|
Post by Bankuei on Jul 10, 2003 12:48:20 GMT -5
Hi DS,
I'm operating off of two assumptions, which may or may not fly for you, but work for me in terms of play:
1) Sit-Mods are, dependant on the situation 2) Any Action "powered"(bonused) by an attribute is a statement about how a character operates.
So, let's take Quicksilver vs. Bruce Lee. Quicksilver really can fight well, but that's mostly due to being able to run around at Mach 1. What happens to Quicksilver when he doesn't have his Speed factor helping him out? Well, it says he can fight at 3, which is about a high level military guy. Without his speed, he gets whomped by anyone better than him.
So, let's throw some tar(or other sticky, slowing substance) around QS, and have him fight...His Superspeed is going to take a bigger hit in terms of penalties(IMO), than the Thing, because, QS is used to fighting fast, and the Thing is used to fighting slow anyway. Perhaps that's reaching too far in terms of judgement on my part, but that's my logic.
When players buy Ability + Action, they're basically saying(and I would make them justify it), "My guy is SO smart(fast, coordinated, strong, tough, etc.) that he can X." Now, if you buy just 1 in that Action, you're saying, "Well, he's really a novice, but his genius/speed/whatever, makes up the difference!" Whatever that 'thing' is, if it gets negated, your guy is not that great at that particular action.
And rest assured, when your players are fighting folks like Quicksilver, they'll be looking for every advantage to eliminate or reduce his Speed. So should the bad guys.
As far as making it too expensive, the option I listed pretty much means you're only going to take it once or twice, which is about the MOST I could see anyone taking it reasonably to begin with.
I'm just throwing out options. But like I mentioned before, we'll probably just have to chalk this up to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by ds on Jul 10, 2003 13:48:23 GMT -5
Re: Assumptions
I can agree with point one, but not neccesarily point two. For example, Quicksilver uses his Speed with his Close Combat. That doesn't mean that he's actually running around at Mach 1 when he pulls an all out combat action- just that he is incorporating his speed into his action. Maybe he's launched a volley of blows faster than the eye can track. Maybe he is running around and staying behind and just beyond, darting in and out to land blows. Whatever- the precise visuals don't matter much from a system standpoint to me.
I have to concede that yes, you can brute force such a solution with sitmods. It just is... extraordinarily distateful to me. Far cleaner to remove the offending option entirely- otherwise, the character (and thus, their player) themself enters a binary state- either they are superuseful because the GM hasn't singled them out to be rendered useless (and their abilities give them a far wider range of Stuff They Can Do), or they are useless, because the GM has singled them out to be rendered useless for a time, in which case the player sits and stares blankly at a wall.
And I'd still like to hear you explain how you'd deprive someone of an Intelligence bonus to Close Combat without entirely removing their ability to fight.
Re: Making it too expensive
If it's made too expensive, then no one will take it. Period, end of line. You've functionally removed it from the game.
Think of it like this- imagine there's two new versions of Close Combat- Cheap Combat, which costs CL = AN - 1, and Expensive Combat, which costs CL = AN +1. The three abilities are otherwise identical. Anyone that can do basic math will take Cheap Combat in place of regular Close Combat, and ALWAYS in preference to Expensive Combat.
|
|
|
Post by MyPetSlug on Jul 10, 2003 14:29:38 GMT -5
I'll tell you why I think it's broken, In my very first attempt to make a MURPG character, I created a character that completely unbalanced the game using that rule. Here's what I did: intelligence: 9 w/ special intelligence energy rule (cost 24W) Telekinesis 1 (w/ intelligence bonus option) (cost 2W) Telepathy 1 (w/ intelligence bonus option) (cost 3W) and the kicker Force field 1 (w/ intelligence bonus at +5 to cost) (cost 9W)
Now you have a character who can maintain an effortless 18 defense. In addition, her mental defenses are near impregnable. Add in some stones for challenges and you have a nightmare on your hands. You can pretty much buy any action at 1, add the intelligence bonus for +5 and gain an effective action number of 10. You could take social skills at 10 for 4W, teleportation at 10 for 6W (if you go for the 1 red stone per guest option), or flight at 10 for relatively cheap. You get the picture. And I can't think of too many situations where you'll get a situational modifier to your intelligence.
I think the bottom line is that sometimes the bonus makes sense, but it can also be used for powergaming. It's up to the GM to tell the difference.
MyPetSlug
|
|
|
Post by Bankuei on Jul 10, 2003 22:54:59 GMT -5
Hi DS,
On note of QS, what is he if he doesn't have superspeed? Whether we're talking running at Mach 1, or throwing super fast punches, the point is by use of Speed boosting his fighting, its saying, "His speed is what makes him REALLY good at this". Bring in somebody like Leech, and see what kind of fighter he is at normal speed.
And if we're talking Intelligence as the Close Combat modifier(say, an android programmed to fight, or somebody with Matrix style downloads), there may be fighting styles they may not be familar with to predict(such as alien styles), or bizarre body types("Um, ok, so how do I predict the fighting techniques of a fourth dimensional being that phases in and out of reality?"). It totally depends on what the "justification" is for the initial Ability boost, which determines what sort of stuff lends to its weakness.
And I'm not really advocating the +2 modifier option as what I personally would do, I'm giving options in case YOU want to allow folks like QS to be viable combatants without having to up their Actions, or whatever other characters rely on Ability + Modifier as part of character concept.
Also, I'm not recommending of raping heroes of their powers. Nothing sucks more than playing Fire-guy in an all underwater campaign... I'm just saying for the times when you do end up in a bad situation, if you have poured all your creation stones into one thing(Abilities over Actions, for instance), then you may find yourself in deep trouble. Its not just a variety in the types of Actions you have available, its variety in terms of spreading out your strengths.
So, again, if you have Agility, as the "thing" powering all of your rank 1 Actions, anytime something happens to deprive you of it, you'll really suck. And any bad guy with brains and experience is going to keep trying to hit that Achille's Heel. How many times has Kryptonite kept showing up for Superman?
I think we're going to simply have to agree to disagree on this. Let me know what options you'd use for folks like Quicksilver, or other folks who use Ability + Action as part of the concept.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Bankuei on Jul 10, 2003 22:57:10 GMT -5
Hi MPS,
While the Ability + Action Advantage allows you to spend more stones, it doesn't add to "free stones" that you get with Defense(Mental or otherwise). So your example would have a hero with only 1 free stone(from the Action) for Mental Defense, although he or she could shift in up to the other 10.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by ds on Jul 10, 2003 23:32:32 GMT -5
Do note, I'm just talking about scratching the +5 Option- not eliminating all Attribute + Ability pairings. Most of the places where they were specifially designated as being allowed (either automatically given or given at a discount), it's built in to the system to expect that a number of the levels for the ability will be from elsewhere. Thus, QS's close combat badassity is safe And Slug's gamebreaker doesn't assume any free stones. Character's have a mental resistance equal to their Intelligence + Telepathy + Mental defense- thus he has a resistance of 10 to telepaths. He can indefinitly put 9 stones into Force Field, which will grant an 18 stone defense- enough to almost totally shut out the Hulk's full attack at full rage (21 stones), if such extremes are needed. By lessening this Force field, or burning some of his 9 other stones, he can also perform extreme acts of Telepathy (arguably broken- Mind Control is a one shot 'remove from combat') and Telekinesis. Contrast that functionality to another starting level character. The above character can fill in, and even excel at, virtually any role within a team. They play merry hell with screen time allocation.
|
|
|
Post by Bankuei on Jul 10, 2003 23:39:15 GMT -5
Hi DS,
(rereads Telepathy)-WTF? That, dear sir, IS broken. I'd immediately drop the "free defense" and simply limit it to the Telepathy rank, not the Telepathy+Int....
Of course, I generally think that most, if not all, mind control rules in most rpgs are busted in some fashion....
Chris
|
|
|
Post by MyPetSlug on Jul 11, 2003 15:57:07 GMT -5
Having come up with the game breaking example, and after thinking about it some more, I will say this. In most instances, an extra ability modifier at +5 isn't that big a deal. It's like, so what if you have a speed or agility of 10 and use that as a bonus to your close combat. So, what if you can put 25 stones into an attack. The fact is that most chracters will only have 12 or 15 stones to put into an attack anyway, that's why it's not unbalancing. And there's a tradeoff, you're completely defenseless. The problem only arises when you use the special intelligence energy rule. Now, all of a sudden, your ability bonus is directly tied to not only your energy pool, but your regeneration rate.
It's like this, who would be a better figher, speed 10 close combat 1, or intelligence 10 close combat 1? You would think the speed 10 guy, but this guy with intelligence 10, even though he only has a 1 strength and agility has an energy regeneration rate of 10 and a max energy of 20, mostly likely way way ahead of the other guy. The intelligence character would cream the speed character (unless he ran away). So, why not make your intelligence as high as possible and link every power to it? Then you've got the best of both world, good regeneration rate, energy pool, and powerful actions.
The other thing to consider is specialties. You could say, then why take a high action number at all, why not always have a low action number and a high ability modifier? That's why they have specialties, especially with actions like social skills and general knowledge. But, in my opinion it doesn't really make up for it and most action don't even have specialties. Cause I mean, like, who cares if you have an AN of 9 in close combat and you know boxing and jujitsu and judo and whatever. Is the GM really going to check as see if you have karate as a specialty before he lets you do a flying jump kick? No. So, why not have an 8 agility, a 1 close combat, and get to go first.
In conclusion, the ability modfier is really not that big a deal, even an extra one at +5 becuase it's still limited by your energy pool. It's really simply flavor. Does your character simply have a high degree of training or does he rely on raw ability. The problem really only comes in when you start linking intelligence to everything.
|
|
|
Post by ds on Jul 11, 2003 17:14:15 GMT -5
It's not as much, to me, a question of a single really high powered thing. It's still a question of one character being able to functionally be VERY diverse without losing performance- they can be a combat machine at the same time as they are a telepathic genius at the same time as they are a inventive madman.
Characters should (IMO, usally, etcetc) excel at one thing and be moderately good at another. Thus a group of characters can support one another, while still letting individuals members shine.
A character that excels at two or more things throws that off. They consume to much of other people's shining time.
|
|
|
Post by i3ullseye on Jul 12, 2003 10:40:44 GMT -5
I have no problems with it. Even the 'broken' character example don't really bother me. Everyone has a weak point. And nothing is stopping the villains from being built the same whay of thats the way the characters design their characters.
|
|
|
Post by ds on Jul 12, 2003 11:12:35 GMT -5
I can say, from experience, that having to build a broken villian as the only way to counter a broken PC is Not Fun for either side. Not a good solution.
|
|
|
Post by quixoteles on May 3, 2006 9:21:43 GMT -5
Looks to me like the game was reaching an impass at those levels anyway, whose to know I really have trouble understanding your math, but is the general idea that there's so obvious minmaxing going on? I mean this is a simple game with simple character creations solutions. It's like the big speed to disengage debate. People were actually thinking about forbidding running away because it threw off game balance in combat. According to MU* AN7 is the limit for human ability, your supposed to add agility sometimes, esp. at the higher levels, it's a flavor thing. You so good at your thing that it is "internalized." CC has internalization in it's very design, it comes free.
|
|
|
Post by rubyquartzshades on Jun 7, 2006 17:44:43 GMT -5
Hi, guys, I'm new to the boards.
The way I look at it, you can't knock the attribute bonuses - they just make too much sense. They allow characters like Spidey to really slug it out. Think about it - Spidey's no martial artist, in fact, his fighting technique isn't all that spectacular, even after all his years of heroing. It's his suped-up attributes that let him hold his own.
Now, I know it's fun to find inexpensive ways to get high levels of power. I've tried my hand at it too. But as a GM, I've come to realize that you have to think of these things in perspective. Compare the "cheap" way of buying something to a more common sense way of buying it. Pretend that you don't know how to milk the system, and then compare the results.
If there's a major difference in cost, then there's a major difference in power as well. Now, granted this is a universe where Jubilee can adventure alongside Wolverine or even the Phoenix, but in some games, GM's might decide that balance is more important. Those are the times when everyone needs to do the mature thing and acknowledge that just because there's a clever way to get things cheap, it's probably going to lessen the experience for everyone, since their character is functionally much more powerful that those 40 stones would indicate. It's common sense really. But, like I said, it's only really important if balance is a major issue in your game.
Realistically, most players aren't going to enjoy the game if they are ridiculously powerful. Why lessen the gaming experience for yourself, your fellow players and your GM? Heck, I reccomend putting that creativity to work in the game. Rather than taking a less than fantastic amount of character creation stones and finding ways to spend them on fantastic abilities, try taking a less than fantastic character, and finding ways to make him do fantastic things in the game.
The bottom line is that there's a spirit of the game, and it's about doing what's going to be fun for you, your fellow players, and the GM. If everyone can just stay true to that, the rest will work itself out.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Jun 7, 2006 23:34:27 GMT -5
Well spoken Ruby and welcome... I follow what you are saying... Ive tried before where the players got 60 stones (or was it 70... not sure...) it wasent all that fun from when they had the 40... That offcourse is because they had allot of normal high level powers... I tried being in a 70 stone game here, where one of the character creation rules was: "The main power should be as close to 30 stones as possible..." I belive that helped abit out on that problem and been wanting to trie it myself...
|
|
|
Post by vicsage on Aug 28, 2006 18:57:38 GMT -5
Shouldn't we just spend stones to make the character we've enivisioned rather than worry about whether we're getting maximum power for our 40 stones?
|
|