What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Join the never-ending battle for truth and justice in the world's greatest super-hero universe, using the world's greatest super-hero roleplaying game! This forum is for discussion of DC ADVENTURES.
User avatar
Laughingcrow
Sidekick
Sidekick
Posts: 350
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:45 am

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Laughingcrow » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:03 am

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Stigger wrote:That said, I do agree with the others that it certainly could be rebuilt within the current framework to work precisely the way you want it to simply by putting the term "Limited" into the mix somewhere and defining it through that with descriptors, without chucking the whole thing.

To be honest what I don't like is you either end up bypassing it entirely with "Affects Objects" thus rendering the Immunity kind of weak, or you end up going to Toughness as if that's always homogenous. (For the latter what I mean is that what do you do when an exterior armor plate shouldn't protect delicate interior systems? I don't see why it should be assumed that any robot that has a tough shell also has tough gears and electronics.)

Immunity (Fotitude) as a power, no, that's not really my target.


I think indeed that using Descriptors and Limites might solve part of your problem - it's part of the system, of how it's designed to work. Descriptors, limits and quirks are not just point-saving measures or cool ideas, they help you make a generic building block a unique element for your character.

Full immunity: Immunity Fortitude Effects
- Can be made more Limited by the Limited effect (Half Effect) or (Not against effects that affect objects)
- Can be given a [Construct] descriptor, which may have campaign related effects (see below)
- Can be fully bypassed in this case by Affects Objects
- This bypass can itself be limited by applying it only to a few ranks, and not all, of the attack effect
- Can be given some sort of Fades or Unreliable (5 charges) option to reflect ablative armor

And a host of other ways to tweak both attacks and defenses in this fashion. In your case, you present us with a construct with a tough outer plating but with delicate internal systems. So if we assume it has Immunity (Fortitude Effects) it might have a quirk 2 on it that says (Critical Hits bypass this Immunity) to represent penetration of damage through the shell.

If you'd focus on physical protection you could add Toughness and add a Side Effect (the option for selecting a Complication) that says that any Critical Hit from attacks will trigger and Affliction effect (affecting its internal systems). Normally you'd expect such a side effect to enter play when the user of an ability fails, but in this case we can easily make a case for it triggering when the attacker succeeds really well. This would be a house rule of course, but that's what they are for.

You could create a template of abilities that represent how you think constructs should work in your campaign. Anything with the [Construct] origin would then have, for instance, an Immunity to Fortitude Effects (Limited to Biological Effects) and use the Construct rules (No Stamina, uses Toughness instead and so on). This template would be relatively cheap and would govern a basic construct that is not superhumanly durable. For extra durability, you could add Toughness (possibly with the side effects or limited mention above) on a case by case basis.
Likewise, you might have [Living Constructs], say cyborgs, which do have the limited Immunity, but have normal Stamina effects otherwise.
And in this campaign, attacks that Affect Objects might specifically be tailored to target Constructs or Living Constructs, such as EMP waves, Microwave Emitters, nanite swarms or computer viruses.

The system is based on allowing people to use separate building blocks to create as close a representation of a character as they can build. For some this is shallow (taking an archetype and settling for it), it can be deep (the roll call section on this board) or even more technical (house rules designed to tweak the rules for yourself or your campaign that you find bothersome or unfitting.
Mutants & Masterminds is possibly the most comprehensive building system I have ever seen, any changes would not be all that world-shattering. It already caters to everything from Sci Fi to Fantasy to Chtulu Noire. Change it too much to bias one setting or "character type" and it would negatively impact something else.

When you post in a thread about what should be changed about the system, it's not a good thing to focus on what you want alone, but also on what others want, the player base. Make a system that works for the great common denominator, and use clever wording/combinations or house rule what remains. If you can't cope with the system, try another system. When you can't build what you want, ask the others and see if they can find a way that it does work, within the system as it stands or perhaps with a house rule.

Edit: Just thought of something else. If you don't want to go to the trouble of using Toughness for everything, there's nothing that prevents you from house ruling that for anything that has the Construct descriptor, the word "Fortitude" is replaced by "Integrity" and used for the same rolls. This is a bit of flavor change that might make the rule easier to swallow.

I believe i last saw in Mecha & Manga, where players were encouraged to take the base rules and advantages and rename them to make them more unique. Just because I buy Luck doesn't mean I can't call it Master Plan and act as if I am not lucky, but doing a Thanos Gambit.

SilvercatMoonpaw
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 10068
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:57 am

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby SilvercatMoonpaw » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:21 am

Laughingcrow wrote:When you post in a thread about what should be changed about the system, it's not a good thing to focus on what you want alone, but also on what others want, the player base.

No: I'm not going to hold myself back just because other people think differently.

Because that means I'm being dishonest.

And that would also be completely missing the point: to say what we think so that it gets out there and discussed. If my idea is not going to be adopted because a lot of other people don't like it then it's not going to be adopted. I understand that. But I have to propose it just in case.

I simply can't fathom why one poster proposing one change is getting so much attention from people trying to dissuade that one from proposing their idea. Especially since one single poster is not going to make any difference if no one agrees with them. Why are people not waiting until there is a clear sign that the change might have backing before trying to get one person to change their mind?


And finally:
Why are people talking to me about making the change myself as if they think I don't know I can do that? Please, point out to me the evidence you are using that I -- me ALONE, not some past experience of yours -- do not have this capacity.

User avatar
FuzzyBoots
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 9719
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby FuzzyBoots » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:35 am

*shrug* Dunno. When it's someone commenting that a particular game mechanic is inherently broken, or that only an idiot would do something a certain way, that gets my dander up, especially if I'm one of those idiots. When someone proposes a rule, I'll comment my thoughts on it and say that I'd probably reserve total judgement for seeing how it plays out. :) You'll get an argument from me any which way, but it's generally an amicable Devil's Advocate sort unless people resort to personal attacks.

User avatar
Laughingcrow
Sidekick
Sidekick
Posts: 350
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:45 am

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Laughingcrow » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:40 am

Mmm, I think the whole issue with this is that it's not about honest or dishonest, but clamoring stuff needs to be reworked because you can't work with it, while most other people can. There's a difference between a discussion on game mechanics, and seemingly ignoring existing mechanics to claim things need to be reworked, and then rejecting said options or misinterpreting them.

I understand you have to propose it - but don't bite the hand of people who want to help.

Why are people talking to me about making the change myself as if they think I don't know I can do that? Please, point out to me the evidence you are using that I -- me ALONE, not some past experience of yours -- do not have this capacity.


Well, it's not that I am picking on you, but you do seem to have certain difficulties with abstractions, system scaling, house rule problem solving and similar things. Strong evidence that you suggesting a change might come from the corner of "can't handle" rather than "makes sense. You point several times in several threads to you just thinking a certain way, or having a certain frame of mind or worldview that makes it more difficult. You ask for help in your houserule thread for this exact reason.

So if you are capable of fixing things yourself, and it's that easy, I would suggest going for that if it works for you rather than asking a change that makes sense for you but might not for the majority of other players. But, as you said, you are only one voice and unlikely to have a major design influence.


Return to “DC Adventures”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest