Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity

[Rougarou]

I'd actually say that Nick's catch is valued higher than the Demon Lily in the given example.

Nick's catch should, in my opinion and contrary to Our World page 103, be +2, the Demon Lily +0. Why?

The Noose:
+0 for broad protection
+2 for availability (anyone fighting him has access to it)
+0 because you have to know specific information on him to know about it

The Lily:
+0 for broad protection
+0 for exceedingly rare
+0 because of having to know specific information

I'm well aware of the fact that The Noose could be viewed as a +0 Catch because it requires using a one of a kind item to satisfy it... however, the fact that the one of a kind item is always present whenever facing Ol' Nicklehead means it's no different than any Achilles's Heel style catch and can be exploited by anyone who is fighting him and knows about it.

[Silverblaze]

I honestly find the viewpoint of someone who would take such a silly catch totally alien.  Like trying to understand Cthulu....

I mean that. 

In any game I run and let a player be "invincible" there is a 100% chance at some point they WILL be hit by their catch at least once no matter how rare.  No exceptions.  No matter how silly.  That said tehre is no reason to take something that doesn't fit the high concept.  It won't make it come up that much more often, if at all.

As a player I would have no interest in being 100% invincible nor playing with a PC ally who was.  As a GM I would not allow a 100% invincible player or even NPC.

I see no point in such a thing.  Want to make Mab or The Almighty 100% invincible? :  Their high concept alone could accomplish that.  That is so inherent to their being it simply is .

For dramatic effect and story their will always be a way to hurt the thing the story calls to be fought. 

I'm willing to compromise on this to the extent that an option be listed to inviolve a way to hurt someone who is 100% invincible.  You can even have the baseline power as written not require that +0 catch equivalent. 

I stand by the idea; that I can't take a custom power serious if it truly allows for 100% invincibility.  I can't be the only one.

 There is a reason for many years and even now GM's groan when a player says "Hey! I found this on the internet and want to play it or have the power etc." 

I think we balance most of this stuff pretty damn good, but I have never met a GM (as far as I know) that would look at a power as viable once they saw it allowed 100% invincibility. 

[Sanctaphrax]

I honestly find the viewpoint of someone who would take such a silly catch totally alien.  Like trying to understand Cthulu....

I mean that.

Again, the problem is not that people will necessarily take such a Catch. The problem is that anybody who doesn't is Playing The Game Wrong.

Forcing people to play Wrong makes things less fun for them. 

I'm not joking. Mechanically speaking, a silly Catch is straight-up better than a sensible one. And the correct way to play a game is the way that makes you most likely to win. In character creation, winning means creating the most powerful character possible within the provided constraints.

You might not take character creation as a game in itself, and that's fine. But for everyone who does, this sort of imbalance is painful.

In any game I run and let a player be "invincible" there is a 100% chance at some point they WILL be hit by their catch at least once no matter how rare.  No exceptions.  No matter how silly.  That said tehre is no reason to take something that doesn't fit the high concept.  It won't make it come up that much more often, if at all.

That sort of works, but it gets kinda silly with the weird Catches.

And again, the problem is not that people will take Catches that don't fit their concepts. The problem is that people will be told by the game not to play concepts that don't justify suitable Catches.

I see no point in such a thing.  Want to make Mab or The Almighty 100% invincible? :  Their high concept alone could accomplish that.  That is so inherent to their being it simply is .

I'm sorry, that doesn't work at all.

Wizards need Evocation to Evoke, regardless of concept. Aspects do nothing unless invoked or compelled.

If you want invincible characters, you need to give those characters invincibility Powers. (Or Stunts, I suppose...as if.)

For dramatic effect and story their will always be a way to hurt the thing the story calls to be fought. 

I'm willing to compromise on this to the extent that an option be listed to inviolve a way to hurt someone who is 100% invincible.  You can even have the baseline power as written not require that +0 catch equivalent.

We already have All Creatures Are Equal Before God. And nobody can ever be immune to social attacks. And Aspects can do anything.

What more do you want?

Ignore TINS, it's a separate issue. One we should discuss separately.

I stand by the idea; that I can't take a custom power serious if it truly allows for 100% invincibility.  I can't be the only one.

 There is a reason for many years and even now GM's groan when a player says "Hey! I found this on the internet and want to play it or have the power etc." 

I think we balance most of this stuff pretty damn good, but I have never met a GM (as far as I know) that would look at a power as viable once they saw it allowed 100% invincibility.

I have to admit that having a Power not taken seriously by some dude over the internet doesn't bother me. If I've done my job right, that's enough for me.

