James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

[Lupus]

Note 1: ‘Realistic’ is in invereted commas, because true realism is impossible to achieve in a tabletop game. Instead, what is being sought here is a realistic feel rather than realism itself. HERO system as standard has a heroic feel; the purpose of these rules modifiers is to alter that basic feel to a more realistic tone.

Special note: for me, ‘realism’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘hard’ or ‘deadly’. Some of the ‘realistic’ systems out there are actually quite unrealistic in how easy it is to kill someone. So what I’m aiming for here is a system where you can get shot repeatedly and live; or sometimes, get shot once and die. (Usually by disease. Yay!) But even shots to the head at close range can be lived through, if the target is lucky enough.

 

Note 2: For firearms and other combat, the FBI theories on ballistic wounding are taken as true. To summarise: damage from a bullet is determined by two things, and two things only: what a bullet passes through, and how much it tears up as it passes through it. ‘Energy transfer’ and like effects are not important, except as they aid penetration or cross-sectional damage.

A person can be incapacitated in three ways: 1) a hit to the central nervous system (brain and upper spine). This will almost always incapacitate immediately. 2) a hit to major organ or blood vessel that causes bleeding. This will incapacitate in seconds to minutes. 3) psychological incapacitation: shock, surprise, emotional trauma. These are highly individual and random reactions. Tehy are primarily phychological, although some physiological factors are involved. For the purpose of this system, it is assumed that the actual damage done will raise or lower the chance of this effect.

There is no such thing as a reliable one-shot-stop, even from the heavier bullets. Rifles are more likely to damage vital areas, as they leave a much bigger cavity as they pass. They are also high-power enough that the ‘temporary cavity’ may tear open more permanently. Furthermore, they are more likely to fragment and thus cause physical damage past their penetration route. However, even these are not reliable one-shot-stops.

 

Note 3: I’d rather not get into a protracted debate over the FBI ballistics theories, but I’m willing to entertain criticism of any of the rules I’ve come up with. Keep in mind that this is intended to reflect a realistic-seeming game. It’s for relatively low-powered ones, where an 11- knowledge skill is good, and stats of 20 are very rare indeed. I’m thinking 50+25 for the most part, maybe 50+50.

 

Note 4: I’ve put extra effort into weapon reliability rules because my long-term plans for these rules is to use them for a post-apocalyptic setting, where one’s weapons are vital and they’ll be subject to all kinds of bad treatment (AK-47s will be in great demand, I predict). They can easily be ignored in most games, with little or no effect on the realism.

Additionally, what I certainly want to see is people who have suffered deadly wounds (either BOD score negative, or bleeders that will kill them in minutes) fighting on until they’re actually physically incapacitated. This won’t happen in every fight, but I want it to be a possibility!

 

Note 5: For some of my inspiration here, see the following analysis of the FBI firefight on April 11, 1986: http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

 

The rules:

1) DEX costs 1 character point per point of characteristic. It has no figured characteristics (SPD or CV). It affects skills, and skills alone. SPD starts at 2, and is bought up with character points as normal. CV is 3, and only ever 3 unless modified by combat skill levels.

 

2) STUN is determined by CON and EGO. EGO takes the place of STR in the (otherwise unchanged) equation.

 

3) CON is no longer used to determine stunning (STUN damage greater than EGO is now required to stun the opponent).

Ideally, I’d like to figure out some kind of system for adrenaline rushes. Essentially, according to the FBI, highly motivated people are more likely to keep operating after an injury. This is reflected in the basic system by EGO factoring into the STUN score, and using EGO for stunning effects. However, I’d like to see some additional factors, such as the traditional ‘mother defending her child’ scenario. I have no idea how to work this, other than allowing psych lims to add to EGO, perhaps?

HERO system, at base, is hostile to these kinds of tinkering. Characters are assumed to be operating at full power and ability at all times. Adding in some kind of system to allow characters to vary their performance is an entirely new factor. As such, it may be unworkable (or require just TOO much work for the result).

 

4) The SPD chart is used, though this is, as usual, optional. The highest of DEX, INT and EGO is used for initiative. Initiative is then modified by a 1d6 roll (1d6+characteristic). Maneuvers may modify this as well (such as using weapons in cluttered areas, see point 10 below).

