What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

[Robyn]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I like how people try to "realistically and logically" model something that has no basis in reality.

 

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "exists in reality" and "is based on the same physical laws that our reality follows". Something can have its basis in reality without necessarily existing (yet) in reality.

[ideasmith]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Break things into the basic 4 that was discussed and rejected for 4th ed.:

• Attack

• Defend

• Move

• Percieve

Have everything be built from these with Modifiers.

 

If I was creating a game based on this suggestion, I would add Create and Hide to the list. Possibly also Enhance & Special Effect. That would bring the list up to how I classify Powers when analyzing a game.

[ghost-angel]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "exists in reality" and "is based on the same physical laws that our reality follows". Something can have its basis in reality without necessarily existing (yet) in reality.

A Game System should make Ease Of Playability a primary concern over "realistic."

 

flat out every time no exceptions.

[Robyn]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

A Game System should make Ease Of Playability a primary concern over "realistic."

 

flat out every time no exceptions.

 

True. But we can acknowledge that common sense (i.e., realism) is superseded by dramatic sense (is superseded by playability) without going overboard and declaring that what isn't easily playable has no basis in reality.

[casualplayer]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

What Ganesh keeps suggesting is suspiciously Fusion-ish. Does the censorware asterisk out Fusion? If not, why not? It's the filthiest f-word.

 

I wouldn't mind a little more consistency. Either always roll high or always roll low (easily fixed w/ board suggestions.) Either x/3 or x/5, don't care which but choose one and stick with it. Powers should always be built ground-up, not chipping away at unwanted detritus.

 

The only fundamental change I would suggest is that all characteristics be adjusted to cost the same for +1pt, with no preference for what that cost is. If a CHAR is so good that it is thought to need to cost 1 1/2 to 3 times as much as baseline, it probably has too much involved and should be subdivided into multiple stats. This change would make adjustment powers work much smoother and intuitively. Along with every characteristic having a CHAR Roll they could also have a comparable CV, so I could make a power using INT OCV vs. CON DCV as easily as an old school DEX OCV vs. DEX DCV.

[Rkane_1]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Your assertion that your variant is "closer to reality" is' date=' in my view, fundamentally flawed. There is no "reality" of a creature able to lift hundreds of tons and punch with the force of an artillery shell. There is, therefore, no objective "realism" to compare this to.[/quote']

 

SURE there is. When a Strength 5 human attempts to Block (albiet reflexively) the powerful blows from a 30 Strength Gorilla that is attacking him. It would have been MUCH better for him to have tried to Dodge but humans are so silly and he was probably drunk anyway, playing in a Gorilla cage at the zoo...I mean, really.

 

More to the point' date=' as noted previously, if we accept that this must change in the name of "realism", what else is not "realistic" and must also be changed? Some examples:[/quote']

 

Okay, lets look at the examples but please, in the future omit the little weepy faces and cry faces. They are a little insulting and we don't need to go there, do we? We're adults here and we both love the system.

 

- if Block needs to change to be more "realistic" in light of huge STR opponents' date=' shouldn't Missile Deflection change to be more "realistic" against huge ranged attacks that shold not be stopped by interposing an object, but should just blast aside/destroy the object?[/quote']

 

This would depend upon the special effects as chosen by the Player. A GM will often have a player choose certain Limitations to bring a power in line with what he percieves as more realistic (Examples:Required Beam Attack limitation and charges for an RKA meant to simulate a gun). If the GM decided to limit the Missile Deflection accordingly, then it would have to follow the strictures of the Limitation.

 

- if my Speedster can't block the Hulk because it's not "realistic"' date=' how can SpiderMan block my Speedster's "I hit you 1000 times in a second" hand attack. It's not fair. It's not realistic.[/quote']

 

Perhaps this would be a good case for the Indirect Advantage but instead of "Too strong to be blocked" we use "Too quick to be blocked".

 

- for that matter' date=' how can Spidey possibly raise his arm fast enough to Block my speedster who can run 100 miles in the time Spidey takes to blink. It's not fair. It's not realistic.[/quote']

 

See above. It depends upon the limitations and advantages and special effects but most importantly, the GM.

 

- how come Joe Normal can dive for cover if my Speedster tries to attack him?

 

HUGH! YOU AREN'T SAYING THERE IS A FLAW IN THE SYSTEM, ARE YOU? HERETIC! Actually, it would depend on the circumstances but yeah, thats a good valid point. Maybe the system should be changed? Nah, that would just be "crazy"

 

- If Hulk's high STR means he can't be Blocked' date=' how come Thing's rocky skin doesn't give him an automatic Damage Aura when he's hit by a lesser mortal? You can't punch a brick wall without hurting your hand! It's not realistic!!![/quote']

 

I wouldn't buy damage shield but a rules variant. Excellent rule variant you suggested, Hugh. I have seen this in comics when a guy tried to punch Superman and also when Colossus turned into his armor form just to hurt someone trying to punch him. It could be something akin to the Move Through rules when your target takes no knockback. So normal unarmored pucnhing of something with Resistant Physical Defense, then? How would you work it?

 

- How can Elecro's Electro-Blast' date=' spread to fill a hex, be missile deflected? The target's still in the hex, isn't he? He can't deflect a whole hex full of electricity, can he? It's not realistic!![/quote']

 

Hug, you are SO good at spotting these flaws, Hero should hire you for their next revision! Again, I would say this would go toward if the Missile Deflection had a limitation on it or not that would prevent it from being used this way. If it fits the Special Effect, then it is okay. If it doesn't....then it doesn't.

 

Who says that every Karate block is sticking your arm in the way? A Karate Strike can be a kick or a punch. There's no reason a Block can't be a step out of the way as easily as sticking your arm in the way. Your assumption that sticking your arm in the way is the only possible special effect for a martial block' date=' or the standard Block maneuver (you DON'T NEED martial arts to block) contradicts your claim to "fully understand the concept of special effect", at least as it applies to combat maneuvers.[/quote']

 

But what if the defined Special Effect IS the imposition of a limb? Most Blocks in Martial Arts ARE the imposition of a limb or placing your body parts in the way or positioning in just such a way as to minimize the effects of a blow. In Boxing, you keep your hands up and position your shoulders to raise just enough to take the blow instead of your head. In Karate, they use blocks which impose limbs or position your body to deflect the brunt of the force (often times not eliminate, but just deflect most of it). When using the traditional meaning of the word Block, what then? You use the rules variant. Or you disallow the original rule in your game and use the variant exclusively. Again...use the Block in the book as the one for your campaign if it suits your needs. Don't use mine as it is a variant that doesn't suit your needs.

 

Your claim that "all it takes" is a Block and equal speed to "frustrate the Hulk for the day" is, in my view, way off base. Let's consider the "realism" of that claim.

 

First off, this isn't a Normal. He has at least 10 points of Martial Arts maneuvers (the minimum to have a true Martial Block). He has a 4 SPD (the lowest I've seen suggested in Hulk writeups - 3 may be arguable) and let's give him a 14 DEX as well. That's 38 points on these three items alone, so he's moving up the chain from "basic normal", though still nowhere near a Super's league.

 

True, but well within normal human parameters.

 

Second' date=' to Martial Block, he needs to win an OCV vs OCV roll against the Hulk. His OCV is 7 (5 for DEX, +2 for the martial maneuver). I wouldn't put the Hulk less than 10 - he's hit a lot of fast and/or combat savvy supers in his time, without a lot of difficulty. So our Karate Normal needs an 8- to block. He might get lucky and pull it off once, maybe twice. A steady stream? Not a chance. And the first one that misses, he wakes up in hospital if he wakes up at all.[/quote']

 

I would choose the latter.

 

Third' date=' does he have an action to block? The Hulk's PRE attack should have staggered him, at a minimum. [/quote']

 

Hey now....Edna is one tough broad, now. She used to be a marine....but yeah, Hulk is a scary one.

 

Fourth, if he can evade the Hulk with his block, what does he do when the Hulk:

 

- rips the ground out from under him?

 

They die.

 

- throws a car at him?

 

They die again.

 

- pounds the ground and knocks him over' date=' stunning him?[/quote']

 

They quiver.....then die.

 

- roars at the PUNY HUMAN! and makes a real PRE attack?

 

They quiver....urinate themselves....then they die.