I guess I have a bit of Pretentious Artist in my makeup. I feel beholden to abstract principles of game design, not people's prejudices.

PS: If we put an appropriate cost on full invincibility, then no player in any normal game will be able to afford it. That is right and proper, because full invincibility is more powerful than everything a normal PC should be able to afford put together.

The question is, how much is perfect invulnerability worth?

[Silverblaze]

Again, the problem is not that people will necessarily take such a Catch. The problem is that anybody who doesn't is Playing The Game Wrong.

Forcing people to play Wrong makes things less fun for them. 

I'm not joking. Mechanically speaking, a silly Catch is straight-up better than a sensible one. And the correct way to play a game is the way that makes you most likely to win. In character creation, winning means creating the most powerful character possible within the provided constraints.

You might not take character creation as a game in itself, and that's fine. But for everyone who does, this sort of imbalance is painful.

That sort of works, but it gets kinda silly with the weird Catches.

And again, the problem is not that people will take Catches that don't fit their concepts. The problem is that people will be told by the game not to play concepts that don't justify suitable Catches.

I'm sorry, that doesn't work at all.

Wizards need Evocation to Evoke, regardless of concept. Aspects do nothing unless invoked or compelled.

If you want invincible characters, you need to give those characters invincibility Powers. (Or Stunts, I suppose...as if.)

We already have All Creatures Are Equal Before God. And nobody can ever be immune to social attacks. And Aspects can do anything.

What more do you want?

Ignore TINS, it's a separate issue. One we should discuss separately.

I have to admit that having a Power not taken seriously by some dude over the internet doesn't bother me. If I've done my job right, that's enough for me.

I guess I have a bit of Pretentious Artist in my makeup. I feel beholden to abstract principles of game design, not people's prejudices.

PS: If we put an appropriate cost on full invincibility, then no player in any normal game will be able to afford it. That is right and proper, because full invincibility is more powerful than everything a normal PC should be able to afford put together.

The question is, how much is perfect invulnerability worth?

RPG's are not made to win.

You can't play them wrong.

Flat out can't.
 
In a game based more on narrative than anythuing else, you really can't. (DFRPG)

BTW I love the character generation part of games.  Problem is I got too good at it.  I mean that.  So I started preferring limits.  If I can still do really well within those limits I am more satisfied than if I made a badass with no limits.




There is nothing to win or lose...you tell a story.  You win individual encounters.  Winning in an RPG is like winning at life.  You can't.  You can succeed in many avenues, but you can't win.

We are going in circles.  I'm not budging on my opinion.  You claim you won't either.  This is called an impasse.

I suggest we find a compromise. I've proposed one or two.  You ignore them or refuse them or refuse to compromise.  Otherwise, I am content to let this idea rot.

You claim you don't care if "some dude" doesn't take a power seriously.   I'mn sure it is more than some dude.  Some dude in this instance also means me.  I can't see a reason for full invincibility.  Why should something the PC's can never ever beat exist?  If the goal is to win the game...you can't beat that.  It is by definition unbeatable.

 Well, what if no one takes it seriously?  Then you made a power only you take seriously.  I really hate polls to determine who is right or wrong.  It just kicks people in the ego... but i am curious to know how many people think full invincibility needs to exist.  I am curious to know how many people even use the rewrites and custom powers we work at making.  I bet the number is fewer than we like to think....

If you put a cost to a power someday a player will buy it.

You want a cost for invincibility?  Pick something truly rediculous. I'll still hate it.  I passionately; vehemently;  emphatically; explicitly; (insert cuss word here starting with the letter F) ing....hate it.  If your compromise is going to be a really high cost that's what the next debate will be...

What is high enough?

Could put in social immunity - that might shut me up.  But we both know placating people who want something who makes no sense is something you won't do.

P.S. Full invincibility makes no sense to me.....

[Sanctaphrax]

RPG's are not made to win.

You can't play them wrong.

Flat out can't.
 
In a game based more on narrative than anythuing else, you really can't. (DFRPG)

I think you're missing the point here.

If people are approaching character creation as a game in itself, then they can "win" by making a really strong character.

And you can play wrong, when there's a way to "win". You just have to do things that make it harder to "win".

If you put people in a situation where they have to choose between optimal play and making sense, that's no fun.

And fun is seriously important.

There is nothing to win or lose...you tell a story.  You win individual encounters.  Winning in an RPG is like winning at life.  You can't.  You can succeed in many avenues, but you can't win.

But you can "win" character creation.

We are going in circles.  I'm not budging on my opinion.  You claim you won't either.  This is called an impasse.