 

5) Hit location is used, but so is STUN multiplier. This is because incapacitation by psychological effect (STUN) is essentially random. The STUNx is 1d6 plus the entry on the hit location: 2x becomes -2, 3x becomes -1, 4x becomes 0, 5x becomes +1. This is then further modified by weapons.

Anti-targetting penalty skill levels are permitted. However, not even the most skilled person can reliably shoot ANY hit location without aiming first (IE, high OCV). Penalty skill levels against targetting penalties can, at most, negate HALF the hit location penalty. Thus, a head shot has a minimum target penalty of -4 (or -2 if target is unaware etc).

 

6) Pistols have a much lower chance of stunning. All except the biggest have a STUNx of -1.

 

7) Optional damage effects: Impairing and disabling wounds are used. These are played more or less as written, except can take longer to recover from (and if the CON roll is blown considerably, permanent injuries can result from even impairing wounds). Largely, impairing/disabling wounds hang around until most (75%?) Of the BODY damage in that injury heals.

Bleeding is also used. I haven’t looked too far through this section, as I’ve never really used it before. Certainly, BODY damage can result from bleeding, and wounds will bleed more profusely if they are of higher BODY value – a person with a single 10 BODY injury will bleed to death much faster than a person with 10 papercuts (1 BODY each). So this means players (or perhaps the GM, see below) will need to keep track of injuries.

If the GM has good memory, a laptop, or insane organisation skills, make all damage secret. Players roll to hit, and know the general location of their hit (torso, centre mass!) as well as how many DCs they inflict (after all modifications, etc). But the GM rolls the damage. Players also do not know how much damage they have taken. They can ask questions (‘So, how am I feeling after that hit?’) but the GM can give them misleading information, particularly if there’s a low STUN result (‘You feel fine. You think it missed you.’ *five minutes later, to another player* ‘You notice that Bob is dripping blood all over the place.’) This should be carefully used by the GM. It should NEVER be used to bamboozle the players. It should be used sparingly.

 

8) Healing is made more difficult. I’d like to eventually come up with rules for healing other than abstracted BODY damage. This would ideally include some vague system for infection, which would only come into play in adverse conditions with insufficient medical supplies or skill. I’m not looking for a complex system here.

An idea: if a character suffers an impairing or diabling wound and fails the CON roll, there is the chance of infection. After the standard duration of the impairing or disabling injury (or after a few days, whichever is less), further CON rolls are made. The difficulty here is modified by how badly the character failed the initial roll. Failure here extends the duration of the impairment/disabling and opens up the possibility of infection. Enough failed CON rolls result in serious infection, which may endanger limbs or even the life of the character.

Medical treatment can intervene at any point, although it is more effective if applied early. PS: Doctor (or, in immediate treatment, Paramedics) rolls do not heal the infection on their own, but apply a modifier to the character’s CON roll to recover. Advanced medical treatments such as antibiotics can apply major bonuses, or even cure the infection altogether.

This will be subject to GM fiat, depending on whether the GM particularly wants characters to suffer death or maiming as the result of gangrene. Such ‘realism’ may well mar the enjoyment of the game as a whole. Few players enjoy watching their characters waste away and die.

This section will almost certainly require the consultation of medical professionals, or at least textbooks and other information sources to determine the probabilities of such infection setting in (or what kind of infections exist, and how difficult they are to treat with or without antibiotics).

 

9) Segmented movement is used. This discourages effects such as charging someone with a gun.

 

10) The Dodge maneuver does not exist. In hand to hand combat, you use block. In ranged combat, you use cover, or you Dive For Cover. DFC is an exception to segmented movement - it is instantaneous. You MUST dive either behind cover, or into a position that is more difficult to hit. You end up prone. You MAY simply drop to the ground – this will give opponents a bonus to hit you if they are close, a penalty if they are far away (IE, you are at ½ dcv, but far opponents will get penalties). More rules here to come. Essentially, there is no ‘stand there and dodge bullets’ maneuver. Dodging involves getting to somewhere that the bullets aren’t.

You can still buy DCV levels, however. This can reflect things such as moving in a way that presents a small target profile. DCV levels CAN be bought with the limitation ‘only against single target’ (-1) or ‘only against targets you can perceive’ (-1/4)

 

11) Weapons charts will be altered to reflect the FBI theories. Damages are raised or lowered accordingly (this requires further research). OCV and Rmod levels, in particular, are to be changed. OCV mods are used for those weapons which are easy to put on target: ‘handy’ weapons. Pistols and SMGs are more likely to have OCV mods. Weapons that are inherently more accurate instead receive Rmod bonuses. Rifles are more likely to have positive Rmods.

