On your time traveller...
I'd treat his "different selves" as completely different personalities almost. You know how the YOU of today is probably MUCH different than the YOU when you were in High School. Think about it that way as a time traveller. His WWII self might be very naive and wonderous in awe of his "new" time travel ability. His modern day version might be jaded a little (from the war and from his girlfriend dying) but overall he's just a "heist crook" not a killer. And his future self might have been broken, after the PCs took him to jail and let his girl die, etc... Now he's a killer, INCLUDING killing his former naive self even maybe (as a villain weakness). And then even maybe have a "good" version of himself, as if in all his "time" in jail he became a devout believer that his ways were wrong, etc... (basically like an old-school priest/... he found a "god in the machine" of time and changed) now he *might* come back to help the heroes, but believes that "god helps those who helps themselves" and will only give the PCs tiny little helps and clues to foil his former selves... and have the time-tech change (get smaller) over the different versions of himself...
In fact... I'd do that and give him different names - to show the change AND confuse the players a little. For example:
PRIMEVIL PETE = assuming that the REST of these time-characters use some sort of time-tech... I'd have just a fun random/time villain (of this same villain), be a caveman version of the time traveller, imbued with time-tech in his blood through some weird backward in time experiment the far future time traveller did... that warped himself into a neanderthal version with time-thermites in his bloodstream... heheh... that might be a fun "origin" story for the original character who was an archeologist or something who found a "Cyber-Raptor" and these old bones (his old self!) with the time-tech in the DNA. Not something HE could make biological, but he could use it like Pym-Particles to power time-tech machines... Just a fun caveman brute type that can TIME TRAVEL too!! Maybe just uses it for super super speed and big damn time-punches!
CODY CLOCK STOPPER = the WWII time traveller that TRIED to be a hero, but just wasn't suited for it, naive but a failure that only gets saved from stuff with his time-tech...
TEMPEST (aka. Mr. Minute) = Modern Day time-crook, who's a little bitter thief but not a killer yet. (I'd have his "main" name be MR MINUTE or CLOCK-CROOK or MR. MEANWHILE, hahah... though and want to be called Tempest, to be more fun like "Paste Pot Pete" who wanted to be called the Trapster, but no one would call him that!)
DR. CHRONULUS "MASTE OF THE MINUTE", "TERRORIST OF TIME" = the "near" future true Mastermind Supervillain, Doc Ock + Magneto. This guy definately would have tons of minions all with time-curcuits but I doubt he'd be trustworthy enough to give any normal supervillain minions he has time-tech. Time-tech is probably ONLY given to his robots or Cyber-Raptors!
BROTHER TOMORROW or TIME TEACHER or FATHER TIME or THE ELDER = Far future master of time who now sees the error of his ways. This guy might have a young sidekick, a squire in training like a Robin/AlterBoy... (like the Carrie/Robin from Dark Knight, a 10 year old girl called EARLY BIRD)
TERMINAL = a far future but ALTERNATE timeline version of "Brother Tomorrow" (or whatever his name is) that is fucking insane like the Joker + Sabertooth with time powers. He might put together a team "Team Terminal" of supers and give them all time/speed units to use. Who all he wants to do is "convict" and execute the other selves for "THE CRIMES OF TIME TREACHERY!!"
The fun of this is you have a virtual "team" of time villains that you could play up... They might even know of each other (the future selves know the youngers better of course) But they all have a "dislike" of the others in different ways, and might even look up to or envy or PITY their future selves. You could have fun giving them all different costumes and sidekicks they've tried over the years. I'm imagining a "Bucky" style young man with a dog sidekick (TICK-TOCK or CLOCK-CANINE or something fun). Then dream up very different cool versions of the others... figure out a KEY point that ties them all together, either a visual thing (they all have blood-shot eyes from the time travel stress) or a personality tick (they all stutter, but elder versions have it under better control only when they get mad). etc..
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Efficiency vs. Concept = Mutually Exclusive??
I think it's a little bit of a cop-out when players suggest that role-playing GAME characters (and the players that build them) should NOT be built EFFICIENTLY.