I suggest we find a compromise. I've proposed one or two.  You ignore them or refuse them or refuse to compromise.  Otherwise, I am content to let this idea rot.

As I said before, I'm not sure what you were trying to propose.

Why should something the PC's can never ever beat exist?  If the goal is to win the game...you can't beat that.  It is by definition unbeatable.

Not so. Even if you're impossible to hurt, people can just chain you up and bury you. Or they can beat you indirectly, by foiling plans and so on.

Or they can social-fu you.

Well, what if no one takes it seriously?

That's okay.

Quality is not determined by popular vote. 

I am curious to know how many people even use the rewrites and custom powers we work at making.  I bet the number is fewer than we like to think....

If I had to guess, I'd say three or four.

If you put a cost to a power someday a player will buy it.

Hopefully.

So we ought to pick an appropriate cost.

Personally, I'd have a hard time choosing between perfect invincibility and a full suite of Supernatural physical Powers. That's why I think 16 is a reasonable cost.

What is high enough?

My current figure is 16. Not sure if that's ideal, though.

Could put in social immunity - that might shut me up.  But we both know placating people who want something who makes no sense is something you won't do.

You're quite right.

Would that kind of compromise really make anyone happy?

P.S. Full invincibility makes no sense to me.....

Why not?

Take a loup-garou, put it in a universe without intelligent beings capable of inheriting things. Bam.

[UmbraLux]

If people are approaching character creation as a game in itself, then they can "win" by making a really strong character.

Only if a) "really strong" is a goal and b) it's a contest.

You may prefer a 'really strong' character while someone else wants an 'interesting' character and another player wants to create a specific concept...or even copy a fictional character.  There's no reason they can't all succeed at their individual goals. 

[Sanctaphrax]

Only if a) "really strong" is a goal and b) it's a contest.

Exactly.

People with this attitude are a limited subset of the playerbase, but there's no need to make them feel bad.

This is somewhat separate from the discussion of whether full invincibility should be possible, in case it's not clear. Even if we don't allow full invincibility, we can avert this issue with infinitely-scaling costs for narrower and narrower Catches.




Hang on. I just had an idea, and I think it's a good one.

The highest level of invincibility has effects like ACAEBG as a "Catch". That way, there's a sensible weakness that's not compatible with TINS.

But wait. That could make transgendered squidzilla ink better than our so-called best Catch, because it would be compatible with TINS.

Yeah, I should just edit TINS so it doesn't work with Immunity. At least, so it doesn't work with high levels of it.

That way, transgendered squidzilla ink is in its rightful place as a dubiously optimal Catch selection.

This does have the downside of requiring that you use ACaEBG, which I regret since I'd just as soon play without it, but oh well. You could already get a similar effect by selecting Swords Of The Cross as a Catch and you could get a rebate for that one.

[Silverblaze]

My compromise was to make a catch for the invincibility.  You said... NO!

We debated on that for a while.

You won't budge.

I won't budge...

Why not make a note on the power that many people...some people there are people who think  that :

-16 invincibility should require a +0 Catch. 

I'd be satisfied with that.  I'm not asking a lot here.  I'm really not.  I'm not even requiring it be part of the power, but a "Note" attached to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hell, the source book YS mentions that Greater Glamourts is likely an NPC only power.  If they can make notes so can we.

I think you may be looking at this from a "What Sanctphrax wants and how Sanctaphrax plays." position;  rather than "How the majority plays and wants and will find useful."

Do we need to keep powergamers happy? Yes.  I game with powert gamers.  Do we need to keep people who prefer concept and "sub-optimal" but interesting characters heppy?  Yes.

 I think we are leaning towards appealign to power gamers rather than the other.

We have spent too much time and too many pages on this invincibility thing.  To the point where it almost is better off as it's own power or sub power of Immunity.

Hell it's pretty much just you - me - Umbra Lux -and becq (Becq is mostly mocking TINS at this point).

The crickets are otherwise deafening.

The quicker we can compromise on this issue the faster it can become a power on the Custom Power page and we can all breathe a sigh of relief that this debacle is over.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMMUNITY [-varies]
Description: You are completely immune to some form of harm.
Note: The cost examples provided here are intended for the hypothetical average game. In unusual games, they may need to be adjusted. In some rare cases, it may qualify as a Compel when this Power does not apply.
Skills Affected: Many.
Effects:
Immunity. Pick a type of stress. You are immune to that type of stress. This may prevent certain maneuvers and blocks from functioning, at the GM's discretion.
Variable Cost. The cost of this Power depends on the type of stress selected.
•Completely trivial immunities, like drunk-ness or bad smells, are free.
•Very narrow ones, like monkey wrenches or seduction attempts or falling damage, cost 1 Refresh.

