|
Post by Neros on Feb 18, 2009 14:36:34 GMT -5
The idea is good, but what if you have Action Number: 4 and Modifier Number: 5 and place 4 stones? Would you still get that last stone even though you only could place 4?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 14:39:01 GMT -5
The idea is good, but what if you have Action Number: 4 and Modifier Number: 5 and place 4 stones? Would you still get that last stone even though you only could place 4? Nope, you wouldn't. So don't buy a Modifier higher than your AN. ^__^ ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 18, 2009 14:43:02 GMT -5
...Or buy a modifier at a higher number than your AN and wait to "grow into it."
Part of me feels like Force Blast shouldn't be limited by that 1-for-1 rule. Perhaps it could have an option to avoid that limitation.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 18, 2009 14:45:59 GMT -5
Hmm.. Grow my precious, GROOW!! But I don't mind working it like that.. As we all agreed on, spending 1 stone and doing and effect of 8 (or what have you) is just insane..
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 15:05:58 GMT -5
Yeah... personally, I guess I see where you're going with the "people will buy 4" thing on Modifiers... and I'm sure they will.
But me? For my big action at least, I'm going to buy the highest Modifier I can reasonably afford, and let my action grow into it (assuming that increasing a Modifier costs more than increasing an Action, that is)
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 15:33:00 GMT -5
Yeah... personally, I guess I see where you're going with the "people will buy 4" thing on Modifiers... and I'm sure they will. But me? For my big action at least, I'm going to buy the highest Modifier I can reasonably afford, and let my action grow into it (assuming that increasing a Modifier costs more than increasing an Action, that is) This is one of the reasons why I'd like to see a higher Modifier cost, but an affordable/standard cost for increasing Modifiers. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 15:37:20 GMT -5
The problem with that is that I really think it punishes characters who use a lot of different actions to accomplish their goals. People will go with the "Action + Mod" concept so long as, say, Spider-Man, can reasonably afford all of the Modifiers he'll need to make his various options equally attractive.
If you put the cost of Modifiers too high, people will only play Cyclops types, so that they never have to buy more than one Modifier.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 16:25:34 GMT -5
I have to disagree with that assessment. For starters I don't think Spider Man needs to have Modifiers for everything (he hardly needs Modifiers for anything, but I can understand a couple small ones). Secondly, I'm only suggesting MN +3 instead of MN +2. That's hardly going to tilt the game so much that people only play Cyclops types.
Hell, I don't see how it would encourage Cyclops types at all! That doesn't make sense to me, WK.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 16:54:23 GMT -5
TWF... no offense but you continue to seem to miss the fact that players are GOING to want the Modifiers, and they're not going to use actions they don't have Modifiers for, because the Modified actions are cheaper to use and more powerful.
Dionon and I have each tried to point this out to you many times.
If I were building Spidey using our system, I would want him to have Modifiers for Close Combat, Ranged Combat (or Entangle), Web-Slinging, Acrobatics, and Wall Crawling... at the very least.
Anything that makes Modifiers cost more will make people less likely to play multi-faceted characters, and less likely to use a variety of options in combat if they don't have the Modifiers for all of their various choices.