 

12) Weapon sizes will be important when in cluttered areas, such as indoors. Rifles are bulky and not as easy to swing around in narrow corridors (machineguns even worse). SMGs and pistols rarely, if ever, take penalties. Rifles will take no penalties if you are simply firing forward (say, down a corridor in the direction you are already facing). If you want to turn round and fire to your rear, you will take an OCV mod, and also an initiative modifier. This also applies for maneuver such as door entry. The penalties will be variable according to how difficult the GM thinks the maneuver is. Thus, pistols/SMGs may be superior weapons for these CQB situations.

However, some weapons are simply better. The FBI guidelines suggest that pistols are important, but if the agent expects action, they should ALWAYS attempt to gain heavier weaponry. No attempt will be taken to ‘even out’ weapon types. Some are just better, and these are usually the bigger ones; however, smaller weapons may be better in some situations (such as listed in the paragraph above).

 

13) Weapons will be rated on two axes of reliability: tolerance and ruggedness. These will be on a 0-5 scale (0=worst, 5=best). These ratings can change (usually decreasing) over the weapon’s life.

Straight from the factory, a well-made weapon will have a 0% failure rate. However, as the weapon is subjected to conditions or treatment in excess on its tolerance or ruggedness, it may pick up a failure rate. The reliability ratings determine how badly the weapon must be treated before it develops a failure rate, or begins to accrue penalties.

For example: an extremely finely-tuned sniper rifle may have a ruggedness of 1. If treated carefully, it is a highly reliable weapon, shooting on target all the time (Rmod +4). However, if it is bumped even slightly, it has a chance of picking up penalties. This will depend on the rifle. Likely, if bumped hard enough, it will lose some or all of its Rmod. If abused (say, used as a club) it will almost certainly be knocked out of alignment, and not only lose its Rmod but also take penalties (and probably beginning to jam).

Meanwhile, an AK-47 will have a ruggedness of 5. It can be used as a club and still work fine, unless it does damage over its DEF rating. At that point, it will pick up a failure rate... but it’s still likely to work okay.

Tolerance works similarly, except it’s to do with fouling. A 1 means that it will begin to foul under normal use (IE, if you fire a few shots, you’ll likely pick up a failure rate). A tolerance 5 means it has to be caked in mud before it takes any penalties, and even then they will be minor (say, jam on 17-18, or even 18 alone).

In both categories, a 0 is represenatative of a makeshift weapon such as a Zip gun. These weapons start with failure rates, and are easily broken and/or fouled.

These rules will be unlikely to be used too often. If you have a finely-tuned sniper rifle with ruggedness 1, you take care of it. Failure rates only accrue if you exceed the advised usage guidelines. Treat your weapons well, they work reliably.

Now, if you do exceed the advised usage limits, then penalties will not accrue automatically. Perhaps a jam is introduced, or something. I haven’t gotten all the way through what happens..

Realistically, there should be SOME failure rate even for well-treated weapons. However, such failure rates would be much less than even 1/216 (IE, a roll of 18).

 

That’s it, so far. Questions/comments/flames? As noted above, I'd rather not get into a debate about the founding theories of the FBI ballistics. If you really wanna say 'but that's crap! It's all about isntead!'... well, I can't stop you. But I'm not gonna get into that. I'd rather hear people's impressions of: whether these rules would really give some kind of verisimilitude of reality (yeah, bad grammar, I know); if there are other ways things could be implemented; if people have other ideas; or other such thingamies. That's what I'm looking for, anyway. Say whatever you want.

 

Fire away!

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

These rules are very well though out and I am amazed at the time and research you have put in to running this game. I hope your players really give you some luv for all the hard work.

 

 

But........

 

 

I don't think you are playing Hero anymore. Gratz, you are now the proud father of a brand new baby RPG system!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

So far I like it a lot. You might look at some of the ongoing threads about Strength, Body, Lifting, mass and the like (If you haven't already) some of the posts could be applicable. my only inital comments, right off the top of my head, are that you shouldn't remove dodge, but rather assume that it has a "doesn't work against high velocity projectiles" modifier. Personal experience dictactes that one CAN dodge thrown attacks and even arrows (tho thats tricky in short range direct fire) and HTH attacks SHOULD be dodgeable. And if you come up with good infection rules I'll be tempted to kiss you. I'd suggest that you model systemically on a transform, and apply it to all wounds, not just impairing wounds. Both of my dangerous cases of blood poisoning came from 0-1 body wounds.

And you might bend your brain to the idea of Long Term Stun, to represent shock...I've been working on this one too...

And stress induced injuries... pushing can result in bad things sometimes (my spine!) HERO doesn't really have a good model for long term pain effects either other than the impairing/ disabling rules.

but in general, it looks great...I'd love to see the finished product!

Repped!

[Lupus]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

These rules are very well though out and I am amazed at the time and research you have put in to running this game. I hope your players really give you some luv for all the hard work.

 

 

But........

 

 

I don't think you are playing Hero anymore. Gratz, you are now the proud father of a brand new baby RPG system!

At the very least, it's a weird mutant hybrid (small 'h', not capital). It's certainly not a list of things that I'd run Hero with as standard - only for a very particular genre.

 

Thanks for the comments.

[Lupus]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

So far I like it a lot. You might look at some of the ongoing threads about Strength' date=' Body, Lifting, mass and the like (If you haven't already) some of the posts could be applicable. my only inital comments, right off the top of my head, are that you shouldn't remove dodge, but rather assume that it has a "doesn't work against high velocity projectiles" modifier. Personal experience dictactes that one CAN dodge thrown attacks and even arrows (tho thats tricky in short range direct fire) and HTH attacks SHOULD be dodgeable.[/quote']

My basic thinking here is that, in hand to hand, 'dodge' is a little unrealistic, in that it functions at full value against all attacks. I'd personally rather use the 'block' mechanics, even if what you're doing is evading the attack - possibly re-name the maneuver 'avoid' or something like that.

 

Nah, that's a stupid name. Something else.

 

Basically, if you 'dodge' a punch, you're likely seeing the punch coming and avoiding it... but if someone else punches you, you'll have less chance of 'dodging' them (multiple attacker bonuses aside). Any fancy maneuvering can prolly be simulated via CSLs.

 

Then again, my martial arts experience is limited. I'd be willing to listen to submissions by people who have more experience than myself.

 

And if you come up with good infection rules I'll be tempted to kiss you. I'd suggest that you model systemically on a transform, and apply it to all wounds, not just impairing wounds. Both of my dangerous cases of blood poisoning came from 0-1 body wounds.

Yes, very good point. Prolly make the rules apply /mainly/ to impairing/disabling wounds, but allow a small chance of smaller wounds to become infected if left untreated.

 

And you might bend your brain to the idea of Long Term Stun, to represent shock...I've been working on this one too...

And stress induced injuries... pushing can result in bad things sometimes (my spine!) HERO doesn't really have a good model for long term pain effects either other than the impairing/ disabling rules.

but in general, it looks great...I'd love to see the finished product!

Repped!

Long-term stun sounds interesting. Got any more details on that concept?

 

Pushing DOES sound like a good mechanic to use... perhaps allow the pushing of CON or EGO? It's a possiblity.

 

One other idea I came up with is somehow working PRE attack mechanics into wounds... that would prolly come down to WAY too much dice rolling, though. As I noted, this entire section could simply be unworkable. I'm mostly just testing to see if there's ANY chance it could be workable, rather than tossing it out instantly.

 

Thanks for the comments! They were really handy.

[sbarron]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

3) CON is no longer used to determine stunning (STUN damage greater than EGO is now required to stun the opponent).

Ideally, I’d like to figure out some kind of system for adrenaline rushes. Essentially, according to the FBI, highly motivated people are more likely to keep operating after an injury. This is reflected in the basic system by EGO factoring into the STUN score, and using EGO for stunning effects. However, I’d like to see some additional factors, such as the traditional ‘mother defending her child’ scenario. I have no idea how to work this, other than allowing psych lims to add to EGO, perhaps?

HERO system, at base, is hostile to these kinds of tinkering. Characters are assumed to be operating at full power and ability at all times. Adding in some kind of system to allow characters to vary their performance is an entirely new factor. As such, it may be unworkable (or require just TOO much work for the result).

