Sir yes Sir!

FS, great post, and thank you.

I write on N!Prime more than I game - I think I've used fewer than half a dozen rolls in my time here. However, I do think that rules and caps of some kind should be in place.

I believe that N!Prime's OpNet sites are a hybrid of story and game. There are rules there, and in fictions they're hidden deep enough in the substructure that they aren't readily noticeable - but they provide a common guideline for what exactly we can do. Whether nor not Nathan can copy a nova's powers at range, for example, or how far out Flicker's teleportation powers can take her. Rules can be bent and exploited, yes, but I don't consider that a good argument against their existence. Just because I can exceed the speed limit doesn't mean the speed limit's pointless.

I do think that the best structure is one that emphasizes the story part over the rules, but I don't think we should do away with them. If nothing else, they make a good point-of-entry for new players, who may not understand the complexities of forum interaction and politics but who can easily grasp "don't go over this number."

At their best, rules should make explicit what we as a group consider to be implicit. If for no other reason, than so new players like Lily can participate without having to read our minds to figure out what is considered a good thing on the board. I see the cap as saying, "this is the range of nova power we are presently comfortable with." The golden rule that should be made clearest above all is this: you are playing this game with other people, and their enjoyment counts as much as yours.

Yes, with consent, there is a built-in safety line, but frankly: when you're a 30 nova point character and you have to use that safety line to arbitrarily get out of being smeared across three states by a 500 NP character with the same basic 'power themes,' it threatens verisimilitude. It's much easier as a collective community to buy into the stalemating of novas within a comparable range. Out-of-combat has a different problem, what I call the "baseline nova" problem, one I had with Knockout: Knockout being in the 30-40 nova point range, and feeling out of her depth amongst many of the characters of 2018 because she was a gnat compared to them. They were further removed from her than she was removed from a baseline. This was a problem even with players who are very very good at what they do, such as Timeslip, Long and Procyon's players. It is entirely an emotional reaction of course, but that doesn't render it invalid.

So I do support a cap level, and the ability to tinker around underneath it, as a guiding principle if nothing else. I do support any tinkering being backed up by a story or at the very least, a good short-form explanation. "I've been working in the field for the Directive for a year now, so my Tradecraft skill is improving" is a sufficient short-form explanation. "I've been working in the field for the Directive for a year now so I have manifested the ability to start fires with my mind" is not a sufficient short-form explanation.

I support it being 50 nova points because that allows for veteran novas who've been around the block a few times, but who aren't yet so radically powerful that they have nothing in common with the newbies. I also support the cap being raise year by year, with 3 to 5 NP being the range; it'll be a while before we run into the "baseline nova" problem I outlined above with such a system, and it gives players who enjoy advancement (and there's nothing wrong with enjoying such a thing) the opportunity to do so. I regretfully have to say I don't like Jager's notion of using experience, because it turns two-tiered character creation into three-tiered character creation and introduces a new system that doesn't work the same way as the previous two.

As for changing the world, I support adding to it; putting together your own group or your own company, getting involved in politics, and so forth. I don't believe, however, that we should change the big stuff such as the status of Utopia or the Teragen or the Directive, even with a majority vote. Putting aside the selfish reason that I'd rather not get outvoted on a status change to something I had story ideas for, it makes explaining things more complicated to newcomers. "In addition to what you know about, there's this stuff" sounds easier and smoother to me than "There's this stuff and also, we changed how all this stuff works." Everyone coming onto the site has read the main book and digested its contents, and I think we should keep that as the agreed-upon common ground we'll all share.

Yes, I talked a lot about getting new players. I think it's important for the site. I accept that someday, Aberrant will be forgotten - the book will be long out of print and the number of people who are fans of it who are also willing to sustain a hybrid games/fiction community about it will be too small. I'd rather that all those fans willing to do so find as little as possible to deter them. This whole thread came about because the number of players willing to post dwindled to a dangerously low number. People will inevitably quit; when they do so, if there aren't more new players coming in, the board will inevitably die.

Just as an aside, I always did wonder why, if the government *truly* wanted people to obey the speed limit, why not just put a limiter on cars?

Okay, I'm interested.

And just to avoid one of the problems I had with '10 and '18 I'll be dropping out of both if this happens. Splitting my attention didn't help me and I don't want to fall prey to that again.

Hammer out the "rules" and I'll accept them. I'm fine with 50 and very, very fine with no Strengths/Weaknesses and no Merits/Flaws. Especially since the Strengths/Weaknesses was so poorly written and so prone to miseinterpretation.

This has kind of got me interested in this place again.

Oh, and one more note, how about we restrict this topic to what it's become about, the possibility of a new forum. Leave the off-topic commentary or snarky comments (yes, you Rev) elsewhere.

Peace.

It looks like we're at the following:

* Start time somewhere from 2006 to 2010.
* 0-50NP starting range at writer's discretion, with the upper limit to be increased each year to allow growth.
* NP expenditures and recovery from major trauma to be backed with story.
* No S/W or M/F
* Informal peer moderation, with the emphasis on cooperation. Non-cooperative writers are to be turned out.
* No changing the major canon storyline, or spoiling major secrets.
* For now, the migration of 2010 novas to the new era has not been sufficiently discussed to allow it. The possibility of gutting 2010 is the primary hazard.
* Jack is a sexy man.
* Am I missing anything?

I have a question for everyone. A character who starts at 50NP will wait until the annual opportunity for more NP to increase their abilities. Is a character who voluntarily started with fewer points required to do the same, or is progression in the interim allowed if it is supported by the appropriate written story? I probably won't play a 50-pointer, as I like to write the "new nova" type of story, and half the fun of such a character is raising them through the ranks.

This can be easily solved by having a sticky thread that contains all the major changes from canon. I'm ok with it if we decide not to allow canon changes, but I would much prefer the world not be set in stone. How about a compromise and require a 2/3rds vote to make major changes to the biggies like Teragen, Proteus, etc? I would definitely like there to be the possibility of change even if it isn't very likely given a 2/3rds vote.

I think it's a good idea to allow for the possibility of new events. Sometimes a good shake-up is nice, when it's agreed on.

This could include things like global events: earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and so on. There would be some kind of OOC thread where discussions of stories, mechanics, and game canon took place.

I suggest that thread be moderated.

Then we could have an offtopic thread, so that the inevitable debates/political discussions/bile/etc that crop up on the OOC forum have a place to go...as opposed to just being stomped out, which is a bit draconian. Thus, people can still vent and argue, but it isn't crammed down the throats of those who just want to play.

Could this point be clarified.

What constitues a non-cooperative writer? Is it okay to write stand alone stories for your characters?

I think a non-cooperative writer is one who is a dick (see above), who abuses the goodwill of the other writers, or whose stories damage the versimilitude of the shared setting. The last thing anyone wants is a posse of writers looking for people to throw out. In fact, given our dearth of writers, such a witch hunt would be lunacy.

If this rule really worries you, ask yourself why it worries you.

But my snarky comments are cheeky, and fun.



Lets discuss 'caps' and try to agree on what which we should use, shall we?

Nova Point Cap - Players are allotted a certain number of nova points and may not exceed that for the creation of your character. This permits versatility but can also introduce high powered characters in the very beginning.

This method practically caters to power gamers.

XP Point Cap - Player are given 30 nova points to create your character with and then permitted a certain amount of XP to spend on the character to reflect their life up to the beginning of the Storyline. This will produce less powerful characters in terms of quantum powers, but will prevent characters from spending their 50NPs to achieve 5s in every attribute and ability (which is possible, and I hate 'All 5ers').

This method seems a bit more practical (IMO), but it may not provide the sort power levels some people would like to see. Were this a TT game, this is the method I'd most likely choose.

Thinking Cap - This is a cap that, when worn, is said to clear your thoughts and help you think better. It has nothing to do with this topic.



Certainly not, I feel that if the cap is 50NPs, then all players may not exceed that bar. If you create a 35 point nova then you still may advance 15 more points through out the year, in theory. Now, increasing 15 points in a year I think would be difficult, but certainly possible.

