Duke Bushido Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 11 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said: Who's "we"? This again? My mistake; I apologize profusely. I did not realize that all these other voices in this thread and all the "how to make light" threads before were actually just you talking to you. Forgive me. Quote Why not? You didn't get any further than "we?" Quote Just because the rulebooks didn't define it right is no reason to just give up. It really isn't that hard. Clearly. The number of different solutions, ideas (and now down votes; can't forget that. Nothing classier than down voting. Don't support your ideas; shit on everyone else's. It's elegant) in this thread,-- Anyway, given that only one solution has ever been offered, and it gets offered by everyone every time this comes up, I suppose we all -- dammit. "we" again. "We" is a word used when referring to more than one person. This kind of word is commonly called a collective pronoun. Sometimes these are tricky, and you have to use what Mrs. Elmore used call "context clues" to figure out just who is in the group to which the pronoun is being applied. If it's a group conversation, it generally refers to those in the conversation, and often includes the speaker and any direct addressees as well-- double-dammit!: Addressee: A person for whom something-- physical, tangible, intangible; it doesn't matter: it can be a nice custard, or it can be a question. So long as it's intended for someone or a specific group, that someone or group is the addressee. When referring to shipping or mailing physical goods, or in modern days, sending e-mails, "addressee" is used to indicate the precise location physical goods should be sent, and the specific server and account to which electronic mail is to be routed. In almost every case, it's different from "we" unless the group includes a speaker who is talking to a group in which he includes himself, or at least does not separate himself as not being the intended recipient of the point of the communication. "Recipient:" similar to addressee, but it doesn't require forethought regarding where something is to be sent, or two whom. It does not exclude such forethought, and in fact a recipient can be an addressee. When mailing or shipping goes exactly as planned, an addressee will become a recipient. The word is derived from "receive," and indicates that the person who is the recipient as been given ownership or charged with some sort of property or item, physical, intellectual, or otherwise. It should be noted that there may be confusion, but "we" can also be recipients, but if we is used to refer to a recipient, then "recipients" will always be plural (American English) or either plural or coming from someone considered to be "royal" in British English, in which case it's still singular, and referred to as "the royal 'we'." Anyway, yes: clearly this is not hard at all. Especially when you were once trying to enjoy civil conversations with people who, when they disagree with you, suddenly pretend they don't understand a language the mastery of which they have spent years demonstrating. Smooth. Damned smooth. Makes it even less harder-er. Quote Well, there is in the real world. All we have to do is decide how to simulate it with the rules. What the hell, Dude? Do you know who "we" is or don't you? So: can we agree to put the nonsense aside now and continue the discussion? If we can, I would like to back up a bit and address some of your points: 11 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said: AFAIK, there is not even the slightest hint in any of the genre books or setting books or rule books that implies that natural darkness is in any way different in the Turakian Age as opposed to in the modern Champions world. Nor is there any difference in Western Hero vs. Star Hero. You are absolutely right. I cannot say with any degree of expertise as I own fewer of the 5e books than I would like, and I have the only one 6e genre book I wanted, but I am willing to bet that this is because it isn't discussed _at all_ in any of those books. I think I've seen a couple of scenarios in adventures of the years of "-3 PER because it's dark out" or something along those lines, but even then: pretty vague. How much is "-3 worth of darkness," ultimately? Quote That's what range penalties are for. They apply to perception as well as targeting of attacks. It's harder to see something that is farther away. I tried doing the "quote in a quote" thing and botched that up pretty badly; sorry. At any rate, let me re-state the point I was trying to express there: First, this was related _specifically_ to the build "Images: creating light." Images has a clearly defined area. At no point does it roll off (apparently Killer Shrike and I both do an explosion-style decreasing effectiveness on light; I imagine others do as well, in which case the area is not so clearly defined, instead); it has a clear and distinct edge. Additionally, if we may revisit the sniper example someone suggested above: the one thing that works relatively spot-on with the Images build is that so long as I am within a normal line of sight, I will see the illuminated area. I will see everyone in it as if it