I think that you have to assume that adrenaline rushes are already figured in to the system. As you say, HERO assumes everyone is working at full power and abilities at all times. Characters already have the ability to vary their performance. They can "push" to go up, and just do less to go down.

 

I think most examples of people operating at high levels after being shot just boils down to their decision to do so. Platt and Matix had obviously decided they weren't going to jail, regardless of the price of that decision. That made them highly motivated. But more than that, it allowed them to operate without concern for any outcome other than escape during the shootout.

 

A similar example is when people talk about the incredible strength that the insane seem to possess. I've long been of the opinion that the insane are not in fact super strong. What they are is unconcerned about being hurt. This makes them dangerous. They are not worried about what happens to their hand when they punch a plate-glass window. As a result, they punch right through it, and break their hand in the process. Could you or I punch through that window? Yes, we could. Would we? No, we wouldn't, because we could break our hand. Our concern for our personal safety makes us "weaker" than the madman, because he is doing things that we won't.

 

RPG players are the same way. They choose their characters actions without concern for the characters short term safety. They don't fear the pain of a broken hand, or the inconvenience of losing a few BODY as they don't have to feel it. It's just a number. So in that way, character actions are always at full power, all the time.

 

Platt and Matix kept right on going right up till they were dead, just like most RPG characters do. The FBI agent who got shot in the groin didn't. He stayed down on the ground, fully conscious. What was the difference? He chose to stay down, because he had possible outcomes he was happy with short of death. Most "real" people would make a similar choice. This choice is what seperates the "mother and child" situation from regular mother by herself. Her love of child knows no limit!

 

So, how to create this effect in HERO? Well, I think I would just have most people not keep going till they were dead. Have them quit fighting after getting shot the first time. Either run for it, or play dead, or something other than continuing to fight back. You will still have the extreme cases where people keep going to the end, because their choices are death or victory (might happen a lot in a post-apoc setting). And the players will probably continue to do this anyway.

[Lupus]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

So, how to create this effect in HERO? Well, I think I would just have most people not keep going till they were dead. Have them quit fighting after getting shot the first time. Either run for it, or play dead, or something other than continuing to fight back. You will still have the extreme cases where people keep going to the end, because their choices are death or victory (might happen a lot in a post-apoc setting). And the players will probably continue to do this anyway.

Y'know, I think you're right there. I never quite expected to be able to get such a system going, but you've managed to resolve one of the problems I had with having no system to do so.

 

Thanks for the post. Very handy. You have some good analyses of the situations and rules, and presented a viable alternative that (at the moment) I am preferring to having specific rules.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

I've had a few morethought since last night....

On the Block vs. Dodge thing, I can see your point. Why not make dodge use the same mechanics as block only with a DCV vs OCV contest rather than Ocv vs OCV? Should work great.

On the various Stun/shock/adrenaline things...

instead of using EGO for stunning, use Con as usual, but require an EGO roll to recover from being stunned. makes Stunned a FAR more dangerous condition, and makes some real world sence. Then the negative penalty for wounds (optinal pain rules) can affect how long you are stunned for. Shock, I realized, is largely handled with the Disabling?Imparing rules, but there is another system that could be modified to reflect it as well.... Unconciousness rules. When at negative Stun, you are in some degree of shock. require characters at negative stun to make a CON roll at the begining of each phase to remain awake, and an Ego roll to act in any fashion other than recover. I haven't gotten really crunchy on this yet, but I can see it work with some tinkering. This lets Negative stun act as "Long term" stun, or Shock. The increasing intervals for recovery when negative seem to work well to reflect that the greater degree of injury, the deeper in shock you go and the harder it is to act.

Adrenal responces are harder to do. Its partially already figured in with roleplaying as mentioned above, as well as in the X2 stun from suprise attacks (this is reverse engineering...it implies that the "in combat" character is already in a fight or flight condition and thus harder to drop) Other adrenal effects seem to be, in game terms, boosting Ego rolls, boosting initiative, boosting movement, boosting or taking a free Recovery, decreasing CV (most of the time). Some variation of the current "hurry" rules might work... trading CV and (probably) END for a proportionate boost in one of the bonuses.

More on this probably later tonight...my girl just got home, so we're going out

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

I like the idea of EGO rolls to recover from stun. I also agree that in melee you block or parry alot more than dodge.

