You can't model a power on how useful it will be in a given campaign. The GM can technically make sure any immunity comes up NEVER. Quite literally. They can choose to do it on purpose.
PS: Social Immunity probably should not be possible. How could anyone ever be immune to a bad reputation? Resistance to social stress makes sense, but immunity is just weird.Some sort of mindcontrol comes to mind. It would probably be very limited, but it would be possible.
Or how are you going to hurt Marcone? Everyone knows he's a criminal, so is is going to be immune to attacks in that area. But again, I would suggest a pointer to an appropriate aspect instead of a full blown immunity.You make him look weak. You make him look stupid. You make him look sloppy. You make him look untrustworthy (he may be a criminal, but he's still known as Gentleman Marcone). You make him look like the sort of heartless bastard that would condone the murder of a child. Or who would engage in that sort of thing himself. And who would enjoy it.
The usefulness of every Power, from Addictive Saliva to Worldwalker, depends on the game. This ensures that no matter how well you balance things, actual play will throw you off.
The usefulness of every Power, from Addictive Saliva to Worldwalker, depends on the game. This ensures that no matter how well you balance things, actual play will throw you off.
But since play unbalances in every direction randomly a well-balanced Power will rarely become excessively over or under powered in play. The variation tends to remain within reasonable bounds.
So giving Powers flat costs is quite a sensible idea. Skilled system-users can change those costs to fit individual games if they like, others should probably not mess with them if they care about balance at all.
That being said, I prefer a "how often will this matter" based cost for situational Powers like this. It minimizes this issue while providing an easy way for people to cost weird restrictions.
PS: Social Immunity probably should not be possible. How could anyone ever be immune to a bad reputation? Resistance to social stress makes sense, but immunity is just weird.
Hermits / Loners like mountain men of old, from the Ozarks didn't much care about their reputation at all.
That said, some ancient being with a god complex could easily not be effected by social consequences or stress.See above. Replace 'townsfolk' with 'Assembled Signatories to the Unseelie Accords'. Replace standard torches and pitchforks with artifacts of mind-wrenching power.
They might not care, but the nearest townsfolk, whom you've now convinced this person is a rampaging psychopath on the run and needs to be put down no matter how long it takes to find him...
See above. Replace 'townsfolk' with 'Assembled Signatories to the Unseelie Accords'. Replace standard torches and pitchforks with artifacts of mind-wrenching power.
That aside, separating PI from Toughness is a good idea.
Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but what would be the benefits of this move?
They might not care, but the nearest townsfolk, whom you've now convinced this person is a rampaging psychopath on the run and needs to be put down no matter how long it takes to find him...
See above. Replace 'townsfolk' with 'Assembled Signatories to the Unseelie Accords'. Replace standard torches and pitchforks with artifacts of mind-wrenching power.
+1.
Also, being tricked into believing something that ain't true can be modelled with social stress. Nobody's immune to being deceived, barring some form of omniscience.
That aside, separating PI from Toughness is a good idea.
Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but what would be the benefits of this move?
It allows you to use different Catch mechanics more elegantly and it's just good book-keeping to keep very different Powers in very different places.
I don't see that as an equivalent for social consequences. I see that as a plot related result of events.
Your reputation affects how others treat you. If your reputation is bad enough, others will react negatively towards you. If your reputation is really bad, they may even react violently.
Social attacks can affect reputation.
...so...
'Plot-related' in that it substantially affects the plot, as should all substantial consequences against PCs or major NPCs.
'Result of events' in that it could easily be the result of a Compel (possibly invoke-for-effect-triggered) against a substantial ruined-reputation Consequence, or Taken-Out result.
Think of it as having an Extreme Consequence change the character's Trouble to 'Kill on Sight', or something of the like.
Immunity to Seduction Attempts?"Hey, big boy, wanna go back to my place?"
Immunity to Seduction Attempts?
I don't think free immunity should be possible unless the thing you're immune to is truly harmless.
Social Immunity still doesn't make sense.
