Fox1's Hero Debate

[Legendsmiths]

Trying to get the original thread back on track, I thought I would start this thread up because, well, I'm a glutton for punishment.

 

1. I'm still curious to see where Hero says that its firearm rules suck. I do know that in DC it says that "Hero is about dramatic realism", and that accurately modeling real-world ballistics (whatever you perceive them to be) is not the goal of Hero.

 

2. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone on any level, especially in an opionion based thread. You disagree with how Steve put together the sample firearms that are the default for the system (and printed material is based on this). That's fine, just be friendly about it.

 

I will also say that I agree with everyone else that your tone and demeanor are less than friendly. Calling people stupid and being pompous enough to state that not criticising your rules modifications would be a wise decision is a bit high on the rudeness meter. None the less, I will bite and I will make a couple of points concerning your modifications.

 

So, fine, you disagree with how Hero handles firearms. On some level, so do I, but I think for cinematic play, which is Hero's strong suit, they actually work nicely.

 

That said, I like the approach you took with giving some weapons reduced penetration (and applying it to BODY). I think that models things pretty well. It is a different take on firearms, but a valid approach (I even agree with most of your multipliers). I think your damages are too high however, but at most only 1 or 2 DC. I know that your goal is a killing shot to the head, but I think a 9mm doing 2d6-1 could do that just as well as 2d6+1 (although less frequently obviously).

 

You've made a lot of tweaks to the system, but somehow you feel that you shouldn't have to do that. You feel the system should be "right" and it sounds like you resent having to "fix" it. There I think you are wrong. The system is what it is, take it or leave it. If you take it and make it your own, great, but don't condecend to think that your way is better than someone elses. It obviously works for you, but it won't necessarily work for anyone else.

 

I would love to have the perfect game delivered to me that plays exactly as I expect it should. That, however, is pretty unrealistic. Make the game work the way you want it to - stating that the game is wrong is a bit of a stretch though.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

1. I'm still curious to see where Hero says that its firearm rules suck.

 

Quoted in the original thread now.

 

 

Calling people stupid

 

The one case where I did that was out of line. However the claim being made was...

 

I cannot think of a term that isn't rude, so I best leave it.

 

 

and being pompous enough to state that not criticising your rules modifications would be a wise decision is a bit high on the rudeness meter.

 

From what I read, the claim was made that my rules did not in fact increase the chance of 'normals' being instant-killed by handguns, rather they decreased it.

 

Given what the rules are, yes it was wise not to continue that line.

 

Seems the poster was actually attempting to say something else completely (i.e. he didn't like the idea of more dangerous handgus) and he was unclear in how he made the statement. Pity that.

 

 

So, fine, you disagree with how Hero handles firearms. On some level, so do I, but I think for cinematic play, which is Hero's strong suit, they actually work nicely.

 

Depend rather on what Cinema now doesn't it? And one's willingness to envoke Mook rules, something that isn't in favor with all gamers.

 

 

You've made a lot of tweaks to the system, but somehow you feel that you shouldn't have to do that. You feel the system should be "right" and it sounds like you resent having to "fix" it.

 

That is not my opinion.

 

It is my opinion that an untweaked HERO isn't a perfect system for my use. As it is not a perfect system for my use I feel that I can with perfect justification do the following:

 

1. List my dislikes when asked. Notice I didn't start the thread, I responded to it. I didn't come here to whine about things I've already fixed.

 

2. Present my solution to others who are having the same problem.

 

and

 

3. Respond when others or myself are attacked for finding problems (i.e. told they don't exist) or offered solutions that don't work (i.e. x2 body results for killing attacks).

[tesuji]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I would love to have the perfect game delivered to me that plays exactly as I expect it should. That, however, is pretty unrealistic. Make the game work the way you want it to - stating that the game is wrong is a bit of a stretch though.

 

Aloow me to state a view...

 

i have nbo problem with stating "a game is wrong."

 

however, we are not rewally talking about a game here, but a toolkit used to build games.

 

A game is wrong is, for instance...

 

Stargate done by AEG where we have a setting and a show as definitive resources we are trying to portray.

 

WRONG: A complex, fairly time, consuming "gear up" system built pervasively into the rules and class balance (so its not easy to remove) when we never see any sort of gear up issues in the series.