Those players who create 50 pointers should advance a lot slower than those who 'start small'. The bell curve on gaining power is an obvious one so I'm not about to explain it. Higher powered novas should require more RP interactions to justify gains in power while lesser powered nova should be able to justify a few 'off the cuff' power gains while their node matures. For the record a 30 point node should be considered a 'mature' node.

As far as strengths and weaknesses, I do have a solution. I agree that the way it's done in the core is ignorant and broken. I propose we invent a new way, a simple way we can all agree on and have more fun using. A system that caters to the quantum powers themselves and not the “take-a-dice-give-a-dice” method, then post in where other players may read it and take advantage of it.

Just an idea.

Have we thought about quantum scores? I could always just drop 45NPs into quantum and start with a Q score of 10. I’m sure I’d get kicked in the nuts for it, but I thought I’d bring up Quantum before we forget. I feel 5 should be the limit (with no excuses, period. I don't care if you have a really cool idea set up, do it with Q5.) Q6+ shouldn't even be considered.

This is so good that it needs to be in the new forum's initial rules post. Thank you.


I don't have any concrete ideas on this subject, but my feeling is that lower quantum scores are better than higher ones.

Along the same lines, do we want to restrict initial taint? With sufficient taint, 50NP can be enough to destroy the world.

Ahem! I believe there were at least 2 comments on raising the cap to 60, a few more about using NPs rather than XP for advancment, and as I think we should trust each other to not abuse weaknesses and strengths rather than prohibit them.

Since this is all about cooperation anyway, if we don't trust each other NOT to be dicks then really, what is the point in even trying?

BTW lower quantum scores are not necessarily "better". Its a question of what do you want the character to do? And where do you want them to go? If your concept includes shapeshifting, disintegration or clone you will need a Q score of 4 or 5. Likewise if you are going for High end Mega Atts.

Ive never like limits on taint myself. If you want to play a character who flirts with that edge you should be able to...its one of the core themes in Aberrant. Just ask Sloppy Joe!

It worries me because I already have an idead for a character in this setting and the first few stories are stand alone. That's why. I wouldn't want to be forced to contrive some artificial interaction just to have the character survive.

Okay, 60NP. Who wants it? Show of hands. *does not raise her hand*

With a 50NP starting cap, we're already going to have characters who are capable of destroying the world. With 60NP characters, I foresee the following exchange occurring within the first five days of the new era:

Godling: Hey everyone! How's it going? I just flew in from Jupiter, where I blew Ganymede out of its orbit, and boy is my node tired.

Gritty New Low-level Nova: Dude, why are you even here posting on this forum? Get a life.


Your idealism is noble, but misplaced. Without pointing fingers, I will say that we must be vigilant. The point in trying is the same point to any worthwhile endeavor: to push back the forces of entropy for another day and to have fun.

You misunderstand, friend. By co-operation, I mean that we should be respectful of the other writers and not do things that would make them very unhappy or have a very bad time here on the site.

I definitely did not mean to imply that solo fictions were to be frowned upon!

I see no problem with the limit being 60NP.

I don't see the problem with taint max being raised to 9. Personally, I think you should be a horror - an object lesson for would-be pushie novas - but that's just me.

Since we are using the '1 Taint = 2 NP' rule, does the NP cap include those NP's gained from taint?

For example: I am making a character with 50 NP's. I wish for him to have 6 taint. Does that meant that I gain another 12 (on top of the 50), giving my character a total of 62 NP's?

I don't know about scrappin the Merits and Flaws. Some of them are unbalancing to a game, I understand that. However, M/F give a character certain traits that defined them as a baseline. Why would anyone choose a blind character, with the associated penalties, if they can't get any reciprocity? What about one that is in a wheelchair, or a character who has inherent mental issues? I do understand that this forum will be less about a game and more about writing stories, but I think it allows players to give them game affecting quirks.

Yes to Cap, it sets badly needed limits.
50 or 60 NP Cap doesn't matter to me as long as we raise the cap each year to allow for advancement, preferably at least 5 NPs.