I think you charge too much for Mental Immunity. Mental stress isn't that common.
Immunity to drowning, fatigue, sleep, and falling can all be obtained elsewhere more easily.
I think you underestimate the importance of poison.
Stacking two immunities should not cost as much as both together. Immunity to monkey wrenches, halberds, and pickaxes should not cost as much as immunity to metal weapons.
Holy should not be given special status.
Poison is still just one type of damage.
Just because they can be obtained does not mean the character whop is immune tothem should have recovery and therefore heal faster. Some concepts would not regenerate and would not feel fatigue.
Social immunity doesn't have to make sense to you. I want a cost for it in case someone wants it. I don't even use social combat in my games so it'd be useless to me ;) Still worth figuring a cost for.
Being immune to holy costs extra. Holy touch bypasses all toughness for one stress. Soulfire lowers toughness.
Would you prefer I list costs for Holy touch and soulfire specifically instead?
So's magic. But one Refresh for immunity to magic would be silly.
If does mean, however, that they shouldn't cost so much. If I can get immunity to drowning and an extra benefit for 1 refresh, why should I have to pay 1 Refresh for just immunity to drowning?
It's not that it doesn't make sense to me, it's that it doesn't make sense period.
The concept is ridiculous. Assigning a Refresh cost to it is like assigning a Refresh cost to yellow fnrejbn an tortoise.
No.
I'd prefer you specify the effects of Soulfire on Immunity, then rewrite Holy Touch because apparently you want it to do something it does not, at present, do.
A character that is immune to all physical, social, and mental attacks has a special term that applies to it.
"Plot Device"
As for your opinion of recovery vs immunity to sleep. it makes perfect sense. Not every character needs to be efficient. Some characters might be immune to drowning, but not be aquatic. Some scions may be immune to getting tired from running (Scion of Hermes?) However they may not want or feel that recovery is fitting for the concept.
How does that not make sense?
The problem is that any Refresh cost for immunity to falling, fatigue, or drowning will always be too much because you can get immunity to those things plus other benefits for the same cost.
I suggest bundling immunities to fix this.
Immunity to drowning and fatigue and falling together is easily worth a point of Refresh. Probably too good for one Refresh, actually.
Still think poison immunity is good enough to charge 2 or 3 Refresh for.
And immunity to seduction is actually useful. I wouldn't give it away free.
I get your point, but I think there are better solutions then deliberately offering underpowered Powers.
Replace "fatigue" with "fatigue, thirst, and starvation" in the -1 category. That'd make it worthwhile.
If people don't want that particular combo, that's okay. The examples are just examples, to give you an idea of what each amount of Refresh can buy.
Why would you buy an immunity to a power that specifically ignores that immunity? Even if you bought the immunity, the power would still ignore it, because that's what the power does...
A list is easier to read as a list than it is to read as a wall of text.
The book's version only affects stress and consequences. I guess Sanctaphrax's version might include maneuvers, if the GM chooses to, so the new version of immunity makes immunity even more powerful, since you can't even perform maneuvers against the target (in order to escape, for example).
A list is easier to read as a list than it is to read as a wall of text.
As for the other posts, the maneuver immunity here is just common sense stuff. If I'm bulletproof I can't be affected by a PINNED DOWN WITH GUNFIRE maneuver.But you might be able to be affected by a 'Distracted by a thousand lead mosquitos' maneuver.
Being immune to soulfire effects or ACAEBG should be noted as costing more...or not allowed one of the two.
But you might be able to be affected by a 'Distracted by a thousand lead mosquitos' maneuver.
And I'm rather at a loss for how I'd justify total immunity to physical maneuvers.
I agree. While someone may not take physical damage, they are still subject to the laws of physics. Therefore, someone with physical immunity to unarmed attacks could be TRIPPED, THROWN, or HELD DOWN if a manuever was successful. The rewrites should reflect this.
We have that custom Power. Costs 2 Refresh, IIRC. Does that sound sensible to you?
