|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 18:33:09 GMT -5
People will always make characters that use multiple Actions because Actions do different things.
If your Spider Man couldn't get Modifiers for all those Actions, would you still buy Wall Crawling? Or Web Slinging? Acrobatics? Close Combat? Yes, you'd probably still buy all of them and use all of them because they all do different things.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 18:58:30 GMT -5
Me? Yes, I would.
But many (I'd go so far as to say "most") won't play Spider-Man at all, and thats the problem. They'll play someone who only uses one Action in combat, like Cyclops.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 19:06:43 GMT -5
a) If that's what they want to do, then fine. Cyclops is an interesting character, even if he doesn't do a whole lot of hand-to-hand.
b) Encouraging people to play characters who are as good as Cyclops is at blasting (or close to it) at everything they do is not inherently better, as far as I'm concerned.
c) You DO come across as trying to encourage players to use more Actions by encouraging them to buy more Modifiers by making them inexpensive - even though you claim this isn't the case. Either players will make Cyclops characters or they'll make Spider Man characters - which is your argument again?
d) Having the cost of a Modifier be MN +3 instead of MN +2 doesn't discourage players from buying several modifiers, it just keeps the MNs one point lower. It's still one-white-per until MN 3 instead of MN 4.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 19:09:57 GMT -5
I don't think my argument has ever wavered. My point is that people will choose not to play Spider-Man types because, at the same stone count, Cyclops types will be more powerful.
While Cyclops may be "interesting"... having everyone reject characters that use multiple options in combat because of something thats easily avoided is not desirable, to me.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 19:20:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your arguments. At one point you seemed to be saying that people will want Modifiers for all their Actions because they can afford them. "Players will want Modifiers for everything they're going to use in combat," you said. Like Spider Man. Then you seemed to be saying that players will only want one big Modifier, like Cyclops. I think I get now what you're saying that if Modifiers are cheap, people will buy them for everything (which I guess you think is a good thing?) and if they're expensive, people will buy just one, and only use that Action.
I'm trying to figure out how Spider Man is going to attack with any other Action but Close Combat, but alright. *shrug*
Anyway, yeah, a character can probably output a higher number of stones of attack if they focus all their stones on one giant Modifier, but the disadvantage is that they'll have fewer stones to spend on everything else.
Also, there comes a point when one giant modifier is abusive - like anything else taken to an extreme, at the ultimate detriment to the game. I don't have a problem stepping in and saying "Uhm, no, please redo this" for a giant Modifier any more than I do for someone submitting Omniclops or any other broken CAD.
Moving on (I think we're done here), I'm interested to see how this will all turn out with test games. I'm probably going to run my version (MN +3 with a caveat that Modifiers are exceptional, not commonplace) and see how that goes. If it turns out to suck, then maybe you're right. Otherwise, I don't see why we need to make so much of a change.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 19:40:21 GMT -5
But Spider-Man IS going to use multiple Actions in combat. I know. I've run him. I've used Web-Slinging, Entangling, Wall Crawling, Close Combat, and Acrobatics, in a wide variety of combinations, to simulate the fact that Spidey does lots of different things while fighting. His tactics are possibly the most varied in all of comics.
As far as MN+3... I think we should put it to a vote, because I do think theres a big difference between MN+2 and MN+3 when you're buying multiple Modifiers. And, no offense to your theory... but Modifiers are not "exceptional" for the most part... in the world of heroes, they quite commonplace.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 19:51:54 GMT -5
But Spider-Man IS going to use multiple Actions in combat. I know. I've run him. I've used Web-Slinging, Entangling, Wall Crawling, Close Combat, and Acrobatics, in a wide variety of combinations, to simulate the fact that Spidey does lots of different things while fighting. His tactics are possibly the most varied in all of comics. I must not have phrased my sentence very clearly. What I mean is that you seem to be saying that if Modifiers are expensive, players will buy only one. And if they buy only one, they're only going to use that Action, over and over again. So, I was thinking, what happens if someone buys a Modifier for Spider Man's Close Combat? (Ignoring the fact that he doesn't appear to have a Modifier.) Honestly, so what? Does that mean he's going to solve all his problems by just using 1 action and punching? I figure he's still likely to use Close Combat in conjunction with some other Action, shifting stones to defense, moving around, etc. And when punching things isn't the solution, he'll use his webshooters. If he's in an enclosed space, he'll probably choose to use Wall Crawling as his second Action, as it makes the most sense. Etc. Why does he need to have a modifier for all his Actions in order to want to use them? If that isn't what you're trying to argue for, then this whole chunk of the debate was a misunderstanding. The subtle difference between my view is that exceptional ability is commonplace. Modifiers aren't the only way to portray that exceptional ability. Again to use Spider Man, he doesn't excel at any one area over others (at least not by very much). Thus I don't see the need for a Modifier. I honestly don't see what's wrong with just putting stones in boxes. If he's exceptional, it's because of his high agility, his high strength, his high dur, his high intellect. It's because he's a natural acrobat, he's a veteran fighter, he has neat web-shooting devices. None of that needs to be represented as a modifier. Cyclops on the other hand, is a pretty average/athletic guy who's primary power is disproportionately massive. His Social Skills, Close Combat, Leadership, Piloting and other Actions are all based on his normal energy and are about on par with each other, but his Optic Blast is the exception. That's why he's a good candidate for a Modifier. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 19:57:39 GMT -5
Again... I understand your position on Modifiers. However, I'm apparently much more middle-ground. I don't have a problem with using a combination of Modifiers and Action Numbers to represent being good at something, so long as it doesn't take away the resource allocation portion of the game.
