Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6153166" data-attributes="member: 42582">Interesting.Agreed. My impression of some of the criticisms of 4e for "dissociated" mechanics is that they didn't draw this distinction. That is, they envisaged "association" of mechanics as having to happen at PC build stage (eg my Come and Get It is a taunt) and then noting that an association of that sort doesn't makes sense sometimes (eg how do you taunt an ooze).Marvel Heroic RP uses an interesting mixture of HERO-style abstraction and FitM. Powers are mostly HERO-style: so Thor, Captain America and Sue Storm all have Durability as a power, but in Thor's case it's his skin/physique, in Cap's case it's his shield (and so he has a Gear disadvantage) and in Invisible Woman's case it's her forcefield. The GM and players are then expected to have regard to these details in the way they frame conflicts: for instance, if the GM announces an attack by poison gas, Cap's player can't declare a defence based on Durability (because a shield doesn't protect you from gas); similarly for Sue Storm vs a light-based attack (because here forcefield is fully transparent).But once a conflict has been framed and the dice rolled, FitM is build into the narration of the resolution - and their are even options like spending a Plot Point to change damage type, so the bad guy might have inflicted physical damage but you can spend a point and then narrate how you avoid physical injury but it makes your really scared (or angry, or whatever) instead (ie convert physical stress to emotional stress).I've seen discussions on RPGnet about MHRP where people have disagreed over the proper approach to resolution precisely because they're having trouble telling, within the design of the rules, over where HERO-style abstraction stops and FitM begins. For instance, Daredevil is blind. But he also has a power to spend a Plot Point to negate advers vision-based effects. That implies, at the mechanical level, that he can be affected by those things if the player doesn't spend the point. So does that mean that the GM can frame a vision-based attack against Daredevil, forcing the player to spend a point to keep Daredevil true to type (within the mechanics there's no trouble getting the point, though it can cost you in other indirect ways)? Or the GM can't frame a vision-based attack against Daredevil as such, but eg can frame a vision-basd attack against a (spontaneously specified) truck-driver, whose truck will then crash into Daredevil? In the latter case, what exactly is going on in the fiction then if Daredevil's player spend a point to negate that consequence?I don't think Cam Banks ever posted how he would handle it.</blockquote>

Verification