@Silverblaze: As I recall, there was no community consensus. I just picked a number and asked anyone with a problem to complain. Nobody did, so my number stood.For the record, I had a problem with it and complained. :p
Why would you buy an immunity to a power that specifically ignores that immunity? Even if you bought the immunity, the power would still ignore it, because that's what the power does...
You cannot price a Power based on the assumption that it does not do what it says it does.And yet you seem unconcerned that with the inclusion of TINS, ACAEBG no longer does what it says it does?
Immunity does not grant special protection from Soulfire, Sacred Guardian, ACAEBG, and the like unless another custom power found elsewhere is purchased (and allowed).
I think Sanctaphrax keeps removing Social immunity from his write up becuase he doesn't like it and is unwilling to compromise.
For example a lack of sexual organs can be justification for immunity to seduction.
Or the character could just have an aspect that says that they are asexual. Why pay for powers when you can have aspects for some of these things for free? ;)
Or the character could just have an aspect that says that they are asexual. Why pay for powers when you can have aspects for some of these things for free? ;)
1. List formatting for ease of costing.
2. Sanctaphrax: Would you be willing to include a link for this powers dicussion at the end of it's write up so people can see how we got here and can see the discussions on ACAEBG, Soulfire, Sacred Guardian, and social immunities?
3. For the sake of completion one should think about what Social Immunity should cost.
4. Immunity does not grant special protection from Soulfire, Sacred Guardian, ACAEBG, and the like unless another custom power found elsewhere is purchased (and allowed).
Maybe I missed this in the write-up - but: I think a note needs made taht an equivalent of a +0 Catch is required to have these.
Also, in some instances the narrative effects of hte power could have small impact on mechanics. Immunity due to rapid healing - should still allow people to heal from vampirisms. immunity due to imperviousness should still allow manuevers to work, as should rapid healing... Immunity due to said objects passing through harmlessly may still allow vampirism but I doubt it...many maneuvers certainly wouldn't work. i know the current power makes mention that some maneuvers may not work. How should we make clear that narratively immunity could be due to many factors.
For example a lack of sexual organs can be justification for immunity to seduction.
The reason I think being immune to Sacred Guardian, ACAEBG, Soulfire, Righteousness, Holy Touch (if you have a power called There Is No Salvation - holy should likely hurt you). You get immunity to 5 powers bypass effects, some of which cost -1 through -5 refresh. Some argue Sacred Guardian should cost more. I think it merits -3 refresh, if the ability to bypass toughnesses ca cost from 1 to 5 points of refresh and the median is 3...that should be the cost in my mind.
I'd also like to agree with Becq one more time then hold my piece on the matter. (TINS and immunities to ACAEBG shouldn't exist) Powers that bypass toughnesses or satisfy catches generally ignore immunities and like effects. Why escalation occurs is with small rewording a new version of bypassing could exist specifically to include the new custom power. Since custom powers are allowed tehre is nothing in the rules barring errata based upon the gaming group's individual needs/tastes.
Because if you acquire an ability with an Aspect, then you have to spend a Fate Point to get any mechanical benefit out of that ability.
But then they can just make another mechanically equivalent maneuver with a different narrative justification.
Because if you acquire an ability with an Aspect, then you have to spend a Fate Point to get any mechanical benefit out of that ability.
Is the current list format not satisfactory?
No. I don't want any links in the list.
I can explain the controversy in the Note sections of the relevant Powers, though. TINS already has a something a bit like that.
If you'd be willing to sum up the debate, I'd appreciate it.
In order to do that, we'd first have to work out what the heck Social Immunity even is.
When I say that it doesn't make sense, I don't just mean it's illogical. I also mean that I don't understand how it's meant to work or what it's meant to do.
That's the plan.
Except for Soulfire...I'm really not sure how this should interact with Soulfire. Drop down to Mythic Toughness?
No way.
The whole idea was to find an appropriate cost for full invincibility. If 9-13-20 Refresh isn't enough, let's make it cost more.
