As you all should know, I just took up running my very first game world ever!!!! (YAY!!!!) It's a lot more challenging than I had anticipated. We recently had an incident where Mike tried to run up on a Creaker zombie. I would not have expected that someone who had just learned to use a gun the day before would run up alone against the biggest, baddest zombie that's been described to him. That was the LAST thing I expected him to do. I knew he wouldn't stand a chance against it, so I had one of the NPCs call out and stop him. It's what the character would have done. If Mike hadn't obeyed that order, and had continued running at it, he would face the zombie, alone, with 1@2 gun skills. I know what the zombie will do. I know what the zombie is capable of. I also know what the NPCs would do in response. However, to an extent, whether or not they could save Mike would be a question only the dice could answer. In a sense, it would be completely out of my hands. I suddenly have a lot more respect for referees.
Oh yeah, and Mike, slower and weaker in the daytime does not mean "Safe." Even in the daytime, a Creaker zombie has 1@5 agility and 2@5 strength. At night, this gets bumped up to 2@1 agility and 3@1 strength. It's also (Always) got a 1/2 inch of wooden skin. (Book says wood has 1@5 to 1@8 density. Is that the creature's density, its cover value, or both?) So yes, it is slower and weaker in the daytime, but it still would have had a fair chance at catching you, and been more than capable of killing you if it did. I need help stating the zombies, BTW. 1@5 is the maximum daytime agility for any zombie. Child zombies, old lady zombies, "normal people" zombies, track star zombies, and of course, Creaker zombies. Daytime strength is comparable to an identical human, which gets bumped up so many points at night. Thanks.
(Doing Therapy)
I did have an escape plan set up in my head to get away if I needed to. I mentioned in my post I was backing up as I circled the rear of the truck, this was so I could see the situation, evaluate, and then either engage or retreat out of sight. It had been mentioned a couple of times that the zombies are pretty slow, and I think I'm pretty quick, so I wasn't too worried about outrunning for the short distances involved (other side of the truck, to the building, whatever to break line of sight and have the zombie forget about me).
I do wonder why the zombies during the day are 1@5 agility if they're described as slow, particularly creakers. I was thinking Creakers probably had agility around 1@2 or 1@3, that wood plating they have probably doesn't help their agility any, values which I felt confident I could outrun for the distance needed. Keep in mind 1@5 is the average human, not a slow human.
I didn't feel railroaded by the way, and I'm not 100% sure where you thought you potentially railroaded me.
Keep in mind 1@5 is the average human, not a slow human.
I did keep that in mind. You keep in mind that it is the baddest of the bad. The Big Boy. I had to make him as fast as a normal human. That's also the top speed of a daytime zombie. Besides, even someone with 3@10 agility could still walk slowly most of the time if they so chose.
I didn't feel railroaded by the way, and I'm not 100% sure where you thought you potentially railroaded me.
No, you misunderstood me. (understandably) I meant that I couldn't railroad you. If the Creaker rolled a 14 on its agility check, and you rolled a 40, with the nearest NPC help 60 feet away, who also have to make agility checks, it's quite possible that I would have had no choice but to tell you:
"You turn to run and trip over your own two feet. The Creaker is on you before you realize it had moved. Bill and Ted (rolled 30 and 26 respectively) couldn't get to you in time. I'm sorry to tell you, but the last thing you see in this world will be the Creaker's hand reaching through your back and out your chest." And there wouldn't have been anything I could do about that.
As far as the wooden skin slowing down the Creaker, to the Creaker, it's skin. It moves like skin. It doesn't slow him down at all. It just creaks, which is more of a plot device than anything.
Weak zombies (children, old people) 1@1 agility, 1@2 strength, bumped up to about an average teenager at night.
Average zombies, 1@2 agility, 1@5 strength, bumped up to in shape zombies at night.
Track star zombies, 1@5 agility, 1@7 strength, bumped up to track and field levels at night.
Creakers, 1@5 agility, 2@5 strength, bumped up as described. Only the physical stats get bumped up. Stamina is 3@10 in the daytime (if the sun is shining, they're being powered) What would it be at night? What about charisma and persuasion and whatnot? Any help appreciated. Mike, feel free to contribute yourself.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Keep in mind 1@5 is the average human, not a slow human.
