Are Hero characters too rugged?

[nexus]

These two threads:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57909

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58013

 

and a PBEM I'm currently involved in have brought up a possible issue with Hero that, frankly, I never thought too much about The Hero characters recover too "quickly". I haven't considered it a problem in most cases though there are some extremes where characters can keep doing something low impact (like Dodging) forever mechanically but those are extreme cases where common sense should apply. But apparently its not an uncommon issue. For me, its mostly been a cosmetic and role playing issue but maybe I'm a fringe case Who else has had issues with this sort of thing and how have you fixed it? The main suggestion seems to be moving reoveries up to minute or even 5 minutes which seems to make character a little too proen to being knocked out or pasing out from exhaustion at the Heroic level?

[OddHat]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Hero by default simulates Action genres where you rarely see characters suffering the after-effects of combat for long. That said, it's easy enough to set campaign limits on CON and REC and set defenses low if you want characters to recover more slowly. Add in wounding, bleeding and disabling and characters will be in serious trouble. I'd also suggest a "Dangerous Combat" rule, where for every 10 stun taken 1 Body is also taken, and the character's Stun Max is reduced by 1 until that Body is healed.

 

You can even go for a Very Dangerous Combat rule where CV and Skill Rolls are at -1 for every 2 BOD you've taken, so that injured characters quickly lose the ability to fight back effectively.

 

As to whether it's a problem, that depends on your tastes. I mainly run highly cinematic games where it doesn't become an issue; someone looking for gritty scenes of the hero suffering from his wounds may prefer making combat tougher.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Yes, but getting your players to agree is a total PITA.

[OddHat]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Yes' date=' but getting your players to agree is a total PITA.[/quote']

 

Kill the Alpha Player. The others will fall in line.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

I don't feel that characters recover too quickly in HERO. Sure, their Stun and End tends to come back fairly quickly (in which case the LTE rules take care of this) However, Body comes back quite slowly...REC per month slowly. Considering the average human only has a body of 3 or 4, thats not very fast at all in game terms.

 

And I've seen characters knocked into months long comas in HERO combat. No, I think the recovery system is quite fine.

[Comic]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

It's just that RL, people are so flabby sedentary, seeing the condition of active people and the sort of workload they can handle surprises us?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Ayup. I know I couldn't work on a farm all day.

[OddHat]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

It's just that RL' date=' people are so flabby sedentary, seeing the condition of active people and the sort of workload they can handle surprises us?[/quote']

 

We tend to judge whatever we can do or achieve as normal or even exceptional; avoids the cognitive dissonance inherent in admitting that other people may be stronger, smarter, or better educated than we are. We're also more likely to overestimate our ability to make a sound judgment in areas where we're actually less informed. So, yes, that seems like a possibility.

[nexus]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

It's just that RL' date=' people are so flabby sedentary, seeing the condition of active people and the sort of workload they can handle surprises us?[/quote']

 

I think this is at least a part of it. Humans are capable of very impressive physical feats naturally but many people express so muchu doubt about our races prowess. You see this a great deal in science fiction were alien races are so often porotrayed as physically (and often mentally) superior to humans as basic assumption.

 

We tend to judge whatever we can do or achieve as normal or even exceptional; avoids the cognitive dissonance inherent in admitting that other people may be stronger' date=' smarter, or better educated than we are. We're also more likely to overestimate our ability to make a sound judgment in areas where we're actually less informed. So, yes, that seems like a possibility.[/quote']

 

Speaking strictly for myself, I've never had trouble admitting there were (many) others physically and/or mentally superior to myself not because I think little of myself but there's aways someone better than you at something.

[OddHat]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Speaking strictly for myself, I've never had trouble admitting there were (many) others physically and/or mentally superior to myself not because I think little of myself but there's aways someone better than you at something.

 

I was thinking I should have clarified: Someone in our perceived peer group, and in an area in which we take pride in our ability. It's easy to admit that an athlete we've never met is stronger than we are or can ever be, especially if we're not athletes ourselves. It's much tougher for someone who, for example, takes pride in his writing, to admit that someone in his gaming group is a better writer. Even then, he's likely to comfort himself with the thought that he's still smarter / better looking / whatever than his peer.