 

You are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of a Block.

 

Not as written. Let us take away the Hulk. Let us say that this is a little Timmy who has new found mutant Strength who is mad that his teacher Edna gave him extra homework. She is unimpressed by his PRE attack and he hasn't demonstrated his superior Strength yet. He goes for a punch. She chooses to Block it with her limb thinking he has the strength of a child.

 

An added point - this is consistent with the source material. The Hulk has been held at bay by a Japanese lady scientist' date=' a senior citizen no less, who had skills in Aikido. His blows were evaded (Dodge), redirected (Block) and he was ultimately thrown to the ground (illegal martial throw - she wasn't strong enough to lift him). I would prefer the rules be no more "realistic" than the genre. [/quote']

 

But the Genre concerns should be independent of the game system. It is set up to mimic four-color concerns. A Rule Variant is optional and doesn't HAVE to be used. And again, not EVERYONE wants to play Four Color Supers. Some would prefer to play a game where slight super-powers exist but they are not as grand as four color and have a healthy helping of "reality" Something like a street level Horror campaign where a charact5er who is a martial artist goes up against a werewolf and decides Dodge is better than trying to Block this force of nature.

 

By the way' date=' if you accept some Block SFX could block the Hulk and others could not, how do you propose to adjust their point costs so the more (less) useful maneuver carries a cost commensurate with its greater (lesser) utility. You could just force the normal to put a limitation on Block that he "can't block anyone of X+ STR". Is it even a -1/4? Probably not, when considering how often a normal will run across some one at that STR level, and the relative merits of attempting a block over such maneuvers as fleeing in terror, hiding and hoping to go unnoticed, and begging for your life.[/quote']

 

As I said, give me time to make a write-up. Let me post it and then you can tear into it with all the fervor you are showing here.

 

Actually' date=' Blocking for another is just as easily interpreted as "I push Fred out of the way before the blow lands", or "I tackle Fred to the ground to avoid the strike". That seems more cinematic than silly to me, although the line between the two is somewhat blurry. There's that nasty old SFX issue rearing its handsome head again![/quote']

 

Yep... and that suits your needs as a GM. Not mine. Their might be others that feel this way. A Rules Variant would offer an option.

 

It's even worse that you say' date=' since they can always use the Standard Maneuver block to do the same thing - Martial Block just makes it easier by providing some bonuses. If I really wanted to further limit block (which, as discussed above, likely WON'T WORK ANYWAY), I'd impose a 0-point limitation or disad on it. The issue of "forcing" someone to apply it is moot. I've yet to see a game where the normals are PC's and the adversaries are Hulk-level. Mind you, this kind of option may belong in a Horror Hero campaign - but that source book has yet to be written.[/quote']

 

Or a Martial Arts Sourcebook...but it has been written and includes some variants Steve wrote where the Blocker still takes half damage or doesn't take any damage but does not receive the Block Bonus for Follow-up which he defines as "Super-Dodge". Could it be....maybe.....Steve offered Variants to the Core Rules specific for Genre? How dare he!....Oh wait....he's the reason why the game is alive. I just want to offer my two cents and come up with a variant as well. That's all.

 

As to the fact Hulk doesn't have indirect on his STR' date=' it would be untrue to the source material. He gets blocked by little old lady scientists with Aikido. That happened in one issue - precisely the same number in which Captain America blocks Gladiator, but the lady wasn't covered by an image inducer, so we could see exactly what she was doing.[/quote']

 

THAT is one SCARY OLD BROAD!

 

I do not consider any combat maneuver so germane that it is a fundamental anything. That's my problem with the title of the thread. I would' date=' however, consider the argument that "the system has chosen a cinematic style rather than a more realistic style" to be fundamental to the system, as it permeates the choices made. I agree with that choice, so I do not consider it a flaw.[/quote']

 

As I mentioned, I don't think its a fundamental flaw anymore but rather something that should be addressed with a rules variant. I did mention that before so let me put on my thinking cap, come up with a write-up and then post it. I will be more than happy to accept feedback on it.

 

As noted above' date=' before I actually read this statement, yes, a shove out of the way is a perfectly legitimate special effect for a Block. Just like a Strike could be a punch, a kick, a head butt, an elbow smash, a well-placed knee or any of dozens of other effects - all usable by the same character at various times.[/quote']

 

I would call it either a "Shove" maneuver or a "Heroic Interpose" but then thats me.

 

I'm sensitive to this one in that some GM's go too far (IMO) substituting their imagination for the players'. In a non-Supers genre' date=' you won't have SpiderMan. In a Supers genre, however, he would be allowed Danager Sense and mechanical webshooters because Stan allowed it. [/quote']

 

We disagree on this point. I believe it is up to the GM to determine the basic flavor of the genre and, in some instances, dictate that some things can and cannot be done. If I was ruinning a Dark Champions game where the tone was gritty and harsh, I would not allow "joke" or "pun" characters. If I was running a Joke or pun campaign, I would not allow the blood-thirsty vigilante (unless he was also a cross-dresser and went by the name "Giggles the transgender love possum").

 

If I didn't accept web-shooters because I was going for a game barely beyond what is reasonable, I would place a lot of restrictions on type of powers. If I was running a standard four-color, I would say "Let 'er rip, web-shooters? Okay! What else?"

 

If, however, Spidy had never been published, I suspect some of the "my creativity" GM's would have:

 

- denied Spider-Sense as a spider power because "spiders don't have special senses"

 

- denied mechanical webshooters because "his powers should be all focuses or none of them - besides, how does a high school student invent this stuff"

 

If you're playing a CSI: NY game, no one's going to have spider sense and webshooters. Mind you, I wonder whether you would allow a character who can exercise retrocognition by object reading in your "realistic cops in a Supers world" game (Gotham Central did).

 

A Spoiler power is what I cal;l those, like Telepathy. Ruins a good mytsery but those type of powers can be bought with certain limitations to limit their usefulness and challenge the players more.

 

In a non-Supers campaign' date=' the ability to Block a being of Hulk-level strength should not come up. Therefore, a rule to make such a block impossible in the interests of "realism" should not be needed in such a game.[/quote']

 

But in a game where the characters take on powerful villains but the GM wanted a tough, gritty game where application of strength to human flesh can do SCARY things, it would be a nice variant to have.

 

You could certainly don a mask and fight crime in the real world. You'll shortly be dead' date=' hospitalized or jailed, but you can certainly do it. [/quote']

 

True that.....*sniff*...I miss Uncle Morty...I mean, CAPTAIN DERRINGER!

 

Your comments focus on the ability of Joe SixPack to block the Hulk. In what realistic genre is this an issue? The Hulk is a Super. Supers are unrealistic. No need for a rule on massive STR variance impacting Block. If we remove Supers' date=' the massive STR spread goes away. No need for a rule on massive STR variance impacting Block. Please give me an example of a genre where such a rule is, in fact, fundamental.[/quote']

 

See gorilla example above

 

IIRC' date=' the issue in question never shows the combat between Cap and Gladiator. It shows Gladiator hitting Reed Richards, a Reed who is unfazed. We never see how Cap is using the shield, as we don't see a non-imaged Cap until after Gladiator is taken down.[/quote']

 

I'll yhave to go look but the time you see it is when Reed is recapping at the end and "remembers" the panel. Its been a while, so I will have to look it up to be sure, but I thought it was later. I will go look.

 

As to the "silver age superman" comparison' date=' Gladiator is an homage, not the character himself. He has been beaten soundly by Thunderstrike (when he was acting as Thor). That puts him in, or even a bit below, the Hulk's league.[/quote']

 

But again....the poor Gladiator fell plague to THE WRITER....in Byrne's writing, he is calibre of Silver age Superman.

 

Cap can block the Hulk and Thor' date=' but has been consistently shown as needing to do so through skill, not just sticking the shield in the way. Given this, and the fact we don't see how Cap blocks Gladiator in the one occurence of that event, the most "realistic" (to overuse that word some more) interpretation is that he still angles the shield.[/quote']

 

Don't buy it. Seen Cap simply interpose his shield in the way of many a hienous attack and do so effortlessly as if applying no strength. I think the problem AGAIN with this issue, is one writer interprets one way and another interprets it another way. You like the definition of one writer and I like the other. Niether onne of us is right or wrong. We are, in fact, BOTH right... so we can agree to disagree on this one already?

