Staging Abilities

[Der_Renegat]

This is a split from the "Lightsabres and Monomolecular Whips" thread.

I think its sometimes really hard how to model something the appropiate way.
Like staging cutting.
Similar other examples are Explosion (how big is the explosion of a handgrenade ?) or rapid fire (how much bullets per minute are what rating?).
I also remember having a similar discussion about invisibility. How invisible is Invisibility 10M ?

How about this as an aid:

13 - basic
17 - good
M - developed
M2 - accomplished
M3 - perfect
M4-M5 – unbelievable
M6-M8 – magical, Magic
M9-M12 – divine, Creator of worlds


Have other people experienced similar things ?


Christian

[soru]

I think a scale like that is part of the useful prep work for designing a particular game world (there is one for Glorantha in the HQ book).

Generally, the best way to use it is backwards - go from the desired number to something that could have that number. So, if you know you want to be able to place Superman (Invulnerable 10W4) in danger if a bomb goes off, make it a nuclear bomb (Go BOOM! 10W5).

These things are not so much rolled for, as background knowledge:

'you know from the briefing that your turbolasers can't penetrate the walker's armour, what are you going to do?'

'Deploy the tow cables'.

That kind of consistency is purely optional, and there is nothing in the game mechanics that requires it.  But I do think it is kind of cool if you can pull it off.

soru

[Jere]

I think a scale like that is part of the useful prep work for designing a particular game world (there is one for Glorantha in the HQ book).

Page reference? I'm having trouble finding it.

[Der_Renegat]

soru wrote:
I think a scale like that is part of the useful prep work for designing a particular game world (there is one for Glorantha in the HQ book).

Page reference? I'm having trouble finding it.

I guess soru is referring to p. 274-275.

Christian

[Der_Renegat]

soru:

That kind of consistency is purely optional, and there is nothing in the game mechanics that requires it. But I do think it is kind of cool if you can pull it off.

I agree you can do a lot of gamesessions without taking care of a scale but i do see problems when things are tested for their consistency.
As an example take a game of starwarsquest:
as long as you have lightsabres against lightsabres no problem, but when the heroes go down to that ewokplanet, why do the ewoks augment their fighting abilities with sharp stick +1 and you, the hero with the mighty lightsabre with +3 (as in starwarsquest cut through everything 5M) ?

I think any scale should fit your game, so while you have no greater technology in fantasyworlds, you do have very different technologies in modern, supermodern and sci fi settings. Here thinking about staging makes a lot of sense.

You might get around those problems when you treat technology like magic (resistance of 14) - its definitely an easy way, because it saves you from doing a lot of work thinking about a scale. I really think when it comes to a whole campaign or designing some kind of world, its better to work wih a scale.

Also having thought a bit about staging helps narrating...whats the difference in narrating invisible 10M and invisible 10M4 in a fantasysetting ?

Christian

[Bankuei]

Hi,

Considering that lightsabers are, for genre reasons, more or less "magical weapons" in comparison to everything else- why not treat them like an active magic ability in the game?  That is, if you're up against something that could resist a lightsaber(such as another lightsaber, or blast doors) then it gets its normal resistance.  Otherwise it only gets a 14 as its rating.  That would make Dodge the ability of choice for non-lightsaber armed combatants against a jedi :)

Chris