http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers Gaming Outpost Discussions » Topic: Daywalkers en-US Thu, 24 May 2012 11:23:45 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/search.php http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-20483 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:06:37 +0000 JohnA1nut 20483@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ya know what? I just solved the problem of the old, weak zombies and the bodybuilder zombies both having wooden skin, but looking completely different. On the old, weak zombies, it's more like rotten wood. It's soft, brittle, can be punched through with your bare hands. (Hence, the need to go plant) It's more of a disadvantage. Offers less cover value than human skin. On the bodybuilder zombies, it's a 1/4 inch of fresh oak, giving them quite a cover value. The two would look radically different. Thoughts?</p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17154 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:02:51 +0000 JohnA1nut 17154@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two</p> <p>MJ, I now know FOR A FACT that you could have become a molecular biologist. (Emphasizing, not yelling) "He is the potter, you are the clay." What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that God does not have the power to mold His piece of clay into anything He desires it to be. Even Mark Joseph Young, MD, Biological Medicine. I told you once that it was your beliefs in Christianity that limited God's power, not mine. Think about that for a little while. (Supposed to be thought provoking, not argumentative) </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17148 Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:02:44 +0000 JohnA1nut 17148@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Sorry Eric. Don't forget, (Doing Therapy) means that I am, at the time of that writing, in the process of having a psychotic episode. In other words, not exactly thinking all that clearly. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17147 Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:59:35 +0000 Tadeusz 17147@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Yes. I put up the '1d10 list of guns sorta' list for you to look at, and commented on it. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17146 Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:44:55 +0000 JohnA1nut 17146@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Nobody answered my <em>other</em> question. Should we stat the weapons? I've asked 3 times now. Hello?? Anybody there??? </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17145 Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:42:24 +0000 Tadeusz 17145@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>And so it was...</p> <p>In the story, Stalin, Man of Steel heartless 'lich'-like creature, lost a few fingers to the attack. At which point, T started getting worried because anyone who can lose a finger and parts of a couple others or so to an obliterative attack is ...problematic. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17129 Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:17:57 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17129@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>I had one spell for WAW Tad that was not an explosion, but a limited area of effect.</p></blockquote> <p>And in this case, a multiple-obliterative effect would still have an advantage over simple obliterative in that it could soak up the target's defensive DC penalties without dropping to annihilative. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17120 Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:57:28 +0000 johnosevens 17120@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>I had one spell for WAW Tad that was not an explosion, but a limited area of effect. It disintegrated an approximately defined area of the space-time continuum, and that was obliterative, but probably only annoying damage if you were a foot outside the effect.</p></blockquote> <p> I had a spell like that in a D&amp;D game once. It was basically 5' radius per caster level of what amounted to a nuclear explosion contained in a Sphere of Force, so it would vaporize anything caught in it, but inches outside the bubble you'd never feel a thing. I miss my Ruinball. When I get to a high-magic Verse I need to do that here... </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17117 Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:34:27 +0000 Tadeusz 17117@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I had one spell for WAW Tad that was not an explosion, but a limited area of effect. It disintegrated an approximately defined area of the space-time continuum, and that was obliterative, but probably only annoying damage if you were a foot outside the effect.</p> <p>Let me look up the gun's list. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17106 Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:06:17 +0000 JohnA1nut 17106@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Question remains, should we stat weapons in game? One NPC is going to be a crack shot with a 22 target pistol. Should we stat that, or is it up to each referee running each individual game? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17104 Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:06:26 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17104@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>James is quite right. I'll also point out that base obliterative weapons almost invariably are defined in terms of area of effect - explosions and the like - and damage in such cases often decreases with distance from the epicenter (oblitertive to fifty feet, annihilative to a hundred, fatal to one-fifty, and so on). Thus, since a multiple-obliterative weapon would remain obliterative for at least the second area increment and possibly the third or more, damage category bonuses to base obliterative weapons effectively expand the <em>area of effect</em>: not obliterating harder, but obliterating <em>more</em>. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17101 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:50:16 +0000 JTM 17101@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>It'd deal multiple obliterative, I'm told. That means that if there is something which reduces damage category, the damage would remain obliterative until all the levels of obliterative were canceled out. Otherwise the same. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17099 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:23:46 +0000 JohnA1nut 17099@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two</p> <p>Obliterative is the highest category, correct? What if you had a 3@ expert with a weapon which was base obliterative? How would that work? I know the skill and the BRA and such raise the damage category. How would that raise the damage category of a base obliterative weapon? </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-17098 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:19:43 +0000 JohnA1nut 17098@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Should we stat weapons? There were certain weapons I wanted to have in the game. Or is that decided by the individual referee at each game? </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16962 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:12:39 +0000 M. J. Young 16962@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I believe I already called attention to the sections on attributes in the Attributes chapter and in the Worlds chapter--the zero level attributes section should be pretty informative in understanding how to stat non-human creatures.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16955 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:05:19 +0000 JohnA1nut 16955@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I wanted flatline psionics and magic. For the first time, I think I understand why you want that in a world. I wanted 1990s technology, which to say that's the minimum bias level, but it could certainly be higher. Body bias I didn't give much thought to, except that it would have to be high enough to support whatever is happening to these creatures. I think I'll leave that to Scott or MJ like you said. </p> <p>The thing though is that things like persuasion and charisma and whatnot, how would you do that for these? Someone like Mother who is 9 foot 14 and would just as soon rip your head off as talk to you would have a low charisma, but could be quite quite persuasive. What would be the persuasion value of a zombie? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16954 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:21:22 +0000 johnosevens 16954@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Game mechanics. This is the part where I step out and let Scott, Eric, and MJ do their thing. The last part you need to do is the game mechanics. Establishing the bias levels of the world probably comes first, followed by those pages-long 'brief' versions of the character sheet for each of our NPCs and each of our 'typical' zombies, along with lists of possible modifications ("Wooden - Increase Density by @5, decrease Agility by @3," for instance), events ("zombies got into the drinking water; ration or risk infection until you can secure more," or "stockpile! you found someone's hidden cache of weapons and ammo"), and so forth. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16953 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:55:59 +0000 JohnA1nut 16953@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>I mean this could be one of those worlds where there is no real 'point' or plot, you just survive there until you die and do whatever you feel like and it's basically a sandbox world, and that might work too.</p></blockquote> <p>That's kind of what I had in mind. That's why I wanted a large variety of different NPCs. Somebody for every different kind of player to meet first. You got a gun nut? Introduce him to The Survivalists. You got a techie? Introduce him to The Garbageman. </p> <p>What do we have to do to finish it? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16950 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:13:28 +0000 johnosevens 16950@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Not really. It seems like we have a pretty solid NPC cast, a clearly defined 'villain' including some good ideas about how they work (locally evolved biological parasites that infect people, feed on others, and turn into more spore-spreading trees if they starve for too long or after a certain period of time when senescence would set in), and... sounds like a world to me. The only thing we're missing, really, is something for the Verser himself to <em>do</em> here. I mean this could be one of those worlds where there is no real 'point' or plot, you just survive there until you die and do whatever you feel like and it's basically a sandbox world, and that might work too. </p> <p>The only other thing I can think of to detail out might be individual survivor colonies or holdouts, a step above the survivalist individuals we have above. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16942 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:53:51 +0000 JohnA1nut 16942@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>I don't know, John. Some things seem to me to be fundamental to who we are.</p> </blockquote> <p>And if we were talking about YOU I would agree. But we're not talking about YOU. We're talking about an entirely different person. YOU are squeamish. Your divergent might not be. A lot of people have a problem watching gory horror movies. Not I. I can separate the truth from the illusion, and recognize that what I am watching isn't real. I have a great deal of respect for the people who do the makeup for those movies. It often takes hours and hours to set up the makeup for a 30 second scene in the movie. And if the guy flubs his lines or something goes wrong, they gotta go back and do it ALL OVER AGAIN!!!! I recognize it as artwork. However, I have no problem imagining a version of me who is completely squeamish about such things. </p> <p>I'm derailing the thread. Anyone else got any new ideas for what we can do with this? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16932 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:34:03 +0000 M. J. Young 16932@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I don't know, John. Some things seem to me to be fundamental to who we are. I'm squeamish, maybe, is a good word for it. I don't like blood; I can't even listen to girls talking about anything related to having their ears pierced (girls in college use to do that just to watch me squirm). I can talk in very abstract terms about biology, but I would not be able to stand in the room while someone was dissecting a frog.</p> <p>There are a lot of things I would hate to imagine I could be that I would admit I might be in an alternate version, but there are some things that I know I could not be.</p> <p>Now, if you could get far enough into my psyche to connect this aversion to gore with some event in my life which you could remove or alter, then you could persuade me that it is not a fundamental part of my character. The problem is, <em>I</em> can't make that connection, and so I don't believe such an event exists. If it does, you'll never find it, and you'll never persuade me without finding it.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16927 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:07:43 +0000 JohnA1nut 16927@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ya know MJ, you were saying that there is no way you could have turned into a molecular biologist. I told you about the time I accidentally threw that knife at my girlfriend Janie. Where the knife hit her wrist, she just has a scar. A quarter of an inch one way, she would have permanently lost the use of the hand. A quarter of an inch the other way, it would have punctured her femoral artery and she would have died. </p> <p>If I had caused her to lose the use of her hand, I would have married her.<br /> If I had killed her, I'd be in prison. </p> <p>A quarter of an inch between radically changing my life forever. Now tell me you couldn't have become a molecular biologist. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16784 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:10:54 +0000 M. J. Young 16784@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Bypass the bias altogether? Kyler, briefly though I've seen you, I like the way you think, sir.</p></blockquote> <p>Just to be clear, what he said was:<br /> <blockquote>...bypassing the tech, psi, or mag question altogether.</p></blockquote> <p>You still have to consider the bod bias, because you have to know how it is that these creatures "infect" and alter their targets/hosts.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16764 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:24:37 +0000 johnosevens 16764@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Evolve naturally? Bypass the bias altogether? Kyler, briefly though I've seen you, I like the way you think, sir. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16762 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:23:29 +0000 JohnA1nut 16762@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>That's why I liked the idea of them just being indigenous to some other world and landing here as seed on a meteorite. No tech bias involved at all. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16759 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:44:15 +0000 kyler 16759@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I find it kind of interesting that the general consensus seems to be that these things need to come from outside of the natural bias of 20th century earth rather than being created in a modern-day laboratory setting (especially with 20th century earth technology experimenting with genetics in horticulture as far back as Gregor Mendel). A nice little botch could easily create a species of microscopic plant symbiont that are capable of linking with a human causing an "outbreak" similar to that of a new, untreatable strain of virus or bacteria (and it probably would be treated that way, at least initially); of course, if it were me, I'd probably just have the new species naturally evolve, bypassing the tech, psi, or mag question altogether.</p> <p>Ky </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16692 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:13:25 +0000 M. J. Young 16692@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Well, I wanted 20th century technology, regardless of what the biases are.</blockquote> The question is whether you want the entire universe limited to twencen tech or whether the tech bias can be higher than that to support FTL or other technologies that are beyond twentieth century earth.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16689 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:04:09 +0000 JohnA1nut 16689@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Well, I wanted 20th century technology, regardless of what the biases are. I'm imagining this happening like 10-15 years ago, and this is where the world is now. </p> <blockquote><p>While careful consideration of the biases to exclude most retrocognitive and time travel skills is helpful, you'd be surprised at the loopholes people find. </p></blockquote> <p>I wanted flatline magic and psionics. For the first time I think I see why you want that in certain worlds. As far as loopholes, I'd love to know what they are.....</p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16687 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:23:55 +0000 JTM 16687@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ah, didn't consider the Bias angle. I suppose that would also make who bioengineered them important, as if they're from aliens, that likely implies FTL and definitely implies bias high enough for both large-scale engines and probably cryogenics, though I'm not sure where those are relative to bioengineering. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16685 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:59:49 +0000 M. J. Young 16685@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>The zombie origin story isn't really important.</blockquote> While on one level I agree with this, it winds up mattering for a couple of reasons.