Jump to content

Doc Democracy

HERO Member
  • Content count

    5,106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Doc Democracy

  • Rank
    Freedom Fighter
  • Birthday 11/15/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

1,482 profile views
  1. Doc Democracy

    New Power: Quasi Solid

    I will need to think about the costing. I get the scaling difference but now wondering why you are suggesting additional KB. If the dispersed character is “spongier” or “dislocated” that allows him to squeeze through spaces, wouldn’t he be less likely to get knocked back? Essentially it all comes down to costing and I haven’t had time to crunch any numbers. Doc
  2. Doc Democracy

    New Power: Quasi Solid

    I wonder if you are deliberately breaking the square-cube law as you reduce size and mass by the same proportions. Isometric scaling happens when proportional relationships are preserved as size changes during growth or over evolutionary time and is governed by the square-cube law. An organism which doubles in length isometrically will find that the surface area available to it will increase fourfold, while its volume and mass will increase by a factor of eight. Why do you think a new power is needed? Could you not accomplish by buying a limited Shrinking alongside a linked Damage Negation. Really all that you are doing is adding the reduction of damage to the shrinking and removing the DCV and PER bonuses of Shrinking.
  3. This is gold for long campaigns. If the players are reliable then you can, at the time of the pointless death, have the player make a roll. It is meaningless but it allows you the opportunity to pass a note. Tell the player that they are, by the dice, dead. They can decide to die right here, ignominiously, and roll up/design another character, or they can use that roll to spot a magical mushroom that heals them, on the agreement that there will be a dramatic moment in this or the next session where they will achieve something huge but die in the achievement. That moment will be down to the GM but the player can, if they spot an opportunity, suggest a heroic action to the GM, knowing that this will be their last moment in the campaign. Eventually your players will know this is something you do and there will be no need for subterfuge, but this allows a few WOW moments before it becomes a feature of the campaign. Doc
  4. Doc Democracy

    Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

    Dunno about Canada but in the UK there is no job description for being an MP. Each Member decides what is needed in a particular constituency. Having thought a lot about it, I think that is a practical situation for one of the most unusual ways of making a living. As I said, there are too many things to become informed on, so Members will seek sources they trust. If we, the electorate allow it, that source, most often will be their party and they will follow the party whip on all policies except for those they have a particular interest in. I think that Members often refer questions for information on an issue to a Minister because it is a way to engage the resources of the civil service. It also ties the Government to a position. I can understand why Members do this (especially having seen the size of their mailbags). I think that Members are sometimes less sensitive to whether you are asking for information or asking for their opinion. Doc
  5. Doc Democracy

    Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

    It is a rubbish job and, in the UK, a pretty intense one. They are expected to be informed about everything which is obviously impossible. They also get huge numbers of people coming to them with all kinds of requests. The key part of their job seems, to me, to consist of deciding which issues they want to become informed about. They CAN become informed about anything they want, they CAN choose to believe whichever information source satisfies or suits them to believe. In many cases they choose sources that are politically convenient rather than spending time becoming informed as many issues will not interest them personally. Well, that might be describing our behaviour and politicians behavioural response to that behaviour. It is not yet the system we operate under. The UK definitely elects a person rather than a party as shown by the lack of any requirement for an MP to seek re-election if they choose to change party. For most OST things I blame the press rather than MPs for many things, the way they are reported drives a lot of their behaviour. Doc
  6. Doc Democracy

    Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

    I just thought I would weigh in here. I am not going to argue that the UK tax system should be simpler but I disagree that complexity essentially renders a subject incapable of democratic oversight. It is not just tax that is complex, general economic theory, social science, real science, diplomacy, everything gets complicated. As such you have your experts informed commentators and interested commentators. Everyone is seeking to influence Government policy. Ministers in the UK set policy direction. They do so with the advice of career civil servants and politically appointed advisors, each of these will be producing extensive briefing designed to inform the Minister. The Opposition has its own advisors but no access to the civil service. Parliament has its research Library and the select committees that allow it to scrutinise Government policy in a more detailed fashion than any individual MP might manage. These Committees have the power to send for people and papers as part of their inquiries. I think that there is indeed a decently supported system of scrutiny that allows MPs to properly engage with the most complex of subjects, if they want to. It is indeed democratic to expect any one of us to be able to stand for election and subsequently engage with any topic necessary in scrutinising government or passing legislation. The desire to do so harks back to the political structure of our political parties and is thus more of an issue of culture than ability. Doc
  7. You have some good advice there. If I was to add anything it would be to find ways for heroic actions to succeed. If the players try to do something heroic and the dice don’t quite make it work then find a way to say that the action worked BUT... and then come up with a downside. For example, the hero wants to use his power to distract the villains long enough for a hostage to break clear. The dice don’t work out, so instead of just saying it doesn’t work, you say it does work but the hero has not just distracted the villains, he has drawn their attention to him, along with several others. He has saved the hostage but left himself in a perilous position... Doc
  8. Doc Democracy

