Too balanced

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Too balanced

 

I don't think that the Hero system rules ARE a toolkit' date=' really. A maybe some of the combat options, but the Hero system is the baseline. there are no rules for customisation, like there are with character creation, except, "well if you don't like it, don't use it". There are no rules for customising the rules.[/quote']Two thoughts...

1. I don't think it's true that there are no rules for customizing the rules. There are optional rules, there is advice for tweaking the rules (such as for speeding up combat), there are rules that apply only to heroic-level games, rules that apply only to superheroic games, rules with caution signs, rules with stop signs, rules that say, "this generally isn't allowed, but you can do it with GM permission," and so on. There aren't listed ways of customizing everything, but there are some rules for customizing other rules.
   
2. Beyond that, I don't think a lack of rules for customizing the rules would prevent it from being a toolkit anyway. If I have a hammer, a screwdriver, and a wrench, I can still build other things with those tools, even if I can't (for example) turn the hammer into a saw...

[Lucius]

Too balanced??

 

Oh it is far worse than that.

 

You stand on Whimper, who has 5 strength but 40 DEX (he was asleep when you stepped on him, OK?). You currently weigh a little over 47 tons with your density increase turned on. Whimper has a total pd of 3.

 

You, in superdense form, have a DEX of 5.

 

EVEN if you consider him grabbed (and the rules don't suggest you should) and so halve his DCV, you will only deal crushing damage on a roll of 5 or less. If you don't halve the DCV, it is 3 or less. You could stand on this fragile, frantically thrashing little chap all day and that 47 tons you weigh wouldn't cause him a problem, damage wise.

 

That seems like a little more than a logical inconsistency to me. It seems like something that the whole group is going to spend 10 minutes standing round scratching their heads over when it comes up. That is not good for gameplay.

 

Whilst I quite agree you can't simply set out to accurately model reality with game rules, I think you have to create a system that works with expectations if you are going to have a smooth gameplay experience. Can you honestly say that this is the result you would expect?

 

Good point. Having the whole group go "say what?" is not good for the game.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Where did the palindromedary go?

[mallet]

Re: Too balanced

 

Dealing with the issue at hand: Crushing Damage, I believe that it should be considered an instant effect, not constant. Once something is crushed, it can not take any more damage, so a character should not be taking damage "per round" from something crushing them... Unless, as in the example above, it is a moving object, then each time it moves it can crush a new location on the target' body.

 

As a real life example: If a boulder falls and lands on your leg crushing it and trapping you, you do not keep taking damage each phase you are stuck (except possibly from bleeding- but even then the weight of the object often stop the bleeding). You are stuck there until someone moves the boulder off of you or you cut your own leg off. But you do not keep taking damage every phase from the "Crushing effect".

 

And in the case of the Tank rolling over someone, then in that situation the person should be taking the Crushing damage (10d6 in this case) to each Hit Location effected. So starting at the feet and moving up every location takes the damage of the crushing weight (up to maximum BODY for the hit location).

 

This seems to be one situation where you should always be using Hit Locations and Maximum BODY damage to a Hit Location (average person has 3 body in each arm or leg before it is severed/destroyed) rules.

 

Thus if a Tank rolls of a persons legs they (the legs) take on average 10 BODY damge. Way more then the 3 BODY necessary to sever/destroy them, but, if given medical aid, the person can still live on with out them.

 

And if a person is fully rolled over by a tank then all locations are taking more then enough damage to be destroyed (especially the head with an average of 20 BODY damage) causing death.

 

So, I do not see the problems of the rules, in a realistic setting.

 

In a super Hero game (where a person could weight 47 Tons with Density Increase) then you are playing a comic book game and people should be able to "roll" out of the way, fight off the weight, etc... It's already unrealistic, so everyone should have a chance to do super heroic things, especially in combat. realistic? No. But then a person weighing 47 Tons is not realistic either.

 

And If you want to have a "realistic" super hero game then if said character "Whimper" was asleep at home, then he has no worries, because a 47 ton person would fall through the floor or any building before ever reaching him. Most likely they would also be unable to walk very far because their feet would sink down into the eath with each step (imagine 47 tons all resting on a location only the size of one human foot).

 

This is deffinately one of those situations where you are either relaistic, so the heavy person falls thorugh the floor, sinks into the ground, AND Whimper, if steped on, has the location hit crushed and destroyed.

 

Or you go unrealistic superhero comic style where a 47 ton person can walk around a building or on normal ground with out sinking/crashing and if you try and step on someone they can aviod the damage (just like the building floor you are standing on (which seems to automatically make it's roll)).

[Springald Jack]

Re: Too balanced

 

Well I'd err in favour of game realism.

 

Absolutely. The rules are an engine for helping figure out what happens in the fictional world. If the rules return a result that does not conform to the world, the rules rather than the world must give way every time.