 

WRONG: Statting out the jaffa staff weapon to be more effective (more accurate and more damaging) than the P90 when in the show we have an actual "fire test" between the two weapons where the advantages in both damage and accuracy at the given range of the P90 was a pivotal part of the story, not only for that episode but also cited as the reason the team had beaten jaffa time and time again throughout the series.

 

those were, i have no problem saying, WRONG. The underlying reasons? Well given one of the lead mechanics guys said after release that he had not seen anything like a majority of the eps gives us the first clue. The basic feel was they built a "generic military scifi" game and figured "hey, alien weapons have to be better" and simply did not know enough to realize that was contrary to the source.

 

NOTE: after complaints rolled in, and the episode was pointed out and apparently seen by the designers, they did radically revise the weapon.

 

those are clear cases of wrong, IMO.

 

for this HERo thread tho, we are talking about sample weapons builds in a toolkit that don't mesh with the given Gm's preferneces for his own game, which is far from where i would myself start tossing around "the game is wrong."

 

but then, hey, you all know what a HERo fanboy i am! ;-)

[Mentor]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

It is my opinion that an untweaked HERO isn't a perfect system for my use. As it is not a perfect system for my use I feel that I can with perfect justification do the following:

 

1. List my dislikes when asked. Notice I didn't start the thread, I responded to it. I didn't come here to whine about things I've already fixed.

 

2. Present my solution to others who are having the same problem.

 

and

 

3. Respond when others or myself are attacked for finding problems (i.e. told they don't exist) or offered solutions that don't work (i.e. x2 body results for killing attacks).

I happen to agree with Fox1 that the untweaked HERO isn't a perfect system for my use either. Not only is no system perfect but role playing is done on the fly so any rules for any artifact are imperfect.

 

As to the rest, you were actually the first to attack another's opinion on a weapon system, specifically in the "Normals thread" on the subject of tanks. There is no problem in disagreeing on any rule or approach, but I suggest that you;

1) reread your posts on the subject to determine whether said response might reasonably be interpreted as condescending and insulting

 

2) reread the posts in which your responses to those calling attention to rudeness and insults might serve to reinforce that viewpoint

 

That having been said, as Trebuchet and I discussed the subject at length, his disagreement (and mine) with your firearm chart is that there is insufficient differentiation in BODY damage between a .22 pistol and a 7.62mm high velocity rifle round.

 

Understandably, you might disagree and perhaps we might have been clearer in indication that disagreeing was not a reflection on your intelligence, ability or anything else, but certainly Trebuchet was not the only poster who read a condescension into your posts.

 

Now, you seem to have indicated to Zornwill that you don't care what anyone else thinks, so this won't matter if that is the case, but you seem to be an intelligent person who has something to offer these boards and something to get from them. It is easy to get off on the wrong foot, sometimes just because you were misunderstood or misinterpreted. I am just here to tell your that the posters to the Hero boards, including a number with whom you have butted heads, are not bad guys and generally have a great sense of humor. We can be as oversensitive and tempermental as the next guys, but are not into abuse, be it giving or receiving. Take from that what you will.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I also think there needs to be greater differentiation between the .22 and the 7.62. Penetration also applies to flesh, just as it applies to any other material. If something has poor penetration, it should also cause less trauma to flesh. Conversley, if something has high penetration, it can also cause less trauma as it simply blows through.

 

AP rounds are great at penetrating but cause less damage overall than standard rounds because they penetrate flesh better as well. This factor can't be ignored, but as I see your firearms system it is.

 

For me, I just up the DC of Hero weapons by +1 and then make all rifle rounds AP. This is a good enough realistic model for me, captures the increased penetration of rifle rounds vs. pistol rounds, and increases overall lethality. That, for me, is a simple enough tweak without changing any other aspects. This makes a 9mm: 1 1/2d6K and a 7.62mm: 2 1/2d6K AP +1 STUNx. The 9mm averages 5.5 BODY and maxes at 9 BODY (18 to the head which will kill a Normal instantly) while the 7.62 averages 9 BODY and maxes at 15 BODY both of which can do a number on any character, especially a normal, as well as armor piercing and increased STUN. That's realistic enough for me.

