Shooting With Intent to Miss

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

4 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Oh, and the answer, that came to me as I was driving home:  you're attacking the area, not the target (and are therefore attacking DCV 3) and if the target moves into the suppressed area, he's automatically hit.

It's explicitly against target DCV in FRED and 6e2. 

[Sean Waters]

Has anyone suggested punching the target unconscious and then shooting him?  Only guns sound rubbish.

 

Ultimately you can only improve your chance to hit something by increasing your OCV, decreasing their DCV, using an AoE or having more goes.

 

You can Spread an attack (6E2/49), but that may violate the hard cap on OCV.

 

You can't generally decrease an opponent's DCV on your own unless you sneak up on him or PRE attack him (which does not require a roll to hit!)

 

You therefore would seem to need an AoE attack, either on the basic gun attack (which could be a naked advantage if you are in an Equipment game) or on a suppress/drain if you want to make the target easier to hit for everyone, not just you.

 

As a side note the Suppression Attack would work if the target was moving because you get multiple attacks, potentially (and the fact that you can stand still in a field of Suppression Fire and never be hit is a definite lacuna in the rules), but you can do the same with Multiple Attack and that is kind of what is being described - firing several shots to increase your chances of hitting - the chances of hitting are increased because you get more than one go at it rather than because the DCV of the opponent is reduced, but it has much the same effect, at least one on one.  It does not help if the intention is to make a target easier to hit for your mate, but that is what coordinated attacks are for.

[RDU Neil]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

but you can do the same with Multiple Attack and that is kind of what is being described - firing several shots to increase your chances of hitting - the chances of hitting are increased because you get more than one go at it rather than because the DCV of the opponent is reduced, but it has much the same effect, at least one on one.

 

Yes, yes, yes. The whole post echoes what I said (essentially, strips down to increasing chance to hit which is increasing OCV or decreasing their DCV) so what in the system already allows for this?

 

Multiple attacks, especially if you buy levels to offset the MA penalties.  Quick, clean, interpreting maneuvers already in the game to cover various combat maneuvers you see in the source material.

[eepjr24]

On 2/15/2019 at 11:05 AM, RDU Neil said:

Multiple attacks, especially if you buy levels to offset the MA penalties.  Quick, clean, interpreting maneuvers already in the game to cover various combat maneuvers you see in the source material.

I think levels are in the same boat as other OCV increasing things, correct? Unless you meant PSL's, which can't be use for maneuvers (of which multiple attack is one).

 

6e1, 84:

Quote

Nor can he buy OPSLs to counteract the standard OCV penalty imposed by a Combat Maneuver (such as the -3 OCV for a Grab By)

 

[Christopher]

On 2/11/2019 at 10:13 PM, Toxxus said:

 

Despite the pretty lengthy write-up of Change Environment I was never very clear on exactly what you could do with those stat roll penalties other than knocking someone down.  Are there other options?

It is one of hte "Catch all" powers like Transform. And I agree it is a whole lot less defined.

 

On 2/12/2019 at 6:31 PM, RDU Neil said:

Essentially... all details aside... this is a feint. Faking an attack in one direction, to set up the real attack from another direction.

 

So... HERO basically has "feint" built in as part of active defense and assumed as part of your OCV. Saying, "I do a quick thrust kick with my right leg, getting him to slide left and directly into the path of my follow up left cross to the chin!"  sounds really cool, but essentially that is all color, it comes down to +2 OCV with HtH or whatever the character has on the sheet.

HSMA 244 also has Rules for a "Feint" Combat Maneuver.

 

And HSMA does cover "Ranged Martial Arts" as well, so using these things with Pistols would be fully in line with the intention.

[Christopher]

13 hours ago, eepjr24 said:

I think levels are in the same boat as other OCV increasing things, correct? Unless you meant PSL's, which can't be use for maneuvers (of which multiple attack is one).

 

6e1, 84:

 

Then you just buy CSL/OC, possibly with Limitations. I am pretty confident I could do the math to derive PSL from OCV.

 

The details vary a bit, but the base idea is the same.

[RDU Neil]

15 hours ago, eepjr24 said:

I think levels are in the same boat as other OCV increasing things, correct? Unless you meant PSL's, which can't be use for maneuvers (of which multiple attack is one).

