Jump to content

Morangias

Members
  • Content Count

    1,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Morangias

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/06/1985

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Poznan, Poland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Right, I forgot there's a Talent for that. Thanks a lot!
  2. Just like in the title - how much XP should +1 soak be worth as a species' trait? I'm working on an arthropoid species for a space opera game and wanted to reflect their tough carapaces. Your input will be appreciated!
  3. To take it to complete basics, Genesys combat rules don't simulate combat - they simulate the narrative of combat, with the aim of creating fast-paced, eventful encounters in the vein of an action movie. When you atta... sorry, you don't actually "attack" in Genesys, you "perform a combat check". So when you perform a combat check in Genesys, you're not tracking how well your character aims, where the bullet goes and how much damage it does - you're tracking your character's narrative potential to inflict harm and weighing it against the enemy's potential to take a beating and still remain relevant to the narrative. This can mean taking a single shot and landing a single bullet between the enemy eyes if that's what best fit your character's style and the result of the dice. But to decide that only one bullet was shot before determining the mechanical results of the check is putting the cart before the horse. Back to Autofire, Genesys is an exception-based system, meaning things run according to a set of general rules, unless a specific rule creates an exception. In the case of Autofire, the general rule is that one combat check can score one "hit", understood, again, not as a single bullet landing on target but by the weapon dealing its base damage once to the target. The specific rule is that by jumping through certain hoops, you can score multiple "hits", i.e. apply your weapon's base damage multiple times, potentially also to multiple enemies. This is, again, not a simulation of what happens when multiple bullets are fired in an attack, but an emulation of the Hollywood trope of a guy with a machine gun mowing down entire armies. But machine gun wielders aren't the only ones who can mow down henchmen in large numbers in fiction! Whether it's Aragorn massacring Orcs with Anduril or John Wick gunning down mobster after mobster with his pistol, dispatching multiple mooks in the blink of an eye is something almost every hero partakes in at some point in their career - which is where the Minion rules come into play, letting you target up to five minions as one individual and dispatch as many of them as your damage roll allows. This isn't against the autofire rule in any way, because Autofire is a way to target multiple mechanically distinct individuals, and minions aren't mechanically distinct individuals. In fact, the two rules play to each others' strengths and by spraying minions with an Autofire weapon and scoring multiple hits, you can mow down a group of minions in no time! Regarding the notion of "minion personhood", the very purpose of having minion rules is so that you don't have to treat everyone at the battlefield as a fully fleshed out actor. But the important thing is, this is an entirely OOC concern - it's not that this isn't a real guy with his own life, hopes and dreams, it's just that in the context of this action scene, he doesn't matter and isn't supposed to amount to much. And, again, it's not like they die because you shot a bullet into their friend - if you perform a combat check against a minion group and the result says you killed X minions, that means you fired enough bullets to kill X minions. Whether narratively it means you gave everyone the special forces treatment of two in the heart and one in the head or that you fired a single bullet that went through one guy's brain, ricocheted off the wall and detonated the flamethrower tank the other one held, exploding the whole group, depends largely on the style you're aiming for and your individual tastes. But please don't say the rules break the narrative when you introduce contradictory assumptions into the narrative before the dice tell you what actually happened.
  4. And where's the line in the Autofire description that says it's the only way to hit multiple targets? Or that any other rule that allows you to hit multiple targets must adhere to the same mechanical rigors as Autofire? There aren't such provisions, because Autofire is its own thing and not a stealth-rule on all cases of hitting multiple targets with the same attack.
  5. Morangias

    Mcu?