 

My background with firearms is not insignificant, both civilian and military. Having played Phoenix Command, GURPS, and Hero with heavy firearms usage I find my system to have the balance of realism and action I find satisfying. Your mileage may vary.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Your method seems to correct several minor flaws in Hero firearms system without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's also easily converted in your head from the published material. Kudos.

 

One minor quibble I'd have is that I think only fully jacketed rifle rounds should be AP; flatnose and roundnose solids such as are commonly used for hunting (.30 - 30, .460 H&H, 45-75 Winchester, etc.) should probably not be AP although an additional Stun Multiplier may be in order for the big game rounds. You want a big multiplier to take on a Cape Buffalo.

[zornwil]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I feel so lonely, being perfectly content with the damage of firearms in modern action gaming...

 

Seriously, though, I must say for the record that the "admission" on page 186 doesn't remotely come close to an admission of "sucking", and such an accusation is a bit over the top.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

WRONG: Statting out the jaffa staff weapon to be more effective (more accurate and more damaging) than the P90 when in the show we have an actual "fire test" between the two weapons where the advantages in both damage and accuracy at the given range of the P90 was a pivotal part of the story, not only for that episode but also cited as the reason the team had beaten jaffa time and time again throughout the series.

 

Sort of off topic...

 

I've seen all the SG-1 shows. Big fan of the series.

 

The staff weapons were claimed in the show to be more powerful in the earlier seasons. Just watched a re-run of one of them in fact where the team was constantly saying their weapons were outmatched. During this period of the show, Teal'c carried the staff weapon and it would often affect foes that their small arms were marginal against at best.

 

Later they switched to the P90 and other weapons. Teal'c drops the staff and is seen with other earth weapons, often a shotgun. Earth weapons start to be more effective than the staff weapons.

 

Such was the change in the show. The writers of the game likely screwed up, they should have just said it was first season (and left the P90 off the equipment list for now).

 

TV is seldom consistent, even a good show like this one.

 

Personally I would have gone with the later shows. But that's because I like earth weapons and don't think anyone could hit the side of a barn with the staff at range.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

One minor quibble I'd have is that I think only fully jacketed rifle rounds should be AP;

 

A note on the weapon conversion page states that the round used for the conversion math should be a FMJ common to the weapon.

 

Other bullet types modify much like they do in HERO, although the values are different and I don't worry about as many types as DC does. I haven't put that chart up yet.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I also think there needs to be greater differentiation between the .22 and the 7.62. Penetration also applies to flesh, just as it applies to any other material. If something has poor penetration, it should also cause less trauma to flesh. Conversley, if something has high penetration, it can also cause less trauma as it simply blows through.

 

If you look at the real world conversion page, you'll see the chart that provides that exact effect.

 

 

 

The actual weapon values are as follows:

 

.22 LR: 2d6K, Armor is x2 effect, -1 Stun modifier.

 

7.62 NATO: 2d6+1K, Negates 1 point of armor, +1 stun modifier.

 

 

That means the .22 LR on average will only produce 7 body and 14 stun on a chest hit. Any armor will serious degrade the weapon.

 

The 7.62 NATO meanwhile will force you to drop a point of armor, doing 8 body and 32 stun on a average chest hit.

 

That's a significant difference in the weapons. There's more to look at then the base kill attack.

 

It may seem counter intuitive that the 7.62 only does an extra point of body damage, but it's not far off from actual death stats.

 

Plus I do have that problem of a very narrow range given me by HERO.

 

 

This doesn't matter at this point (only the stuff on the web counts), but the .22 LR given on the chart assumes a FMJ bullet, that really isn't the case for actual .22 LR loads (the jackets are too thin if they even exist). Thus the Armor Effect should go to x3 and the damage would drop to 2d6-1 at that point.

 

I do need to put up the ammo chart.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I am just here to tell your that the posters to the Hero boards' date=' including a number with whom you have butted heads, are not bad guys and generally have a great sense of humor. We can be as oversensitive and tempermental as the next guys, but are not into abuse, be it giving or receiving. Take from that what you will.[/quote']

 

I'm willing to start from ground zero again. We'll see.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Seriously' date=' though, I must say for the record that the "admission" on page 186 doesn't remotely come close to an admission of "sucking", and such an accusation is a bit over the top.[/quote']

 

Perhaps you would see my point if you had one shot and were being charged by a mad bull of a man (CON 15, Body 11) with a large knife intent on killing you.

