Assumptions within HERO

[zornwil]

Re: Lucius Alexander Defends the Status Quo for Once

 

snipped for brevity/focus

 

If the GM realizes during play that the power is unbalanced or abusive' date='[/quote']

 

But now you are talking about where the player has violated one of the clear thrusts of the book, a statement which is a rule even if it has no mechanics. And ah-ha! It's the game system stating a direction, a social contract, for the players! Just like we were discussing about death. The book makes it clear that unbalanced or abusive play can be a problem, and that GMs have a responsibility to watch out for it.

 

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I will say that what you SEEMED to be saying in your earlier posts is that if a player has bought a power that can bring either their own or another character back from the dead, that power can be spontaneously and arbitrarily redefined or nullified by either the GM _OR_ by another player. If that’s so, why should you object to the same thing being true of powers and abilities in general?

 

Because even if it were true, it would be something I"d be objecting to as well in the first instance.

 

Play groups choosing to grant Resurrection in games have more or less "stated" that it is okay to bring back PCs from the dead, although it still can be a bad situation if the GM didn't think of it and reads the book to say, as, welll, the book says a character is dead at -1*BOD. Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be fairly clear that the existence of Resurrection on a character sheet should itself be a strong enough trigger in the group for the GM to be sure he and the players are on the same page.

 

What I was saying, anyway, is that there is room for error here. The book says the PC is dead. If none of the PCs does have resurrection and it's not that kind of game but it IS, let's say, a supers game, the conversation can be open. The players may have a different understanding now, then the GM. The GM might say "dead is dead." The players might say "but if villains can come back, what about heroes?". There is no clear control or suggestion here provided systemically. So one could suggest it's at GM option completely - and in fact, why would this really be invalid? It's the way many D&D games have been played (as well as them being played the other way, too). It's certainly the way a Boot Hill game is played.

 

And if you are agreeing with me that a player character’s powers and how they work should be generally free of “tampering” in play (excepting certain exceptional cases, like when no one realized how abusively powerful a certain effect would be) then can you please explain why you want to make an exception for regeneration or resurrection?

 

It should be clear now I am not, I am asking for death to be seen in the same light of control.

 

Zornwill, if that’s the case, it renders your own argument just as moot and for the same reasons. As I said:

 

If the player character has a power such as regeneration from death, that power is under the player’s control – just exactly like any other power they bought for their character, because there is no reason to assume it’s any different.

 

If another player’s character has a power that can raise the dead, that power is under that player’s control – just exactly like any other power they bought for their character, because there is no reason to assume it’s any different.

 

If there is anything else in the game world that might have the power to raise the dead, it’s under the control of the person running the game – just exactly like anything else in the game that’s NOT under a specific player’s direct control, because there is no reason to assume it’s any different.

 

So you are saying that:

- if the players have any ability to raise the dead, they have control

- if they do not, it is entirely up to the GM

 

And that would exactly be the source of an argument. You say that, but the rules do not. I think there's an implication that the PC should have a chance in many types of genres. As a player in a supers game, I would be surprised if death occurred and you took that attitude and let the players look long and hard for a method while you displayed the world's complete inability to support that. And the book gives us no direction to key off of. If the book gave some guideline, if you didn't want to follow it, you know to tell us players that right off the bat. Otherwise the guideline or something close to it exists.

 

No statements at all?

 

You mean, it DOESN’T explicitly state that a player, in general, has the control and “ownership” as I termed it of their own player character? That they can’t generally count on powers and skills they paid points for functioning as they were designed to, and as the rules mechanically say they should? I’m pretty sure that’s in there somewhere – and if you insist, I’ll try to look it up.

 

Ahh, and now you're back in exactly a conundrum. You are right. The player PAID. So death should NEVER mean anything other than some new storyline as to the character coming back. No matter how grim and gritty and realistic the setting!

 

But wait, that doesn't sound right...

 

But by the theory you state (which btw is, I think, entirely logical), given it's a points system and points can absolutely not be taken away (well, except for very long-term Drains, hmmm...well we'll let that go for a moment), then by goodness the player must have absolute, "within reason", control over the character being dead or not. Now, in a grim, gritty, realistic setting, that means that the player can say, "Okay, here's the retcon..." and "Okay, now his identical brother shows up..." or "the imposter is dead and I step out from behind the tree!" All "realistic" in less fantastic settings.