    Check this out.
  6. But that's my point! The rule that Minions and Rivals don't track Strain is an abstraction meant to lessen the GM's mental overhead, not a statement on the worlds portrayed in Genesys having different physics for people depending on their narrative importance. And just as a Rival won't explode when hearing your scathing tirade, they likewise won't bleed to death from casting spells.
  7. I'd drop Transformative as a category, it feels very artificial to me. Physical transformations can be lumped with other physical powers, and things like alchemy I feel would also be better suited somewhere else. Which brings me to the category you call "Ex Nihilo". I'd actually rename it to matter manipulation, which admittedly is way less catchy, but can house effects such as the aforementioned alchemy, creation of matter out of nothing (actually still a form of changing existing matter on a molecular or even lower level), disintegration, earth/metal "bending" and such. I'd drop teleportation out of it, because the science that would warrant lumping it in with those other effects is not how teleportation usually works in superhero worlds. This would work for teleportation the way current science is envisioning it - by breaking down the object in one place and rebuilding it in another - but in most superhero worlds, teleporters work with some sort of portals/spatial manipulation instead, which is less science-y, but also less headache-y Spatial manipulation could make an interesting category, btw. You have teleportation, but also potentially things like long distance perception (if you can fold space enough to appear in a different place, you should also be able to fold it just enough to take a peek) and the ever awesome attack redirection.
  8. Okay, can people acquire more powers from their category? Say I start the game with some form of pyrokinesis, which would make me an elementalist based on your division - can I later develop ice breath or gamma eye rays? Or am I stuck with fire for the rest of my life? In the latter case, the whole broader categorization would be largely perfunctory.
  9. I still don't know what you want out of having those superhumans broken down into further categories. Are you envisioning a war between elementalists and psychics or somesuch? Do you wish to limit players by having them only pick powers from the specific category? Is this just piece of world fluff where some government agency is trying to sound on top of things by creating a taxonomy of superhumans?
  10. What is it in particular that you're trying to achieve by introducing a superpowers taxonomy to your setting? There are so many ways you can skin that cat, and I'd like to know more before I start brainstorming in a direction that's completely irrelevant to your needs.
  11. You can also model convincing people by depleting their Strain, which in case of Minions and Rivals also goes straight to wounds. Do you likewise interpret this as non-heroic individuals dying from hearing strong arguments? Or could it be that you shouldn't interpret any rules concerning the minion/rival/nemesis division as if they were the physics of the world?
  12. You do realize that's not what the rules as written are meant to represent?
  13. That's the easiest one, just put all exp into offensive Talents and let the Emperor be your shield
  14. Regarding the first point, DoS as minimum damage value, Accurate or any other rule you'd care to cite don't change the simple fact that the ultimate gauge of your attack's effectiveness is how many points of damage it deals after all calculations. Everything that comes before is but a factor for this final calculation. Regarding the other point, I find 40k's degree of lethality perfect for the kinds of games I'm running with the system, so I disagree that there's any "problem" with the system in that regard. "Skin armour" comes about because TB mechanically works the same way as armour. I agree that narratively it makes sense for low damaging rolls to be glances or close shaves but unfortunately some elements of the game don't support that interpretation. If you suffer even 1 point of damage after DR, you have suffered a wound of some kind which can be healed. If you don't suffer any damage after DR, you are perfectly fine. Armour as DR makes sense and there are fairly common sense ways to deal with it. As for TB as DR, there is no way to counteract or reduce the effectiveness of TB. You simply have to roll higher damage or get a bigger weapon. TB provides an innate barrier that always applies, no matter if you're being stabbed, incinerated, chopped, shot, or exploded. Particularly random weapons like frag grenades can be completely countered by the TB of a naked person which doesn't seem to make sense when you consider the narrative situation. Regarding the first point, this is something of a known issue with the game's abstraction - I remember this argument being brought up in the days of WFRP 2e, and I'm betting it was around even earlier, as this aspect of the system has barely changed since first introduced in WFRP 1e. Stil, consider this: a significant number of critical effects at one point of critical damage speak of "grazing" or "glancing blows". Logically, it follows that any attack that doesn't deal critical damage (or trigger Righteous Fury) cannot be described as more damaging than that. Regarding the second point... I'm sorry, but I've never understood the need for realism in a setting containing space wizards, undead Egyptian robots and things yet sillier. The combat system is perfect for recreating the kind of combat encounters your usual 80's action hero would partake in - which is perfect given 40k's range of inspirations. Tough guys survive stuff that kills less tough guys, that's the gist of it.
×
×
  • Create New...