Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Lacuna Caster]

I see where you're coming from. Personally, I've found 'I keep attacking' to be enjoyable enough for me if I'm playing the right type of character, so I don't have this issue, but I can completely understand why it could be boring.

Yup. I don't, though. While more realistic fighting is nice, for me it's a secondary thing - if the mechanics are fun, then they can be fiddled with to try and more accurately represent melee combat, but eventually it goes from 'fun' to 'no longer enjoyable'.

It helps that I generally prefer the larger-than-life type of combat anyways, with maneuvers like 'jump 15 feet into the air and slash at the giant's face' that would be hindered by more realism-based mechanics.
Fair enough.

In many "story-centric" systems, EVERYTHING is a cardboard background in service to "The Story".
I haven't played a great deal of Fate, but doesn't it have any situational advantage/disadvantage rules? Should be possible to adjudicate cover-effects that way.

(Might want to tone it down if you don't want to start another flame war.)


The strange thing is that the guy who designed TORG with this strange rule had previously designed Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG which also used a "one roll for both attack and damage" system but which handled it very differently. In the DC Heroes RPG, it was basically (I'm oversimplifying here) the case that the amount by which you hit someone would determine how much damage you would do to them. So, if you barely hit someone, you would do a minimal amount of damage (or none if they were really hard to hurt) but if you hit them with a much bigger die roll than you needed, you would do a lot more damage. In other words, it worked exactly like I would want such a system to work.
Yeah, that actually makes a good deal of sense.

Somebody mentioned 'getting XP for failure' as an odd rule, but that's arguably justifiable, insofar as tougher problems tend to be more instructive (and it helps novice PCs to catch up faster.) Standard feature of Dungeon World, for example.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I haven't played a great deal of Fate, but doesn't it have any situational advantage/disadvantage rules? Should be possible to adjudicate cover-effects that way.
Nope! Only Aspects.

[jindra34]

Nope! Only Aspects.

You can iirc make a roll to dive for cover and then gain it as a temporary aspect which will be good for at least 1 roll.

[Cluedrew]

Somebody mentioned 'getting XP for failure' as an odd rule, but that's arguably justifiable, insofar as tougher problems tend to be more instructive (and it helps novice PCs to catch up faster.) Standard feature of Dungeon World, for example.It is completely justifiable, and I am the one who brought it up. There are all sorts of thematic and mechanical reasons to justify it. There are also some counter arguments. I bring it up as an odd, to use your word, not because it doesn't make sense but because it goes against the standard for games. Same thing with the character creation system, it involves no decisions or randomness so all starting characters are identical.


Nope! Only Aspects.I feel like there might be something in the hacking guide (or whatever that second book is called) about that. Mind you I haven't actually read it but it seems like the type of thing that might be included. Still I guess the idea is that if you are playing a character who would duck for cover you give them a Uses the Terrain as an aspect. That is a terrible aspect... Never Fight them Toe-to-Toe that's better.

Systems will skip over things they deem unimportant. My favourite example of that... maybe second favourite. I once play-tested an army based role-playing game where there was no mechanical advantage to being backed up by a squad of 30 men. That one was a work in progress. The other example is that Powered by the Apocalypse has no concept of difficulty. A task is rolled for or it is not.

I think it works because the game takes place at a single power-level. Not sure exactly why. I know it has worked in the Powered by the Apocalypse games I have played.

[Quertus]

Looking at the book I see that both of those are listed as possible variants of the same optional rule on page 86 of the 2e DMG.

I would be very surprised if there are any non optional critical hit rules in 2e, in the players handbook or otherwise.

Yup, found that optional rule when I made it home this morning. I'll have to talk to my group, and see what we were smoking reading when we found the rules I was discussing.

Or maybe I am just going senile... :smallfrown:

EDIT: oh, and, um, aren't we supposed to create sequel thread soon?

[Arbane]

What's really ironic about this is that there's actually an rpg out there designed to simulate cartoons (Toon: The Cartoon Roleplaying Game by SJ Games) and it doesn't have any mechanic for increasing hp, so you're limited to 12 arrows in the chest absolute max

Yeah, but the only lasting effect it has is three minutes in time-out, and when you go to get a drink of water, it'll squirt out of the holes. :smallbiggrin:

[kyoryu]

In Fate, things like cover might well give you no bonus whatsoever unless you spend your own resources (fate points or actions). I know people argue this point sometimes, but to me it's always made the environment feel kind of like a cardboard background.

Cover generally won't provide a bonus, no. Fate doesn't generally give bonuses. Passive opposition, in Fate, basically acts like a floor to your defense - you get the better of your active opposition or any passive opposition.

It could outright say an attack fails if the cover is sufficient that the attack couldn't possibly hit the target.

Your incorrect reading would be a ridiculous rule, if it was actually how the game worked.

[Quertus]

Cover generally won't provide a bonus, no. Fate doesn't generally give bonuses. Passive opposition, in Fate, basically acts like a floor to your defense - you get the better of your active opposition or any passive opposition.

It could outright say an attack fails if the cover is sufficient that the attack couldn't possibly hit the target.

Your incorrect reading would be a ridiculous rule, if it was actually how the game worked.

I dunno, "I'm so good at hiding, it doesn't matter whether I'm hiding in a brightly lit field, or an underground warehouse during a power outage" sounds pretty ridiculous to me. :smalltongue:

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

That has less to do with being ugly and more to do with the fact that all of your important body parts aren't working correctly.

That is one way to look at it. Another is Charisma, which is that had to define quality of likability. The Truth is, unless we're some angry hag that hates everything pretty, we all respond to people who are in good shape - we all do.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I dunno, "I'm so good at hiding, it doesn't matter whether I'm hiding in a brightly lit field, or an underground warehouse during a power outage" sounds pretty ridiculous to me. :smalltongue:

If someone knows how to hide, they can do it anywhere.

US Army sniping school is not about learning how to shoot.

It is learning how to not be spotted.

The skills used for not being noticed outside are not the same as those needed to not be noticed in a crowd, but both can be learned, and taught.

[kyoryu]

I dunno, "I'm so good at hiding, it doesn't matter whether I'm hiding in a brightly lit field, or an underground warehouse during a power outage" sounds pretty ridiculous to me. :smalltongue:

I'm really not sure where you got this or what system you're referring to. It absolutely matters in Fate.

First off, if it just doesn't make sense that you can hide, then you can't hide. Period.

Secondly, let's say that you can hide, it's just really really hard for some reason... let's say +6 for the sake of example. Now, no matter how poorly your opponent rolls, you still have to beat that +6. They could roll -2 and you've still gotta beat the +6 from the passive opposition. And since degree of success matters, the maximum success you can get is lowered.

So, yeah, it matters.

[Quertus]

I'm really not sure where you got this or what system you're referring to. It absolutely matters in Fate.

First off, if it just doesn't make sense that you can hide, then you can't hide. Period.

Secondly, let's say that you can hide, it's just really really hard for some reason... let's say +6 for the sake of example. Now, no matter how poorly your opponent rolls, you still have to beat that +6. They could roll -2 and you've still gotta beat the +6 from the passive opposition. And since degree of success matters, the maximum success you can get is lowered.

So, yeah, it matters.

We're... talking past each other? I'm guessing I'm too tired to make sense.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Cover generally won't provide a bonus, no. Fate doesn't generally give bonuses. Passive opposition, in Fate, basically acts like a floor to your defense - you get the better of your active opposition or any passive opposition.

It could outright say an attack fails if the cover is sufficient that the attack couldn't possibly hit the target.

Your incorrect reading would be a ridiculous rule, if it was actually how the game worked.
How is my reading wrong? I'm attacked, I use the Defend action, and if I don't invoke a "Cover" Aspect I get no advantage despite the fact that I'm just peeking around a corner. Your way of handling it is elegant but unsupported-- I can't find anything in the srd (and have no memory of seeing it in the book) about applying both active and passive opposition to a roll.

[Earthwalker]

How is my reading wrong? I'm attacked, I use the Defend action, and if I don't invoke a "Cover" Aspect I get no advantage despite the fact that I'm just peeking around a corner. Your way of handling it is elegant but unsupported-- I can't find anything in the srd (and have no memory of seeing it in the book) about applying both active and passive opposition to a roll.

I don't think I can provide you with a page number or rule quote I can remember reading something about aspects being true. This might have been on a forum instead of the rules tho.

It seemed to imply what Kyoryu is saying tho.

If you set up an area with zone 1 and 2 and there is cover in between then there is cover and it will effect the dice rolls if people spend fate points or not.

[Segev]

I am not getting sucked back into this. I made my position clear, no one has been or will be able to change the facts that underlie that position -- D&D Hit Points are blatantly dysfunctional, disconnected, disassociated... and ridiculous -- and that's it.

Y'know, for somebody who refuses to get drawn back into it, and who insists that others are refusing to let him have his opinion while they have theirs, you seem AWFULLY determined to declare everybody else wrong for disagreeing with your opinion.

You're allowed an opinion.

You're not allowed to declare your opinion as fact and then sneer and whine when people argue with your declaration of its factual nature.


D&D hit points have been repeatedly demonstrated to be neither dysfunctional, disconnected, nor dissociated. "Ridiculous" is an opinion, but not a well-founded one when you rely on those first three to support it.

The fact that you don't LIKE that each of your "fatal flaws" have been refuted doesn't mean people have failed to do so. The fact that people take umbrage at your declaration that you're right and they're wrong and DARE to refute your points doesn't entitle you to mock them and call their attempts "amusing." Nor does doing so provide any actual weight to your arguments.


If you want to have your opinion be accepted as your opinion and leave it at that, then acknowledge that it's an opinion and stop demanding that everybody kowtow to it as the One True Fact.

If you want to make declarations of what you see as facts, be prepared to defend them and have people refute them. Address the refutations rather than getting condescending and mocking.

"Well, we can use these mathematical proofs and experiments involving shadows to prove that the Earth is NOT, in fact, flat," is not best countered with, "Isn't it amusing to watch how these round-earthers squirm and contrive to find excuses for their theory being blatantly wrong?"

[kyoryu]

There is very clear text in the book saying that aspects can provide passive opposition.

What's less clear is how active and passive opposition interact. It seems ridiculous to think that the passive opposition would just "go away" if you try to actively oppose as well, unless the active opposition were something that made the passive opposition no longer relevant.

And, the book does not say that active opposition makes passive opposition go away. Not to mention, in many, many conversations Evil Hat folks have endorsed this view.

So, given an alternate reading that is at least as consistent with the rules as the "ridiculous" one, solves the problem, and has at least implicit endorsement from the folks at Evil Hat, that would seem to solve the issue... unless, of course, you just didn't like Fate and were looking to "prove" it's bad.

(And, yes, the lack of clarity on this *is* a flaw)

I'm not going to convince you, Grod. I'm really just trying to present an alternate view for those reading.

[Lacuna Caster]

Y'know, for somebody who refuses to get drawn back into it, and who insists that others are refusing to let him have his opinion while they have theirs, you seem AWFULLY determined to declare everybody else wrong for disagreeing with your opinion.
Segev, you're not helping. This is the opposite of helping.

[ATHATH]

Is the HP debate STILL going on?

Come ON, guys, can we just drop it already?!

[Flickerdart]

Is the HP debate STILL going on?

Come ON, guys, can we just drop it already?!

The debate will only stop when it has reached 0 hit points. It would seem it has 1 or more.

[Segev]

The debate will only stop when it has reached 0 hit points. It would seem it has 1 or more.

Well-played.

[Cluedrew]

Well-played.And the closest that debate has been to productive in about 4 pages.


It seems ridiculous to think that the passive opposition would just "go away" if you try to actively oppose as well, unless the active opposition were something that made the passive opposition no longer relevant.Well we are in a thread about ridiculous rules...

