Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [icons-rpg] Elemental Control

Expand Messages
  • Soylent Green
    Totally. Stunts work great for that kind of thing. To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com From: yakkoman@sbcglobal.net Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:06:25 -0700 Subject:
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Totally. Stunts work great for that kind of thing.

      To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
      From: yakkoman@...
      Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:06:25 -0700
      Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Elemental Control

      Don't stunts fit into this as well? I mean, if I have Elemental Control: Electricity, but then for some reason, I need to make a lightning bolt shaped like a Sasquatch, it seems to me that doing this as a Stunt would be a viable option.

      On 25 Aug 2011, at 09:08, Soylent Green wrote:


      I totally agree with lenient, "the go with what's fun" approach. In the heat of the game the last thing a GM wants to do is shoot down a cool use of elemental power the player has come up by saying "Well techincally you'd need Shaping to do that."
      Bearing that in mind what I would say is Attacking and Defending are pretty clear cut.
      Creating, Shaping and Moving, while distinct, overlap quite a lot and in most instance you can probably stretch the definiton of one to cover the other. As such I'd
      probably discourage a player from taking all three unless they were really keen to do so.
      Dection.. erm..okay, if you insist.
      One final thought, the subpowers you don't take could be potential Challenge candidates. If you can't use you light control becasue it's dark and you don't have "Creating" why not select the Aspect "Weakness:Darkness"? Likewise if you can envelop you opponent in Darkness but can't restrain him because you don't have "Shaping" maybe you get "Darkness has no substance".

      To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
      From: cameron.a.mount@...
      Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:28:49 -0400
      Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Elemental Control

      • I was thinking about this with respect to gravity in particular. I don't know how I'd do it. Yes, gravity is always around, but it's generally constant, at least as far as Earth is concerned. Increasing Gravity to hurt someone ("Crush") seems like a fairly standard attack option, but I think I'd require Create as part of that because you're altering the gravitational attraction.

      I'd use Create+Shape+Attack potentially as Binding.

      I'm just not sure how Attack alone would work with Gravity.

      Here's how I'd see things, I guess.

      • Move+Attack - Throwing something at someone, like lifting a car and tossing it, OR throwing the target up into the air.
      • Create+Attack - Increasing Gravity to crush someone
      • Create+Shape+Attack - Binding
      • Create+Shape - Anti-grav or hyper-grav fields
      • Create - to use Gravity in space
      • Move - lift something and move it, like yourself
      But it's very, very malleable, and I keep running in circles myself as I write this. I think, as a GM, so long as the player could rationalize his/her use of it within the rules, I'd probably allow it. I'm a lenient GM in many respects and far more likely to allow something that fits the rule of cool than to disallow something because of rules questions. As a player, I think I'd just have to do my best to rationalize what I wanted and adjust to the way my GM rules. Hopefully I'd be playing with a GM who plays similarly to the way I do.

      On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:06, David Andrews <blaster219@...> wrote:

      On 25 August 2011 14:52, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
      Those are good examples. It's a cool powerset but as tricky one that at very least one that requires a lot of GM interpretation.  Does the "create" step take an action in the case of the lightening bolt? Do you need the "Create" subpower for Air, Gravity or other "elements" which tend to be always around? 

      ## Personal Opinions Alert ## 

      I wouldn't have Create by a separate step from the Attack if I was running the game. They way I would treat is that in that situation Create allows the character to generate his element, but its the Attack action that's the important part of the process and that's the part I'd test. To have both be a separate action seems too much of a penalty to me.

      As for needing Create when the element is "always around"... Well gravity is always around on Earth. At 1G. If the character had a high power level, I *may* be tempted to limit his effective rank if he doesn't have create. The reasoning I'd use is that although he doesn't need Create to generate gravity because it's all around, he might not be capable of generating extreme shifts in vector and magnitude without it. The same way that I'd expect MegaVolt's electrical blasts to be limited if he was drawing on a battery for juice instead of the mains if the character didn't have Create.

      Another example, a character with Air Control and Move could use air currents to fly but would be much faster if he also had Create so he could augment the already present element.

      Create doesn't necessarily have to just mean creating something from nothing. It can also mean increasing what's already there.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.