|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 15, 2009 16:09:29 GMT -5
It's just lost the way energy spent on Actions is lost. *shrug* You can always recover more.
It doesn't have to be this way - there could be other ways of representing pain hell, it might be good enough to just roleplay it - but the mechanic seemed like fun.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 15, 2009 16:39:58 GMT -5
I would say it depends on how painful it is.. Sometime the pain can be minor and wouldent hinder you at all from doing anything.. Like you only really notice the pain when you arent focused on something els..
What you are propossing sounds like a great idea for those things which are actually really, really painful... Like "ripping out my lungs and replacing them with potatos while im still alive" painful... I would actually suggest increasing the loss of extra energy...
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 16, 2009 11:12:21 GMT -5
The energy loss is severe for just a -1 CL. I don't really like it but it might make sense as a disadvantage for the invisibile woman forcefield people keep bringing up.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 16, 2009 11:42:54 GMT -5
It's severe, but it has to be or people will apply it to all their Actions and just describe their character as being in pain a lot. If you're going to get a discount, it should hinder you pretty seriously in some way.
It's best applied to Actions that you don't plan on using more than once or twice in a row (teleportation, for example) or powers that simply aren't that demanding on energy (mutant healing).
It's just one possibility.. I think there should be other ways of representing pain, and GMs and players can come up with their own. Another suggestion I had in mind is that the power can't be used if the character is on his/her last white stone: the combined pain breaks concentration.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 10:05:30 GMT -5
"Free Action" is too expensive, +1 or +2 would be fine. Another option is to make it a modifer that allows you more actions per panel. So at MN 10 you could take 10 actions per panel that didn't count against your 2 action per panel limit. Although keeping it as an advantage seems better for regulating power levels.
"Unlimited Power" is too cheap, although I've been trying to get help with making a "Free stones" advantage for awhile now. I think the absolute minimum cost of this advantage should be +5 or +6, because it's essentially one of the best advantages available. Saying "But action-to-modifier was only +3" won't sway me much, since Action-to-modifier was always too cheap imo.
I definitely love "efficient" as an advantage and would like to see it in MURPG 2.0. I would also like it to allow players to maintain actions that have 1 stone upkeep for free.
2x damage and 3x damage are good staples, as is Armor Penetration
Extra Ability Bonus or Weapon Modifier gets too expensive when you're building combat actions, but is fairly priced when you're applying an ability bonus to an action that doesn't have one to start.
Your suggestion for "power painful to use" isn't too bad, although I would increase the interval in which the pain can be distracting so that it cost 1 stone from your pool even two panels after you used it. (So a player would use it, not use it the next panel, use it again and still lose a stone from their pool). I suggest this because players already stagger the use of their abilities into an every-other-panel pattern in order to conserve energy.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 10:32:40 GMT -5
"Free Action" is too expensive, +1 or +2 would be fine. Another option is to make it a modifer that allows you more actions per panel. So at MN 10 you could take 10 actions per panel that didn't count against your 2 action per panel limit. Although keeping it as an advantage seems better for regulating power levels. No no no, more Actions are bad. Free Action was only designed for those characters who tend to do what in MURPG we define as 3 Actions. Hellion common flies, has a force field up, and blasts people with Telekinesis in the same panel (almost all of his combat panels), and yet this would be impossible in MURPG. It's not intended to give people tons of Actions. That's a really bad idea and no matter how many times it's brought up, everyone ends up agreeing it's a terrible idea (except Dio). It's going to come with a caveat that you can only use one Free Action per page. Nobody should need more than that. +1 CL is waaaay too cheap. +2 CL is possible (I always aim high with my costs) but I'm going to test it out at +3 CL. It's not as cheap as you might think. Compare it to Efficient (which I see you like), which supplies 1/3rd of your energy for free. For 3 times the cost, Unlimited Power supplies the 3/3rds of the cost. It should come with the caveat that it's only for rare circumstances. Nothing in MURPG should be bought just because you can afford it. There are lots of ways to break the system and abuse a rule to make a character that is too