At this very moment, I understand why you don't argue with your referee. This does sound mildly argumentative. I just thought that, I could have, instead of explaining my reasoning said:
"Fine Mike. Their agility is 1@3, and you can no longer hear them coming. Happy now?"
This makes so much more sense all of a sudden.
(Doing Therapy)
Oh, he wasn't being argumentative, he was doing what you requested and trying to teach you. But yes, it is good you see things from the other side now.
Anyway, clarification: creakers have 2@5 strength during the day, or the night?
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply assign them a value that they have during the night, and then apply the daytime differences as a temporary effect across the board to all zombies? Say, a -3 agility applied to every zombie out there during the day (or something)? Making it a uniform difference lessens the math and note-referencing on your end.
Oh, he wasn't being argumentative, he was doing what you requested and trying to teach you.
Yeah, that's why I put so much emphasis on "mildly".
Anyway, clarification: creakers have 2@5 strength during the day, or the night?
During the day. At night, it's superhuman.
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply assign them a value that they have during the night, and then apply the daytime differences as a temporary effect across the board to all zombies?
Well Brock, I was asking for help. You're more than welcome to write up your own set of stats for these guys and post it. Every type of human being (within reason, of course) I'd love to see what you come up with.
...I'm going to pretend you didn't really just say that.
I will also stop trying to help you.
OK, I'm seriously confused. What did I say which you found offensive? I don't see anything up there which could be taken as anything wrong. If there is, then you're definitely misunderstanding me.
(Doing Therapy)
Well Brock, I was asking for help. You're more than welcome to write up your own set of stats for these guys and post it. Every type of human being (within reason, of course) I'd love to see what you come up with.
This sounded rude. For someone who claims to speak only in exact words this was either proof you don't speak in exact words or that your idea of a comparable list is unreasonable.
As to my questioning the referee, I almost certainly wouldn't have even mentioned what I did if this were not a game for the sake of learning. Also, I believe I presented my question in a respectful manner.
i think for future run through the fact that the Creakers are the fastest zombies around should probably be one of the top facts mentioned about them though. My character actually has no reason to believe they're any faster than normal zombies yet.
Well Brock, I was asking for help. You're more than welcome to write up your own set of stats for these guys and post it. Every type of human being (within reason, of course) I'd love to see what you come up with.
This sounded rude. For someone who claims to speak only in exact words this was either proof you don't speak in exact words or that your idea of a comparable list is unreasonable.
I'm still confused. How does that sound rude? "Every type of human being"? Is that what is rude? I didn't mean come up with 3 billion character sheets. Did you not see (Within reason of course)? What is it? I'm confused. Was it that I welcomed his help? Was that what was rude? It sounds to me like I'm politely asking his opinion on what the zombies should be capable of.
As to my questioning the referee, I almost certainly wouldn't have even mentioned what I did if this were not a game for the sake of learning. Also, I believe I presented my question in a respectful manner.
And I never said you didn't ask in a respectful manner. I said it sounded "mildly" argumentative. To me, it was an epiphany, a revelation. It sounded like you could be taken to mean that you were implying that I didn't know that 1@5 was the normal human. (You did tell me not to read things in exact words, did you not?)
i think for future run through the fact that the Creakers are the fastest zombies around should probably be one of the top facts mentioned about them though. My character actually has no reason to believe they're any faster than normal zombies yet.
First, bear in mind that the zombies have not been given any stats yet. I'm making this up as I go. Secondly, why would Bill and Ted tell you that they were faster? Did you ever say "Hey, can the Creakers run faster?" Most of the time, they plod, they walk slowly. Bill and Ted have had no reason to tell you that they could run faster than normal, and it is only when they are running that their speed would be known to anyone. It's entirely possible that Bill and Ted have only seen Creakers in normal zombie plod mode, and have never seen one run. Bill and Ted might not even know that the Creakers are faster than normal. The Creakers are a lot more rare than you might believe at the moment. (I mean really, how many bodybuilders are there in an average society?) They're just so dangerous and so feared. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been mentioned to you at all. Besides, is it really such a stretch that a zombie that used to be a bodybuilder would be stronger and faster than most? Plus, you are getting your information from Bill and Ted, so consider the source.
