|
Post by Gryphynx on Oct 20, 2011 12:25:04 GMT -5
Ultimately, a character with 90 stones of Offense attacking 100 stones of Defense is going to have the same trouble as 9 attacking 10. That's not what I'd have a problem with though. The problem is the ability to fine-tune. One of the main problems is, as has been stated, too much goes into modifiers. I like Modifiers, but one of the first rules MURPG should have stated was that no Action could receive more energy from the General Pool than from the character's Energy Pool. And while I understand them wanting to generalize for simplicity (as with offense/defense instead of attack/dodge/damage/soak/) I think system is where things should be simplified, and character-creation should be a complex mechanism. So, Durability being so all encompassing just never should have happened. Back to modifiers though, in the 100 vs 90, that's ok because at BEST, 40% of that is from Modifiers. 20% from your Ability, 20% from some Modifier Pool. And maybe even include precisely that as a hard-cap. No more than 40% of your total energy for any action may come from a source other than your Energy Pool (or 50% if you want to keep it 'simple'). And maybe 100 energy average is high, maybe 50 is better... not sure yet, but we should NOT cap it in a manner that, like the current system, 10 seems like it's as good as it's suppose to get. That way you can have Asgardian or Cosmic like characters that easily exceed that 'average' or 'cap'.
|
|
|
Post by Gryphynx on Oct 20, 2011 12:45:48 GMT -5
Was thinking... in regards to the A&R Chart... maybe allow people to use "Abilities (only)" at 3 (or 4) levels lower for "free". So, Hulk who can throw 100 tons doesn't flinch at lifting 10 tons no matter how low he is on energy...?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Oct 20, 2011 15:59:17 GMT -5
Not to be a dick, but this argument is exactly why I stopped paying attention to MURPG 2.0
Modifiers and other "free stones" ruin the game. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by roxolid on Oct 20, 2011 23:38:10 GMT -5
I'd be happy enough if the only optional modifiers came from weapons and equipment - Thors' hammer for instance, is an integral part of the character and in no way should the stones for its use come from Thors pool. Same with Wolverines claws.
At the moment Reflexive dodge gives spiderman a minimum level of defence BUT if using Agility (or speed, players choice) as base defence instead his reflexive dodge could be dumped. Same with Durability. Someone with 6 Durability, as well as having more health, should be able to resist non lethal damage better than say, Aunt May with 1, regardless of whether their skin is normal, green, osmium steel coated, or covered in rocks. Abilities as modifiers, equipment/weapons too, and that's it, I reckon *shrug* Everything else would need energy to use.
A game I run on another board uses an energy mechanic for energy blasts. The player decides how many energy points to use (up to 5) and damage is multiplied by that amount. Tough Skin/Armour works by dividing damage (fractions are dropped). Aside from a little math it works well.
As an example for a possible MURPG game, Cyclops' Energy blast uses his Perception score (for example) + Ranged Combat to hit.
For every 2 energy stones he puts into energy blast he adds a +1 multiplier to damage caused (it starts at x1 for all attacks) up to his maximum of x5.
His Perception + Ranged Combat total 11 for this particular attack. The targets defence (Agility+Defence Stones) total 7. The difference is 4 points. This is multiplied by x5 (Cykes max damage multiplier, paid for with energy stones). He does 5x4=20 Health points of damage (Health points for non lethal damage could be, say, 10 points per Durability points plus 5 per strength point. Spiderman has 60 Health points). For lethal damage (claws and guns, bombs etc) a character might have Durability x 5 body points.
For Tough skin you'd have dividers for Health (bashing) and Body (lethal) damage. Say Cyclops Target has Tough Skin 2/2. He divides both bashing and lethal damage by 2 but will always take some damage in the form of bruising etc.
Hulk might have dividers of 6/6. He'd take 3 damage from Cyclops blast above. Not a lot but Cyke can keep chipping away - assuming Hulk doesn't get his great green hands on him...
Have strength as an ability/modifier for close combat BUT super strength as a power. Hulk might have 3 strength (indicating his ability to use his strength effectively in combat) but with Super Strength of 9 he adds up to +9 multiplier damage assuming he hits.
Say Hulk slugs Cyclops. His Strength (3)+Close Combat Stones vs Cykes Agility+Defence stones. If Hulk only tags Cyke with 1 point Cyclops might laugh it off.. except Hulk multiplies his punching damage by 10 (1, +9 from super strength) so inflicts a minimum of 10 points of damage!
Cyclops health drops from 40 to 30 with just one tap from the Hulk, and Mr Summers knows that anything more than that will flatten him!
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Oct 21, 2011 0:04:03 GMT -5
That's alot of math to do. One of the best things about MURPG is the fact that it's math-light, and still manages to function well enough for PbP.
|
|
|
Post by Black Sam on Oct 21, 2011 1:18:50 GMT -5
Slightly off topic but I'm way too lazy to find a better place for my question... I remember some talk a while back about retooling the Ability scale in MURPG for a more normals-based campaign. Can anyone point me towards such a thread? Or, you know, tell me to shut up. Or some junk.
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Oct 21, 2011 2:01:51 GMT -5
Shut up. Or some junk.
