words, I'm much more open to that kind of "out of the box" thinking when its not being used to directly target opposing characters. Although it should take a lot of energy over a lot of time, it could fall under the category of "make simple forms" so long as nothing within was a working machine.
Though, I gotta say that personally? I'd probably be strict and say you needed Unlimited Create/Manipulate for that sort of thing quickly, regardless of having Area Affect (Area Affect, IMO, lets you do the same thing in a given area, not generally affect a huge area with anything you want to happen within that targeted zone)
Theres really not much value in U C/M (ESPECIALLY at its cost of +5... ) if you let players get too wild with Create/Manipulate.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 27, 2009 0:41:20 GMT -5
Wow folks... Way to take a really simple idea, and blow it WAAAAAY the hell out of proportion...
If we're still arguing over the system I proposed, then I'm the one that defines the action... RIGHT?
Create/Manipulate
- Create Element... - Manipulate Element into Barriers and Simple Shapes.. - Gain a -1CL discount on actions, abilities and modifiers directly tied to your element.
OPTIONS Accumulate +2 Unlimited +4 Create OR Manipulate Only -1
Get it? That's it... No Earth Fissures, No Solar Flares, No Tidal Waves, Nothing... Just... what... I... Wrote.
Please, let's just stop arguing over a dead point, and move on, perhaps to play testing or something.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 27, 2009 11:09:57 GMT -5
Ok, so Unlimited would allow Solar Flares? Seriously, unlimited would be as I was talking about earlier, the flexible element control? Also, question on the "big" elements like Phoenix and Cosmic: What exactly does it mean to 'create' either of those? For that matter, what can you manipulate with that? I know we have the example of transmuting but what does create/manipulate really mean with this? Transmuting is definitely not a barrier or simple shape. I'm just curious to hear some thoughts. Dionon (finally spelling that right daggonit), what exactly do you mean by 'Create Element'? I'm not trying to make it more difficult, but I want to hit the things that WK's players might ask! For instance, is it creating the element out of nothing? Or do you have to have a bit of earth to create earth? Can you remove the element? If we aren't worrying about conservation of energy, and you can just 'create' it out of nowhere, than can you make it dissappear? Even just creating eventually gives the same problems discussed before... particularly in a confined space and with the 'physical' elements. If a bad guy is in a room around the corner and you CREATE a bunch of earth in that room, you have a trapped or suffocating bad guy. Or for that matter, if you create a bunch of earth in their throat, say...
|
|