My character actually has no reason to believe they're any faster than normal zombies yet.
Your character also has no idea how fast a "normal" zombie is. To what is he making his comparison? If Bill and Ted are both 2@10 Olympic sprinters, then a zombie with 1@5 agility would be slow to them. Ted did mention being in the Olympics, if you recall.
(Doing Therapy)
...I'm going to pretend you didn't really just say that.
Brock - that's certainly one strategy. Another strategy would be to pretend that John's response was cordial and made perfect sense given what he heard, and then to work backward from there to try to figure out what John thought you were saying.
For example:
When John said,
Well Brock, I was asking for help. You're more than welcome to write up your own set of stats for these guys and post it. Every type of human being (within reason, of course) I'd love to see what you come up with.
I think you heard, "I'm going to ignore your helpful tip because it doesn't mesh well with my preconceived notion of how to do things, and instead suggest that (if you're so smart) you do all the work for me and post it up, and then we can compare my way to your way. (But I'm still going to do it my way.)" I could be wrong.
Since I highly doubt that's what John meant, perhaps when you said,
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply assign them a value that they have during the night, and then apply the daytime differences as a temporary effect across the board to all zombies? . . . Making it a uniform difference lessens the math and note-referencing on your end,
perhaps John heard, "I have an idea for how you could reduce your workload to a manageable level, and it involves this particular mechanical approach." If that were the case, I would interpret his reply to mean,
"No, that's quite alright, I was planning to get around the workload issue by soliciting assistance from my fellow forum-goers. You seem to have a good grasp of the mechanics; would you like to contribute some character sheets to get us started? Just the humans, not the zombies - no need to go overboard just for me. I think your ideas could be very valuable."
________________
Once you have an idea of what you think John thought you said, you have an opportunity to attempt to clarify your own message.
Of course, if in your judgment the two of you can't communicate without expending an unacceptable level of effort, refraining from making the attempt is a perfectly reasonable course of action, as well.
Scott, you're one of the very few level-headed individuals on this board. THANK YOU!!!!!! You just hit the nail right between the eyes.
(Doing Therapy)
Keep in mind 1@5 is the average human, not a slow human.
Mike, agility does not necessarily dictate velocity. John has created a creature with normal human agility who happens to walk slowly--that is, have a lower than human standard velocity on its "Walk at Walking Speeds" skill. He could have given the creature a very clumsy 1@1 or a very capable 2@10 and still maintained the slow walking speed. (I personally would find a highly agile tree a bit incongruous, but it's not impossible.)
--M. J. Young
See, you might want to be careful about comments that could be construed as accusations of, um, unlevel-headedness against your fellow board members. It would be safer to draw the comparison against vague, unspecified other people ('one of the more level-headed people I know'), or to phrase it so it's not a comparison at all.
But thank you.
I've been half-following the Questions You Should Ask Players thread (which has sort of become the A1nut Relations thread), and for the most part I'm in agreement with MJ that you, particularly, seem to having difficulties with communication. However, most of the discussion of that has been about your troubles with making yourself understood; what I was hoping to point out in my post is that these difficulties might be easier to untangle if we consider the possibility that you are also having difficulty understanding us.
If you reply to something we didn't actually say and neither you nor we realize it, it's a small wonder people get offended.
[Edit: crossposted with MJ. Hey, nice, he's back!]
See, you might want to be careful about comments that could be construed as accusations of, um, unlevel-headedness against your fellow board members.
Understood. I would like to point out though that I was including myself among those who are not always level-headed.
If you reply to something we didn't actually say and neither you nor we realize it, it's a small wonder people get offended.
I spent the majority of my childhood being bullied and picked on. I'm not easily offended. It just strikes me as so strange how easily people get offended by the littlest things. You can't do that and have any kind of relationship with anyone.
(Doing Therapy)
Thank you for the clarification MJ, this brings up a question I've been trying to figure out an answer to for a while. When is a opposed skill check called for and when is an opposed attribute check?