 

Back to SFX. The Shield could be used to Block (OCV vs OCV roll)' date=' enhance DCV (Fantasy Hero shield), provide defenses with an activation roll, or provide defenses with no activation roll (shield wall; or he's just that good). It could require use of an action, or not, depending on how one builds it.[/quote']

 

True that...and what the GM allows and requires of it.

 

Old ground. Shove/lift/drag/move them out of the way as the attack falls.[/qoute]

 

What if the person to be blocked is Entangled and both Protector and Protectee lack sufficient strength to break the bonds? "Super-Dodge" shouldn't work then. It requires an imposition of limb or object.

 

An optional rule is not something I would consider "fundamental". But again' date=' I ask what that optional rule should be, and what games it would be used in? [/quote']

 

Whatever game the GM wants to incorporate the rule into.

 

What spread of STR would prevent Block' date=' in your view, in realistic campaigns? [/quote']

 

I guess thats where I need to get to work on the write-up, now don't I.

 

Would that spread of STR exist in that game? If the spread is' date=' say, 30 STR difference, will we see a lot of 40 STR combatants in that realistic game?[/quote']

 

Probably not, but they should be accounted for. What if it is a supers game that the GM wants to bring a little more "reality" into? Its an optional rule.

 

Already admitted not fundamental but thats okay, you seem to like harping on that so enjoy.

 

It is the uberrule that common sense and dramatic sense override the rules as written. If I'm playing a Two Fisted Pulp game' date=' I don't need a special rule to tell me that Slam Bradley can't Block a move through from a charging bull elephant.[/quote']

 

But can Slam angle his African shield JUST ENOUGH to escape the full brunt of the enraged Gorilla's blows? In Pulp, you may or may not want to use it....hence OPTIONAL.(emphasis added)

 

As noted above' date=' while I would make some changes to specifics (and some likely only in some genres), none are fundamental to the system. In my view, Hero gets the funamentals right.[/quote']

 

*sigh* This discussion needs to be taken to another thread. I will write-up the variant and you can hack to your hearts delight. I already admitted that it is not fundamental but you keep harping on it. I have already said it was optional. We disagree. Save it for another thread... but as long as you keep revisiting it, I will to. Can we agree to save it for another thread?

[ghost-angel]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

who said the Block Maneuver stops the attack dead in it's tracks.

 

A simple redirection of momentum can cause a miss.. wax on/wax off.

 

Block is a maneuver but is does not have to mean that the attack is "blocked" only that the defender has taken an offensive action to prevent getting hit (vs the defensive action of Dodge).

[Rkane_1]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Heh. I love getting down into the guts of systems and playing with them (compulsive tinkerer/theoretical math nerd, it's a calling), so I have a few...

 

Cosmetically, I'd divide everything relating to points by 5, and just hold on to halves, thirds, fourths, etc. when costing. This also puts Characteristics on a 1-4 scale before NCM kicks in. Instead of Figured Characteristics, you have recommendations for what level of the "figured characteristics" fit with what Characteristics in a human being, which the GM may enforce more or less strongly.

 

In other words, 2 is normal human and 4 is max normal human?

 

While we're at it' date=' make the DC the basic unit of damage, rather than the pip. This does require some basic adjusting, as amor, damage, stun, rec, body, and probably a few other things all become measured in DCs as well. Bump adjustment and mental powers a bit so that their basic "DC" is one point of effect (i.e. 5 of the old points of effect).[/quote']

 

Are you saying eliminate the 3d6+1 and the 4d6-1 and go with stratight 4d6 and 3d6? Wouldn't you be losing some granularity there?

 

(other minor changes: an explicit lift/push power' date=' movement powers turned into a skill with "movement groups" like sense groups, [/quote']

 

Whoa...lost me on that one. Can you give an example?

 

desolid divided into a movement power (sort of like continuous teleport)

 

Yep...gonna need to explain that one too.

 

and a damage-resisting power with signifigant built-in side effects)

 

But amror and Forcefield can take limitations or side effects now. Please elucidate.

 

On a much more sweeping level, there are two big things I'd like to see:

 

First, and more simply, I'd like to see all the body-affecting powers done away with. Replace them with a power/skill construct that causes the character to have access to certain powers depending on what he's doing with his form, probably with something like a Reserve Cost (for how many RP of form can be expressed at once") and specific characteristics (either beneficial or disadvantagous) can be purchased for something like abs(real cost)/5. Having disadvantages (which you payed points to be able to have on your form) active increases the effective size of the reserve for the purposes of more beneficial characteristics, and there's some sort of advantage/limitation controlling the switching of forms, not unlike a VPP.

 

Is this for metamorphs? Someone who can transmute their flesh into metal or such? Is that what you are talking about?

 

Second' date=' and more fundamental: mode advantages and limitation multiplicative, rather than additive -- effectively doing away with the concept of Base Cost. My personal scheme is to make each +1/2 advantage into an Enhancer, seven of which multiply the base cost of a power by 12 (so 2 enhancers basically doubles the cost, three basically triples, yes a nice chart would be a good idea). Each -1/2 limitation becomes a Limiter, and each N limiters reduce the effective number of Enhancers by one for the purpose of cost. For example: with 1 limiter, reduce costs as though there were 1 less Enhacner. with 3 limiters, reduce costs as though there were 2 less Enhancers. With 6 limiters, reduce cost as though there were 3 less Enhancers. With 21 limiters, reduce costs as though there were 6 less enhancers.[/quote']

 

Yep...gonna need a chart....and maybe a map.

 

This, along with generalizing some effects and putting things like "which kind of defense reduce this" into the Enhancer/Limiter soup, allows one to have far, far fewer base powers and I think cleans things up a good bit. On the other hand, it reduces some amount of system control on power selection, so I propose a variable enhancer/limiter, that may only be applied by the GM (recommended to help shape genre), on how commonly avaiable the power is. If teleport is difficult but possible in this world, make it more expensive. If magic is the most common SFX and anyone who claims to be a "keeper of the peace" carries around a fairly hefty Dispell Magic, then Magic should be cheaper. If Cyberkinetics are at the bleeding edge of corporate technology and can do things nobody else can, Cyberkinetic powers should be more costly. If desolid is commonplace, and security is designed accordingly, then desolid should be cheaper -- not only because its somewhat less useful (it doesn't make you a master intruder, it makes you an average intruder), but also to encourage everyone to actually take it.

 

Given this sort of thing, you can pare down to under 15 subsystems/powers pretty easily.

 

RKane_1 looks at all the pretty ideas flying over his head "Butterflies..." he says in a daze as they elude his grasp.

 

Basically' date=' it gives PCs some mechanical reason to follow the physics of your particular genre, and explain what's common in the world and what isn't.[/quote']

 

I am intrigued by what you are saying but cannot grasp some of it. Could you please elucidate?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

...snip...

 

Block is a maneuver but is does not have to mean that the attack is "blocked" only that the defender has taken an offensive action to prevent getting hit (vs the defensive action of Dodge).

 

absolutely correct.

 

furthermore, the only difference between the HERO version of Block and Dodge is that Block can be used by a character with a lower DEX than his opponent as an 'active' defense that allows him to gain momentary 'Initiative' vs. that opponent on their next common phase. If it is a 'Martial Block', the character still gets the bonus to DCV even if the 'active' portion of the block fails. Dodge gives a flat bonus to DCV and nothing else. No sfx is assigned 'by default' for either Dodge or Block by these rules. The names themselves do not assign sfx, they only suggest possibilities. Energy Blast can be used to represent a magical hammer being thrown by a thunder god. Where is the 'Energy' or 'Blast' in that sfx?

 

Better names for the manuevers and powers might lessen the frequent confusion on this topic.

 

Instead of Dodge you could use 'Evade'.

Instead of Block you could use 'Evade & Setup'.

[nexus]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Block=Active Defense

Dodge=Full Defense

Dive for Cover= Evasive Action

 

Maybe?

[ghost-angel]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Block=Active Defense

Dodge=Full Defense

Dive for Cover= Evasive Action

 

Maybe?

'tis a very good way at looking at them. I'm not proposing an actual name switch but those are apt descriptions to dispeling preconceiving notions on how they work.

