Chewing (up) the scenery

[JasonPacker]

But complicated, by itself, is a net loss. Detailed, which may mean a little more complexity, might well be a net win (your mileage may vary). 

 

And while I agree with you - there's a rule that covers it - it doesn't fix that I had some hope of a quantitative rule rather than a qualitative rule. It's not quite as bad as "this entirely common situation isn't covered by the rules, so your GM will have to make up a rule on the fly" but it's definitely not an ideal solution to my way of thinking.

[IndianaJoe3]

Well, "realistic" isn't a quantitative standard anyways.  (And, sometimes, reality is unrealistic.) "Beam" and, "real weapon/armor/object" are going to handle everything but the most extreme edge cases.

[JasonPacker]

Well, if I said that the existing rules were unrealistic, that was foolish of me. My issue is, and remains, that they are subjective rather than objective, qualitative rather than quantitative.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Well, if I said that the existing rules were unrealistic, that was foolish of me. My issue is, and remains, that they are subjective rather than objective, qualitative rather than quantitative.

You gotta pick and choose what aspects of physical reality to quantify.  Attempting to model everything via the system is madness.  The designers chose to go subjective when it came to damaging physical objects (unliving) because the physics behind it can be rather complex.  

 

Come up with a system that works for you, then let us know how it works and we'll dissect and discuss...

[Ninja-Bear]

I always felt that the martial artist in the "no breaking bars rule" was implied to be a normal human.  Hence there is an implied normal human disadvantage/complication.  I did ask Steve Long about howmany points it would be worth, and the response he gave was two fold.  First, in his opinion-none. Secondly though as a GM, what ever I felt was appropriate.  Which fwiw is 5 pts in a super game. This got me thinking though, that this rule is more game specific than rules specific.  To illustrate let me say that 99% of games, a 'normal' martial artist shouldn't be able to break bars with his bare hands.  However, there is one specific game where this rule shouldn't be in place.  The game is called Kung Fu 2100.  (I have both the original board game and the written adventure for GURPS).  In it 'normal' humans with fantastic chi/kung fu abilities can do all sorts of things such as ingore bullet wounds, climb sheer surfaces, and yes punch open locked metal doors!

[phoenix240]

One thing I have wanted to see was a collection of rules (maybe a supplement) for Hero System that has optional "realism" rules for lower level, gritty play. Though that itch is probably already scratched by GURPS for some players as it defaults to lower level of cinema than Hero System and tries to model reality with the ability to add in exception (IMO) in a way that in some ways the opposite of Hero System.

 

It's kind of funny though. This thread is on how it can be too easy to damage/destroy inanimate objects in Heroic games and I've seen others about how inanimate objects (particularly military vehicles) are too tough in Superheroic games.

[Christopher]

It's kind of funny though. This thread is on how it can be too easy to damage/destroy inanimate objects in Heroic games and I've seen others about how inanimate objects (particularly military vehicles) are too tough in Superheroic games.

In a heroic game it is not a issue to built a AT-Weapon that can one-shoot a Tank (or at least kill the crew inside) regardless of durability. Because you don't have to keep AP limits in mind.

In superheroic games you have to keep AP limits in mind and have to pay points for those powers.

[JasonPacker]

I, too, would like to see a more robust set of "realism" optional rules for Hero. I'd also like to see a thorough set of tactical minis rules. I think both would have a small but energetic audience.