 

Would you rather have a weapon with the effectiveness of the the standard rules HERO 9mm (only a 1/3 chance of stunning the guy for a round on a chest hit, no chance of killing him outright) or one with the effectiveness of a real world weapon that will most likely stop him in his tracks, or even kill him.

 

Looking at that knife gives suckage a whole new perspective doesn't it?

 

More seriously I don't want to debate the issue. The 'suck' term was meant only in comparsion to the way the weapons function in my game and reality. It wasn't meant to be applied to it's use in anyone else's specific campaign. My bad.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Would you rather have a weapon with the effectiveness of the the standard rules HERO 9mm (only a 1/3 chance of stunning the guy for a round on a chest hit' date=' no chance of killing him outright) or one with the effectiveness of a real world weapon that will most likely stop him in his tracks, or even kill him.[/quote']The 9mm NATO round does not have a sterling record in combat, which is why every US special operations unit has reverted back to the battle-proven .45 ACP. Even with my 1911A1 I'm going to empty the entire magazine into his center mass, not pray I get a single lucky hit.

 

I should also point out that in reality most people who get shot in the chest immediately cease whatever aggressive behavior they were displaying to instigate being shot and seek medical attention.

[Barton]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I am on both sides of do "guns suck in Hero" debate.

I disagree with Steve Long about some weapons. Some are too wimpy and his comments on certain weapons I just plain disagree with. To Steve, I still love you.

I also agree with the idea that Hero is a tool kit and is well balanced. Guns are well balanced especially in superhero games. Being a tool kit allows you to change guns if you wish.

Overall, I like how Hero deals with guns.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

The 9mm NATO round does not have a sterling record in combat' date=' which is why every US special operations unit has reverted back to the battle-proven .45 ACP. Even with my 1911A1 I'm going to empty the entire magazine into his center mass, not pray I get a single lucky hit.[/quote']

 

Oh I agree with you. In spades.

 

Even with my changes, the 9mm FMJ round only has a 61% chance of stopping a stat 10 Normal with a single shot. It drops noticeably as the target's stats increase into normal dangerous NPC level.

 

Most of my players as a result grab a .45 or .40 S&W for their characters unless the need for a more concealable weapon is primary.

 

 

I should also point out that in reality most people who get shot in the chest immediately cease whatever aggressive behavior they were displaying to instigate being shot and seek medical attention.

 

Yep.

 

Rather than show that with morale or other 'take control of the character' rules that would be completely new to HERO, I sought to bring the stun level up to where a single hit is more noticeable.

 

To be honest, I think I'm still undershooting reality. But that's ok by me. I may be gritter than most here, but my campaigns are still about Heroic adventure.

[zornwil]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Perhaps you would see my point if you had one shot and were being charged by a mad bull of a man (CON 15, Body 11) with a large knife intent on killing you.

 

Would you rather have a weapon with the effectiveness of the the standard rules HERO 9mm (only a 1/3 chance of stunning the guy for a round on a chest hit, no chance of killing him outright) or one with the effectiveness of a real world weapon that will most likely stop him in his tracks, or even kill him.

 

Looking at that knife gives suckage a whole new perspective doesn't it?

 

Thing is, I'm not a heroic figure with special abilities or simply having a bit of a charmed life. And in the game context (specifically), I don't see this scenario as an issue.

 

Now, that being said, I DO appreciate that you do see this as an issue and you want to correct it. I understand that. And FTR it wouldn't bother me if I were playing in a game with these rules. They just don't seem to apply or have presented issues for my gameplay.

 

More seriously I don't want to debate the issue. The 'suck' term was meant only in comparsion to the way the weapons function in my game and reality. It wasn't meant to be applied to it's use in anyone else's specific campaign. My bad.

 

That's cool, and I probably shouldn't have bothered to harp on it.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I also agree with the idea that Hero is a tool kit and is well balanced. Guns are well balanced especially in superhero games.

 

The interesting thing is that for Superhero games (where most characters have at least some resistent defense from their heroic spandex if nothing else), I haven't really altered the game balance much.