[OddHat]

Re: Too balanced

 

Absolutely. The rules are an engine for helping figure out what happens in the fictional world. If the rules return a result that does not conform to the world' date=' the rules rather than the world must give way every time.[/quote']

 

Agreed and repped.

[Kristopher]

Re: Too balanced

 

In a heroic level game, if you want things more "realistic" then convert the normal damage to killing for anything other than martial arts / brawling. That tank rolls over the soldier for 3d6+1 killing rather than 10d6 normal and he prolly ain't gettin' up any time soon.

 

For more grit double the body damage after defenses are applied (ala Dark Champs). The above soldier would very likely be instantly dead unless the tank pinned a limb.

 

The hero system can be as real and deadly as you need.

 

This works...averages 11.5 BODY instead of 10, and the hypothetical soldier gets none of his PD against it.

[archermoo]

Re: Too balanced

 

The trouble is that if a tank rolled over even a tough soldier (4 PD 13 Body for example), that soldier should be dead instantly rather than merely with a few broken bones and a 100% survival rate if given immediate medical attention.

 

It's a game mechanic necessary to make the game work, but don't pretend it's the least bit realistic.

 

Being run over by a tank is not universally instantly fatal. Having one run over your foot, leg, arm or hand probably won't kill you, unless you don't get medical attention. And while I'm not specifically aware of any instances of people getting run over by a tank and surviving, I am aware of people getting run over by other types of very heavy tracked vehicles and surviving.

 

In reality there are very few things that always kill someone instantly.

[LoresLost]

Re: Too balanced

 

Being run over by a tank is not universally instantly fatal. Having one run over your foot, leg, arm or hand probably won't kill you, unless you don't get medical attention. And while I'm not specifically aware of any instances of people getting run over by a tank and surviving, I am aware of people getting run over by other types of very heavy tracked vehicles and surviving.

 

In reality there are very few things that always kill someone instantly.

 

I have actually heard a story where a guy was uninjured after being run over by a tank (he was in a rice paddy and sank in to the mud apparently, How he didn't drown I don't know.)

[archermoo]

Re: Too balanced

 

I have actually heard a story where a guy was uninjured after being run over by a tank (he was in a rice paddy and sank in to the mud apparently' date=' How he didn't drown I don't know.)[/quote']

 

He probably wasn't underwater long enough to. That type of thing happens with farm equipment fairly often as well. Now granted, dismemberment and/or death results are more common, but even with the deaths they generally aren't of the instantly dead type.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Too balanced

 

In reality there are very few things that always kill someone instantly.

 

Which is something people forget when they try to make "realistic" firearms, what's really at fault are to kind Bleeding rules rather than insufficient damage

[archermoo]

Re: Too balanced

 

Which is something people forget when they try to make "realistic" firearms' date=' what's really at fault are to kind Bleeding rules rather than insufficient damage[/quote']

 

Oh I think the bleeding rules are sufficient, they just need to be used.

 

Even gunshots to the head aren't generally instantly fatal, and they are sometimes survivable with sufficiently swiftly applied medical care.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Too balanced

 

Oh I think the bleeding rules are sufficient, they just need to be used.

 

my mistake. I haven't read them in a while as realism with gunshots usually isn't a concern of mine.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Too balanced

 

It's true. Barring a hit to the central nervous system, no small arms of the early twenty-first century are capable of instantly dropping a determined opponent. Even blowing out the heart will still allow the target to fight for several seconds, maybe as much as 20-30 seconds on the oxygen already stored in the various tissues.

 

A gun takes its target out of a fight through three primary mechanisms. First is direct tissue damage and bleeding, the same effect that you'd get from a knife or sword. Whatever the bullet passes through is damaged. Bones are broken, muscle tissue severed, blood vessels breached. If a major blood vessel is opened, and medical attention is not provided, death is highly probable.

 

Second, hydrostatic shock. A high-velocity soft- or hollow-point bullet will transmit a large fraction of its kinetic energy to the soft tissues of the target, which, being mostly water, will transmit the resultant pressure wave fairly efficiently. This will cause extensive low-level trauma to the volume of affected tissue, damaging and disrupting organ functions.

 

Finally, a gunshot wound causes pain and psychological shock, which should not be underestimated.

 

A target hopped up on adrenaline and/or more exotic chemicals can largely ignore the third effect, and to some extent the second, as the only organ which is actually vital over the course of 5-10 seconds is the brain. It's entirely possible for someone who has only thirty seconds to live to continue fighting with almost no loss of effectiveness at first.

 

On the other hand, there have been cases where people have died of gunshots from small-caliber pistols (the .25 ACP being notorious for this) that failed to penetrate the muscles on the OUTSIDE of their rib cage, simply due to the surprise, pain, and horror of being shot.

