Power Interpretation Debate

So since Saturday been constantly debating this point. I don’t wanna be proven right and get my way if an official elaborates it how everyone else do I guess I’ll have to resign my opinion. Saturday I was playing Unity and wanted to use Metal and Creativity to attack a Spider Bot and slam some metal in it to kill it but my GM vetoed that and made me use a d4 cuz Unity doesn’t have Ranged Combat as a quality… In my opinion, if I can visualize how the powers work I could logically use any quality and power to be as creative as I can and feel her only having to attack with bots or lightning as somewhat limiting and control freaking. I think she could logically attack using nearby metal. I think as others and my GM interprets it then any character who doesn’t use their superpower to attack will always be forced to use a D4 and never be able to use their other powers and qualities to attack in diffrent styles and manners then normal. I think just cuz the hero isn’t using their powers in the ‘standard’ method they have to use a D4.    

Since Qualities and Powers are pretty broad reaching, I think the key to justifying the use of them is explaining how it works. 

"I imagine the shards of metal slamming into the spider-bot, and then 'woosh' they do." 

Against bots it'd be easier to justify "Metal + Technology" with "knowing what I know about robots, I have the shards of metal slam into a crucial actuator joint." 

Or if she's zapping people with electricity (like Brainstorm), I might say "I draw the power out of the city grid to zap the bad guy" (Tech+Electricity)  Or "I mentally generate a lightning bolt to zap the bad guy" (Creativity + Electricity). There's probably a good Science + Electricity explanation for zapping someone too, 

That’s a good way to do what I wanted. I just feel people are dismissing my idea based solely on lack of a quality then trying to interpret it using what qualities I have isn’t that what the system is going for?

You are in the right. As long as you can justify it in a cool comic book way. Thats what I grrl this is. Storytelling, and overall “that sounds awesome”. It seems that your DM is trying a little to be numbers and details. WHo cares if you’re not 5 feet away. Or if you’re not in perfect hiding. It needs to be aethetcally ool. 

I would say that's half right.

You: "I want to throw metal shards at the spider bot using Metal and Technology."

GM: "Metal I understand, but how does your knowledge of Technology apply?"

You need to answer that question yourself.  The GM can help, but ultimately the player is responsible for explaining how their powers and qualities apply to what they're trying to do.

The OP mentioned using Metal and Creativity (rather than Metal and Technology), but the same issue applies.  Flinging a shard of metal at a target doesn't particularly represent a manifestation of either Creativity or Technology.

The word "creativity" implies using abilities in a novel or unorthodox manner, something new or beyond the norm.  Simply throwing metal shards at something-- even sharpened ones-- isn't either novel or unorthodox.  Nor does it represent any particular level of technology, beyond that of a sharpened shard.

A potential Creativity + Metal attack could easily exist, perhaps as something like,  "I'm going to take those two pieces of sheet metal and tekekinetically snap them shut around the creature like a bear trap" or "I'm going to swing that giant wrecking ball around like a flail and slam it into the creature."  But as it's described above, I'd probably rule the same as your GM: Metal + Ranged Combat (or Thrown Weapons, or Telekinesis, or some other attacking power/quality).

The case can surely be made for "Describe cool things, and then find dice for them," but what's being described in the original post seems more to be along the lines of "I want to use my best dice, regardless of whether they apply to what I want to do."  Not accusing or judging, here--there are surely ways to use the combo described above, but doing so seems like it should take more than "I throw metal at it. "

Isn't that just common sense try and think of an in-game way to use your best dice in a basic action?

Mechanically speaking? Yeah, probably.  

But if you're in the game to roll the same 3 dice every time because they're your best 3, what kind of roleplaying are you actually doing?

I don't pick same dice but if I have no opinion on themathically how I'm doing x I pick best dice then just think how it works rp wise.

Not everyone RPGing is there to tell a story. I know more than a few for whom RPGs are tatical sims. Even narrative-focused games. There are many different approaches to “roleplay” - and a surprisingly large number don’t involve being in Actor stance.

I do both...? 

And that’s fine, provided that your group (including your GM) is on the same page.  There’s room enough for all types of rp out there.  I might question what kind of enjoyment a tactical, ‘crunch-focused’ gamer might get out of playing a game so heavily focused on narrative and story over mechanics, but there are a lot of types of enjoyment, so it may be something else entirely.

It definitely sounds like the GM in question wants a more finite justification in-game for the mechanical choices being made out-of-game, which seems to imply that they’re looking for a more narrativist approach–“Describe what you’re doing, and I’ll find a way to replicate that in dice.”  However, the disconnect seems to be difference in interpretation, stemming from the ultimate effect being produced.  The GM (and, frankly, myself) are probably looking at it like, “You’re controlling Metal, and using it as a projectile attack.  That’s Metal + Ranged Combat.”  I won’t speak further for that GM, but for myself, you’d probably have to come up with some more unorthodox or unexpected in order to use Creativity in place of Ranged Combat, such as the examples I provided above, if you were trying to convince me into using that dice pool.  It’s obviously possible to use that combo, just maybe not as a simple “shoot it with metal spikes” attack.  

FTR, this is really only a problem when playing a pregen with a limited subset of the rules available. The full description of the standard Qualities (like Creativity) should explain just what Creativity covers. 

Qualities sort of seem like Aspects from Fate and require agreement as to when it applies. I might think that "Private Investigator" covers punching because PIs get in lots of fights. The GM might say "no, you need a separate skill for that" and we'd hash it out during character creation. 

