Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity

[Sanctaphrax]

+0 catches should be monitored by the GM and have them make sense.  A player decides he wants a stupid catch, he can find a new group to play with, the groups I've had...about three or four over the years wouldn't tolerate that crap at all.

If your rules encourage conflict between players, they probably need work.

If a player wants to be truly invincible, making the rules force him to take a BS non-vulnerability isn't going to help at all. It encourages entirely the wrong kind of behaviour.

If you want to tell them no, just tell them no.

16 to 20 for invincibility seems.... arbitrary but so does my number, so whatever.  i just want the number to be pretty friggin high.

I picked 16 because it seemed like the most I'd ever see anyone invest in Toughness, even with houseruled Mythic+ Powers.

Next part could be offensive to certain players play style. I am not taking a stance on the matter or giving my opinion of those people, nor their plauy style...just describing the general views of the stereotypes.

(click to show/hide)

"Power gamers" are not always "munchkins" or "min maxers" the concept of being nigh indestructible may not appeal to a munchkin or min maxer.  power gamers are not alwyas smart enough to be as efficient as a munchkin or min maxer.

Pretty sure the negative stereotype for all three of those are not always deserved but often is well deserved.  Played with enough people to know... being invincible screams power gamer...like god mode in videogames.

I think we have different definitions of power gamer. I use the term to describe people who want their characters to be as capable as possible. You?

[Silverblaze]

"If your rules encourage conflict between players, they probably need work."

You tell every gaming group over my two decades of gaming and all across my state plus convention groups I've been part of that all their rules need work. 

Blanket statement creates blanket animosisty; if you are ok with that, by all means continue.


All rules can encourage conflict between players.

Many systems allow a way to be unkillable and having only one thing that will kill you.

It may encourage bullshit catches, but the Gm gets final say...so really; said powers do not encourage that.

[Silverblaze]

Power gamers

min maxers

munchkins

read this forum for a while.  it'll inform you.

http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-467832.html

Advising people just skim this one looking at definitions or it could be a long read and people will lose interest before finding the good information in there that I found by actually reading the whole thing.

[Silverblaze]

The above are often found in all players to some degree and are not always but can be negative behaviors.

I must insist upon a seperate thread and stress civility when further discussing these "problem gamers".  I merely linked the forum where it is discussed for the sake of those who are not familiar with the terms and to let people know there are many definitions...many people use the terms as insults or in derogatory fashion.

I am not trying to do that.  i will say invulnerabiltiy screams power gamer to me though.

[Sanctaphrax]

All rules can encourage conflict between players.

Only in the same sense that all rules could use work.

Encouraging fights is a flaw like any other.

It may encourage bullshit catches, but the Gm gets final say...so really; said powers do not encourage that.

The best measure I know for the broken-ness of a rule system is, "how often does the GM need to veto the rules?"

Requiring everyone to have some kind of vulnerability but offering no reward for a broad vulnerability means that whoever provides the most preposterous weakness "wins" at powergaming.

Which encourages people to provide weaknesses that are as preposterous as possible.

That is exactly what we want people to not do.

So we shouldn't encourage it.

PS: Even if such ridiculous behaviour is encouraged, many people won't do it. I doubt you would, for example. But I might, and if my group was such that it wasn't appropriate for me to do so I'd be at least mildly irritated.
PPS: That thread is an interesting/entertaining mess...there are like twenty definitions there. Which one do you use?

[UmbraLux]

Only in the same sense that all rules could use work.

Well...Silverblaze does have a point - insofar as rules are about conflict, they encourage conflict.  Really has nothing to do with whether or not the rules meet some ephemeral goal of perfection. 

However, some systems do more to encourage PvP than others.  That's a point Silverblaze appears to be overlooking.

Has nothing to do with how 'broken' a rule may or may not be though.

[Sanctaphrax]

Character vs character conflict is just fine.

But you don't want players fighting or kicking each other out of the group, right?

[Silverblaze]

Character vs character conflict is just fine.

But you don't want players fighting or kicking each other out of the group, right?

No, but sometimes it has to happen for a group dynamic to work.  Rare thing...but it happens and sadly often for the better.

[Silverblaze]

Well...Silverblaze does have a point - insofar as rules are about conflict, they encourage conflict.  Really has nothing to do with whether or not the rules meet some ephemeral goal of perfection. 