 

There was a game put out by TSR before the D20 bomb dropped called "Alternity" that had a very cool damage system. The four kinds of Damage were Fatigue, Stun, Wound, and Mortal. These recovered at different rates and the kind plus amount of damage was decided by how well you hit. If you ran out of a type of damage it would spill over in to the next class. I like this alot better than just hitpoints or stun.

[Fox1]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

11) Weapons charts will be altered to reflect the FBI theories. Damages are raised or lowered accordingly (this requires further research).

 

Beat you to it.

 

Have fun with your changes. I didn't carry it nearly as far you're intending for a number of reasons.

 

I do wonder why you're using HERO for this however, I can think of a number of other game systems that would be better suited as a base.

[Lupus]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

I've had a few morethought since last night....

On the Block vs. Dodge thing, I can see your point. Why not make dodge use the same mechanics as block only with a DCV vs OCV contest rather than Ocv vs OCV? Should work great.

That could certainly work. I'm in two minds about dropping dodge, really. But I like the idea.

On the various Stun/shock/adrenaline things...

instead of using EGO for stunning, use Con as usual, but require an EGO roll to recover from being stunned. makes Stunned a FAR more dangerous condition, and makes some real world sence. Then the negative penalty for wounds (optinal pain rules) can affect how long you are stunned for. Shock, I realized, is largely handled with the Disabling?Imparing rules, but there is another system that could be modified to reflect it as well.... Unconciousness rules. When at negative Stun, you are in some degree of shock. require characters at negative stun to make a CON roll at the begining of each phase to remain awake, and an Ego roll to act in any fashion other than recover. I haven't gotten really crunchy on this yet, but I can see it work with some tinkering. This lets Negative stun act as "Long term" stun, or Shock. The increasing intervals for recovery when negative seem to work well to reflect that the greater degree of injury, the deeper in shock you go and the harder it is to act.

Sounds pretty cool. I put stunning based on EGO, due to the FBI theories that it's fully psychological (but for me, still based on the damage done - hence based on STUN damage). Also, removing CON from the equation devalues that stat slightly (CON being one step down from STR in terms of value - which is also a reason for removing STR from the STUN formula).

 

Still, putting too much on EGO makes it too valuable (though I'd intended to leave its cost at 2, since I don't envision there being much in the way of psionics in this setting).

 

Another option for stunning is that it doesn't necessarily stop you acting... it just stops you taking offensive action. So you might sit there and go 'buh', you might just dive for cover and stay there panicking. That might be better left to roleplaying, however. Certainly, I'd encourage GMs using this system to have NPCs act in varyingly different ways, based on EGO rolls (or fiat, in the case of hardcase bastards).

 

Adrenal responces are harder to do. Its partially already figured in with roleplaying as mentioned above, as well as in the X2 stun from suprise attacks (this is reverse engineering...it implies that the "in combat" character is already in a fight or flight condition and thus harder to drop) Other adrenal effects seem to be, in game terms, boosting Ego rolls, boosting initiative, boosting movement, boosting or taking a free Recovery, decreasing CV (most of the time). Some variation of the current "hurry" rules might work... trading CV and (probably) END for a proportionate boost in one of the bonuses.

More on this probably later tonight...my girl just got home, so we're going out

Some good ideas there, too. I'll let 'em all simmer, see how things go.

[Lupus]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

Beat you to it.

YEah, I got the link to Tactical Briefs from your posts. That's what crystallised the inspiration for this madness.

 

Have fun with your changes. I didn't carry it nearly as far you're intending for a number of reasons.

 

I do wonder why you're using HERO for this however, I can think of a number of other game systems that would be better suited as a base.

Doing it with HERO 'cause I like HERO. I also feel that it's essentially alterable. I'm really leaving the vast majority of the system untouched. It's also the most appropriate system that I can think of. Note that most of the changes I'm pondering, I'll prolly leave out. I'm just coming from the theory that you discuss everything instead of dumping it on face value.

 

So which systems would you suggest?

[sbarron]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

Hey Lupus,

 

The thing that strikes me while reading your adjustments to the system is......they are complicated. Do I think they would add to the realism? Yes. I would just caution that while implementing these house rules that you don't sacrifice fun for greater realism.

