Making Hero more deadly

[The Souljourner]

So, one thing that bugs me about Hero is the way armor, damage, stun, and body all interrelate.

 

It's pretty rare to see anyone ever take body damage, because armor works equally well against stun and body, and yet you generally take 3.5 times as much stun as body damage.

 

60 points of offense buys you 12DCs which do 12 body and 42 stun on average.

60 points of armor buys you 20 each PD and ED. You're unlikely to ever beat that PD with your body damage - it would take an amazing roll.

 

So here's my suggestion for a slightly more deadly Hero system... each point of defense only provides 1/2 protection against body damage. If you wanted things to be really gritty, you could try 1/3, which is probably a more accurate representation of how stun relates to body...

 

-Nate

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

So, one thing that bugs me about Hero is the way armor, damage, stun, and body all interrelate.

 

It's pretty rare to see anyone ever take body damage, because armor works equally well against stun and body, and yet you generally take 3.5 times as much stun as body damage.

 

60 points of offense buys you 12DCs which do 12 body and 42 stun on average.

60 points of armor buys you 20 each PD and ED. You're unlikely to ever beat that PD with your body damage - it would take an amazing roll.

 

So here's my suggestion for a slightly more deadly Hero system... each point of defense only provides 1/2 protection against body damage. If you wanted things to be really gritty, you could try 1/3, which is probably a more accurate representation of how stun relates to body...

 

-Nate

 

Why not switch to lower Def and a flat STUNx?

[Fox1]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Why not switch to lower Def and a flat STUNx?

 

Agreed.

 

GM's control the how and what may be purchused. Just don't purchuse high resistent defenses.

[OddHat]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Double all Body damage against living targets. Then add hit locations. Now people die fast. Double it against all targets, and you have an Iron Age splatter game.

 

Going own to a max of 1*DC in defenses (or similar) works as well, though people will still be knocked out faster than they're killed.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Just wondering Souljourner, what kind of games do you normally play (what genre and power level?)

 

I normally play Heroic level with Impairing/Disabling and Hit Locations and Critical Hit rules and my games are plenty deadly. Sometimes I have to fudge to keep the players alive long enough to experience my plot!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Sometimes my superheroes have fully resistant defences, but it is rare. In most cases, even bricks only have 15 to 20 resistant pd, and rarely hardened. They might well have a much higher total pd and/or damage resistance. I tend to reserve the 30pd hard armour for the ones that can turn into organic steel or suchlike.

 

No one is ever going to do enough BODY to punch a hole through most of my bricks, but they can take BODY over time.

 

Other character types: well it depends. Blasters vary most widely from fully resistant defences (force field, for example) to hardly any. Most others have defences in the 3 to 10 range, so BODY is a concern, at least from killing attacks. Almost everyone has SOME resistant defence, even if it is only one level of combat luck. Metagaming though it may be, it is mad not to.

 

If you want NORMAL attacks to be in danger of killing heroes, that is something else again: I'd just use lower defences generally and allow normal attacks to be used as killing attacks with a -3 or -4 OCV penalty.

 

Some characters should be virtually immune to death, others should be keenly aware of the possibilty

[OddHat]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

It's not a really good game if all the Players survive. Seeing the terror on their faces, hearing them babble and weep ... it's the little things that let you know you've done your job as a GM.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

The problem with lower defense is that then people just take that much more stun and are knocked out that much faster. I'm fine with some people having very little chance of death, like bricks, but when 21 character points of resistant defense stops the average damage of a 60 character point killing attack... something's wrong. Sure, killing attacks have a more random element to them, so they could easily do more... but, still...

 

Maybe the solution should be to make resistant defenses more expensive... I know, you can say that many people shouldn't have them, but in my experience, most people do... sure, not 20 or 30 def worth... but all you need is 14 rDef and you ignore the average roll of 4d6 KAs.

 

NuSoardGraphite - I play superheroic campaigns almost exclusively... I would imagine that in heroic campaigns things are far different.

 

-Nate

[Sean Waters]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

It's not a really good game if all the Players survive. Seeing the terror on their faces' date=' hearing them babble and weep ... it's the little things that let you know you've done your job as a GM.[/quote']

 

Hear, hear!

