I did. Power Level Unlimited (as abreiviated to PLU). I did say in earlier comments, that I suggest using the PLU optional rules for a more simulationist variant.
Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest
- Thread starter eaglejarl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- naruto rationalist romance armageddon is looking better and better damn you kishimoto explosions everywhere explosives solve everyone if in doubt surrender to the mercy of zabuza it seemed like a good idea at the time looks like a really bad case of being a jōnin my god. where does the lore end? precommitting is the winning plan screaming in kagome screw the rules i have explosives something bad might still happen sometimes you gotta sociopath stabby zabby subsection c of paragraph 9 should include we can weaponize this so hard
I did. Power Level Unlimited (as abreiviated to PLU). I did say in earlier comments, that I suggest using the PLU optional rules for a more simulationist variant.
- Location
- The Deep Blue Sea
My personal list:
- Determining success and failure should be straightforward. None of this division and exponentiation stuff. (In my experience this is the case with most systems already, so this doesn't distinguish between options well.)
- Ideally, dealing damage would be more toward the '10 points [crippling wound] to the left leg' side of the spectrum - specific, granular, determined systematically. (This one hasn't actually been a significant impediment, but I want my embedded simulationism dammit!)
- The assignment of effects and costs for jutsu and seals is currently haphazard and by-fiat. This makes it really hard for anyone, QM or player, to make a new seal or technique without feedback from at least one of the other QMs, which means increased coordination difficulty and fewer spoons all around. A system for doing this would be a godsend, which is why I'm leaning toward build-your-own-shit systems like GURPS / HERO / ORE. Personally I feel this has been *the* major issue.
- Multiple combatants and ranges. Suppose Alice is trying to get in close to Bob and Charlie, who are starting at Long range from her and Melee range to each other. Bob, a melee fighter, wants to block her path. Charlie, a ranged fighter, wants to keep his distance. All three roll TacMov. Alice gets a B class success against Bob and a C class success against Charlie. Where do the three end up, relative to each other? It's complicated even if both Bob and Charlie are fleeing. Is Bob one range shift ahead of Charlie, or is Alice in Melee with both of them, since that only requires a B class success (Long -> Medium -> Melee, 2 shifts)? If so, does the extra class of success Bob got relative to Charlie mean nothing? Does Alice reach Charlie first and have to decide whether to run ahead and catch Bob? How far apart would the two of them be at that point, and can she use her melee-range Explode Everyone Except Me no Jutsu to catch both of them? It gets even worse when, as posited above, Bob is actually moving *toward* Alice while Charlie moves away. Right now this all gets decided by what the QM writing the scene feels is reasonable rather than by the mechanics directly, and I'd love it if the mechanics told me who could move where how fast and in what order (though initiative is only a very minor gripe).
Eeehehehehehehehehe
Jello_Raptor
(Confirmed Jelly)
- Location
- Left of Center
But but math
And compilers
Seriously, though I had plans for a tactical combat simulation where all the actors used Monte Carlo methods to decide what moves to make, and smarter charecters get more simulation runs before making decisions.
Reminds me of the gripe I have with Exalted 3e, which uses a similar system.
- Location
- how about no
W I T N E S S E D.
In one week's time, on October 12, 2017 there shall be a discussion about "the heat death of the universe!"
Hopefully it will be related to MfD in some fashion so it doesn't get removed for not being on topic for this thread.
You ( @Langevin ) have one week to prepare.
Make it count.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Here's a few things off the top of my head. Note that where I say "There is no way", what I mean is "there is no standard way"; we can always make up a one-off rule, but that is fragile as well as time- and energy-consuming.
- A skill check system should not require a calculator, but I can't do fractional exponents in my head.
- Stats being just a paywall was a major mistake. The point of stats is that they represent a general description of the character that provides a fallback for cases when there's no specific skill or power. If one of the characters wants to pick up something heavy there's no way to model that, because Strength isn't allowed to be useful. (We have started bending that rule slightly over time, which rather proves my point.) As a general rule, a game system should not contain anything that doesn't pull its weight by solving some sort of problem and "add more complexity to the process of balancing skills and powers" is not a problem that should be solved.