[SteveZilla]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

And have a cancelling out effect of Advantages - Limitations = Modifier then do the math.

 

The problem I see with using this method (which, incidentally, was the way I was first taught -- either due to very bad math skills, or very bad reading comprehension skills) is that if you don't track Active Points as well as Real Points, you can have deceptively cheap powers that are grossly powerful.

 

I've heard from a friend that someone (maybe here on these boards) designed a 1 Real Point Nuke. I've never bothered to find the build, but I honestly believe that it's possible in Hero System.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

SURE there is. When a Strength 5 human attempts to Block (albiet reflexively) the powerful blows from a 30 Strength Gorilla that is attacking him. It would have been MUCH better for him to have tried to Dodge but humans are so silly and he was probably drunk anyway' date=' playing in a Gorilla cage at the zoo...I mean, really.[/quote']

 

While there's an issue here, that one block succeeding (at penalties to OCV because you're drunk) is unlikely, and a steady stream is impractical. Again, I come back to utility - do your games have a lot of 5 STR PC's? How often do they fight gorillas?

 

This would depend upon the special effects as chosen by the Player.

 

And a player choosing to restrict his block maneuver solely to "putting another body part in the way top take, not deflect, the blow" can place a limitation on his Block, or tale a disad based on his ability to access the full spectrum of Block options. Why do we need a special rule for Block, but not for missile deflection?

 

Perhaps this would be a good case for the Indirect Advantage but instead of "Too strong to be blocked" we use "Too quick to be blocked".

 

Again, why differentiate? If I'm too strong to be blocked, you want a rule that says that's an autromatic you gain with STR. If the inability to be blocked comes from speed, why should that require Indirect? Extra utility should carry an extra cost.

 

HUGH! YOU AREN'T SAYING THERE IS A FLAW IN THE SYSTEM' date=' ARE YOU? HERETIC! Actually, it would depend on the circumstances but yeah, thats a good valid point. Maybe the system should be changed? Nah, that would just be "crazy" [/quote']

 

I'm saying THE ABILITY OF BLOCK TO BLOCK ANY STR (since caps seem to mean more to you, but smileys offend you somehow ) IS NO LESS REALISTIC THAN DOZENS OF OTHER ISSUES ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM, CHANGING JUST ONE MAKES LESS SENSE THAN LEAVING THE OVERALL CINEMATIC STRUCTURE IN PLACE. Essentially, one needs to rewrite the entire game system to "Non-Cinematic Hero Variant", not just change the Block rule. The other examples are all part of that issue.

 

What you really want for this isn't a Block variant, but a full book of options on how to make "Realistic Hero" instead of "Cinematic Hero".

 

But what if the defined Special Effect IS the imposition of a limb? Most Blocks in Martial Arts ARE the imposition of a limb or placing your body parts in the way or positioning in just such a way as to minimize the effects of a blow. In Boxing' date=' you keep your hands up and position your shoulders to raise just enough to take the blow instead of your head. In Karate, they use blocks which impose limbs or position your body to deflect the brunt of the force (often times not eliminate, but just deflect most of it). When using the traditional meaning of the word Block, what then? You use the rules variant. Or you disallow the original rule in your game and use the variant exclusively. Again...use the Block in the book as the one for your campaign if it suits your needs. Don't use mine as it is a variant that doesn't suit your needs. [/quote']

 

The SFX of a power are graven in stone when it is purchased. The SFX of a maneuver are not. You can use a wide variety of differnt effects for a Strike. If you purchase Martial Strike, a wide variety of SFX are also available. Block, and Martial Block, are the same. And even in your rigidly defined SFX, you seem to acknolwedge redirection of force, such that you don't have to take the whole hit.

 

They die.

 

They die again.

 

They quiver.....then die.

 

They quiver....urinate themselves....then they die.

 

Gee...that Block was hugely unbalancing, wasn't it?

 

Not as written. Let us take away the Hulk. Let us say that this is a little Timmy who has new found mutant Strength who is mad that his teacher Edna gave him extra homework. She is unimpressed by his PRE attack and he hasn't demonstrated his superior Strength yet. He goes for a punch. She chooses to Block it with her limb thinking he has the strength of a child.

 

And Timmy's new muscles, which strike faster and boost his OCV, makes that Block unlikely to succeed - especially when we consider the Surprise Maneuver bonus to OCV of having superstrength when Edna expects 6 year old STR.

 

But the Genre concerns should be independent of the game system. It is set up to mimic four-color concerns. A Rule Variant is optional and doesn't HAVE to be used. And again' date=' not EVERYONE wants to play Four Color Supers. Some would prefer to play a game where slight super-powers exist but they are not as grand as four color and have a healthy helping of "reality" Something like a street level Horror campaign where a character who is a martial artist goes up against a werewolf and decides Dodge is better than trying to Block this force of nature.[/quote']

 

Then let's put the rules variant in a genre sourcebook, just as soon as we come across a genre where the variant is actually relevant (ie we have the difference between STR's coupled with the more realistic combat options). And make sure it's a genre where Block absolutely cannot be anything but sticking a body part in the path of the attack. [bTW, that werewolf probably has a pretty good OCV, which means the block attempt will likely fail so the Dodge/dive for cover is a superior choice in any event.]

 

Or a Martial Arts Sourcebook...but it has been written and includes some variants Steve wrote where the Blocker still takes half damage or doesn't take any damage but does not receive the Block Bonus for Follow-up which he defines as "Super-Dodge". Could it be....maybe.....Steve offered Variants to the Core Rules specific for Genre? How dare he!....Oh wait....he's the reason why the game is alive. I just want to offer my two cents and come up with a variant as well. That's all.

 

Then let's stick the discussion on a thread suggesting a variant rule, rather than a claim that its absense constitutes a fundamental flaw in the Hero System by posting it here. And, with all those existing variants in an OPTIONAL sourcebook intended to provide OPTIONS OUTSIDE THE MAIN RULES, what further option do you need? I'd rather not have hundreds of optional rules, each slightly varied from the last, for each facet of the game. Changing Block for each genre, to me, is overkill. Providing a few options (as UMA does) for greater and lesser "realism", and identifying the one(s) most appropriate to the genre (or subgenre) in genre books is preferable. I don't want to be playing "one of those games" where every book contains variant/optional rules with no real consideration for the morass of options, many only marginally different from options which have gone before, created by the hundreds, with little thought given to how each option meshes with the game rules surrounding it (and all the other optional rules which have gone before). Rather than a Block Teak, I'd much rather see a book on "enhanced realism". I don't know that I would buy that nook, however, as I like the current cinematic nature of the rules. However, if realism is the goal, one adjustment to one combat maneuver ain't gonna do it.

 

I would call it either a "Shove" maneuver or a "Heroic Interpose" but then thats me.

 

Keeping with the KISS principal, above, I also don't need a bunch of added maneuvers ("Defensive Shove", "Heroic Interpose", "Heroic Grab", "Defensive Redirect", "Active Dodge", etc.). Simply lumping all these as possible SFX for a single maneuver which accomplishes the task works for me. Similarly, I have no desire to see Head Butt, Punch, Elbow Smash, Knee, Kick and Bodyslam added as separate maneuvers.

 

I'll yhave to go look but the time you see it is when Reed is recapping at the end and "remembers" the panel. Its been a while' date=' so I will have to look it up to be sure, but I thought it was later. I will go look.[/quote']

 

Reed's recollection carries little weight to me, since he couldn't see through the image inducer's illusion either. If he imagines Cap standing there and taking it, then the scientist is misunderstanding the martial abilities of Captain America - which seems eminently in character for Superscientist Reed.

 

But again....the poor Gladiator fell plague to THE WRITER....in Byrne's writing' date=' he is calibre of Silver age Superman.[/quote']

 

Byrne wrote the FF story in question, didn't he? How does "KO'd by Cap" link to "Silver Age Superman".

 

What if the person to be blocked is Entangled and both Protector and Protectee lack sufficient strength to break the bonds? "Super-Dodge" shouldn't work then. It requires an imposition of limb or object.

 

What if we had to chop down enough trees to have separate maneuvers for every situation as common as the one you cite above? In any case, there's a maneuver if you want to lock for one. Shove the attacker from behind/the side, so his blow misses. Trip the opponent as he leans forward to strike the entangled character, such that he staggers and never completes the blow. Distract the attacker so his attention isn't focused on his swing and he doesn't complete it. Oh look - no limbs interposed!

[SteveZilla]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Essentially, one needs to rewrite the entire game system to "Non-Cinematic Hero Variant", not just change the Block rule. The other examples are all part of that issue.

 

What you really want for this isn't a Block variant, but a full book of options on how to make "Realistic Hero" instead of "Cinematic Hero".

 

------

 

Then let's put the rules variant in a genre sourcebook,

 

------

 

Then let's stick the discussion on a thread suggesting a variant rule, rather than a claim that its absense constitutes a fundamental flaw in the Hero System by posting it here. And, with all those existing variants in an OPTIONAL sourcebook intended to provide OPTIONS OUTSIDE THE MAIN RULES, what further option do you need? I'd rather not have hundreds of optional rules, each slightly varied from the last, for each facet of the game. Changing Block for each genre, to me, is overkill. Providing a few options (as UMA does) for greater and lesser "realism", and identifying the one(s) most appropriate to the genre (or subgenre) in genre books is preferable. I don't want to be playing "one of those games" where every book contains variant/optional rules with no real consideration for the morass of options, many only marginally different from options which have gone before, created by the hundreds, with little thought given to how each option meshes with the game rules surrounding it (and all the other optional rules which have gone before).

 

New Gamer: "Gee! In the New Hero System, even the Options have Options!"

 

Rather than a Block Tweak' date=' I'd much rather see a book on "enhanced realism".[/quote']

 

Fresh from the Hero Presses! The new book for running realistic simulations instead of fantastic roleplaying! It's "Heroes in the Modern Era". Or H.i.t.M.E. for short.

[Rkane_1]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

While there's an issue here' date=' that one block succeeding (at penalties to OCV because you're drunk) is unlikely, and a steady stream is impractical. Again, I come back to utility - do your games have a lot of 5 STR PC's? How often do they fight gorillas?[/quote']

 

Depends....are they fighting there way through the Congo to the Temple of the Silverbacks? Probably a LOT in that game....or often enough.

 

And a player choosing to restrict his block maneuver solely to "putting another body part in the way top take' date=' not deflect, the blow" can place a limitation on his Block, or tale a disad based on his ability to access the full spectrum of Block options. Why do we need a special rule for Block, but not for missile deflection?

 

Never said we didn't. Said since Block could be construed as a limb interposing between a blow and either the player character or someone he is trying to protect. In such situations, the GM may want to use a Variant for instances when a character with a superior STR attacks a target who blocks with inferior STR. Still don't see your problem with it or why you are putting up such an argument about prohibiting using a Variant. There are Variants in Ultimate Martial Atrs Blocks and the uses of several other rules. Are you saying that a GM should be prohibited from using Rules Variants and should not have control over the rules used in his own game?

 

Again' date=' why differentiate? If I'm too strong to be blocked, you want a rule that says that's an automatic you gain with STR. If the inability to be blocked comes from speed, why should that require Indirect? Extra utility should carry an extra cost.[/quote']

 

Or you could intitute another rules variant to benefit those with superior Dex. If your GM allows it, a DEX vs. DEX roll for Aborting to any Defense. That is if that is what your GM wants. If not, then you'd need to add the power Advantage to it. If your GM does not want to use a Rules Variants, then they can freely place litmitations or advantages as desired on powers or make the requirements they feel necessary to introduce, support, or maintain the elements of the genre they wish to propogate in their campaign.

 

I'm saying THE ABILITY OF BLOCK TO BLOCK ANY STR (since caps seem to mean more to you' date=' but smileys offend you somehow ) IS NO LESS REALISTIC THAN DOZENS OF OTHER ISSUES ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM, CHANGING JUST ONE MAKES LESS SENSE THAN LEAVING THE OVERALL CINEMATIC STRUCTURE IN PLACE.[/quote']

 

WHAT? Oh please. Now you are just being silly. If you've ever played with House Rules, then you are playing with rules variants. You can use rules variants to your hearts content as long as they are well thought out. If they aren't, they cause problems. If they are, they fit in fine. I've been using different rules variants for YEARS in this system and in others. You use Rules Variants to change things that fit your needs as a GM. To say "You shouldn't use rules variants" is fundamentally weird, considering how many Rules Variants exist already IN HERO to represent different things from making the game MORE realistic to MORE cinematic. If it suits my needs as a GM, I'll change what I want. Just as it suits your needs to keep things the same in your game. Nuff' said.

 

Essentially' date=' one needs to rewrite the entire game system to "Non-Cinematic Hero Variant", not just change the Block rule. The other examples are all part of that issue. [/quote']

 

Look. As rules variants come up, they can be used to add to the game or the rules of the game can be left in place. If you've ever played with House Rules, then you are playing with rules variants. You do not need to "rewrite the entire game system to "Non-Cinematic Hero Variant", not just change the Block rule." That is simply ludicrous. HERO is strong enough of a system to be able to incorporate different rules without fear of being irreparably harmed. I've already done so in my games and it didn't fly apart. The center did hold. You need to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. HERO is a great system that can adapt to multiple genres.

 

What you really want for this isn't a Block variant' date=' but a full book of options on how to make "Realistic Hero" instead of "Cinematic Hero". [/quote']

 

Is that what I want? Thank you SO much for being here to tell me what I am thinking. Actually. I wanted a rules variant for Block which would be more realistic. But I thought I said that.....multiple times. Another thing I want is for you to stop assuming what I want and stating it as if it were fact. THAT'S ... what *I* want.

 

The SFX of a power are graven in stone when it is purchased. The SFX of a maneuver are not. You can use a wide variety of different effects for a Strike. If you purchase Martial Strike' date=' a wide variety of SFX are also available. Block, and Martial Block, are the same.[/quote']

 

The SFX of a maneuver are up to the GM running the game. A good GM will listen to his players but ultimately has to make his own decision. Further definition could add an element of "realism" to the game to help add with "suspension of belief" and thus "immersion'. You can add it to the genre if you wanted it, if you didn't, you can leave it as is.

 

And even in your rigidly defined SFX' date=' you seem to acknowledge redirection of force, such that you don't have to take the whole hit.[/qoute']

 

Agreed...I don't think a truly skilled person who is an expert blocker is quite capable of blocking most of the brunt of the blow or able to push the incoming blow out of the way if they have enough strength to push the incoming attack out of the way. I also think an inexperienced Blocker would take most of the force improperly taking damage, but not the WORST of the damage. A skilled Aikido master would be able to push a much more powerful opponent's blow out of the way. But, as you have stated before, the Hulk.

 

Gee...that Block was hugely unbalancing' date=' wasn't it?[/quote']

 

Yep...still is. Talking about how logically a rule can be ignored or circumvented still doesn't effect the rule at its core properties...sorry. No dice.

 

And Timmy's new muscles' date=' which strike faster and boost his OCV, makes that Block unlikely to succeed - especially when we consider the Surprise Maneuver bonus to OCV of having superstrength when Edna expects 6 year old STR.[/quote']

 

What if she has faith that God will protect her? *smile* What if she knows that Timmy is super-strong but has faith that she is being protected? No surprise at all. Just deluded. For every reason you can come up with to avoid the point, I can find a new way it would come into effect.

 

Take the rule for what it is, and stop trying to dance around it.

 

As it stands, anyone, no matter what their strength, can Block an incoming blow no matter the Strength of the attacker. Doesn't stand up to logic so a more realistic game might want a Rules Variant. Less realistic, more cinematic games may like it the way it is. You obviously like it that way it is. Maybe you should ignore the Rules Variant when I post it, then?

 

Then let's put the rules variant in a genre sourcebook' date=' just as soon as we come across a genre where the variant is actually relevant (i.e. we have the difference between STR's coupled with the more realistic combat options).[/quote']

 

Ultimate Martial Artist is already published WITH a Block Variant for taking half damage (sounds like an interposing limb option to me. You want to be the one to tell Steve Long he is wrong?), maybe a follow-up. What about an Iron Age sourcebook where there are some frightening effects on normal human flesh when super-powers are used against them? What about a modern day horror campaign where a 15 STR martial artist with plenty of OCV still wants to try to Block the blows of a 35 STR werewolf? What about the farflung future where those with Cybernetic Limbs like to Street fight? What about an even farther flung future where Aliens combat humans hand to hand for sport? What about.....well...I could go on all day.