[Bohandas]

If someone knows how to hide, they can do it anywhere.

US Army sniping school is not about learning how to shoot.

It is learning how to not be spotted.

The skills used for not being noticed outside are not the same as those needed to not be noticed in a crowd, but both can be learned, and taught.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTQYEkIvN2M#t=00m08s

[Knitifine]

Dragon can fly in antimagic fields.
Non-earth elementals can be wounded by conventional weapons.
Vancian magic.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well-played.
I dunno. I'm definitely reading some wounds...

On the subject of Vanceian casting:

It's also worth noting that super-individuals are more a factor of the leveling system than hitpoints themselves. So the complaint is somewhat misplaced. Especially in later editions of D&D, where HP bloat is a lesser factor to character invincibility than rampant spell use.
Yeah, that too. And yes, you're absolutely right about the feats/flaws/traits/class features/etc. pileup. A game-breaking optimiser's playground, it was.


It is completely justifiable, and I am the one who brought it up. There are all sorts of thematic and mechanical reasons to justify it. There are also some counter arguments. I bring it up as an odd, to use your word, not because it doesn't make sense but because it goes against the standard for games. Same thing with the character creation system, it involves no decisions or randomness so all starting characters are identical.
*shrugs* I'm not arguing. I do remember playing a short one-off game with similarly condensed rules where all characters start off as clones with something like asimov's three laws, only the contents are hidden and have to be invented during play? It's not the same game, is it?

[Quertus]

Dragon can fly in antimagic fields.
Non-earth elementals can be wounded by conventional weapons.
Vancian magic.

I dunno - I mean, my breath seems to need to regenerate after I charge, summing pools need to be refilled after people trample them, and I put out my fire by stabbing it with a sword, doesn't everyone? The elements all respond to violence.

If you're gonna call out dragons (odd that no-one has before), don't forget to call out bumble bees, too. :smalltongue:

[Hamste]

If you're gonna call out dragons (odd that no-one has before), don't forget to call out bumble bees, too. :smalltongue:

How bees fly has not been a mystery for over 10 years at this point. No clue on how dragons fly, probably the same reason why giant insects don't collapse in d&d.

[Theoboldi]

How bees fly has not been a mystery for over 10 years at this point. No clue on how dragons fly, probably the same reason why giant insects don't collapse in d&d.

So, uh, how do they do it? Come on, dude. At least spread the knowledge if you've got it. :smallsmile:

[Max_Killjoy]

How bees fly has not been a mystery for over 10 years at this point.

Frankly, the entire "bees shouldn't be able to fly!" thing was largely a garbage pop-culture canard from the start.


http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

[Hamste]

So, uh, how do they do it? Come on, dude. At least spread the knowledge if you've got it. :smallsmile:

Here is one of the links.

http://www.livescience.com/528-scientists-finally-figure-bees-fly.html

And the link to the abstract of the person who did it.

http://m.pnas.org/content/102/50/18213

Basically, the idea is bees just flutter their wings extremely fast and use a weird down-up stroke method to fly as opposed to the more normal method that most birds use

[Flickerdart]

I dunno. I'm definitely reading some wounds...

Sadly, wounds don't affect the effectiveness of the debate.

[Kurald Galain]

Dragon can fly in antimagic fields.

Square-cube law doesn't seem to hold in quite a lot of fictional universes. That's ok though, it took us IRL several centuries to figure it out, so it's not ridiculous per se to have huge flying creatures. Mythology is rife with rocs, flying horses, and so forth.

[Bohandas]

*shrugs* I'm not arguing. I do remember playing a short one-off game with similarly condensed rules where all characters start off as clones with something like asimov's three laws, only the contents are hidden and have to be invented during play? It's not the same game, is it?

You may be thinking of the game Paranoia. It doesn't 100% maych your description but it has clones and secret rules.

[Arctanaar]

If you're gonna call out dragons (odd that no-one has before), don't forget to call out bumble bees, too. :smalltongue:

Why should one call out bumblebees, again?

Edit: nevermind, didn't notice other people pointing the problem out.

