GMs: How cinematic are you? (versus realistic)

[zslane]

It always seemed to me that the prevalence of the "keep rolling until you get what you want" method was direct evidence that gamers really wanted a point-build system, even if they didn't know it.

[Lucius]

Well it was a pointless rule.  People just kept making characters until they got what they wanted anyway, so the death meant nothing.

And that applies to any random generation system - unless you're going to say "you only get 1 (or some specific finite number) chance to make a character" and actually sit and watch the player roll dice to enforce that, there's no reason a player can't just keep rolling until they get the character they wanted.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

House of the Palindromedary

[JmOz]

Had a GM in the old Marvel game do that roll only once thing...GOD MY GUY SUCKED...he literally got beaten up by an old lady with a broom when I snuck into her house to steal some film her nephew had taken of a covert op...

[Enforcer84]

Random characters can be fun, all depends on your group, I guess. 

I've had some really hilarious and heroic groups who made up for some weaknesses and of course I've been in games where one guy "just happened" to roll two invincible powers (Waves at Heroes Unlimited)

[Ninja-Bear]

Random characters can be fun, all depends on your group, I guess.

I've had some really hilarious and heroic groups who made up for some weaknesses and of course I've been in games where one guy "just happened" to roll two invincible powers (Waves at Heroes Unlimited)

I like random generation sometimes for a brain exercise. Some of the results can be fun and interesting.

[zslane]

When it comes right down to it, though, most players want as much control as possible over their character's abilities. Not all players, mind you, but most. By 1981, random character generation ended up just being a license to whine and/or goof off if forced to play a character that didn't roll up exactly the way the player liked.

[Tech]

I tend to stay in the middle of cinematic vs realism. I do keep alot of realism in the game but not if it's going to hurt the game. Having fun is the most important so the cinematic/realism can vary depending on the story. For realism, I had a heavy weapons Viper agent's gun (18d6 EB) get damaged and he tried to use it - it blew up, killing him instantly - didn't matter what his defenses were. If the players aren't having fun, then who cares about how cinematic or realistic things are. Therefore, although I walk the middle ground between these two, it's variable for me in either direction as a GM.

[Vondy]

Hmmm... STR 15, Large Knife1d6 HKA, and say 2 Damage Classes from Martial Arts or Push STR.

 

Equals 8 Damage Classes/ 3d6-1 HKA average 10 BODY instant kill versus Normal Human.

 

Not so conematic as lethal. Then use Hit Location modifiers.

 

Not lethal? ROFLOL

 

QM

The lethality of Hero boils down to which combination of options are in play in addition to DC/DEF ratios.

[Tholomyes]

For me, I prefer Cinematic over realistic. I like HERO in its flexibility and ability to create any sort of effect or power desired in a roughly balanced (in the sort of "you get what you pay for" sort of way) manner. However there are a lot of rules, from hit-locations to the strange and vestigial-seeming optional combat rules to the CP-free equipment in heroic games that seem to run counter to this notion. For 16 points, you get 8 PSLs for a tight group of attacks (enough for a standard gunman's weapons multipower [excluding stuff like grenade launchers, and the like, for which it would make little sense), completely counteracts the penalty to fire at a target's head, resulting in x5 stun mod and x2 damage, which, assuming a 2d6+1 (7 DC, or 35 base points) rifle as the damage listed for three of the four rifles in the book comply with, would otherwise cost ~18 points more (assuming I factored in the right advantages and limitations), if the same effect were bought simply by enhancing the power of the rifle to a degree equal to the effect of a headshot, rather than buying the PSLs. It's stuff like this, in the name of 'realism' which seems so vestigial and alien to a system where, already any effect can be created by applyiing the correct special effect and limitations to a power. For example, I could replicate placed shots with a set of Ranged Maneuvers (Offensive Shot is a headshot, or a shot aimed at the vitals, rainged disarm is a called shot to the hand, Offensive Trip is a called shot to the legs, ect), and to me non-placed hit locations are just a description to a well-rolled KA, when describing an RKA that the player rolls a 5 and a 6 on 2d6+1, and then rolled a 3 on the stun multiplier, I'd say that the bullet flies straight through the target's skull (or, alternatively, if the target survives the attack, something to the same effect, without the implied lethality)

 

As for the Random Character Generator stuff, I don't have much experience outside looking through an old Central Casting book a friend of mine used to have, which was a bit disappointing, since it had a couple interesting things, but generally the characters felt disjointed and strange, and it didn't even feel like it would be interesting to pick and choose the life events I wanted, since digging through d100 tables for things that weren't too mundane or too cliche wasn't any better than just making a character on my own. The only "random character" stuff I like anymore are point-buy systems who make character generators which randomly choose an archetype and then randomly select from options within that archetype, and my main interest in that (beyond the occasional "let's play a one-shot with randomized characters") is to provide a starting point for character creation, when I have no compelling reasons for one concept over any other, and even then, it's more often pick-and-choose rather than going randomly.