That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

A place to discuss game rules, homebrew systems and the like.
That Sullivan Guy
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by That Sullivan Guy »

squirrelly-sama wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:38 am
That Sullivan Guy wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:08 pm Immunity from Own Powers — This is NOT an assumed aspect of the setting for clothing and carried items. If a character has a power that is destructive to their own wardrobe (Flame Aura or Giant Form, for a couple of examples), they need Device: Feature 1 —Uniform doesn’t suffer damage from uses of the wearer’s powers, or at the very least a power-based feature of the same effect (getting it through a device is more easily explained away in a superhero setting). The Precise modifier on powers will keep characters from destroying carried objects (or harming carried passengers) if such is also an obvious risk from their powers.
This seems needlessly spiteful. I could understand it not working on objects you don't normally carry but everything in the hero's typical kit should basically be considered to not be harmed by normal power use. Reaction powers are already stupidly expensive for very little actual benefit and this is just adding on to it just because. No reason, just "because".
Again, I was very careful in how I presented these house rules. Not a single major or minor point sprung from the air Ex Nihilo. This one is reinforcing a basic setting trait regarding how powers do and don't work. As most PCs are members of a team that supplies their equipment, this is also generally rolled up into the Benefit advantage referenced in the clarification immediately preceding this clarification.

...I would really ask that you not try to ascribe motives ("spiteful," "No reason, just 'because'") to people you don't know and have never met. It's really kind of rude, not to mention factually inaccurate.



Scary is a bit unbalanced since it pretty much just applies to EVERY intimidation check. Provided you aren't doing it over the phone or something.
but also does not apply to people or situations which (in the GM’s opinion) would not be influenced by your appearance or physical displays.
How indifferent to circumstances are you when a player tries to apply the Attractive advantage? The logic is the same, it's just the nature of the source cause that changes.
That Sullivan Guy
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by That Sullivan Guy »

Tattooedman wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:33 pm Interesting ideas, thanks for sharing them!
You're welcome.
User avatar
squirrelly-sama
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:07 am

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by squirrelly-sama »

That Sullivan Guy wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:35 pm
squirrelly-sama wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:23 am
Shock wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:21 am I'm curious how well your changes to Penetrating worked in practice. It seems like a PL breaking end-run the way you have it written.
Yeah, pretty much. It is extremely broken like that. Honestly I usually just keep Penetrating the same but make it a single flat extra. As in you only ever need one rank of it. if an effect is weak enough to get stopped by impervious it's probably not going to do any damage
Ah, the joys of text presented without external emotional or tonal markers and how that opens statements to offensive interpretation regardless of original intent.

Okay.

[Bemused Expression and Conversational Tone]

First, I don't remember seeing you at my table these past few years observing our play. Can you explain where in the room you were hiding?

"Broken" is an observation specific to the observer and the observer's play experiences. Its only neutral application is if there are math errors in how the basic system works or doesn't work, or logical inconsistencies in the same. Everything after that is opinion. Now I'm going to have flashbacks to countless nerds attacking or defending countless points in multiple editions of multiple games as decried by one nerd or another as "broken."

Let's put this another way. If I were to apply your house rule for Penetrating at my table, the uproar would be, "Wait a damn minute. I have to spend how many points to get basic effectiveness out of Impervious as is and you bypass that with A SINGLE POINT?" And they'd be right (at least in our viewpoint with RAW). This would become especially egregious in lower powered vigilante campaigns where "cape-killer" attacks would be as common as Saturday Night Specials.

A word of advice? I took care to present my House Rules as singular to our table and our experiences as a group (multiple statements to that effect, in fact). You might want to respond in kind (sort of like Shock's more evenhanded statement of curiosity) rather than assuming the role of Arbiter-on-High for the validity of rule-ishness, particular since some of your own excursions onto the field are open to the same rebuke.


[/Bemused Expression and Conversational Tone]

***
It is broken in that it very much undoes the whole method by which balance is maintained in MnM, the PL Limits. Rather than characters hitting each other at generally the same level at which they take punishment this makes it so that people are able to simply lower someone else's PL without even needing another check like with linked weaken, for even less of a cost. The cost isn't even the issue, it's that it basically just lets you hit at +1 per rank over PL. In the same way you could have an instant win effect and not have anyone abuse it but still be broken, this is itself inherently broken because it undoes the balancing mechanic of the system for not trade off and no real counter.

[Bemused Expression and Conversational Tone]
Oh and a word of advice, if you want to act like you have some sort of moral superiority over someone you think acting rude on the internet it comes off as badform if you just instead speak like you're trying to act humble while doing the exact same thing you are taking issue with them on.
[/Bemused Expression and Conversational Tone]
That Sullivan Guy
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by That Sullivan Guy »

squirrelly-sama wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:36 pm It is broken in that it very much undoes the whole method by which balance is maintained in MnM, the PL Limits. Rather than characters hitting each other at generally the same level at which they take punishment this makes it so that people are able to simply lower someone else's PL without even needing another check like with linked weaken, for even less of a cost. The cost isn't even the issue, it's that it basically just lets you hit at +1 per rank over PL. In the same way you could have an instant win effect and not have anyone abuse it but still be broken, this is itself inherently broken because it undoes the balancing mechanic of the system for not trade off and no real counter.

[Bemused Expression and Conversational Tone]
Oh and a word of advice, if you want to act like you have some sort of moral superiority over someone you think acting rude on the internet it comes off as badform if you just instead speak like you're trying to act humble while doing the exact same thing you are taking issue with them on.
[/Bemused Expression and Conversational Tone]
Fine.

If I came across as morally superior or falsely humble, I apologize. I intended neither. The bracketed text was to establish the tone and emotional context I had stated was missing from normal posting text, and to do so in a jokey manner like fake BBCode. I thought I was being amusing; but, of course, if you ever have to explain to someone that you were being amusing, then obviously you failed to be amusing. Ah, well.

I told you how the rule worked at my table, and Impervious does a good job of completely countering the Penetrating effect when they appear in the same scene in my games. It's a house rule and one my table and I have been using just fine for several years. No broken games and no disgruntled players. Don't like it, ignore it. You've stated your position and why you hold it. You and I aren't going to see eye-to-eye on that house rule and that's fine. It's a big ol' free society. Since I don't see you tracking down one of my games to scream at me and my players, "NO, NO, NO! Badwrongfun!" as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. I'll come back by this thread occasionally and check to see if other people have any questions, comments, or (maybe even) amusing anecdotes. Otherwise this thread has served its purpose, I've done as I was politely asked by Ken and RainontheSun, and I'm moving on.


***
User avatar
Ken
Posts: 3460
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:40 pm
Location: Sycalb, Madiganistan

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by Ken »

I think these are really interesting. Some of them are similar, or even identical to house rules my group has already adopted. Some of them are cover things that we've never considered, and are thought provoking enough that I've shared this thread with them so we can discuss. And some of them I'm pretty sure they would never go for. I am not saying that you're wrong. Far from it. I'm just saying that my group of fifty-something year old players and your group of fifty-something year old players are different people, with different experiences, and different styles.

But they are interesting, and thought provoking, worthy of consideration. And I don't think any of them should be dismissed out of hand.
My Amazing Woman: a super-hero romantic comedy podcast.

When the most powerful super hero on Earth marries an ordinary man, hilarity ensues.
scc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:13 pm

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by scc »

Thanks for posting this. It made for an interesting read plus I really like most of them. Would definitely use a lot of these.
That Sullivan Guy
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by That Sullivan Guy »

scc wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:38 pm Thanks for posting this. It made for an interesting read plus I really like most of them. Would definitely use a lot of these.
You're welcome.
That Sullivan Guy
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by That Sullivan Guy »

Ken wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:15 pm I think these are really interesting. Some of them are similar, or even identical to house rules my group has already adopted. Some of them are cover things that we've never considered, and are thought provoking enough that I've shared this thread with them so we can discuss. And some of them I'm pretty sure they would never go for. I am not saying that you're wrong. Far from it. I'm just saying that my group of fifty-something year old players and your group of fifty-something year old players are different people, with different experiences, and different styles.

But they are interesting, and thought provoking, worthy of consideration. And I don't think any of them should be dismissed out of hand.
I appreciate the comments. Any use you and yours can get out of these I hope goes well at your table. :-)
RainOnTheSun
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 7:20 am

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by RainOnTheSun »

I particularly like the rule about Regeneration.
Kevin MacTaggert
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:48 am

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by Kevin MacTaggert »

Expert Feint: I use this one and buying 2 ranks allows it to be used as Move action.

Grappling Block : I use this and the Defend+Trip maneuver.
Orbiter
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:39 pm

Re: That Sullivan Guy's House Rules for M&M

Post by Orbiter »

Some really interesting stuff here, even admitting I've had little chance to play M&M, and it was 2e even at that. Your version of Penetrating actually works like I assumed it would before I actually read the text of the rule.
Post Reply