[Fox1]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Maybe the solution should be to make resistant defenses more expensive... I know' date=' you can say that many people shouldn't have them, but in my experience, most people do... sure, not 20 or 30 def worth... but all you need is 14 rDef and you ignore the average roll of 4d6 KAs. [/quote']

 

The typical resistant defense value in my Superhero campaign is 7 points, and not all of that is full coverage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

The problem with lower defense is that then people just take that much more stun and are knocked out that much faster. I'm fine with some people having very little chance of death, like bricks, but when 21 character points of resistant defense stops the average damage of a 60 character point killing attack... something's wrong. Sure, killing attacks have a more random element to them, so they could easily do more... but, still...

 

Maybe the solution should be to make resistant defenses more expensive... I know, you can say that many people shouldn't have them, but in my experience, most people do... sure, not 20 or 30 def worth... but all you need is 14 rDef and you ignore the average roll of 4d6 KAs.

 

NuSoardGraphite - I play superheroic campaigns almost exclusively... I would imagine that in heroic campaigns things are far different.

 

-Nate

 

You can have a 35 pd with only 14 of it resistant. The average 4d6 killing attack will do 7 STUN and no BODY, but the distribution on a 4d6 roll is likely to give you hits that do cause BODY half the time. That'll kill the brick pretty quick, or at least put them in real fear of death, whilst not really having to worry about them spending all their time unconscious.

 

The other alternative is only allow REALLY low defences, but allow players to buy damage resistance instead.

 

I note Fox1's average rPD is 7: I'd wager there is quite a range there though

[Fox1]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

I note Fox1's average rPD is 7: I'd wager there is quite a range there though

 

Not average, typical as in the assumed default for a superhero. And yes, there is a range.

 

For example, in my Marvel *inspired* X-Men game:

 

Angel: 7 rPD

Banshee: 32 rPD

Beast: 3 rPD

Colossus armored: 25 rPD

Cyclops: 7 rPD

Emma Frost Telepath form: r7 PD, Diamond form: 25 rPD

Gambit: 7 rPD with limited coverage of 12 rPD

Havo: 7 rPD

Iceman: 12 rPD

Jubilee: 7 rPD

Nightcrawler: 7 rPD

Phoenix: 43 rPD

Polaris: 37 rPD

Pyslocke: 7 rPD

Rogue: 16 rPD

Shadowcat: 7 rPD

Storm: 7 rPD

Wolverine: 7 rPD

Professor X: 3 rPD

 

The 3 rPD are from combat luck. The 7 rPD are from a combination of 3 points of combat luck and 4 points from costume- typically not covering the head.

 

If it wasn't for the fact that forcefields are 100% resistant, I would like have somewhat lower resistant values for a few of the characters listed (Banshee, Polaris, Phoenix).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

.....If it wasn't for the fact that forcefields are 100% resistant' date=' I would like have somewhat lower resistant values for a few of the characters listed (Banshee, Polaris, Phoenix).[/quote']

 

 

Cool.

 

How about Force field: 20/20 = 40 points

 

Force field 10/10 + Force field 10/10 (non resistant -1/2) = 33 points.

 

Voila, or some other sort of musical instrument

[Sean Waters]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Not average, typical as in the assumed default for a superhero. And yes, there is a range.

 

A nice point

[Fox1]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Cool.

 

How about Force field: 20/20 = 40 points

 

Force field 10/10 + Force field 10/10 (non resistant -1/2) = 33 points.

 

Voila, or some other sort of musical instrument

 

I've been thinking about doing that. But it's almost overkill, frankly I wouldn't expect them to encounter an attack that invoked the limit unless it was a plot device. Limit that doesn't limit sort of thing.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

The problem with lower defense is that then people just take that much more stun and are knocked out that much faster. I'm fine with some people having very little chance of death, like bricks, but when 21 character points of resistant defense stops the average damage of a 60 character point killing attack... something's wrong. Sure, killing attacks have a more random element to them, so they could easily do more... but, still...

