Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

  1. #11
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    754

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    Quote Originally Posted by Emanymton View Post
    I have been considering making buying will and fortitude work like toughness. So they can only be increased directly by buying an appropriate power. Or as I prefer to see it, if it fits the concept.

    Take the Gadgeteer in the core book, does it really make sense for him to have a fortitude of 7 with a stamina of 0? What was the concept?
    'A normal person, but with a genius intellect and a bunch of gadgets. Oh he just happens to have a superhuman immune system as well'

    Now if he was to buy the extra fortitude in a device, if would fit the concept. Ironically since he is slightly below caps this would give him a higher fortitude, but would better fit the concept of a normal person without his gadgets.

    This might help with the problem of every character having their defences at or near PL caps, and instead have them more appropraite for the character concept.
    I'll go ahead and support what I expect to be the minority view here by stating that this seems like a good way to handle things.

    I've always been frustrated at the expectation that every character should have high Fortitude and Will defenses, even at 2/3 of the normal cap. Will can kind of make sense, as you'd expect the heroic types to have higher-than-normal willpower. But Fortitude just never seems justified, particularly when we consider values of 0-1 are considered "average human," and that it's not common to expect normal people to just have unusually high physical resistance to poison, disease and such.

    Fortunately, in the games my group and I play IRL, Fortitude and Will attacks are rare enough (and Fortitude more so than Will) that it's not a real issue. Normal human PCs can have Fortitudes of 0-4 and it very rarely impacts play; even when a villain with a Fortitude-targeting attack crops up, the "normals" are more apt to let the more resistant folks handle him while they focus on other areas.

    However, in games where Fortitude attacks are almost as common as Toughness, that can easily be a problem. And to my mind, just saying "please buy up Fortitude" always struck me as a rather nonchalant, inconsistent response (especially when coupled with insinuations of minmaxing--it's never made sense to me that having a low Fortitude could be considered powergaming, when the solution expected is to literally remove a clear, relevant weakness to the character in direct violation of the character concept.)

    Forcing Fortitude (and possibly Will as well) to be bought up explicitly via a power like Toughness seems to address this very well.

    Most sane heroes aren't going to just run out and fight crime without adequate resistance. So if they don't have enough speed, agility or whatever to evade attacks, they'll wear body armor, or do whatever is needed to allow themselves to survive being hit--effectively, hitting their caps, or at least coming close. If Fortitude attacks are almost as common as Toughness, then you'd expect that they would similarly take that into account before donning a cape--if they couldn't evade such attacks well enough, they'd take some sort of precaution against being harmed when struck by them (special suits, a Fortitude-enhancing elixir, a tweak to their power-based defenses, whatever.) Forcing the defense to be increased via a power keeps the base, unempowered Fortitude reasonable for a normal human character, and shouldn't be any more strange than a normal human going out of their way to beef up their Toughness in expectation of trouble.

    Again though, I do think it's easier to justify a direct purchase of high levels of Will as it's a mental trait. Just as the normal human range for Intellect can be fairly wide (geniuses exist, and I'd think they would start at Intellect 5 at the low end,) I think the same is true of Will as well. Plus, it seems like it would be much harder to explain how a non-psychic power or device would somehow boost one's Will.
    My builds can be found in the Roll Call forum here. And, here's the latest version of The Cast.
    Currently playing in: Cosmic Adventures and Identity Lost.

  2. #12
    Inceptor
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    23

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush View Post
    I'll go ahead and support what I expect to be the minority view here by stating that this seems like a good way to handle things.

    I've always been frustrated at the expectation that every character should have high Fortitude and Will defenses, even at 2/3 of the normal cap. Will can kind of make sense, as you'd expect the heroic types to have higher-than-normal willpower. But Fortitude just never seems justified, particularly when we consider values of 0-1 are considered "average human," and that it's not common to expect normal people to just have unusually high physical resistance to poison, disease and such.