 

And make sure it's a genre where Block absolutely cannot be anything but sticking a body part in the path of the attack.

 

If thats the way the GM chooses to define it, then sure.

 

[bTW' date= that werewolf probably has a pretty good OCV, which means the block attempt will likely fail so the Dodge/dive for cover is a superior choice in any event.]

 

Not if a Werewolf who is drugged and you have a silver stake ready to strike on the next maneuver. See ....we can come up with counters all day.

 

Also, I thought you WANTED to change the ruling for Dive For Cover.....but I thought you said the rule was perfect the way it is? Wouldn't that be changing something illogical in the system to fit your definition?

 

Then let's stick the discussion on a thread suggesting a variant rule' date=' rather than a claim that its absense constitutes a fundamental flaw in the Hero System by posting it here. [/quote']

 

Wow....Did you read any of the other threads where I already acqueisced to that? Did you read where I wanted to stop drilling this conversation into the ground and move it to another thread?

 

And' date=' with all those existing variants in an OPTIONAL sourcebook intended to provide OPTIONS OUTSIDE THE MAIN RULES, what further option do you need? I'd rather not have hundreds of optional rules, each slightly varied from the last, for each facet of the game. [/quote']

 

And there are some who do. You don't use the Variant, they might. There are some who prefer to have their clothes chosen for them, others don't. Its a matter of choice. You have made yours. Why are you trying to interfere with mine?

 

Changing Block for each genre' date=' to me, is overkill. Providing a few options (as UMA does) for greater and lesser "realism", and identifying the one(s) most appropriate to the genre (or subgenre) in genre books is preferable.[/quote']

 

So....you just supported my argument.....erm....thanks.....I think.

 

I don't want to be playing "one of those games" where every book contains variant/optional rules with no real consideration for the morass of options' date=' many only marginally different from options which have gone before, created by the hundreds, with little thought given to how each option meshes with the game rules surrounding it (and all the other optional rules which have gone before). Rather than a Block Teak, I'd much rather see a book on "enhanced realism". I don't know that I would buy that nook, however, as I like the current cinematic nature of the rules. However, if realism is the goal, one adjustment to one combat maneuver ain't gonna do it.[/quote']

 

Wow....talking about making all about your agenda. I just wanted a little rules variant. If you want a "realistic" genre book. You should right it. Or not....I don't care. You=, I think, seem to want to win this argument at all costs without considering what I am saying....

 

Keeping with the KISS principal' date=' above, I also don't need a bunch of added maneuvers ("Defensive Shove", "Heroic Interpose", "Heroic Grab", "Defensive Redirect", "Active Dodge", etc.). Simply lumping all these as possible SFX for a single maneuver which accomplishes the task works for me. Similarly, I have no desire to see Head Butt, Punch, Elbow Smash, Knee, Kick and Bodyslam added as separate maneuvers.[/quote']

 

Great...then you have your system....why are we still talking?

 

Reed's recollection carries little weight to me' date=' since he couldn't see through the image inducer's illusion either. If he imagines Cap standing there and taking it, then the scientist is misunderstanding the martial abilities of Captain America - which seems eminently in character for Superscientist Reed. [/quote']

 

Oh please. Maybe he was just remembering a moment in the story and the "physics" of the shield change from writer to writer. You interpret how your world needs to be to make you comfortable. Again, fictional characters, Hugh. Fictional characters are subject to the understanding of the writer....

 

So...who would win? Tarzan or batman? Spiderman Versus Batman? Ziggy Stardust vs Rainbow Bright? Its up to the writer.

 

Byrne wrote the FF story in question' date=' didn't he? How does "KO'd by Cap" link to "Silver Age Superman". [/quote']

 

Because it was thwe way that Byrne described the powers of Superman and Gladiator in a later interview about redoing Superman. It had to do with Gladiator's fatih in his won abilities. He had a moment of doubt and, in that moment of doubt, Cap KO'd him. (Yeah, lame. But I didn't write it.) How else would a being who could fly through the core of a sun be injured by Cap?

 

What if we had to chop down enough trees to have separate maneuvers for every situation as common as the one you cite above? In any case' date=' there's a maneuver if you want to lock for one. Shove the attacker from behind/the side, so his blow misses. Trip the opponent as he leans forward to strike the entangled character, such that he staggers and never completes the blow. Distract the attacker so his attention isn't focused on his swing and he doesn't complete it. Oh look - no limbs interposed![/quote']

 

Call a spade a spade. Block is perhaps now TOO losely defined as you have proven. Perhaps good for your EXTREMELY loose definition of the game, but not for mine. Different GM's.....different needs. Rules variants work for some, the standard rules for others. Niether is right. Niether is wrong as long as they are enjoying themselves.

[Kristopher]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I like how people try to "realistically and logically" model something that has no basis in reality.

 

I laugh at them.

 

Why?

 

Some things have no basis in reality at all, sure, but other things are simply a matter of applying the physics. OK, let's say someone could lift 20 tons. Given that much muscle power, how hard could they hit? Would the muscle and bone strength necessary give them extra resistance to wounding? Etc.

[ghost-angel]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Why?

 

Some things have no basis in reality at all, sure, but other things are simply a matter of applying the physics. OK, let's say someone could lift 20 tons. Given that much muscle power, how hard could they hit? Would the muscle and bone strength necessary give them extra resistance to wounding? Etc.

They hit really hard...

 

20tons is a 47STR I believe, so they hit with enough force to do 9 1/2 D6 of damage....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Depends....are they fighting there way through the Congo to the Temple of the Silverbacks? Probably a LOT in that game....or often enough.

 

If the Silverbacks have a Temple, I think we've lost enough realism that maybe blocking his strike isn't that big an addition to make me lose sleep over it. How will the Two Fisted Pulp Heroes be expected to deal with the gorillas?

 

In such situations' date=' the GM may want to use a Variant for instances when a character with a superior STR attacks a target who blocks with inferior STR.[/quote']

 

How superior? What about a 25 STR streetfighter vs a 5 STR aged Master of Kung Fu? I don't object to the prospect of a variant. However:

 

- I don't see it belonging in the main rules

 

- I think your basis of "realism" needs to be assessed as a whole, not on a single SFX for a single maneuver

 

- I don't think this variation is as simple as you seem to make it out to be, but I'm still waiting for your proposal, so maybe you're coming to the same realization.

 

Still don't see your problem with it or why you are putting up such an argument about prohibiting using a Variant. There are Variants in Ultimate Martial Atrs Blocks and the uses of several other rules. Are you saying that a GM should be prohibited from using Rules Variants and should not have control over the rules used in his own game?

 

I'm saying the existing rules are quite adequate for the situations you've described, and that adding a host of options that add little, if anything, to the game is counterproductive. Pick the one you like from UMA and use it.

 

Or you could institute another rules variant to benefit those with superior Dex. If your GM allows it' date=' a DEX vs. DEX roll for Aborting to any Defense. That is if that is what your GM wants. If not, then you'd need to add the power Advantage to it. If your GM does not want to use a Rules Variants, then they can freely place litmitations or advantages as desired on powers or make the requirements they feel necessary to introduce, support, or maintain the elements of the genre they wish to propogate in their campaign.[/quote']

 

I don't recall your stated goal being "make Block less useful, and therefore less common". It was stated as "it's not reasonable that Mary Schoolteacher can block the Hulk's punch".

 

WHAT? Oh please. Now you are just being silly. If you've ever played with House Rules' date=' then you are playing with rules variants. You can use rules variants to your hearts content as long as they are well thought out. If they aren't, they cause problems. If they are, they fit in fine. I've been using different rules variants for YEARS in this system and in others. You use Rules Variants to change things that fit your needs as a GM. To say "You shouldn't use rules variants" is fundamentally weird, considering how many Rules Variants exist already IN HERO to represent different things from making the game MORE realistic to MORE cinematic. If it suits my needs as a GM, I'll change what I want. Just as it suits your needs to keep things the same in your game. Nuff' said.[/quote']

 

What does that have to do with my statement that

 

I'm saying THE ABILITY OF BLOCK TO BLOCK ANY STR (since caps seem to mean more to you' date=' but smileys offend you somehow ) IS NO LESS REALISTIC THAN DOZENS OF OTHER ISSUES ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM, CHANGING JUST ONE MAKES LESS SENSE THAN LEAVING THE OVERALL CINEMATIC STRUCTURE IN PLACE.[/quote']

 

I didn't say "don't use rules variants". However, I very much dislike making one rules change on the basis of "it's more realistic" if we're not going to revisit the whole framework to fix all rules that are similarly "unrealistic". And there are a lot of rules which are no more realistic than a skilled martial artist being able to prevent a single blow from a powerful adversary from connecting.