[Kurald Galain]

*shrugs* I'm not arguing. I do remember playing a short one-off game with similarly condensed rules where all characters start off as clones with something like asimov's three laws, only the contents are hidden and have to be invented during play? It's not the same game, is it?

Yes. The three laws are (1) Stay Alert! (2) Trust Noone! (3) Keep Your Laser Handy. (4) Praise The Computer, The Computer Is Your Friend. (5) Insinuations that The Computer cannot count are treason. (6) This law is above your security clearance.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yes. The three laws are (1) Stay Alert! (2) Trust Noone! (3) Keep Your Laser Handy. (4) Praise The Computer, The Computer Is Your Friend. (5) Insinuations that The Computer cannot count are treason. (6) This law is above your security clearance.
That's hilarious... but I don't think it was paranoia. Like Cluedrew described it, all the rules fit on an index card and we didn't have an explicit mission or personal agendas. It was more a 'what are 3 things that clones can do?' question, and you'd invent answers during the session. (I think I might have been the one who wound up inserting Asimov.)

[Tough Butter]

In GURPS supers, having super speed does not increase the amount of attacks you can do per round, nor the force of the attack.

Also a turn in GURPS is one second long. I don't play with that rule. Turns in my games are 6 seconds long.

[Arbane]

In GURPS supers, having super speed does not increase the amount of attacks you can do per round, nor the force of the attack.

Most superhero games do it like that, to keep superspeedsters form insta-winning all fights.



Also a turn in GURPS is one second long. I don't play with that rule. Turns in my games are 6 seconds long.

This isn't the "most ridiculous houserules" thread. (It takes six seconds to fire a pistol once?)

Oh, on that note, AD&D combat turns being a minute long. This kinda works for melee combat (which is presumed to involve a LOT of attacks, most of which don't connect), but starts looking extremely weird when you consider archery. Those elves must REALLY take their time aiming...

[Max_Killjoy]

Most superhero games do it like that, to keep superspeedsters form insta-winning all fights.


Indeed -- in HERO/Champions, you'd need to spend points separately for the movement velocity, the actual actions SPEED characteristic, and the extra hitting power.




This isn't the "most ridiculous houserules" thread. (It takes six seconds to fire a pistol once?)

Oh, on that note, AD&D combat turns being a minute long. This kinda works for melee combat (which is presumed to involve a LOT of attacks, most of which don't connect), but starts looking extremely weird when you consider archery. Those elves must REALLY take their time aiming...


I find it ridiculous even for melee combat.

[Segev]

On a completely different track, points-based systems often have badly-designed point-exploders. Sometimes even when they're trying hard not to.

In BESM 3e, the Companion attribute gets you a number of minions that get 100 CP+10 per CP of your own you spend "per level" of the attribute...and you get a quadratically increasing number of minions with each level. Now, they have to be identical, but that's a huge point-explosion.

You can combine this with the ability to have powers that you can only grant to other people. Which would then allow you to have your point-exploded Companions grant you powers that their CP bought.


It's more cheese, I suppose, than "ridiculous rules," but it is a kind-of ridiculous interaction.

[Quertus]

3e D&D Savage Species had rules for playing a level 1 baby ogre or baby troll, which is fine. But it also has rules for playing a baby Illithid... when those are "born" full-grown.


In GURPS supers, having super speed does not increase the amount of attacks you can do per round, nor the force of the attack.

I don't know about GURPS, but Mutants & Masterminds doesn't even have an option for extra attacks. So, when you compare their superhero speedster to characters from other systems that do have mechanics for multiple attacks, they feel positively... slow.


Also a turn in GURPS is one second long. I don't play with that rule. Turns in my games are 6 seconds long.


Oh, on that note, AD&D combat turns being a minute long. This kinda works for melee combat (which is presumed to involve a LOT of attacks, most of which don't connect), but starts looking extremely weird when you consider archery. Those elves must REALLY take their time aiming...

I remember test firing bows, sling shots, darts, heck, even pistols & rifles, just to try to get a handle on the rate of fire mechanics in D&D & other RPGs.