powerful. That ruins the fun for everyone, and I have high expectations that people will avoid doing so (and that GMs will spot such abuse early on and disallow characters). Unlimited Power is for guys like Cyclops who have crap for energy (compared to other heroes at his level), but can blast away all he likes with his Force Blast. Someone like Wolverine should choose Unlimited Power for his Close Combat because, frankly, he doesn't have unlimited energy when fighting hand to hand. Applying Unlimited Power where it doesn't belong is as stupid as making an inappropriate attack Armor Penetrating or the wrong element, etc. Efficient is good enough without any more advantages. Re Power is Painful to Use: I don't know what you mean by players already staggering the use of their abilities to conserve energy.. you mean people attack on panel one, defend on panel two to save energy, and attack again? If people want to do that, that's fine. It gets around the Power is Painful to Use problem - as it should! If someone is taking a break from using a power that hurts them, they shouldn't be as hurt by it, should they? ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 10:52:52 GMT -5
No no no, more Actions are bad. Free Action was only designed for those characters who tend to do what in MURPG we define as 3 Actions. Hellion common flies, has a force field up, and blasts people with Telekinesis in the same panel (almost all of his combat panels), and yet this would be impossible in MURPG. More actions are not bad if they fit how the character plays. They should be balanced by basic aspects of the system, like limited energy. Also this advantage is more of a "fix" to the too-restrictive 2 actions per panel, which is why it should be cheap. I doubt anyone who takes +1 on all their actions (and can therefore do them all every panel) can afford to buy the energy necessary to power them all. It's not intended to give people tons of Actions. That's a really bad idea and no matter how many times it's brought up, everyone ends up agreeing it's a terrible idea (except Dio). Dionon's system based them on speed, which didn't work because it made speed that much more important than other abilities. Let's also clarify something: I'm not looking for 10 actions per panel, I just think 2 is too little too often. 3 or 4 would be a fair new maximum. It's not as cheap as you might think. Compare it to Efficient (which I see you like), which supplies 1/3rd of your energy for free. For 3 times the cost, Unlimited Power supplies the 3/3rds of the cost. With only basic multiplication as your argument, 3x damage should be +3 to cost level instead of +4. However math only gets you so far in terms of game balance. Free stones on an action is insanely good, far better than 3 times as good as efficient. It should come with the caveat that it's only for rare circumstances. Nothing in MURPG should be bought just because you can afford it. There are lots of ways to break the system and abuse a rule to make a character that is too powerful. That ruins the fun for everyone, and I have high expectations that people will avoid doing so (and that GMs will spot such abuse early on and disallow characters). Unlimited Power is for guys like Cyclops who have crap for energy (compared to other heroes at his level), but can blast away all he likes with his Force Blast. Someone like Wolverine should choose Unlimited Power for his Close Combat because, frankly, he doesn't have unlimited energy when fighting hand to hand. Applying Unlimited Power where it doesn't belong is as stupid as making an inappropriate attack Armor Penetrating or the wrong element, etc. If an advantage is absurdly good people will take it. If there are "special circumstances" people will endeavor to meet them. +3 to cost level is just too cheap. Efficient is good enough without any more advantages. Agreed. I only suggested improving it (And my improvement would come with an increase in cost, so Efficient would become +2 instead of +1) to keep the implementation of the "free maintenance" advantage simple. I really want that advantage, but wasn't sure if presenting it by itself would be too much so I instead improved efficient. Re Power is Painful to Use: I don't know what you mean by players already staggering the use of their abilities to conserve energy.. you mean people attack on panel one, defend on panel two to save energy, and attack again? If people want to do that, that's fine. It gets around the Power is Painful to Use problem - as it should! If someone is taking a break from using a power that hurts them, they shouldn't be as hurt by it, should they? ~TWF I mean that's how players play, it has nothing to do with what I want. I want to avoid forcing players to play a certain way as much as possible, and I promise I don't have a "want" for how they play except they do what they enjoy and what fulfills their imagining of their characters. All I was saying is that players ALREADY use powers every other panel in order to conserve energy, so they ALREADY ignore the penalties of this disadvantage. So you should make it so the penalties are harder to ignore and the disadvantage stays a disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 11:08:00 GMT -5
