HERO System Vehicles

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Complaining that vehicles feel like character' date=' 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? [/quote']

 

Odd that GURPS manages it.

 

The solution of course is actually brain dead simple. You define the core techological 'level' of the vehicle (either as a whole or by component) and the mass/size requirements fall out from there. At the far extreme you'd have Clark's Law: Techology = Magic, weight/size nears or even equals 0.

 

Sounds like a up front adder cost, limits controlled by the individual campaign to me.

 

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.

 

They had a entire freakn' book to bolt-on a 'advanced optional' set of vehicle rules. And they had the basic core book with simple stupid vehicle rules.

 

Sounds to me like everyone would have been happy, not just you.

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

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 still retains the clauses on dramatic effect and SFX. Also, I didn't suggest that it not be paid for - simply apply the Indirect or NND Advantage in determining effective strength.

 

Regardless, in the end, I simply have to say I can't relate to such a failure to adjudicate special effects and clever power use. So we have no common ground to discuss here.

 

 

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.

 

Shrug, seems easily fixable.

 

(PS - to be clear, -10" KB or such, and reduce DEF)

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Regardless' date=' in the end, I simply have to say I can't relate to such a failure to adjudicate special effects and clever power use. So we have no common ground to discuss here.[/quote']

 

I wasn't the one who decided that bricks have to pay for shockwave.

 

I see no reason to screw one type of character using one form of logic (you must pay for what you do) and then turn around an screw another character using the reverse logic (sorry, it's clever power use- take 10d6 NND tank boy!).

 

One or the other has to go. Game design must be consistent.

 

 

Shrug, seems easily fixable.

 

Correcting the problem for every vehicle write-up in a consistant manner while expanding and improving the core vehicle mechanics is not "easily fixable".

 

It's a lot of work. After doing it for a handful of examples, I found it so much so that I've passed on it in favor of just simply not using vehicles in my campaigns.

 

This is coming from someone who already went through significant hoops to fix firearms.

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I wasn't the one who decided that bricks have to pay for shockwave.

 

I see no reason to screw one type of character using one form of logic (you must pay for what you do) and then turn around an screw another character using the reverse logic (sorry, it's clever power use- take 10d6 NND tank boy!).

 

One or the other has to go. Game design must be consistent.

 

You're still ignoring the rules in the book, I say. They are clear on the use of SFX and dramatic license. Just because Shockwave was distinguished is a mere excuse - it was distinguished, we can only presume, from abuse and commonality of use. Your approach isn't consistency - it's a form of rules lawyering and nit-picking that is inflexible. The example of Shockwave has a lot to do with something executed against already-vulnerable open targets; the example of a tank or similar is one of characters facing something you have already indicated is over-powered and in general not an ongoing concern but rather a relatively-isolated incident. The role of GM, much like the role of a manager in the real world, is to make those exceptions, not to be a rules droid. Otherwise we don't even need GMs or managers. It's not an issue of knee-jerk false common sense "rules were made to be broken", it's a matter of "rules were made to be properly used."

 

Correcting the problem for every vehicle write-up in a consistant manner while expanding and improving the core vehicle mechanics is not "easily fixable".

 

It's a lot of work. After doing it for a handful of examples, I found it so much so that I've passed on it in favor of just simply not using vehicles in my campaigns.

 

This is coming from someone who already went through significant hoops to fix firearms.

 

Not an unfair point. I just think you're not going to see a one-size-fits-all with vehicles in a system like HERO. Though you raise a fair point re GURPS. I'm not saying it can't be improved. But one must be clear as to whether the issue is examples or the base rules. I've seen a couple base rules examples, but not much in general in this thread.

 

Then again, it may be as simple as deflating DEF across the board and/or adding some other simple scaling techniques.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Just because Shockwave was distinguished is a mere excuse - it was distinguished' date=' we can only presume, from abuse and commonality of use. [/quote']

 

The whole concept of "Brick Tricks" as found in Ulimate Bricks defines 5th edition design- and it covers more than "abuse and commonality of use".