 

6e1, 84:

 

 

I wasn't thinking any kind of particular level, but this did make me think... just like you can buy a CSL with only one maneuver... and if MA is considered a maneuver... is this a work around? I mean, I just read the rules again, and it seems that they (the rules) bend over backward to allow Multiple Attacks, but require all kinds of unique caveats (like, MA is a maneuver, but unlike other maneuvers, you can't buy CSLs with this maneuver). Kind of maddening.

And granted, I think most of these are intended to ameliorate most of the abuses of a super with lots of different attack powers. In Heroic games, where this grew out of "Double Shot" and applied only to firing guns (and only specific guns) multiple times... it hardly seems a concern. A character could have +3 w/Pistols (9pts) only when doing a Multiple Attack... worth reducing it down to 2 points apiece... and now we are back to PSL level cost to offset negative OCV modifier. Heck... just buy flat out 2 pt CLS with your automatic pistol, get +3 OCV for six points at all times which just helps out with Mult Att as well. 

 

All those pre-emptive "you can't do a normal thing in this particular case" really bug me. Mult Att is either a maneuver that plays by the baseline rules for maneuvers, or it isn't. Especially in this case where the pages of unique rulings don't really do much in the end.

[eepjr24]

On 2/17/2019 at 12:10 PM, Christopher said:

Then you just buy CSL/OC, possibly with Limitations. I am pretty confident I could do the math to derive PSL from OCV.

 

The details vary a bit, but the base idea is the same.

I was not trying to say that you we could not figure out how to do it. I meant that the original poster had said OCV with guns has a hard limit, I assumed that limit applied to CSL's that raise OCV as well, otherwise he would just buy those. Especially since he specifically called out the campaign guidance that bullets traveled at a set speed and thus could not exceed the cap.

 

- E

[eepjr24]

On 2/17/2019 at 3:09 PM, RDU Neil said:

 

I wasn't thinking any kind of particular level, but this did make me think... just like you can buy a CSL with only one maneuver... and if MA is considered a maneuver... is this a work around? I mean, I just read the rules again, and it seems that they (the rules) bend over backward to allow Multiple Attacks, but require all kinds of unique caveats (like, MA is a maneuver, but unlike other maneuvers, you can't buy CSLs with this maneuver). Kind of maddening.

And granted, I think most of these are intended to ameliorate most of the abuses of a super with lots of different attack powers. In Heroic games, where this grew out of "Double Shot" and applied only to firing guns (and only specific guns) multiple times... it hardly seems a concern. A character could have +3 w/Pistols (9pts) only when doing a Multiple Attack... worth reducing it down to 2 points apiece... and now we are back to PSL level cost to offset negative OCV modifier. Heck... just buy flat out 2 pt CLS with your automatic pistol, get +3 OCV for six points at all times which just helps out with Mult Att as well. 

 

All those pre-emptive "you can't do a normal thing in this particular case" really bug me. Mult Att is either a maneuver that plays by the baseline rules for maneuvers, or it isn't. Especially in this case where the pages of unique rulings don't really do much in the end.

Buying CSL's with maneuvers is allowed, buying them with Multiple Attack is not. That does not seem difficult to me. I think the reasoning here is to prevent both what you mention (supers with tons of powers) and people buying generic levels with multiple attack and then using them to boost everything they do in a round (shoot a couple people with a pistol, toss a grenade at a hardened position, grab a convenient bystander for a hostage and kick through the door they are standing next to so they can duck in next phase). Remember, CSL's at the 3 point level can do OCV, DCV or Damage. Personally, I think the limitation is fine, there is an easy way to achieve the results you seem to be craving, you just have to pay more points for the versatility. YMMV, and you can always house rule whatever you like in your games.

 

- E

 

 

[Lucius]

Another suggestion.....

 

Getting 'em where I want 'em:  (Total: 30 Active Cost, 11 Real Cost) Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2) for up to 60 Active Points of Fire Arms (30 Active Points); Extra Time (Extra Phase, -3/4), Requires A Roll (Skill roll, -1 per 20 Active Points modifier; Must be made each Phase/use; Tactics; -3/4), Limited Power Must expend 2 shots worth of ammo (-1/4) (Real Cost: 11)

Requires two phases (one to get 'em in position and one to fire) and a Tactics roll at -1. Expends 2 rounds, or if an autofire weapon, double the usual number - first shot to manuever them into position, the second shot at 3 DCV.

 

 

But seriously, if the person running the game wants to nerf guns, perhaps the smartest thing is to take the hint and not have a character that uses guns.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says what's this about nerf guns?

 

 

[Tech]

Or  Lucious, maybe the rules about guns shouldn't be there. If there's something in the rules that are preventing a common concept to be created, or at least making it difficult to create, you gotta question the ruling.

 

As the GM for a ruling; the GM has the final say-so on what's what.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

12 minutes ago, Tech said:

Or  Lucious, maybe the rules about guns shouldn't be there. If there's something in the rules that are preventing a common concept to be created, or at least making it difficult to create, you gotta question the ruling.

This really really depends on the GM.  Some are overly sensitive about players questioning rulings and/or house rules, and will react poorly.  Some will take it in stride but bluntly refuse to consider a change.  Some will hear out the player's arguments and make an impartial decision.  Some will bend over backwards. 

The correct approach depends on the GM, and only MechaniCat can know what his GM is like. 

Since I don't know MechaniCat's GM, my advice earlier to the thread was for MechaniCat to talk things over with his GM about this and make sure to phrase it as "I'm not sure if my concept fits" instead of "Your rules are crippling my character". 

[RDU Neil]

7 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

and make sure to phrase it as "I'm not sure if my concept fits" instead of "Your rules are crippling my character".

 

This... a thousand times, this!

 

[Lucius]

 

Of course, we don't know how high the Gun OCV cap is or how it compares to the campaign's average OCV or DCV.

 

If few characters have a DCV so high that the Gun OCV cap will make them hard to hit there may not be much of a problem.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary tries on an OCV cap on one head

[Tech]

Gnome, RDU, I forgot this is a houserule during this forum perusal. He needs to mention that there are alot of characters in the comics who use guns (not to mention Western Hero) as well as in the movies who can do unreal things with pistols. Talking to the GM is necessary since we're missing information.

[Doc Democracy]

18 hours ago, Tech said:

I forgot this is a houserule during this forum perusal. He needs to mention that there are alot of characters in the comics who use guns (not to mention Western Hero) as well as in the movies who can do unreal things with pistols

 

What is missing from the OP is the genre being played.  I can understand a GM who wants a particular style of game and does not want guns to be freaky good (to emphasise other aspects of the game) to put things in place that enforce the goals of the game.  If that is the reason behind GM rules then it is poor play to seek to undermine them.  I am not suggesting this is the purpose of the OP, just that we need to be careful to have the information to hand before judging where unreasonability might be.

 

It is easy to get conflict and grumpiness between players and GM early on in a game that can poison the whole game.  The GM gets grumpy that players are looking to do things he had not wanted in his game while players are getting grumpy that the GM is forcing them to compromise their character vision (possibly because he had not completely communicated the scope of the game, possibly because the player had not completely listened/read/cared about the scope of the game).  Which is why it is best when everyone engages positively as Gnome(BODY) said

 

18 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

talk things over with his GM about this and make sure to phrase it as "I'm not sure if my concept fits" instead of "Your rules are crippling my character

 

and the corollary of that, the GM approaching the player using "I am not sure your character quite fits the game, can we see how we can get what you want" rather than "this does not meet my rules, character rejected".

 

Doc

[Tech]

We are missing alot of information here. We do not know if the GM put forth his houserules openly before everyone before they decided to create characters, or if the GM added the rule. This is critical. To add a houserule about guns after the fact is bad thinking. If the houserule is there before anyone creates characters, then the player must create a character appropriately knowing fully the rule(s) are there. If the player is joining an existing campaign but has a different idea or seeks an exception, the two must sit down together to discuss matters. Without knowing more about the below, it's difficult to make a determination.

 

Campaign rules are that guns can't have an OCV above a certain value, and therefore Gunslingers must reduce a target's DCV to be effective.

