|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 20, 2009 12:05:27 GMT -5
Kai:
Close Combat = free ability bonus (choose any)
General Knowledge = free Int bonus
Business Skills = free Int bonus
Thieving = free Agility bonus
Ninja = free ability bonus (choose from a list)
Wall Crawling = free ability bonus (choose from a list)
Unstoppable = free ability bonus (choose from a list)
Web Slinging = free ability bonus (choose from a list)
Swimming = free ability bonus (choose from a list)
And that's off the top of my head. (It took me about 25 seconds to type that list up. How long did you use your brain before you decided that Gambling is the only Action with a free ability bonus?)
Also, I never laid down a hard rule about what contributes to Difficulty and what doesn't. "There will be times when Abilities, Modifiers, and Actions will and won't apply. It's up to the GM to decide, in the end." In the case of someone trying to catch a trapeze, I'd certainly allow just Agility - possibly with a negative sit mod, but Agility 9 should be more than enough.
You also chose a bad example with Vehicle Operations. From page 84 of the core book, under Vehicles in Game Play: "To operate a vehicle, you must have a high enough Vehicle Operation Action Number, Intelligence, or Agility to overcome the difficulty of the vehicle." This is an actual core demonstration of the principle that difficulty should be overcome by what makes sense in that particular context. All the Vehicle Operation Action does is allow you to buy it higher than your Int or Agi (very important for baseline humans), plus it gives you specialties.
To go back to the Thieving example: Agility makes you AGILE. It makes you deft, it makes you graceful. It doesn't necessarily mean you intuitively know how to break into a complex device such as a safe. At what point are you so agile that you understand how to break into one? Learning that sort of thing requires training or at least experience through personal trial and error - and that's what the Thieving AN represents.
~TWF
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 20, 2009 12:14:11 GMT -5
First of all.... Agility Junkie wouldn't get hurt... unless that Trapeze is more than 110 feet off the ground... which most aren't... It was dangling from the Bottom of the SHIELD Helicarrier.. more than 110 stories above the ground.  So then someone with Intelligence 9 can take a 2-stone penalty and use it like Inventing 7? Why ever bother learning any actions except combat, then?He can't meet the difficulty of 3, so how can he operate it? (Well, I guess if he bumbles around for a panel, he could earn a favorable sit mod that would allow him to, but still...)Oh. I get it, using an Ability at a penalty again.But if his AN were a single point higher, he'd become awesome at it, even though he's never been trained to use a tank specifically.But you don't need to buy actions at all if you're willing to use an ability and take a penalty. Considering the cost, I'd almost rather do that. Why spend points on Vehicle Operation when I can just take higher Intelligence, and get additional benefits besides? Kai: Close Combat = free ability bonus (choose any) General Knowledge = free Int bonus Business Skills = free Int bonus Thieving = free Agility bonus Ninja = free ability bonus (choose from a list) Wall Crawling = free ability bonus (choose from a list) Unstoppable = free ability bonus (choose from a list) Web Slinging = free ability bonus (choose from a list) Swimming = free ability bonus (choose from a list) And that's off the top of my head. (It took me about 25 seconds to type that list up. How long did you use your brain before you decided that Gambling is the only Action with a free ability bonus?) I meant a bonus that adds free stones, genius. And I can think of no others that do that. Better luck next time. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 20, 2009 15:02:08 GMT -5
Ability Bonuses need to count toward overcoming difficulty. I understand the arguments against it and even agree with some of them, but now I'll say why they need to count:
1st reason: Recently I was arguing with a friend about how he was GMing a certain game for one of the other PCs. The player's character is enormously intelligent and can make epic-level knowledge checks when he's not even close to epic. My friend, the GM, informs him of tons of details about the plot, the setting, and the motivations and actions of all he meets.
I was frustrated with the magnitude of GM-assistance this player was getting because I didn't feel it was fair to the other players at the table.