Besides, requiring a +0 Catch encourages BS shenanigans.
Yeah, I'll try to make the odd status of maneuvers clear.
Indeed. Immunity to seduction makes plenty of sense.
Specific defences should generally cost less than the thing they defend against, because they'll frequently be worthless.
That being said, I can see some decent arguments for deliberately making TINS underpowered.
Again, not every custom Power is for everyone.
Personally, I'd prefer to get rid of ACaEBG. But I'm not just writing for myself here.
Fine, to hell with social immunity. But if you can take stress from it, one should be able to be immune to it the way this sytem works.
No on the +0 catch? I'm of the mind that PLOT Catches should be able to bypass invincibility. Nothing should be invincible.
You can post it that way, but I'm pretty sure most peopl will look at it and think "designed by power gamers for power gamers" invincibility isn't fun in a game for most people.
"The whole idea was to find an appropriate cost for full invincibility. If 9-13-20 Refresh isn't enough, let's make it cost more." No. The idea was to get rid of stacked catches (which make no sense).
Yeah full invincibility should cost like 30+ refresh. At least in my mind. Opinions?
Does full invincibilty grant immunity to ACAEBG or Soulfire etc? I say no.
If and only if it makes some kind of sense.
Invokes and Compels can do anything. So if you want to prevent something from being invincible, they can help.
And of course, there's always ACaEBG and company.
Requiring a +0 Catch doesn't make characters non-invincible, it just encourages people to take stupid Catches.
Really?
Because from a powergamer's perspective, full invincibility is not terribly attractive. Too expensive.
Okay, the whole idea for my effort was to find an appropriate cost for full invincibility.
I was thinking 16ish for physical, less for mental. But I could see myself bumping those numbers up.
The former no, the latter probably not.
Part of a GM's job is develop challenging encounters and fun encounters throughout a game.
Lots of cannon fodder "can" slow a wizard down. Splitting the party up temporarily can give each player time to shine.
How do you challenge someone physically if they are completely immune to harm?
By making the battle not about killing them, make your combat goals orientated and give your players reason to care beyond their characters survival. Immunity doesn't allow you to defeat the bad guy, it doesn't allow you to catch up with the speedster running away with your plot maguffin. It doesn't stop you being sidelined and embarrassed, if we are talking about a standard game 10 refresh the person who has put all their refresh into invulnerability (-8) isn't going to be better than a wizard who invested all their refresh in refinement or a focused swords man or mental canon who have put all their refresh into respective focus. In terms of practical advantage I find the current price is fine I actually find it weaker than 8 refresh spent in refinement which can make you instantly fatal as well as make you really hard to attack (enchanted item defense + 14 control).
+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.
16 to 20 for invincibility seems.... arbitrary but so does my number, so whatever. i just want the number to be pretty friggin high.
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)
All rules can encourage conflict between players.
It may encourage bullshit catches, but the Gm gets final say...so really; said powers do not encourage that.
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.
Character vs character conflict is just fine.
But you don't want players fighting or kicking each other out of the group, right?
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.
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.
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.
...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.
I honestly find the viewpoint of someone who would take such a silly catch totally alien. Like trying to understand Cthulu....
I mean that.
In any game I run and let a player be "invincible" there is a 100% chance at some point they WILL be hit by their catch at least once no matter how rare. No exceptions. No matter how silly. That said tehre is no reason to take something that doesn't fit the high concept. It won't make it come up that much more often, if at all.
I see no point in such a thing. Want to make Mab or The Almighty 100% invincible? : Their high concept alone could accomplish that. That is so inherent to their being it simply is .
For dramatic effect and story their will always be a way to hurt the thing the story calls to be fought.
I'm willing to compromise on this to the extent that an option be listed to inviolve a way to hurt someone who is 100% invincible. You can even have the baseline power as written not require that +0 catch equivalent.
I stand by the idea; that I can't take a custom power serious if it truly allows for 100% invincibility. I can't be the only one.