I used to rail against mini-maxing character stats. I hated playing games (as GM or fellow player) with gamers that knew the rules SO WELL and would squeeze (even bend/cheat the spirit of the rules) the most effectiveness out of stat creation.
After watching and playing with a dozen folks that tended to do that... I "learned" that using the system to maximize the opportunities my character (or NPCs as the GM) should have is not only my responsibility to my character, but also to the group I'm in (ie. the Team).
My caveat (which now I see goes across many of my fellow players): do not bend/break the concept in favor of making efficient rule choices. But do the best you can within the system.
I feel that doing all that one can to build a character toward the theme and the concept does NOT need to be a cop-out at lacking on efficiency in the build.
In a vacuum, two players can make the same character with the same awesome concept.
One can hamstring himself by not focusing and learning and creatively constructing the best options for what the rules can give to the character concept.
While another person can make the same concept using the best options with a little effort and still NOT "break" or even bend the SPIRIT of the rules or game.
In that vacuum, when the PCs come out to play in the game that character (and their player) suffers from the poor building of the first.
Just because the latter build is efficient does not mean it doesn't fit the concept.
Now...
When you BREAK or bend the concept completely in favor of a stat benefit. Then THAT is where I agree with my dislike of "efficiency" in mini-maxing stats.
That's a fine line.
But luckily - it's a big shiny bright line to be able to SEE the concept being broken.
Overall.... I still stink at building uber efficient stats for game characters. I have 3-4 friends that can run circles around me. And that's great! I don't mind. The trick is to do my best to use the rules given so that my character is not SO FAR BEHIND, just because I'm either lazy or purposely hamstringing my PC. It's unfair to the character and the team, in my humble opinion.
So question.
WHY would one build a PC that is not built efficiently as long as the stat creation still holds true to the concept?
A stupid simple but appropriate example:
My friends and I are playing Monopoly. I'm playing the "Thimble". Because I feel a Thimble should not be as fast as the Racecar, I choose to roll D4s instead of D6s like everyone else playing because it represents my concept better. Clearly my concept is met with a average slower speed at moving around the board. But that unnecessary choice hamstrings my chances to get to spaces before my fellow players playing the game...
Comparatively.
In BASH! I can make a character with the concept of using an invisible hand that can grab opponents. I could build it using Telekinesis and rely on the grapple rules or I could simply use the Force Field power.
Why would anyone do that? It doesn't break the concept, it's just efficient and elegant use of the rules.
A character that has a giant hand of force that regularly likes to grab opponents and hold them down could:
- build the power exclusively with Telekinesis
- build the power with the addition of Force Field
With TK alone, say you want to grab a villain and hold them down. The player would need to use their power in combination with the Wrestling rules.
Telekinesis: "Treating Telekinesis as Brawn for damage, lifting, or wrestling and Mind as Agility to hit."
+
Wrestling - Grab: "You grab your enemy and hold them fast. If you succeed, you have the opponent in your iron grip. From this point forward, it is Brawn against Brawn only. Each page, on his panel, your victim can try to break free."
... (then a page later) ...
"Each page, on your panel you may do one of the following moves to a grabbed opponent:"
"Restrain Them: Make a Brawn contest with the foe."
OR...
Simply build it with Force Field:
and "...trap an unwilling target, make a Mind contest against their Defense (Deflect is of no use). The force field lasts until it is destroyed by damage."
Not Efficient vs. Efficient.
Lots of unnecessary rule/rolls for a similar (if not better with FF) conclusion. (Note: that either could be "stunted" with Hero Dice on the other, which is an awesome option of HD)
That's the obvious example that comes to mind. But there are a number of ways that you might build any character inefficiently toward a concept that could be built equally worthy of the concept but a much more efficient use of your points, powers and rule usage.
To step up on my soap box...
(NOTE: not not not against anyone here, especially BASHMAN, whom I respect and think we're actually ON the same page on this)
My problem with mentioning building things toward a concept vs. efficiency is the mistake in thinking they are not mutually exclusive in any way, shape or form.
My problem is (honestly) less with the people that talk about this and more with the MESSAGE it sends to new players to the games. I get concerned that this jaded (and I feel incorrect) talk can color a game-player's attitude and ability before they try.