 

Want to rip things in two with your super strength? Sorry, can't do that very well with a reasonable STR level given the DEF values of objects in our game... HERE you go! Buy HKA only vs. objects!.

 

Want to pick up a pipe and wrap it around a thug with your super strength? That's Entangle with a OIF of suitable objects lying around.

 

I could go on an on. I've read a number of 5th edition supplements now. They all have this mindset. Shockwave is just a good example because the rules used to specifically state that it was free.

 

 

But use your super strength that is normally unable to damage a tank to pick it up and shake it and do NND to the crew? Zornwil says GO FOR IT. Zornwil says this is consistent.

 

Bah. I say Zornwil is in need of a logic checkup.

 

 

the example of a tank or similar is one of characters facing something you have already indicated is over-powered and in general not an ongoing concern but rather a relatively-isolated incident.

 

It wouldn't be a "relatively-isolated incident" If we had good vehicle rules and write-ups.

 

Nope, I'd be playing with them all the time.

 

They aren't good rules, so I don't play with them at all.

 

 

 

 

 

Then again' date=' it may be as simple as deflating DEF across the board and/or adding some other simple scaling techniques.[/quote']

 

Look to GURPS, they have the basics of what is needed. It goes beyond just deflating DEF.

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The whole concept of "Brick Tricks" as found in Ulimate Bricks defines 5th edition design- and it covers more than "abuse and commonality of use".

 

Want to rip things in two with your super strenght? Sorry, can't do that very well with a reasonable STR level given the DEF values of objects in our game... HERE you go! Buy HKA only vs. objects!.

 

Want to pick up a pipe and wrap it around a thug with your super strenght? That's Entangle with a OIF of suitable objects lying around.

 

I could go on an on. I read a number of 5th edition supplements now. They all have this mindset. Shockwave is just a good example because the rules used to specifically state that it was free.

 

 

But use your super strength that unable to damage a tank to pick it up and shake it and do NND to the crew? Zornwil says GO FOR IT. Zornwil this is consistent.

 

Bah. I say Zornwil is need a logic checkup.

 

Your refusal to acknowledge the rules inconvenient to your argument is staggering.

 

It wouldn't be a "relatively-isolated incident" If we had good vehicle rules and write-ups.

 

Nope, I'd be playing with them all the time.

 

They aren't good rules, so I don't play with them at all.

 

Huh, interesting, I'm not familiar with an ongoing need to have supers regularly toss off tanks like candy.

 

Look to GURPS, they have the basics of what is needed. It goes beyond just deflating DEF.

 

I'm not the one with the issue.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

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.

 

It's not that I want vehicles to have a drivetrain; I want them to have stats that reflect vehicles. I want them to have an acceleration, a maximum range, a maneuverability stat. I want to have an option to relate acceleration in some way to mass and engine. I want an option to figure out how much the various components weigh. I might like a way to figure out how much money an item costs. I want to have an option to have tires, or wings, or external engine pods, and to know how much DEF and BODY those items have. I want to have an option for segmented movement. Instead, we have vehicles with DEX, SPD, and phased movement.

 

ALot of the suggestions would defeat the advantages of building vehicles with he same tools we use to build characters.

 

So far I haven't seen any advantages to doing it. I've been looking at these freaking vehicle rules since 1990 and have yet to see any advantages to doing it this way.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Your refusal to acknowledge the rules inconvenient to your argument is staggering..

 

There is only one rule that justifies your 'solution'.

 

"The GM may make whatever ruling he wishes when he wishes"

 

Sorry, but that does not make a game design good.

 

 

Huh, interesting, I'm not familiar with an ongoing need to have supers regularly toss off tanks like candy..

 

That may be why then the current rules works for you in your game.

 

I on the other hand have great need for such things. Which is why the current rules SUCK. So much so that I've had to pass on entire campaigns and adventure arcs because they just plan wouldn't work as is and the time required to write my own rules is too great.

 

I.E. I actually had reason to use them, and you don't. Now then, from that simple fact- which of us is best suited to speak to the limits of those rules?