 

Rifles for example do almost the same damage that they do in standard HERO, while the armor effect limits on SMGs and Pistols cause them serious problems.

[Lupus]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

So what would be the problem with leaving damage where it is, and using the impairing/disabling wounds? O_o

 

A stat 10 normal gets a disabling wound to the chest 50% of the time under these rules. Go for a mid-body shot and you have a chance of hitting the vitals (possibly the heart) or stomach (extra STUN!) and that makes it even better.

 

Sure, an impairing wound to the chest won't FORCE someone out of the fight, but most NPCs can be assumed to make that choice of 'I'm going to sit down and be quiet for a while.'

 

You're the one, after all, who pointed out the FBI documents. There is only, it seems, a very SMALL chance of physiological incapacitation after a single hit from a mid-size pistol round, and that's more to do with hit location than anything else (say, Vitals or Head hit).

 

Over all, as I noted in my 'realistic' rules set, 'Realistic does not necessarily mean more deadly.' In fact, it can often be extraordinarily random.

 

The Tactical Briefs site also mentions that the 'real-world' data for fatalities/stops by bullets are weighted towards those used by police officers and military, due the level of skill possessed by them. Perhaps, then, another solution would be to allow people to buy some variant of 'Deadly Blow' (or, perhaps, a ranged martial art.

 

That said, I'm very much in favour of adding in Penetrating Points. Reduced Penetration for pistols also sounds like a winner.

 

Basically, the damage levels for HERO firearms looks fine to me (with the exception of the .45, which appears to be based on cinematics alone).

 

In short, I fear that raising the damage of pistol weapons significantly... well, it doesn't strike me as 'realistic', just 'deadly.' I'd much rather use disabling/impairing wounds and up the penalties involved with them.

 

(As well as, prolly, reducing the penalties for rapid fire, to allow people to fire lotsa bullets, if they're well-trained and the opponent isn't being defensive.)

[CourtFool]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I feel so lonely' date=' being perfectly content with the damage of firearms in modern action gaming...[/quote']

 

Don't feel lonely, scaley. I am with you. In a G.U.R.P.S. game I shot a dwarf through same eye three times with a Berretta and he survived. Granted we both had stupid point totals, he had a 20 HT and I had the skill to make a called shot to the eye and score three hits. Because I did not do 20x5 points of damage to kill him outright and because he made all of his HT rolls (duh with a 20!) he lived. And if I remember correctly...he was still standing.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

So what would be the problem with leaving damage where it is, and using the impairing/disabling wounds? O_o

 

 

Sure, an impairing wound to the chest won't FORCE someone out of the fight, but most NPCs can be assumed to make that choice of 'I'm going to sit down and be quiet for a while.'

 

Isn't that the entire point of the Stun stat?

 

Beyond that, we enter back into the concept of Mook rules under HERO, where I (the GM) decide what NPCs and/or players should in effect have half their normal body levels (for impairing hits) and no Stun again.

 

This has a number of problems for me from a game philosophy point of view:

 

1. HERO wasn't intended to use Mook rules, those are very new to the system. The original idea was that uncommon abilities that make up heroic characters are brought and paid for using points. Need something that makes it less likely for handguns to kill a character- buy Combat Luck, that's 5 points of armor vs. the 9mm, you'll end up with a 2 body stratch on an average hit- no chance of instant death. That's the whole point of the new Armor Effect Limit I use- it's cheap to protect a character when it's genre to do so (i.e. most superheroic games).

 

Depending upon invisible disadvantages (buying down Body, psy lim- gives up fight if wounded, etc) that is applied wholesale to an entire class of NPC is in effect saying the exact same thing as "Sorry, the design philosophy of HERO doesn't really work in this area, we need GM fiat instead".

 

2. I'm really not big into treating NPCs and PCs as if they are mechanically different creatures. Be it zero level commoners in D&D, Mooks in HERO, or any other example one cares to think of. I feel it detaches people from the reality of the game.

 

You can almost get away with this for Superheroic settings, however I insist on using the same HERO construction concepts for all my games with that system. If a weapon exists in my Shadowrun game is moved to my Marvel game- the stats must remain the same.

 

3. Providing a reduced level of danger for PCs results in non-genre (for some of the games I play) and unrealistic tactics. Players make tactical decisions based upon their perception of the risk/reward ratio.