No Q6: I don't mind allowing q6 sometime in the future, say in a couple years, but definitely no Q6 novas starting out. Also, I'd say that Q6 falls under the category of 'world changing' and I think a majority of players should have to approve such advancement.

5ers. I'm totally in favor of 5ers. The way I view novas is that most novas would have at least some if not a good deal of improvement in their body and mind from their eruption. Sure there are those that don't but this game is about people with the ability to change the world not about tubby pimple-faced burger flipper at Mikey D's. I'm sure someone could take that concept and make something interesting out of it, but it doesn't suit my tastes. Of course you don't need to go the other extreme and be a Mary Sue either.

I think it's because disabilities in reality don't come with benefits to compensate. Being blind sucks. Being paraplegic sucks. If someone has a compelling and interesting reason for writing a disabled character, then they've already thought through the disadvantages and are prepared to do so anyway. They don't need a freebie to make up for the disability. They're already doing something slightly more interesting than usual.

A handicap should be a handicap, not a way to buy an extra ability. If a character is blind, it should be a bloody great inconvenience. The alternative breaks versimilitude and encourages everyone to take disadvantages for disingenuous reasons.

If I really wanted i could destroy the world (or at least a city) with 50 NPs...its called powermaxing for nasty extras, for example Warp, powermax, permeability extra: warp open to the Sun. I could do that with 30 NPs. Im not going to do that. Why? Because i dont really want to and it wouldnt be any fun.

i like 60 more for the fact I could buy a few extra enhancments as flavor. But honestly as i pointed out up above i think its an arbitrary number. And if you need an example of how low and high end characters can interact just check out the Justic League.

It sounds to me like you have some underlying prejudice about high powered characters (I have found this to be a common prejudice, dont know why...I always dug the Silver Surfer). If you really want to limit the kind of powers and abilities a character can have you should define the game/story in other ways than NPs. If you dont want people warping from Jupiter limit Warp. etc.

Why be draconian about power scale and furthermore if you want to play a gritty character so bad why not play a homebrewed setting of M&M instead? Aberrant is about what you would do with the power of a god...

Oh absolutely. A nova buttered with taint must have a simply horrid time interacting with civilization. I will be the first one to object if a horrifyingly-aberrated character suffers no penalty for their deformity.

It all goes back to Jack's post. Rules won't stop abuses. Other writers have to be the ones to speak up.

Taint of 9... yikes. Sure you can be an object lesson to others, but where do you go from there? If everyone else says it is acceptable that's fine by me. Personally I'd prefer a 6 taint limit, but that's just opinion, not a game breaking issue for me.

I vote for Merits and Flaws. Flaws are blody inconveniences. They only give you a few extra bonus points. Useful for say Professor X, hes in a wheelchair, but with those few extra background points he bought resources (Mansion, jet etc.).

Merits and Flaws arent broken at all. S&W have more abuse potential but we already agreed we are going for consensus here. I like my linked and dependant power concept too much to give up on S&W. They provide customization to the system that I am used to from better worked out mechanics games like Champions. Abby is great but it didnt cover all the bases, hence S&W.

raises hand for 60 NPs

Also why the taint gives +2 NP rule? Not only does it monkey with the cap like WR pointed out above but its actually a bit more broken. In canon you only get a 2 NP savings if you taint an L3 power. otherwise it comes out to only a 1 NP savings.

Just a thought.

Explaining my reason for this prejudice would devolve the thread into a flame war. You have hundreds of posts. I'm sure you've been around this site long enough to know the answer already.


That's about one semantic hair away from "go away," which is weird considering I'm the one who proposed this reboot idea. I don't think that limits are necessarily draconian. Limits are necessary. Civilization requires rules. The alternative is not pretty.

How about "You can't buy powers tainted, but you can gain taint for a 1 taint = 2 NP cost" ?

It gives the advantage of gaining exta nova points and, if you really feel like pushing yourself at sometime and can't quite afford that new powere/power increase, you gain the taint and get the extra Nova points.