 

Yep, it's not you.

[atlascott]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The solution of course is actually brain dead simple. You define the core techological 'level' of the vehicle (either as a whole or by component) and the mass/size requirements fall out from there. At the far extreme you'd have Clark's Law: Techology = Magic, weight/size nears or even equals 0.

Sounds like a up front adder cost, limits controlled by the individual campaign to me. They had a entire freakn' book to bolt-on a 'advanced optional' set of vehicle rules. And they had the basic core book with simple stupid vehicle rules.

Sounds to me like everyone would have been happy, not just you.

 

You are one cranky-for-no-reason SOB.

 

If your ideas are so obvious and 'brain-dead simple' then why dont YOU come up with a vehicle system? If its so easy, go ahead and knock it out in a half hour, and then you can stop pestering the owners of the HERO system to change in favor of your game-busting ideas of what vehicle construction should be, eh?

 

Of course, the answer really is that it ISN'T as simple as your snide post suggests.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

You are one cranky-for-no-reason SOB..

 

I have a simple reason to be cranky on this thread.

 

Look at the first post, it asks "What do you not like about HERO Vehicles".

 

I give my reasons, and I've been dogged from day one by people trying to *correct* me.

 

How the hell can someone 'correct' someone else about what they don't like?

 

That makes me cranky, and it does so for a reason.

 

 

If your ideas are so obvious and 'brain-dead simple' then why dont YOU come up with a vehicle system?

 

Sigh. The core concept is simple.

 

The amount of work and research to pull it off (re-writing all the example vehicles is 99%) is much more significant.

 

But at this point I don't really expect anyone to understand the difference between the two items...

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

There is only one rule that justifies your 'solution'.

 

"The GM may make whatever ruling he wishes when he wishes"

 

Sorry, but that does not make a game design good.

 

5ER, Page 26, the discussion ends with "when...playing the game, use your common sense, your dramatic sense (your sense of what's "dramatically appropriate"...) and your understanding of game balance considerations to do what's best for everyone involved."

 

Further, just because TUB breaks out many powers does not mean all are inappropriate as "tricks". In fact, the powers are provided with a Brick Tricks Roll Penalty "...or for times when the GM permits the character to use he power as an impromptu "brick trick" based on a Skill Roll.", page 50, TUB. Of course these are not recommended for being used that way ongoing, and since you want to have tanks as something your bricks regularly treat casually, you are well correct that for your peculiar campaign circumstance this is an issue.

 

EDIT/PS - as I think you haven't read this yet I'll just edit and hope you see it before responding - actually, I agree it doesn't make for good game design, btw. But it is a valid approach, and I think that verges on fact as much as anything in life does. A suggestion was made as to ways in which this can be handled even if one kept tanks as tough as they are. The suggestion appears supported in two fashions by the rules, one requiring a specific ability (Power Skill) and the other ("common sense", which I'd hope every RPG falls back on as appropropriate) not.

 

That may be why then the current rules works for you in your game.

 

I on the other hand have great need for such things. Which is why the current rules SUCK. So much so that I've had to pass on entire campaigns and adventure arcs because they just plan wouldn't work as is and the time required to write my own rules is too great.

 

I.E. I actually had reason to use them, and you don't. Now then, from that simple fact- which of us is best suited to speak to the limits of those rules?

 

Yep, it's not you.

 

I didn't make any contrary claim, in fact I think I said just what you did. I'm simply unfamiliar with such a great need. And apparently your need is not quite so common, though at least Hawksmoor speaks to it more clearly where it does actually occur in what appears to be a more common issue/need.

 

I also have pointed out that the vehicle rules are lacking for many uses. I don't like them much for sci fi. But you've not really spelt out much more than not liking a couple specific things yet paint the broad-brush "sucks". So you have a bar of evidence to meet and you will naturally get asked many questions. I still don't understand your "tanks versus super" genre or whatever it is but I'm sure it must be quite pressing. It's unfortunate you had to pass up some games, it's a shame that apparently GURPS also wasn't good enough for you.