And many times those folks that say they'd rather build a character more to concept than focus on effectiveness are either doing the game system option/ability to build efficiently a disservice or are speaking from a position of:
- inability (they just aren't good at building)
- unwillingness to try (they don't care about their own PC or the team)
- laziness (they're unwilling to take the time)
- patronization (they think following "concept" is a superior attitude in game-play and won't/haven't consider concept and efficiency aren't exclusive)
I used to rail against mini-maxing character stats. I hated playing games (as GM or fellow player) with gamers that knew the rules SO WELL and would squeeze (even bend/cheat the spirit of the rules) the most effectiveness out of stat creation.
After watching and playing with a dozen folks that tended to do that... I "learned" that using the system to maximize the opportunities my character (or NPCs as the GM) should have is not only my responsibility to my character, but also to the group I'm in (ie. the Team).
My caveat (which now I see goes across many of my fellow players): do not bend/break the concept in favor of making efficient rule choices. But do the best you can within the system.
I feel that doing all that one can to build a character toward the theme and the concept does NOT need to be a cop-out at lacking on efficiency in the build.
In a vacuum, two players can make the same character with the same awesome concept.
One can hamstring himself by not focusing and learning and creatively constructing the best options for what the rules can give to the character concept.
While another person can make the same concept using the best options with a little effort and still NOT "break" or even bend the SPIRIT of the rules or game.
In that vacuum, when the PCs come out to play in the game that character (and their player) suffers from the poor building of the first.
Just because the latter build is efficient does not mean it doesn't fit the concept.
Now...
When you BREAK or bend the concept completely in favor of a stat benefit. Then THAT is where I agree with my dislike of "efficiency" in mini-maxing stats.
That's a fine line.
But luckily - it's a big shiny bright line to be able to SEE the concept being broken.
Overall.... I still stink at building uber efficient stats for game characters. I have 3-4 friends that can run circles around me. And that's great! I don't mind. The trick is to do my best to use the rules given so that my character is not SO FAR BEHIND, just because I'm either lazy or purposely hamstringing my PC. It's unfair to the character and the team, in my humble opinion.
So question.
WHY would one build a PC that is not built efficiently as long as the stat creation still holds true to the concept?
A stupid simple but appropriate example:
My friends and I are playing Monopoly. I'm playing the "Thimble". Because I feel a Thimble should not be as fast as the Racecar, I choose to roll D4s instead of D6s like everyone else playing because it represents my concept better. Clearly my concept is met with a average slower speed at moving around the board. But that unnecessary choice hamstrings my chances to get to spaces before my fellow players playing the game...
Comparatively.
In BASH! I can make a character with the concept of using an invisible hand that can grab opponents. I could build it using Telekinesis and rely on the grapple rules or I could simply use the Force Field power.
Why would anyone do that? It doesn't break the concept, it's just efficient and elegant use of the rules.
A character that has a giant hand of force that regularly likes to grab opponents and hold them down could:
- build the power exclusively with Telekinesis
- build the power with the addition of Force Field
With TK alone, say you want to grab a villain and hold them down. The player would need to use their power in combination with the Wrestling rules.
Telekinesis: "Treating Telekinesis as Brawn for damage, lifting, or wrestling and Mind as Agility to hit."
+
Wrestling - Grab: "You grab your enemy and hold them fast. If you succeed, you have the opponent in your iron grip. From this point forward, it is Brawn against Brawn only. Each page, on his panel, your victim can try to break free."
... (then a page later) ...
"Each page, on your panel you may do one of the following moves to a grabbed opponent:"
"Restrain Them: Make a Brawn contest with the foe."
OR...
Simply build it with Force Field:
and "...trap an unwilling target, make a Mind contest against their Defense (Deflect is of no use). The force field lasts until it is destroyed by damage."
Not Efficient vs. Efficient.
Lots of unnecessary rule/rolls for a similar (if not better with FF) conclusion. (Note: that either could be "stunted" with Hero Dice on the other, which is an awesome option of HD)
That's the obvious example that comes to mind. But there are a number of ways that you might build any character inefficiently toward a concept that could be built equally worthy of the concept but a much more efficient use of your points, powers and rule usage.
