Why do we object to mechanics?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Trying to create a task resolution mechanic to simulate something that really boils down to, "No, John Maclane doesn't die in a hail of gunfire, instead he runs across broken glass in his bare feet to 1) show how tough he is, and 2) dramatically weaken him before the confrontation with Hans Gruber," is where old school type games have to twist in on themselves to try and support what they weren't designed to support.

 

Hero is from a line of traditional, Sim oriented, game design... but the bit you are trying to emulate is much more of a Nar game element. (Not necessarily, but just go with me on this...)

 

To this end, instead of trying to kludge already existing Hero rules into imperfect shape (i.e. Combat Luck) why not use Hero's OTHER strength, which is that it is flexible enough to function with non-Hero mechanics in a very compatible way.

 

Luck chits is my example of this. Instead of giving PC J. Maclane enough Combat Luck to run through a hail of bullets, instead the PLAYER has access to Luck Chits that give them some "author stance" regarding the PC John Maclane. The player can say, "Whoa... five guys! I can't take all of them on. I throw a chit. There is an stairwell door nearby and I dive through it and retreat." The GM smiles and says, "Ok, but to get to the door you'll have to run over broken glass in your bare feet while firing cover fire. You'll escape this battle, but you'll be wounded, weakened and running out of ammo for the next confrontation." Together, both grin and say "Yeah... sweet. Good drama," and the scene is narrated.

It is a different kind of Mechanic... one that guides shared story telling from a Story point of view rather than a task resolution POV... but I've found that Hero blends well with this kind of thing. One set of mechanics for straight forward, old school play when that is needed... another mechanic of limited resources that allow for authorship for Story or story based play. They can flow back and forth.

 

Like most mechanics, this one works until it doesn't work. If the player is out of luck chits, he's out, and the dramatic resolution doesn't take place. He's stuck. As well, we get into the subjectivity of a "dramaticallly appropriate" usage. The character may have a luck chit remaining when he gets to the finale - can he use it to make taking down the Big Bad simpler (and thus making the climax of the adventure antclimactic?)

 

The luck chit is still, to some extent, a task resolution mechanic, one which says "I have a luck chit and I can therefore resolve this situation in an alternative way."

 

An objective (more or less), measurable task resolution mechanic is needed from the "game" aspect of "role playing game". Otherwise, we get back to the "let's pretend" dilemma of "I shot you - fall down" "No you missed me".

 

Finally, are luck chits needed, or does this mechanic more represent the GM applying dramatic sense when the scenario takes a sideways turn? In your example, above, the GM realizes this last secondary encounter is too much (whether because he underestimated the previous opposition, or because luck of the dice favoured the opponents in earlier scenes), so he writes in a stairwell that he hadn't initially envisioned being available, giving Our Hero an escape opportunity.

 

Granted... this may not be for everyone... but it is worth recognizing that there are other ways to use Hero rather than internally self referential kludges to stretch the system. Stretch it by finding ways it can combine with all new (to Hero) rules and mechanics that let Hero do what it does well' date=' and supports play by doing something new well.[/quote']

 

Given this is Hero, once we introduc Luck Chits, the next logical questions are "how do I buy more luck chits to reflect the fact my character is luckier than most" and "what do I get if I sell back luck chits, reflecting the fact my character is less lucky than most".

 

I recall a suggested "new power" (perhaps one of the earliest precursors for talents) which was suggested as 3d6 Luck that comes up all 6's, with one non-recoverable charge. You could buy these as often as you wanted. They were referred to as "extra lives" in that you could effectively save a character the mechanics would otherwise doom. Remove "non-recoverable charge" and we have luck chits that recover over time. And you could award bonus xp only to buy an extra life.

 

My problem with luck is that the character defines that he is lucky enough to evade a given attack, and suffers no damage.

 

GM, fine it misses.

 

But what if the attack was AP, or Penetrating, or nnd does body?

 

Now that same attack hits, an in the case of NNd does body (vorpal blade lets say ) combat luck provides no defence.

 

The AP or Penetrating is irrelevant as CL is hardened (but it could be both AP and penetrating, or doubled). At the end of the day, however, no matter what the SFX of my character, the GM can always design a power which thwarts them. The simplistic answer would be for a GM who allows Combat Luck as a viable defense to this power, to make it an AVLD vs Combat Luck or, alternatively, make Combat Luck a defense against the NND. A third option is to apply a limitation (even a -0 limitation) to such abilities that Combat Luck acts as an ordinary defense.

 

ASIDE: IMO, a vorpal blade is a weapon with 8 PSL's to counter penalties for striking the head. Thus it always hits the head location.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

I like DCV Levels and Damage Reduction as Combat Luck, pretty much to deal with the "You Missed" issue.

 

Stack 2 levels of standard Combat Luck, 50% DamRed Improved Combat Luck, and a high Dex, and you have an action hero who wades through insane fire fights to emerge from the other side with little more than cinematicly torn clothing and attractively mussed hair. Very appropriate for some campaigns.

 

This is, to my mind, the better option to taking huge levels of Combat Luck (ie 21/21 combat Luck). Take enough CL to blunt the BOD of most killing attacks, maybe some "cinematic healing" abilities to represent the BOD healing quicker, and Damage reduction for the rest. For that matter, once you have a couple of levels of combat luck to blunt any BOD damage, normal defenses can also take care of the STUN.

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

At the end of the day' date=' however, no matter what the SFX of my character, the FGM can always design a power which thwarts them.[/quote']

 

What does FGM stand for? I tried to read it as "F-GM" and thought "Fantasy" at first, but then realized that this was a genre and I should be looking for a system . . .

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

What does FGM stand for? I tried to read it as "F-GM" and thought "Fantasy" at first' date=' but then realized that this was a genre and I should be looking for a [i']system[/i] . . .

 

It stands for the fact the F and G are side by side on the keyboard and I don't edit well for double key strikes. I'l edit it.

[zornwil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Combat Luck -- I don't necessarily like the mechanic from a purist PoV' date=' but it does accomplish something, IMO, when used in [i']strict[/i] moderation. No more than a level, maybe two, depending on the avergage DCs being thrown around, to reduce the amount of BODY taken, because through luck or skill or reflexes, the character turns a solid blow into a glancing blow. It's not perfect, but it works OK. What I really object to is so much Combat Luck that it routinely "evades" all the damage from solid hits, such that the attacker could roll 3, and still get no damage through because of the target's "luck". If there were some elegant mechanic for determining how much damage the "lucky" target avoids based on how narrow a margin the attacker made his To Hit roll by, that would be a more satisfying mechanic, at least for me.

Maybe a better alternative, for some people, would be some sort of refinement to the Luck power, where basically, maybe, every 6 reduces 1 DC, every 5 reduces 1/2 DC, and every die of Luck, no matter what, reduces 1 BOD of damage incoming (not post defenses). These values are just for example, I'm not suggesting these numbers balance/have been mathematically reviewed. But anyway, the point is if a play group likes the idea of lucky breaks in combat as a general limiter to damage, then this might perform that without the oddities of Combat Luck and with a better "feel" since it is Luck. There is some argument that this isn't a good method because of potential complexity and because it also might not work well in the SFX divorce since it overlaps with defenses, but anyway, just a notion which might work for some purposes.

[zornwil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Heavy snippage -

 

... I've never seen a pure d4 system...

 

Sounds like a good design challenge! Would have to think what kind of play experience would best be supported with odds granularity of 25% or nd4 type curves...

 

While I play in a Savage Worlds game, I could not recommend the system as it stands today. You have open-ended/small-die/small-pool mechanics, combined with a "wild" die, playing cards for initiative, and special cards that allow for certain actions and benefits during any game session. Basically, it lacks cohesion and unduly complicates gameplay by trying to incorporate too many elements. I still enjoy the campaign, which speaks worlds about the GM, but the system just isn't good.

 

I don't want to turn this into a Savage Worlds debate, I'll just say I feel SW is far more elegant than HERO and far less complicated in execution, and I have played in 2 SW campaigns among our home group (2 GMs have gone from HERO to SW for their heroic-level games). That being said, SW and HERO are different games accomplishing different things, even if there is a broad overlap, especilaly as they both claim to support the same general types of action-adventure play (sure, they both support the general action-adventure genra, but with different types of play experience).

 

True20 takes this one step further and, between the two, is probably the better system.

 

I think True20 is fairly elegant, too, but I was disappointed with the lack of design intent displayed in it. I feel it suffers a certain half-approach, with general good metarules and guidelines, better in some ways than HERO on that level, but it seems to me it tries to abdicates responsibility for play experience as much as some older games did and as HERO does, and without the level of detail of HERO that (to me) suggests that it requires even more work to produce and maintain a campaign, with less play experience guidance in the end, even if the development of mechanics is probably easier within the d20 context. Hmmm, well, that didn't come out right, but i need to get ready for a game today. Anyway, I want to add, this is PURELY my take from a skim of the book, so my comments here might not be well-founded, fully admit.

[zornwil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Like most mechanics, this one works until it doesn't work. If the player is out of luck chits, he's out, and the dramatic resolution doesn't take place. He's stuck. As well, we get into the subjectivity of a "dramaticallly appropriate" usage. The character may have a luck chit remaining when he gets to the finale - can he use it to make taking down the Big Bad simpler (and thus making the climax of the adventure antclimactic?)

 

The luck chit is still, to some extent, a task resolution mechanic, one which says "I have a luck chit and I can therefore resolve this situation in an alternative way."

 

An objective (more or less), measurable task resolution mechanic is needed from the "game" aspect of "role playing game". Otherwise, we get back to the "let's pretend" dilemma of "I shot you - fall down" "No you missed me".

 

Finally, are luck chits needed, or does this mechanic more represent the GM applying dramatic sense when the scenario takes a sideways turn? In your example, above, the GM realizes this last secondary encounter is too much (whether because he underestimated the previous opposition, or because luck of the dice favoured the opponents in earlier scenes), so he writes in a stairwell that he hadn't initially envisioned being available, giving Our Hero an escape opportunity.

 

 

 

Given this is Hero, once we introduc Luck Chits, the next logical questions are "how do I buy more luck chits to reflect the fact my character is luckier than most" and "what do I get if I sell back luck chits, reflecting the fact my character is less lucky than most".

 

I recall a suggested "new power" (perhaps one of the earliest precursors for talents) which was suggested as 3d6 Luck that comes up all 6's, with one non-recoverable charge. You could buy these as often as you wanted. They were referred to as "extra lives" in that you could effectively save a character the mechanics would otherwise doom. Remove "non-recoverable charge" and we have luck chits that recover over time. And you could award bonus xp only to buy an extra life.

 

 

 

The AP or Penetrating is irrelevant as CL is hardened (but it could be both AP and penetrating, or doubled). At the end of the day, however, no matter what the SFX of my character, the GM can always design a power which thwarts them. The simplistic answer would be for a GM who allows Combat Luck as a viable defense to this power, to make it an AVLD vs Combat Luck or, alternatively, make Combat Luck a defense against the NND. A third option is to apply a limitation (even a -0 limitation) to such abilities that Combat Luck acts as an ordinary defense.

 

ASIDE: IMO, a vorpal blade is a weapon with 8 PSL's to counter penalties for striking the head. Thus it always hits the head location.

SW has fairly good replenishment techniques for chips and does address how Luck interplays with that (very simply, you just get another if you have Luck, and I believe you can apply levels).

 

Personally, for Cyber Ninja Pirates/SUSS (Sorta Universal Swashbuckling System, the core engine to Cyber Ninja...), I wanted an enforced group effort in things, so unlike SW and many games, chips can be freely spent for others, although a narrative must accompany. One positive effect is that when the group gets to the Big Bad, they should have chips among them even if someone individually has run out. And chips are necessary when facing the worst threats, since those threats are often killlers, as they should be. I know a lot of games claim this, but I do feel I've managed to get to a point where, within some reason, the GM doesn't feel he has to pull punches against the PCs. Similarly, the GM has some chips to ensure his master villains escape for another day, if necessary - if he saved them up...

 

But you're right, Hugh, I don't dismiss the fact that chips can run out. But I think that's back to the gaming element, RPGs being an odd combination of roleplaying/storytelling and gaming.

 

And I don't mean to brag about Cyber Ninja Pirates in Space, I just bring it up as it's been something I have directly worked on and touches on your point. Playtesting of chip useage has worked very well.

[zornwil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

This is' date=' to my mind, the better option to taking huge levels of Combat Luck (ie 21/21 combat Luck). Take enough CL to blunt the BOD of most killing attacks, maybe some "cinematic healing" abilities to represent the BOD healing quicker, and Damage reduction for the rest. For that matter, once you have a couple of levels of combat luck to blunt any BOD damage, normal defenses can also take care of the STUN.[/quote']

Many people seem to have a reticence to grant Damage Reduction to "normal people." I don't agree with it but I can understand in terms of the fact it's not just a resistance to divorcing the SFX, it's that they don't like the reduction mechanic and how it feels compared to what they think should happen, although OddHat's approach is of course more holistic and focused on the net result to the target (which I agree with and also tend to take).

[RDU Neil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

SW has fairly good replenishment techniques for chips and does address how Luck interplays with that (very simply, you just get another if you have Luck, and I believe you can apply levels).

 

Personally, for Cyber Ninja Pirates/SUSS (Sorta Universal Swashbuckling System, the core engine to Cyber Ninja...), I wanted an enforced group effort in things, so unlike SW and many games, chips can be freely spent for others, although a narrative must accompany. One positive effect is that when the group gets to the Big Bad, they should have chips among them even if someone individually has run out. And chips are necessary when facing the worst threats, since those threats are often killlers, as they should be. I know a lot of games claim this, but I do feel I've managed to get to a point where, within some reason, the GM doesn't feel he has to pull punches against the PCs. Similarly, the GM has some chips to ensure his master villains escape for another day, if necessary - if he saved them up...

 

But you're right, Hugh, I don't dismiss the fact that chips can run out. But I think that's back to the gaming element, RPGs being an odd combination of roleplaying/storytelling and gaming.

 

And I don't mean to brag about Cyber Ninja Pirates in Space, I just bring it up as it's been something I have directly worked on and touches on your point. Playtesting of chip useage has worked very well.

 

Also... perhaps lost in the discussion of the chip mechanic... is that my main point was "to simulate a genre element that is basicaly author fiat... use a mechanic that helps to provide author fiat in the game rather than using some task resolution mechanic to simulate the RESULT of author fiat."

 

Does that make sense? Has no care whether luck chits or stakes setting or some other mechanic is chosen... the point is the mechanic directly grants authorship... rather than trying to simulate the results of authorship.

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Also... perhaps lost in the discussion of the chip mechanic... is that my main point was "to simulate a genre element that is basicaly author fiat... use a mechanic that helps to provide author fiat in the game rather than using some task resolution mechanic to simulate the RESULT of author fiat."

 

Does that make sense? Has no care whether luck chits or stakes setting or some other mechanic is chosen... the point is the mechanic directly grants authorship... rather than trying to simulate the results of authorship.

 

It makes sense, and I think there could potentially be a very big difference between the two in style of play.

 

Edit: and in the freedom of mechanics, too.

[zornwil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Also... perhaps lost in the discussion of the chip mechanic... is that my main point was "to simulate a genre element that is basicaly author fiat... use a mechanic that helps to provide author fiat in the game rather than using some task resolution mechanic to simulate the RESULT of author fiat."

 

Does that make sense? Has no care whether luck chits or stakes setting or some other mechanic is chosen... the point is the mechanic directly grants authorship... rather than trying to simulate the results of authorship.

Thanks for pointing that out, yes.

 

"Oh, look, there's a rope right there..." - throw a chip...

[casualplayer]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

I object to any mechanic that affects the pacing of the game, unless that change of pacing was the GM's idea. If a game mechanic makes your tough guy character into Two-Hit Charlie (one, you being hit and two, you hitting the floor) then I object. STUN Lotto, x5 blame! If a game mechanic suddenly means that one player steals and keeps the spotlight and the other players might as well go on a munchie run, then I object. Speed Zone, you can't run away fast enough! If a game mechanic turns a threshold/benchmark game into an escalating arms race, then I object. 100% guilty Damage Reduction! Any game mechanic that encourages games to turn into rules lawyer litigation, then I object. Special effect vs. special effect/Power type, Transform and EDM kludges are the worst offenders. If genre-weighted conventions begin to permeate a system that claims to be versatile and generic, then I object. All the gunbunny crud that seeped into 5th Ed. shoots this game in the foot.

 

I object that even though I hate Combat Luck that I either bought that for my recently-made character or bought PERK: prepaid funeral plot! HERO adventuring without resistant defenses these days is as suicidal as making a Rifts character without MDC. When your game system veers into Rifts territory it's time for true friends to plan an intervention.

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Are you ready to play a game where the rules are made up and the points don't matter?

 

Been there, read that.

[Lucius]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Been there' date=' read that.

 

 

All other games possess the continuity of unchanging rules, or at least of rules that change only between, and not during, games.

 

 

I guess he never played Flux.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary hopes everyone know what the Flux we're talking about.

[Wolven]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

The mechanic I object to the most is the hit location chart. The chance to hit a foot or hand is to great. It should be an 18 on 3d6 at the most. There is nothing more frustrating then being in a Pulp game with a two fisted hero and scoring a nice hit with your fist, only to hit the guy in the foot. It just doesn’t make sense. I could see hitting a foot with a bullet if you were a long way off and shooting at someone that was just a dot. Or if the person didn’t know how to use a weapon. But a person who knows how to use a weapon is just not going to hit a foot or hand unless they are trying to do so.

Because of this I now equip all my pulp characters at least 2 PSL for hit locations and go for high shots.

 

At least thats how I feel about it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

The mechanic I object to the most is the hit location chart. The chance to hit a foot or hand is to great. It should be an 18 on 3d6 at the most. There is nothing more frustrating then being in a Pulp game with a two fisted hero and scoring a nice hit with your fist, only to hit the guy in the foot. It just doesn’t make sense. I could see hitting a foot with a bullet if you were a long way off and shooting at someone that was just a dot. Or if the person didn’t know how to use a weapon. But a person who knows how to use a weapon is just not going to hit a foot or hand unless they are trying to do so.

Because of this I now equip all my pulp characters at least 2 PSL for hit locations and go for high shots.

 

I think one of the better suggestions for dealing with more realistic hit location results was to apply the High Shot automatically to punches, and the Low Shot automatically to kicks, in the absence of contradictory circumstances (eg. kicking a prone target).

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

I guess he never played Flux.

 

That card game still possesses the continuity of unchanging rules (the 4 steps of each turn come to mind here). That some rules can be added or removed (or altered) does not make it an exception, any more than Magic: the Gathering would become an exception.