An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

[TheRavenIs]

I had this strange idea on how to make Hero more dangerous.

 

First, alter the DC so that it is now 3pts per class. That means that Str breaks will now fall on multiple's of three, this is also for all effects of strength. Alter the normal Str and Con to 6. Then keep PD, ED, Rec, End and Stun, calculated in the normal way. You also want to keep all defence powers the same.

 

Second, alter all other damaging powers so that they are also set at 3pts/DC or it's equaliviant. EB's will cost 3pts=1DC, KA's will cost 9pts=3DC or 1KDC, MADC's will now generate 2DC's per 4pts, and HTHAK will now be 2pts=1DC.

 

Third, Heroes still start with the normal 10 in Str and Con.

 

Idea's on this.

[MitchellS]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Rather then changing the rules of the game system wouldn't it just be easier to increase the damage classes allowed in the game? Just up the allowed damage from 10 DC to 20 DC. If you need to give the players more base points do so.

[ghost-angel]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

I managed to create fairly lethal games with the rules as written, using Hit Locations and severely controlling the DEF levels characters can take.

 

When 9rPD is considered Very High Def, players tend to think twice before going John Woo and jumping through gunfights guns blazing. The average player in some of my grittier games had 3-4rPD. Even a 1D6K starts to look unhappy if repeatedly exposed.

 

Mind you this was in Heroic Games where Healing Body took weeks to months and NCM was in effect, the avg BODY score being around 10. So that's how it worked out for me, I tend to get pretty high death rates going in games like this. And bleeding rules, use Bleeding rules.

[Fox1]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Idea's on this.

 

Well..

 

You've reduced the cost of offensive powers in relation to defensive ones. But that doesn't really control how people spend their points. I haven't looked at it in detail, but I would think that the gain in points spent offensively to reach your campaign's damage cap would just be spent on defenses.

 

Perhaps I'm unclear as to what you're trying to do?

[TheRavenIs]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Well I was also see that it alters the lifting power of a normal point C. But yes you could do it that way but mostly I was looking for a way to make a C like Superman without having a C with a 125 Str.

[Greywind]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Be a lot easier in the long run, with Superman, to do the 125 STR.

[TheRavenIs]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Well..

 

You've reduced the cost of offensive powers in relation to defensive ones. But that doesn't really control how people spend their points. I haven't looked at it in detail, but I would think that the gain in points spent offensively to reach your campaign's damage cap would just be spent on defenses.

 

Perhaps I'm unclear as to what you're trying to do?

 

Well I was wanting to make the civilian body count higher, and would set a limit on Def's

[Fox1]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Well I was wanting to make the civilian body count higher' date=' and would set a limit on Def's[/quote']

 

Ah, just civilians then. It would certainly work for that.

 

I take it you're avoiding the use of the impair/disable rules...

 

Another option is to not adjust damage classes and point costs at all, but drop Civilian stun and body to taste. Say 4 BODY and 10 Stun? That will result in most mid-range guns having a 2/3 chance of a kill in a single shot.

 

Your campaign caps should control the relative offense/def for players and the like.

[TheRavenIs]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Ah, just civilians then. It would certainly work for that.

 

I take it you're avoiding the use of the impair/disable rules...

 

Another option is to not adjust damage classes and point costs at all, but drop Civilian stun and body to taste. Say 4 BODY and 10 Stun? That will result in most mid-range guns having a 2/3 chance of a kill in a single shot.

 

Your campaign caps should control the relative offense/def for players and the like.

 

 

Also I wanted to make High DC C's without lot's of extra points, plus making Str's effectiveness more, lifting/throwing etc. I like hit locations and impair/disable but want to make it quick and dirty.

[Fox1]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Also I wanted to make High DC C's without lot's of extra points' date=' plus making Str's effectiveness more, lifting/throwing etc.[/quote']

 

Well you're there if that's what you want. The caps you set will be the important thing as far as control.

 

A couple of hints about how a high damage, low defense system has affected other gaming groups:

 

Some have moved more towards ambushing foes rather than fighting them up front. Your game my resemble a contest of assassins more than the story of heroes. This may be what you want.

 

Other groups have attempted to avoid combat completely unless there was no other option. Again, this may be what you want.