 

EDITED - substitute "I don't understand how anything can work for you if you're passing up entire games" for my original snide comment.

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I have a simple reason to be cranky on this thread.

 

Look at the first post, it asks "What do you not like about HERO Vehicles".

 

I give my reasons, and I've been dogged from day one by people trying to *correct* me.

 

How the hell can someone 'correct' someone else about what they don't like?

 

That makes me cranky, and it does so for a reason.

 

 

 

 

Sigh. The core concept is simple.

 

The amount of work and research to pull it off (re-writing all the example vehicles is 99%) is much more significant.

 

But at this point I don't really expect anyone to understand the difference between the two items...

Interesting. If rewriting the examples is 99% of it, I don't understand what's so prohibitive then to doing so as you need them. You won't be able to run "tanks versus supers" anytime soon, but after a few campaigns, about a decade or such, you should have a reasonable arsenal of vehicles.

[schir1964]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

...

Sigh. The core concept is simple.

 

The amount of work and research to pull it off (re-writing all the example vehicles is 99%) is much more significant.

 

But at this point I don't really expect anyone to understand the difference between the two items...

Then don't re-write the examples.

 

Create the system for vehicles, then post them here.

 

If the system is good, this community will re-write all those vehicle examples for you, but they'll need that new system first.

 

There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the system, regardless whether anyone else thinks it needs it or not. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I would be keen to see a new vehicle creation system. Although I do favor the school of making them akin to characters, I definitely know that doesn't work all the way around. Chris Goodwin's point is well stated.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Interesting. If rewriting the examples is 99% of it' date=' I don't understand what's so prohibitive then to doing so as you need them. You won't be able to run "tanks versus supers" anytime soon, but after a few campaigns, about a decade or such, you should have a reasonable arsenal of vehicles.[/quote']

 

Sadly I have other things to write. Or re-write as the case my be, i.e. my current on-going effort to move all my Marvel campaign characters to 5th edition.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Then don't re-write the examples.

 

Create the system for vehicles, then post them here.

 

It's not as easy a that.

 

Let's take the work I did on firearms (follow the link below for those who haven't seen it) for an example.

 

The weapon table you see on my website are a direct cut and paste out of an excel spreadsheet. That sheet has a number of columns where I enter a small number of real world numbers (weight, overall length, muzzle velocity, bullet mass, etc). It then runs the formulas and table lookups to produce game values and finally the display table you see. All the mechanics for that are also on my website (although the spreadsheet is not).

 

The result now is that I can input a handful of numbers from a weapon spec and instantly generate a new model firearm for my campaign with all the game stats and costs.

 

So it sounds like a case of doing that 1% work up front (the tables and formulas) and then plug and run.

 

It wasn't that simple.

 

In order to determine the breakpoints in the tables (and game formulas as opposed to the real world ballistic formulas) I hand to create the conversions for a wide range of weapons. There's limited space mechanically in HERO (you don't want 8d6k .38 specials for example) and you have to make sure that every weapon scales within that space.

 

There's a real do design - do conversions - adjust design cycle that goes on.

 

The western era weapons that I just added for example cased me to make a couple of minor changes in a table order to keep things intact. I expect shotguns to do the same when I get to them.

 

 

Vehicles would drop most of the spreadsheet assistance of the above process. Adding new designs would therefore take much longer- and the entire development cycle would be vastly extended.

 

 

Now perhaps this process of development is just a limit for myself, but it's major limit even so. I'd have to do dozens of conversions just to have a system ready to 'hand over'.

 

Even after that, as new conversions are done there may be the need for slight adjustments (to handle new tech, even if I was perfect otherwise) and those adjustments could change previous designs. I don't imagine people would like having their work undone and vehicles wouldn't have the spreadsheet advantage of automatically updating everything based upon a single change.

 

All that said, it may be something I do one day. I want to do my Avengers meets SHIELD meets X-COM: UFO Defense campaign. But for now, it's on the far back burner due to the sheer size of the task.