I spent the majority of my childhood being bullied and picked on. I'm not easily offended. It just strikes me as so strange how easily people get offended by the littlest things. You can't do that and have any kind of relationship with anyone.
I'm pretty sure the exact people you're claiming are too easily offended and thus can't hold any kind of relationship with people have proven this wrong.
I found
Scott, you're one of the very few level-headed individuals on this board. THANK YOU!!!!!! You just hit the nail right between the eyes.
moderately offensive as a person devoted towards logic, yet I handle relationships with people very well.
I also assume Brock has no social problems, under no real basis other than he seems very personable.
Yeah, but as far as Brock, none of us are even certain what set him off. If you don't even know what you did to offend the person, then the person is too easily offended, IMHO.
Mike, you're reacting to an implied insult rather than an explicit one, and John, you're digging your hole deeper by responding to Mike's post with an explicit insult.
This discussion can't be productive. What John was obviously trying to say was that he is, both now and usually, confused about why people are offended by the things he says. We already knew that. Yes, he phrased it in a potentially offensive way, but responding to thoughtless rudeness as if it were a reasoned and premeditated argument is not going to lead to rational discourse.
____
Thank you for the clarification MJ, this brings up a question I've been trying to figure out an answer to for a while. When is a opposed skill check called for and when is an opposed attribute check?
This is a broad question, but generally, an opposed attribute check would only be used on its own if the contest is not something the referee wants to list skills for. Arm wrestling with an opponent of comparable strength, winning an argument with your wife, keeping a loyal friend despite your poor treatment of him - these things are all opposed attribute checks. A footrace is usually opposed running skills, a wrestling match is opposed martial arts, etc.
Oftentimes an attribute check for the victim is built in to skill success (it's what Multiverser has instead of saving throws), and sometimes this is opposed. Example: I have a Teleport Object spell.
* If I teleport a book off the shelf to my hand, it's just a skill check.
* If I teleport my opponent's weapon out his hand into mine, he gets an Intuition check to anticipate my attempt. If he fails, he's caught off guard and my skill check suffices for success. If he succeeds, he gets to resist due to his possession of the object: an opposed attribute check, probably his Strength or Willpower or Resistance against either my Willpower or my Magic BRA.
Quite simple, really. Every time people try to help you, you appear to react with either petulance or sarcasm. I will say that part of my reaction is based on your past behavior, not the comment itself. That is, I have seen you be rude so much now I assumed you were this time, too. For that, I apologize.
Oh, and thank you for the compliment, Mike. OTOH, An-Mag is my more prominent social attribute, I'd say, as people trust me before they even really get to know me well.
Then you're reading rudeness in where none was meant. You said it yourself. I appear to react with petulance or sarcasm. Appearances can be deceiving.
And Scott, you're still one of the few level headed people here, myself included.
All I know for certain is that all I did was make the completely reasonable suggestion for Brock to come up with a half-dozen or so character sheets, and he flew completely off the handle. And I am the one who supposedly has a communications problem. I don't see it.
Two
I wrote:
Every type of human being (within reason, of course) I'd love to see what you come up with.
This is I think what he took issue with. Every type of human being. How many are there? Children, teenagers, average adults, really physically fit adults, bodybuilders, old people. Six sets of stats.
<sarc>Yup Brock, that is definitely an unreasonable request.....</sarc>
When is a opposed skill check called for and when is an opposed attribute check?
Scott addressed this well, but I was thinking about it before I saw his response so I'm going to clarify it.
- There are many things for which you might get an attribute check, simply because they're so fundamental we don't want to have skills for them. Your ability to dodge out of the way of a car, your ability to pick up a heavy object, your ability to persuade someone to your point of view. What could be said about these things is that anyone has a chance to do them without any "skill", and some people naturally do them better than others.
- Sometimes those things come into opposition to each other. If you are trying to persuade me by a persuasion check, I get a will power check to keep from being persuaded. If you are trying to push me into the street, I get a strength check against your strength check (or possibly an agility check against your strength check) to avoid that. Since only one of us can win, those are opposed attribute checks.
