HERO System Vehicles

[Captain Obvious]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Now I'm wondering what Von D-Man said, but I don't want to wade through all the nastiness of this thread's earlier pages...

[Vondy]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Now I'm wondering what Von D-Man said' date=' but I don't want to wade through all the nastiness of this thread's earlier pages... [/quote']

 

Yeah... me too.

 

I think he was referring to this

 

I... /snipperoonie/... and let characters using "super-attacks" declare they will make a "devastating attack" that does maximum body damage to inanimate objects in exchange for a full phase and 1/2 DCV. On average a brick with 60 STR will do 24 Body to a tank, which removes the "tank to tough for genre conventions" problem. On the other hand, the question becomes: should I have to do those things?

 

 

Word.

[Vondy]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I'd like to compliment Von D-Man on an elegant middle road to this that I would very much like to steal.

 

 

You may add the Von D-Man Rule of Devastating Breakage to you house rule list at any time.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I'm sure you know this Fox1' date=' so I'm wondering what problems you are having with the actual rules.[/quote']

 

I give five different reasonsin my first post for disliking the vehicle rules in HERO. One of them concerned the official constructions, a rather minor point- but one worth commenting on. Look back and note the other four points.

 

As to that minor point, If the official write-ups worked at all (i.e. scaled with one other), I could use them. Even though the rest of the rules lack, they would at list be consistent and if boring- functional. The fact that they are not makes everything thing about them useless. I don't want to spend time correcting write-ups for a crappy system, and re-doing the whole system isn't something I want to spend time on.

 

So as a result I just avoid vehicle centered HERO genres.

 

 

Clear now?

[Dust Raven]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

These five, right?

There are a number of problems with HERO system vehicles.

 

1. Attack/Defense ratios are off.

 

This is a general problem with HERO, but it shows up in spades with vehicles. How many penetrating hits do you need to take out a tank with a modern anti-tank weapon? In real life, it's one. In HERO, the number jumps to what? Four? Five? I don't have my book at hand, but a M1A1 will only do 8 body to itself per shot in, and that's when hit up the backside.

 

This can be corrected by altering the weapon/vehicle constructions, but this would be a official 5th edition HERO product- they won't alter those constructions.

 

So we'll be stuck with the strange HERO version of vehicle combat that would bear no relationship tactically or visually to what it was suppose to be modeling (i.e. modern armored combat).

 

Bring a lot of ammo guys.

A matter of rules use, rather than the rules.

 

 

2. Damage results are unbuttered bread

 

Actual vehicle damage is done at the compartment (for serious weapons) or at the component level (for lesser weapons).

 

HERO uses really boring small random tables (-x STR, -1 SPD, lose a power) plus an ablative Hit Point system (BODY) that doesn't bring vehicles to life.

 

How in the world does one lose STR on a M1A1? Was the engine damaged? If so, wouldn't that affect your movement rate before it altered your SPD (and thus the rate at which you could fire the top mounted machineguns)? Maybe it damaged the turret rotation mechanism, but why does that affect my movement SPD or ability to fire the smoke launchers?

 

Most of the results have me working overtime in an effort to explain what happened. Nothing is worse than explaining boring stuff and trying to make it interesting.

These rules are optional, and offered as a suggestion for unimaginative GMs or for use in a game where such effects aren't important. Really not a problem with the rules, as their just can't be a set of rules for this that universally applies to all genres and all campaigns. Like everything else, it's adjust to your liking.

 

 

3. Vehicles don't feel like vehicles

 

They feel more like characters. They don't have weight, space, powertrains or engines. They simply (like characters) have stats and powers.

 

In short rather than being something different or special, they are more of the same. In addition all the mechanical hooks that could be used to solve issue #2 above are missing.

How should they feel? If you want a different feel, use a different game that has rules that give you that feel. The mechanics of making anything in Hero System has nothing to do with SFX like weight, space or powertrains. This is true not just for vehicles, but for characters, automatons, computers, bases, followers, animals, etc. Everything. You make that up yourself to personal taste, and it has nothing to do with the rules.

 

 

4. They don't scale

 

No just with Superheroes, although that has been mentioned. They don't scale with each other.

 

Try creating the range of combat vehicles used in history. We've already seen the designers try.

 

Pit the official version of a platoon of M1A1 battle tanks against the Iowa Class Battleship. The outcome is a joke of simulation.

Explain to me why they need to scale? Then explain to me why a Fantasy Hero cutpurse has to scale with a Star Hero space pirate. Then explain why Doctor Destroyer has to scale with Mechanon and Defender.

 

In any case, this is just the same as your first point. You don't like the writeups.