•Narrow immunities like poison or acid or magically induced despair cost 2 Refresh.
•Immunity to a single common thing, like metal weaponry or explosions or fear, costs 3 Refresh.
•Immunity to a broad group of things, like the physical attacks of the undead or mental magic, costs 4 Refresh.
•Immunity to an extremely broad group of things, like all magic (including indirect spells) or all unarmed attacks, costs 5 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) except something very common, like the attacks of women, costs 6 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) except something unusual, like the attacks of immortal beings, costs 7 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) with a small loophole, like the attacks of genderless beings, costs 8 Refresh.
•Immunity to all mental stress costs 9 Refresh, while immunity to all physical stress costs 13 Refresh.
•Immunity to both costs 20 Refresh.


We need -16 for invincibility and a note for the option of having a +0 Catch tied to high concept for those of us who prefer nothign to be invincible.

Immunity to Both needs to cost more obviously.

Can we please figure out a compromise and be done with this?

[Sanctaphrax]

My compromise was to make a catch for the invincibility.

Again, I don't see how this is a compromise. Isn't that exactly what you want?

-16 invincibility should require a +0 Catch.  [/u]

I'd be satisfied with that.  I'm not asking a lot here.  I'm really not.  I'm not even requiring it be part of the power, but a "Note" attached to it.

Please read the following two lines with as much care as you can muster:

Requiring a +0 Catch does not actually require characters to be vulnerable in any meaningful way.

Whether you want full immunity to be possible is actually not related to this argument. It's irrelevant. It's another issue.

The problem with your suggestion is and has always been that "requiring a +0 Catch" means assigning an equal value to everything from Nicodemus's noose to bullets made from the earwax of a 10 000 year old shark-moose from Spain who's never known the touch of the sun but who is exposed to moonlight every night between 12:03 and 12:05 while being massaged personally by Uriel and Mab and Fred the Australian garbage truck driver.

Do we need to keep powergamers happy? Yes.  I game with powert gamers.  Do we need to keep people who prefer concept and "sub-optimal" but interesting characters heppy?  Yes.

 I think we are leaning towards appealign to power gamers rather than the other.

No. Your proposal does nothing to benefit people who don't powergame as far as I can tell. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

Hell it's pretty much just you - me - Umbra Lux -and becq (Becq is mostly mocking TINS at this point).

Add Tedronai, and that's basically everyone who frequently discusses these things in detail.

Can we please figure out a compromise and be done with this?

I actually don't think it's possible to compromise as yet, because you clearly don't understand what I'm saying and I'm beginning to doubt whether I understand what you're saying.

Compromise requires a certain degree of mutual comprehension.

[Silverblaze]

'k

Not going to get rude or frustrated.  I'm not.

I'm going to explain my position, again.  I'm going to ignore your veiled remark about my reading comprehension.

A +0 Catch tied to high concept will work well in many games.  It really will.  In games where it won't work, they'll ignore the optional rule anyhow.  You'd ignore it...in order to WIN making a character concept yes?  Others would too. 

People who think the invincibility needs a nerf will likely find a use for the +0 Catch.  It doesn't have to be equal to nic's noose or transgendered squid ink.  People who want the thematic feel of one thing still being able to hurt the bad guy will use it just fine.  I agree +0 catches are not created equal.  That was why I said tie it to high concept.  Most high concepts will preclude allowing transgendered squid ink or ...bullets made from the earwax of a 10 000 year old shark-moose from Spain who's never known the touch of the sun but who is exposed to moonlight every night between 12:03 and 12:05 while being massaged personally by Uriel and Mab and Fred the Australian garbage truck driver.


I think an optional rule can be used as a compromise just fine. Optional by definition means not required.  That way...the power as you see fit exists.  The power as I see fit exists.  Both parties get what they want in some way.

What is there to understand about each other's view point?

You do not want a Catch.

I do.

That is what it boils down to at the very core.


"Whether you want full immunity to be possible is actually not related to this argument. It's irrelevant. It's another issue."

- Yes and no.  I'll agree it does not address the catch value system.  It does however, matter in one very relevant way.  Without requiring a catch...

A) I don't think the power should exist at all  B) The cost of the catch is irrelevant, since no catch would be required without a power to attach it to.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside: this conversation has devolved far from a rewrite about Physical Immunity.  This thread was created to rewrite what already exists, we were on the right track.  Now we are just arguing the highest end of the power and can't seem to agree.

I'm getting tired of it.  So very tired of it...  I just don't want to give up and let a power I suggested be rewritten; be rewritten in a fashion I disagree with.