[MechaniCat]

Alright, so OP here, and it looks like I've got some confessions to make.

Though before that I want to say that these suggestions have been tremendously helpful.

 

Confession #1: I'm the GM. A big part of this question is what I should tell my players to expect when they play a gunslinger and to give them as many possible approaches as possible when they do.

 

I'm working on a setting (which is to say, a set of ground rules and mechanics that I can reuse for multiple campaigns and hand off to other GMs if all goes well. Though I'm not holding my breath). That setting is meant to (Among other things) emulate a specific style of gunplay I had in mind and the OCV cap seemed to be the best way to do that.

In the setting there's a sort of arms race between HtH and Guns/Bows. The first time a Gunman emptied a magazine at a high level martial artist and hit nothing but air (matrix style) they had to ask themselves: "Well... what do I do about that?". So the OCV cap is a mechanical equivalent to what's going on in the "real" world of the setting. Being a gunslinger in the setting is largely stating "My art is to find solutions to this problem".

Mind you guns have other advantages like being able to take more shots per turn then a close-combat character would. A common belief in the setting is "Guns are weapons of the Mind, swords are weapons of the body" which is to say that a gunslingers greatest asset is his cleverness with a more versatile weapon, and a martial artists greatest asset is his speed and strength.

 

Confession #2: I've made a couple posts with regards to this setting and I'm struggling with how much context to give when I want some input (thus far I've avoided setting detail entirely because it seemed unnecessary). The setting is very large and involved and could easily wander off with bits about how this or that works, how things relate to each other etc.

One of the principle problems the scope of the setting causes, is that it is a cross genre setting. It includes Horror, Cyberpunk, Fantasy, High-Tech, Low-Tech, and the full range of D&D power levels so a starting character is a highly skilled normal but a long term character is god-like. Not all of these are happening simultaneously and in fact the setting is designed to add or drop them as desired.

It was originally conceived long ago in my youth when I thought about how there were many game systems that could handle different genres (Hero, GURPS, FATE etc) but not any settings that could change genres mid campaign. So I set out to make a setting that could handle mid campaign genre shifting without plane hopping.

Whether or not I was successful and whether or not the setting was necessary is certainly debatable, but one thing is for certain: After many years and a great deal more experience with different RPGs I still have a lot of love for what I created, and Hero System seemed like the best system to seriously build the beast in (I originally tried building it from scratch. Guess how far I got).

 

Confession #3: I must also confess that as a newer member of the Hero community I don't really know that kinds of assumptions that the good people of this forum will make, which ties into Confession #2 that I don't know how much information to give.

 

Confession #4: I work long hours and have some social anxiety so staying active on the forum is a bit difficult. So sorry if I don't respond to things as punctually as I would like.

 

@Tech "I would simply have the player who wants to shoot with the intent to miss make an attack roll. If you "hit", then the defensive person must move or get hit. PRE attk or Drain isn't accurate - some villains could care less if they get hit or not and will not move as hopefully intended (see original poster train of thought below)."

 

This is a problem the concept runs into. No one in the setting will be able to take very many direct hits (god-level characters are godly dodgers not godly durable) but its not unreasonable to presume someone might choose a lesser of two evils.

 

 

Several people have asked about where the cap is, and I have to admit I'm not entirely sure, but I'm thinking around 8 perhaps? Which is roughly where your characteristic for OCV would cap, Swordsmen and such however would be able to pile on CSLs to that value and it's not entirely unreasonable for a high level gunslinger to run into a high level Swordsman that he can't hit at all by default.

 

 

Quite a long post, but i really needed to bring up the "how much context" problem somewhere, and if I said more than necessary I guess that just gives an example of what I'm talking about.

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, MechaniCat said:

PRE attk or Drain isn't accurate - some villains could care less if they get hit or not and will not move as hopefully intended 

 

It is your game, so your decision, but I would say that those villains either have a high PRE by definition or no PRE or you modify the PRE attack by rPD.

 

So a villain with a mega high rPD cares not about the bullets and so is not frightened by the damage and reduces the effect by the rPD score (which should make them effectively immune). It remains a game mechanic which not only encourages action from an opponent after an opposed roll but also potentially reduces DCV.

