Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by TonyLB, August 12, 2004, 11:04:31 PM
Quote from: TonyLBNow what should happen if a hero spends just two points? They have not gained control of the Complication (Villains: 10, Heroes: 9). They do not get to define a new situation. But neither (IMHO) should their efforts just be ignored. What sort of suggestions and constraints should I give the players for how to narrate something that brings them closer to control, but does not actually accomplish control?
Quote from: Capes RulesA given Scene will never have more Complications than it starts with: the only way to add a new Complication is by Resolving an old one.
Quote from: Capes RulesNote particularly that the rules don't distinguish between, for instance, punching a minion and talking to him about the immorality of his actions. The end result of one may be an unconscious minion, the end result of the other a reformed man, but mechanically both of them remove the minion as an obstacle. They're handled in exactly the same way, so you can feel free to do what makes sense to you at the time.
Quote from: LordSmerf3. I thought the old dice system was very cool. Without having played the new one i can not really say whether i like it any less though...
QuoteThe Level 3 Wonder: Strength Through Adversity is mechanically dangerous. Using it does not correct the Net Wonder Penalty, thus it could be used each and every round (perhaps even more than once) so that you simply win because you have so many dice.
Penalty Dice Spent Dice Gained Profit 1 4 3 -1 2 5 6 1 3 6 9 3 4 7 12 5 5 8 15 7
QuoteI still think that the game benefits from some sort of rule (or strong guideline) that every Wonder Point you spend you have to define your actions in an equal number of "frames" or "panels". This really plays to the style of comics...
QuoteDo you think that this system will focus on your Premise? Do you feel that the rules provide adequate and powerful incentive to play for the Moral story? Do you feel that the rules as-is promote non-combat play?
Quote from: TonyLBPlus, given that people know that sort of penalty gives you those benefits, why would they let you achieve it? The Editor doesn't have to foolishly run out and take minor levels of control in every single Complication. He can plow all his points into one, Resolve it, and move on to the next.
Quote from: TonyLBGeneric rules example: If you spend five dice on a Complication, and it doesn't get you control, then you get to choose who narrates the first four frames and roughly what they can do, but the controller gets to decide the last one.
Quote from: TonyLBQuite possibly the right way to do this is to explicitly require people using [Strength through Adversity] to give away more of their narration frames (as above) than they would normally have to do.
Quote from: TonyLBWhat sort of suggestions and constraints should I give the players for how to narrate something that brings them closer to control, but does not actually accomplish control?
Quote from: TonyLBI sidestepped the difficulties in defining what Issues are, with regard to Complications, by the simple expedient of making Issues a player goal...
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergI agree with Thomas that Issues get awfully expensive awfully fast. Also, I can't find anything about what Issues actually do besides act as a character advancement mechanism. I really liked the idea of Issues acting as mega-Complications to be contested over thelong term and where effects of Control permeate everything else (e.g. Peter Parker's up-and-down relationship with Mary Jane increasing or decreasing his self-confidence, or "city terrorized by crime" increasing or decreasing the tendency of Innocent Bystanders to panic and get in the way vs. actively helping the hero); this is a simple way to preserve all the world-defining goodness that was in Facts before they were discarded (rightly, I'd agree) as over-complicated.