 

But as I say, that doesn't sound right to me. Not that if the rules state that it would be wrong - but if this is how we are to do it, then death is not really a gaming-level disincentive, and the nature of death changes dramatically.

 

However, as mentioned above, there IS a way to basically drain a player's points away - with Drain, and set the time on really, really high. So we can actually deprive a player of points effectively - this is an interesting thought with some other broad implications. Of course worst case the character is basically booted into a far future or such. But a subject for another thread...

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

I think I understand your point now. It seems like what you're saying is that it would be useful to have more explanation of the reasoning behind rules to understand why you would or wouldn't want to use a particular option.

 

If that's what you mean then I can see your point. The real problem, as I see it, is that the basic rules are written to intentionally avoid leading players toward any specific decisions as to how the game should be run.

 

I think that's where the fallacy begins. No matter what, players basically have to buy into a certain game physics. And part of that game physics in HERO is a significant emphasis on rationality, cause and effect, and (relative to many games) a realistic sense of actions (as many say, they really like how there's no AC-style dodginess, instead it's clear that you have defenses and you have ways of avoiding being hit, they are not fudged). This in turn promotes certain types of play styles and begs certain play experiences. Don't get me wrong, what I like about HERO is that it's so well designed you can pick it apart and reconstruct and so on fairly easily; but if you start really taking a wrecking ball to BOD damage, STUN damage, distinguish PD from ED, at some level you're starting to revamp so greatly that at some point you are starting to create a new game, or at least your HERO game is nothing like most.

 

Of course you're right that there is always some kind of specific reasoning for mechanics in the game, and it would certainly be useful for new players to have at least a basic understanding of that reasoning to give them a starting point for their own decisions. The problem with doing that in Hero is that it would be nearly impossible to provide that kind of information because you can't find a single unified vision of the type you mention in D&D. I suppose that's the down side to making a system that's designed to do anything. It doesn't give you a particularly cohesive vision for a specific genre.

 

I tend to disagree. I think HERO has its most solid basis in core concepts that build up well together. So I hope that it would be fairly easy to communicate those in more detail and be clear on what those do impact in play experience, and from there the rest of the system can be written quite easily/simply. But I admit this is more of a speculation on my part than a fully-fledged theory or model.

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

Do you have any examples of systems that are independent of a genre and setting that take that approach?

Good question, when adding re a universal/generic system.

 

GURPS is fairly explicit and gives death considerable (for what it is) discussion. In the Character book it says "In general" that's the end of the character, indicating "You must create a new character to contnue in the campaign. The GM might start you out close to the other PCs in points, but it is not acceptable to write a new name across the top of your old character sheet and declare, "This is his twin brother." If you want to do that, buy an Extra Life!"

 

It goes on to point out that in "some settings, however, magic or high technology might be able to resurrect you. If so, oyu return from the dead and pick up where you left off."

 

It gives advice of how you might pass on to be pure thought in other worlds, giving details of how you might pick up a new racial tempalte. It indicates how the GM should handle this.

 

In the Campaign book, it points out that a GM should allow a PC to take a "Dying Action," even stating "This has nothing to do with realism, but it's fun." It mentions in those magical or high tech settings it makes sense to track additional damage beyond the death below for recovery purposes.

 

We get a good glimpse into the design mentality, not necessarily deep, but clear.

 

I also checked out Savage Worlds. Interestingly, while it makes no such statements in detail, it refers to death in a way that's final, and there are, in the core book (there are in certain genra I believe), no resurrection abilities at all. So by implication, a character is just plain dead. That being said, it neglects the discussion so extremely that it's rather a hole, given common player expectations to not "really" die unless by basic choice in many types of games.

 

True20 says you're dead and over unless there are high powered magicians (or something like that) available, and leaves it just at that, short-cutting the discussion in a manner pretty similar to HERO.

 

OctaNe makes its design intent extremely clear, and talks about what mortality may or may not occur among the "movie types" it supports, as well as by its basic mechanics (no damage system) making sure you cannot get in a mortal conflict unless it is explicitly made as "this will kill you" or "I try to kill him". You might argue octaNe is not a universal/generic system but that's only because Sorenson had the modesty and good sense not to hype it as such - besides that, it's about as universal as HERO or GURPS or Savage Worlds, you can play all kinds of genres in it based on its core mechanics, but your play experience IS oriented more specifically, to be fair, than in HERO or GURPS, so in that respect it's more constrained. I just happen to think it's a more honest system.

[Vurbal]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

I think that's where the fallacy begins. No matter what' date=' players basically have to buy into a certain game physics. And part of that game physics in HERO is a significant emphasis on rationality, cause and effect, and (relative to many games) a realistic sense of actions (as many say, they really like how there's no AC-style dodginess, instead it's clear that you have defenses and you have ways of avoiding being hit, they are not fudged). This in turn promotes certain types of play styles and begs certain play experiences. Don't get me wrong, what I like about HERO is that it's so well designed you can pick it apart and reconstruct and so on fairly easily; but if you start really taking a wrecking ball to BOD damage, STUN damage, distinguish PD from ED, at some level you're starting to revamp so greatly that at some point you are starting to create a new game, or at least your HERO game is nothing like most.[/quote']

I don't think I'm explaining my position very well. I'm not talking about changing the basic mechanics of the game. I'm simply talking about areas that differ between genres and settings. For example, ressurection, clairsentience, and teleportation are perfectly reasonable for most fantasy games but would probably be completely left out of most Dark Champions games. Likewise, in the Dark Champions game you're going to use your toolkit to build firearms that you wouldn't use for your fantasy game. I didn't mean to suggest this is actually a problem, just that it makes it unrealistic to think you can make a universal rule for what happens to your character after he dies because the genre and setting are the most important factors (along with the player's preferences) as to what the answer is. It might be convenient for the system to make a suggestion, but only in the context of something like a genre book - not in the main rules.

I tend to disagree. I think HERO has its most solid basis in core concepts that build up well together. So I hope that it would be fairly easy to communicate those in more detail and be clear on what those do impact in play experience, and from there the rest of the system can be written quite easily/simply. But I admit this is more of a speculation on my part than a fully-fledged theory or model.

I'm not saying they don't fit well together, just that you won't use the same pieces the same way, if at all, from one genre to another. If you were to ask me if ressurection is appropriate for a Dark Champions game I'd generally say no. OTOH for a fantasy game the answer might very well be yes. Even something as basic as an energy blast has different implications - the fantasy mage casting a fireball (which other characters probably can't do) vs. the Dark Champions vigilante with a firearm (which every character might have). The system can't provide a meaningful answer without that context. Genre books provide the context, and are therefore the appropriate place for that discussion. The mechanics have to be considered, but not by themselves.

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

I don't think I'm explaining my position very well. I'm not talking about changing the basic mechanics of the game. I'm simply talking about areas that differ between genres and settings. For example' date=' ressurection, clairsentience, and teleportation are perfectly reasonable for most fantasy games but would probably be completely left out of most Dark Champions games. Likewise, in the Dark Champions game you're going to use your toolkit to build firearms that you wouldn't use for your fantasy game. I didn't mean to suggest this is actually a problem, just that it makes it unrealistic to think you can make a universal rule for what happens to your character after he dies because the genre and setting are the most important factors (along with the player's preferences) as to what the answer is. It might be convenient for the system to make a suggestion, but only in the context of something like a genre book - not in the main rules.[/quote']

 

Bear in mind, it's just about setting expectations and being sure the play group at least can find a way to reach consensus if needed. It's about addressing the topic at a high level.

 

Personally, I would have no problem indicating it's a shared GM-player decision and shouldn't violate the logic of the particular campaign. That right there sets a stage for players and GM to understand each other's roles in all such situations fairly well, and (to me) is the "HERO way."

 

I'm not saying they don't fit well together, just that you won't use the same pieces the same way, if at all, from one genre to another. If you were to ask me if ressurection is appropriate for a Dark Champions game I'd generally say no. OTOH for a fantasy game the answer might very well be yes. Even something as basic as an energy blast has different implications - the fantasy mage casting a fireball (which other characters probably can't do) vs. the Dark Champions vigilante with a firearm (which every character might have). The system can't provide a meaningful answer without that context. Genre books provide the context, and are therefore the appropriate place for that discussion. The mechanics have to be considered, but not by themselves.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Posted Seperately Because it Didn't Seem Relevant to the Above

 

I admit that much of this post had me scratching my head.

 

Rules have ALWAYS addressed not just “how” but “whether.” Right back to D&D.

 

It did not just answer “How do I resolve an attempt by my character to hit someone with this weapon?” but “CAN my character use this weapon?” Depending on weapon, the answer may be “If he’s a fighter, yes; if he’s a magic user, thief, or cleric, no.”

 

Not just “How do I resolve casting this spell?” but “CAN my character cast this specific spell?” If he’s a magic user of appropriate level and has the spell in his spell books and selected it as a spell for that day, yes; otherwise no.

 

Not just “How do I resolve an attempt to raise the dead?” but “CAN my character attempt to raise the dead?” If he’s a cleric of high enough level and sufficient Wisdom, yes; otherwise, no.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Can I ride this palindromedary?

 

Not whether the "character" can do these things... but whether the "player" has can do things like author and control what was traditionally GM territory.

[Vurbal]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

Bear in mind, it's just about setting expectations and being sure the play group at least can find a way to reach consensus if needed. It's about addressing the topic at a high level.

 

Personally, I would have no problem indicating it's a shared GM-player decision and shouldn't violate the logic of the particular campaign. That right there sets a stage for players and GM to understand each other's roles in all such situations fairly well, and (to me) is the "HERO way."

While I don't disagree that a statement like that would be fine, it doesn't really answer the question of what happens when a character dies. It's just mentioning that the question should be asked. I suppose I can see why you might look at it as an omission, but if you don't already realize the question is there the basic Hero toolkit probably isn't enough for you to play the game you want, so once again I'd it more appropriate to discuss in a genre or setting book.

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

While I don't disagree that a statement like that would be fine' date=' it doesn't really answer the question of what happens when a character dies. It's just mentioning that the question should be asked. I suppose I can see why you might look at it as an omission, but if you don't already realize the question is there the basic Hero toolkit probably isn't enough for you to play the game you want, so once again I'd it more appropriate to discuss in a genre or setting book.[/quote']

I would disagree to a degree in that as stated above, if we're agreeing to play a "semi-realistic supers campaign," (PS/EDIT - which is the type that can have confusion on this subject) nothing is begging us to have this kind of discussion at all. In practice, sure, it will happen if a PC dies, though regardless of whether by accident (some ignominious hit, and as you realize many GMs hate to fudge and simply never do) or purposefully (in terms of it being a clear life-and-death situation), and quite possibly without a forethought as to how that might play out or that we would be having this conversation. So this at least makes it explicit that we must agree on what's going to happen, that it isn't a GM decision based on setting (per se, though of course that can be a GM-requested point of entry into the campaign), solely, nor is it a matter of me being able to reintroduce a dead PC simply because, after all, I did pay points.

 

That being said, I was just saying that I have no problem with that approach. I would think that ideally such a discussion would be somewhere around the length of the one in GURPS or longer but address this in regard to Transform, Followers (well, the system already does in suggesting the GM play the Follower, though I actually give that to the player), and the like in a unified manner.

[Vurbal]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

I would disagree to a degree in that as stated above, if we're agreeing to play a "semi-realistic supers campaign," (PS/EDIT - which is the type that can have confusion on this subject) nothing is begging us to have this kind of discussion at all. In practice, sure, it will happen if a PC dies, though regardless of whether by accident (some ignominious hit, and as you realize many GMs hate to fudge and simply never do) or purposefully (in terms of it being a clear life-and-death situation), and quite possibly without a forethought as to how that might play out or that we would be having this conversation. So this at least makes it explicit that we must agree on what's going to happen, that it isn't a GM decision based on setting (per se, though of course that can be a GM-requested point of entry into the campaign), solely, nor is it a matter of me being able to reintroduce a dead PC simply because, after all, I did pay points.

 

That being said, I was just saying that I have no problem with that approach. I would think that ideally such a discussion would be somewhere around the length of the one in GURPS or longer but address this in regard to Transform, Followers (well, the system already does in suggesting the GM play the Follower, though I actually give that to the player), and the like in a unified manner.

Fair enough. I tend to think in terms other than supers because I don't really every get the chance to play it. I can see where someone who wouldn't think to ask that question might be fine with playing in a supers game using nothing but 5ER.

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

Fair enough. I tend to think in terms other than supers because I don't really every get the chance to play it. I can see where someone who wouldn't think to ask that question might be fine with playing in a supers game using nothing but 5ER.

And I didn't mean to imply anything but ditto in my response, just my take on it.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

I"m referring to the fact that a player's spent points are where he has overt control' date=' giving his player an energy blast and allowing him to define that.[/quote']

 

I still don't see, though, the points that a player paid specifically to control their character. For instance, as you said further down in this thread:

 

But by the theory you state (which btw is' date=' I think, entirely logical), given it's a points system and points can absolutely not be taken away (well, except for very long-term Drains, hmmm...well we'll let that go for a moment),[/quote']

 

Let's return to this. Can we point to any particular set of points and say "The player now has control of this character by virtue of having paid points for the character to have something?", then implying that any player who did not pay points in such a way would not have any control over the character?

 

(I've reworded the sentence above to carefully avoid any reference to "their" character, because that's the premise I'm trying to question here - is any character really "the player's", and, if so, why?)

 

If there are points, can we Drain them? How much resistance does the "player control" offer against, say, Mind Control?

 

I think it would almost have to be a sort of Mind Control power, since that power deals with affecting characters' minds.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

Fairly simple, players are taking narrative turns and in their turn they tell a part of the story which might involve any of the characters. There's a system of narrative power/arbitration, but, sorry, I can't recall it. I have not really given it a strong read.

 

It should be pointed out, btw, that Capes DOES have a regular player-PC relationship mode, too.

 

And, just to bring this up, AMBER has a GM-less mode

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

I still don't see' date=' though, the points that a player paid [u']specifically to control their character[/u]. For instance, as you said further down in this thread:

 

 

 

Let's return to this. Can we point to any particular set of points and say "The player now has control of this character by virtue of having paid points for the character to have something?", then implying that any player who did not pay points in such a way would not have any control over the character?

 

(I've reworded the sentence above to carefully avoid any reference to "their" character, because that's the premise I'm trying to question here - is any character really "the player's", and, if so, why?)

 

If there are points, can we Drain them? How much resistance does the "player control" offer against, say, Mind Control?

 

I think it would almost have to be a sort of Mind Control power, since that power deals with affecting characters' minds.

A player pays points to control at least many elements of his character, since his points define, mechanically, that character. Where a player gets points back are areas where he is mechanically weaker or has ceded control. So by inference, you could say that he controls his character, since it's also not clear that the GM can make any decisions for a PC (as in most games, of course, but in this case points seem to serve as an expression of zones of control, if you will), except in how he influences that PC per Disads and Limitations (as well as, to be fair, 0 point personality stuff).

 

I'm referring to mechanical control here, to be clear.

 

As your post implies, there is muddiness. It is stated somewhere in the book, I'm reasonably sure, or at least heavily implied, that a player normally makes decisions for his character. And that has nothing to do with points.

 

It gets trickier when we deal with the mechanics of a character versus the non-mechnically-driven parts, surely granted.

 

Which to me makes something such as explicating what death means to player and character more meaningful.

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

Thinking more about it, the 0 point character is interesting and points to the muddiness of non-points-driven things. Which is fair in a points-driven system! If I (player) pay for an ability, I have it (assuming it is reasonable). It can't be arbitrarily taken away and the only influence that can be had over it is via how I defined its Limitations or if something is built fairly specially to deal with it (Drains, etc., even then we have a game of control per my investment into PowDef, for example).

 

Something I get points for gives the GM a clear plot hook/ability for exploitation. I cede some control.

 

But personality and other 0 point things work both ways. I can leverage them, but so can the GM. Which makes sense, as they have no mechanical in-game specific effect. But it can be confusing here - a 0 point character is under player control of course, has (by standard definition, anyway), a slightly above average ability to overtly exert mastery in the world with the most rudimentary skills (compared to a "typical" NPC even slighter, though compared to a real world person it's at least noticeable), but has no special abiltiies, and has no special weaknesses. He cannot be particularly exploited by the GM, per se, but he also has few options, even compared to many NPCs if he truly stays at 0 points completely. He's sort of a borderline entity, and interestingly one whom the GM has little direct hooks into yet also is unable to do anything at all special, and the player has no control over resources except for the most basic abilities.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

A player pays points to control at least many elements of his character' date=' since his points define, mechanically, that character.[/quote']

 

This ties back in to the "character as lump of clay" assumptions; if the character's basic abilities are bought with Powers, the points might come out to more that the player "started out with" (i.e., supplied by the GM; taken for granted).

[Kristopher]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Whereas I am of the opinion that essential player control over his or her PC has nothing to do with points.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Whereas I am of the opinion that essential player control over his or her PC has nothing to do with points.

 

I fully agree with you here; I view "player control over PC" as part of the game's social contract (decided by each group), but I don't know if we share that.

 

I brought up these possibilities to illustrate a flaw I perceive with the "player controls character because player paid points for the character's abilities" theory. Another flaw, and perhaps revealing of another assumption in HERO, is that it could leave one player with partial say over another's character. Can XP be spent on any character other than oneself?

 

I can almost see AMBER bidding wars, with the currency being CP's and the pot being character control. Everyone starting out with an equal amount of CP's, though, this wouldn't really work out.

[Lucius]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

So you are saying that:

- if the players have any ability to raise the dead, they have control

- if they do not, it is entirely up to the GM

 

And that would exactly be the source of an argument. You say that, but the rules do not.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do. When I have time tonight, I'll look it up and post it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Right now I have to run to work. Pity I can't just get there by riding a palindromedary.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I've got to say that right now my enhanced Perception' date=' Tracking and Stealth have been of much more use to the plot than my big-freakin gun.[/quote']

 

- Amen

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Whereas I am of the opinion that essential player control over his or her PC has nothing to do with points.

 

I fully agree with you here; I view "player control over PC" as part of the game's social contract (decided by each group), but I don't know if we share that.

 

I brought up these possibilities to illustrate a flaw I perceive with the "player controls character because player paid points for the character's abilities" theory. Another flaw, and perhaps revealing of another assumption in HERO, is that it could leave one player with partial say over another's character. Can XP be spent on any character other than oneself?

 

I can almost see AMBER bidding wars, with the currency being CP's and the pot being character control. Everyone starting out with an equal amount of CP's, though, this wouldn't really work out.

 

I don't disagree that players have "essential" control, but what constitutes "essential"?

 

At the simplest, we know that a player can't play against his character's Disads, cannot have the character do things his Lims prevent, and so on. The book recommends that a PC's Followers be played by the GM.

 

So there are control issues. "Essential" is a question of degree. Surely a player, I agree, from a social convention standpoint, makes up the PC's mind for the PC (barring mind control or such). But where the PC can no longer make up his mind or has been defined by points in that assignment, the player is also limited.

 

Death is a fairly severe limit - of some sort, anyway, at least in some games... (death itself also being muddy in the traditional action-adventure mode of play)

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do. When I have time tonight, I'll look it up and post it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Right now I have to run to work. Pity I can't just get there by riding a palindromedary.

I've read through it.

 

Resurrection discusses various details as a power.

 

Beyond that, there's a statement that a character is dead when reaching BOD*-1.

 

And that's more or less it. I don't believe there are other definitive statements about what to do when a character is dead. You and I can infer lots from this - but being only inference, it may or may not be correct as to design intent.

[zornwil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I've read through it.

 

Resurrection discusses various details as a power.

 

Beyond that, there's a statement that a character is dead when reaching BOD*-1.

 

And that's more or less it. I don't believe there are other definitive statements about what to do when a character is dead. You and I can infer lots from this - but being only inference, it may or may not be correct as to design intent.

Lucius, to add, doing a search on death yields (setting aside results such as "deathray" and so on):

 

page 3 - reference in TOC to page 413

page 10 - mentions when a character reaches negative BOD, the character dies

page 59 - Forensic Medicine discusses how to find things out about dead characters, if a body is present

page 60 - mentions that with Interrogation can tell how close a character is to dead in that context

page 66 - mentions that a character with Paramedics can keep a dying (not dead) character alive

page 90-91 - Simulate Death is discussed but does not seem to bear on death except by perhaps some implication in mentioning the player decides how long the Simulate Death lasts, i.e., all aspects of this (within normal rules boundaries) are within player control

page 148 - mentions a character can starve to death if remaining Desol

page 154 - discusses death in the circumstance of Duplication

page 188 - Resurrection-specific discussion (bear in mind Resurrection is a STOP power; there is no discussion that Resurrection should or shouldn't be granted to players in worlds where it might otherwise be possible) but note it does indicate that if a PC is using Resurrection, it is up to the GM as to how long before the PC returns; it also mentions that Resurrection brings a character back in whatever state they left in

page 237 - mentions that Transform cannot cause death

page 238 - simply discusses mechanics of how a transformed character might need certain things to not be dead, or that this might just be waived with the character in stasis

page 270 - mentions death may be a Trigger

page 330 - mentions Dependence (lack of what's needed for it) may lead to death

page 332 - mentions a dead/removed DNPC can be replaced by another (provided by GM - but strongly implies the decision is up to the player), and mentions the character may gain a replacement Disad for the impact of death or such (which is not expressly indicated there but per normal character creation rules would be up to the player)

page 410 - first mention as part of detailed damage section, but just the reference that death can occur

page 413 - death discussion itself; earlier on the page cites a character can bleed to death, then the death discussion later in page discusses the mechanics of character death; no discussion at all as to whether a character can come back or what is involved, who makes that decision

page 417 - bleeding to death is discussed as a mechanic

page 418 - continuation of above

page 440 - mention High Pressure can cause death

page 442 - more of the same re environment

page 445 - ditto

page 516 - as part of a genre convention, mentions (importantly) that a revenge tale ends when either dies, implying an end to story

page 518 - mentions a samurai accepts death

page 528 - mentions that in pulp characters duel to the death, but doesn't really suggest whether that's final or not

page 532 - mentions star troopers cause death

page 533 - mentions the difference between life and death can be up to a ship's systems

 

There is no discussion of what to do when a PC dies other than that he is in fact dead and the book has a Resurrection power.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

page 188 - Resurrection-specific discussion (bear in mind Resurrection is a STOP power; there is no discussion that Resurrection should or shouldn't be granted to players in worlds where it might otherwise be possible) but note it does indicate that if a PC is using Resurrection' date=' it is up to the GM as to how long before the PC returns; it also mentions that Resurrection brings a character back in whatever state they left in[/quote']

 

So if they were killed in Ohio, but you do the Raise Dead ritual in California, they mystically vanish and reappear somewhere in Ohio?

 

Is this location random? Does it use the Teleport "miss" tables?

 

page 237 - mentions that Transform cannot cause death

[...]

page 270 - mentions death may be a Trigger

 

Here are a couple of thoughts - maybe the trade-off with Transform is being unable to kill someone? Second thought: since some characters can be resurrected, and they (?) come back with the same points they had before, can it be said that these points "stay with" the character, even through death? In other words, just because you're dead, doesn't mean those points are no longer granting you (as the player) control over the character. On the other hand, I could see the points temporarily vanishing away to a land of stasis, and only being called back with a Resurrection.

 

Hmm, overlap with something I've been meaning to write. I need to finish reading the Powers and Modifiers section of 5ER.

 

Probably wouldn't be taking me so long if I weren't trying to memorize them in the process

[ghost-angel]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

There is no discussion of what to do when a PC dies other than that he is in fact dead and the book has a Resurrection power.

 

I fail to see why there is a problem with this?

 

 

On Control:

 

The idea of an RPG, cooperative play and story telling. Coming from a writers perspective on Character Control (who has it) I have to say ... The Character often enough has as much control as the Player and GM.

 

The majority of the time, I prefer control - both of the mechanics the character has, and of the characters reactions. Though often enough The Player wants to do X, the Character really does Y because that's what The Character wants to do (within the context of the defined personality set the character has been given).

 

The GM should be allowed within the context of appropriate dramatic response and common sense allowed to place certain reactions upon the character within the Context of the Scene in the Game (you're scared, you're feeling happy, you're getting a bit drunk faster than normal) - with the understanding that the Player is partially responsible for taking that as a cue to react upon further under their own control.

 

In the end the Game (Story) has Control, we as GMs and Players are merely players each with their own entrances and exits . . .

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

How many times do I have to be told "Spread some Rep around before giving it to ghost-angel again" before I remember not to immediately try again?