Re: [icons-rpg] Half- damage?
- -----Original Message-----
>From: ";ohn McMullen" <jhmcmullen@...>Not exactly. It says that you subtract your Resistance level from the level of the effect it Resists. If said Resistance reduces the effect to 0 or less, it doesn't work on you at all.
>Sent: Jun 10, 2011 4:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Half- damage?
>Also, reading the text, I had come away with the impression that Resistance was all or >nothing: either it reduced the attack to 0 or it didn't have an effect.
At least, that's how I interpret the text there. I see it as a weaker version of immunity; you're not immune to the effect, but it doesn't hurt you as much as it will those unable to resist the affect.
- I agree with you, in theory, but if your players are not in the habit of having Compels, it can be difficult. Also, you want them to have Determination, so you need to encourage not-hoarding it.
I have gone the route of giving Determination for roleplaying anything that inconveniences the character, and I hope to make Compels more meaningful down the line.
--- In email@example.com, Mike Olson <devlin1@...> wrote:
> > Should we only get Determination when the GM *makes* us play
> > in-character, or also when we do it voluntarily?
> It's not so much about simply playing in character -- a good compel should
> force you to make a difficult choice. For example, if your character has an
> aspect of "Charitable Soul," giving some change to a beggar in the street
> would be appropriate behavior, but it shouldn't be worth Determination
> unless there's some real risk or sacrifice involved. If you only had enough
> money for the bus and needed to get to a job interview, suddenly helping out
> that beggar takes on more significance. Do you sacrifice your own happiness
> to help someone else? If so, it's worth a point.
> Or, to look at it another way (and up the stakes a bit), if you accept a
> compel from the GM, you should expect it to lead to trouble pretty directly.
> Maybe that's not just a beggar -- it's the Beggar King, supervillainous
> champion of the dispossessed, and he's played on your reputation as a soft
> touch to trick you into falling into his trap.
> To go back to Batman: If Bruce Wayne has to attend a board meeting, it's not
> really a compel unless he does so at the expense of something else. If it's
> a choice between maintaining his public persona or solving the Riddler's
> latest puzzle before a bomb goes off somewhere in Gotham, that's a good
> compel. There's risk for the character.
> Self-compels are practically a necessity, too. Players should feel free to
> pitch in, because it's difficult for the GM to keep up with everything on
> their own. For example, if I'm playing Batman (I was going to say "If *
> you're* playing Batman," but dammit, *I want to be Batman*) and I'm supposed
> to be at the Gotham Observatory exactly at noon to get the next clue from
> the Riddler, I could self-compel my "Bruce Wayne, Billionaire Playboy"
> Quality to say, "As it happens, I have a board meeting at Wayne Enterprises
> at noon, and if I'm not there, someone's going to make a bad business
> decision in my absence." (I dunno, maybe Clayface has assumed the identity
> of some senior VP for nefarious reasons -- you get the idea.) The GM can
> sort out the rest, or ask me to do so later, but I'm introducing the idea
> that there are non-combat consequences to meeting up with the Riddler at the
> appointed time.
> So it's not just playing in character -- it's making in-character choices
> that are largely not in the character's self-interest.
> Also, as the GM, it's best not to dictate to the player the exact thing that
> happens with a compel. It's enough to offer the Determination and say, "Boy,
> it sure seems like a 'Protector of the Downtrodden' would do something about
> that, doesn't it?" The player shouldn't feel like they've lost control of
> their character. That's a common misstep I've seen.