 

The best I could do is provide core concepts that would be the groundwork for the process.

 

 

 

 

If the system is good, this community will re-write all those vehicle examples for you, but they'll need that new system first.

 

It's a nice thought. But I don't really believe it would go that way.

 

After all, I don't see people rushing to make new weapons per my website standards (well except for some people that are anyway- they aren't posting them here).

[schir1964]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

...The weapon table you see on my website are a direct cut and paste out of an excel spreadsheet. That sheet has a number of columns where I enter a small number of real world numbers (weight' date=' overall length, muzzle velocity, bullet mass, etc). It then runs the formulas and table lookups to produce game values and finally the display table you see. All the mechanics for that are also on my website (although the spreadsheet is not)...[/quote']

Why would need to post all that. Apparently you've got basic formulas that you are using and are changing specific variables to get what you want. Why not post just the formulas. They don't even have to work initially, that's the point of posting it here, to let other people use them find different tweaks to get different results. You just need to then see if those tweaks are what you want. This may are may not be direct or as specific as you might like, but it is an option.

 

Believe me, there are people here who are just as detailed as you when it comes to trying to model the real world with the game system. They might just flock to your initiative and help take some of the load of you. Sounds like you've done some of this already, by have a website where people can comment and contribute to game.

 

It's a nice thought. But I don't really believe it would go that way.

 

After all, I don't see people rushing to make new weapons per my website standards (well except for some people that are anyway- they aren't posting them here).

Some may not even know about your website, but that's beside the point.

 

Just look as small group of people here have done with Traveller Hero over in the Star Hero section. They going through and converting every single item from the different Traveller games to Hero. They are crunching out the tables like nobodys business. One person got permission from Marc for the Traveller Conversion, and then people here just kept piling on to help.

 

It's a great resource if you can figure out how to manage it.

 

Just Trying To Help

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I would be keen to see a new vehicle creation system. Although I do favor the school of making them akin to characters' date=' I definitely know that doesn't work all the way around. Chris Goodwin's point is well stated.[/quote']

 

I keep noodling around with one but never seem to get anywhere with it; it never seems to quite feel "right" to me. One of these days I'll hit on exactly what I'm looking for.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I keep noodling around with one but never seem to get anywhere with it; it never seems to quite feel "right" to me. One of these days I'll hit on exactly what I'm looking for.

Yeah... me too.

I'm thinking we've got a lot of good ideas already in the pipeline, but its gonna take a fair bit of skullsweat to get them all down, codified and in a usable format.

If I'm feeling ambitious I might go through this whole thread and try and compile a set of bullet points to summarize the probelms the system currently faces and the possible features of an 'Advanced Vehicle System"

 

unless someone else wants to do it

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

One person got permission from Marc for the Traveller Conversion, and then people here just kept piling on to help.

 

Well there you have it.

 

If I had permission from Steve Long for an official conversion (when the Sun comes up in the west, any day now), I'm sure I'd have people piling on too.

 

I'll likely get to it some day just for my campaigns, but that day is not today.

[schir1964]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Well there you have it.

 

If I had permission from Steve Long for an official conversion (when the Sun comes up in the west, any day now), I'm sure I'd have people piling on too.

 

I'll likely get to it some day just for my campaigns, but that day is not today.

Please don't jump to an invalid conclusion like that.

 

The "Permission" from Marc was the specific names and terminology from Traveller. Thus the term "Laser Pistol" and it's definition is allowed to be used.

 

Frankly, I believe that the same thing would have happened without that permission, you just wouldn't have heard or seen all the work being done on it here at these boards. Probably less people, but I still think it would be done, however, it wouldn't be distributed freely.

 

Hey, if you don't even want to try to avail yourself of the resources here, that's you decision. You seem overly pessimistic about something that wouldn't really cost you anything by trying.