- There's no way to model movement. Can Hazō get from where he is to where Noburi's shout came from in time to attack? Yes, because I said so, but only because I said so. Can the team outrun their pursuers when crossing the border? I dunno. I guess I'll roll TacMov a bunch of times, even though that's got Tactical right in the name and shouldn't apply to long-distance running.
- @OliWhail already did a good piece on positioning.
- There is no way to model someone with strong offense / defense but weak defense / offense. Everyone is exactly as good at punching as they are at blocking.
- Combat is restricted to "hurt people". There's no way to model disabling but non-harmful moves (e.g. throws, pins, trips). Granted, this could actually be taken as commentary on the Elemental Nations.
- Our damage classes are not very granular, so armor is insanely OP.
- In almost all cases, one-on-one combat is going to be exactly two rounds. It's nearly impossible to have a victory in one until you massively outclass someone -- 3d100 Taijutsu vs 1d100 Taijutsu is, on average, only a B-class wound. So is 10 v 5, 30 v 20, 70 v 50, etc. The fact that the necessary gap narrows as you go up just makes it harder to estimate relative power. Likewise, once you score a wound on someone you'll probably win on the next round. Unless the totals are very close together it's obvious who is going to win, but it still takes two rounds to model it out. Given how long it takes to run one of our rounds, that's ugly.
- How do we model explosives and other AOE attacks? Answer: in a fragile, clumsy, probably-OP and vague way that requires a lot of judgement calls from the author.
- There's no way to interrupt someone else's actions. If you're standing next to someone with a knife at their throat, your options are "kill them on your initiative" or "wait until after they run away on their initiative and hope you win the TacMov contest to keep the range...but you still can't attack them because it's not your turn" or "the author applies narrative override to the mechanics."
- How do we model medical skills? Dunno. In D&D it's straightforward -- you regain a certain amount of health by sleeping / first aid / magical healing. Boom, done. In Champions it's the same except substitute "Body" or "Stun" for "Hit Points" and "Aid" for "magical healing".
- Multiple combatants are a pain in any game system, but they're a special pain in this one. If Noburi starts the combat with Water Whip but then takes a round to use Vampiric Drain, does he contribute to that round based on his WW or VD? How about the next round? If the combat is between a bunch of people and they've broken into two or three groups at Melee range but each of the melees is at Long range from each of the others, who contributes what to which set of bonuses?
- Mental powers (genjutsu) are either overpowered or useless.
Okay, that's kinda weird. I went to look up the PLU rules to make sure I got the details correct, and I can't find any reference to its existence. I'm like 60% sure I didn't make this up. But even if I did, I still think that doing away with Power Levels is necessary to retain a simulationist feel. After all, there's no reason why someone having a rasengan in their hand should make them have to be less accurate with it than someone who's just punching. Or why someone who knows Crystal Element: Diamond Skin (Protection 20, impervious.) absolutely must be crap at dodging.
- Location
- United States
GURPS models hit locations and non lethal combat well, even to the point of multiple fighting styles having different specialities and mechanical effects; a boxer can block more better for example.
It scales to extreme skill reasonably well also and has provisions for simplifying combat with that in mind.
Say a skill 17 genin is fighting a skill 28 jonin...to simplify rolls you would reduce skill until the lower skill involved reaches 10...this becomes a skill of 10 vs 21, the Benin is still ducked solo. Multiple genin can make it less of a steamroll, but that kind of skill disparity is extremely hard to overcome.
You won't see many genin teams beat a jonin.
Hit locations are random roll with a chart, or you can aim with varying degrees of difficulty.
Armor functions as soak, and might lower dodge. Encumberance lowers move and dodge. Movement speed and distance is clearly explained. Held actions are a thing similar to dnd; in that you can hold it and use as an interruption effect. In that knife example, you would just dmg them to the throat as they tried to escape, if they survived their turn would proceed.
It scales to extreme skill reasonably well also and has provisions for simplifying combat with that in mind.
Say a skill 17 genin is fighting a skill 28 jonin...to simplify rolls you would reduce skill until the lower skill involved reaches 10...this becomes a skill of 10 vs 21, the Benin is still ducked solo. Multiple genin can make it less of a steamroll, but that kind of skill disparity is extremely hard to overcome.