[Friv]

On a completely different track, points-based systems often have badly-designed point-exploders. Sometimes even when they're trying hard not to.

In BESM 3e, the Companion attribute gets you a number of minions that get 100 CP+10 per CP of your own you spend "per level" of the attribute...and you get a quadratically increasing number of minions with each level. Now, they have to be identical, but that's a huge point-explosion.

You can combine this with the ability to have powers that you can only grant to other people. Which would then allow you to have your point-exploded Companions grant you powers that their CP bought.


It's more cheese, I suppose, than "ridiculous rules," but it is a kind-of ridiculous interaction.

I think my favorite version of that is the Angel Summoner, a PL10 Mutants & Masterminds character. As a standard action, he can summon 250,000 angels, each of which is fanatically loyal, heroic, and can act with minimal direction. Each angel technically has its own character sheet and powers. Also they all have 180 CP, more than a player character, and the angels can have ranged protection powers to keep the summoner safe.

This costs 100 of the Angel Summoner's 150 CP, so he has another 50 CP for Abilities, Skills, and personal defenses.

[The Glyphstone]

I think my favorite version of that is the Angel Summoner, a PL10 Mutants & Masterminds character. As a standard action, he can summon 250,000 angels, each of which is fanatically loyal, heroic, and can act with minimal direction. Each angel technically has its own character sheet and powers. Also they all have 180 CP, more than a player character, and the angels can have ranged protection powers to keep the summoner safe.

This costs 100 of the Angel Summoner's 150 CP, so he has another 50 CP for Abilities, Skills, and personal defenses.

Did someone also make M&M stats for BMX Bandit?

[Batou1976]

I seem to remember FATAL being mentioned way back in the antiquity of this thread. That game is kinda low-hanging fruit for this topic, but anyway... I don't think there's a single rule in that misbegotten frog-bortion of a game that isn't ridiculous. Can't be 100% sure, though, since I just wasn't able to read more than maybe 10 pages of it before my INT and WIS were both damaged down to 0. :smalleek:

Then there's World of Synnibar- you don't simply pick what class you're going to play. Instead, after generating ability scores, you roll 3 times to determine which 3 classes you can choose from. Since most of them have (usually fairly stiff) ability score requirements, it is entirely possible to not qualify for any of those 3. :smallconfused:

[Jormengand]

I seem to remember FATAL being mentioned way back in the antiquity of this thread. That game is kinda low-hanging fruit for this topic, but anyway... I don't think there's a single rule in that misbegotten frog-bortion of a game that isn't ridiculous. Can't be 100% sure, though, since I just wasn't able to read more than maybe 10 pages of it before my INT and WIS were both damaged down to 0. :smalleek:

To put this into perspective, earlier in this thread, Racial Holy War was discussed. You can guess what it's about from the title. I managed not only to read the whole thing, but salvage the workable game elements into a system that actually does something.

I tried to do the same with FATAL. The game floored me after the first few pages. Maybe, maybe it's technically possible to salvage bits of it. I don't know.

[jindra34]

I just realized that the Underwater enhancement from GURPS 4e fits here: Namely it says that an ATTACK without it (bought as an advantage at least) CAN'T function underwater. Poke of Doom? Nope. Purely mental onslaught? Nope. Tearing apart the universe at its seems? NOPE!

[Quertus]

I think my favorite version of that is the Angel Summoner, a PL10 Mutants & Masterminds character. As a standard action, he can summon 250,000 angels, each of which is fanatically loyal, heroic, and can act with minimal direction. Each angel technically has its own character sheet and powers. Also they all have 180 CP, more than a player character, and the angels can have ranged protection powers to keep the summoner safe.

This costs 100 of the Angel Summoner's 150 CP, so he has another 50 CP for Abilities, Skills, and personal defenses.

As I remember the edition of M&M I own, that build fails several times over.

First, at PL 10, you can only have a rank 10 power. Summoning a 180-or angel is a rank 12 power (unless said angel has a power above rank 12, in which case it is a rank x power, where x is the rank of the angel's highest ranked power).