- It is possible to have skills which are essentially enhanced attributes. That is, I can have skill at powerlifting. That means if I want to lift an object, I can rely on my skill at powerlifting to do this. That does not eliminate my attribute check: if I fail (but do not botch) on the powerlifting skill, I still can see whether I succeeded in lifting it based on a strength check, assuming it is within my weight limits.
- Generally, a skill that enhances an ability covered by an attribute can be opposed; how it is opposed is significant. If it is opposed by the use of another skill, you have comparative relative success between the skill rolls. Many skills which are designed to affect people are opposed by the inclusion of an attribute penalty within the chance of success (usually as a defense against a targeting skill, e.g., if you're trying to use telekinesis to lift me away, you have to use your RSV against my will power or resistance as part of your chance of success), sometimes as a defensive attribute check (if you use a martial arts maneuver on me that is intended to render me unconscious, I probably get a stamina check to stay conscious--usually listed as RS=S/D/N, which means if your roll is successful and up to fifty I can stay conscious with a simple check, if it's fifty-one to eighty I must make a difficult check, and if it's eighty-one or greater and successful I don't get a check).
I think that covers what I wanted to say. Basically, though, a lot of this is seat-of-the-pants, and some of it based on what it is that the skill design says it does. Multiverser has a lot of ways in which skills can oppose each other--
- Comparative relative success in which the better successful roll prevents the other skill from working at all.
- Comparative relative success in which the more successful skill and the less successful skill create a middle ground, such as the fight between a light spell and a darkness spell, or pyro and cryogenesis on the same target.
- Skills which create RS=SM against an opposing skill, such as an evasive tumbling skill which if successful creates a penalty equal to the roll against all incoming targeted attacks.
- Skills which create a threshold, such as a psionic defense which will eliminate all effects of attacks whose rolls do not exceed it but have no impact on higher rolls
- Skills which create fixed sit-mod penalties such as a martial arts "iron skin" which hardens the musculature such that all kinetic attacks take -10.
- Skills which create penalties against action, such as a pain inducer which forces the victim to make a will power check (RS=S/D/N) in order to do anything
- Skills which create damage category bonuses or penalties, not altering the chance of success of the opposing (or supported) skill but changing the level of damage done
Note that in thinking about the "fairest way" a good referee asks both "what does the player character hope will happen when he uses this" and "what would the player character accept as fair if this were used against him". A good referee avoids giving players absolute kills or controls, because he knows that anything his player can use can be used against the player, and players don't like to be hit with absolute kills or controls. I try always to ensure that there is a chance of escape or avoidance, because it is just as unfair for the player to have absolute power as it is for the referee to use absolute power against him.
--M. J. Young
Hey, sorry. Towards the end, I did kind of fly off the handle. I have a tendency to do that. It's getting better though. But yeah, I would like to say that we have in this thread a perfect example of how people might misread what I say. I still say the communications problem isn't completely on my end.
That's neither here nor there though, as the point of the post was, (Sticks microphone in MJ's face.) "So Mr. Young, what do you think thusfar of my first attempt at refereeing a game?" (As the sports commentator prattles on in the background.) I'm in a really good mood right now.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Honestly Brock, I'm actually kind of offended that you thought I was being sarcastic, now that I think about it. (Changing topic, changing post.) You're so much into hard work and multitasking and whatnot, I kind of figured you would welcome the challenge. Flex your brain muscles, so to speak. I apologize if I offended you, but I fail to see how I did so.
I mean seriously. You didn't ask me what I meant, you just assumed I was being sarcastic and doing it intentionally. You've got to understand, I'm getting better. I'm not the same guy who wrote that "Sorry Guys" thread not all that long ago. That was a completely different person. JC is still fighting for survival, but I won't let him. I'm "Killing my old man." To quote Petra.
(Doing Therapy)
Third and last
Oh yeah, and Mike, did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason Bill told you to freeze is because he knows Creakers can run faster than normal? (Big stupid smile)
(Doing Therapy)
John, you're going to have to practice being nice to people; and probably cut out the sarcasm, or at least cut back on it, because it doesn't go over well. Facetious is funny; sarcastic is at someone's expense.
