Fantasy HERO reflections

[jml]

I'm up to page 274 of FH, and it's a rollicking good read. I'm new to the HERO system, preparing to GM a campaign that I'm developing over the net with a mate from Israel, who's an old hand with HERO. FH is giving me lots of answers and filling my head with the right sort of questions. e.g. Are there any restrictions of effect for mages who follow the Metal principle, or is it merely a category of special effect?

On a side note, as I was browsing through the example magic systems I came across one that demanded spell preparation, defined casting in terms of spells per day, had powerful spells and gave names like "Hannister's Spell of Excellent Transport".

It's called Vansarjak, from the land of Dyngereth.

Nice one guys.

jml

[tkdguy]

I'm glad you like the system, and that FH is giving you lots of ideas. Welcome to the boards, btw.

[L. Marcus]

Yay! More people!

[AlHazred]

Regarding "Vansarjak": Steve Long's a fan of Jack Vance (obviously). I think, with the presentation of the Fantasy Hero book and that magic system, it would be easy to run a Vancian game. I've often toyed with statting out some of his other spells; has anyone tried this?

[jml]

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason for not being a fan of Vance's is that you haven't read his books yet. And that is not a good enough reason. :)

Although it would be fun to directly write up Vance's spells, I think it would be easier to use existing versions of D&D spells. After all, there's little difference between the "Spell of Forlorn Encystment" and "Imprisonment".

[Steve Long]

Glad to hear you're enjoying the book!

Yes, there's no question that I'm a Jack Vance fan. Besides Vansarjak, witness the large row of Vance books on my bookshelf, and my subscription to the Vance Integral Edition. ;)

Are there any restrictions of effect for mages who follow the Metal principle, or is it merely a category of special effect?

That depends largely on how far you (or your GM) are willing to stretch the concept of "special effect." For example, from my perspective, I'd find it difficult (at best) for a Metal mage to justify buying Flight. OTOH, some players might argue that a Metal mage could buy Flight defined as "metalokinetically moving a disk of metal that I'm standing on" or "conjuring a flying metal chariot out of scrap iron." And some GMs might agree with 'em.

To give another example, I once had a character with Light powers try to justify buying Healing by claiming that he could "transform the injured person into pure light, replace the "injured" part of his body with more light, and then transform him back." I didn't allow that, because I thought it did violence to the concept of "Light" as a special effect.

IMO, if you let people stretch the concept of "special effects" too far, they become virtually meaningless, since any character can do anything. OTOH, if you restrict the concept too much, you run the risk of cutting off reasonable and clever ideas that players have. It's a balancing act, and each GM has to decide for himself and his campaign where the answers lie.

Or, in terms Vancian, "The situation is not altogether so clear as it might first seem." ;)