What the heck. I'll raise my hand for 60 just because I never get the chance to play in higher powered games.

I vote No 2pt NP per Taint rule for raising Cap. If you buy things tainted that's fine and you can effectively exceed Cap doing so. However, if you create a 9 taint nova expect that the other players will be looking over your shoulder and judging your creation with an eye to potential abuse. Plus, you stand a real chance of having the character thrown out of the game if you don't portrait that taint very well, and in such a way that it doesn't diminish the experiences of the other players.

This isn't a game. Games have goals. This is a sandbox in which we're all playing by a shared set of rules, in order to create interesting stories and have fun interacting with each other.

I suggest the following reading:

Wikipedia entry for Wild Cards. Wild Cards is an anthology of short stories set in an alternative timeline in which super-powered humans developed suddenly. Its origins are in a tabletop role-playing system. This had better sound familiar to you!

I Have no Words & I Must Design, Greg Kostikyan's excellent essay on what a game is, and the elements of it. Here's a relevant excerpt:

"Stories are inherently linear. However much characters may agonize over the decisions they make, they make them the same way every time we reread the story, and the outcome is always the same. Indeed, this is a strength; the author chose precisely those characters, those events, those decisions, and that outcome, because it made for the strongest story. If the characters did something else, the story wouldn't be as interesting.

Games are inherently non-linear. They depend on decision making. Decisions have to pose real, plausible alternatives, or they aren't real decisions. It must be entirely reasonable for a player to make a decision one way in one game, and a different way in the next. To the degree that you make a game more like a story -- more linear, fewer real options -- you make it less like a game."




(Edit: I have to go to work now. Sorry!)

I vote ofr a 60 NP cap. My reasoning is that we already have a low powered setting in 2010. Sometimes people want to play gods, and not just superheroes.

For people who can play a highly tainted monstrosity, the 1T=2NP rule is alluring. We either let people buy powers tainted, or we have the 1T=2NP rule. m In either case, the cap can be exceeded. The next question is: can you buy NP's at a later point by gaining taint, like buying something for half price, or is it capped at character creation?

I realize I'm new to posting here, but I've been reading it for longer...and I'd like to respond to some of Overload's statements with my own take on the situation, which has less experience but also less preconception, perhaps.

As for the nova point limit. 50 points is quite a lot. I've played games that start with 30, 40, and (believe it or not) 100. I personally prefer a leetle more than 30...which is a tight squeeze for some of my pet concepts...but -considerably- less than 100. 50 feels like a good cutoff. 60 is probably serviceable. I'd raise my hand for 50 though.

Why is that?

I think a major concern of the older generation of posters...the ones from the original board...is that one of the things that brought the first one down in flames was rampant power creep, which rapidly caused events in the game to spiral out of control, and out of anything resembling a collective fiction setting...and into the harrowing domain of ego stroking and combatitive 'who can outdo' story-fighting. Does a nova point limit automatically mean that won't happen? Does lacking one automatically mean it will? No, not really. But like safety nets, they can help reign in the heady feeling of "I CAN DO ANYTHING!!" that can overwhelm even the best of players when they realize all bets are off; this isn't a game, there isn't a GM, and the sky's the limit. Additionally, rules like point limits are black and white, in print, and apply to all. There's no popularity contest like peer reviews can become. There's no question of impartiality, like moderators can be subject to. It's just DA RULES.

Think of it as a sort of Constitution. The highest law of the forum. Not a LOT of rules, but a few ones that apply to all, and none shall break, be they popular, unpopular, moderator, peon, or Chosen himself.

Specifically what to include in the Constitution...and what might then be appended in the corrollary Bill of Rights (if applicable)...is a matter for discussion. Which is what we're doing.

However, I think the lack of a GM, or referee, is a compelling argument that there DOES need to be a set of rules and another set of guidelines for authors. Otherwise there's no 'collaboration' in our fiction. It's just a bunch of stories side by side.

Which, incidentally, isn't a bad idea. We could include a section for unconnected, noncanon Aberrant fiction. For authors who want to explore outside the lines.