WHATAJERK
|
|
|
Post by Gryphynx on Oct 21, 2011 3:48:21 GMT -5
That's alot of math to do. One of the best things about MURPG is the fact that it's math-light, and still manages to function well enough for PbP. +1 I think it's a GREAT idea to use Durability in place of Toughness, Agility in place of Reflexive Dodge (but only allow 1 defense modifier), maybe even Strength and Dexterity (not Agility) for Offense, etc. Maybe remove the entire Modifier category... If Damage and Soak is always static (modifier) and attack/dodge dynamic (energy), you can achieve a sense of balance without needing the extra system. So, offense, you throw 20 stones of energy (5ish from your attack Ability, 15ish from your action), get +5ish from your 1 Ability (we should change that to Attribute in 2.0 ). So, Abilities (Attributes) would remain at a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being as costly as currently. Actions should be about 3x as high (which is easy to do since White to Red is already 1 to 3) Then we'd need to go back to talking about Power Levels... I think this is very important if you want to have any decent working Supers game. I think all the costs/sheets can be the same, but just the D&R chart would change depending on what power level your character is, and maybe a way to "upgrade" to a different Power Level. Not sure how that would work yet with combat... need to think a bit on it. Maybe add a person's power level to the Resistance of combat tasks...?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Oct 21, 2011 5:41:32 GMT -5
I'd be happy enough if the only optional modifiers came from weapons and equipment - Thors' hammer for instance, is an integral part of the character and in no way should the stones for its use come from Thors pool. Same with Wolverines claws. The concept was never to get rid of Modifiers/Free Stones entirely, but to absolutely minimize the number of them. The number of free defensive stones most CADs on this board have is ridiculous when you consider that the average number in the books, after taking into account all the people with 6 or 8, is still probably 1.5 or 2. I can't think of many characters I've seen on this board in all my years here with fewer than 3 automatic, permanent defense stones. Then it becomes a war of attrition... get the weapon mods up to overcome the defense mods, then get the defense mods up even higher... at one point, we had "legal" CADs on this board of 40 stones spewing 15+ stone attacks that they were paying 3 or 4 energy to maintain each panel. It was absurd.
|
|
|
Post by roxolid on Oct 21, 2011 7:41:57 GMT -5
I'd be happy enough if the only optional modifiers came from weapons and equipment - Thors' hammer for instance, is an integral part of the character and in no way should the stones for its use come from Thors pool. Same with Wolverines claws. The concept was never to get rid of Modifiers/Free Stones entirely, but to absolutely minimize the number of them. The number of free defensive stones most CADs on this board have is ridiculous when you consider that the average number in the books, after taking into account all the people with 6 or 8, is still probably 1.5 or 2. I can't think of many characters I've seen on this board in all my years here with fewer than 3 automatic, permanent defense stones. Then it becomes a war of attrition... get the weapon mods up to overcome the defense mods, then get the defense mods up even higher... at one point, we had "legal" CADs on this board of 40 stones spewing 15+ stone attacks that they were paying 3 or 4 energy to maintain each panel. It was absurd. That would be PSI weapon, can't improve with lines, ineffective vs something you will never encounter, can't split stones. Yeah, seen (and made) a few of those characters. You can't blame player for getting the most bang for buck for their characters - if they won't someone else will. The task then, is to remove the element of min/maxing that exists and as you say, free stones are way to do it in this game. A power level would cap attack/defence limits I guess (bit like juggling levels in M&M. So Power level 3 has 13/13. You can increase attack to 16 maximum but Defence is down to 10. That sort of thing?) No harm in copying mechanics from various games if they are good ones.
|
|
|
Post by Gryphynx on Oct 21, 2011 7:52:09 GMT -5
I don't like to see static caps in a game. It guarantees that every character created will be at that cap. I like the original idea better that no more than 50% of the energy expended can be received from the General Pool and added to an Action (that's 33% of an action at best). This means you'd need to spend 8 energy to get 4 from your collective modifiers... Or if we go the more-control higher-action route, maybe 25% instead of 50%. So, throw 20 energy into an action, get to add up to 5 from your Attribute.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Oct 21, 2011 7:52:33 GMT -5
Actually, you absolutely CAN blame a player for min/maxing their character. The argument that "if I don't do it, someone else will" doesn't work for robbing banks or taking advantage of vulnerable women, it shouldn't work for smaller things either.
GMs need to be vigilant not to allow players to ruin the fun for everyone by taking advantage of poorly written rules.
|
|
|
Post by Gryphynx on Oct 21, 2011 8:09:16 GMT -5
Majorly off-topic, let's stick to topic please. The building of something, murpg 2.0.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Oct 21, 2011 8:14:05 GMT -5
Majorly off-topic, let's stick to topic please. The building of something, murpg 2.0. In fact, it's not off-topic, because it goes to the heart of game design. Do you; A) Build a game with broad ranging allowances, thus creating more potential for abuse, and rely on players to be ethical? or B) Build a game with ultra-tight mechanics that negate the potential for abuse, but straight-jacket ethical players and keep them from getting full enjoyment out of the game. This one central issue, more than any other, has been the dominating force in changing the mechanics of RPGs for the past 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by Gryphynx on Oct 21, 2011 8:21:48 GMT -5
Ok, but you are about to start a flame war with your comments that I'm trying to avoid. To say that it's like robbing a bank is just bad. There ARE rules against robbing a bank, they're called laws. Robbing a bank is illegal. Min-Maxing within the rules is much more akin to making as much money as you can, even if it breaks the backs of the common man. Not only legal, common day practice. When YOU try to determine the guidelines of morality, especially in a game, all you do is create new borders that players will press against. The more you cut out the potential for min-maxxing, the more people find other ways to maximize what you've got left until there's nothing left.
Modifiers are staying. If there are no modifiers, it'll be about how much energy you can collect and spend in a turn. If you limit energy expenditure it'll become about how to spend what you have in the most optimal way. If you destroy the optimization, because 1 player is so much better at it than others, you reach that sense of balance in where nobody does anything.
So, back to what Roxolid says. You can't blame a player for playing optimally within the rules. That's what the rules are for, and you're always going to have smarter than average players who can optimally create and use characters. You'll NEVER be able to overcome this no matter ow much you chop. That's just the nature of the beast.
|
|