Fantasy Hero lethality

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by tesuji

writing out the "dont use the rules" part doesn't make it any less not using the rules. :-)

 

So, using the rules to create the effects you want in the game world is somehow "not using the rules"?

 

News to me, but as you prefer.

[Blue]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

We are Heroes , Do we Truly need to Kill?

 

If we were talkin' champions I'd agree. But if there was no killing in a fantasy game my players would be outraged! I must sacrifice a few imaginary orcs in order to keep from being sacrificed.

[AnotherSkip]

Yes but then they are not really Heroic if they are gonna lynch you over not allowing them to kill your imaginary friends.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by GamePhil

So, using the rules to create the effects you want in the game world is somehow "not using the rules"?

 

News to me, but as you prefer.

 

Its more like moving the notion of "using the rules" into a redefined and meaningless realm.

 

I can "byb the rule" in most any game system create a trick to disable any rule i want.

 

In DND if i dont want wizards to have to prepare spells i can jot down that some god cast a super-wish or that some conclave of wizards worked this ritual and thus the change was made.

 

In hero i can have a world wide transform cause RKas to do normal levels of knockboack, or maybe just a world wide aid.

 

i prefer to let rules changes be up front and open rules changes and to let things like character disads and such be used for character differentiation, not sidewise backdoor rules changes. If i dont want to use the speed chart i am not going to try and say its not a rules change by requiring the characters to take physical lims "must be speed 4" or some such.

 

 

 

obviously we wont agree on this, but thats cool.

 

enjoy your games.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by tesuji

Its more like moving the notion of "using the rules" into a redefined and meaningless realm.

 

Which misses the point, as do your examples. The Disadvantage is presented should it be necessary in a game where it is not the default state. If everyone else uses the Stun chart the normal way, but your character is at GM's option at 0 Stun, that is worth a Disadvantage. If everyone works that way, it is not, and is simply a change in the rules. Even in that case, knowing what the Disadvantage is might be useful if you want to maintain the rule change for your character in another campaign.

 

Both your examples are sweeping changes to the whole world, and therefore there is little need to do other than change the rules. Further, the HERO one is done in such a way as to lose what little benefit there might be. Building the Killing Attacks in such a way as to allow it (adding an extra die, only to offset the extra die for Knockback) *might* be useful if I expected to play in a game without the house rule, but using a Transform to alter the rules is not.

 

[tesuji]

i am sorry but unless i misread the post the suggestion was to use the disad and apply it to thugs, commoners and everyone else it applies to... which would seem to be "the vast majority of the world" with the heroes and maybe a fes special villains being the few and far between exceptions.

 

If so then it seems you are indeed talking about the default condition (the condition by which the vast majority work under) and then the special few are the exceptions, the ones deserving of having that difference noted on their character sheets.

 

If we look at your position now, it would seem that you now would belief, correct me if i am wrong, that the DEFAULT would be a rules change to have the vast majority (thugs, commoners etc) be Gm discretion at 0 stun and then have an exception, perhaps an advantage?, to the heroes and special characters.

 

It seemed at first like you wanted the vast majority to be written as the disadvnatged as opposed to considering making all th thugs and commoners and so on behave as a sweeping change to the world.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

it seems we are not as far aprt as i suspected.

 

sweeping changes to the world... a default rules change... special features of a select few... specific (dis)advantage shown by character... i agree

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by tesuji

sweeping changes to the world... a default rules change... special features of a select few... specific (dis)advantage shown by character... i agree

 

Indeed.

[AnotherSkip]

heh on the other hand just give all the guys a 19- acting roll (or feing death) and tell them they "think" they are dead..

Or no CDG unless they make a Healing roll first.

 

and usually they should not CDG unless they think they are gonna keep on getting up.

don't have them get up.

[Catseye]

FWIW we generally found that the lack of ressurection balanced for the lower incidence of death.

 

You don't often die, but when you do, its all over.

[Doc Democracy]

In the Decipher Lord of the Rings game they recommend that you decide whether small scale opponents are one hit opponents or perhaps 2 or 3 hit opponents. This way there is less bookwork and heroes can cut their way through swathes of opponents.

 

If a three hit mook gets hit by a good hit then the GM can decide that they go down immediately. This is a decent system and avoids considerations of BODY/Armour/Recovery and CDG.

 

Personally the balance between armour use on non-armour use in Fantasy Hero was one of my major plus points for the system. There was a real choice to be made and while wearing armour made it harder to hurt you it made you less mobile, easier to hit and more likely to get tired.

 

(Those encumbrance rules HURT!)

[wraith]

for 7 points you can kill

 

With the deadly strike talent you can become quite deadly with your attacks, big equalizer. Crossbowman can open plate

[Michael Hopcroft]

Armor vs. arrows

 

IIRC my hisotry, the reason the English won at Agincourt was because their archery was so deadly. The French came in their heavy armor on their heavily armored horses, got stuck in the mud instead of charging with speed, and were easy pickings form the longbowmen whose arrows were fast and deadly enough to penetrate the plate -- and they were flying at the enemy at the rate of several hundred a minute.

 

The flower of French chivalry never stood a chance.

 

How can this be applied to smaller-scale fantasy combat? Remember that the archer can strike first and that arrows, especially from longbows or composit bows, hit hard. There's no way to make arrow-proof armor in the long run. And in the real worl, people never wore plate armor unless they expected to be in a fight right that very moment -- it was too uncomfortable and hard to put on to wear under any other circumstances (although you can put on a suit oif plate by yourself, it's a lot easier to have your squire strap it on for you). For travel, even in wartime, the knight usually wore some sort of lighter -- and more penetrable -- armor.

 

If you can attack your enemy when he doesn't expect it, you have an enormous advantage. the reserve is also true. And if the enemy knows you have a habit of slitting the throats of unconscious foes, they might just do the same to you. If you're helpless, and someone does something obviously fatal to you, it doesn;'t matter how much STUN or BODY you have left -- you're dead.

[Markdoc]

>>>How can this be applied to smaller-scale fantasy combat? Remember that the archer can strike first and that arrows, especially from longbows or composit bows, hit hard. There's no way to make arrow-proof armor in the long run<<<<

 

Well, sorta. Remember that the armour worn at Agincourt was transitional plate: a mixture of solid plates and chain mail. The idea that arrows will slice through solid steel comes from watching Legolas in action too many times :-)

 

When the MHS people tried using a an accurate reconstruction of a longbow (from the Mary Rose) to put holes in an accurate reconstruction of a breastplate and helmet, they found it extremely difficult (damn near impossible, actually) at anything over point blank range. Indeed, while the longbow was deadly to mounted foes, once the emphasis changed to armoured foot (as, for example, in the English Wars of the Roses), archers rapidly found themselves unable to survive without protection. There's a reason the Burgundian handgunners were regarded as battle-winners in the latter stages of those wars....

 

cheers, Mark