You won't see many genin teams beat a jonin.
Hit locations are random roll with a chart, or you can aim with varying degrees of difficulty.
Armor functions as soak, and might lower dodge. Encumberance lowers move and dodge. Movement speed and distance is clearly explained. Held actions are a thing similar to dnd; in that you can hold it and use as an interruption effect. In that knife example, you would just dmg them to the throat as they tried to escape, if they survived their turn would proceed.
- Location
- In my Lair, on my Hoard
It's more that M&M operates under the conceit of having a Power Level. It's partially game-balance, and partially comic-book trope. Sure, no one ever really hits their PL caps in everything in superhero comics (and they don't need to), but the game typically assumes that you're meeting at least one or two, and the rest aren't too far behind.
It's also to keep multiple players in a game at around the same level of capability, so no one is so exceptionally more powerful/capable than the other players at the table. And also to establish a "threat level" for the character that the GM can use to determine what are appropriate threats to throw at them.
The rest of the uses for PL are for game-balance, to keep within the comic-conceit of "power/skill tiers" while at the same time keeping gameplay reasonably fair between players.
This doesn't translate too well to Naruto, where different members of the same team have different combat strengths and weaknesses, and a lot of things in Naruto can't be modeled too well in M&M's conceit.
So, yeah, you could use system-mastery to hack it and make things work... but rather than using PL, you'd need to establish firm benchmarks for almost everything in order to keep the "tiers" you see in Naruto (wherein student < genin < chunin < tokubetsu jonin < jonin < S-ranker < Kage)...
Though I do think M&M works really well for establishing those tiers. Naruto (or at least MfD) does tend to assume that chuunin are better than genin at everything, that jounin are better than chuunin at everything, and that S-class are supreme at everything.
Of course everyone will have their individual strengths and weaknesses, but in general those extend only to one tier above and one tier below, and the majority of a ninja's skills will be within their tier. (Absent special jounins, who are deliberately a kind of hybrid.)
Roadie
A plate full of blins and a cat nearby.
I would personally recommend to avoid M&M because it's heckin' swingy, and replacing the 1d20 with 2d10 or 3d6 doesn't fix the fundamental issue that most of the system is designed around the idea that all roll results will regularly be up to +20... when a mere +10 to a stat is Superman level.
- Location
- The Deep Blue Sea
Especially endorsed ^
- Location
- how about no
While we are on the subject of re-balancing combat, are we also going to be redoing social skills as well? The current system seems to me to be too interconnected between combat and non-combat skills. If we were only to create a new combat system we would be in such a position that we would have to keep all of the old system's stats and XP rewards just to continue to talk with NPC's.
As much fun as it would be to have every character each have two character sheets (one for combat and one for the old social system), I don't think that is an effective improvement for saving spoons.
Of all of the new systems currently being proposed, do they all have mechanics in place for social and other non-combat skills (e.g. survival skills, crafting, etc.)?
On the off chance that none of the systems suit our particular needs, or we find them all wanting, I would suggest that for at least social speaking skills that there should be some way for the players' voted plans including pre-written speeches to have an effect on the results of social "combat". Having a direct incentive to perfect our badass boasts should make the simulation far more enjoyable for all of us.
Ugh, now I'm tempted to almost throw away all stats for talking skills and just have one end all be all skill.
Here's the hare-brained idea I just had:
Each character in MfD should have three... sections of their personalities for the sake of social interactions: Ideals, Antitheses, and Oratory Expertise.
When a character wants to talk to another character for the purposes of social combat (trade deals, politics, w/e) each will have multiple chances over the course of a conversation to sway the other to the victor's position. To succeed in this combat, one character must 'hit' his opponent's Ideals in such a way that whatever it is the former character desires will also help the latter character achieve his respective Ideals. Whenever a character scores a 'hit' on their opponent's Ideals they start to convince their opponent to concede the current conversation competition. Antitheses are simply topics or ideas that the speaker should not bring up, as doing so will lose progress with their opponent. Lastly, Oratory Expertise is the degree by which each character can express themselves fully as well as how perceptive they can be: no matter how eloquent you are if you do not dumb down your rousing speech for the teenager whose age is the same number as his IQ you aren't going to convince him to not hit you in the face. Naturally, if you are in actual combat with someone, you have to overcome the huge deficit the conversation starts out with.
