Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bladehate

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fredensborg, Denmark
  1. When its something this minor, and even from the same manufacturer I don't see a problem with it. In the case of different manufacturers, you could just rename it to a completely new, less known subsidiary if you wanted. There's million jillion stars blah blah. We just use the same names over and over to help reinforce the fact that its Star Wars. Appearances can be really important to some players, and if its a purely cosmetic change its one of the things I find easiest to give them their way on.
  2. And those would be tables to avoid, in my opinion!
  3. I was attempting a bit of tongue in cheek humor, since a GM arbitrarily killing players with lightning bolts via DPs is also a breach of the social contract. That may not have worked out as I had hoped... And yes, I prefer to be pre-emptive whenever possible (it isn't always) when it comes to rulings concerning problem areas or talents. A talent that allows a player to produce items at will is certainly a talent with the potential for abuse and misunderstandings, even if it isn't taken to an extreme. I actually have a player wanting to be a gadgeteer/MacGuyver style of character, so at some point this may be very relevant to my own campaign. That depends on the campaign. But on the surface, I agree with you. Experience spent + the DP spent to activate the talent is a hefty expenditure. However, I run groups where resources are group wide. How you spend the money doesn't concern me at all, but I make an effort to ensure people are in the same ballpark. This is just long habit, and very rarely have I found it to be a problem, with many people telling me they appreciated the effort made, as it let them relax at the table without concern for undue favoritism or imbalanced distributions. It also helps reduce those uncomfortable moments where players try to hoard something, or outright steal from others. But then again, I run my games as co-op these days, rather than allowing PvP. Not saying it can't happen or shouldn't happen when character personalities clash, but I make an effort to smooth away those areas that I've seen lead to conflict between players. And unfair or uneven resource distribution is definitely one of those problematic areas. Hence why I personally would houserule that the functionality of the talent remains unchanged. I would even go so far as to loosen the rarity and size restrictions, to a limited extent. The cost comes if you want to permanently list that item on your sheet. I think its an acceptable compromise between keeping that MacGuyver feeling, and still keeping the talent balanced with the rest of the people at the table. The talent let's you manifest a wide range of items, at will. And in this case, without the GM preventing it, as I've given my tacit pre-approval. I think that's worth 15 xp + a DP, although your mileage may vary. Of course, I do the same thing with any items gifted via Deus Ex Machina. If they want to keep the item(s) around after the scene in question, they need to spend the actual resources on it. You can justify it however you want (filters for the re-breathers, restocking the med kit), but the end result should still be credits spent in order to list new assets on the sheet.
  4. Sure, I would say that's a fair compromise. In fact, I would update my own houserule with that: If a character wants the item to last beyond the scene, he must invest the cost of the item in order to make it a permanent part of his gear lists. Otherwise, the item ceases to function when its immediate use ends.
  5. And that's the power (and the problem) with the talent. However, if you change it to "remembered" rather than "created", you are nerfing the talent heavily. The items in question are already determined to be small, handheld items. Your tech/scout should already be carrying all items fitting this description on his person in 95% all situations to begin with. Allowing him to use it to produce a grenade in a prison or social situation seems like an extremely niche function of the talent.
  6. No, that's your restriction. The as written restriction is that the item be small (this can be subjective) and no greater than Rarity 4, and if its a weapon must have Limited 1 ammo quality.
  7. Again, directly against the wording of the talent. I'm sorry to play devil's advocate, but it's still a heavy nerf to the talent. Essentially, all you're doing is allowing a player to purchase anywhere, at increased cost. While that might certainly be a worthwhile talent, in itself...it is not this talent. Certainly, if you had a player wanting to play a MacGuyver style of character and relying on this talent for some of his concept, there would be a need to re-evaluate things. That is not how Destiny Points are used. They allow the players to request, and the GM to grant, items that further the cause of the story. Examples directly given are finding a med kit in an emergency response vehicle, a vital part in a junk pile and edible fruits on trees. Page 27 and especially page 315 make it pretty clear that these items are not previously acquired and "remembered", but granted to the group. This talent allows a player to expand on this, removing some of the interaction with the GM in favor of stricter guidelines on items that can be produced.