 

By altering that ratio, I given them reason to select better tactics while also giving them reason to react to threats in a way closer to how they should be perceived in the genre I'm using.

 

 

 

You're the one, after all, who pointed out the FBI documents. There is only, it seems, a very SMALL chance of physiological incapacitation after a single hit from a mid-size pistol round, and that's more to do with hit location than anything else (say, Vitals or Head hit).

 

Yes, but there is a large chance of incapacitation due to unknown reasons. It was that chance that I was after.

 

And of course a risk of actually being killed outright by a handgun. It's small, but there.

 

 

The Tactical Briefs site also mentions that the 'real-world' data for fatalities/stops by bullets are weighted towards those used by police officers and military, due the level of skill possessed by them. Perhaps, then, another solution would be to allow people to buy some variant of 'Deadly Blow' (or, perhaps, a ranged martial art.

 

Given the skill of your typical police officer, that would be a VERY common ability. Real life stats show that such officers tend to hit their target only (to use 1997 numbers) once in ten shots. I have no indication that your typical military results are any better.

 

Having been on the gun range with a number of officers over the years, I can understand why the hit rate is so low.

 

 

 

Basically, the damage levels for HERO firearms looks fine to me (with the exception of the .45, which appears to be based on cinematics alone).

 

The FBI docs I linked indicate that it should do more damage than the 9mm, by the methods HERO used to determine weapon damage it would be the same 1d6+1K (although it does get a +1 stun mod).

 

The change in the .45 (also done for the .45 LC and 50 AE it seems) was a 'conversion system overide' intended to keep up with real world perception of the weapon. HERO seems to have based it numbers upon simple KE, but it was made in the years where the FBI thought that was the most important factor so it's understandable.

 

 

 

In short, I fear that raising the damage of pistol weapons significantly... well, it doesn't strike me as 'realistic', just 'deadly.' I'd much rather use disabling/impairing wounds and up the penalties involved with them.

 

It's not as deadly as it looks. The 9mm for example only has a 4% chance of a kill against a Stat 10 normal. Less against characters of typical PC or combatant NPC level.

 

What it does vastly increase is one shot stops- up to 61% for the stat 10 Normal. That means fewer hits are required to remove an NPC from a fight, thus there is a good chance that they end up taking less overall damage from a battle.

 

Add in the fact that I don't add up body damage cumulatively as happens in Standard HERO or do the 1 point dying damage (I handle it all through bleeding), the chance of living through a gun battle in my system may actually be higher.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I've seen all the SG-1 shows. Big fan of the series.

 

The staff weapons were claimed in the show to be more powerful in the earlier seasons. Just watched a re-run of one of them in fact where the team was constantly saying their weapons were outmatched. During this period of the show, Teal'c carried the staff weapon and it would often affect foes that their small arms were marginal against at best.

 

I think this was a necessary fix. If the staff weapons are more powerful, and the SG teams keep beating jaffa, why don't they either reverse engineer the staff weapons or at least keep carrying them? I was glad to see the writers address that question head on, and resolve it by giving the SG team weapons that were competetive.

[zornwil]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Don't feel lonely' date=' scaley. I am with you. In a G.U.R.P.S. game I shot a dwarf through same eye three times with a Berretta and he survived. Granted we both had stupid point totals, he had a 20 HT and I had the skill to make a called shot to the eye and score three hits. Because I did not do 20x5 points of damage to kill him outright and because he made all of his HT rolls (duh with a 20!) he lived. And if I remember correctly...he was still standing.[/quote']

I really need to learn GURPS. I bought a copy of the original boxed set, and I intend to buy the newest edition. A number of people in our group have done GURPS, but I never have.

[Lamrok]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

After reading through the FBI dics linked to in Fox1's website, I don't really understand all the criticism of Hero's depiction of handgun injury.

 

- It sounds to me like making a Headshot a x3 body injury might be valid.

 

- Use bleeding, disabling and impairing rules.

 

- Otherwise, it looks like one-shot insta-kills don't happen much.