 

 

5. Movement is wrong

 

As Chris Goodwin noted, the SPD system (so well suited to characters) does a grave injustice to vehicles. Things were much better in 3rd edition.

 

Says you (and Chris Goodwin). There are rules that don't use the SPD system, if you'd stomach the first few pages of rules to get to them to read them. Or maybe you have and don't like those either. I dunno. Movement really isn't wrong, it's just the same as we use for normal Characters (and well, EVERYTHING in the Hero System). If movement if wrong for any one thing, it must be wrong for everything (and then isn't a fault of the vehicle rules, but a fault of the entire system). If movement was different for vehicles, even slightly, how would you run a game that involved both characters and vehicles? You couldn't. Well, not without more complicated charts that told you what everyone's movement converted to so you know when and where things happen.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

These five, right?

A matter of rules use, rather than the rules.

 

Yes, these five.

 

Point one can be solved by different construction methods- in much the same way that I solved firearms for my HERO campaigns.

 

However that is a lot of work, work that I don't wish to undertake in general- and thus work that will never be done.

 

Thus, this is a reason I don't like HERO vehicles.

 

BTW: I spent this effort to fix firearms in HERO, which had similar probelms. They now work for me, however that came with the result that anything HERO publishes for firearms is useless to me. So as a result, I also dislike HERO firearms intensely.

 

 

These rules are optional, and offered as a suggestion for unimaginative GMs or for use in a game where such effects aren't important. Really not a problem with the rules, as their just can't be a set of rules for this that universally applies to all genres and all campaigns. Like everything else, it's adjust to your liking.

 

Odd that GURPS was able to do much better than HERO with Vehicles, given that it too is intended as a cross-genre toolkit.

 

Component base damage would suit almost any genre that had vehicles, it's lack is a major factor in HERO's failure on this level.

 

 

 

How should they feel? If you want a different feel, use a different game that has rules that give you that feel.

 

This is want I already do. I use a completely different game system for starships for example.

 

However I fail to understand why people seem to insist on my not saying that I consider this a reason HERO vehicle combat sucks. Is there some reason that you think that I should admit that HERO vehicles are the cat's meow even though I have to completely replace their subsystem? Odd viewpoint that.

 

 

 

 

Explain to me why they need to scale? Then explain to me why a Fantasy Hero cutpurse has to scale with a Star Hero space pirate. Then explain why Doctor Destroyer has to scale with Mechanon and Defender.

 

Simple reason.

 

I love cross-setting adventures. The X-Men on the Enterprise, Shadowrun goes to Fantasy.

 

This means that stuff has to scale.

 

One would think that a any-genre toolkit would do that. GURPS does for example.

 

 

Says you (and Chris Goodwin).

 

 

For the point at hand (i.e. the question of this thread- what don't you like about HERO Vehicles), I'm afraid my friend that is all that is needed.

 

It of course hads no relation to why YOU would say, but it doesn't need to.

[prestidigitator]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Component base damage would suit almost any genre that had vehicles' date=' it's lack is a major factor in HERO's failure on this level.[/quote']

Actually, you can do component-based damage quite easily. Build all the vehicle's Powers as Frameworks (Multipowers and Elemental Controls, as appropriate). Then you can simply re-create the charts (which aren't really part of the system, but an example of its use) and make all the results things like: lose 10 APs from Power X (where Power X is really a Framework). It wouldn't be all that difficult, and doesn't utilize any new rules at all.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Actually' date=' you can do component-based damage quite easily. Build all the vehicle's Powers as Frameworks (Multipowers and Elemental Controls, as appropriate). Then you can simply re-create the charts (which aren't really part of the system, but an example of its use) and make all the results things like: lose 10 APs from Power X (where Power X is really a Framework). It wouldn't be all that difficult, and doesn't utilize any new rules at all.[/quote']

 

a) That wouldn't improve things from my PoV. Just how does a 120mm cannon 'lose' 10 APs for example? The very concept is silly.

 

The charts ARE part of the system. They can of course be replaced and over-turned. But that does not address the question put to me "What do I dislike about HERO Vehicles". I can of course replace and redo the entire system- doing so does not change the fact that I dislike the orginal in any way or form.

[Harry Canyon]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

 

I got to the second page of this thread when this occurred to me...

 

One of the problems, IMO, with rules heavy games like HERO is that the concept of the "GM's call" seems to be ignored or forgotten (perhaps even discouraged?). With the level of detail involved, we assume that the "Sacred Rules" will answer our most worthy questions. That isn't always the case. There are times when the GM just has to make a call. Generally this call is based on what the GM feels is reasonable in his/her game.