My friend countered me thusly:
"It's unfair to ask a player who isn't as intelligent as their character to behave as if they are. Players can roleplay extremely low intelligence because they're all smarter than that, and so they're expected to roleplay as if they're stupid. They can't reasonably be expected to roleplay someone who is an epic super-genius, so it's the GM's job to assist them."
A lot of GMs use this as an argument to prohibit players from playing uber-intelligent characters. That's their choice and if they don't have any players who want to play those types of characters then it's a fine choice.
Players NEVER exceed ability scores of 3 (except occasional intelligences of 4 and the very-rare 5), and in fact no one knows what a much higher ability score would look like in a living creature. So we really don't know what someone who is THAT good CAN do or CAN'T do.
2nd reason: All RPGs I've played are based on playing extraordinary individuals. Players want to play characters who can overcome obstacles because they're extremely gifted, and gifted comes in the form of ability scores while experience comes in the form of Action Numbers.
Why do you think teen games are so popular when half their players are college age? It's not because we're a bunch of creepy kiddy-fiddlers, it's because we really like the idea of being extraordinary achievers at a young age, but can't comfortably roleplay much younger than teen.
Marvel Heros have been overcoming difficulty and resistance with their ability bonuses for years. So there's no reason we should rule it out.
I DO think there should be exceptions, but we should be able to figure what those exceptions are as we write up new versions of MURPG actions. We shouldn't rely too much on "GM discretion" because then we're putting a TON of extra work in the GM's lap and you all know GMing is hard enough as it is. Anyway, if MURPG 2.0 is harder on the GM than MURPG 1 then it's really not any better at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 20, 2009 15:27:27 GMT -5
Thanks, Malice. I guess I owe you one.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 20, 2009 15:35:01 GMT -5
*shrug* The original writers of MURPG did a lot of stuff half-ass and made a lot of mistakes, but they also did a LOT of stuff right and created good foundational concepts as well as injecting an overdose of the best intentions.
Correctly distinguishing between what the original source material did right and what it didn't is going to be what makes or breaks this project.
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 20, 2009 15:40:22 GMT -5
Malice, all you did was make a case for this sentence:
I made it big because neither you, nor Kai read it. (Kai couldn't even muster a reply to my post.)
~TWF
|
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 20, 2009 15:47:27 GMT -5
From my perspective... if it's to save your life, I'd allow someone to put an Ability in place of an action (No Kai... not Inventing...) to attempt to meet a difficulty, but it would be at extreme penalty.
Other than that, Action Numbers are Trivialized completely when they are basically made into second bananas when the DnR is like "Well this is an EPIC difficulty" and Base Instincts man with his Technology of 1 (because he can repair his club) and his Intelligence of 8 (cause he's the most brilliant caveman alive) can build time machines...
Wait... that must be how the Geico Cavemen got here.
No, we shouldn't allow that kind of power... maybe you can get a favorable sit mod to difficulty because of high intelligence, but nothing more than a stone....
I've got it.... We work it like we do 2 people lifting with the same strength stones.
AN > Ability = No bonus vs Difficulty
AN =< Ability = +1 bonus vs Difficulty
Done... everyone's happy, let's move on and forget this ugly argument ever happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 20, 2009 15:56:35 GMT -5
Do you actually know the meaning of the word "read?" Just because I read it doesn't mean I agree with it.
In the end, GMs will decide anyway, because that's what they do. And many GMs will insist that Ability Bonuses mean practically nothing. However, I think the rules should specify when Ability Bonuses will or won't apply, because at least that way GMs will have to apply a House Rule to counteract it.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 20, 2009 15:58:57 GMT -5
Malice, all you did was make a case for this sentence: I made it big because neither you, nor Kai read it. (Kai couldn't even muster a reply to my post.) ~TWF Believe it or not, I DID read it! Twice! The second time was much easier, since you were so kind as to post it in a big font  I am near-sighted.I also addressed it in my post. I'll match your good manners and re-post it REALLY BIG for you so that YOU can read it. I DO think there should be exceptions, but we should be able to figure what those exceptions are as we write up new versions of MURPG actions. We shouldn't rely too much on "GM discretion" because then we're putting a TON of extra work in the GM's lap and you all know GMing is hard enough as it is. Anyway, if MURPG 2.0 is harder on the GM than MURPG 1 then it's really not any better at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 20, 2009 16:05:49 GMT -5
Points to his universally happy coombaiya singing solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 20, 2009 16:15:42 GMT -5
+1? Seriously? You expect me to be happy with a +1?!
No, that's not nearly good enough in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 20, 2009 16:17:12 GMT -5
Yeah, Malice, I read that. Read the first sentence of my last post: "All you did was make a case for [insert the really huge rule here]."
~TWF
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 20, 2009 16:30:36 GMT -5
Yeah, Malice, I read that. Read the first sentence of my last post: "All you did was make a case for [insert the really huge rule here]." ~TWF Ok, may I make a request which will be repaid with my fulfillment of the same request? PLEASE quit telling me to read things I've already read as if it's going to fix things. Obviously I read it because I responded to it. Obviously it didn't open a telepathic link from me to you to know exactly what you meant. Obviously I still disagree or don't understand even after reading it. In return, you won't get a response like my last one again. I'll assume you've read what I've written and responded as best you could because you'll be doing the same for me. We'll both put emphasis on the "as best you could" because we're not telepaths. So let me break down what you said to make sure I understand what you think I should have already understood: This appears to be the part of the sentence that you think I proved or back up with my post. Upon seperating it from this part: I actually agree. I got confused with the second sentence though because it appears you're either saying: "It's up to the GM to decide each case" or "In the end the GM has final say about everything" The first interpretation of you sentence is the one I disagree with, for reasons I've cited (You read them already). However, it appears you meant the sentence in the second way, which I didn't use the first time because that sentence effectively says nothing at all. Of course it's up to the GM! That doesn't matter when creating rules, because it is an "Of course" situation. I'm not mocking you, I'm saying the sentence, as I read it, is either counter to my sentiments about keeping it simple for GMs, or a statement of the painfully obvious (Which I disregard not as irrelevant, but unnecessary to point out). Is there a third interpretation I haven't hit upon that will help me understand how we're in agreement? |
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 20, 2009 16:50:32 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Malice, but I only copied and pasted part of my post. If you wanted to learn the full context, you could have read the rest of the post. I'm sorry if I keep telling you to read things, but (it seemed to me) that you missed what I said. (Several other posters here, including myself, have entirely missed posts from time to time.) If you had read it and understood it, you probably wouldn't have repeated a lot of what I already wrote.
One of the things you repeated is that "Marvel Heros have been overcoming difficulty and resistance with their ability bonuses for years. So there's no reason we should rule it out." I never said we should rule it out, I said quite clearly that there will be situations where an Ability does apply, and situations where they don't. By the same token, sometimes an Action Number won't count for crap. Sometimes a Modifier will help, sometimes it won't. The contextual possibilities in a fantasy world are literally endless, so trying to nail down absolute rules is utterly and totally pointless.
I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do. We agree that in the end, it's the GM's game. Also, I'm already in favour of setting down some specific rules for common situations, as it's easy to predict what will come up in an average game (in particular a lot of athletics, such as lifting, throwing, jumping, etc).
But we can't predict everything - maybe at some point a character will be under water trying to hold her breath while tied up with a hemp rope, attempting to open a heavy steel trap door with only her toes. At some point, context will get so bizarre that a list of rules is not going to be of much help - at best, there may be comparisons, but in the end everyone around the table is going to look to the GM for a ruling. That's both the art of being a GM, and the burden.
I know you say "of course" it's up to the GM. But when I was originally typing my post, people were suggesting a hard rule that Ability + AN always overcomes difficulty. That just won't fly, and I think you and I both agree on that.
~TWF
|
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 20, 2009 18:17:03 GMT -5
+1? Seriously? You expect me to be happy with a +1?! No, that's not nearly good enough in my opinion. That's nice that it's your opinion that we should break the system.. I say no, and I'm sure everyone here of sound mind and body will agree with me. |
|