 

I think it is a core mechanic worth considering, even if it needs tweaked to better describe the game effect. After all, your description is shooting to miss to drive an opponent into a place they will be easier to hit, if the opponent does not care about being shot, the actual manouevre should not affect them anyway.

 

Doc

[Tech]

6 hours ago, MechaniCat said:

Alright, so OP here, and it looks like I've got some confessions to make.

Though before that I want to say that these suggestions have been tremendously helpful.

 

Confession #1: I'm the GM. A big part of this question is what I should tell my players to expect when they play a gunslinger and to give them as many possible approaches as possible when they do.

 

I'm working on a setting (which is to say, a set of ground rules and mechanics that I can reuse for multiple campaigns and hand off to other GMs if all goes well. Though I'm not holding my breath). That setting is meant to (Among other things) emulate a specific style of gunplay I had in mind and the OCV cap seemed to be the best way to do that.

In the setting there's a sort of arms race between HtH and Guns/Bows. The first time a Gunman emptied a magazine at a high level martial artist and hit nothing but air (matrix style) they had to ask themselves: "Well... what do I do about that?". So the OCV cap is a mechanical equivalent to what's going on in the "real" world of the setting. Being a gunslinger in the setting is largely stating "My art is to find solutions to this problem".

Mind you guns have other advantages like being able to take more shots per turn then a close-combat character would. A common belief in the setting is "Guns are weapons of the Mind, swords are weapons of the body" which is to say that a gunslingers greatest asset is his cleverness with a more versatile weapon, and a martial artists greatest asset is his speed and strength.

 

Confession #2: I've made a couple posts with regards to this setting and I'm struggling with how much context to give when I want some input (thus far I've avoided setting detail entirely because it seemed unnecessary). The setting is very large and involved and could easily wander off with bits about how this or that works, how things relate to each other etc.

One of the principle problems the scope of the setting causes, is that it is a cross genre setting. It includes Horror, Cyberpunk, Fantasy, High-Tech, Low-Tech, and the full range of D&D power levels so a starting character is a highly skilled normal but a long term character is god-like. Not all of these are happening simultaneously and in fact the setting is designed to add or drop them as desired.

It was originally conceived long ago in my youth when I thought about how there were many game systems that could handle different genres (Hero, GURPS, FATE etc) but not any settings that could change genres mid campaign. So I set out to make a setting that could handle mid campaign genre shifting without plane hopping.

Whether or not I was successful and whether or not the setting was necessary is certainly debatable, but one thing is for certain: After many years and a great deal more experience with different RPGs I still have a lot of love for what I created, and Hero System seemed like the best system to seriously build the beast in (I originally tried building it from scratch. Guess how far I got).

 

Confession #3: I must also confess that as a newer member of the Hero community I don't really know that kinds of assumptions that the good people of this forum will make, which ties into Confession #2 that I don't know how much information to give.

 

Confession #4: I work long hours and have some social anxiety so staying active on the forum is a bit difficult. So sorry if I don't respond to things as punctually as I would like.

 

@Tech "I would simply have the player who wants to shoot with the intent to miss make an attack roll. If you "hit", then the defensive person must move or get hit. PRE attk or Drain isn't accurate - some villains could care less if they get hit or not and will not move as hopefully intended (see original poster train of thought below)."

 

This is a problem the concept runs into. No one in the setting will be able to take very many direct hits (god-level characters are godly dodgers not godly durable) but its not unreasonable to presume someone might choose a lesser of two evils.

 

 

Several people have asked about where the cap is, and I have to admit I'm not entirely sure, but I'm thinking around 8 perhaps? Which is roughly where your characteristic for OCV would cap, Swordsmen and such however would be able to pile on CSLs to that value and it's not entirely unreasonable for a high level gunslinger to run into a high level Swordsman that he can't hit at all by default.

 

 

Quite a long post, but i really needed to bring up the "how much context" problem somewhere, and if I said more than necessary I guess that just gives an example of what I'm talking about.