Now for the real kicker: this is all behind the scenes stuff and, unless the QM's want to write it down, none of this will ever been seen by the players, ever. Yes, ever. Simulating multiple thinking people is extremely difficult and requiring our QM's to keep track of yet another system in addition to new improved combat mechanics, no matter how streamlined, is asking too much of anyone. This system is meant to act as a guideline for social situations; not to be another system to be gamed and ultimately exploited by the hivemind in five minutes.
If convincing everyone everywhere that you are always right is easily and mathematically doable then such scientists would be leading our world, not politicians.
The main reason why I'm advocating for this system though, rather than simply having it be QM fiat only, is for PC and NPC interactions. The system gives a practical way to approach conversations: you want to be good at talking? Raise your talking skill. You want to actually put that skill to good use? Here's how it works:
To keep things simple, let's have three tiers to the amount of effort the players put into a conversation:
Tier 0 is simply rolling the PC's Oratory Expertise against the opponent's own Oratory Expertise. In a neutral setting like a market and no one knows the other, you start on a level playing field. If the PC's go to a market in a town they just rescued from some kind of disaster, the PC's have a starting advantage in the conversation. Likewise, if the PC's are covered in blood and have their Thousand Yard Stares on their faces, they start at a deficit.
Hazou rolls (or w/e it is we will use for the new system) Oratory Expertise to convince the merchant to buy his crap. QM's decide if he succeeds.
Tier 1 involves the hivemind listing various topics we want to cover in the conversation, topics we do NOT want to bring up, and explanations for any notable circumstances. Depending on how well the hivemind performs in their list making, they get a bonus to the result of the "roll". The QM's also get the right to subtract numbers from the roll if the listed topic points are nonsensical, superfluous, and/or excessive. The whole point of the overhaul is to make their lives easier, after all.
Hivemind wants Hazou to barter with the merchant. Conversation points below:
EXPLAIN:
Finally for Tier 2 we have the player written speeches. In the event that the players feel strongly about a certain conversation so much so that they absolutely have to write the speech themselves, they can choose to do so. However, no character can exceed their own Oratory Expertise level when it comes to giving such a speech: if a character tries to give a speech on the level of the Gettysburg Address and doesn't have a god-like level of Oratory Expertise then they simply fumble their words (how badly they fail to convey their position is again up to the QM's). Conversely, if the QM's think our speech is trash they can spruce it up if they feel like it, or let us flounder if they don't. To help balance this we will probably need our characters to compose a few speeches of their own in private so we can have a ball park estimate of how skilled they are as orators.
To reiterate how social combat works:
Tier 0: Use OE only
Tier 1: Use OE with lists of stuff against defender's core values (and the defender's OE if narratively appropriate as decided by QM's)
Tier 2: Use voted in speech filtered through PC's OE again against defender's core Ideals and Antitheses (plus the defender's OE if narratively appropriate as decided by QM's)
For deception and other forms of subterfuge, I'd simply rely on the winning system's mechanics. In order to begin social combat you first have to convince the other party that you are acting in (or are secretly pretending to act in) good faith. If the trust needed for a debate ever expires then the conversation is obviously over. I'd have to examine the winning system in depth if this is even feasible of course, but that's how I'd implement it if said system does not include social combat whatsoever.
Hopefully that makes sense and I'd appreciate some feedback (everything makes sense in my head but I still don't feel as though I've accurately conveyed everything (the irony is not lost on me)).
As much fun as it would be to have every character each have two character sheets (one for combat and one for the old social system), I don't think that is an effective improvement for saving spoons.
Of all of the new systems currently being proposed, do they all have mechanics in place for social and other non-combat skills (e.g. survival skills, crafting, etc.)?
On the off chance that none of the systems suit our particular needs, or we find them all wanting, I would suggest that for at least social speaking skills that there should be some way for the players' voted plans including pre-written speeches to have an effect on the results of social "combat". Having a direct incentive to perfect our badass boasts should make the simulation far more enjoyable for all of us.
Ugh, now I'm tempted to almost throw away all stats for talking skills and just have one end all be all skill.
Here's the hare-brained idea I just had:
Each character in MfD should have three... sections of their personalities for the sake of social interactions: Ideals, Antitheses, and Oratory Expertise.
When a character wants to talk to another character for the purposes of social combat (trade deals, politics, w/e) each will have multiple chances over the course of a conversation to sway the other to the victor's position. To succeed in this combat, one character must 'hit' his opponent's Ideals in such a way that whatever it is the former character desires will also help the latter character achieve his respective Ideals. Whenever a character scores a 'hit' on their opponent's Ideals they start to convince their opponent to concede the current conversation competition. Antitheses are simply topics or ideas that the speaker should not bring up, as doing so will lose progress with their opponent. Lastly, Oratory Expertise is the degree by which each character can express themselves fully as well as how perceptive they can be: no matter how eloquent you are if you do not dumb down your rousing speech for the teenager whose age is the same number as his IQ you aren't going to convince him to not hit you in the face. Naturally, if you are in actual combat with someone, you have to overcome the huge deficit the conversation starts out with.
Now for the real kicker: this is all behind the scenes stuff and, unless the QM's want to write it down, none of this will ever been seen by the players, ever. Yes, ever. Simulating multiple thinking people is extremely difficult and requiring our QM's to keep track of yet another system in addition to new improved combat mechanics, no matter how streamlined, is asking too much of anyone. This system is meant to act as a guideline for social situations; not to be another system to be gamed and ultimately exploited by the hivemind in five minutes.
If convincing everyone everywhere that you are always right is easily and mathematically doable then such scientists would be leading our world, not politicians.
The main reason why I'm advocating for this system though, rather than simply having it be QM fiat only, is for PC and NPC interactions. The system gives a practical way to approach conversations: you want to be good at talking? Raise your talking skill. You want to actually put that skill to good use? Here's how it works:
To keep things simple, let's have three tiers to the amount of effort the players put into a conversation:
Tier 0 is simply rolling the PC's Oratory Expertise against the opponent's own Oratory Expertise. In a neutral setting like a market and no one knows the other, you start on a level playing field. If the PC's go to a market in a town they just rescued from some kind of disaster, the PC's have a starting advantage in the conversation. Likewise, if the PC's are covered in blood and have their Thousand Yard Stares on their faces, they start at a deficit.
Hazou rolls (or w/e it is we will use for the new system) Oratory Expertise to convince the merchant to buy his crap. QM's decide if he succeeds.
Tier 1 involves the hivemind listing various topics we want to cover in the conversation, topics we do NOT want to bring up, and explanations for any notable circumstances. Depending on how well the hivemind performs in their list making, they get a bonus to the result of the "roll". The QM's also get the right to subtract numbers from the roll if the listed topic points are nonsensical, superfluous, and/or excessive. The whole point of the overhaul is to make their lives easier, after all.
Hivemind wants Hazou to barter with the merchant. Conversation points below:
EXPLAIN:
- The blood is form the chakra voles we just killed, not humans. There is no cause to be alarmed.
- Apologize for the smell: the voles defecate explosively when they die.
- We exterminated the local nests, so they shouldn't bother him anymore.
- We killed them in such a way that the pelts are still usable.
- The merchant's daughter was killed by chakra voles after she ran away from home.
- If the merchant had held his temper his daughter would still be alive right now.
Finally for Tier 2 we have the player written speeches. In the event that the players feel strongly about a certain conversation so much so that they absolutely have to write the speech themselves, they can choose to do so. However, no character can exceed their own Oratory Expertise level when it comes to giving such a speech: if a character tries to give a speech on the level of the Gettysburg Address and doesn't have a god-like level of Oratory Expertise then they simply fumble their words (how badly they fail to convey their position is again up to the QM's). Conversely, if the QM's think our speech is trash they can spruce it up if they feel like it, or let us flounder if they don't. To help balance this we will probably need our characters to compose a few speeches of their own in private so we can have a ball park estimate of how skilled they are as orators.
To reiterate how social combat works:
Tier 0: Use OE only
Tier 1: Use OE with lists of stuff against defender's core values (and the defender's OE if narratively appropriate as decided by QM's)
Tier 2: Use voted in speech filtered through PC's OE again against defender's core Ideals and Antitheses (plus the defender's OE if narratively appropriate as decided by QM's)
For deception and other forms of subterfuge, I'd simply rely on the winning system's mechanics. In order to begin social combat you first have to convince the other party that you are acting in (or are secretly pretending to act in) good faith. If the trust needed for a debate ever expires then the conversation is obviously over. I'd have to examine the winning system in depth if this is even feasible of course, but that's how I'd implement it if said system does not include social combat whatsoever.
Hopefully that makes sense and I'd appreciate some feedback (everything makes sense in my head but I still don't feel as though I've accurately conveyed everything (the irony is not lost on me)).
I mean, it's certainly quicker to write a character using PLs, even if I think it would actually make it represent our characters with less fidelity. You could do something like this...
...which is fairly badly optimised for PL10 combat, I think mainly due to how many different things Hazou has (gauntlets, rings, a huge array of ninjutsu, chakra-enhanced physical abilities, etc.) which were a massive boon in the previous system, but in M&M, especially when using PLs, they just add to things that you need to keep track of and don't make Hazou better at what he does because he is limited in how good he can be by the PL. Once he's hit the ceiling he can't improve his chances further, which means that all his extra stuff is forcing him to sit further below the ceiling without the junk he's collected, and only just reach the ceiling with them. By contrast, if I was writing a charsheet for Lee...
...you can see that I've already perfectly optimised his combat potential while only using slightly more than half of his power points. Unlike in the previous system, PLs don't reward in-universe munchkinning. They punish it. And Hazou has done a lot of munchkinning...
EDIT: Although one way we could solve this is by giving Hazou different loadouts using the metamorph extra. Metamorph lets you have a completely different character sheet that you can choose to use instead, for 1PP per extra charsheet, that you can switch between once per turn. If we gave him metamorph ranks for a rings build, a Roki build, a Doton build, etc. then that would let him have his pick of tactics and yet stay optimised. It even fits his "tactical mastermind" thing, giving him in-universe justification for having it. BUT! This is the sort of thing that any good GM would scrutinise very heavily before allowing, so I'd advise the QMs to think carefully about whether using metamorph ranks to represent switching tactics is something that they want to let us do.
150/150PP
Abilities (STR 8, STA 4, AGL 6, DEX 0, FGT 8, INT 4, AWE 2, PRE 2.) @ 68PP
Defences (Dodge 0 [+6]. Fortitude 0 [+4]. Parry 0 [+8]. Toughness 0 [+4/+14]. Will 0 [+2].) @ 0PP
Skills (Deception 14 [+16/+21]. Expertise: Sealing 16 [+20].) @ 17PP
Advantages (Artificer: Sealing. Attractive 2. Benefit: noble. Benefit: hokage's son.) @ 5PP
Roki (Affliction 12 vs Will, vulnerable and impaired, defenceless and disabled, extra condition, limited: first and second conditions, instant recovery, linked to STR-damage.) @ 6PP
Gauntlets (Enhanced STR-damage 4, penetrating. Removable.) @ 7PP
Macerator Rings (Damage 4, area: cone. Removable.) @ 7PP
Skywalkers (Flight 1. Removable.) @2PP
Ninjutsu (Array, max 20:
Abilities (STR 8, STA 4, AGL 6, DEX 0, FGT 8, INT 4, AWE 2, PRE 2.) @ 68PP
Defences (Dodge 0 [+6]. Fortitude 0 [+4]. Parry 0 [+8]. Toughness 0 [+4/+14]. Will 0 [+2].) @ 0PP
Skills (Deception 14 [+16/+21]. Expertise: Sealing 16 [+20].) @ 17PP
Advantages (Artificer: Sealing. Attractive 2. Benefit: noble. Benefit: hokage's son.) @ 5PP
Roki (Affliction 12 vs Will, vulnerable and impaired, defenceless and disabled, extra condition, limited: first and second conditions, instant recovery, linked to STR-damage.) @ 6PP
Gauntlets (Enhanced STR-damage 4, penetrating. Removable.) @ 7PP
Macerator Rings (Damage 4, area: cone. Removable.) @ 7PP
Skywalkers (Flight 1. Removable.) @2PP
Ninjutsu (Array, max 20:
- MEW (Create stone shapes 10, continuous, limited: walls.)
