*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2014, 01:45:18 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 73 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Print
Author Topic: HERO System, M&M and assessing incoherence  (Read 19343 times)
Storn
Member

Posts: 228


« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2006, 02:53:54 AM »

Good thread.

I'm outta town for a couple of days.

But on re-reading the thread, Ron, this jumped out at me...

Quote
The issue is, does "no killing attacks" mean what it says, or doesn't it? Role-playing traditions include the weird and rather disturbing viewpoint that no, it doesn't. Apparently an up-front statement of "let's do it this way" is subject to the response, "OK, but I'll do it the other way," and that response is treated, for some reason, as agreement.
.

I admit that I completely forgot the "no KAs" statement when I drew up Beacon.  But I'm not sure if this trend is "wierd and disturbing".  If the play at the table is a shared experience... then the creation of the campaign setting can be a shared experience too.  I never got a chance to say, "hey, what about KAs for the purposes of blowing shit up in spectacular superheroic fashion...not for killing people?" and the negotiations start.  But I agree, it is not "an agreement" if I do it "the other way".

I point to Cyclops, despite a tremendous code vs. killing, has a killing attack, he can punch through a tank with his eyebeams.  One cannot do that with a normal attack unless it is 25d6 Normal EB or something insane.  That is my interpertation of the genre... just one of many.  Here is where you, the GM, can say, "oh, but maybe Cyke has Armor Piercing..." or whatever...

I'm not trying to defend the KA on Beacon's sheet here, just using it as an example.  Just like the disads on the sheet, it is a starting place.  If you the GM can say "hey, flabby thinking about Beacon's love interest.." I have the same right to go; "hey, GM, flabby thinking about Killing Attacks.  Define your setting better... so I know if or not, Beacon can cause a locked door to go down."  {Btw, I once couldn't break a doorknob with an armor piercing normal attack... that seem so NOT superheroic to me...and a source of great frustration with the system.  So, yeah, that's my baggage being unloaded from the train <g>}
Logged

buzz
Member

Posts: 62


WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2006, 12:36:39 PM »

{Btw, I once couldn't break a doorknob with an armor piercing normal attack... that seem so NOT superheroic to me...and a source of great frustration with the system.  So, yeah, that's my baggage being unloaded from the train <g>}

Wow. I had the exact same experience with my PC in this campaign. He originally had a light-based attack that was no Knockback, no BODY. I was trying to break a locked door, and realized that all I could really do was the equivalent of shine a flashlight on it.
Logged

A.k.a., Mark Delsing
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2006, 03:10:26 PM »

Guys, I think this thread has reached its goals. Since I did not provide the actual, full description of the Champs game I played back then, in terms of starting points for the players, there's no point in conversing as though I had. The issues you're raising, Storn, are valid in demonstrating just how far such a sheet/summary would have to go.

Mark (Buzz), if you're good with the basic idea that Disadvantages (especially the "person" based ones) can be utilized as a kind of seedbed to see what will bloom later, during play itself, then we can probably stop here.

Best, Ron
Logged
buzz
Member

Posts: 62


WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2006, 03:25:24 PM »

Mark (Buzz), if you're good with the basic idea that Disadvantages (especially the "person" based ones) can be utilized as a kind of seedbed to see what will bloom later, during play itself, then we can probably stop here.
I think I'm good. Thank you (and everyone else in the thread) very much!
Logged

A.k.a., Mark Delsing
Storn
Member

Posts: 228


« Reply #64 on: May 14, 2006, 05:32:52 AM »

Guys, I think this thread has reached its goals. Since I did not provide the actual, full description of the Champs game I played back then, in terms of starting points for the players, there's no point in conversing as though I had. The issues you're raising, Storn, are valid in demonstrating just how far such a sheet/summary would have to go.

Mark (Buzz), if you're good with the basic idea that Disadvantages (especially the "person" based ones) can be utilized as a kind of seedbed to see what will bloom later, during play itself, then we can probably stop here.

Best, Ron

Agreed.  Cool thread.  I enjoyed it and it made me think a lot about my own gaming disfunctions.
Logged

Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 14, 2006, 08:33:15 AM »

Closed now.

Best, Ron
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!