</p> <p>One reason is that you can't be certain some very clever verser isn't going to find a way to look back into the past and learn the truth of the matter, and therefore as referee you're going to have to fill in that information when it's discovered. While careful consideration of the biases to exclude most retrocognitive and time travel skills is helpful, you'd be surprised at the loopholes people find.</p> <p>A second reason is that the way the creatures came into existence might be important for determining the biases of the universe. If they were genetically engineered, that implicates both the tech bias (someone has genetic engineering skills) and the bod bias (they might involve 13@ dependent symbionts). Obviously if they are magically or psionically created, the magic or psionics to create such creatures must have existed in that universe at the time of their creation, and there might be other residue from that time if the biases have since changed.</p> <p>So it's important to have a clear notion in mind of how things came to be as they are, because it's going to impact what else might be true.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/4#post-16683 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:55:24 +0000 JTM 16683@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>The zombie origin story isn't really important. Just pick a possible one at random. Anyways, agree on the barkskinned bodybuilders, though even worse would probably be military zombies who died in their bodyarmor. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16674 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:02:38 +0000 JohnA1nut 16674@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Yeah. Barkskinned bodybuilder plant-tanks are suitably terrifying that they need to exist.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well I'm glad we came to some good compromises there. ::High-fives Osevens::</p> <blockquote><p> you have a Mare's Leg.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not quite, it wasn't on person, it was ordered, paid for, and on the way. I don't know if it versed with me. It was a shotgun though. Shorter version of what Arnold uses in T2. Oh did you see Zombieland? Woody Harrellson uses one. His was a 44 magnum I believe. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16672 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:16:40 +0000 Tadeusz 16672@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Well, it could be spores from outer space dropped by a robotic interstellar colonizer. The tree AI doesn't recognize humans or mammals as intelligent, so it thinks the world is empty. The tree parasatizes the dominant life form, and the connection of human IQ with tree IQ damages both of them severely and turns them into zombies.</p> <p>Meanwhile, the robot ship has gone on toward Alpha Centauri to drop off the seeds that will build 'The Society of Harmonious Growing' over there. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16671 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:37:14 +0000 johnosevens 16671@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Yeah. Barkskinned bodybuilder plant-tanks are suitably terrifying that they need to exist.</p> <p><em>On a complete aside, I just read on your own game thread - poking my head in on a rare occasion - you have a Mare's Leg. I am now officially jealous, as that would be my close-quarters firearm of choice.</em> </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16670 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:28:57 +0000 JohnA1nut 16670@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ah, I see. I hadn't thought of it like that. I was just thinking the verser would be duped by it, but by the point in the story that the dupe would work, someone would have told him about it. OK, only if they're going to plant themselves. </p> <p>I still want a hardened skin defensive value on the bodybuilders. I mean really, how often do you encounter a bodybuilder? Might as well make them as tough as you can make them, ya know? Maybe it could be the enemy you have to defeat to rescue the fair maiden or something. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16668 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:08:27 +0000 johnosevens 16668@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I just feel like if it's <em>only</em> the really weak and really strong ones, people would just in general be paranoid as hell about the barky ones and avoid them - it wouldn't work as a dupe. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16666 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:38:14 +0000 JohnA1nut 16666@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Probably because you are a 'John' - one out of many here - and I don't much like being a "Harry," so it's easier to keep you straight when addressing you, and easier on my nerves when addressing me. </p></blockquote> <p>I don't like the name Harry. I don't know why. I was afraid you would be offended if I told you that. If you're cool with screen names, so am I. (laughing)</p> <blockquote><p>Maybe some of them bark over more readily than others? </p></blockquote> <p>I would only want it to be both the really weak and also the insanely strong zombies, for reasons I've mentioned. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16665 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:33:53 +0000 johnosevens 16665@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Just an aside, Osevens, have you ever noticed that you and I never address each other by name? Just by screen names.</blockquote> Probably because you are a 'John' - one out of many here - and I don't much like being a "Harry," so it's easier to keep you straight when addressing you, and easier on my nerves when addressing me.</p> <blockquote><p>Weak human (old lady) average 15 year old<br /> average adult human, physically fit human<br /> physically fit human, High but not superhuman, up to a bodybuilder.<br /> bodybuilder, superhuman, but not unreasonably so. low 3@ tops</blockquote> I like this. This works.</p> <blockquote><p>Osevens, do you now see why I wanted the bodybuilders to have the same kind of tree-like skin as the weak? From a distance, you can't tell them apart. Nine out of ten, you're going to be alright, facing something you could escape from or kill with little difficulty. It's that one time when it's going to be something freakishly tough and difficult to deal with. Kind of mix things up every once in a while, keep the player on their toes.