Aberrant: 2011 - A new world for low power level

[Good Alice]

Well 2008 did work because of d20. Sorry but I like characters who have more than one power in most cases and the d20 didn't work for me.

Now I hear a lot of people talking about over powered characters, and such. I would like to have the ability to force those characters into another setting, even my own. That is not going to happen.

I can see we could make new forum section for low powered novas who aren't the ubberer powerful bad asses.

[Singularity]

Since this topic already exists here, I'm going to write out the results of my basic proposal and the ensuing conversation in the chat.

In a nutshell, the idea is for an additional in character section/continuity of the site (tentatively named "OpNet - 2008") with a two year offset (hence it would be 2008), absolutely no connection to the other in character sections of the site (other than sharing the canon setting), and clearly defined regulations on new characters. More importantly, this idea was born out of a desire to create an area where characters who aren't walking gods could interact without fear of the characters who are walking gods.

This means an additional in character OpNet section, an additional Character Profiles section, and an additional Aberrant Fiction section would need to be created. Tentatively, these could be named:

• Aberrant: OpNet - 2008
• OpNet - 2008 Character Profiles
• OpNet - 2008 Fiction

Hence, the layout would merely be a copy of what is already used within the in character section of the site.

As for the characters for the OpNet - 2008 continuity, there are some specific elements for their creation:

• Standard 7/5/3 Attributes, 23 Abilities, 7 Backgrounds, 15 Freebie Points, and 30 Nova Points
• Has erupted only within the past two months
• A new character that has not and does not appear in the OpNet - 2016 continuity of this site

One motivation for these requirements is to create a "comfortable environment" for average-powered novas to interact. Another is for the OpNet - 2008 continuity to be populated with new characters and to have no connection to the OpNet - 2016 continuity. Bluntly, that means Singularity wouldn't be showing up as a new nova, nor would any other character reference him, nor will we see a character that erupted in 1998 and was immediately placed in temporal stasis only to be released within two months of the day the character started to post (or the like).

A side note: a system for regular advancement for the characters does need to be created. And if all of the characters follow the same creation and advancement rules, it would follow that all characters need a publicly accessible character sheet.

I do want to make clear that this would not affect the OpNet - 2016 continuity. And I am not proposing we scrap the OpNet - 2016 continuity. This is a proposal for an addition to the site, not a replacement. As Vixen aptly put it, the OpNet - 2008 continuity is to the OpNet - 2016 continuity as Ultimate Marvel is to Marvel; except the OpNet - 2008 continuity would not contain the same characters (either explicitly or an obvious theme replication with a change in names or colors or whatnot) as the OpNet - 2016 continuity. The only shared thing between the two would be the canon setting.

(Yes, everyone involved realizes the Marvel/Ultimate Marvel analogy is not perfect but it serves as one way to convey the idea)

Thoughts?

[Jager]

I have a few questions:

-Do we sideline (no one wants to say discard) characters again in a few years when a new crop of people show up and its no longer 'fair' once again?

-What kind of artificial restrictions is this board going to put on characters, beyond controlling initial NP's and experience progression? What would be the justification for these?

[Singularity]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jager:
-Do we sideline (no one wants to say discard) characters again in a few years when a new crop of people show up and its no longer 'fair' once again?

Good question, and to take a cop-out, I'm not sure.

Quote:

-What kind of artificial restrictions is this board going to put on characters, beyond controlling initial NP's and experience progression? What would be the justification for these?

Aside the initial character creation and experience progression, the restrictions and guidelines from the OpNet - 2016 continuity would probably serve well. So, sorry, but no space monkeys or immediately blowing the whistle on Proteus in OpNet - 2008 either.

[Stormwarden]

Straight up then: What will be the reason to restrict Quantum this go round? If everyone is going on the same 'fair' xpts curve, why restrict it at all.

I ask this for the reason that I am considering BioManipulation, which requires Q:6, meaning the character will need to save up for Q:6 first, before gaining their main power.

[Singularity]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormwarden:
Straight up then: What will be the reason to restrict Quantum this go round? If everyone is going on the same 'fair' xpts curve, why restrict it at all.

Referencing my previous post, I feel that a restriction against Quantum 6 (much like the one in the OpNet - 2016 continuity) would do us well. Or, this time, we can completely forego Quantum 6 characters.

[The White Rat]

Jager:

With strict rules for character creation, and a clearly defined method for advancement, crying unfair becomes less tenable. In the span of a 'few years', the characters would not have the same level of power as many of the 2016 Novas. Therefore, the power differential between the newcomers and the veterans would not be as great. Besides, if a character's progression is 'legitimized' by a standardized set of rules, then the newcomer's will not fret about the power differential. In fact, it may encourage them to interact more and write more fictions to 'catch up'.

I see no other restrictions, other than those already mentioned.

If your a power gamer, you won't like the OpNet 2008 campaign world. It will put restrictions on what your character can and cannot do.

[Stormwarden]

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
If your a power gamer, you won't like the OpNet 2008 campaign world. It will put restrictions on what your character can and cannot do.

I'm not a power-gamer, but I still don't like it, Rat. I like the freedom to role-play as situations develop. Character Sheets and the rush for everyone to be equal (or even better, to pump out more pages) will surely help that out, or maybe it will simply give us some less well-thought out fictions and added emphasis to the Min-max gene.

[Singularity]

No system for experience has been proposed; it's a little premature to talk about people watering down the fiction section with extraneous stories.

[Velvet]

And, obviously, no one is being required to participate. Those who require scads of powers and/or do not like any guidelines that may or may not be put in place (if this goes through) will probably not have much fun in the proposed area. They will be free to continue to play their existing characters as they see fit, but as this area would be constructed for the express purpose of giving those who would enjoy having character sheets as reference, standardized experience gain, and more equal footing a place to play... Those who don't should have no reason to cry foul or complain that they're being excluded.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

I'm all for it. I mean, nothing is lost by making an addition, and a pretty simple one at that. I don't have any problem with the current way of running things, but more options is always a good thing.

[The White Rat]

Freedom to role play does not mean the freedom to develop a power to suit the situation. A character's behavior and actions are very much a part of what powers he develop. A super hero who is vulnerable only to iron, will not, all of a sudden, develop a resistance to iron because it makes for good role playing. His vulnerability to iron will shape who he is. The same goes with character creation: what powers your character has will help you determine who, and how your character acts.

If you want to min-max at character creation, go for it. It is the only time at which you can do so, so only a few powers will be like that (if that is what you choose to do).

[Stormwarden]

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
Jager:
If your a power gamer, you won't like the OpNet 2008 campaign world. It will put restrictions on what your character can and cannot do.

Aberrant Player's Guide; pg 120, last paragraph
"It is the intolerant ranter who chooses to impugn the motives of players who like different power levels that's the problem, not the players who know their preferences and do what's fun for them."

[Velvet]

Okay, Jager. In this game, should it happen, there will be restrictions. Why? Because there are several people here "who know their preferences and cannot do what's fun for them" in an area where they are either required to play near-gods just to keep up, or have no feasible chance of survival amongst said titans.

This thread is a means for said players to state the preferences you're so gleefully mocking with your last post, and try to come up with a way for those who wish to do so to play on a more even-footing. I'm frankly appalled that you even had the nerve to ask in this discussion about making a character there with Q6. It flies in the face of the intent and spirit of the concepts we're working with.

I understand that you want to be able to do anything and everything you can tack on a list without using a character sheet. I understand that, for you, this is RP and is justified. That's fine. For you. Not everyone enjoys it, and not everyone should, so please... stop trying to convince us you're "right." Stop attacking people who want to play a game with boundaries and rules, because it makes you seem like the very powergamer you deny being.

In short, please don't quote Aberrant core books on gaming philosophy, because you are equally guilty of the blame you're assigning.

[Y.T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormwarden:

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
Jager:
If your a power gamer, you won't like the OpNet 2008 campaign world. It will put restrictions on what your character can and cannot do.

Aberrant Player's Guide; pg 120, last paragraph
"It is the intolerant ranter who chooses to impugn the motives of players who like different power levels that's the problem, not the players who know their preferences and do what's fun for them."

Um Bla Bla Bla ..I can use a quote that can be used to justified either sides of this topic. It is equally purdent to use said quote to say those who want the new form should have it, and bashing said new forum is the same as the way you used it above.

[Harold 'Mythic' Anderson]

Not to be rude, but this isn't the thread for talking about playing styles. The point of this is to discuss the proposal above.

[Stormwarden]

Velvet, I was accussed of being a power-gamer. I simply pointed out what the Player's Guide has to say on the matter ... the official White Wolf attitude.

As for the rest ...

So, if there are going to be restrictions, let's hear about them. Until then, I won't know if I'm opposed to this, or support it. Right now, all I do is question the nature of this new endeavor. I'm trying to find out just what this 2008 forum will contain, and constrain, before it actually arrives.

[The White Rat]

I think Singularity's proposal has merit and should be considered for character creation.

,,

Quote:

-Standard 7/5/3 Attributes, 23 Abilities, 7 Backgrounds, 15 Freebie Points, and 30 Nova Points

-Has erupted only within the past two months

-A new character that has not and does not appear in the OpNet - 2016 continuity of this site

I think the only thing that needs to be created is a system for advancement.

[Ashnod]

I think the concern of the advancement, like Jager was bringing up, is just how long before the power curve becomes vast again, and how do you plan to resolve it if it becomes as wide as the current environment.

If you start everyone at the same creation matrix, and allot, say, 10 XP at the end of every 30 days after a character's creation, progression is going to be relatively equal for all involved. Still, two years down the line, if you want to make a new character, you're still going to be dealing with experienced characters who have roughly 240 XP on you. It's not much, but it still accumulates. The longer it goes, the longer the gap between new characters and old ones. Eventually, you are still going to have a gap as great as the one between say, Flicker and Long in terms of overall power.

I can see how feelings on this would be different, because the character with Long-level power would have stuck it out on the site for several years and his/her character should conceivably be that power level, as opposed to bringing in a brand-new powerhouse of the same calibur that no one had ever heard of.

I'm more concerned with a "reward post count with XP" system where sheer activity garners the highest power.

Personally, I like the idea of a separate environment where the power level is more balanced.

[Singularity]

All right, it appears the most obvious sticking point is character advancement. Two items then:

1. So what proposals do we have on handling character progression? Should there be no progression at all? Should it be handled through nova points being applied to characters at a regular interval? Or experience points at a regular interval? Or perhaps nova points or experience points being applied based upon the quantity or quality of what is produced with that character? (Yes, Ashnod, I know you're worried that specific option ) Or should there be no regulation on the advancement of characters?

2. Since this related and I want to settle definitively right now: I'm of the opinion that Quantum 6 and higher should not be available for at least the first two to four years (so not until 2010 to 2012), hence making the discussion of Quantum 6 characters at this juncture moot. (also to be noted is that starting characters, per the core book, cannot start with a Quantum of 6) I would rather for Quantum 6 to be never available but that is a personal opinion.

With that, I say it's time for brainstorming things for item #1.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

Then again, it's not so bad that players who have been playing for a long time, characters who have been played for a long time, have greater power. It helps to contribute to the feeling that there are more powerful novas out there, that have erupted before. Not a lot of them, and not terribly powerful, but small legends, veterans. I think it's a nice feel for newcomers to sort of have people to look up to, in a way, and considering they'd have to stick around for a damn long time there won't be a lot of them and I doubt they'll consider abusing their power (not that I think anyone does in 2016, but 2016 does have a sort of "Battle of the Titans" feel to it, more high-powered like).

So, sorta like 2xp per week or something like that would be cool.

[Fortune's Son]

If you're really going to try and make this work I have only one suggestion. Go to the very beginning. 'Net 1998 just following the formation of Utopia. Now run with it and create the world.

Those are my only thoughts on this.

[Warren Verona]

Quote:

Originally posted by Singularity:
1. So what proposals do we have on handling character progression? Should there be no progression at all? Should it be handled through nova points being applied to characters at a regular interval? Or experience points at a regular interval? Or perhaps nova points or experience points being applied based upon the quantity or quality of what is produced with that character? (Yes, Ashnod, I know you're worried that specific option ) Or should there be no regulation on the advancement of characters?

Experience.

Nova points should never have really been handed out to begin with. When I first arrived here my jaw dropped when I found out the NPs were handed out like candy.

When you make a character you get 30NPs. That's it. Anything you gain beyond that should be an experience value.

Make a 100NP Nova.

Make a 100XP Nova.

Lemme know if you get the same thing. You won't, we all know it.

In my opinion we should also place caps on power progression. It will prevent Characters from saving exp and becoming 'instant masters' in a single swoop. This is another thing that happens way to often and needs to be addressed.

Also, how about logical experience point expenditures. Lemme cite a few examples instead of an explination. You'll prolly all figure it out really quick.

1. If you haven't used Q-Bolt in 6 months, you can't raie it with EXP. Obviously you haven't practiced.

2. If you are a Fire-born nova and can incinerate the skies like Jonny Storm and have never shown much mental apptitude, don't buy *telepathy*. It's lame.

3. Don't just throw powers on a sheet. If you want to learn powers that are outside your 'theme', you should be trained. Let's face it, eruptions are based on the characters inner desires. It's states this in a rule book it's canon. After the eruption is a different story, if you were supposed to be a Telepath, chances are you would have erupted as one.

Yeah, I know... I'm a dick. Just more logical rules that belong more in a TT setting than in a Forum Fiction board. I'm just here to force more restrictions and tie your hands.

Damn me. Damn me. Ohhh baby. Yeah.

[The White Rat]

My take on XP progression is this:

1. 2 XP per week as long as you post at least once a week.

2. One XP for each power that is maxed-out during arbitrated combat. That XP would be used for that power only. More maxing-out means more XP. You can also accumulate taint at a greater rate...power has a cost.

3. Every 5 posts will get you an additional XP.

4. XP, in the course of a combat or conflict, may be given by the arbiter for special, but rare, circumstances. There is potential for abuse here, so this one could be tossed out.

I am not against modifying these values, should the majority feel the need to.

[Matt]

Adding a new forum is no problem whatsoever. It has always been my goal to provide the best opportunities for everyone here to role play and interact, so I'm completely cool with starting a new game if that is what people want.

There are a lot of ways that this could be handled. I have a few ideas, but don't really have the time to type them up right now. And every possible idea still opens up a ton of other questions that should be asked.

So I guess the main thing that I wanted to say was that I'm reading this thread and will do my part to help everyone out. The option does exist for anyone to set up their own game on the site, using whatever rules that they want. But if you all really want to start something new, lets make sure that we take out time with it so that we iron out most of the kinks before hand. Trust me, I've lived through trying to iron out the kinks afterwards and don't want to do it again.

I'll check back in a couple weeks.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Thank you Chosen.

I like Jack's idea of starting at 1998, that deserves serious consideration.

Other issues & options.

Flaws (Can take them, Can't take them, Need Approval)

Character Sheets (Public? Private? Don't Exist? Private but ST can review?)

Character Approval Process (Public? Not?)

Strengths & Weaknesses (Yes? No? Approval?)

What is canon for power generation, i.e. is Forceful Personalities?

Other wacky suggestions & new powers.

I suggest that either everything be public or that there exist a class of STs for character review.

EDIT: Something else to consider is if we allow flaws, we really should also have a way to buy off many/most of them. I.e. the Healing Power counters most of the physical ones and hard work counters many of the social ones.

[The White Rat]

1. Merits/flaws should be allowed. However, I also believe that if you choose physical flaws, like paraplegic or lame, they should not become irrelevant upon eruption. Same for Mental and Social.

If your blind before eruption, you don't just gain your sight back..you could get the blindfighting enhancement or other non eyesight related Mega-Perceptions to counter the blindness however. I think approval might be needed in some cases. They could be bought off as well, but the XP cost should be trebled. If the flaw is due to an aberration, you cannot buy it off...only through a chrysalis can they be changed.

2. Character sheets need to be created. I would prefer them public. However, I can see the desire for some to keep all their abilities private, so ST review would suffice. Character integrity must be maintained.

3. I had not thought about character approval, but the idea has merit. It may stop twinkery and abuse of the rules. Public approval would work if Char. sheets were to be public. If they are under ST review, then approval would also have to be private.

4. Strengths and weaknesses may be used within limits and subject to approval.

5. I think Forceful Personality is ok.

6. No quantum higher than 5 at char. creation and no Q6 unless character has been active for 4 years or undergone chrysalis.

[Good Alice]

I thinka set rate of EXP should be given to all. No reward for writing or posting alot.Maybe some poits for some good stories.

I mean i could post in every topic over and over, make separate posts for like..

post 1

I disagree with half the people who think grass is greaner on the north side.they are ont he south side, and we northerns can clearly se their grass is greener.

Post 2

Yes, bob the northern points out that you guys got more rain, and so your grass si greener.

post 3

Jane is wrong the lack of hot sun doens't make our grass live longer.

....

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

I suggest that eventually set up voting threads for each consideration. XP rates. Public/Private/ST sheets. Flaw purchase rates. Etc.

RE: Flaw Purchase rates.

3x seems high, I'd suggest 2x at this experience rate. 3 points of flaws => 3 months of experience (so three months of training could overcome combat paralysis, not 4.5). Six months deals with a -6 flaw (say no legs or blind)rather than nine.

Of course this also assumes that this is even possible, many flaws simply can't be fixed.

[Singularity]

Alright, let's see what I can address quickly.

1. I share Ashnod's concerns about experience being granted for the quantity of posts; while there is some merit in rewarding work being put into a character, the potential of unnecessary or repetative posts being used just to increase a character's experience pool is too great for me. Experience for every post is just too open for abuse; perhaps one experience per month for posting a story or an interactive piece would be a better way to encourage interaction without leaving a door for abuse.

2. Talking about rewarding experience in an arbitrated situation is premature; there has been no discussion nor any agreement on any methods of arbitration to be used. If someone had the option to never use arbitration, it would be rather unfair to reward those who use the system over those who don't. Especially in the case of discretionary awards.

3. Talking about approval of characters beyond the standard rules of creation found in the core book may be a little premature as well if there has been no determination of arbitration. Obviously, the powers and enhancements available in the expansion books would be available at creation time as well (limited to the published books and Brainwaves - sorry, Forceful Personalities as a whole is not balanced in comparison to the other words).

4. As for Merits/Flaws and Strengths/Weaknesses, this will take time to hammer out. Some Merits/Weaknesses can be bought/bought off via experience, others cannot; this might necessitate a list that outlines those that can be bought/bought off. The basics of the Strength/Weaknesses system is good, but we've all found and highlighted a few of the pitfalls of it. For example, I will strongly advocate the removal of Strengthening the duration of a Power to Permanent for reasons I've already expressed in another thread.

5. When it comes to the character sheets, I am of the opinion that each character should have a sheet made for them but I am not 100% certain that these sheets need to be public. I would greatly encourage the publication of said sheet, but perhaps someone wants to play someone with a secret that has yet to be revealed and providing the sheet up front would completely negate that subplot.