  8. That's your prerogative, certainly. Its also directly against the stated wording of the talent, and nerfs it into being nearly useless.
  9. I don't entirely disagree with you, but making such a change would also defeat the point of the talent to some extent. To begin with, the standard use of DPs already let's you produce items you need out of thin air. Obviously, this is heavily dependent on working with your GM, and he or she has full veto rights. This talent is more defined, but that same definition also makes it harder for a GM to disallow, outside of just being a jerk. There's a balance between allowing this talent to function and be useful, and either overpowering it or emasculating it. Personally, as a GM I would prefer to be more forgiving in the heat of the moment. I would prefer to allow a broader use of the talent, but with the caveat that the item thus manifested is more of a jury rigged monstrosity unlikely to function for long (MacGuyver style). That way I let the talent be useful, but don't have to worry about characters manifesting manufactured items out of the books and jotting it down on their sheets.
  10. Yeah that can become ridiculous rather easily. Even without making it a free use per session, I would personally house rule all items made with this talent to only last for the session they were created in. Otherwise you're also likely to see this scenario at some point: Player: "Oh, cool. We're done for the day? I see we have 2 DPs, and daddy really needs some high priced items to vendor later. Lemme just flip those over, and score some free loot." GM: <flips all the DPs back again> "So, a bolt of lightning strikes your character. For next game session, please have a new one ready. Those narrative mishaps sure are killer, huh?" I'd rather just avoid that scenario entirely, personally.
  11. At first, I thought it was a reasonable change. But on second reading of the talent, Utility Belt actually lets you produce explosives in exchange for DP. Granting the talent what amounts to a free grenade every game session seems like it could be problematic, depending on the player and the books used. If you make the change, you may want to get very specific about the exact weapons/explosives you will allow it to produce. Additionally, after reading Desslok's thread on just what the talent can produce, I do think you will want to put some kind of limited usage on whatever item is produced. In other words, sure they have a medikit, but after this game session it will be used up. That kind of thing. Again, depending on player and the kind of campaign you're running, granting free loot to the talent owner can upset the group balance.
  12. By normal standards, the player's response was unreasonable, possibly psychopathic. This does not justify the GM's ensuing actions, though they certainly do go a long way towards explaining them. That about sums up my feelings on the matter.
  13. And that's completely true. But if the player is unfamiliar with this style of play, and he clearly was, then cutting the player off at the knees is probably not the best response either. That said, as I tried to point out in my first post...the people involved should be less involved with placing blame, and more worried about where they go from here. How you process this kind of thing going forward is far more important than getting caught up in mudslinging.
  14. I agree with this, and indeed most of your post. I had a similar situation in our last session. The players were dealing with a sand demon, a massive armored arthropod. It began to chase one of the players, and rather than race off on his scrap bike...he chose to point it out into the desert and roll off the back, in an attempt to lure it away. They're literally in the middle of the desert. The monster is not faster than the bikes. I could not for the life of me figure out why the player chose to do as he did. In my old days, I might have killed the character (he botched his piloting roll horribly)...simply because the player wasn't thinking as I was thinking. In the end, it turned out the player simply had other priorities: He wanted to get to the caravan the critter was attacking to save some people, and saw the bike as an acceptable sacrifice to get that. His way of thinking was in no way in tune with mine, but that did not make him wrong. I've bolded the part that I found particularly relevant. The player was under the expectation that in order to do what he wanted, mechanics would need to be involved, not just a loose declaration of intent. When the GM skipped the mechanics it literally caught him off guard, and did in fact take away his agency.
  15. That depends entirely on how you do it. The player was clearly not expecting or desiring this outcome, and he was certainly not in sync with the GM's mindset. However, the moment the GM set the tone as adversarial ("then you shouldn't have shot him, should you?"), it became clear that what the player wanted, or what he did, no longer mattered. It is a fine line to walk between "justifiable consequence" and "jerk move". That line is easy to cross when you're a GM and you clearly act to teach a player a lesson. While I have never been in exactly this situation, as a player I have certainly been in similar situations. I state an intention, or an action, and the GM takes it away from me in some fashion. That's usually only a problem if its done in an adversarial or unpleasant manner, but its always disconcerting to some extent.
  • Create New...