</blockquote> I never said you shouldn't give them the woody tree-bark skin, I just said you should use it for the ones about to starve themselves into treedom. If you want to use it more or less at random, that's up to you. Maybe some of them bark over more readily than others?</p> <blockquote><p>bod symbiotes</blockquote> +1. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16664 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:28:33 +0000 JohnA1nut 16664@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>It would be a parasitic infection not unlike a virus, which is just a form of parasitic infection. Whatever that is. That is a form of symbiosis if I recall. There were three kinds. Both parties benefit, one party benefits, the other gets nothing, and one party benefits, and the other is harmed. Parasitic. Don't remember the names of the other two. </p> <p>Osevens, again, why does it have to be one or the other? I think it could be both. The "Go Plant Myself" instinct would be either old zombies at the end of their lifespan, or zombies that needed nourishment. Except once planted, they can't uproot. They would both have the bark-like skin. What I wanted was for it to be both ends of the spectrum, hence why I say a 9 to 1 ratio (at least) for the zombies. If it has bark skin, it's either old and really weak, hungry and really weak, OR has superhuman strength. One or the other. No middle ground. You can't tell from a distance. I just really think it could be an interesting trick to pull on the player once in a while. They've encountered three old people and saw how they looked and how slow them moved. Old people are easy to avoid. Then, they see a guy with bark-like skin, think it's an old lady, and don't pay her any attention. Then it starts coming towards them, and it used to be Arnold Schwarzenegger. See what I mean? That could be really interesting. For the old people, the hard, bark-like skin gives them (at most) a -1 cover. For Arnold, he's completely covered in a quarter inch of fresh oak. Freakishly strong, with a -10 (or whatever) cover value. And you thought it was a helpless old woman...... Tell me that wouldn't be interesting to pull once in a while. </p> <p>As for how they got here, I kind of wanted the trees to be kind of innocent. I know it might sound weird, but the idea that they didn't mean to mess up the world and it's really just a big misunderstanding just kind of sounded sweet. Really, I don't give a hoot one way or the other. If somebody else wants to write up a better story for how they came into existence, they are more than welcome to do so. That's my default story if no one writes anything better. </p> <p>What else do we need? </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16658 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:59:00 +0000 M. J. Young 16658@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Oh, absolutely, definitely a good way to go.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16654 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:44:24 +0000 kyler 16654@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Well, you know what I mean. It's definitely worth taking a look at, at any rate.</p> <p>Ky </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16646 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:31:31 +0000 M. J. Young 16646@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ah, <em>symbiote</em>. Why didn't I find that word fifteen years ago? Well, this spell checker chokes on it, too. We called them <em>symbionts</em> in the book, and of course <em>linkers</em>, which might be the particular type involved here, because they have the ability to control the body. Although it could be a simple parasite that has the ability to inflict pain on a victim that does not act as desired.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16636 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:30:08 +0000 kyler 16636@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>It sounds like what you're talking about a microscopic symbiote that alters the attributes and body structure of its host after bonding and has the capability for photosynthesis but also requires human flesh at some point to complete respiration. Look up bod symbiotes in the rule book if you haven't already. =]</p> <p>Ky </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16628 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:48:39 +0000 JohnA1nut 16628@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two</p> <p>I insist that one of the NPC zombies must be wearing a sandwich board sign that says "THE END IS NEAR!!" </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/daywalkers/page/3#post-16626 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:16:09 +0000 JohnA1nut 16626@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>OK, rather than try to list off every kind of person, how about a list of what I think they should be compared to, and let someone who better understands the system fill in the details. The first column is what it starts out as, the second is what it turns into at night. During the day, they would have the first set of stats. </p> <p>Weak human (old lady) average 15 year old<br /> average adult human, physically fit human<br /> physically fit human, High but not superhuman, up to a bodybuilder.<br /> bodybuilder, superhuman, but not unreasonably so. low 3@ tops</p> <p>Osevens, do you now see why I wanted the bodybuilders to have the same kind of tree-like skin as the weak? From a distance, you can't tell them apart. Nine out of ten, you're going to be alright, facing something you could escape from or kill with little difficulty. It's that one time when it's going to be something freakishly tough and difficult to deal with. Kind of mix things up every once in a while, keep the player on their toes. </p> <p>Just an aside, Osevens, have you ever noticed that you and I never address each other by name? Just by screen names. </p> <p>I'd love to have Kyler and Ryan in on this. I know Kyler would have some pretty wicked ideas. </p> <p>What else do we need?</p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p>