General Rules Issues

[Netzilla]

I'm not sure that realism should be the baseline. In real life, people die very easily, and particularly in realistic futures, individual persons would be able to do very little that robots and computers can't do vastly better. In role-playing games, players like to play characters that make things happen and can survive when the going gets tough. This isn't realistic, but I think it is a better baseline for an rpg than 'realism'.

On this I whole-heartedly agree. I get enough reality in my day-to-day life and turn to gaming as a form of escapism. Also, as evidenced by this and every other gaming board/mailing list I've ever read, not everyone agrees on what is "realistic". Partly, this is because reality is so very complex that there's no way for a game to truly model reality and still be playable (thus I feel modeling it is an impossible goal). Besides, most of the time, when I see gamers use the word "realistic" what they actually mean is "gritty" (which I'm not saying Phil F. is doing here).

Now, an argument can be made for where the "baseline" of the Hero System should be set. Should it work from the baseline of Marvel/DC style comic books (as it has in the past), should it work more from Pulp-style assumptions or should it work for more of a Hollywood Action Movie style? That's pretty debatable. However, it may be that Steve Long should base his assumptions around what genres have sold best for 5th Edition (Champions and Fantasy IIRC). Now, from that he can decide if he wants to reinforce Hero's strengths in those areas or he can try to determine what it is about the system that caused the other lines to not be as strong and then try to shore up those weaknesses. I'm not sure which is the better route to take, but I somewhat lean toward the latter. Basically, what systematic changes would it take to make Hero a more popular choice for Sci-Fi, Martial Arts, Horror, etc?

[Tonio]

Nitpick: If you're referring to the movie, he doesn't reverse the earth's rotation; he starts moving backwards in time and thus perceives the earth as rotating backwards.

Is THAT what happened?? Is this your conclusion, or did you read this somewhere official? Makes much more sense, of course, but I always assumed what had happened was the reversing of the Earth's rotation. Wasn't Lois (and weren't others) aware of the change, too? I sorta remember them confused, remembering what had happened and wondering how it had been undone. My memory usually sucks, though. =/

[AnotherSkip]

Actually there is a Directors cut of Superman that makes much more sense than that hacked up original release.

youtube has it IIRC.

http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=57928

this thread for a "competitor" group has the relevant links and info.

Have fun

[CTaylor]

If you're referring to the movie, he doesn't reverse the earth's rotation; he starts moving backwards in time and thus perceives the earth as rotating backwards.

Correct, but it was handled poorly and a lot of people got really confused because of it. Overall the original Superman movie was pretty well done.

[PhilFleischmann]

Aye, there's the rub. Should a game strive for realism or for genre conventions as the basis? In a single-genre game, the latter is the obvious choice; things are a bit more complicated for a generic game.

That wouldn't produce a single-genre game, but a single *setting* game, i.e., one particular interpretation of a particular genre. That's the problem with genre conventions: they aren't always conventional. They change within a single genre. You can even find different levels of realism between different interpretations of the same exact characters/story. Superman, for example, does not maintain the same level of realism/cinematicness between different authors.

I'm not sure that realism should be the baseline. In real life, people die very easily, and particularly in realistic futures, individual persons would be able to do very little that robots and computers can't do vastly better.

There's a perfect example. It's your particular interpretation of "future world genre conventions," which is fine, but it isn't necessarily so for all future-setting games.

[AnotherSkip]

Not to mention that there's no such thing as "con stun."

Actually there should be because hero is that flexible, for example:

Inflict the Weakness of the Lesser Mind:
4d6 major transform inflicts weakness on target: character is stunned if he takes more Stun than he has Ego, character is stunned twice as long if the stun taken exceeds both Ego and Con. 20 Point Physical Limitation.

now you can "Ego Stun" a characer!

Therefore the difference is important.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Inflict the Weakness of the Lesser Mind:
4d6 major transform inflicts weakness on target: character is stunned if he takes more Stun than he has Ego, character is stunned twice as long if the stun taken exceeds both Ego and Con. 20 Point Physical Limitation.

now you can "Ego Stun" a characer!

It could actually be a nice optional rule that mental attacks stun targets when Stun taken exceeds target's EGO. In the source material, it is usually the strong-willed, not the physically strong, that best resist mental attacks.

- Klaus

[SteveZilla]

I like that idea. I might try it out in a game. My only concern is that it could make Mentalists, who are already usually quite effective, even more so.

[Chris Goodwin]

It could actually be a nice optional rule that mental attacks stun targets when Stun taken exceeds target's EGO. In the source material, it is usually the strong-willed, not the physically strong, that best resist mental attacks.

I like that idea. I might try it out in a game. My only concern is that it could make Mentalists, who are already usually quite effective, even more so.

How about an Advantage? EGO and CON have the same cost but CON tends to be higher; I'd say +1/2 would do it.

[CTaylor]

I'd say +1/4 at most, and for a primarily mentalist campaign, by default without buying the advantage.

[BobGreenwade]

I'd say +1/4 at most, and for a primarily mentalist campaign, by default without buying the advantage.

I agree with the +1/4 level. I think "Checks EGO For Stunning" as a +1/4 Advantage would be a good Advantage for Mental Powers, specifically Ego Attack, Mental Illusions (with damage done by MI-generated attacks), and Attack Powers bought BOECV. Even if it doesn't go into the new 6th Ed rulebook, it could go into whatever is done for 6th Ed as a mental powers book.

[SteveZilla]

It's too bad something like it didn't make it into The Ultimate Mentalist (AFAIK).

[Chris Goodwin]

I agree with the +1/4 level. I think "Checks EGO For Stunning" as a +1/4 Advantage would be a good Advantage for Mental Powers, specifically Ego Attack, Mental Illusions (with damage done by MI-generated attacks), and Attack Powers bought BOECV. Even if it doesn't go into the new 6th Ed rulebook, it could go into whatever is done for 6th Ed as a mental powers book.

It also, by extension, leads to things like "Checks INT For Stunning" and "Checks ___ For Stunning." Which is, IMO, a good thing.

[SteveZilla]

It also, by extension, leads to things like "Checks INT For Stunning" and "Checks ___ For Stunning." Which is, IMO, a good thing.

Checks COM for Stunning?

I think it should be restricted to Primary Characteristics to avoid things like Checks STUN for Stunning -- which leads to issues about current value or starting value. And Checks PD for Stunning -- is it their base PD, i.e., just the Stat? If so, I've seen many, many characters that would be stunned by just 8 points of effect.

[James Gillen]

Checks COM for Stunning?

"MAN, I'm pretty!"