 

Be ready to deal more with the game modifiers if you're still allowing them. People will seek range and cover more than they would in a tactical game- assuming they understand tactics.

 

Stuff like that.

 

Good luck.

[TheRavenIs]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Well you're there if that's what you want. The caps you set will be the important thing as far as control.

 

A couple of hints about how a high damage, low defense system has affected other gaming groups:

 

Some have moved more towards ambushing foes rather than fighting them up front. Your game my resemble a contest of assassins more than the story of heroes. This may be what you want.

 

Other groups have attempted to avoid combat completely unless there was no other option. Again, this may be what you want.

 

Be ready to deal more with the game modifiers if you're still allowing them. People will seek range and cover more than they would in a tactical game- assuming they understand tactics.

 

Stuff like that.

 

Good luck.

 

I am not going to be running one right now, but I was going to just run this past Herodom. What I was looking for idea's.

[Klytus]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

I gotta go with Ghost-Angel: using the existing rules are all you need to make the game more deadly.

[Fox1]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

I am not going to be running one right now' date=' but I was going to just run this past Herodom. What I was looking for idea's.[/quote']

 

Well you got some.

 

I'm going to side with the others. Just raise the campaign caps, pehaps lower Body and Stun caps. Adjust total points to taste afterwards.

 

I'm not big on changing point costs.

[philnicau]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

By reducing the cost of attacks, whilst leaving defences the same you're breaking one of the fundamental rules of the Hero System

"For every attack there must be a defence, and the defence must be cheaper"

[ghost-angel]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

By reducing the cost of attacks, whilst leaving defences the same you're breaking one of the fundamental rules of the Hero System

"For every attack there must be a defence, and the defence must be cheaper"

 

Which is good for you're average Hero game.

 

But he wants a particularly Lethal Hero game. In which case making Attacks cheaper is a possible route to go. More bang for your buck so to speak.

 

And the only Fundamental Rule of Hero is this: "Everyone playing in any given game should have fun and agree on basic campaign guidelines" everything after that is malleable.

[Vorsch]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

I think he just wants to make the game lethal, without having to resort to nuclear strikes costing 10pts.

 

Heros defences are way way higher than any other game (apart from space 1889) in terms of survivability. You cant even kill a tough human with a haymaker ever phase for a year. Most MAs can survive, by the numbers, having a tank roll over there head. These are not inconsequential rules, especially if you favour a game wher being shot can actually kill you ( by the standard rules this is not so ) or have your head caved in by a troll or whatever.

 

Without changing any costs simple state that all Pd and Ed ( inc FF Armour whatever )only gives 1/2 def vs body damage, but still full effect from stun.

 

Now str 60 bricks with def 30 can actually hurt each other, not easily but at least its possible.

[Markdoc]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

I tend to run heroic games with a high degree of lethality, but rather than changing the rules, which introduces other problems (balancing STR against other effects, for example) my approach is:

 

1. No caps. If players want to build big, bad attacks, they can. In Heroic games where the equipment is free, the response is to buy lots of levels,martial arts or both, so you can reliably target the squishy bits, since you can't easily increase the damage of the weapon itself.

 

2. Control defences. Again, applies mostly to heroic games, but in fantasy type games I enforce "realistic" limits on armour and limit magical defences. A 2d6 HKA is plenty scary if all you have is 3 rPD combat luck and a nice shirt. I limit access to body armour in modern settings. A SWAT-style flak jacket actually gives pretty good protection, but you'll draw some attention if you try and enter most large buildings wearing one. That kind of thing

 

Depends on how lethal you want things to be and why you want them to be lethal.

 

In real life, stabbings (admittedly most of which are with light weapons) have about a 3% chance of causing immediate or rapid death, while shootings (again, most of which are with relatively low-powered weapons) have a fatality rate of about 16% - falling to less than 10% if some kind of body armour is used. Those numbers would be a lot higher if the victim is left untreated of course - but these are the numbers for how many people make it through the "golden hour" ie how many survive the first hour after shooting/stabbing. The current hero rules are in this general ballpark.

 

If you want heroes to simply stand out against normals, then all you need to do is increase the points heroes start with and keep normals at a lower level.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

A couple of hints about how a high damage, low defense system has affected other gaming groups:

 

Some have moved more towards ambushing foes rather than fighting them up front. Your game my resemble a contest of assassins more than the story of heroes. This may be what you want.