 

Note also that I'm not saying it's impossible to admit that your peers are better than you at X when you care about X; but it's not easy, and not ime common.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

I have to admit that OddHat is better than I will ever be at picking up Thia Halmades.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Hero does work in a way that feels unrealistic in terms of recovery from exertion and (minorish) injury. Well, it feels unrealistic if you relate it to 'real world' experiences, but not necessarily in-game.

 

I like the current system, and I do not think that changing recovery frequency is a good option. Despite the lack of realism, it rarely comes up in-game, IME.

 

I can see a 'long term END/STUN' rule working if this is a concern though. One of the quoted threads mentions various sugegstions as to how to implement LT END rules.

 

You can impliment LT STUN too, if you like: perhaps every 5 full points of STUN from a single attack, and you record one as LT STUN (you can adjust the ration to suit your game), and LT STUN could recover at REC per day (or you could adjust the period to suit - you could say you only recover when resting). This would cover such things as buising and minor contusions that will be gone in a day or so and are never likely to be life threatening (so they last longer than stun, but not as long as Body). After most fights therefore the survivors are not likely to be back at optimum level until they have had a proper rest, but will be up NEAR optimum levels after just a few minutes. Of course after several fights in a row, without a proper rest, the party might be entering fights at a considerable disadvantage.

 

Of course the type of campaign becomes important here - if there is healing magic, then STUN and END heals are going to be far more useful then in a game where Stun and END recover very quickly to optimum levels (as is the case with the default rules).

 

One rule that is often overlooked, but is worth remembering, is that each point of BODY that you take means you ALSO take a point of STUN (page 410). You can, according to the rules, recover this stun before you heal the BODY. That never made sense to us, and we have always played that Max Current STUN = (Max STUN-BODY damage taken).

 

Often only a minor effect, it does lay a patina of realism over procedings

 

Bear in mind, at the back of it all, that BODY, STUN and END are just a game mechanic to simulate something much more complex, with any number of interactions that we often poorly understand, if at all.

 

Every layer of 'realism' that you add is:

 

1. Going to be argued about - we do not live in a consensus reality, we each inhavit out own reality and fool ourselves into thinking that others see it in the same, or a similar way.

 

2. (Far more importantly) Going to slow the game down.

 

If it is bothering the GM or players that the game is not realistic* then it is wise to tinker**, until the niggle goes away - niggles can be distracting.

 

 

 

* For a given value of 'realistic'

 

** You do not necessarily have to tinker with the rules - you can simply tinker with your own understanding of the implementation or meaning of the rules so that you are happier with them

[OddHat]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

I have to admit that OddHat is better than I will ever be at picking up Thia Halmades.

 

Try a smile, eye contact, and a sincere "Howdy". Works more often than you'd think.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Try a smile' date=' eye contact, and a sincere "Howdy". Works more often than you'd think. [/quote']

 

Let me try that again.

 

I have to admit that Oddhat is better than I will ever be at lifting Thia Halmades.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Hero by default simulates Action genres where you rarely see characters suffering the after-effects of combat for long. That said, it's easy enough to set campaign limits on CON and REC and set defenses low if you want characters to recover more slowly. Add in wounding, bleeding and disabling and characters will be in serious trouble. I'd also suggest a "Dangerous Combat" rule, where for every 10 stun taken 1 Body is also taken, and the character's Stun Max is reduced by 1 until that Body is healed.

 

You can even go for a Very Dangerous Combat rule where CV and Skill Rolls are at -1 for every 2 BOD you've taken, so that injured characters quickly lose the ability to fight back effectively.

 

As to whether it's a problem, that depends on your tastes. I mainly run highly cinematic games where it doesn't become an issue; someone looking for gritty scenes of the hero suffering from his wounds may prefer making combat tougher.

 

 

This is at the heart of the realism/gameplay dichotomy. Whilst taking a wound is likely to prejudice your chances in combat in reality, it means in a game context that once you start losing you tend to keep losing.

 

Most heroic fiction, especially films, will see the protagonists beaten and bleeding but still able to carry on at more or less normal efficiency with no more then a pained expression and a bit of contrived dialogue.

 

You could implement penalties for Body damage (either directly, or on a random table, or using the impairing/disabling rules) AND a rule that you can use a special form of 'push' to ignore the effects of your injuries for a phase.

 

Make an EGO roll, spend 10 END (or 5 END, or whatever the GM feels is appropriate) and ignore the injuries for this phase. Wince and say something like 'It is only pain'. Then grin and deck the bad guy.

[Vorsch]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

I have to admit i have never liked the idea that a 10 body normal can take 9 body and still be 100% combat effective (apart from nearly dying part)

 

Think id go with a shadowrun styly divide body by 4 and each time you pass that mark take a -1 to all actions.

gives agood reason to buy body.

 

though as a aside hero is the most non-lethal game ive ever played.

pd 12 allows a tank to roll over your head and yo still wont take any body, hmm realistic i think not.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

well, i don't allow armor PD to account for fall damage, tank tread to face damage, etc. my reason? armor is designed to protect the body from weapons, which apply massive force to a small area. a massive force to a large area is to much for it to account for, as the entire suit is stressed.

 

basically drop a car on a suit of platmail, and you have invented recycling, because the platemail would be smashed flat. hit that same plate mail with a muay thai knee strike (averages around the psi of a 60 mph car collision, iirc, check out Fight Science on Discovery Channel) the person in plate mail would barely be damaged.

 

note this is only in heroic games for me, and does not apply to force fields, regardless. also, in supers games, all such attacks automatically get penetrating, only against armor powers.

 

this has given alot more realism to the game, in that said 12 def person would still take a decent amount of damage, if not full damage, from said tank tread to face, but they can still take said muay thai knee strike and all is normal.

[nexus]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

I was thinking I should have clarified: Someone in our perceived peer group, and in an area in which we take pride in our ability. It's easy to admit that an athlete we've never met is stronger than we are or can ever be, especially if we're not athletes ourselves. It's much tougher for someone who, for example, takes pride in his writing, to admit that someone in his gaming group is a better writer. Even then, he's likely to comfort himself with the thought that he's still smarter / better looking / whatever than his peer.

 

I see your point, but ususally someone does have -something- they're more proficent or better at that someone else. Its not always comforting yourself, at least not in my experience. Few people totally outclass someone else across the board unless one of them has some problem that's limiting them.

 

Note also that I'm not saying it's impossible to admit that your peers are better than you at X when you care about X; but it's not easy, and not ime common.

 

I suppose, I mean I know two people I game with are much better writers than I am and one is a much better GM.

[nexus]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Its a valid point but I will point out that a PD of 12 is in the Legendary range of attributes so games where it comes up have probably left "realistic" behind. I think Hero players do tend to become a little jaded to what high attributes mean over time because they come common in superheroic games. Most people have a PD of 1-2. A tank treed rolling over the their head will will kill them instanty 10 body x2 20-2 18 takes them negative 10 Body. *squish* Same thing happens if you give them a generous PD of up to 4.

 

Of course the GM can generally say that if a character is in such a position that they can't avoid a tank rolling over their head, their dead as per the coup de grace rules or call the attack Killing.

 

well, i don't allow armor PD to account for fall damage, tank tread to face damage, etc. my reason? armor is designed to protect the body from weapons, which apply massive force to a small area. a massive force to a large area is to much for it to account for, as the entire suit is stressed.

 

basically drop a car on a suit of platmail, and you have invented recycling, because the platemail would be smashed flat. hit that same plate mail with a muay thai knee strike (averages around the psi of a 60 mph car collision, iirc, check out Fight Science on Discovery Channel) the person in plate mail would barely be damaged.

 

note this is only in heroic games for me, and does not apply to force fields, regardless. also, in supers games, all such attacks automatically get penetrating, only against armor powers.

 

this has given alot more realism to the game, in that said 12 def person would still take a decent amount of damage, if not full damage, from said tank tread to face, but they can still take said muay thai knee strike and all is normal.

 

All that would probably fall under the "Real Armor" limitation in most settings. That being said in Superheroic games I wouldn't impose those limits unless the character took Real armor or something similar on their Armor power. Armor is a power it does not carry any inherent Special Effects

[Mentor]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Hero PCs do not represent real life. They represent fiction, whether in comics, film, TV or literature.

 

Superhumans should not even be considered as the name alone works against realistic definitions.

 

A movie in which Indiana Jones or James Bond spend days in hospital after each fight would be realistic but not heroic. Bullet wounds take much longer to recover from and even longer to be at full fighting trim in real life.