    Fortunately, in the games my group and I play IRL, Fortitude and Will attacks are rare enough (and Fortitude more so than Will) that it's not a real issue. Normal human PCs can have Fortitudes of 0-4 and it very rarely impacts play; even when a villain with a Fortitude-targeting attack crops up, the "normals" are more apt to let the more resistant folks handle him while they focus on other areas.

    However, in games where Fortitude attacks are almost as common as Toughness, that can easily be a problem. And to my mind, just saying "please buy up Fortitude" always struck me as a rather nonchalant, inconsistent response (especially when coupled with insinuations of minmaxing--it's never made sense to me that having a low Fortitude could be considered powergaming, when the solution expected is to literally remove a clear, relevant weakness to the character in direct violation of the character concept.)

    Forcing Fortitude (and possibly Will as well) to be bought up explicitly via a power like Toughness seems to address this very well.

    Most sane heroes aren't going to just run out and fight crime without adequate resistance. So if they don't have enough speed, agility or whatever to evade attacks, they'll wear body armor, or do whatever is needed to allow themselves to survive being hit--effectively, hitting their caps, or at least coming close. If Fortitude attacks are almost as common as Toughness, then you'd expect that they would similarly take that into account before donning a cape--if they couldn't evade such attacks well enough, they'd take some sort of precaution against being harmed when struck by them (special suits, a Fortitude-enhancing elixir, a tweak to their power-based defenses, whatever.) Forcing the defense to be increased via a power keeps the base, unempowered Fortitude reasonable for a normal human character, and shouldn't be any more strange than a normal human going out of their way to beef up their Toughness in expectation of trouble.

    Again though, I do think it's easier to justify a direct purchase of high levels of Will as it's a mental trait. Just as the normal human range for Intellect can be fairly wide (geniuses exist, and I'd think they would start at Intellect 5 at the low end,) I think the same is true of Will as well. Plus, it seems like it would be much harder to explain how a non-psychic power or device would somehow boost one's Will.
    Yep, exactly how I feel. I agree about will, most heroes will be able to justify an 'iron will' power or similar.

  3. #13
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,643

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    Look, you can do what you want, but I'm just noting that encouraging being much below those caps is essentially a large sign that says "Take me out with Afflictions, please." There's an argument that Afflictions are too easy to resist with the standard rules, but they're enough more effective than damage when they do work (because, lets not forget, low resistances not only mean you're vulnerable to them in the first place, you're also less likely to get out of them after the fact) that if those we much lower they'd be the winning way. Getting fussy here is pretty much a signal to the players that says "If you don't want to have a massive glass jaw, pick concepts that I won't get bothered about not having one."

  4. #14
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    754

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    Emanymton's proposal is actually a way to encourage meeting the exotic caps without it seeming out-of-character for the PC.
    My builds can be found in the Roll Call forum here. And, here's the latest version of The Cast.
    Currently playing in: Cosmic Adventures and Identity Lost.

  5. #15
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,595

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    I tend to max out my defenses across the board. I'd sooner have a well balanced character than one with a fatal flaw.

  6. #16
    Inceptor
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    23

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush View Post
    Emanymton's proposal is actually a way to encourage meeting the exotic caps without it seeming out-of-character for the PC.
    Exactly. The way it works at the moment, will and fort are oftern just numbers, they don't tell us much narratively. Continuing the example from my first post. If the gadagateer was to buy his fort through a device, then it would really only matter for those rare occasions, when he is without his gadgets, and is having to resist with fortitude. He would be more vulnerable in these circumstances, as he should be and as he would be to a normal attack.

    I now have an image of him desperately trying to get to his fort boosting gadget, before getting incapacitated by a progressive affliction.

    This only a vague idea I had, it was not so much about forcing characters to have lower defences (although that might be an appropriate result for some characters), but about defining them better.

  7. #17
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,643

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    I'm perhaps overreacting here.

