|
Post by Scriptus on May 30, 2007 9:34:27 GMT -5
Wildknight, I think you miss understood my previous post. I understood that you thought the system needed a price adjustment. What I meant to say was that I could not tell that you thought these rules might have been useful due to the highly critical nature of your posts. Sorry for the confusion. I have since edited my previous post for clarity's sake.
P.S. bawonsamdi I hope you get a chance to read the first post I made earlier today (May 30th)
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 30, 2007 9:45:13 GMT -5
No, I got what you were saying, and thats what I responded to. Again... if I didnt think the rules were of any use whatsoever, I wouldnt bother pointing out whats wrong with them
|
|
|
Post by Grimsolace on May 30, 2007 10:16:24 GMT -5
Wildknight, you have missed one important fact. These are house rules. If you like some of the ideas that orbit around this thread and dislike others, feel free to modify them to your liking. They aren't set in stone. Both you and Bwonsamdi have opinions on how this should work. He is not going to modify his house rules, just so you can use them. You have to do that yourself.
EDIT:: Btw, Bwonsamdi, certainly an interesting concept. Certainly better then the standard fair - "I have 8 wealth so I have a headquarters". If I was to implement them in one of my campaigns I would only allow team challenges count for team equipment. Perhaps I would allow half (rounded down) the CC stones a character spent on wealth count toward the total, that would restrict the 'dead broke' challenge and make wealth more usefully defined. I would also define alien and 'expensive' tech better to communicate true benefits, and limiting some broken possibilities. I would also require a score of one or more in most of the aspects of a team, and limit the maximum stones spendable on any one aspect to a third of the team total. I also suggest that GM's put a limit on team challenges like they would character challenges.
Demonstration:: With four super rich characters each with wealth 8 would get a total of 16 team stones and grab another 12 through challenges giving a grand total of 28 allowing them to spend a total of 9 stones in any one aspect. Allowing them to get to AN 6 equipment, Expensive gear - which for a team of billionaires makes perfect sense.
The more I look at this rule, the more I like it. My villains will certainly make use of it, if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 30, 2007 13:44:20 GMT -5
Wow, again my point totally missed... WHY POST THEM HERE IF NOT FOR THE GENERAL USE OF THE GAMERS ON THIS BOARD? Post a poll. See if most people see if they're usable as-is. You all want to get bent out of shape because I pointed out holes in the system... yet I notice that nobody can actually refute my points. You just dont like that I dared to point at the flaw. But thats fine... if you dont want honesty, I give up. Nice job dude. Theyre brilliant. Nothing wrong with them whatsoever!
|
|
|
Post by thedragonmaster on May 31, 2007 1:03:55 GMT -5
Gotta say, all this argument seems pointless. Posting a house rule to the boards is done with the intent that the rule be useful for others. This means that no rule posted is posted in what might be considered a final form, but rather that it will go through (if it was well formed to begin with) a few iterations before being ready to be called finished.
All WildKnight was saying (if I understood him correctly) is that there is a problem with the pricing. This is something that has to be dealt with before this rule can be considered ready to be added into other peoples games in the standard, plug-and-play way that the rules on this board are designed to.
Now, ideally, when a criticism of this nature is offered it should also be offered with a fix for it. In this instance, WildKnight couldn't think of one off hand, but left it to the other posters to work out.
As far as fixes, I like the modification suggested by Grimsolace. It keeps teams from spending all their team stones on one or two area's, while still allowing for stats that make sense (as with the Billionaire team example).
I printed up the pdf at work today, and plan to play around with it to see how far they stretch before they break. Though a good point was brought up. Could we get examples regarding what is meant by the terms? Or of a group who would have it?
I really like the basic premise of the rule set. Almost like the members of the team are paying dues. lol.
|
|
|
Post by bawonsamdi on Jun 1, 2007 9:38:05 GMT -5
Demonstration:: With four super rich characters each with wealth 8 would get a total of 16 team stones and grab another 12 through challenges giving a grand total of 28 allowing them to spend a total of 9 stones in any one aspect. Allowing them to get to AN 6 equipment, Expensive gear - which for a team of billionaires makes perfect sense. That doesn't change a lot of things. Demonstration (without your additional rules): 4 über-rich PCs (with wealth 8 each) + 12 stones chalenges = a 44 stones team pool and 11 stones max spendable into one single aspect. With 11 stones into gear, the only level that they can buy is ... Gear 6 They will need 4 more stones to reach the next gear level (and a much biger team pool). If gear bother you, you can also raise its cost by one (or more). I have also made these rules to create villain teams and to balance their general level of power in regards of my PCs' team.
|
|
|
Post by Grimsolace on Jun 4, 2007 8:37:43 GMT -5
Looking back at the team creation rules I would be inclined to agree with you, Bwonsamdi. Since there are a grand total of nine aspects to spend stones on, a larger pool then the meager one I allowed should probably be needed. Thus, allowing all CC stones spent on wealth go to wards the character pool and allowing only a fourth of the stones be spent on any one aspect seems like a better proposal then what I offered.
Also, as a foot note, I'd like to add that I wouldn't allow wealth higher then 8 in any of my campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by quixoteles on Jun 10, 2007 15:55:18 GMT -5
Wait, so your saying the playing a game in which everyone is Kang is bad... Kang is 'effin sexy man. I'd do Kang down to the knees, you know what I am sayin'? That is an awesome game, and Kang didn't do much to be Kang in the first place besides be bored, he was probably less than a 20 stone dude where he came from, you know what I mean?
Imagine being like an adventurer with your friends and fighting against the Inhumans and the High Evolutionary and each other about what you do with such incredible power? Is that not power/responsibility play to it's fullest? Game on man, game on.
|
|
|
Post by thedragonmaster on Jun 16, 2007 12:37:44 GMT -5
A few questions, how would you handle the Team Wealth Rating through these rules?
Would it just be figured out based on the number of CC stones aquired through wealth?
What if the wealth comes from an outside source, like a government agency, or a Non-Profit group (both of which come up in the game I'm running)?
Would that be treated as part of the Debts Challenge?
|
|
|
Post by seadog on Jun 16, 2007 17:29:19 GMT -5
Sorry, but I have to agree with Wildknight on the cost problem. Perhaps AsN+3 would be more suitable. I also think that there needs to be one more level in there somewhere so that you max at 10 like everything else. This would bring the cost of limitless alien technology from 20 (cheaper than Silver Surfur's board) to 30. As far as I know, this is a high enough cost cover any equipment in any book. This also makes it less likely for players to get access to God-like power from 40 stone characters. BTW, it isn't fair the way a couple of you have treated WildKnight. He was trying to help by pointing something out. If you can't handle a little constructive criticism, you shouldn't have posted to begin with. To my understanding, this board was posted in order to iron out the kinks of creative ideas so that everyone could use the ideas posted. I do think this is a good tool though. It would require close GM monitoring and even GM permission. This also allows a great basis for some cosmic level play.
|
|
|
Post by thedragonmaster on Jun 18, 2007 20:03:38 GMT -5
I've been working on a couple of teams with the Rules. The prices are only low if you allow Character Generation stones to be placed directly towards the Team Attributes. Since there are a total of 21 Team Challenge Stones available it would be difficult to create Uber teams without having Uber wealth (assuming that we still allow wealth to transfer to the team).
|
|
|
Post by bawonsamdi on Jul 4, 2007 4:11:50 GMT -5
It would require close GM monitoring and even GM permission. Well, i always thought that it is the golden rule of any RPG, and especially of MURPG.
|
|
|
Post by Thuellai on Jul 4, 2007 4:31:37 GMT -5
From what I can tell, yeah, it's not a huge deal if you only allow Team Challenges and Wealth to count. It's pretty hard to work up 80 stones (enough for the "hugely-unbalancing" alien technology bit) on Wealth and a max of 21 stones challenge-wise. It'd take at least... let's see... figuring a wealth of 8, it'd take a group of at least 8 people, 6 if you go all the way to wealth 10. If you allow character creation stones, then yeah, at that point it's somewhat ridiculous.
Personally that's how I'd run it in my own case.
And yes, some people were harsh on WildKnight, but it's also true he didn't contribute with an idea of his own for correction. Constructive criticism, all. If you're going to point out a problem, make a suggestion to fix it.
|
|