As long as the narative fits the dice I'm fine with it. However if you have a quality or power that is a bit of a stretch, I think it is on the player to stretch it to fit.

Creativity + Metal had better involve creativity and metal. IMHO tossing shards at bots isn't really creative. Having the robots become hyper magnatized which makes them pull in metal from all around that will slam into them (including over nearby robots) does seem more creative.

I view the creative keyword is awesome because it is almost a catch all, but I feel that it must have a bad side or else you might as well not have any other quality. I figure that in game the player will be forced to think of new and creative ways to attack after a time. After a while an idea moves from creative to standard, how long does that take, I don't know, but I think the burden is on the player to keep chaning it up, so the GM doesn't have contemplate it.

If you don't want to be burdened with coming up with creative new ways to use your powers, swap it with ranged attack.

Another great example of how you can make Metal + Creativity more interesting than simply “throw shards of sharp metal”.  You speak my mind.

I agree with parts of this. If Anubis was making Unity in character creation, he’d probably want to give her ranged combat as a quality, but she’s already finished and doesn’t have that, and that’s where the problems arise. If possible (and if it’s not too late), try talking to your gm about retconning one of her qualities into ranged combat, maybe banter or creativity.

Okay so my idea isn't creative I don't think wrapping a spider bot in a cocoon of metal and crushing it by shrinking is creative either (hell sounds way too graphic for SC verse anyway and especially not how Unity would attack even if she did use metal to attack with)

I would say that yes, technically Unity is a technomancer, so she has the ability to telekinetically deconstruct metal and bend it to her will. However, as a GM, I would probably steer you away from launching metal shards at things because it doesn't fit her character.  Unity has honed her ability to have the precision to assemble highly functional robots that help her get things done.  While she may have the psychic ability to hurl metal at things, Unity as a character would look down on such a blunt solution. I think her affinity for her robots makes it more likely that she would construct a scorpion bot with a large stinger that could shoot it at her enemies.  Or even better, a porcupine!  Not nearly as efficient, but that is who she is. 

When I think metal + creativity, I think of constructing an earthworm bot that can fold itself into a key to unlock a door.  Again, not as efficient, but Unity will always make a bot to do a thing rather than do it herself.  

Which is largely how my players played her, too. One built a gun turret robot, and expended a boost bot and a personal boost to get a d12 minion walking cannon.

This thread is a good example of a problem I described in another thread, one that should be solved by the character creation rules. Everyone has different ideas of how even these iconic characters operate, problems are bound to arise between GM’s and players.

However character creation should alleviate this by unifying the character’s vision,.Of course they should work out there most comon expected actions with the GM before the first session.

I'd like to add some things as well;

1) The question comes down to what counts as 'creative'. The game would allow a character to use their 'creative' quality for any action that is 'creative'. However, the ultimate qualifier for whether or not the action is 'creative' comes from the GM. The game might include descriptions in the full release for people who prefer a concrete definition or basis, but it wouldn't change the fact that the GM is the arbitor for it.
2) Picking the GM and RPG group that is right for you should always be a concern, but on the GM's side of things, they should probably not say "no" to their players, and instead say "yes/no, and..." In this sense, the GM made a mistake not allowing 'creative' to work for the action.(because they should've given alternative options, penalties, or explanations for the action. But GMs aren't immune to making mistakes)
3) From there, the question becomes "how important is this to me that this works?" Many people would laugh at the idea that you are complaining about 'making a worse attack', when the GM presumably took much more time and/or thought to run the scenario. But a significant difference, one that might mean the difference between a close success and horrible failure, might be one a player should confront the GM about.(I know there have been a few times in my RPG sessions where I felt the GM ruled 'stupidly', and it ruined the session.)
4) Which comes to the final point; what is the statistical difference between rolling a d4 and a d10 in that scenario, and this system in general? The answer is actually not much. I could do the math, but it should be clear that with the extra dice messing with the average, the difference is less than +3 to the roll. That, combined with the fact that getting a TPK(total party kill) probably didn't hinge on the roll, meant that letting it slide is probably the more mature and fun way to continue the game.

TL;DR The GM probably could've ruled in a way that was more fun for you and the group, but it might be more fun to just roll with the lower rolls. And when you do have a situation that is more serious, make sure to be clear to the GM when you aren't having fun with the way they are GM-ing, and hopefully they can show they deserve your time by making a responsible decision so that everyone can have fun.



  

All that boring stuff about enjoying the game aside(see previous post)...

What is a 'creative' attack?
google def. "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work"

almost all of Unity's abilities come from her imagination(though a copy of something else she saw 'might' not count). However, original attacks are hard to come by, since almost everything has been done before. That said, if it hasn't been done often, or recently, maybe 'creative' could count.

examples might be;
->attacking them with halberds/blowdarts(haven't been used in a while)
->firing the metal shards in giant constructed railgun(hasn't been done often)
->Focusing the metal shards into needles, fired from a porcupine at high speeds(artistic work)


As such, since they were just fired, and not formed into anything artistic, rarely seen, or used in the far past, hard to give it a pass on being a 'creative' attack. But in case this comes up in the future, describe the various shapes you want to form the metal shards into. Hard for the GM to not allow creative when you are firing animal shaped metal shards, each with a different animal, into a mosaic of carnage in the shape of a flower blossom.
Just sayin.