In the interest of keeping this discussion organized and productive, I am going to create a few new threads specifically addressing some of these sticking issues:

• OpNet - 2008: Experience
• OpNet - 2008: Arbitration
• OpNet - 2008: Approved Systems

This way we can talk about these specific issues without confusion and retain this topic for more general discussion.

EDIT: I forgot to add my opinion regarding Quantum 6 and Chrysalis. I am of the opinion that Chrysalis should not provide characters the opportunity to achieve Quantum 6 earlier. One major reason against this is I do not want to reward any particular affiliation within Aberrant.

[kestrel404]

Ooh. I really like Jack's idea. Start out at the very beginning. Rebuild the world, and there's darn good reason why everyone's roughly the same power level. Also why everyone's making new characters at the same time.

If we're going to leave it as un-moderated as the 2016 forums, then we wouldn't much need strict enforcement of XP buildup. If it was moderated, the mod would set the rules. That simple, I think. Although, to be honest, if it's an un-moderated forum, I'm not sure it would last very long - I don't see how it would be any more interesting than the 2016 forum, and there would be fewer people playing there.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

If we do 1998 (we may want to go a hair later) then we need to decide what we do with the canon big guys. Pax as a PC? Slider?

[Singularity]

Not to be a party-pooper, but I think this thread has developed/focused greatly on the concept of using the 2008 setting, partially for reasons of simplicity when it comes to the setting and power balance. I think it's self evident that Pax did not start as a 30 NP nova.

Starting in 1998 could be interesting, but I think that would be a separate proposal.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

1998 would be admittedly cool, yet playable only with some difficulty. After all, such wholescale canon reqriting (after all, all the novas that erupted in '98 were instant celebrities and world-changers) would require rather heavy-handed arbitration so things don't get too ridiculous too fast. Also, it would kinda defeat the point of playing low-power novas, as in '98 there would be very few novas more powerful than the PCs.

[Dreamer]

1998 would offer this board way to much power over the meta plot, and leave way to many things left to be said years downt he line.The teragen starts in 2005, elites don't start until I think 2000, T2m is one team until I think 2001, and then it is only two team until 2004.

2008 let's people do just about anything int he main book, without metagaming..1998 well that would limit the type of characters.

[Chaos]

Isn't the point exactly this much control over the metaplot? I mean isn't this suppose to be a brave new world?

I kind of like the idea but can see it being a bit of a bitch to pull off.

[Singularity]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos:
Isn't the point exactly this much control over the metaplot?

No, the point was to create an additional section of the board that had regulated starting power levels for characters in the 2008 canon world setting.

[Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos:
Isn't the point exactly this much control over the metaplot? I mean isn't this suppose to be a brave new world?

I kind of like the idea but can see it being a bit of a bitch to pull off.

In 2008, the teragen is not set in stone, T2m are not full of titans, Devrise don't have novas with q6...

In 1998, you can't be a tergan without pure megagame bull. You would beable to be one for years...

[Singularity]

Alright, as promised, here's a system I'm looking to use to reach a consensus for the "sticking points."

• If there are a limited number of proposed options (say, two or three), then a single poll would be used.
• If there are a greater number options, then the three options that receive the most votes will be the subject of a second poll and the option with the most votes will be used. But if during the first poll one of the options receives a supermajority (two-thirds of the votes) then it would be the option used.
• In the case of more complex issues, an initial poll would be used to narrow the field and then the next polls would follow either the "simple" pattern or the "complex" pattern.

Each person gets one vote as we've used in other polls and be sure to report your vote (and only your vote) in a reply in the poll. Any votes that show up in the automated system that haven't been reported in a reply in the poll will not be counted.

[Singularity]

One more thing: this proposal was not meant as a solely PvP world nor one that would encouarge and/or reward it. The element might be present, but the endorsement and/or condemation of PvP was never apart of the proposal and the conversation that generated it. If others would like a section that has a strong PvP element then I encourage them to create a separate proposal.