 

Look. As rules variants come up' date=' they can be used to add to the game or the rules of the game can be left in place. If you've ever played with House Rules, then you are playing with rules variants. You do not need to "rewrite the entire game system to "Non-Cinematic Hero Variant", not just change the Block rule." That is simply ludicrous. HERO is strong enough of a system to be able to incorporate different rules without fear of being irreparably harmed. I've already done so in my games and it didn't fly apart. The center did hold. You need to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. HERO is a great system that can adapt to multiple genres. [/quote']

 

Once more, I'm saying that, if your goal is to have realism, just changing the Block rules won't cut it. House rules should, in my view, be directed at enhancing some facet of the game. Change for the sake of change is not beneficial. You have stated you're trying to enhance realism with your amendment to the Block rule. I'm saying that, if realism is your goal, it would be best served by a complete review of all the rules to icorporate variances which enhance realism. This is a deviation from Hero's structure of "cinematic wins over realistic", and would best be presented in a supplement specifically aimed at reducing cinematic effects in favor of realism for those gamers wishing to take that approach.

 

In other words, I would rather see a supplement devoted to optional rules to achieve a specific goal - emulate a specific genre; enhance realism; whatever - then a book of optional rules for some mechanic or another (eg. Block; combat maneuvers; whatever) which are presented as options with no context for what they are trying to achieve and how they would best mesh with other optional rules to achieve their objective.

 

Is that what I want? Thank you SO much for being here to tell me what I am thinking. Actually. I wanted a rules variant for Block which would be more realistic. But I thought I said that.....multiple times. Another thing I want is for you to stop assuming what I want and stating it as if it were fact. THAT'S ... what *I* want.

 

I can only go from what you have stated. You stated you had a problem that Joe Six Pack could block the Hulk. I discussed that. You complained that "Hero's about more than Supers - I want a more realistic option". Perhaps getting to that discussion was not best served by selecting a comic book supers character that can lift mountain ranges as your SOLE example.

 

Now we're discussing realism, so I present you with my theory of how best to achieve realism - and it's not "just provide a Block variant", so you're once again not happy.

 

What if she has faith that God will protect her? *smile* What if she knows that Timmy is super-strong but has faith that she is being protected? No surprise at all. Just deluded. For every reason you can come up with to avoid the point' date=' I can find a new way it would come into effect.[/quote']

 

If the roll consistently succeeds, maybe she's not so deluded after all.

 

Take the rule for what it is' date=' and stop trying to dance around it. [/quote']

 

Would that be the rule that Block (or any other maneuver) has a wide variaety of SFX, not all of which, in the case of Block, are "stick your limb in the way"?

 

As it stands' date=' anyone, no matter what their strength, can Block an incoming blow no matter the Strength of the attacker. Doesn't stand up to logic so a more realistic game might want a Rules Variant. Less realistic, more cinematic games may like it the way it is. You obviously like it that way it is. Maybe you should ignore the Rules Variant when I post it, then?[/quote']

 

No, it doesn't stand up to YOUR logic, so a game with YOUR predefinitions of the SFX of maneuvers may want a Rules Variant to bring the game, and the actions of the characters within it, more in line with YOUR preconceptions.

 

Ultimate Martial Artist is already published WITH a Block Variant for taking half damage (sounds like an interposing limb option to me. You want to be the one to tell Steve Long he is wrong?)

 

It would not be the first time I've disagreed with Steve's comments. If you already have the published rules variant you wanted, why does it need further discussion on this thread? Use it!

 

What about an Iron Age sourcebook where there are some frightening effects on normal human flesh when super-powers are used against them?

 

I'd say taking 10 BOD (12 rolled on a 12d6 attack less 2 = 10) is a pretty frightening effect. Describe it that way and you've got what you wanted.

 

What about a modern day horror campaign where a 15 STR martial artist with plenty of OCV still wants to try to Block the blows of a 35 STR werewolf? What about the farflung future where those with Cybernetic Limbs like to Street fight? What about an even farther flung future where Aliens combat humans hand to hand for sport? What about.....well...I could go on all day.

 

Much longer, I suspect, but that's just the pot and the kettle exchanging descriptors And I believe you could find genre examples for each of those where Blocks take place. "MA blocks Werewolf" seems very Buffy. And if the MA has that kind of OCV, why shouldn't he be able to grab the Werewolf's wrist and twist under its claws? But let's take that character a bit further with a couple more questions:

 

- Should that MA's blows (let's make them 7 DC, same as that 35 STR) be blockable by another, similar martial artist? Remember, he can shatter bricks with those strikes!

 

- Should that MA be able to block a street punk with a knife (1d6 HKA including STR)? It's the same DC as his own STR, so a variant based on relative STR doesn't change it, but sticking your arm in the way of a knife only really changes the hit location, if we're going by "realism".

 

- Can the MA buy the ability to block a higher STR opponent? How, or alternatively why should that one concept be rejected out of hand?

 

To reiterate, if you want "realism", a simple "X STR difference = cannot be blocked" isn't going to do it. You seem to have focused on Block as if it is the only rule where realism might be compromised.

 

Also' date=' I thought you WANTED to change the ruling for Dive For Cover.....but I thought you said the rule was perfect the way it is? Wouldn't that be changing something illogical in the system to fit your definition?[/quote']

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I said that, if this relative STR block needs changed in the interests of realism, then DFC also needs changing, as it is at least as unrealistic. I am saying that changing Block and leaving DFC does not serve the interests of realism.

 

Oh please. Maybe he was just remembering a moment in the story and the "physics" of the shield change from writer to writer. You interpret how your world needs to be to make you comfortable. Again' date=' fictional characters, Hugh. Fictional characters are subject to the understanding of the writer....[/quote']

 

You continually cite them as your examples, then dismiss them when they become inconvenient to you. A very...creative...style of discussion.

 

How else would a being who could fly through the core of a sun be injured by Cap?

 

[Thread Flashback]Spider Man beat Firelord. Live with it!![/Thred Flashback]

 

ooo...that hurt! I'm back now!

[Ganesh]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I've never actually interacted with the Fusion system before -- I know it's disliked by Herophiles, but the reasons I know are mostly historical. I've no idea what the system itself is like...I'm a little curious. Avoiding the mistakes of crappy systems is a good thing.

 

RKane_1: i'll respond in parts, as that seems better than creating more posts of the "hulk-blocking" size :']

 

So, part the first, cosmetic changes: Divide characteristics by 5, macropoints.

 

In Hero, Characteristics are always divided by 5 before being used (with two exceptions). Strength divided by 5 is dcs of punching damage, skills are all 9+(Characteristic/5)+skill levels, etc.

 

Dex and Ego are divided by 3 to determine OCV, DCV, etc. One could instead divide by 5, and add a 5-point combat skill level for each 5 points. Thus the defenses and attacks would act like normal skills.

 

So, an average characteristic becomes 2 (represents between 8 and 12), a very weak attribute (3-7) becomes 1, above average (13-17) is 3, and at 4 (that is, 18-22) you're well above average. Anything more pushes human limits, and therefore would be pushing the NCM and costing double points in a heroic game.

 

This eliminates rounding and breakpoints, and means that characteristics are in the form used for most things. Numbers are also smaller...I have a bias against large numbers in tabletop games.

 

The only odd issue at this point is some mental powers/PRE attacks (which must overcome Ego, Pre, or Con) and adjustment powers. This is resolved by increasing the cost of such powers by 50%, and making each DC have 5 points of effect.

 

 

Macropoints: dividing all point values by 5 pleases my sense of aesthetics. Not really fundamental (and makes MA a little weird, but then it was always a weird (but good) little subsystem), but I like it.