There is a reason for many years and even now GM's groan when a player says "Hey! I found this on the internet and want to play it or have the power etc."
I think we balance most of this stuff pretty damn good, but I have never met a GM (as far as I know) that would look at a power as viable once they saw it allowed 100% invincibility.
Again, the problem is not that people will necessarily take such a Catch. The problem is that anybody who doesn't is Playing The Game Wrong.
Forcing people to play Wrong makes things less fun for them.
I'm not joking. Mechanically speaking, a silly Catch is straight-up better than a sensible one. And the correct way to play a game is the way that makes you most likely to win. In character creation, winning means creating the most powerful character possible within the provided constraints.
You might not take character creation as a game in itself, and that's fine. But for everyone who does, this sort of imbalance is painful.
That sort of works, but it gets kinda silly with the weird Catches.
And again, the problem is not that people will take Catches that don't fit their concepts. The problem is that people will be told by the game not to play concepts that don't justify suitable Catches.
I'm sorry, that doesn't work at all.
Wizards need Evocation to Evoke, regardless of concept. Aspects do nothing unless invoked or compelled.
If you want invincible characters, you need to give those characters invincibility Powers. (Or Stunts, I suppose...as if.)
We already have All Creatures Are Equal Before God. And nobody can ever be immune to social attacks. And Aspects can do anything.
What more do you want?
Ignore TINS, it's a separate issue. One we should discuss separately.
I have to admit that having a Power not taken seriously by some dude over the internet doesn't bother me. If I've done my job right, that's enough for me.
I guess I have a bit of Pretentious Artist in my makeup. I feel beholden to abstract principles of game design, not people's prejudices.
PS: If we put an appropriate cost on full invincibility, then no player in any normal game will be able to afford it. That is right and proper, because full invincibility is more powerful than everything a normal PC should be able to afford put together.
The question is, how much is perfect invulnerability worth?
RPG's are not made to win.
You can't play them wrong.
Flat out can't.
In a game based more on narrative than anythuing else, you really can't. (DFRPG)
There is nothing to win or lose...you tell a story. You win individual encounters. Winning in an RPG is like winning at life. You can't. You can succeed in many avenues, but you can't win.
We are going in circles. I'm not budging on my opinion. You claim you won't either. This is called an impasse.
I suggest we find a compromise. I've proposed one or two. You ignore them or refuse them or refuse to compromise. Otherwise, I am content to let this idea rot.
Why should something the PC's can never ever beat exist? If the goal is to win the game...you can't beat that. It is by definition unbeatable.
Well, what if no one takes it seriously?
I am curious to know how many people even use the rewrites and custom powers we work at making. I bet the number is fewer than we like to think....
If you put a cost to a power someday a player will buy it.
What is high enough?
Could put in social immunity - that might shut me up. But we both know placating people who want something who makes no sense is something you won't do.
P.S. Full invincibility makes no sense to me.....
If people are approaching character creation as a game in itself, then they can "win" by making a really strong character.Only if a) "really strong" is a goal and b) it's a contest.
Only if a) "really strong" is a goal and b) it's a contest.
My compromise was to make a catch for the invincibility.
-16 invincibility should require a +0 Catch. [/u]
I'd be satisfied with that. I'm not asking a lot here. I'm really not. I'm not even requiring it be part of the power, but a "Note" attached to it.
Do we need to keep powergamers happy? Yes. I game with powert gamers. Do we need to keep people who prefer concept and "sub-optimal" but interesting characters heppy? Yes.
I think we are leaning towards appealign to power gamers rather than the other.
Hell it's pretty much just you - me - Umbra Lux -and becq (Becq is mostly mocking TINS at this point).
Can we please figure out a compromise and be done with this?
What is there to understand about each other's view point?
You do not want a Catch.
I do.
That is what it boils down to at the very core.
Even if we don't allow full invincibility, we can avert this issue with infinitely-scaling costs for narrower and narrower Catches.
We have established that the following will still work?
