|
Post by malice on Feb 23, 2009 18:20:55 GMT -5
I don't know enough about MURPG 2.0 character creation to help you refine it, or I would help. I also haven't decided whether I want to split Masteries up. It seems like it would be damn-near impossible to optimize.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 24, 2009 13:39:49 GMT -5
Magneto doesn't have a Force Blast on his book CAD? Seriously? *wanders off to cry* For the record, while it doesn't list it in his CAD, it does show the following: - Mentions his force blast under masteries - Gives a description of magnetic force blast (normal damage, option to area affect hold) - Side note: Describes magnetic shield (create/manipulate... 2x stones put into it) Seems they meant to put it in but somebody missed it. Heck they say under masteries that his is +2 for scope twice, then in his "package" example list +1 scope.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 24, 2009 15:24:40 GMT -5
Ooo! Ooo!! - <Points to self> -> Fascinated by complexity! Dionine on "Masteries are gone":Is there actually a person or group with veto/final decision power? If not, or if so and you aren't in that group, perhaps we should not be treating other like idiots for not taking your way as the 'one true way'? Seriously, this whole section of the forum is for working out the system and proposing various ideas, then working out the pros and cons, yes? I'm just saying I'm new here too and it threw me off that 'we're getting rid of masteries' or whatever the quote was. Multi-FunctionI'm going to show my lack of knowledge here. Is it possible in 1.0 to do both things, for instance to use one action to both attack and defend? I ask because I also strongly believe that you should be able to split actions. It's easier to do discuss with masteries, but for another example, could Cyclops attack someone but also be on the alert to zap incoming projectiles or something similar? Obviously if you have force blast and Force Field in the mastery it's an easier example. But please let me know what the story is on this. Thanks. Shields/Force FieldsNow speaking of force fields and such. Malice, I like most of your options. I'm not going to do a blow-by blow, but let me say a few things. I very much believe that force fields should be in the masteries, but I also very much believe that they must not be free. You should be able to split your mastery stones into several areas. This would cause strain (by using a lot of energy and/or having everything be weaker than it would be alone and it would cause you to have to make a resource allocation decision. While KISS is one great fundamental concept in this game, so is resource allocation. Also on this subject, it seems that every power (as far as I can tell) can be broken up into just a few types of shield or force field (and yes, I keep saying both because they are different; one's physical, one's not). So there are the shields (earth, water, plant, ice), the energies (fire, electric, microwaves) and the true 'fields' (magnetism, cosmic, gravity). If you stick to those three general types, you can build consistent mechanics around them. Frankly, though, there's no reason they can't all function the same way (though a case could be made for true fields granting a dodge bonus). Think of it this way. The shields put up a physical wall of a certain strength. Depending on the strength of the shield, a bullet could punch through all of them, but with reduced energy (ok and maybe some deflection), effectively reducing the attack stones that get to the character. Energies don't form an actual barrier, but may reduce the mass of whatever is incoming by burning it up... still reducing the stones that reach the character (and maybe doing damage, if we split it up... see below). Finally, fields are the true deflectors; they are actually force fields in the true sense. Cosmic could be energy too, but I think with a +8 (not the "power cosmic" but mastery of cosmic energy... see the Collector) that's a valid choice to let the player decide or have both options. Anyway, they could be treated (for KISS) as just reducing stones as well. No reason to break things up too much. Or: Shields: Stones added to defense; multiplier depends on mastery Energies: 1/2 value added stones to defense; 1/2 value attack stones to striking object (so yeah, not as effective as a shield or field, but DON'T attack directly or you will hurt) Fields: Dodge (deflection) bonus; multiplier depends on mastery Extraordinary scope: Hmm... how would you actually make EVERYTHING that way? I mean... weather, for instance, is probably more broad of scope than, say, electricity (yes, you could do a LOT with electric in today's world, but it's still just not as broad overall). Or cosmic power... how would you replicate that?
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 24, 2009 16:20:06 GMT -5
***Removed because it was a waste of space, time, reading, and mathematics. And when you have to say mathematics, it's probably not KISS. Bah!*** At least it will be easier for someone to catch up without reading all of that junk.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 24, 2009 16:24:37 GMT -5
***Did I mention it was a pain in the butt, too? Well it was. Humbug!***
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 24, 2009 17:08:40 GMT -5
Ok... I'm gonna be nice cause you're new Prophet...
1. Spell my name right when you tell me to shut up 2. Seeing as how I'm one of the Mods of this Forum, I'd say I have a good chunk of influence. There ARE no people with true Yay or Nay power yet. But I can guarantee you that I'll be one of them if we actually do that. 3. I'm not calling anyone an idiot for disagreeing with me, so please stop putting words in my mouth... that peeves me almost if not more than it does TWF. 4. My way isn't the True Way, it's the way I'm suggesting and I'll be damned if I let some newjack tell me not to stick to my guns. You got a better idea? Post it. If not, shut up.
Now, onto the system you DID suggest. I honestly see it as an unneeded complication. You've got a hundred different things going on at once and honestly, less expensive doesn't mean better system.
Let me see if I get this right.... I have to buy the Mastery, add options... Then buy separate powers that are more expensive because I bought a Mastery to begin with. There's no reason to make it that complex. The Original Masteries weren't even that complex, neither is my proposed system.
Personally, When it comes to Marvel, it's the golden rule of KISS... Keep it simple stupid. We have to make this game so that 7 year olds can pick of the game and play it without resorting to bugging their moms every 10 minutes.