 

I also humbly suggest instead of crying: "This sucks!" and providing endless reams of detailed "evidence" which "proves your point", provide some positive feedback. Okay you've told us it sucks. How do you propose to fix it?

 

Take care,

 

Derek

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

 

I got to the second page of this thread when this occurred to me...

 

One of the problems, IMO, with rules heavy games like HERO is that the concept of the "GM's call" seems to be ignored or forgotten (perhaps even discouraged?). With the level of detail involved, we assume that the "Sacred Rules" will answer our most worthy questions. That isn't always the case. There are times when the GM just has to make a call. Generally this call is based on what the GM feels is reasonable in his/her game.

 

I also humbly suggest instead of crying: "This sucks!" and providing endless reams of detailed "evidence" which "proves your point", provide some positive feedback. Okay you've told us it sucks. How do you propose to fix it?

 

Take care,

 

Derek

 

Been working on it

We'll see what I can come up with in my spare time.

I still need to get the various vehicle books to do a proper job meshing with the current system, so its more like a set of "advanced" rules than an actual ground up rewrite, tho it might end up as one anyway.

I figure anyone with a handle like Harry Canyon could appreciate a better set of vehicle rules... heavily armed flying cabs are but one of the many things I'd like to be able to model better, tho in truth, they are of a close enough scale to humans to work OK even with the current rules.

[Harry Canyon]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I figure anyone with a handle like Harry Canyon could appreciate a better set of vehicle rules... heavily armed flying cabs are but one of the many things I'd like to be able to model better' date=' tho in truth, they are of a close enough scale to humans to work OK even with the current rules.[/quote']

 

Congrats! (Many folks seem to think I got the handle from the adult film industry. )

 

"So I put it down as a two day ride... With one helluva tip."

 

Derek

[Dust Raven]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

 

I got to the second page of this thread when this occurred to me...

 

One of the problems, IMO, with rules heavy games like HERO is that the concept of the "GM's call" seems to be ignored or forgotten (perhaps even discouraged?). With the level of detail involved, we assume that the "Sacred Rules" will answer our most worthy questions. That isn't always the case. There are times when the GM just has to make a call. Generally this call is based on what the GM feels is reasonable in his/her game.

 

I also humbly suggest instead of crying: "This sucks!" and providing endless reams of detailed "evidence" which "proves your point", provide some positive feedback. Okay you've told us it sucks. How do you propose to fix it?

 

Take care,

 

Derek

 

True (and repped).

 

My personal "fix" for the Vehicle rules is to play them as if they aren't broken. They seem to work okay that way. Should a case come up when I need more detail or information that the rules can't stat out for me, I chalk it up to SFX, write it all down and play with such information as if its all part of the rules. No big deal.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

 

Congrats! (Many folks seem to think I got the handle from the adult film industry. )

 

"So I put it down as a two day ride... With one helluva tip."

 

Derek

Just about my favorite quote from the movie.

*Major*Trivia*Geek*

(that and my longest running Champions character had a quirk that he tended to quote movies, songs and the like all the time, so I really spent several years collecting good quotes to throw out at appropriate moments)

[Harry Canyon]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

"So I put it down as a two day ride... With one helluva tip."

Just about my favorite quote from the movie.

*Major*Trivia*Geek*

(that and my longest running Champions character had a quirk that he tended to quote movies, songs and the like all the time, so I really spent several years collecting good quotes to throw out at appropriate moments)

 

In our first Champions game back in the early/mid-'80's, one of the player's arch-nemesis was Hanover Fist.

 

I also used a house rule where you could "tempt fate" pretty much whenever you wanted. Whenever there was an attack with a fairly large number of dice, you could opt for the "One Die" method. I rolled one die and multiplied it by the total. I'll be darned if didn't roll "6" every time my buddy opted for this against him, too.

 

Take care,

 

Derek

[Harry Canyon]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Things I dislike about Hero System vehicles/design rules

 

- snip -

 

2. no rules for volume/mass etc for equipment

this ones been hashed and rehashd multiple times, I just do things my way for Star Hero and Traveller Hero. my way being pretty much bashing things together using the volume/mass rules from whatever version of Traveller I am working with. i do things with other systems too, its just traveller has a fairly coherent system for volume etc... and its what I know best

 

- snip -

If memory serves, the original Star Hero* book had rules for volume/mass. One of the advantages you could buy for an item was Miniaturization. I vaguely recall that initial mass of the object was determined by active points... But certainly don't trust my memory. (I don't! Hmm... Neither does my wife come to think of it... )

 

* I have the new one... Just haven't had time to read it yet.

 

Take care,

 

Derek

[shadowcat1313]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

your right, it did have some rules, I dont have a copy of them unfortunately

 

I've yet to see a set of vehicle/starship design rules I really liked, for simple rules I like High Guard for ships, or Dirtside 2 for vehicles

 

for advanced vehicle design, Striker is still my favorite

[Hawksmoor]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I don't hate the HERO vehicle rules, they do what I need them too. I just want Heroes to be able to deal with them like they should be able to. But I recognize that is an argument for greater point levels and lower cost combat movement.

 

Hawksmoor

[prestidigitator]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

a) That wouldn't improve things from my PoV. Just how does a 120mm cannon 'lose' 10 APs for example? The very concept is silly.

It was just an example. You could completely break the Power/Framework instead, which is more in keeping with Focus rules and such.

 

The charts ARE part of the system. They can of course be replaced and over-turned. But that does not address the question put to me "What do I dislike about HERO Vehicles". I can of course replace and redo the entire system- doing so does not change the fact that I dislike the orginal in any way or form.

Nah. They are examples, just like the weapon charts are examples. They have nothing to do with the system. Do you take the side bar examples (such as the example build of handcuffs with Entangle) to be part of the system? Must any Power with a similar concept be built exactly like the examples in the side bars? No. Can you use the examples in the side bars if you want? Certainly, if it is in keeping with House Rules, the GM's setting, etc.

 

There's nothing to say you can't have a dagger in your game that does 3d6 damage instead of the example 1/2d6 (or whatever it is) from the chart. There's nothing to say you can't use different builds for vehicles and damage results either.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

There's nothing to say you can't have a dagger in your game that does 3d6 damage instead of the example 1/2d6 (or whatever it is) from the chart. There's nothing to say you can't use different builds for vehicles and damage results either.

 

The point was that the examples suck. Sucky examples mean more work for me. More work for me means something I don't like. Something in this case is vehicles.

 

1. I have to construct my own vehicles.

 

2. I have to construct my own vehicle damage rules.

 

3. I have to add on this further rules to make them feel different "yawn, another character- this one has wheel".

 

4. etc. etc.

 

 

At which point can I say making do all this work sucks without have people keep telling "but you can do all this extra work".

 

It's getting old.

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Vehicles are very hard to handle, IMHO, in a role-playing game due to the contrasting needs of gamers, who range from vehicle geeks to actors, basically. Deriving a usable set of vehicle rules for Cyber Ninja Pirates from HERO was very difficult work, but mainly because of what I wanted out of vehicles, which will be different from game to game and GM to GM. It's even different for me game to game as a GM.

 

I think the HERO vehicle rules are adequate for HERO. They aren't good enough for a Car Wars game, they aren't good enough for a pure sci-fi game, but they are okay for generic purposes and it seems to me that most people's contributions here echo that they are at least "fixable" (which could also be said to "easily customized") to whatever purpose we need, mostly. I grant they probably aren't easily fixable for very realistic purposes, but I argue at that point one is markedly departing from the world of emulating "heroic fiction" which demands a considerable emphasis on the hero over many aspects of reality and the extension of the vehicle, more often, of the character. So it's a built-in limitation by design, as such not really a flaw but a feature.

[Vondy]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

/Snip

Sigh, let's go through it all...

 

from page 176:

 

"{1}Whenever a Vehicle gets an Occupants/Cargo result on its Vehicle Hit Location Table (and sometimes other results), {2}or it suffers a crew casulaties results on an optional effects roll, {3} or it loses more than half it's current BODY, the characters aboard are endangered.

 

I've added the {ref} numbers. Let's go through them shall we?

 

{3} For this to happen to a M1A1 through the front, the attack would have to total an astounding 43 BODY. Looks like the Hulk needs a STR of 215.

 

{2} Page 190 If a Vehicle suffers actual BODY damage in combat, the GM may, if he wishes, roll to see if an "optional effect" of damage occurs as a result."

 

Bolding mine. That means a 31 body attack (STR of 155) attack on average from the front, let's run the charts shall we?

 

Using the Automobile Hit Location charts (there isn't one for tanks) we note that the chance of getting crew casulaties from the optional table is... get ready for it...

 

7.6%

 

Whoop Whoop

 

Edit: Oh, forgot to add that the max crew loss in from this method is a overwhelming 24%.

 

Add an extra Whoop to the above.

 

Edit: I did find the tank section. The actual chance is 4.1% The max crew loss is 12% (not even a full man). Further chances in my post edited

 

Add a fourth Whoop to the above

 

{1} Base chance of this happening (assuming a hit on main body counts as Occupants/Cargo): 25%

 

However please note on page 189 the following:

 

If an Occupants/Cargo result comes up on a vehicle Hit Location table, the damage applies to the Vehicle as normal. Any damage that gets through the Vehicle's defense then applies to the occupant(s).