People WILL use what is cheaper or more powerful.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 17:44:25 GMT -5
TWF... no offense but you continue to seem to miss the fact that players are GOING to want the Modifiers, and they're not going to use actions they don't have Modifiers for, because the Modified actions are cheaper to use and more powerful. Dionon and I have each tried to point this out to you many times. So, if I have a character who has Close Combat and Acrobatics, and his Close Combat has a modifier... I'm NEVER going to use Acrobatics? If I want to jump across a gap between buildings, I'm going to use Close Combat, am I? What the hell are you talking about? lol I only see this as a problem for Actions that have similar purposes. If someone has Ranged Combat AND Force Blast, and they have a fat modifier for Force Blast only - yes, they're probably not going to use Ranged Combat at all. That isn't news. I'm also failing to see how it's a problem. Are we building in a system where you can add +X CLs or +X white to apply your Modifier to multiple Actions? Or is that not happening? Also, I honestly never anticipated that a character would have 5 different modifiers "at least". That's the kind of energy problem that I'd really like to solve by just giving him more energy. Can you articulate WHY you'd want a Modifier for almost every Action? Again, I think we only disagree because we have different preconceived notions about how many Modifiers are necessary. If you assume that a multi-faceted character needs 5 Modifiers, then yes, we're going to have a problem. I just hoped that wasn't the case. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 17:47:20 GMT -5
Players will want Modifiers for everything they're going to use in combat. Its in the general nature of most players that they'll want to be as good as possible at everything they do. Modifiers are the primary advantage, and most players will want to make use of them.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 17:57:33 GMT -5
I know players will want to use Modifiers for everything. What I'm wondering is should they use modifiers for everything.
I don't see why they should. You know how I feel about Modifiers. Spending stones of energy and putting them in a box is the heart of the system. Making decisions, budgeting.. that's the fun of using the system (the rest of the fun is in roleplaying and describing the action, and to some extent achieving goals). Making it easy for everyone to just add +4 to everything they do just shifts the playing field up.
Modifiers should represent distinct advantages. Distinct is an important part of that. Wolverine's claws is a classic example. They're a big part of what makes him scary, and what makes him Wolverine. If you allow players to dissolve Modifiers into "Hey, I'm just better at this!" bonuses, then a little bit of beauty in the system falls apart.
Honestly, I can't fathom why Spider Man would need a +2 modifier to everything he does to be Spider Man. What's wrong with having good ANs and lots of energy?
I know people will WANT a modifier for everything. But that should be as discouraged as everybody WANTING Phoenix force, or making Omniclops or a character that has no Social Skills, etc. People will want to build something that's inherently better even though it's stupid - but that doesn't mean we should let them, and it certainly doesn't mean we should encourage it by making it easier and more affordable.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 18:05:30 GMT -5
I see it the other way.
When you try to force players into a mold you find desirable, you end up forcing them to build specific types of characters, because they WILL find ways to be as powerful as they can be.
I don't see it as encouraging people to use Modifiers. I see it as allowing them to use modifiers by not making the costs too restrictive.
I really do understand your philosophy, and it would be great if more players would embrace it. But I don't think they will, and I don't think it behooves us from a game design perspective to try to force them to. I think you'll end up with another outcome that is (IMO) even less desirable than letting people have Modifiers to the Actions that are important to them.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 18:15:22 GMT -5
I get that I'm being an idealist, but you have to meet me half way, dude.
It absolutely IS encouraging people to use Modifiers. That's the argument you're putting forward for keeping the cost low! Face it the difference between MN +3 CL and MN +2 CL is not so huge that it's "allowing" something that wasn't possible before. All it does is make it more inviting.
And you haven't explained to me why we should all have modifiers for everything? Is your only answer really "because people can afford it, so they will"? Because that's circular logic.
EDIT: Just a quick cost analysis: 1) Force Blast 6 w/ x2 damage = 9 white 2) Force Blast 5 w/ x2 damage AND MN 4 modifier = 10 white
If we treat Modifiers as "hey, you're just that good" fluff rather than significant powers, then you're right, there is NO reason not to have a Modifier for everything. I mean, damn near everything. So everyone will. Is that what we actually want?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 18:27:58 GMT -5
I didn't say it wasn't encouraging people to do so. I said I didn't like to THINK of it as encouraging people to do so.
And my argument is not that people should use them because they're cheap enough.
My argument is this; people WILL use Modifiers.
If you make Modifiers so expensive that people can't or won't buy them for multiple Actions, people won't make characters that rely on multiple actions because, whether its true or not, the perception will be that Actions with Modifiers are more powerful than Actions that lack them. My experience with running all of the various games I've run tells me this is true.
|
|