 

Maybe the solution should be to make resistant defenses more expensive... I know, you can say that many people shouldn't have them, but in my experience, most people do... sure, not 20 or 30 def worth... but all you need is 14 rDef and you ignore the average roll of 4d6 KAs.

 

NuSoardGraphite - I play superheroic campaigns almost exclusively... I would imagine that in heroic campaigns things are far different.

 

-Nate

 

Again .. instead of adjusting the mechanic, why not control the game? Limit the amount of rDEF a character can take, possibly allow them to purchase more Normal DEF to try and soak up some STUN.

 

Using a flat STUNx, even a x2, gives you predictable STUN results that allow you to guage the amount of DEF vs STUN a character should have to not be knocked out every third hit.

 

What you're wanting to do - restrict or limit the amount of rDEF a character can or should buy - is better solved by campaign limits and not doubling, or otherwise adjusting, the cost of anything.

 

That and you'll find the players will do more interesting things with those points like an extra skill, perk or other purchase.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

See... that's where you and I differ, GA. I think that if you have to impose restrictions above and beyond those in the book on what characters can do with their points, then it implies a problem with the mechanics of the rules.

 

I believe that there should be a mechanical reason why not every character has 20+ rPD. The only mechanical restriction you can really impose is to make armor more expensive (or less effective, which is really the same thing). If everyone is willing to pay for 20+ rPD, then it's too cheap. Jack the price up until only those who really want the power will take it.

 

For some things, like desolidification or telekinesis, the power just isn't going to fit into everyone's character concept... but your basic offenses and defenses are what everyone's going be buying, and resistant defense is vague enough that you can justify it on just about every character through one mechanism or another. Who's to say your custom superhero's costume isn't made of some super advanced bulletproof fabric that gives 10 rPD?

 

If you have to impose a limit on rPD through GM fiat, then by definition there are people who would take more and probably shouldn't. That still implies that armor is too cheap, and thus even with a cap, those who take it aren't paying enough for it.

 

-Nate

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

See... that's where you and I differ, GA. I think that if you have to impose restrictions above and beyond those in the book on what characters can do with their points, then it implies a problem with the mechanics of the rules.

 

I believe that there should be a mechanical reason why not every character has 20+ rPD. The only mechanical restriction you can really impose is to make armor more expensive (or less effective, which is really the same thing). If everyone is willing to pay for 20+ rPD, then it's too cheap. Jack the price up until only those who really want the power will take it.

 

For some things, like desolidification or telekinesis, the power just isn't going to fit into everyone's character concept... but your basic offenses and defenses are what everyone's going be buying, and resistant defense is vague enough that you can justify it on just about every character through one mechanism or another. Who's to say your custom superhero's costume isn't made of some super advanced bulletproof fabric that gives 10 rPD?

 

If you have to impose a limit on rPD through GM fiat, then by definition there are people who would take more and probably shouldn't. That still implies that armor is too cheap, and thus even with a cap, those who take it aren't paying enough for it.

 

-Nate

 

Actually, I don't think there is a problem with Defenses in our game. Then tend to fall into the proper area overall. For the average game.

 

This thread specifically asked for a method to make some games more deadly, obstesively to emulate a Genre I believe.

 

Now - with a toolkit that attemps to emulate All Genre's you have to take into account what parts are appropriate for the Genre you are playing in.

 

so, Armor is not too cheap - for, say, a Superhero Game, or a highpowered Sci-Fi game, or possibly other Genre's where high Def are appropriate.

 

If High Def are not appropriate, or you would rather them to not be appropriate, like a low powered fantasy campaign, then you have to look at what you want and don't want in your game.

 

This is along the lines of the Suggestion that your average Champions Game at 350pt Characters utilize a 60 Active Point Cap for considerations of balance. By your arguement I could state that the System is obviously unbalanced if it is making the restriction when merely it is stating that "We have found that 60AP is a good top end to properly emulate the Genre of Superhero's." Hence - a GM/Genre Restriction.