- Living Roots (Senses 1: ranged touch, continuous, medium: the ground.)
- Pangolin Earth Armour (Protection 10, continuous.)
- Pantorkrator's Hammer (Speed 20.)
- Substitution (Speed, reaction: imminent harm, limited: must swap places with an object of roughly equal mass.)
- Transformation (Morph 2: humanoids.)
- Clone (Illusion 10: visual, independent, limited: copies of yourself.)
- Earth Clone (Summon earth clones 2, multiple minions 3, horde, continuous.)
- Hiding Like a Mole (Burrowing 20.)
...which is fairly badly optimised for PL10 combat, I think mainly due to how many different things Hazou has (gauntlets, rings, a huge array of ninjutsu, chakra-enhanced physical abilities, etc.) which were a massive boon in the previous system, but in M&M, especially when using PLs, they just add to things that you need to keep track of and don't make Hazou better at what he does because he is limited in how good he can be by the PL. Once he's hit the ceiling he can't improve his chances further, which means that all his extra stuff is forcing him to sit further below the ceiling without the junk he's collected, and only just reach the ceiling with them. By contrast, if I was writing a charsheet for Lee...
80/150PP
Abilities (STR 10, STA 10, AGL 0, DEX 0, FGT 10, INT 0, AWE 0, PRE 0.) @ 60PP
Defences (Dodge 10 [+10]. Fortitude 5 [+15]. Parry 0 [+10]. Toughness 0 [+10]. Will 5 [+5].) @ 20PP
Abilities (STR 10, STA 10, AGL 0, DEX 0, FGT 10, INT 0, AWE 0, PRE 0.) @ 60PP
Defences (Dodge 10 [+10]. Fortitude 5 [+15]. Parry 0 [+10]. Toughness 0 [+10]. Will 5 [+5].) @ 20PP
...you can see that I've already perfectly optimised his combat potential while only using slightly more than half of his power points. Unlike in the previous system, PLs don't reward in-universe munchkinning. They punish it. And Hazou has done a lot of munchkinning...
EDIT: Although one way we could solve this is by giving Hazou different loadouts using the metamorph extra. Metamorph lets you have a completely different character sheet that you can choose to use instead, for 1PP per extra charsheet, that you can switch between once per turn. If we gave him metamorph ranks for a rings build, a Roki build, a Doton build, etc. then that would let him have his pick of tactics and yet stay optimised. It even fits his "tactical mastermind" thing, giving him in-universe justification for having it. BUT! This is the sort of thing that any good GM would scrutinise very heavily before allowing, so I'd advise the QMs to think carefully about whether using metamorph ranks to represent switching tactics is something that they want to let us do.
Last edited:
Roadie
A plate full of blins and a cat nearby.
GURPS has a fairly in-depth set of social systems available in GURPS Social Engineering, covering public debates, detailed rules on impersonations, convincing people to do things, etc. This is generally meant to expand on rather than replace the core books, so a lot of it is basically filling in the gaps of things that didn't fit into the GURPS core set rather than supplying alternative systems.
Some quick examples, using bits of both the core set and Social Engineering:
- When meeting somebody, you can make a reaction roll (modified by Appearance, Charisma, Reputation, Status, situation-specific things like Claim to Hospitality, etc) to see what their initial reaction to you is like. Specific variants of reaction rolls exist to judge someone's reaction to an attempt to haggle, requests for favors, etc.
- General attempts to influence someone can be done as a Quick Contest of a relevant skill vs. the person's Will, with assorted positive and negative modifiers. This is separate from the reaction roll, which is initial reaction to a meeting or proposal; in effect, reaction is "gut instinct" reaction, while influence rolls happen if/when you can attempt to persuade someone beyond that.
- Social skills used vs. PCs apply a bonus or penalty to the PC's relevant die rolls based on the social results, giving PCs an incentive to cooperate and/or difficulties trying to persuade a really smooth social operator, rather than forcing particular actions.
- Social skills can be used for a variety of secondary purposes, like accurately reading someone's intent from their body language, interpreting the relationships between a group of people, negotiating and using bribes, etc.