 

So we still have to get through that 30 DEF front armor if the Hulk is going to damage those crewmen.. And here I thought we could just ignore the armor like you suggested.

 

/snip

 

Pick up tank. Shake tank vigorously. Set tank down.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Have a beer.

 

Its effecitve, saves the government money, and is environmentally friendly.

 

One the other hand, you are correct that the current M1 Abrams write up isn't a good genre tank. While I think you had some excellent criticisms, most of what I snipped, and some of what I didn't, was intentionally snide. Its not a good way to make your point.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Pick up tank. Shake tank vigorously. Set tank down.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Have a beer.

 

I don't see anything in the current rule set that indicates any damage occurs from shaking a tank.

 

Make up more rules, have another beer. Turn yet another blind eye to the problems at hand. Life goes on normally in HERO land.

 

At least it's clear that Steve Long is a common example of rule design mastery...

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I don't see anything in the current rule set that indicates any damage occurs from shaking a tank.

 

Make up more rules, have another beer. Turn yet another blind eye to the problems at hand. Life goes on normally in HERO land.

 

At least it's clear that Steve Long is a common example of rule design mastery...

Are you seriously stating that shaking a vehicle with occupants is something you would not award damage for, probably treating as an NND or such (PS - Indirect comes to mind as well)? Are you seriously suggesting that it's not a common sense thing that a GM in any game system wouldn't/shouldn't respond to?

 

It's quite all right to criticize many of the facets of specific vehicles designed as well as the rules as such, but to suggest that there's a systemic deficiency because every maneuver is not covered is a bit much.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Are you seriously stating that shaking a vehicle with occupants is something you would not award damage for' date=' probably treating as an NND or such (PS - Indirect comes to mind as well)? Are you seriously suggesting that it's not a common sense thing that a GM in any game system wouldn't/shouldn't respond to?.[/quote']

 

Yes I am. It's not in the rules, and why should I take damage for a event that a) isn't in the rules AND a vulnerability I didn't pay for?

 

I paid for defenses that did not have limits, I don't expect things to bypass those defenses without paying for them. Remember, 5th edition is the ruleset that makes you pay for the brick shockwave- it has dumped most 'common sense' applications the game did have to begin with.

 

 

It's quite all right to criticize many of the facets of specific vehicles designed as well as the rules as such, but to suggest that there's a systemic deficiency because every maneuver is not covered is a bit much.

 

Give me a break. First, the above is example of error in official construction- not systemic (systemic is the vehicle damage mechanics, stats, movement rules, etc).

 

Second...

 

 

You really want to know how a M1A1 vs. M1A1 front on combat by the rules would actually work? First tank to fire would bounce with it's main attack- however the knockback would send the other tank flying and THAT would do damage to the crew inside using the collusion rules.

 

So we have a system and official construction method that tells me the best way for one tank to take out the other is by taking out the crew using freakn' knockback!

 

This isn't a case of not having "every maneuver is not covered". This is pure and simple stupidity of construction.

[atlascott]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The criticisms regarding the vehicle rules are, in some points well taken, and in others, not.

 

Complaining that vehicles feel like character, do not have weight, or drive trains and engines, is anathema to the flexibility of the system. In other words, how can you impose these constructs on a flexible game system? Maybe your car laser is a bulky OAF, but maybe I want mine the size of a pinhead and mounted on my rearview mirror. Maybe Mr. Super has a antigrav vehicle with a tiny powerplant (or NO powerplant), no drivetrain. ALot of the suggestions would defeat the advantages of building vehicles with he same tools we use to build characters. So, we already have people complaining about the complexity of the game---you want them to bolt-on an entirely new and different set of rules for cars, jets, mopeds, etc? I think this would be a bad, bad idea.

 

The criticisms about the relative power levels of vehicles to vehicles, and supers to vehicles, is well taken. My original supers camapign featured 250 pt characters. The default now, for mature, fuller-featured supers, as I understnad it, is 350. Alot of people run 500 or higher point characters, who would be grease spots if hit by a tank or fighter jet. That's ok for a Professor X clone, but not for a character based on the Hulk or Juggernaut (ie, a pretty powerful brick). However, this addresses write-ups, NOT the mechanics of the system itself. I would agree that I would DEFINITELY buy a book of builds--weapons from all periods, vehicles from all periods, etc. Make sure they are balanced and make sense for the average, say, 350 or 400 point super, and I'd lauy down my $50 in an instant.