 

 

Thank you for replying to us all. We're not afraid of long posts as many posters will attest to. You got a campaign idea in mind and what you want to do with it. Ultimately, be open with your players: don't be afraid to tell others that you're testing some campaign ideas and they may need to be fine tuned later on. Don't be afraid to make a mistake: if you find some of your ideas aren't working or need to be revised, then let them know about the new changes. You might even want to get some player input. When I GM and run across a situation I'm not sure about, I ask the players what should be done. Rarely do I make a decision by myself: getting a response from the players tells them you're flexible and that both GM & Players are there to have a fun time. It also builds trust from the players.

Don't feel pressured that you need to reply or post on the forums. We're a friendly group and more than willing to give advice - sometimes lots of it.

[RDU Neil]

5 hours ago, Tech said:

 

 

Thank you for replying to us all. We're not afraid of long posts as many posters will attest to. You got a campaign idea in mind and what you want to do with it. Ultimately, be open with your players: don't be afraid to tell others that you're testing some campaign ideas and they may need to be fine tuned later on. Don't be afraid to make a mistake: if you find some of your ideas aren't working or need to be revised, then let them know about the new changes. You might even want to get some player input. When I GM and run across a situation I'm not sure about, I ask the players what should be done. Rarely do I make a decision by myself: getting a response from the players tells them you're flexible and that both GM & Players are there to have a fun time. It also builds trust from the players.

Don't feel pressured that you need to reply or post on the forums. We're a friendly group and more than willing to give advice - sometimes lots of it.

 

Everything Tech said. Absolutely. I feel that putting your expectations out there is absolutely important, because most difficulties comes from conflicting expectations.

 

For example: If I was one of your players, and you said your "intent" and "expectation" was a game that could switch genres, I would be scratching my head. Genre's aren't about mechanics, to me... they are about stylistic, setting, content and narrative "expectations" (that word again) and switching those things mid game/campaign seems problematic if not impossible. 

 

Again, my expectations are that internal consistency is critical to a game. If the initial genre is Afghan War era special-forces team encounters monsters in the desert (and I'm building a semi-realistic soldier PC with modern weapons and tactics)... and the next play session, my PC finds himself in an oddly colored, washed out old Musical Western, and all his war-torn monster hunting weapon specialties mean nothing against the the smiling cowboy in the big white hat with a song on his lips who shoots the M-4 out of his hands with a wink and rhyming lyric... well, I'm not so sure as a player I'd enjoy that very much.

 

Now, maybe that is just me. It sounds like it would make for an entertaining novel or movie, but as a game where PCs are built a specific way to work a specific way, this kind of thing undermines the whole deal.

 

Let's say I played a gunslinger in your campaign. If my character suddenly encountered another PC or character who defied everything my character understood about the way the world worked... this would require very logical extrapolation to get me to buy in as a player. 1)If it is possible for people to move and bend their bodies faster than bullets... why are gunslingers even a thing at all?  2)If only a select, rare few can do this, is there a clear campaign/narrative exploration about why? How do you get such superpowers? 3)How is the world changed by the appearance of super-martial artists? 4) Why don't they just wipe out the gunslingers (anyone who can move their bodies faster than bullets can do horrific amounts of damage with attacks moving that fast as well, so... )?? 5) Are these martial artists like supers, rare and dangerous and elite, but gunslinging is something non-elites can learn and do more easily, so a larger number of gunslingers can keep a few super martial artists in check? 6) Is it a matter of gunslingers using the equivalent of a 19th century cavalry revolver, but if they invented a 20th century Glock 19 that can sling significantly more bullets and do it significantly faster and more accurately... does that help maintain the balance? Or is there some weird physics that says, "No matter how good the gun technology, the martial artist is faster" then... ???

 

etc., etc.

 

I played Torg a bit back in the day, and had this problem. If you take a character out of the genre they were intended for, they are often diminished andn unplayable. It makes for a fun narrative (a'la Enter the Spider-Verse, which is a must-see movie), but likely a very difficult, if not disastrous game. On a smaller scale, I remember running into this issue when playing Star Hero where we were working to simulate sci-fi in the semi-hard, Space Merchants/Merchanter Alliance kind of world, but there was a desire to have sword play be a worthwhile skill in a universe with advanced slug-throwers, body armor, even beam weapons, etc. We spent a lot of time, bending over backwards to write up a world where this made sense. We basically tried the tactic of "stations and ships are highly vulnerable and precious, so shooting guns was dangerous to everyone, and boarding combats and such were classic hand-to-hand so as not to cause deadly collateral damage."  Of course, we quickly realized that even rubber bullets and concussion rounds and tasers and sonic disruptors were all still way more effective than a sword, and accomplished the same thing. It still made no sense for sword play to be a "thing."