 

One specific example is the tolerance and ruggedness ratings. It will be difficult to track these stats over time for each individual weapon. I see what you are trying to do, and i think it will work. I just wonder if you saying "seriously, if you abuse your weapons they will become less effective" might not get you a similar effect. Then rather than having a system you have to track, you can just make a note of weapon abuses during play and make adjustments accordingly. I think it will be easier for you to just kind of wing it than to make a system for tracking weapon tolerance and maintainance.

 

Just a suggestion...hope it helps.

[Fox1]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

Doing it with HERO 'cause I like HERO. I also feel that it's essentially alterable. I'm really leaving the vast majority of the system untouched. It's also the most appropriate system that I can think of.

 

That works.

 

 

Note that most of the changes I'm pondering, I'll prolly leave out. I'm just coming from the theory that you discuss everything instead of dumping it on face value.

 

So which systems would you suggest?

 

Off the top of my head...

 

GURPS has a lower power progression than HERO as a general rule and is more suited for that reason. It does however have other faults such as being heavily focused on very few stats.

 

CORPS is a possiblity as is JAGS.

 

Depending upon how detail you want, you can try to get hold of an old copy of Morrow Project or Phoenix Command. They used the RII for it's base numbers but that could be fixed.

 

My idea was to pick a non-heroic game system to start with. Something already grim and streetlevel. That way you wouldn't have to fight against the system even in areas you didn't expect to.

[Fox1]

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

 

Here's a point by point to the first post in the thread. Note that I haven't read anyone else's response in detail yet, so sorry if I dup someone.

 

Also note, I'm making suggestions that I wouldn't use for my own game. This is going for something much grittier than my own campaigns.

 

 

Note 1-3, 5:

It's always good to know the limits starting out. Too many think they can do 'realism' perfectly, and to many other think there is no point in it.

 

And of course I love the sources used

 

 

Note 4:

 

I've given some consideration to this same subject of weapon reliability myself. I haven't done any serious work on it due to the fact that it isn't really genre for my games.

 

However here's some hints based upon my own knowledge of the subject:

 

1. Revolvers are significantly better than semi/full automatics. Unless something jams up the cylinder/barrel you just pull the trigger again.

 

2. Generally the more accurate the weapon, the less reliable it is. The reason for this is that the most basic element of reliability (the weapon fires and doesn't jam when exposed to harsh conditions) is dependent upon how close fitted the parts are. Loose parts- weapons works in a near sand storm.

 

Loose parts however mean bad accuracy.

 

The classic example is M-16 vs. AK-47. The M-16 will easily place a nice five pattern on a man-sized target at 200 yards. The AK-47 likely won't even touch paper. On the other hand, the M-16 requires much more field care to function.

 

 

About the Rules:

 

Rule 1: Dex should alter DCV in hand-to-hand combat, so don't alter it. Instead fix the DCV vs. firearms at a 3.

 

Rule 2: Generally don't let people buy up Stun, lock it at the figured value. I think you already intended this, but just in case...

 

New Point: Base Body upon character Mass (see my website).

 

 

Rule 3: On the question of stunning...

 

You could treat any hit as a PRE attack using the stun damage in place of a PRE roll. Add or subject dice for those psych factors you wanted to deal with. You may have to play with a base value addition or not- I leave it to you to work out the numbers.

 

Rule 4: About SPD, this value is the prime characteristic in many ways for showing the difference between a guy with a gun and a true professional.

 

I'd base it not upon dex or a question of how fast someone is- but rather high decisive and quick thinking they are in battle. Regulars should be a 2 SPD, the Man on street may only be a 1. Vets could be a 3, Top Flight elite Special Forces type should be a 4 or even a 5 in extreme cases.

 

Rule 5: I like the basic idea of using the 1d6-1 stun in place of the stun muliplier on the hit locations. It's a simple solution to a complex problem. Perhaps a couple key areas could get a +1 bonus (like Head and Vitals).

 

Rule 6 and 11: Feel free to use the weapon numbers on my site. All the tables and math is there in case you want to modify it (like giving everything a -1 to the Stun Mod listed there).

 

Rule 7: Check the bleeding rules out on my webpage. I just put them up there (my website is always in progress, not everything is up yet).

 

Rule 12: Dark Champions has CQB rules that modify your Dex in terms of who goes first. My website modifies (and shows how to determine) this to better detail the issue.