 

Good Gaming

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Sadly I have other things to write. Or re-write as the case my be' date=' i.e. my current on-going effort to move all my Marvel campaign characters to 5th edition.[/quote']

That can be a difficult task. I'm curious, since you raised it, what template, if any, are you using for that migration? Or is it all just interpretive? Not that there's anything at all wrong with that latter approach, just curious. I have a template for conversions I used for some of the books, but I was never a Marvel player, so I wouldn't call it useful. Hence my curiousity. Or, wait, are you the person who posted those conversion tips? I have them bookmarked - somewhere in my terrible, disorganized bookmarking system.

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Why would need to post all that. Apparently you've got basic formulas that you are using and are changing specific variables to get what you want. Why not post just the formulas. They don't even have to work initially, that's the point of posting it here, to let other people use them find different tweaks to get different results. You just need to then see if those tweaks are what you want. This may are may not be direct or as specific as you might like, but it is an option.

 

Believe me, there are people here who are just as detailed as you when it comes to trying to model the real world with the game system. They might just flock to your initiative and help take some of the load of you. Sounds like you've done some of this already, by have a website where people can comment and contribute to game.

 

 

Some may not even know about your website, but that's beside the point.

 

Just look as small group of people here have done with Traveller Hero over in the Star Hero section. They going through and converting every single item from the different Traveller games to Hero. They are crunching out the tables like nobodys business. One person got permission from Marc for the Traveller Conversion, and then people here just kept piling on to help.

 

It's a great resource if you can figure out how to manage it.

 

Just Trying To Help

 

- Christopher Mullins

Hmmm, I think you hit the nail on the head in that I think it takes a more genre-motivated audience. So, Fox1, maybe in one of the other fora you'd have better luck - such as Dark Champions. Also just making a suggestion to help.

 

BTW, I was thinking later, I don't want to come across as knee-jerk defending of the core vehicle rules. Like I said, I just think it's a difficult proposition to start - accomodating vehicles in this game gets very genre-specific, and in my opinion a large majority of heroic fiction just uses vehicles as window dressing and so HERO has to accomodate that as well as provide the springboard for more serious design. To put it this way, in playing supers, western, and in the old days fantasy I never saw vehicles come much into play in any detail, and, beileve me, it wasn't because people were afraid the rules weren't supportive enough. Whereas with sci-fi, absolutely, it comes into play big-time. Pulp is more sketchy; it didn't come into play in the relative few games I've done of it, but I am sure there are groups with serious demands for detailed vehicle rules in pulp, there just "has to be"! Anyway, from dealing with sci-fi even superficially, I assure you I understand there's an issue here. But I also just tend to think that the framework is reasonable and adequate as is for the so-called universal toolkit, and the bolt-ons you and Christopher reference are probably necessarily more genre-oriented. Maybe I'm dead wrong. I'd love to see a reasonably elegant vehicle design system that bridges the gap, allowing for less detail for many (most?) people and more detail for where it's needed.

[zornwil]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Yeah... me too.

I'm thinking we've got a lot of good ideas already in the pipeline, but its gonna take a fair bit of skullsweat to get them all down, codified and in a usable format.

If I'm feeling ambitious I might go through this whole thread and try and compile a set of bullet points to summarize the probelms the system currently faces and the possible features of an 'Advanced Vehicle System"

 

unless someone else wants to do it

That would really be great, at least for me as someone who's interest is much more casual.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

That can be a difficult task. I'm curious' date=' since you raised it, what template, if any, are you using for that migration? Or is it all just interpretive? Not that there's anything at all wrong with that latter approach, just curious. I have a template for conversions I used for some of the books, but I was never a Marvel player, so I wouldn't call it useful. Hence my curiousity. Or, wait, are you the person who posted those conversion tips? I have them bookmarked - somewhere in my terrible, disorganized bookmarking system.[/quote']

 

No, I don't have a template as such. Perhaps your thinking of some moving characters from another game system. I'm just updating 4th edition (and 3rd, and 2nd, and 1st...) write-ups to 5th.

 

I have certain standards I go by, but they are only workable for my own campaign- it's why I don't publish characters here. They don't match CU or anyone's work but our own.