To step up on my soap box...
(NOTE: not not not against anyone here, especially BASHMAN, whom I respect and think we're actually ON the same page on this)
My problem with mentioning building things toward a concept vs. efficiency is the mistake in thinking they are not mutually exclusive in any way, shape or form.
My problem is (honestly) less with the people that talk about this and more with the MESSAGE it sends to new players to the games. I get concerned that this jaded (and I feel incorrect) talk can color a game-player's attitude and ability before they try.
And many times those folks that say they'd rather build a character more to concept than focus on effectiveness are either doing the game system option/ability to build efficiently a disservice or are speaking from a position of:
- inability (they just aren't good at building)
- unwillingness to try (they don't care about their own PC or the team)
- laziness (they're unwilling to take the time)
- patronization (they think following "concept" is a superior attitude in game-play and won't/haven't consider concept and efficiency aren't exclusive)
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Planet Busting in supers games
Some superhero settings feature truly cosmic levels of power. While, in my experience, it is most often easier to simply treat such massively powerful beings as plot devices, sometimes it’s fun to consider the limits of the game system in terms of modeling them. Case in point: how many ranks of Damage would you need to destroy the Earth in the third edition of Mutants & Masterminds?
Now, a lot of it depends on how we define “destroy.” For the same of discussion, let’s stipulate the following:
- •The Earth is an “object” in game terms (albeit a big one). So it is subject to the rules for damaging objects.
- •While made of a variety of materials, we’ll consider the Earth’s base Toughness that of stone: rank 5.
- •The “thickness” of the Earth is its diameter: 7,901 miles. That’s technically a distance rank of 20, since it’s shy of the 8,000 miles value of rank 21. Since an object’s Toughness equals its base rank + (distance rank + 7), that would make Earth’s Toughness rank 5 + (20 + 7) or 32.
- •Let’s say that the Earth’s Toughness is also Impervious, so nothing less than Damage 17 even has a chance of damaging the planet as a whole. Anything else might mess up the landscape, but that’s all.
So, the minimum Damage rank (17) has a resistance DC of (17 + 15) or 32, the same as the planet’s Toughness value, meaning the resistance check pretty much can’t fail.
But wait: let’s assume the “attacker” is going to take the option of making an attack check, since the Earth is a pretty massive object. It’s not like he’s going to miss! That’s good for a critical hit and +5 Damage. Likewise, let’s assume the attacker goes for a Power Attack for –2 to the attack check and +2 Damage.
That ramps the Damage up to 24, or DC 39. Now the GM needs to roll a 7 or better for the planet to suffer no serious damage. A 6 or less means a Toughness reduction, while a 2 or less (for a Toughness check total of 34 or less) actually means two degrees of failure: the attack blows a hole clear through the planet! While that doesn’t shatter the Earth in one blow, it probably means the end of life as we know it as the molten core bursts out and floods the surface.
(Indeed, if we were being really pedantic about this, we could probably stipulate the Earth’s “thickness” as that of the rocky mantle—mere tens of miles—since any attack that blasts through that will unleash the high-pressure molten magma from the core. But I digress...)
Ramping things up further, a Damage 20 attack, made with a successful attack check, a full Power Attack (+5 Damage), and some extra effort (for +1 Damage) does a whopping Damage 31, DC 46. The planet needs a die roll of 14 or better to avoid damage altogether. A roll of 9 or less means a hole punched right through the planet, while a roll of 4 or less shatters the entire planet in a single blast! So it’s quite possible for some high-level characters to at least threaten Earth-sized planets, to say nothing of smaller moons or the like. Take the Damage rank up by even 5–6 and the attacker has even odds of smashing planets with single attacks!
Setting expectations, violence isn't the only way to victory
[supers] Setting expectations, violence isn't the only way to victory
Superhero stories are different than many other fantasy genres. Because of that role-playing games, the NPCs, and the players "need" to understand the differences before playing their characters and helping co-create and tell the story of the RPG sessions.
One problem I run up against in playing superhero games that frustrates me sometimes is players who think more on the "traditional" style of game play (and story) that they've played out with so many other RPGs. ... Namely the "remove them from the battlefield" mentality that often results in "kill them" actions that we're all very familiar with in our traditional D&D fantasy fare.
Not only do (many) players resort to "take them out" by physical "beat the heck out of the bad guy" methods alone but they also get frustrated when they see (assume) that a villain or threat seems to be "unbalanced" to their character's "power level" - the result of a problem created by the extreme effort to BALANCE game mechanics that (I've seen) happen in game design over the last 10 years.
Some players can't "enjoy" the story because they're too busy wondering what "power level" the villain is at or why the "minions" didn't go down in one hit.
I find this frustrating and confusing (to the players) unnecessarily especially in Superhero games.
Because in superhero comic stories the villains are OFTEN way more powerful than the hero team. Many times the heroes are up against odds that are overwhelming. Sometimes those odds are meant and welcome to be challenged through various means such as:
- [B]Team Actions[/B]: many rule systems allow for team tactics to increase combat effect.
- [B]Non-physical Actions[/B]: sometimes villains are just invulnerable and need to be "beaten" through other methods such as mental powers, restraining circumstances, or even role-playing to convince the villain to stand down.
- [B]Achilles' Heel[/B]: often the only way to beat a villain is to discover its Achilles' heal, which might be an actual combat point or a social conflict that stops the villain.
- [B]Out of Juice[/B]: sometimes the Achilles' Heel is a more specific "timetable" in which the villain needs to "win" by getting the mission done BEFORE running out of power, or ending whatever timeline they're dealing with.
- [B]Job's Done[/B]: many/most villains in comics (especially the lower tier crooks) are often ONLY in the battle for the mission. Whether it be the prize/money or the achievement. Not all villains fight to the death and many comic villains actually have their own codes! Surprisingly to many players not every villain WILL kill in battle!
- [B]It's ALIVE![/B]: sometimes the entire point of a story (RPG = encounter) is the "origin story" (creation) of a new villain! So sometimes their is a deus ex machina that stops the villain at that point.
- [B]Villain Fight[/B]: another classic "endgame" of the villains is that they squabble and fight each other or the big bad decides to "eliminate" his foolish minions for their incollence.
Anyway...
I get frustrated in games when players don't understand, don't consider, or even scoff at the fact a villain can't/won't or doesn't need to be taken down by punching them in the head, and/or KILLING them - to "remove" them from the battlefield like a Chess Board.
Two questions.
#1. Adding to my ideas above. What other options have you seen/read or experienced that villains in superhero comics can be beaten beyond being punched in the head until all the hit points are gone?
#2. How would you get those points across to players starting a superhero game? Without hamfisting the "win method" in each story/encounter by hinting heavily that their may be another way to BEAT the villain, how would you make sure the players REMEMBER those options and try them?
looking forward to thoughts
-kev-
Superhero stories are different than many other fantasy genres. Because of that role-playing games, the NPCs, and the players "need" to understand the differences before playing their characters and helping co-create and tell the story of the RPG sessions.
One problem I run up against in playing superhero games that frustrates me sometimes is players who think more on the "traditional" style of game play (and story) that they've played out with so many other RPGs. ... Namely the "remove them from the battlefield" mentality that often results in "kill them" actions that we're all very familiar with in our traditional D&D fantasy fare.
Not only do (many) players resort to "take them out" by physical "beat the heck out of the bad guy" methods alone but they also get frustrated when they see (assume) that a villain or threat seems to be "unbalanced" to their character's "power level" - the result of a problem created by the extreme effort to BALANCE game mechanics that (I've seen) happen in game design over the last 10 years.
Some players can't "enjoy" the story because they're too busy wondering what "power level" the villain is at or why the "minions" didn't go down in one hit.
I find this frustrating and confusing (to the players) unnecessarily especially in Superhero games.
Because in superhero comic stories the villains are OFTEN way more powerful than the hero team. Many times the heroes are up against odds that are overwhelming. Sometimes those odds are meant and welcome to be challenged through various means such as:
- [B]Team Actions[/B]: many rule systems allow for team tactics to increase combat effect.