Could you or anyone else possibly suggest another compromise?

[Tedronai]

A Catch is a 'loophole'.

Immunity to everything subject to a 'small loophole' is already covered by this power.

Immunity to everything physical and mental, subject to a small loophole already happens to cost 16 refresh in this power.

No externally-defined Catch is required in this power.


At most, what should be included is some sort of 'special permission' note rearding higher levels of this power.

[Silverblaze]

We have established that the following will still work?

ACAEBG, Sacred Guardian, Holy Touch (if applicable), Soulfire, Social stuff....

Also would immunity to manuevers be allowed with -16 immunity ?  That seems a bit much.

Since then you could not chain up and dump in concrete etc.  I'm assuming maneuvers are required to get that done.

[Sanctaphrax]

What is there to understand about each other's view point?

You do not want a Catch.

I do.

That is what it boils down to at the very core.

I'm sorry, but this is actually wrong.

My comments have been pointing out the problems with your idea of requiring a +0 Catch. Not with not allowing full invincibility.

Let me quote myself:

Even if we don't allow full invincibility, we can avert this issue with infinitely-scaling costs for narrower and narrower Catches.

My comment about reading comprehension wasn't intended as an insult; I was trying to explain that the disagreement isn't what you thought it was.

We have established that the following will still work?

ACAEBG, Sacred Guardian, Holy Touch (if applicable), Soulfire, Social stuff....

Yes.

Also would immunity to manuevers be allowed with -16 immunity ?  That seems a bit much.

Since then you could not chain up and dump in concrete etc.  I'm assuming maneuvers are required to get that done.

I don't think anything would allow immunity to maneuvers. But some types of PI, like selective tangibility, might prevent the chain-up routine.

I suppose we should include maneuver-resistance in the cost of PI. It can become relevant if broad enough.

As for a different compromise, here's what I proposed earlier:

Hang on. I just had an idea, and I think it's a good one.

The highest level of invincibility has effects like ACAEBG as a "Catch". That way, there's a sensible weakness that's not compatible with TINS.

But wait. That could make transgendered squidzilla ink better than our so-called best Catch, because it would be compatible with TINS.

Yeah, I should just edit TINS so it doesn't work with Immunity. At least, so it doesn't work with high levels of it.

That way, transgendered squidzilla ink is in its rightful place as a dubiously optimal Catch selection.

This does have the downside of requiring that you use ACaEBG, which I regret since I'd just as soon play without it, but oh well. You could already get a similar effect by selecting Swords Of The Cross as a Catch and you could get a rebate for that one.

I don't know whether this is a real compromise, because I'm still not sure exactly what you want, but I think it's a decent idea.

[Silverblaze]

I could have sworn you were against catches on full invincibility because then the power didn't make people truly invincible.


So let me ask you one more question:

If I remove the +0 from the Catch... just said this:

A Catch related to your high concept or the source of your invulnerability, may be required in some games to have full invincibility.

Would that have been more palatable?

Examples may include: Kryptonite for the "Last Son of Krypton" ; The Noose for "Nicodemus Archleone" ; Weaponized Silver Denarius "Scion of Judas", etc.

The rebate of course could vary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will say this though.  My point was to eliminate the need for Catches from Immunity.  I think that is why I have issue with Full Invincibility.  I'll give it some serious thought.  So long as enough manuevers and powers will still effect the individual with immunity (-16 or more)...I may be ok with it.  I really need to just take some time to think about it.  how I;d deal with it as a GM, a player, and ally...a lone foe vs that PC/NPC etc.

[Taran]

O.k...so I might be out of my depth here but I'd like to offer some input.

As tedronai said, a loophole is just another word for a catch so it's already included in the power.  I like the idea of tying the Immunity Power(not necessarily the catch) to an aspect or high concept for a few reasons:

1.  There are already many powers that have that as a pre-requisite
2.  It would limit ridiculous "catches" because the power/catch would have to make sense for the character
3.  Tying it to an aspect lets you use compels/fate points for the purpose of maneuvers.

So if someone tries to pin you, but you're immune to fists, you could spend a fate point to say you're immune to that sort of maneuver.  Or maybe the GM says you don't need pay...whatever.  The point is the aspect can dictate whether a maneuver may or may not work.

I think the main argument, unless I'm reading it wrong, is about immunity with no loopholes.  Once again, if you tie it to an aspect, creative players/GM's can use compels to find ways to bypass invincibility(at least temporarily) by way of fate points, even if the enemy has no true catch.

Sorry if I've already repeated something that's already been written...I admit that I skimmed a good portion of the middle part of the thead.