Not everyone chooses something because it's powerful and they can get away with it. I really don't think that's the case. Some people do, yes, but I tend to think of that as their problem, not the system's. If people always chose what breaks the system, every character in the history of these boards would be a Telepath with Control Minds, or Omniclops, or a PA, or a tweaked out magic user. For the most part people actually avoid those concepts. I think they'll avoid Unlimited Power, too. (Especially since Efficient and an extra 2 AN is probably better in most situations than Unlimited Power.) If something is worth more than it costs, that's one issue, and I'm happy to address it. But if the argument is actually "people are going to use this to make broken characters", then we'll just have to disagree. Also, x3 damage could be +3 CL. I drew up a chart in another thread of how much damage x2 and x3 actually provide. It's not as much as most people might think. As I argued, you have to DO damage for it to be multiplied. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 11:10:15 GMT -5
Not everyone chooses something because it's powerful and they can get away with it. I really don't think that's the case. Some people do, yes, but I tend to think of that as their problem, not the system's. Dude, c'mon, don't be naive. A good system should account for the lowest common denominator of player behavior.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 11:13:51 GMT -5
Even if that spoils it for the rest of us? That depresses me.
Anyway, we keep rehashing the same thing over and over again. I understand where you're coming from, I just disagree. I could be wrong, but repetition isn't going to change my mind.
For the last time, I'm going to playtest this stuff and see how it all works out.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 11:14:56 GMT -5
My argument is not "People will use this to make broken characters" my argument is that advantages should be priced according to power and free stones is VERY powerful.
As for broken characters (Which almost NEVER concern me in this system) there is no problem with "this combo is broken" there IS a problem with "this combo is broken, extremely attractive as a character concept, easily explained and justified, and so affordable you'd be stupid to do without it".
Free stones are: Extremely attractive as a character concept (see arguments about Cyclops), easily explained and justified (see arguments about Cyclops), and so affordable at +3 to cost level that the advantage is broken you'd be stupid to do without it.
+3 is just too cheap, do all the math and create all the charts you like, free stones for +3 is too cheap.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 11:23:33 GMT -5
Even if that spoils it for the rest of us? That depresses me. I don't think it has to ruin anything. Theres usually a sweet spot between permissiveness and uh... not-permissiveness, you just have to locate it. But setting rules that completely ignore the potential of abuse is a bad idea. Obviously you play with people who are a bit more mature in their gaming than what others of us deal with, and thats great. But rules that don't account for those kinds of players are of no use whatsoever to the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 11:27:52 GMT -5
How many times are you guys going to repeat yourselves? It's getting funny at this point. I'm thinking of setting up a betting pool, maybe make a little money off it. ^__^
I appreciate how passionate you guys are about this, but you're tilting at windmills. I'm happy to adjust the price, once I've tested it. That's about the 3rd or maybe 4th time I've said that in this thread. If you start to write a reply, please stop and re-read this paragraph as many times as necessary. ^__^
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 11:53:25 GMT -5
You're allowed to do whatever you want in your own time and your own games.
We're not discussing our personal games though, we're trying to create a system that will be useable and enjoyable by others.
"My opinion" and "agreeing to disagree" only get you so far when you're trying to work together with someone to create something for everyone. I've suggested a half-dozen variant rules in this sub-board, all of which I thought had potential. They can't all be used though. You're supposed to end up with a system that works, whether it works exactly to your liking or not.
Ever read "Unearthed Arcana"? It's a book full of variants. Reading through it makes me want to try almost all of them, but the problem is they don't all fit together and even if I had that kind of time my gaming group doesn't.
WildKnight and I attack the cost of the advantage because we're trying for consensus, not highly-developed personal opinions.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 12:02:44 GMT -5
Uh-oh! Someone didn't read that last paragraph enough times.
~TWF
|
|