 

- The article discusses incapicitation of victims due to psychological factors. The Hero "wounding" rules (having to make an ego roll of you get hit) seem to already address this. Have a victim make the roll, and determine subsequent actions based on the roll. If it is badly missed, count the victim as "incapacitated." Otherwise, use GM discretion when running NPCs. In my games, as soon as most NPCs are hit, their desire to fight is gone, and their actions reflect this (often playing dead intending only to live through the fight and surrender at the end). NPCs do not want to die. These sorts of "psychological" matters are best covered by the way a GM runs his villains.

 

I think players should be able to have a bit more say in how they react to getting wounded.

 

And, on another issue - I've been using mook rules since I first started playing the original Justice Inc. I don't think it was something I came up with by myself either. I suspect they were covered somewhere quite a while ago. I don't use these rules for realism - I use them to depict cinematic reality.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

After reading through the FBI dics linked to in Fox1's website' date=' I don't really understand all the criticism of Hero's depiction of handgun injury..[/quote']

 

The one shot instant kills was just the subject of someone's post in the thread that touched off the debate.

 

While having that was important to me, the actual factor that caused me to re-write the firearm damage was the need to have a single hit have a significant chance of taking someone out of the fight (i.e. reduce them to zero stun). That's the result of most shooting events and the result of the genres I typically game, but was impossible in in the standard HERO list.

 

There was also the desire to have the weapons scale correctly. Something they don't in the standard list.

 

 

- It sounds to me like making a Headshot a x3 body injury might be valid.

 

It would also require changing the vitials hits to x3 body (one would have to assume vitials is any spinal area hit).

 

However this doesn't work for me, it overpowers rifles (I don't want that many people dying). Also does nothing about proper scaling of the weapons. And also does nothing about one-shot incaps.

 

 

 

- Use bleeding, disabling and impairing rules.

 

Already do that.

 

 

- The article discusses incapicitation of victims due to psychological factors. The Hero "wounding" rules (having to make an ego roll of you get hit) seem to already address this.

 

 

Oh no, I'm not turning HERO into D&D save vs. whatever.

 

Nor is such a thing consist with the design philosophy of HERO. Stun is there as the method of removing a character from a fight from damage, not saving throws vs. removing from a fight.

 

As HERO grew and more hands got involved, concepts from other games leaked in. Mook Rules, Save vs. wounding, etc.

 

All unnecessary.

 

You want Mooks? Build your characters/weapons such that normal level NPC are effectively Mooks in comparsion.

 

You want wounding to slow down characters? Build your weapons so that they slow down the characters.

 

I'm a purest.

 

And, on another issue - I've been using mook rules since I first started playing the original Justice Inc. I don't think it was something I came up with by myself either. I suspect they were covered somewhere quite a while ago. I don't use these rules for realism - I use them to depict cinematic reality.

 

I've already given my reasons for not wanting to use Mook rules.

[Lamrok]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

While having that was important to me, the actual factor that caused me to re-write the firearm damage was the need to have a single hit have a significant chance of taking someone out of the fight (i.e. reduce them to zero stun). That's the result of most shooting events and the result of the genres I typically game, but was impossible in in the standard HERO list.

 

I guess main main thrust of what I'm saying (fueled by the document you linked to, and reflective of the way I've always run things) is that "taking someone out of the fight" (or incapacitating them) does not have to equal taking them to zero stun. Most people don't deal well with getting shot. One bullet through a non-vital organ is going to make them seriously consider whether they want to continue to fight or whether they curl up in a corner and cower. This can be modelled by GM fiat, or if you are looking for a game mechanic, the wounding rules address this. I don't think stun is the right way to go, since you aren't necessarily knocking them unconscious.

 

Ego rolls have been a part of the game since the beginning. The wounding rules may only be a mere 16 years old (maybe older), but the mechanic behind them is a full 24 years old.

 

It would also require changing the vitials hits to x3 body (one would have to assume vitials is any spinal area hit).

 

I tend to think of a vitals hit as a hit to the heart. I'd lump spinal hits in with headshots.

 

However this doesn't work for me' date=' it overpowers rifles (I don't want that many people dying). Also does nothing about proper scaling of the weapons. And also does nothing about one-shot incaps.[/quote']

 

The article seemed to imply that high caliber rifle wounds are a lot nastier than handgun wounds, giving some justification for this.

 

I hope I can go a week without having to type "incapacitate" again.