 

Imagine Tarzan having brain damage and being weak after each bullet graze to the head instead of reverting to primitive.

 

Reality is the boring stuff most of us do every day. I am sure there are some champ number crunchers out there who could closely simulate the real levels of effect of fight damage to a PC but I probably would not want to play in their game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Defence in Hero is extremely generic. We could define it far better:

 

Physical defence could be broken down into

 

Cutting (eg blade edges)

Stabbing (eg blade points and arrows)

High Velocity (eg bullets)

Blunt Trauma (eg fists and clubs)

Falling Impact (pretty obvious)

Crushing (eg weight or applied pressure)

 

and probably a load of other stuff. At present every type of physical defence, whether from armour, force field or anything else protects against all of them.

 

I'm against defining armour and force field (powers) differently at a mechanical level, but thre is no reason that you should not define armour and force field (sfx) differently, and reflect those differences with appropriate limtiations (does not protect against falling or crushing damage -1/4).

 

Giving characters vulnerabilities - you can withstand a hail of bullets, but a 50 foot fall will breeak half your bones - would make the game potentially far more complex, but increase the tactical challenge and definition of the game - there is always a trade off.

 

Alternatively you could just create new defences for your game:

 

Shell

 

Defensive Power

 

Shell is a defensive power that represents a tough outer layer that is hard to cut or penetrate but can be deformed by pressure and provides no resistance to falling damage. Shell protects against stun and body from penetrating and cutting damage (i.e. most physical killing attacks) but not against falling, crushing or blunt trauma damage, .

 

Shell costs 3 points for 4 pd

 

(this is basically the cost of 4 points of armour with a -1 limtiation (killing attacks only))

 

This power is comlpetely unnecessary but its inclusion would have the effect of encouraging players to use it, and would make combat more dangerous.

[Maur]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

"I'm not afraid of heights or falling. It's that sudden stop at the end that is the real killer"

 

Unless your armor pads you to change the rate of deceleration at the bottom of that fall, then your poor little brain will go squish even if the bones don't break.

[nexus]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

I'm against defining armour and force field (powers) differently at a mechanical level, but thre is no reason that you should not define armour and force field (sfx) differently, and reflect those differences with appropriate limtiations (does not protect against falling or crushing damage -1/4).

 

Giving characters vulnerabilities - you can withstand a hail of bullets, but a 50 foot fall will breeak half your bones - would make the game potentially far more complex, but increase the tactical challenge and definition of the game - there is always a trade off.

 

Alternatively you could just create new defences for your game:

 

I agree. Defining the Powers differently seems unessecary and counter to Hero's effects based nature but including Limitations to reflect the Special Effects is great. And it has the additional benefit of allowing simpler character builds for genres and preferences that don't want the added "realism". Most comic book armors protect from pretty much everything equally and people with all over forcefields don't find themselves unable to walk or hold onto things because they arent actually touching them or the ground. I think the current method works without making things very complicated.

[OddHat]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

Hero PCs do not represent real life. They represent fiction, whether in comics, film, TV or literature.

 

Superhumans should not even be considered as the name alone works against realistic definitions.

 

A movie in which Indiana Jones or James Bond spend days in hospital after each fight would be realistic but not heroic. Bullet wounds take much longer to recover from and even longer to be at full fighting trim in real life.

 

Imagine Tarzan having brain damage and being weak after each bullet graze to the head instead of reverting to primitive.

 

Reality is the boring stuff most of us do every day. I am sure there are some champ number crunchers out there who could closely simulate the real levels of effect of fight damage to a PC but I probably would not want to play in their game.

 

Repped.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are Hero characters too rugged?

 

"I'm not afraid of heights or falling. It's that sudden stop at the end that is the real killer"

 

Unless your armor pads you to change the rate of deceleration at the bottom of that fall, then your poor little brain will go squish even if the bones don't break.

 

So why does PD protect you? Armor as a power could have been removed three editions ago - it's just PD/ED + Damage Resistance.

 

I agree with Nexus - this is part of the restrictions imposed by "real armor", but has nothing to do with the Armor power. I could buy Armor as turning my body (brain included) to steel, a high level of resilience, or a squishy body with no real organs to injure, among dozens or hundreds of other SFX.