[Ganesh]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Are you saying eliminate the 3d6+1 and the 4d6-1 and go with stratight 4d6 and 3d6? Wouldn't you be losing some granularity there?

 

Not quite...this will take a little explaining, and the use of fudge dice.

 

Fudge dice are effectively d3-2 each (d6s with 2 sides -, two sides blank, and two sides +) They were invented for an RPG system for numerophobes, but they're useful for adding zero-centered variance to rolls, very very simply.

 

So, if the dc were the basic unit of damage, that means that Stun would only be inflicted in multiples of 3.5, body in multiples of 3, endurance in multiples of 3.5, and adjustment powers (and those mental powers that have to overcome an attribute) in multiples of 5.

 

If Blasterman hit ArmorGuy (5 dcs of DEF) with a 12dc blast, the progress would look like this:

 

Blasterman's player rolls four fudge dice, resulting in, say, a net +2. This means that the blast does 14dcs of stun damage.

 

As this is a normal blast, divide the damage by 3 to determine Body damage, that is 14/3 = 4 2/3 rounds to 5. Therefore, the blast does 14 stun and 5 body.

 

ArmorGuy has 5 dcs of armor, so he take 9dcs of stun and no body. That's the equivalent of 9*3.5 ~=32 stun damage. It's recorded as 9 dcs of stun, though, which makes all the numbers smaller.

 

There's some ways of folding the skills in so everything is "roll 4df, add effect, reduce by resistance," which is nice.

 

Yes, you lose a little granularity, but although most herophiles can count up the stun & body on 12 dice pretty quickly, it's not a trivial skill. Also, my aforementioned bias towards smaller numbers in tabletop.

 

ok...I'd write more, but my girlfriend is absconding with me now. Later!

[Robyn]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Macropoints: dividing all point values by 5 pleases my sense of aesthetics.

 

Evidently, you've never had two fingers cut off for disobeying your Yakuza superiors.

 

Come to think of it, I hope I never do, either

[casualplayer]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I've never actually interacted with the Fusion system before -- I know it's disliked by Herophiles, but the reasons I know are mostly historical. I've no idea what the system itself is like...I'm a little curious. Avoiding the mistakes of crappy systems is a good thing.

 

RKane_1: i'll respond in parts, as that seems better than creating more posts of the "hulk-blocking" size :']

 

So, part the first, cosmetic changes: Divide characteristics by 5, macropoints.

 

In Hero, Characteristics are always divided by 5 before being used (with two exceptions). Strength divided by 5 is dcs of punching damage, skills are all 9+(Characteristic/5)+skill levels, etc.

 

Dex and Ego are divided by 3 to determine OCV, DCV, etc. One could instead divide by 5, and add a 5-point combat skill level for each 5 points. Thus the defenses and attacks would act like normal skills.

 

So, an average characteristic becomes 2 (represents between 8 and 12), a very weak attribute (3-7) becomes 1, above average (13-17) is 3, and at 4 (that is, 18-22) you're well above average. Anything more pushes human limits, and therefore would be pushing the NCM and costing double points in a heroic game.

 

This eliminates rounding and breakpoints, and means that characteristics are in the form used for most things. Numbers are also smaller...I have a bias against large numbers in tabletop games.

 

The only odd issue at this point is some mental powers/PRE attacks (which must overcome Ego, Pre, or Con) and adjustment powers. This is resolved by increasing the cost of such powers by 50%, and making each DC have 5 points of effect.

 

 

Macropoints: dividing all point values by 5 pleases my sense of aesthetics. Not really fundamental (and makes MA a little weird, but then it was always a weird (but good) little subsystem), but I like it.

 

I was just busting your chops, Ganesh. Especially since most of things you mentioned, I mentioned also and were incorporated into Fuzion. There was a lot to like about the Fuzion rules, but it just didn't feel like HERO anymore. Which may be the final word on this thread; if we made the changes we suggest we wouldn't be playing HERO anymore.

[SteveZilla]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Not quite...this will take a little explaining' date=' and the use of fudge dice.[/quote']

 

I like fudge -- the edible kind. Don't like it as dice. It gets brown stains on stuff, and the dice have a tendency to disappear during the game.

 

Fudge dice are effectively d3-2 each (d6s with 2 sides -' date=' two sides blank, and two sides +). They were invented for an RPG system for numerophobes, but they're useful for adding zero-centered variance to rolls, very very simply.[/quote']

 

However, the range of values achievable is very narrow (compared to regular dice).

 

Yes' date=' you lose a little granularity, [/quote']

 

A little? Try a whole lot!

 

ok...I'd write more' date=' but my girlfriend is absconding with me now. Later![/quote']

 

You have a girlfriend? You're not a True Gamer! Turn in your secret decoder ring at the counter when you leave!

[SteveZilla]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

In Karate' date=' they use blocks which impose limbs or position your body to deflect the brunt of the force[/quote']

 

While Karate is definately a "hard" art (which counters power with power), the statement above makes it sound (to me) like the Martial Artist is using their limb as Ablative Armor -- simply placing the limb in the path of the approaching strike, and the strike *runs into* it. While I am not an expert on real-world martial arts, I would be dumbfounded if there was an art where this was the case -- *allowing* an opponent to strike you.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts:

 

Another category is the notion of "hard" versus "soft", which asks whether a system relies on using force and power to defeat the opponent or, instead, on avoiding attacks and applying leverage: the Shotokan school of karate may be perceived as using a "harder" approach than Judo does.

 

In Karate, the most common Block is effectively a hard strike against the approaching fist/foot (and attendant limb) to deflect it. That it uses the entire forearm in this process doesn't change that fact. It (IMO) just makes it easier for a beginner to execute -- they're using a much bigger "weapon".

 

From what I can tell, the "more realistic block" you seek comes from the thought that Strength (Power) *should* win out over Skill. Or to put it another way, that in a (pure) contest of Strength vs Skill, Skill looses. I'm not saying that I know what you're thinking -- this is just my interpretation based upon the discussion that has happend so far.

 

 

From http://www.whk.fi/arts/wingchun.html:

 

Wing Chun is a Chinese system of Kung Fu that specializes in developing dynamic, explosive and street oriented practical self-defense. Originally developed by a woman, it relies on developing leverage and sensitivity rather than muscular strength to overcome an opponent. Training develops reflex, speed, coordination and power to enable someone to quickly and effortlessly dispatch a larger and stronger attacker without relying on size or strength.

 

In Wing Chun Kung Fu, some of the blocks (like the Pak Sao) start out with the whole open hand, and can progress to eventually using just the index and middle finger in very skilled Artists. This, I have seen and experienced. The person who trained me could deflect my fists with just his index finger. An index finger vs a whole arm & body -- there's a really big STR difference, yet he had no problem blocking me.

 

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Sao:

 

With Pak Sao, the hand comes directly out of the center of the body to slap away an attacker's strike to one's head. Effective application of Pak Sao involves creating an angle of deflection through which the opponent's blow can be slapped away with minimal effort.

 

My point with all this is that there are *real world* examples of martial arts that do what you seem to believe isn't possible ('realistic' is the word you used, IIRC). That a Block can succeede despite a large difference in Strengths between the attacker and blocker. Wing Chun Kung Fu is an art *designed* for just that purpose -- a weaker artist vs a stronger opponent.

 

Also, I took a quick glance in my TUM eariler today but couldn't find a Block where the blocker still takes damage. If I am missing it, please provide a specific page/book reference for me.

[Ganesh]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

A little? Try a whole lot!

 

Hey, it's only half an order of magnitude

 

You have a girlfriend? You're not a True Gamer! Turn in your secret decoder ring at the counter when you leave!

 

Four, actually, and three of them are going through soul-crushingly stressful times at the moment. Aren't I lucky?

 

Casualplayer: yeah...these were the ones noted as "cosmetic changes," and as such they do change the look & feel of the system a large amount, even if the actual changes to the mechanics are debatably small. Which from the POV of holding onto hero fandom would make these a big mistake for the company.

 

Robyn: whisky, tango, foxtrot? Am I missing a hilarious yakuza reference somehwere?

 

I still think that by doing away with the concept of Base Cost, Hero could be made noticably more flexible and considerably cooler. Maybe I'll have time to write about that tomorrow.