A simple solution to your system would honestly be what I suggested... Create/Manipulate as it's own action, and powers bought seperately at a small discount for being tied to Create/Manipulate. And no you're not an idiot for disagreeing, and I'll listen to whatever argument you have against my system.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 25, 2009 9:33:34 GMT -5
I must agree with Dionon about you're suggestion.. It sounds more complicated than it has to be..
But I would like to test Dionons suggestion.. It follows the KISS rather well.. But isent +2 abit much for just being able to manipulate/Create elemental energy? Hmm.. Might depend on how we decide Force field will work since you are more or less able to create a "force field" made of you're element AND manipulate it into various shapes and such.. But what about immunities? Which reminds me that i want to suggest the system in the House Rule File..
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 25, 2009 9:37:50 GMT -5
Well... +2 is equivalent to the current Grow... it's equivalent to Flight.... I don't think that's too much to purchase. But, I'm willing to try it at various conclusions. What do you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 25, 2009 9:59:37 GMT -5
Equivalent to the current grow? Not sure what you mean by that..
But, what can you do with Create/Manipulate? I mean, what effects will you be able to get besides the normal "move my element around" and "create objects and barriers"? A think i can think of besides the two mentioned, You can't directly do damage, unless the element some kind of energy or other hazardous substance.. Or if you can become creative with the power, like if you had Mastery of Earth, you could open a big crack in the ground and let your opponent fall.. What other effects can you do which would make it qualify for a +2?
EDITED: Oh, and how would such and "attack" be calculated?
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 25, 2009 10:14:41 GMT -5
What I mean is, it's priced the same as Growth, Flight etc. And I think it's similar in power.
Create an Element no matter the Circumstances (Fire underwater or in space, etc) Manipulate that Element to create Barriers and Simple Constructs If you did get creative and "Attack" with your Element.. It would count as an attack, they would just have to put 1 stone into Effect to create the effect "Attack" then it's all attack attempt/damage. Also, it gives a -1 CL Reduction on ALL Abilities/Actions/Modifiers that are tied to that element...
Example
Joe Fireball decides that he's a Master of Fire.
He buys Create/Manipulate Fire/Heat at a Rank of 6 with Accumulate (+2) For 15 stones...
Now... he wants to Fly, get a Force Blast, have Reflexive Dodge, and have his Agility be based off his element... He gets a -1 CL reduction to EACH of those because they are tied to Create/Manipulate.
That's a hell of a discount for +2...
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 25, 2009 10:29:52 GMT -5
You people do realize all of this is needlessly complex, right?
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 25, 2009 10:33:38 GMT -5
Not at all.. My system is very simple... You buy a +2 action, and you get discounts on associated actions... Nothing complex at all
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 25, 2009 10:55:01 GMT -5
No, you're trying to generate "non attack attacks" and so on. Thats needlessly complex.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 25, 2009 11:06:07 GMT -5
What? No... *sigh* Neros asked a question... I was simply answering that you COULD do something like that if your GM allows it... it's not part of the power intristically... You get Create and you get Manipulate, and you get a discount... That's it.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 25, 2009 12:58:06 GMT -5
Ok... I'm gonna be nice cause you're new Prophet... Thanks! 1. Spell my name right when you tell me to shut up Doh! I was convinced it was spelled the other way... sorry. And I wasn't trying to tell you to shut up, just that you acted a few times like your proposal was something that had already been discussed, ratified, etc. and it could throw someone off.[/quote] 2. Seeing as how I'm one of the Mods of this Forum, I'd say I have a good chunk of influence. There ARE no people with true Yay or Nay power yet. But I can guarantee you that I'll be one of them if we actually do that. Thanks again. Hadn't realized that, and you answered the n00b question (which really was a question, not the sarcasm it MAY have come off as... if I don't know something I prefer to just ask). 3. I'm not calling anyone an idiot for disagreeing with me, so please stop putting words in my mouth... that peeves me almost if not more than it does TWF. Sure, and it would peeve me as well. Nevertheless, the implication (not regarding disagreeing, btw, but regarding a proposed idea passed off as canon) seemed to be that something had already been decided and a "why don't you people get it?" sort of attitude/speech. I don't need to say the words "you're an idiot" to imply that. **That said, I don't know why it bothered me so much other than that as I was reading through the posts (pages 2/3) I was thinking "What do you mean, 'There ARE no more masteries' or 'I've eliminated...'?" and got my hackles up. *I re-read it and I misunderstood what you were presenting so I'm sorry I even brought it up. Seriously. I need more sleep or something.* 4. My way isn't the True Way, it's the way I'm suggesting and I'll be damned if I let some newjack tell me not to stick to my guns. You got a better idea? Post it. If not, shut up. Woah, now! You did, at least in some views (Malice also read it that way) present it as the currently adopted method and others might as well not discuss anything else. I was just saying that if its an open discussion, let's not treat other's ideas that way. If I was even insinuating that you shouldn't present your thoughts and stick to your guns, I'd be doing the same thing I was accusing you of doing! And that would suck. And I did present an idea way back on page 1, and fleshed it out later. ******************* I wasn't thinking less expensive is better, it was a run-through that could be adjusted. Unfortunately, it IS freakin' ridiculously complex. I love the idea of keeping everything together, while wanting to break down the specialties too. Unfortunately, there is not elegant solution to do both, and my proposal, while functional, IS way too complex. Gotta look at your proposal more closely, but yours is partly what I was thinking about anyway, so off I go to look around! In other news... peace?
|
|