- [B]Non-physical Actions[/B]: sometimes villains are just invulnerable and need to be "beaten" through other methods such as mental powers, restraining circumstances, or even role-playing to convince the villain to stand down.
- [B]Achilles' Heel[/B]: often the only way to beat a villain is to discover its Achilles' heal, which might be an actual combat point or a social conflict that stops the villain.
- [B]Out of Juice[/B]: sometimes the Achilles' Heel is a more specific "timetable" in which the villain needs to "win" by getting the mission done BEFORE running out of power, or ending whatever timeline they're dealing with.
- [B]Job's Done[/B]: many/most villains in comics (especially the lower tier crooks) are often ONLY in the battle for the mission. Whether it be the prize/money or the achievement. Not all villains fight to the death and many comic villains actually have their own codes! Surprisingly to many players not every villain WILL kill in battle!
- [B]It's ALIVE![/B]: sometimes the entire point of a story (RPG = encounter) is the "origin story" (creation) of a new villain! So sometimes their is a deus ex machina that stops the villain at that point.
- [B]Villain Fight[/B]: another classic "endgame" of the villains is that they squabble and fight each other or the big bad decides to "eliminate" his foolish minions for their incollence.
Anyway...
I get frustrated in games when players don't understand, don't consider, or even scoff at the fact a villain can't/won't or doesn't need to be taken down by punching them in the head, and/or KILLING them - to "remove" them from the battlefield like a Chess Board.
Two questions.
#1. Adding to my ideas above. What other options have you seen/read or experienced that villains in superhero comics can be beaten beyond being punched in the head until all the hit points are gone?
#2. How would you get those points across to players starting a superhero game? Without hamfisting the "win method" in each story/encounter by hinting heavily that their may be another way to BEAT the villain, how would you make sure the players REMEMBER those options and try them?
looking forward to thoughts
-kev-
Fuck that noise!
I'm not opposed to "cursing" in normal life. I'm not a foul-mouthed sailor-man either... It doesn't offend me, though I know when it's appropriate and not in real life.
However, in game play ...
I get *shocked* out of game and dislike when players use swear words that are NOT in the style/fiction of the game world. I would get frustrated if a player or NPC started saying "Fuck this, cocksucker...", etc...
I'd rather the player say "Blork that" or some other word that the group establishes as in-game fictional curse words.
So... our modern colloquialisms bug me when used inappropriately in settings. That said... playing in a White Wolf modern game having a pissed off PC/NPC go on a cursing rant "Pissant, cocksucking, Fucktard fuckers!! Eat shit and die!!" is perfectly in-game to me.
For example...
In an Iron Kingdoms game I GMed, I actually mentioned this when a player said "fuck" and asked them to use "Farg" instead (a word I made up on the spot) to represent the curse word "fuck" in that game... because "fuck" took me out of it... LOL
I'm weird that way!
I'm wondering what other folks think/do for this... Or if it's even ever been something you've considered.
However, in game play ...
I get *shocked* out of game and dislike when players use swear words that are NOT in the style/fiction of the game world. I would get frustrated if a player or NPC started saying "Fuck this, cocksucker...", etc...
I'd rather the player say "Blork that" or some other word that the group establishes as in-game fictional curse words.
So... our modern colloquialisms bug me when used inappropriately in settings. That said... playing in a White Wolf modern game having a pissed off PC/NPC go on a cursing rant "Pissant, cocksucking, Fucktard fuckers!! Eat shit and die!!" is perfectly in-game to me.
For example...
In an Iron Kingdoms game I GMed, I actually mentioned this when a player said "fuck" and asked them to use "Farg" instead (a word I made up on the spot) to represent the curse word "fuck" in that game... because "fuck" took me out of it... LOL
I'm weird that way!
I'm wondering what other folks think/do for this... Or if it's even ever been something you've considered.
Creating a life...
a truly nice breakdown of how the central act of traditional roleplaying is supposed to work.
You're not just making a story: you're bringing a character to life, and allowing that life to be challenged - and that collaboration creates the story, the drama, and the unique joy of rpgs.
You're not just making a story: you're bringing a character to life, and allowing that life to be challenged - and that collaboration creates the story, the drama, and the unique joy of rpgs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)