 

It made no sense because we were trying to merge genres. We wanted hard s-f tropes AND swashbuckling space pulp tropes... and the two didn't work well together. 

Can HERO as a system (or GURPS, or whatever) handle both hard-sf space marines AND swashbuckling Flash Gordon/Starslayer types? Yes. Can both characters be made with the same rule set and exist in the same game? Yes. Does the resulting narrative/story/play actual "feel right" and make sense and work out as a good RPG campaign?  Not really. I'd say it was unlikely at best, though a short, goofy one off where a noir detective, a wizard and a LEGO kitten have an adventure could be hilarious. 

 

Basically, you are using a task resolution mechanic (OCV and capping it) to enforce Narrative play (genre mashing). That can get really hinky.

[Lucius]

 

You are working against yourself.

 

You want, at the same time, to both nerf guns and have gunslingers be viable characters.

 

I won't say you can't do that and succeed. But I will point out that when you have two contradictory intentions you can expect friction.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary approves of what you're trying to do and says to embrace the friction

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

One obvious solution to me would be to declare OCV and DC maxima for both guns and martial arts.  Give martial arts a higher OCV maxima and lower DC maxima, give guns a higher DC maxima and lower OCV maxima. 

This would mean that both are viable choices, the question is just if the player wants to hit harder or more often. 

[Sean Waters]

Hmm.  That helps.   Also Torg <sigh>

 

There are some genres in which guns are largely useless against central characters.  The Matrix has been mentioned, but you could also bring up Equilibrium or even Star Wars - Jedi rarely have to worry about blaster bolts.

 

Still, there is more than one way to remove the epidermis of a feline.

 

I would be disinclined to cap OCV for firearms per se but might cap OCV and DCV built without campaign Talents for everyone.

 

I might do is make DCV against firearms pretty cheap.  Introduce a Talent 'Bullet Dodge' that costs 2 points and gives you +1 DCV vs firearms (it is just built as 1 point of DCV, non-persistent and only vs firearms) but as it is a talent they get a bit of a cost break from rounding and it sounds like a bargain.

 

Don't allow +1 OCV with a single attack levels.

 

Introduce a Talent 'Gun Trance' that is built as:

 

+1 OCV (5 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only with Firearms; -1), Extra Time (Extra Segment, -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Must make roll every phase to maintain and each +1 requires extra segment; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Lose 1 charge per extra segment; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Requires A Roll (12- roll; -1/4)

 

This costs 1 point BUT to use it you have to take an extra segment, lose a charge (i.e fire an additional bullet) and make a 12- roll.

 

If you make the roll you get +1 OCV.  You can do the same next phase, only this time it is a 12- less roll, takes 2 extra segments, 2 extra charges and gives you +2 OCV.  Third phase is 3 extra segments, 3 extra bullets and +3 to hit.  If you ever fail the 12- roll, you have to start again.

 

I'm sure you can refine the idea, but it sounds about what you want.  You shoot lots and get more accurate.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher]

49 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

There are some genres in which guns are largely useless against central characters.  The Matrix has been mentioned, but you could also bring up Equilibrium or even Star Wars - Jedi rarely have to worry about blaster bolts. 

Those might be cases of being built on totally different powerlevels.

 

Zion Citizen are way past the normal human ability level.

Agents are a step aboe that, by having never been human.

And Neo is above that, because he is the choosen one. And possibly not only the choosen one for this itteration of the Matrix, but the choosen one that finally brought peace (it is entirely possible the Oracle had this kind of longterm plan/vision/hope).

 

And with Jedi, look at Attack of the Clones.

A lot of Droids or one casually shooting Yango Fett can kill the average jedi padawan and even some weaker masters.

Against a Obi Wan or Mace Windu however he is not that strong.