ACAEBG, Sacred Guardian, Holy Touch (if applicable), Soulfire, Social stuff....
Also would immunity to manuevers be allowed with -16 immunity ? That seems a bit much.
Since then you could not chain up and dump in concrete etc. I'm assuming maneuvers are required to get that done.
Hang on. I just had an idea, and I think it's a good one.
The highest level of invincibility has effects like ACAEBG as a "Catch". That way, there's a sensible weakness that's not compatible with TINS.
But wait. That could make transgendered squidzilla ink better than our so-called best Catch, because it would be compatible with TINS.
Yeah, I should just edit TINS so it doesn't work with Immunity. At least, so it doesn't work with high levels of it.
That way, transgendered squidzilla ink is in its rightful place as a dubiously optimal Catch selection.
This does have the downside of requiring that you use ACaEBG, which I regret since I'd just as soon play without it, but oh well. You could already get a similar effect by selecting Swords Of The Cross as a Catch and you could get a rebate for that one.
O.k...so I might be out of my depth here but I'd like to offer some input.
As tedronai said, a loophole is just another word for a catch so it's already included in the power. I like the idea of tying the Immunity Power(not necessarily the catch) to an aspect or high concept for a few reasons:
1. There are already many powers that have that as a pre-requisite
2. It would limit ridiculous "catches" because the power/catch would have to make sense for the character
3. Tying it to an aspect lets you use compels/fate points for the purpose of maneuvers.
So if someone tries to pin you, but you're immune to fists, you could spend a fate point to say you're immune to that sort of maneuver. Or maybe the GM says you don't need pay...whatever. The point is the aspect can dictate whether a maneuver may or may not work.
I think the main argument, unless I'm reading it wrong, is about immunity with no loopholes. Once again, if you tie it to an aspect, creative players/GM's can use compels to find ways to bypass invincibility(at least temporarily) by way of fate points, even if the enemy has no true catch.
Sorry if I've already repeated something that's already been written...I admit that I skimmed a good portion of the middle part of the thead.
I could have sworn you were against catches on full invincibility because then the power didn't make people truly invincible.
I don't understand how that solves anything, but whatever. If that's what you wanna do, I'm cool with that.
No, I was against your method of applying Catches because it was atrociously sloppy.
Gotta appreciate your honesty. Blunt isn't bad. Don't get me wrong.
I just wish I didn't get called an asshole when I was that honest.
So you think you can stand to deal with such an atrociously sloppy person long enough to settle on a cost for full invincibility to one stress track and then the cost for two full stress tracks so we can be done with this?
I'm thinking a cost of 9 is still good for mental immunity. Being immune to any all mental stuff is cool and all...but it's not nearly as powerful as full physical immunity.
But I'm having second thoughts about full physical immunity. It needs to cost more than any character would ever invest in other defensive stuff. Which means that whatever cost we pick for it basically puts a ceiling on what other stuff can cost. So it needs to cost a LOT. More than 16.
ACaEBG really throws this off, though. Its existence means that even full Immunity is not really full. Which means it doesn't really need to cost that much.
Of course, TiNS unthrows it. So it's back to being full, and therefore super expensive.
The question now is whether we want it to be possible to use it with TiNS.
Here's what I'm leaning towards: stat Immunity under the assumption that ACaEBG and company are there to limit its power. Rewrite TiNS to make it cost a lot extra with Immunity, or to not work at all with it if we can't find a finite cost for infinite protection.
Under that model, it'll cost maybe 16 and it'll involve a very long note section.
How's that sound?
Sanctaphrax: one last thing ; you can add or not. Things that are immune to all physical damage except things like kryptonite, or dwarven weapons, or blood of the gods.... do we have a cost for that or should we add a category for such a thing?
*I figured but wanted some opinions on it. Could cost narrower things at -10 if needed.The -8 'small loophole' line also applies to mental stress, which is available without the loophole at -9. -10, then, for 'a particularly especially small loophole', would seem...contradictory.