    But in general I've usually found that trying to get too fussy about how people fulfill certain basic things they're trying to get to be operational in a superhero game tends to be a perverse incentive. I'm not averse to some of what Emanyempton is talking about, but it sets up a situation that says "If its not easy to justify X, don't take X"...where sometimes you really need to have X whether its easy to do or not. I'm playing a tech based superhero in a campaign my wife is running down the road--but his tech is pretty much all mechanical-engineering based things, so he's not going to be able to build things to justify a superhero-level Fortitude or Will. But those things aren't really optional if you don't want to get clobbered by the first serious Affliction user that comes along. Telling someone with a build like this "justify it or you can't have it" is just saying, in practice, "play a different character".

  8. #18
    Keeper of Secrets JDRook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,273

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    If you want to get further into the realm of superhero fiction tropes, "exotic attacks" from opponents and villains are usually a big deal, a signature power for that villain or at least just for that issue/episode/sequel. The X-attack is often seen in action before the main characters encounter it, used on bystanders/minions to demonstrate its effectiveness to the audience or reader. It's also not unusual for the heroes to be hit by this X-attack and have it work like the villain wants, at least for a little while. This can lead to either heroically overcoming the villain despite the X-attack, or a dramatic failure requiring the heroes to retreat and regroup with a plan.

    Example: Scarecrow develops fear gas. Tests it on civilians, potentially getting on the news. Batman may try to find a defense or counter agent but another attack hits and he may not have time or his counters aren't effective and he succumbs to fears. Scarecrow achieves some macguffin goal while Bats now has more information to work with to come up with a counter plan.

    This is exactly the kind of structure that can plump up a storyline and give a lot of dramatic opportunities for roleplay. However, setting this up in a game is trickier, especially if GM and/or players are stuck in a loss=death mindset that might come from other RPGs, or are even just really averse to losing. This makes for antagonistic build strategies where the player focuses on maximum survivability, trying to anticipate whatever the GM might come up with and coming up with a counter before play even begins. "Unjustified" Fort/Will ranks is probably the simplest form of this strategy, even if it is often encouraged.

    So if you want your PCs to have more "realistic" Fort/Will ranks, there has to be some tacit understanding that high-rank X-attacks won't be used without some kind of lead time for PCs to at least know what's coming or have at least one good defense, like a team member that can handle the attack (see every "Data saves everyone" episode on TNG). Actually, building characters in a vacuum can also breed a "lone wolf" design where they try to be defensible against everything, so building as a group or even trusting that someone else can handle that defense would be another big step to being able to use X-attacks more effectively in game.
    My old Atomic Think Tank thread
    My current character thread: The Sound of my Eyebeams

    I will build characters in HeroLab for you! Send me your finished design or even your original concept!

  9. #19
    Inceptor
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    23

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkdreamer View Post
    I'm perhaps overreacting here.

    But in general I've usually found that trying to get too fussy about how people fulfill certain basic things they're trying to get to be operational in a superhero game tends to be a perverse incentive. I'm not averse to some of what Emanyempton is talking about, but it sets up a situation that says "If its not easy to justify X, don't take X"...where sometimes you really need to have X whether its easy to do or not. I'm playing a tech based superhero in a campaign my wife is running down the road--but his tech is pretty much all mechanical-engineering based things, so he's not going to be able to build things to justify a superhero-level Fortitude or Will. But those things aren't really optional if you don't want to get clobbered by the first serious Affliction user that comes along. Telling someone with a build like this "justify it or you can't have it" is just saying, in practice, "play a different character".
    This is definitely something, that is very situational, depending on the game being played and the people involved.

  10. #20
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,643

    Re: Resisted by Will -- NOT +1 IMO

    Quote Originally Posted by Emanymton View Post
    This is definitely something, that is very situational, depending on the game being played and the people involved.
    Not really, unless the GM is actively avoiding pressing on problem areas in a PC that can't justify having answers to those problem areas--and if he's doing that, in many ways he's made the people who could justify them--but had to pay for them--pay for things they didn't need to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •