Material Science

[Sean Waters]

I was wondering if we could look at materials and their definition in Hero.

 

At present, materials tend to be defined by DEF and BODY, and that is it, but there are plenty of other things that make a difference – I was looking at the thread about beams –v– walls and entangles:

 

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55300

 

and got to thinking – bullets should probably be built with the beam limitation, but if you are trying to get through a wall of glass, that is probably no problem at all – unless it is safety glass, a hole will probably shatter the entire pane. OTOH a beam laser, whilst it might also make a hole, PROBABLY would not shatter the whole pane (unless it did so by heat expanding the glass, causing fractures that way). Against a rope, you would need a lot of strength to break it, no matter how much time you had, but a relatively low powered blade or flame could do the trick, albeit not in one go.

 

Now The Ultimate Blaster is very concerned with the sfx and sfx interaction of various attacks, but I thought it might be interesting also to look at the sfx of various defences, particularly in terms of materials. What I’m thinking about is series of adders or advantages and limitations for materials that help to better define them in Hero terms. I don’t know if this is the best approach, or even needed at all, but anything that helps the GM by cutting down on the number of snap judgements (pi) he has to make AND remember seems like a good thing to me.

 

Thoughts, anyone?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Material Science

 

Thoughts' date=' anyone?[/quote']

 

Maybe we need a new book: The Ultimate Breaking Things.

 

For the most part though, I usually go with common sense. Bullets, and most other damaging impacts, will shatter glass, ropes are vulnerable to KAs, etc. It's a similar case with the SFX of breaking. It takes so much "damage" for a superhero brick to tie a streetlamp into a knot, but it's not destroyed; you can "damage" it again to break or bully it's shape into something else.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Material Science

 

Maybe we need a new book: The Ultimate Breaking Things.

 

For the most part though, I usually go with common sense. Bullets, and most other damaging impacts, will shatter glass, ropes are vulnerable to KAs, etc. It's a similar case with the SFX of breaking. It takes so much "damage" for a superhero brick to tie a streetlamp into a knot, but it's not destroyed; you can "damage" it again to break or bully it's shape into something else.

How 'bout: The Ultimate Common Sense.

 

Something I've suggested before was to not assume that all objects have Resistant DEF. Particularly, flexible objects such as rope - which should be given, say 3x their listed DEF, but it should be non-resistant. IMO, this is a lot simpler than a build I saw in TUV: sails of a ship that have some typical DEF value, and then have a Vulnerability (or was it Susceptibility?) to Killing Attacks.

 

A 1-pip HKA pocket knife can cut a rope, but it won't break no matter how hard you punch it with a blunt fist. And common sense comes in wrt certain kinds of KAs - has anyone ever karate-chopped a rope? It's an HKA because it can break rigid bones, or use the rigidity of the bones to damage the flesh, but a rope has no bones.

[feralucce]

Re: Material Science

 

"beam laser, whilst it might also make a hole, PROBABLY would not shatter the whole pane"

 

Nope... a laser will be refracted slightly, but, unless the glass is VERY poor quality... it will pass right through it...

[Gadodel]

Re: Material Science

 

This could be very useful in order to determine what is effected and how by failed attack attempts. Afterall, the bullet(s) that missed their target went somewhere and did something!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Material Science

 

How 'bout: The Ultimate Common Sense.

 

Something I've suggested before was to not assume that all objects have Resistant DEF. Particularly, flexible objects such as rope - which should be given, say 3x their listed DEF, but it should be non-resistant. IMO, this is a lot simpler than a build I saw in TUV: sails of a ship that have some typical DEF value, and then have a Vulnerability (or was it Susceptibility?) to Killing Attacks.

 

A 1-pip HKA pocket knife can cut a rope, but it won't break no matter how hard you punch it with a blunt fist. And common sense comes in wrt certain kinds of KAs - has anyone ever karate-chopped a rope? It's an HKA because it can break rigid bones, or use the rigidity of the bones to damage the flesh, but a rope has no bones.

 

This makes a great deal of sense.

 

Not sure how common that is....

[feralucce]

Re: Material Science

 

a rope has no bones...

 

I... too... many... jokes...

[Dust Raven]

Re: Material Science

 

How 'bout: The Ultimate Common Sense.

 

Something I've suggested before was to not assume that all objects have Resistant DEF. Particularly, flexible objects such as rope - which should be given, say 3x their listed DEF, but it should be non-resistant. IMO, this is a lot simpler than a build I saw in TUV: sails of a ship that have some typical DEF value, and then have a Vulnerability (or was it Susceptibility?) to Killing Attacks.

 

A 1-pip HKA pocket knife can cut a rope, but it won't break no matter how hard you punch it with a blunt fist. And common sense comes in wrt certain kinds of KAs - has anyone ever karate-chopped a rope? It's an HKA because it can break rigid bones, or use the rigidity of the bones to damage the flesh, but a rope has no bones.

 

Chains don't have bones either, but I've seen them "karate chopped", at least in the movies and cartoons. But in keeping with your WTF interpretation of ropes, how about that Brick Trick of rending and tearing? Should that be more effective against a rope than just trying to pull it apart?

 

Maybe we need The Ultimate Rope?

 

What would an accurate write up for rope be then? DEF= STR necessary to hold whatever the rope can hold/5 with a Limitation "nonresistant to cutting/slicing/burning/etc type attacks"?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Material Science

 

Chains don't have bones either' date=' but I've seen them "karate chopped",[/quote']

So? Chains are rigid links of metal. Nothing to do with what I said.

 

at least in the movies and cartoons.

I've seen lots of things in movies and cartoons.

 

But in keeping with your WTF interpretation of ropes, how about that Brick Trick of rending and tearing? Should that be more effective against a rope than just trying to pull it apart?

What's the difference? "Rend" means "tear apart."

 

What would an accurate write up for rope be then? DEF= STR necessary to hold whatever the rope can hold/5 with a Limitation "nonresistant to cutting/slicing/burning/etc type attacks"?

I'd say just plain old nonresistant. And then use common sense to say that you can't cut it with your bare hand, no matter how skilled at karate you are. You could say that your hands are built with the "Real Hands" Limitation. Nor can you cut it with a hammer or a club or a mace or a flail.

 

If you don't have common sense, or the modicum of courage required to use it, you'll find it difficult to play this game.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Material Science

 

What's the difference? "Rend" means "tear apart."

Exactly, only the brick trick is bought as an HKA.

 

If you don't have common sense, or the modicum of courage required to use it, you'll find it difficult to play this game.

 

Or any game... hell life itself will be difficult.

[casualplayer]

Re: Material Science

 

Maybe some items or materials should have Damage Reduction? The rope, as an example, would have 50% Physical Non-resistant DR and no DEF at all.

 

The DEF/BODY way of benchmarking materials predates DR. Maybe it's time to incorporate that power into material descriptors?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Material Science

 

Exactly' date=' only the brick trick is bought as an HKA.[/quote']

So? It doesn't mean you have to suspend common sense. There's a crushing brick trick also bought as a HKA (as well as a number of other brick tricks bought as KAs), but by common sense, it shouldn't apply to rope.

 

Or any game...

OT Alert: I have to disagree with this. There are plenty of highly skilled gamers out there that seem to have no common sense whatsoever. Many high-level chess players come to mind. Some are total whack jobs. Not all games are based on common sense at all - some are just rules. Even some RPGs don't give much room for common sense to come into play. One of the main reasons I like HERO so much is that it does place so much emphasis on using common sense, e.g., by not statting out each individual SFX.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Material Science

 

Maybe some items or materials should have Damage Reduction? The rope' date=' as an example, would have 50% Physical Non-resistant DR and no DEF at all.[/quote']

Well, it still has to have some DEF, otherwise you could punch it in half.

 

The DEF/BODY way of benchmarking materials predates DR. Maybe it's time to incorporate that power into material descriptors?

Agreed.

[jtelson]

Re: Material Science

 

"beam laser, whilst it might also make a hole, PROBABLY would not shatter the whole pane"

 

Nope... a laser will be refracted slightly, but, unless the glass is VERY poor quality... it will pass right through it...

 

I would think it's the other way around - It would require an extremely high quality of window for a laser to pass through without transferring enough energy to melt the glass.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Material Science

 

So? It doesn't mean you have to suspend common sense. There's a crushing brick trick also bought as a HKA (as well as a number of other brick tricks bought as KAs)' date=' but by common sense, it shouldn't apply to rope.[/quote']

No argument from me here. I just wasn't sure if you were overlooking this, or simply looking over it.

 

OT Alert: I have to disagree with this. There are plenty of highly skilled gamers out there that seem to have no common sense whatsoever. Many high-level chess players come to mind. Some are total whack jobs. Not all games are based on common sense at all - some are just rules. Even some RPGs don't give much room for common sense to come into play. One of the main reasons I like HERO so much is that it does place so much emphasis on using common sense, e.g., by not statting out each individual SFX.

 

I can understand your disagreement, but I have yet to encounter a game that did not, at least on some level, incorporate common sense into it's play, or otherwise make play more enjoyable/effective when common sense was applied. This includes logic games like chess by definition. What is common sense if not a subconscious application of logic?