You seem to be spinning a good story, and Mike seems to be enjoying it. You're finding your way around the mechanics gradually, and I've no complaints. It looks good to me to this point.
Really, though, the person best able to assess how well you're doing is probably Mike.
--M. J. Young
Yeah, but I wasn't being sarcastic. As I explained, I honestly thought Brock would welcome the challenge to do that.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Daytime Creaker
Strength, 2@8 day, 3@1 night.
Agility 1@5 day, 2@1 night.
How would you do intuition and whatnot for these zombies? A 0@5 intuition means that they have a very slim chance of catching you even if you get out of their line of sight. Maybe they would turn the right way, and continue chase.
Daytime Olympian
Strength 1@10, day, 2@5 night
Agility, 1@5 day, 2@8 night. (Would 3@1 be "too fast"?)
Stamina, 3@10 day, they sometimes lay down to rest in the early morning. What would the nighttime stamina be? I don't want them to constantly poop out in a chase, ya know?
These represent the rarest of the rare, and the baddest of the bad. Let's see what else we can do.
Average Joe
Strength, 1@5 day, 2@3 night.
Agility 1@1 day, 2@1-2@3 night.
Granny
Strength, 1@1 day, 1@6 night.
Agility, 1@1 day, 1@6 night. (Granny wanted to feel like a teenager again....)
Teenagers
Strength, 1@4 day, 2@1 night
Agility, 1@2 day, 2@2 night.
Children, same as Granny
I would, if I had the book and a good grasp of the mechanics.
I just suggest that you make the difference between day and night values uniform rather than different for each type. That's all the mechanics help I have to offer.
I can't really do that. Their strength and whatnot is based in part on who they used to be. Can't turn Granny into The Incredible Hulk, ya know?
(Doing Therapy)
Uhm...maybe I wasn't clear? Here's an example.
Daytime Creaker
Strength, 2@8 day, 3@1 night. (3 points higher)
Agility 1@5 day, 2@1 night. (6 points higher)
trength, 1@1 day, 1@6 night. (5 points higher)
Agility, 1@1 day, 1@6 night. (5 points higher)
see how the difference for each one is different, and seemingly arbitrary? I was saying, make their base attributes for each type whatever you want them to be, then add the same amount to each type's attribute as the nighttime bonus, for simplicity. for example, 5 points. Using the above example, that would put creakers at 3@3 strength and 1@10 agility, and granny would stay the same.
This way, you could make custom zombies, you know, "special" unique zombies who used to be someone truly exceptional, and then just add the same bonus for nighttime. Or, if it's actually their base attributes at night, then apply daytime as a penalty. However you look at it.
It's a daytime bonus, isn't it?
My approach (similar to Brock's) would be to have one set of stats for each zombie, and then to create a skill (or set of skills) each zombie has which is responsible for their increased daytime performance.* That way, each one has a single list of atributes and an SAL at the skills which turn sunlight into stat boosts. Every zombie type would have this same skill, but some zombie types might have a higher SAL in it than others.
Also, rather than focusing too much on stat increases, I would direct my attention to special abilities, special attacks and special defenses, all of which only work in the daylight. Check out B12@ invulnerabilities, B10@ self-healings, and mid-B7@ attacks and defenses particularly, as well as B3@ through 6@ running, tumbling, jumping, and acrobatics. Stat boosts are all well and good, but they tend to have broad and general effects; this skill-and-ability approach will make the zombies more formidible in much more direct and specific ways that will be clearly noticeable to your players.
I would provide a few example skills here, but I have outstanding game threads I need to post to, and it wouldn't be fair to my players. Perhaps later. I hope this helps.
* I would make their nighttime stats the base character sheet, not the daytime stats. That's because the Multiverser ruleset handles special abilities and powers much more gracefully than it handles special weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
Using Scot's approach, it would be daytime penalties to their stats, but the special regeneration ability they have would be active.
Sorry for the confusion; for some reason I was thinking they were dormant during the night and active during the day. I'm definitely not endorsing an approach of "base stats and a set of penalties," and I definitely am endorsing a system of "base stats plus skills which bonus them and/or add additional abilities".
Just replace every instance of "night" in my post above with "day" and vice-versa.
What he said.