    Walking Autofire Attacks to the Target

    I think I remember that. In my head you could autofire to hit multiple times or you could take +4 to hit once... must be way way back in the first edition with a colour cover...
  9. I really enjoyed running a one-off FFG Star Wars (Edge of Empire flavoured). It ran pretty well, I coped with the strange dice but LOVED the destiny mechanic (which delivers cinematic/heroic action rather than a SF feel). I think I will import that to the next Champions game I run. Doc
  10. Doc Democracy

    Beginning

    I have a script and a slideshow. Just need to record and post it. Then others can do it better... 🙂
  11. Doc Democracy

    Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

    They were not really parties as they are recognised today, more loosely affiliated voting blocks for the purposes of Parliamentary process and MUCH more fluid than today. I think political parties in the UK became more of a thing in the late 19th century (after the Great Reform Act) and definitely in the early 20th century when we actually had universal suffrage.
  12. Doc Democracy

    Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

    We have gotten ourselves into a bad place with politics. We vote (in the main) based on tribal loyalties rather than on the people we are electing. If we elected people we trusted to do the right thing rather than the party brand that we have invested in, the political incentives of those seeking power might change. I speak as someone who sees the inside of politics in the UK but I still feel those tribal loyalties influence my vote at almost every election. Parties are new things in western politics and they make it easy for politicians to decide how to vote. I think that anything that makes it easy for politicians to decide how to vote is probably bad for democracy. I want my politicians to go to their parliament, to become informed and to make decisions that I am not able to make. I want my politicians to base their decisions on what they think is right rather than on the uninformed opinions prevalent on the internet or the pre-baked policies of the parties to which they are affiliated. The onus is on us, the electorate, to engage with the system, I believe we get the politicians we deserve and as long as we base our voting decisions on shortcut things like what party the politician declares allegiance to, we will continue to get politicians that game the system. it is like D&Ders that declare their character is chaotic good, but effectively play as neutral evil. 🙂. We need to find a way to label politicians with the label that fits their actions rather than the label they want to wear. I think the only way is for us to be willing to take a greater interest in who our politicians are and on building institutions we can trust to provide us with real information rather than the selective presentation of data we currently get. No idea how we get there though, most people are content in their tribalism either because they like their tribe or see supporting the other tribe as the only way to defeat the one they like least... Doc
  13. Doc Democracy

    Beginning

    Good grief. I have been putting together a script for a video on how to build a character. It is amazing how much I do from instinct and how difficult that is to describe... I decided to do a fairly basic character type but getting to a character from a blank piece of paper involves a LOT of moving parts. I also realise I have done almost no character designing in 6th Edition. The pathways laid down in my brain over decades take over and then I realise I am not sure if I am rules compliant. I think I have a script, just need to put some slides together and then create a video that I can put up on YouTube. I was thinking I would do a brick, an energy blaster, a martial artist and maybe something else. I am wondering whether it might not be more informative to go through the stock characters in the rule book as a GM might assess a character submitted to a game to highlight the key points and how things work together. You might get more insight from the critique of a finished character than watching one being put together. it might also be useful to do a conversation. Perhaps me helping someone who does not know the system put a character together. all I need to do is find the time for all this stuff...
  14. Hmm. well, it is difficult for a mechanic to carry things but, you need to think of something that allows the game to capture the feel of the setting. I think for 40K I might build characters as a squad. You need to allow for individual units to die without losing the continuity of the campaign. I think as an everyman ability, each character would have 128 duplicates. As they say in the film "You cant kill a squadron", it should allow play to continue whether or not individual duplicates are killed off in particular encounters. Each casualty is replaced as soon as central command can arrange reinforcements. everything else I would leave to settings and story.
  15. In HERO, this is key, and perhaps the weakness of the system in the market. To shine, HERO needs the GM to do a lot of work behind the scenes. An example of this is the holy symbol effect. If the GM ensures all undead creatures are bought with particular physical and psychological complications, then all anyone needs to do is buy the perk, Holy Symbol, to make things work the way people expect. It does however mean the GM has to think of it, in advance, and build it into the setting. So, Zslane, what mechanics do you see in dedicated SF RPGs that evoke an SF feel? Doc
×