 

In Cyberpunk Games I run I like very deadly and quick gunfights - in fact, the less firefights you get into the better you're doing in my campaign (not to say you should get into none, that's no fun) - to whit instead of doubling the cost of something I add restrictions to Emulate The Genre I wish to play. I state rPD may not ever exceed 9, your average person is lucky to have 4, Hero's typically go to 6. Thereby I restricted the limits or rPD, no matter what construct you use to buy them, and do not change the system - which works just fine for other genres.

 

See the difference I'm trying to convey?

 

edit: my current GM is of the mind that everything should be completely open ended all the time, every time, and if it's not the system is obviously broken. I keep pointing out to him it's a system trying to emulate everything from Everyman to Godsized inclusive and scale nicely without becoming silly. Hence sometimes you just gotta say "Nope, doesn't work for this particular genre/campaign, but the last campaign we played it was just fine in..."

[Rapier]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

So, one thing that bugs me about Hero is the way armor, damage, stun, and body all interrelate.

 

It's pretty rare to see anyone ever take body damage, because armor works equally well against stun and body, and yet you generally take 3.5 times as much stun as body damage.

 

60 points of offense buys you 12DCs which do 12 body and 42 stun on average.

60 points of armor buys you 20 each PD and ED. You're unlikely to ever beat that PD with your body damage - it would take an amazing roll.

 

So here's my suggestion for a slightly more deadly Hero system... each point of defense only provides 1/2 protection against body damage. If you wanted things to be really gritty, you could try 1/3, which is probably a more accurate representation of how stun relates to body...

 

-Nate

 

This argument comes up fairly frequently around here. Its called "Rule of X." Basically, its how you come about evenning out all the characters so that they are all equal. X dice of combat power = Y pts. Y rDEF = Z pts. X + Y = Rule of X.

 

The problem is that when you add 3 apples, 4 oranges, 1 kiwi and 2 pineapples all you get is fruit salad. You can't compare them. I've gotten ride of all Rules of X and campaign limits on DEF and DCs in my campaigns. They only have so many points to spend and if they dump them all into DEF then they don't have enough for ancillary skills.

 

So spend a couple of adventures where they have no powers and must rely on skills. Accentuate the other aspects of Hero. Also design some villains that will ALWAYS have more DCs than the heroes have DEF. If one player increases DEF, increase the DCs on the villains. Pretty the soon the rest of the group will demand DEF-Boy to tone it down. Also talk to your players and explain to them the this is what you will be doing. Explain why you want to do this. Explain to them that their character concepts are not in line with the level of realism (and blood) you are trying to portray (without getting insane crazy with 800d6 EBs). Maybe they will agree, or maybe they don't want to play in that type of game. Either way you all need to sit down and come to some kind of agreement on what to do.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

This argument comes up fairly frequently around here. Its called "Rule of X." Basically, its how you come about evenning out all the characters so that they are all equal. X dice of combat power = Y pts. Y rDEF = Z pts. X + Y = Rule of X.

 

The problem is that when you add 3 apples, 4 oranges, 1 kiwi and 2 pineapples all you get is fruit salad. You can't compare them. I've gotten ride of all Rules of X and campaign limits on DEF and DCs in my campaigns. They only have so many points to spend and if they dump them all into DEF then they don't have enough for ancillary skills.

 

So spend a couple of adventures where they have no powers and must rely on skills. Accentuate the other aspects of Hero. Also design some villains that will ALWAYS have more DCs than the heroes have DEF. If one player increases DEF, increase the DCs on the villains. Pretty the soon the rest of the group will demand DEF-Boy to tone it down. Also talk to your players and explain to them the this is what you will be doing. Explain why you want to do this. Explain to them that their character concepts are not in line with the level of realism (and blood) you are trying to portray (without getting insane crazy with 800d6 EBs). Maybe they will agree, or maybe they don't want to play in that type of game. Either way you all need to sit down and come to some kind of agreement on what to do.

I basically agree, as there are a wonderful variety of attack types. You can do some very basic comparisons using Speed, the average probability of a hit, and the average damage that will get through defenses, etc., but this can only really give you a rough, rough idea and it definitely does take some, "field testing," to narrow things down.