- Intimidation and taunting can be used to provoke or avoid fights, with other social skills used at the same time to influence onlookers into reacting in a certain way towards the combatants.
Some quick examples, using bits of both the core set and Social Engineering:
- When meeting somebody, you can make a reaction roll (modified by Appearance, Charisma, Reputation, Status, situation-specific things like Claim to Hospitality, etc) to see what their initial reaction to you is like. Specific variants of reaction rolls exist to judge someone's reaction to an attempt to haggle, requests for favors, etc.
- General attempts to influence someone can be done as a Quick Contest of a relevant skill vs. the person's Will, with assorted positive and negative modifiers. This is separate from the reaction roll, which is initial reaction to a meeting or proposal; in effect, reaction is "gut instinct" reaction, while influence rolls happen if/when you can attempt to persuade someone beyond that.
- Social skills used vs. PCs apply a bonus or penalty to the PC's relevant die rolls based on the social results, giving PCs an incentive to cooperate and/or difficulties trying to persuade a really smooth social operator, rather than forcing particular actions.
- Social skills can be used for a variety of secondary purposes, like accurately reading someone's intent from their body language, interpreting the relationships between a group of people, negotiating and using bribes, etc.
- Intimidation and taunting can be used to provoke or avoid fights, with other social skills used at the same time to influence onlookers into reacting in a certain way towards the combatants.
I don't find social systems all that much fun in games. It feels much more satisfying to convince an NPC because you came up with a good argument that appealed to their interests and prejudices than it does because you had X social stat up to a high enough rank.
That said, one thing the Exalted Third Edition social system does is that while it's highly mechanical, it is at least heavily focused around identifying what is important to NPCs and working with/around that. You can't convince anyone of anything if you don't identify one of their core values ('intimacies' in system parlance) and find a way to attach your argument to it. It's not about beating their "Will" or some such abstract mental toughness score. It's about understanding what they want.
That should be at the core of any successful social system. Figure out what they want, use that. It has a lot of great knock-on effects too, like making intimidation so much more convenient even with all its bad effects. After all, nearly everybody wants to stay alive.
That said, one thing the Exalted Third Edition social system does is that while it's highly mechanical, it is at least heavily focused around identifying what is important to NPCs and working with/around that. You can't convince anyone of anything if you don't identify one of their core values ('intimacies' in system parlance) and find a way to attach your argument to it. It's not about beating their "Will" or some such abstract mental toughness score. It's about understanding what they want.
That should be at the core of any successful social system. Figure out what they want, use that. It has a lot of great knock-on effects too, like making intimidation so much more convenient even with all its bad effects. After all, nearly everybody wants to stay alive.
- Location
- UK
[Phoenix Wright]
I'd say there is one critical problem with this statement...
A clear contradiction!
[/Phoenix Wright]
Sounds like Kagome might have gotten trapped in the Infinite Tsukuyomi along with everyone else.
Cariyaga
Handsome Gentleperson
- Location
- United States
TBH This is my main point of reticence with M&M, too; otherwise it seems like a good system for the game. Does it matter if a +10 to a stat is superhuman if we aren't using human standards?
e: Actually, maybe we could convert it to all d6 rather than modifiers at all? An additional d6 per +3.5-5, an additonal 2d6 for 5.1-7, etc.?
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Suggestion: hold interludes where we are told some information beforehand and make a choice to an event, to keep votes going and planning. Doesn't have to be plot-relevant, it could even be random historical ninja battles that have no effect on the plot (to prevent meta-abuse). Could also use it to 'test' various mechanics without players feeling too invested and see if things are smooth for writing purposes and the mechanics feel fair from the reader's PoV
Cariyaga
Handsome Gentleperson
- Location
- United States
This is a very good idea, imo.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Thirded. Sounds like a good thing to do for Sunday, actually. I'm speaking at a conference this weekend, but I've got a six hour flight both ways with which to write, plus a 90 minute train ride to get into the city, so I'm going to try to write something tomorrow. Let's say there will be a Dresden Files test.
My plane takes off at 11am tomorrow morning. Why don't y'all vote on what scene you'd like to see?
Voting closes at 10am Friday morning. (Yes, it's only 13 hours starting late at night, but you're only voting for a one-sentence description.)