 

In Hero terms, a one-shot kill is either a hit to the brain, or a shot that Stuns the target, and before they can recover and convince themselves to continue fighting, they've passed out from blood loss.

 

Finally, if you think firearms aren't deadly enough, consider the fact that most people who get shot don't die at all, let alone instantly, if they receive prompt medical care, such as is available in almost any American city.

[cutsleeve]

Re: Too balanced

 

Hydrostatic shock is actually a well circulated myth. A hollow point bullet doesnt distribute significant levels of energy to cause any disprution in nearby tissue.

 

Like all bullets it only damages what it hits. The reason a hollow point causes more grievous wounds is because of expansion. The hollow point will expand, and with some varieties break apart. The expansion causes a larger wound canal which means more bleeding and trauma. In the case of hollow points which rip apart it causes multiple internal wounds effecting multiple tissues.

 

Bullets are no differant from pointy sticks, arrows, knives, or swords. They all kill someone in the same manner but rending, tearing, and pentrations which cause bleeding and destruction of organ function.

 

The only sure fire method to kill someone is to shoot accurately with a firearms of sufficient size and power to cause a great deal of tissue trauma.

 

Most people who are shot do not drop due to wounds but do to pain. After they hit the ground they usually go into shock or bleed to death. Im sire everyone remembers incidents in the 80's inviolving angel dust and

pcp. If the person you shoot doesnt feel pain they will be less likely to drop when hit by a bullet. This means they will still be able to function up until the point where their brain and muscles finally loose all oxygen due to blood loss.

[Gary]

Re: Too balanced

 

Being run over by a tank is not universally instantly fatal. Having one run over your foot, leg, arm or hand probably won't kill you, unless you don't get medical attention. And while I'm not specifically aware of any instances of people getting run over by a tank and surviving, I am aware of people getting run over by other types of very heavy tracked vehicles and surviving.

 

In reality there are very few things that always kill someone instantly.

 

 

Well, the trouble is that the average result in game of someone being run over by 25-50 tons is that the person suffers broken bones and survives with immediate medical attention. And that simply doesn't happen in reality. As proven by the vast majority of cases of people run over by tanks.

 

Now you can certainly change a few rules around such as doubling body done for crushing damage, but the rules as they stand don't mimic reality and really weren't meant to.

[Gary]

Re: Too balanced

 

I have actually heard a story where a guy was uninjured after being run over by a tank (he was in a rice paddy and sank in to the mud apparently' date=' How he didn't drown I don't know.)[/quote']

 

 

Obviously the full weight of the tank wasn't on him. It's one (out of many) of the reasons soldiers dug foxholes in WW2. So when tanks overran them, there would be a space where they wouldn't get crushed. Of course sometimes the tank would simply grind its treads on the foxhole and crush the soldier anyway...

[Kristopher]

Re: Too balanced

 

Well' date=' the trouble is that the [b']average[/b] result in game of someone being run over by 25-50 tons is that the person suffers broken bones and survives with immediate medical attention. And that simply doesn't happen in reality. As proven by the vast majority of cases of people run over by tanks.

 

Now you can certainly change a few rules around such as doubling body done for crushing damage, but the rules as they stand don't mimic reality and really weren't meant to.

 

So use hit locations, and the rules for when, in terms of BODY, a limb is destroyed -- unless there's something in the crushing rules that specifically says otherwise.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Too balanced

 

Hydrostatic shock is actually a well circulated myth. A hollow point bullet doesnt distribute significant levels of energy to cause any disprution in nearby tissue.

 

Definitely not true. Have you ever actually seen the effects of a hollowpoint? I've shot a standard gallon milk jug full of water with a .40 S&W hollowpoint at a distance of about twenty feet. I got water drops up to my knees. That gallon of water was scattered over about a 45-foot-diameter circle. I'd say that "significant levels of energy" were transferred to the water.

 

It's also possible to explode a small animal with a high-velocity varmint round.

 

Don't tell me that hydrostatic shock is a myth. I've seen it with my own eyes.

 

Zeropoint

[Gary]

Re: Too balanced

 

So use hit locations' date=' and the rules for when, in terms of BODY, a limb is destroyed -- unless there's something in the crushing rules that specifically says otherwise.[/quote']

 

 

Won't really help unless the head or vitals is rolled. A slightly below average damage roll or a slightly tougher than average soldier would be expected to survive without any permanent damage (or even survive at all) when run over by a tank according to the default rules. Sure it's easy to house rule that non-important people immediately die off when tanks roll over them or automatically fail their Con Roll, but that's not the default.