[pinecone]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

One simple "up the danger factor" you can test drive with no real sweat is try using all the optional damage rules, including hit locations with supers.....12D6 or 4D6 is a real eye openner with hit locs...gives real meaning to the battle cry "Not in the face!, Not in the Face!"...

I've done it and I liked it...but my friends are a bucha four color silver agey crybabies.... But give it a try.

Personally I've played a lota games with a lot of differant groups and I've found that what seemed "natural" and universal was just how We did it....so it may be the reason every one is running around in tank armor is because thats the way You guys "do it"...though if you've a hankering for blood, that might be why everyone is so comitted to defence.....

Annother way to get some blood without losing high defenses is to encourage Damage reduction as an alternative to high armor...I like DR 1/2 and Def equal to the average DC of the game so in 12D6 world I'd go with 12 pd and ED both resistant and DR 1/2 PDr and EDr and call myself a tough hombre.....and the average 4D6 killing attack does 1 body a hit.....Ohhh better get some regen quick...

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

The problem with just lowering defenses across the board or upping attack DCs is that it results in a LOT of one-shot knockouts.

 

I’ve thought about halving defenses’ effectiveness vs. normal Body. So a 16 PD stops 16 stun and 8 body. Which would mean people could actually injure targets on their own power scale without killing attacks.

 

Haven’t done enough of the math to decide how it would work into the rest of the system, though. It would add another ‘layer’ to defense, which I’m not sure is a good idea.

 

---

“So, do I survive? I have +1 armor!â€

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

The problem with just lowering defenses across the board or upping attack DCs is that it results in a LOT of one-shot knockouts.

 

I’ve thought about halving defenses’ effectiveness vs. normal Body. So a 16 PD stops 16 stun and 8 body. Which would mean people could actually injure targets on their own power scale without killing attacks.

 

Haven’t done enough of the math to decide how it would work into the rest of the system, though. It would add another ‘layer’ to defense, which I’m not sure is a good idea.

 

---

“So, do I survive? I have +1 armor!â€

 

One-Shot Knock Out is easily controlled by a Low STUNx.

 

And you shouldn't be using Normal Attacks to try and inflict Body.

[Markdoc]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

Something to consider - why is everyone cranking around with 20+ rDEF?

 

That's far from typical in the games I've been in (in fact usually only bricks had that kind of defence). The one exception was the "grimworld" game (an iron age, near-future game), where killing attacks were common (and often large).*

 

Maybe everyone in the game has high amounts of DEF/rDEF because ... um... you know, they don't want to die?

 

If it's low rDEF/high DEF that is bugging you, then you can simply rule that only rDEF stops STUN from KA. That will make KA more fearsome but won't kill people. Alternatively, if it's blood you want, increase the multiplers for resistant defences (by 2 or 3). That'll let people whale on each other with fists in superhero fashion, but still let your Midnighter/Wolverine types leave a trail of bloodied corpses behind them - but in that case expect a) more KAs and more rDEF from your players.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

 

 

*immortal dialogue from that game:

 

GM: "OK, Warhorn hits you for 18 BOD, 54 Stun, killing. What's Gecko's resistant Defence?"

Gecko (in a very, very small voice): "Ummm. Resistant Defence?"

 

Gecko was the last character in *that* game to rely on his agility to survive. My character - supreme survivalist that he was - could muster 40+ rDEF PD/ED or a 6d6 HKA, depending on how he used his powers, if memory serves. Ugh! I'm actually glad we don't play those kinds of game anymore.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Making Hero more deadly

 

You want a more deadly game?

 

Ban resistant defences below the waist.

 

Not many instant kills but an awful lot of superpeople bleeding to death with no legs.

 

You know it makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an (almost) serious point to this. You can make games as deadly as you like by controlling character build, without changing any rules at all.

 

Hero, for all the trumpetting otherwise, is NOT a balanced game, and (I should know) tinkering with relative costs is:

 

a) never going to become canon

going to cause more problems than it solves

 

Fix it in the mix is my advice for this sort of problem.

 

NB: I reserve the right to take an entirely contrary position when I'm not happy about the cost of something