However, some systems do more to encourage PvP than others.  That's a point Silverblaze appears to be overlooking.
Has nothing to do with how 'broken' a rule may or may not be though.

I can agree to that notion as well.


Sanctaphrax said:

"PS: Even if such ridiculous behaviour is encouraged, many people won't do it. I doubt you would, for example. But I might, and if my group was such that it wasn't appropriate for me to do so I'd be at least mildly irritated.

PPS: That thread is an interesting/entertaining mess...there are like twenty definitions there. Which one do you use?"

PS: No I wouldn't.  A player being mildly irritated can happen from anything or a ruling by a GM that we can't forsee or make rules about/nor stop on this forum.  It is as inevitable as teh sun rising and setting.  I refuse to worry about that.

PPS: In an effort to appear completely neutral on the topic of power gamers min-maxers, munchkins, and rules lawyers: I am afraid I'll have to remain silent on my definition so I can at least appear to be diplomatic.  I think all gamers have all of those tendencies to some degree.  Suffice it to say I can agree with most definitions of the word in question.  However, full invincibility in an RPG would likely be viewed by people as a negative desire.  I would lean that way, but in an effort to remain diplomatic about such things i will refrain from giving my full opinion.

Regardless the fact remains that I can't see anyone taking a power seriously that grants full invincibility.  I just can't. 

That is why I think a catch of some sort is required. Likely linked to high concept to force the catch to be sensible.  If we're seriously going to go around in circles on this.  Mention the catch as optional for some gaming groups and I'll shut up about it. 

However, since I was willing to back down about social immunity and made other minor concessions here and there, I'm going to put my foot down.  I started the thread, I suggested the rewrite, I want the power considered seriously by players and GM's alike.  I don't feel full invincibility is something a player should have and I doubt I am in the minority.  If we can't come to a compromise on this matter then scrap the project and let the thread die.

[Sanctaphrax]

PS: No I wouldn't.  A player being mildly irritated can happen from anything or a ruling by a GM that we can't forsee or make rules about/nor stop on this forum.  It is as inevitable as teh sun rising and setting.  I refuse to worry about that.

Physical pain is unavoidable too, but putting thumbtacks in your shoes is still daft.

I see no reason why the rules should be set up to annoy me here.

However, full invincibility in an RPG would likely be viewed by people as a negative desire.  I would lean that way, but in an effort to remain diplomatic about such things i will refrain from giving my full opinion.

Regardless the fact remains that I can't see anyone taking a power seriously that grants full invincibility.  I just can't.

Say whatever you want, I'm not going to get hurt.

Even if you'll never use full invincibility, some people will. In fact, I'd say most people would if they needed to run a fight scene involving Mab. They wouldn't use a full set of numbers for it, but that's beside the point.

This is a bit like the Social Immunity thing. Even if it does not appeal to you at all, as long as it makes sense and is balanced it ought to be an option.

I see no reason why the rules should be set up to annoy me here. (EDIT: Bad copypasta.)

That is why I think a catch of some sort is required. Likely linked to high concept to force the catch to be sensible.

Actually, that just makes the problem worse by telling people to make their High Concept incoherent too.

The root of the problem is that a +0 Catch can be anything from a sizable weakness (like Nicodemus's noose) to something completely unfair (like the knucklebones of a specific caveman, wrapped in leather made from Mab's skin during a solar eclipse by a transgendered were-squid).

When you tell people to choose between a large weakness and a small one, you should expect them to pick the small one.

But in this case, the small weakness is terrible and bad for the game. So we don't want them to pick it. So why would we set up the rules to make people do exactly that?

If we're seriously going to go around in circles on this.  Mention the catch as optional for some gaming groups and I'll shut up about it. 

However, since I was willing to back down about social immunity and made other minor concessions here and there, I'm going to put my foot down.  I started the thread, I suggested the rewrite, I want the power considered seriously by players and GM's alike.  I don't feel full invincibility is something a player should have and I doubt I am in the minority.  If we can't come to a compromise on this matter then scrap the project and let the thread die.

Okay, at this point I lose track of what you're saying. Could you rephrase that?

[Silverblaze]

Basically, if you want people to take a power seriously...it shouldn't grant invulnerability with no way to bypass it.

Some might, but most will not.  I'd prefer this power to be taken seriously or at least considered as a viable house rule /rewrite of Physical Immunity ; renamed and rewritten as Immunity.

If we can't compromise on the +0 catch (even if we just note it as an option tied to high concept ) then I see no way for this power to be finished AND taken seriously.  Meaning without a compromise of some sort, which I have been willing to do throughout - this thread and this rewrite can go no further in my opinion.


You seriously think linking a power to a high concept like this makes the matte worse?

Seriously?

Denarian template: Catch - even a rare one - something holy or demonic - spear of destiny maybe?  Water from the Grail?  Piece of the cross etc.

Temple Dog - Similar idea

Fae - even rare ones - maybe Lea's athame - cold wrought iron maces -

Werewolves - silver knives forged on a full moon or silver knives cooled in wolvesbane

Deity level beings - weapon coated in the blood of one of their mortal descendants

I know these are just examples but - is it that hard to make a cool and rare item fit your concept?  Really?  I think not.  It saddens me that there are people that would choose ink from transgendered squidzillas for their catch...it truly does.

I honestly can't see how any player or any GM would allow such nonsense.

[Sanctaphrax]

The problem is not that people will actually take impossible Catches...

Here, let me begin at the beginning:

Optimizing is fun, at least for some people (including me). When I build a character, I instinctively maximize that character's power and minimize its weaknesses. Character creation is partially an intellectual puzzle.

If you view character creation as an intellectual puzzle, then making a character that's weaker than it could be is a failure to solve that puzzle correctly.

If we make people choose between "trangendered squidzilla ink" and "the noose around your neck" as a weakness, then we make them choose between "the right answer to the puzzle" and "a Catch that makes sense".

This sucks. It's not fun for anyone who cares about optimization. Because the correct answer is stupid and unfun, you're forced to pick the wrong one.

And if you require Catch to match concept, then you change that choice to one between "the right answer to the puzzle" and "a character that makes sense".

Which is worse.

The issue here is not that you're advocating the prohibition of true invincibility. It's that you're presenting "transgendered squidzilla ink" and "the noose around your neck" as equal.

Suppose I suggested a Power identical to Evocation except for providing 6 focus slots. But there's a catch! It's only available to transgendered squidzillas!

Wouldn't that be terrible?

Same issue here.

[Becq]

That's why there's a problem with looking at Catches the way the RAW does.  If, instead, you treat the selection of the Catch rebate value as a vote on the part of the player as to how often the Catch will come into play (just like picking aspects that describe enmities is a vote to include those enemies in the campaign), then it fixes itself -- because if the two players who choose "noose around your neck" and "transgendered squidzilla ink" but both pick "will rarely come into play", then those two Catches should be treated equally.  If necessary, the GM can create a squidzilla community in some corner of the Nevernever, as well as aboriginal Fae who harvest the rare creatures for their ink, which is considered a delicacy among Gruffs.

Poof.  Now there's no right answer, and you can have fun building your Catch any way you want, then discussing what Catch value would be close enough to reasonable that trying to satisfy the frequency wouldn't damage the setting (ie, making the transgendered squidzilla ink Catch a common one might take the game too far into the realms of silliness for the players' tastes).

Regarding the Evoker squidzilla idea, that only works for a broken Catch rule.  A working Catch rule would provide a discount based on how much of a liability the Catch is to the character possessing the power.  And since for 100% of those who bought the power the limitation that they be transgendered squidzillas would provide no liability whatsoever, there should be no Catch discount for it.

[ways and means]

0 catches are not meant to come in to play more than once in a campaign, you are a dealing with a catch which can be unique (1 of a kind) and that no one knows about,given this the chances of a 0 zero catch coming up tends towards zero. The noose in my opinion should be worth a +1 at least as it is instantly available (wrapped around Nick's neck) and pretty self-evident (using a noose to kill someone never). Nick's catch defiantly should be worth more than a catch of the Demon Lily that only grows in the darkest depths of the outside in the stomach of the greatest King of the Old Ones.

[Sanctaphrax]

...Nick's catch defiantly should be worth more than a catch of the Demon Lily that only grows in the darkest depths of the outside in the stomach of the greatest King of the Old Ones.

Yes.

But by the RAW, it is not. And building rules on top of that RAW will not end well.