 

Other groups have attempted to avoid combat completely unless there was no other option. Again, this may be what you want.

 

Be ready to deal more with the game modifiers if you're still allowing them. People will seek range and cover more than they would in a tactical game- assuming they understand tactics.

 

These are very good points - the flavour of your game will certainly be affected, so you should understand how.

 

Additional issues that come to my mind:

 

- getting the first attack becomes much more important. Expect players to gravitate towards higher Speeds and Dex's, perhaps also Lightning Reflexes, to maximize the chance of getting the first shot in.

 

- getting Stunned becomes much more likely, fuirther increasing the need to get the first shot in, and decreasing the need for teamwork in this regard.

 

- moe bored players when the one-punched sit around and watch the others dodge, hunt cover, etc. through lengthy combats is likely.

 

- with defenses capped, players will likely gravitate to DCV enhancement abilities.

 

- sensory-affecting powers become even more useful, as lowering my opponent's OCV reduces my odds of getting one-punched, and lowering his DCV enhances my ability to one punch him.

 

- maneuvers that enhance damage at the cost of DCV (haymakers and offensive strikes, possibly sweep and rapid fire) will be less popular, since I have a god chance of a one punch at full DCV, and the retaliation is even more severe after I lower my DCV.

[zornwil]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

Rather then changing the rules of the game system wouldn't it just be easier to increase the damage classes allowed in the game? Just up the allowed damage from 10 DC to 20 DC. If you need to give the players more base points do so.

How about just doing damage in d8s instead of d6s?

 

(PS - this post brought to you by the Society for the Advancement of Non-D6s)

 

(Actually, I do think it's cool to use different dice; it's a pain to rework Hero to do so, but for the sake of simply making "more damage", going to d8s or even d10s (which I think would really push it) might be nice and, indeed, simple)

[pinecone]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

How about just doing damage in d8s instead of d6s?

 

(PS - this post brought to you by the Society for the Advancement of Non-D6s)

 

(Actually, I do think it's cool to use different dice; it's a pain to rework Hero to do so, but for the sake of simply making "more damage", going to d8s or even d10s (which I think would really push it) might be nice and, indeed, simple)

I remember an old newsletter article back in the early 80's that covered how to convert D6's to larger dice with costs and all...I'm sure somebody still has that article somewhere....

[zornwil]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

I remember an old newsletter article back in the early 80's that covered how to convert D6's to larger dice with costs and all...I'm sure somebody still has that article somewhere....

The upshot of it is on the boards, I have it linked somewhere.

 

Here it is - http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=587552&postcount=1

[Vorsch]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

3d6 is good d20 bad

 

2d6 unthinkable?

 

RNG

[ghost-angel]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

3d6 is good d20 bad

 

2d6 unthinkable?

 

RNG

 

I don't think that 2D6 gives a broad enough range of numbers peronally. Certainly everyone understand the odds of a 2D6 roll as it's very built into our society - as you pointed out in the other thread.

 

I like the range of numbers in 3D6, and I think the bell curves looks prettier, to put it one way, than 4D6. So I think I'll stick with 3 dice.

[Greg]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

I've been finding in our FH games that it's not overly difficult to stun someone when their CON is somewhere in the teens and characters are rolling 2d6 for damage. We generally just use a flat x3 stun modifier so on average a character is doing 13 or so stun after defenses per hit which will essentially take a guy out in 2-3 hits or effectively one if you manage to stun him. For cannon-fodder characters knocking out or stunning them should effectively disable them. Besides, a guy with 20 strength will average 8 body with a haymaker which knocks a normal's BODY to 0. Make it a shot to the head or use bleeding rules if you want to be really brutal. I think the system is primarily designed to keep PCs alive, but realistically if your opponent is swooning around after getting smacked just say he gets finished off. Save the recovery rules and what not for major villains.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: An idea on making the system a bit more dangerous

 

i'm in a heroic low fantasy game. It's a dangerous enviroment. Even if you are wearing plate mail, there are usually too many enemy soldiers to fight them without teamwork. Also enemies that can soak our damage, are really bad. Plus highly manuverable opponets. Heck, all opponets i'm not looking foreward too.