[Kristopher]

Re: Too balanced

 

Won't really help unless the head or vitals is rolled. A slightly below average damage roll or a slightly tougher than average soldier would be expected to survive without any permanent damage (or even survive at all) when run over by a tank according to the default rules. Sure it's easy to house rule that non-important people immediately die off when tanks roll over them or automatically fail their Con Roll' date=' but that's not the default.[/quote']

 

You could also do as someone suggested and treat the damage as killing, which by the numbers should make more than half the run-over-by-a-tank incidents lethal, which should be fine for a game that's supposed to simulate "heroic fiction".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Too balanced

 

Definitely not true. Have you ever actually seen the effects of a hollowpoint? I've shot a standard gallon milk jug full of water with a .40 S&W hollowpoint at a distance of about twenty feet. I got water drops up to my knees. That gallon of water was scattered over about a 45-foot-diameter circle. I'd say that "significant levels of energy" were transferred to the water.

 

It's also possible to explode a small animal with a high-velocity varmint round.

 

Don't tell me that hydrostatic shock is a myth. I've seen it with my own eyes.

 

Zeropoint

 

 

I know nothing about guns BUT I do know that you can't compress water, and a sealed rigid container full of it WILL explode if you hit it hard enough with a sledgehammer, let alone shoot a bullet at it. Humans are not the same thing: whilst we may contain a lot of water it is in bags of tissue that will compress and deform rather than explode or transmit a shockwave around the body. I think that what you have seen may well be hydrostatic shock, but I don't think gallon tanks of water and human bodies react the same way.

 

In order to transfer a shock wave around the body, you'd probably need to hit something with a LOT of blood in it without elastic tissue: i.e. an open large blood vessel, and then you'd have killed the person with a bleed out anyway.

 

I'm not saying hydrostatic shock doesn't exist: I've done a quick websearch and opinions are divided - but one factor that seems important is bullet velocity - if it does work it only does so at high velocities - higher than handgun bullets, and most rifle bullets.

 

http://experts.about.com/e/h/hy/Hydrostatic_shock.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

http://civic.bev.net/shawnee/digress.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/hydrostatic-shock

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm

 

The general consensus seems to be against.

[cutsleeve]

Re: Too balanced

 

The myth of hydrostatic shock is that it is the force behind stopping power or instant kills. Even the term instant kill is a bad description. The only instant kill you can get is if a bullet of significant power hits the brain and does enough damage to stop motor and bodily function or a strike which severes the spinal column in the upper neck.

 

The rest of the kinds of wounds that people consider instant kills arent, like a previous poster said there are people who have been shot in the heart and still managed to fire back before falling to the ground.

 

I have never believed in hydrostatic shock. To me its a "magic bullet theory" which leads to the classical use this gun or use this bullet and youll kill people instantly myth. The only way to guarentee a quick kill is by being accurate and using a bullet which will create enough tissue damage to stop organ function and cause lots of bleeding.

[mallet]

Re: Too balanced

 

Won't really help unless the head or vitals is rolled. A slightly below average damage roll or a slightly tougher than average soldier would be expected to survive without any permanent damage (or even survive at all) when run over by a tank according to the default rules. Sure it's easy to house rule that non-important people immediately die off when tanks roll over them or automatically fail their Con Roll' date=' but that's not the default.[/quote']

 

But that is assuming that the tank rolling over a person only hits one location and is an "instant" attack. It's not. It takes time for a tank to roll over a person and each and every body location will take the damage. Not just one location that you randomly roll. That would just be stupid. Each location that was run over would take the damage from the weight of the tank, including the head and vitals. No one would walk away from that. (In a realistic setting).

 

I think the problem is people are applying the "super hero" rules only in a realistic situation. If you apply all of the optional realism rules that the Hero System has then getting run over by a tank is a very deadly event.

[Gary]

Re: Too balanced

 

But that is assuming that the tank rolling over a person only hits one location and is an "instant" attack. It's not. It takes time for a tank to roll over a person and each and every body location will take the damage. Not just one location that you randomly roll. That would just be stupid. Each location that was run over would take the damage from the weight of the tank, including the head and vitals. No one would walk away from that. (In a realistic setting).

 

I think the problem is people are applying the "super hero" rules only in a realistic situation. If you apply all of the optional realism rules that the Hero System has then getting run over by a tank is a very deadly event.

 

 

By that definition, any explosion is going to hit every hit location and every hit location is going to take the explosion damage. But that's not how the game operates, or even how real life explosions operate.

 

There is no rule in the game that says area effects or explosions affect every hit location simultaneusly. Now you as a GM are free to make up such a rule, but that would be a house rule, and not the official default rules.

[mallet]

Re: Too balanced

 

Good point on the explosion effects. I had not considered those.

 

But, I'd have to say that with explosions thier effect should effect every hit location (and that is how they work in real life) because in say, a fire bomb detontation, every part of a person would be burned, not just a single location. So I think if your are right, that this is not something the rule explicitly state, but common sense in the applying of the optional rules would generate the realistic and very deadly effects of explosions and being run over by heavy objects.