Second, you may only take the advantage which lets you summon multiple creatures a number of times equal to your power level. Summoning 250,000 creatures would require taking it 16 times.

So, at best, a PL 10 character should only be able to summon 2,500 150-point heroic fanatic angels as a free action. Totally different.

EDIT: my minion maximization build in that system involved having my character self-duplicate, then each of the (using PL 10) 2,500 copies would summon 2,500 creatures (for 6,250,000 summoned creatures).

[Batou1976]

I tried to do the same with FATAL. The game floored me after the first few pages. Maybe, maybe it's technically possible to salvage bits of it. I don't know.

Perhaps.... but why would you want to? :smallconfused: Seems like a lot of work that's akin to harvesting undigested peanuts out of the toilet. :smalleek:

[Jormengand]

Perhaps.... but why would you want to? :smallconfused:

I've actually started attempting this monster project once more, and it's... not as bad as you'd think. Like, it has things like the author understanding (roughly; the explanation isn't perfect) the difference between gender and sex; he has a good enough understanding of what a role-playing game actually is too. The gender differences aren't as egregious as I've heard them described (if you want to play a spellcaster, you might actually be better off as female) and all of the age and gender differences are backed up with references that you could at least be forgiven for thinking were legitimate, because I'm still not certain they aren't. It's not great, but it's not as bad as you might think. Sure, there are stupid things like Anakim having a 1% chance to have a trait which causes them to try to kill themselves if they look at a mirror, but most of it's not that terrible.

Then again, this is coming from the person who turned RaHoWa into a playable system, so take it for what it is. :smalltongue:

[Knitifine]

Square-cube law doesn't seem to hold in quite a lot of fictional universes. That's ok though, it took us IRL several centuries to figure it out, so it's not ridiculous per se to have huge flying creatures. Mythology is rife with rocs, flying horses, and so forth.The square cube law is why dragon's shouldn't be able to move. The laws of aerodynamics are why they shouldn't be able to fly.

[Kurald Galain]

The square cube law is why dragon's shouldn't be able to move. The laws of aerodynamics are why they shouldn't be able to fly.

Aerodynamics doesn't seem to hold in quite a lot of fictional universes. That's ok though, it took us IRL several centuries to figure it out, so it's not ridiculous per se to have huge flying creatures. Mythology is rife with rocs, flying horses, and so forth.

[Segev]

To be fair, one CAN construct dragons that are less egregiously breaking physics. In Flight of Dragons (and presumably the novel upon which it was based, though I've never gotten around to hunting it down to read), the dragons actually consume materials that let them produce a build-up of hydrogen in their stomachs. This makes them lighter than air, and their wings are mostly just to steer and propel them. They have a sort of spark-plug organ in their mouth which ignites the hydrogen on the way out, creating their infamous fiery breath.

And then there's the fact that, with sufficient thrust, anything can fly.

And maybe both the atmosphere and most creatures are both just a lot denser in fantasy settings, so dragons are actually buoyant. It would explain why dragon scales and bones are said to be such amazingly light materials, especially considering their strength.

[Amaril]

Would it work to have dragons that were anatomically more like pterosaurs? I don't know, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch from how they're usually portrayed.

[Friv]

Did someone also make M&M stats for BMX Bandit?

Someone did (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35459), although notably they statted both Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit as PL 6, rather than PL 10. So this version could "only" summon 50 PL 6 angels, rather than 250,000. You could always reduce the size of his headquarters to get the angels up to a few hundred, though.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, one CAN construct dragons that are less egregiously breaking physics.

Yes. In numerous settings they're quite a bit smaller; or thaumivoric; or Bygone (as in, they used to be able to fly back when people still believed they could); and then there's Pratchett's infamous swamp dragon :smallbiggrin:

Speaking of which, I remember a lengthy flamewar back at the ElfQuest forums on whether the huge (roc-like) birds in that comic should be able to fly or not. It's not easy on the catgirls!