I appreciate that you don't like Modifiers, but I wish you'd find some way to restrict them other than bumping the cost so that players who want to use Modifiers to represent things that are important to them aren't kept from doing so.
Quite frankly, I think the 1 for 1 rule is plenty to keep people from abusing Modifiers, at any cost.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 20:14:53 GMT -5
The only restriction I think is fair is to explain what they're for. I have higher expectations of people, I suppose. Characters with Claws were inherently better than characters without them, but I rarely saw anyone abuse the system.
And I take umbrage at the depiction that I'm "bumping the cost" of Modifiers. You guys are the ones LOWERING them to MN +2 CL. I'm content with MN +3, which is more in line with 1.0. The burden of proof that MN +2 CL is justified is on you guys, not me.
And for the last time, one extra cost level isn't "keeping" people from representing "things that are important to them". The MN +3 CL is an effort to keep people from overindulging, that's all. You know very well that one cost level doesn't outright prohibit using Modifiers. The only thing it discourages (not prevents) is buying several Modifiers - which I maintain is silly to begin with. (It also makes one giant Modifier quite a bit more expensive. At high MNs you're paying 3 or 5 white per point. The difference between MN 2 and 3 is just 1 white.)
We're rehashing the same stuff. Like I said, I'm going to test my view out. You haven't had anything bad to say about games where people don't rely on Modifiers for everything, so let's try it.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 20:20:56 GMT -5
Uh... thats because I don't think that in MURPG 1.0 people do or should rely on Modifiers.
THIS system is built on a different foundation, and thats the idea.
As far as the burden of proof... I didn't know there was one. I wasn't aware we were trying to keep things in line with 1.0, because the only reason I got involved with this whole thing is because I feel that very little in 1.0 is any good.
I'm working on ideas that I'm garnering from my experiences as a player and a GM. MN+2 wasn't my idea, but I like it as a minimum cost because in my experience, Claws were just a tad too expensive at MN+3
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 20:26:50 GMT -5
Uh... thats because I don't think that in MURPG 1.0 people do or should rely on Modifiers. THIS system is built on a different foundation, and thats the idea. As far as the burden of proof... I didn't know there was one. I wasn't aware we were trying to keep things in line with 1.0, because the only reason I got involved with this whole thing is because I feel that very little in 1.0 is any good. What you're proposing is more dramatic, know what I mean? It's further from the norm, so you have a more extreme (how ever tiny the increment) proposition. Hence it requires a little more explaining. Claws was expensive, but that's because it was MN +4, not +3. MN +3 is already a discount. (I'd also like to assume that we're doing away with the "+1 CL = Retractable" garbage.) I hope that helps explain why I'm wary of MN +2. Also, factor in that we obliterated weapons. Cap's shield has fallen from a +6 to, I believe you suggested +1 or +2. That's a huge fall. It seems contrary to me to nerf Cap's shield so much while we're also dropping the price of Claws. See where I'm going with this? ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 20:30:16 GMT -5
*nods* Okay, I follow. I'm still not sure I'm entirely happy with it, but I don't think its going to be game-ruining.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 20:32:40 GMT -5
It's really hard to say until we see the whole rule set in motion at once.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 18, 2009 20:58:10 GMT -5
Ok... I stopped reading about halfway down this page.... so bear with me.
TWF... +2 vs +3 is a big difference... It's 1 stone... or 1/50th your character creation pool if you're playing in a normal game... that's 2%... that's alot....
Difference...
I want to make Blue Lightning... God help me I don't know WHY, but I do.
He's got for actions
Close Combat 4 Ranged Combat 3 Social Skills 3 Acrobatics 3 Technology 2
MODIFIERS Combat Prowess +3 (Adds to Close Combat) Force Blast +6 (Adds to Ranged Combat) Leaper +3 (Adds to Acrobatics) Hyper-Electric Brain +3 (Paid for seperate modifiers, Adds to Technology, Computers, Inventing and Genetic Engineering)
Now... for +2, this build costs: 33 stones For +3, this build costs: 42
That's a HUGE difference in cost
|
|
|
Post by malice on Mar 2, 2009 2:23:23 GMT -5
I read through for awhile and couldn't find a conclusion to how Force Blasts work in 2.0.
So could someone tell me at what point in this thread I can find the 2.0 version of Force Blast?
|
|