were well-lit, etc. There is nothing there for intensifying shadows. A flashlight in a dark warehouse does _not_ illuminate everything in front of it; it will illuminate only those parts facing it, and will indirectly light some parts catching scatter off of nearby illuminated suffices, all of which serve to make many of the shadows much, much darker. Images by default does not do that. An observer in the dark staring into a lighted area has a very easy job indeed. An observer in a well-light area staring out into the dark has one of the hardest jobs there is. Images doesn't really model this, either. There. That's not screaming, yelling, or pretending I don't know what certain words mean. If a word above is used incorrectly, then it's either a typo, or it's my personal "_IN_con_CIEVABLE_!" and it does not mean what I think it means. What that is, though, is what I was talking about. I gather from your response suggesting range penalties were the answer to this that I was not as clear as I could have been. Quote Well, there is in the real world. All we have to do is decide how to simulate it with the rules. For the sake of the discussion, I will accept this. I don't agree that we have to do this at all, personally, but for the sake of the discussion, [EDIT for God-awful grammar] accept this, however, I believe that it is precisely trying to game mechanics applied to this real-world phenomenon that is the crux of the problem for a large chunk of the suggestions regarding suppress, dispel, or penalties versus penalty skill levels. Entropy: the absolute resting state of everything. Cold cannot be added; heat must be removed. You have a similar problem with dark: Darkness cannot be added; light must be applied. There's the real world. On the surface, that seems fairly easy to simulate: "You can still use the Dispel darkness mechanic to represent countering darkness penalties, etc," and _YES!_ Yes; you are absolutely right! You _can_ do that! But unless they've changed in 6e (read it when it came out, and haven't had that much free time since, so it ain't getting re-read anytime soon), neither a dispel nor a suppress can remove penalties, etc. You've got to handwave or add other builds. But I'm getting onto other problems; forgive me. Using the power Darkness as a model for "the night has fallen with a particularly sickening thud" on a starless night deep in a cave in the bottom of a ravine, what's the appropriate amount of negative modifier? Darkness (and philosophically, Light as well) is an absolute. You hit a point of "No PER roll is possible." Doesn't matter who you are: infrared, ultraviolet, whatever, they are all light spectrums, and we have tools to allow us to pretend we can see in those spectrums, but we can't. And even then, enough darkness, and those spectrums aren't available to the equipment, either. Which poses another problem: I'm not readily familiar with the limits of starlight scopes, etc. Perhaps Shrike or some other person with backgrounds that include the modern military can enlighten us, but I'm willing to bet that there are damned few-- if any-- light conditions in the modern world that render this equipment blind. But if we're going to define normal darkness (lower case d) in terms of Darkness (capital d) for purposes of assigning penalties, etc, then we kind of need to know what the difference is between "normal vision is rendered useless" and "modern tech is rendered useless." We need to know that so that we can assess the proper penalties to, as suggested, simulate the real world. We also need to create a few benchmarks. I think "daylight on the prairie," "just after the last bit of the sun drops below the horizon," "moon bright," "starless light with no distant city lights reflected on clouds," "normal vision completely useless," "modern tech completely useless," and "one-hundred-percent-absolute darkness: the point at which light no longer exists in the universe" are reasonable benchmarks. I will also admit that "normal tech is completely useless" is going to be a hard call, because, as we all know human beings _radiate_ light in the infrared spectrum. So let's be a bit more specific on the modern tech benchmark and speak only of that equipment which amplifies ambient light and rule out anything that uses gimmicks light IR projectors (back-up cameras, security cameras, etc). We will concern ourselves with the spectrums that "real world" people can see. No matter what scale we develop, we will forever be hampered by the jump from "light doesn't exist" to "human eyes are useless." In truth, we can't get to a point where human eyes are useless using pure game mechanics because were we to assign a -230 to the PER roll, a natural 3 will always succeed. If all the matter in the universe were spontaneously converted to energy and burned itself out in the most radiant glory imaginable and all the energy radiated until it lost all excitement and fell apart into its component photons (or other relevant particles), which were then burned up again, ten minutes later, the single bit of matter left in the universe-- one lone human and his tiny pocket of warm oxygen-- will make his PER roll on a 3. Not that it matters much: there is _nothing_ left to perceive. (which brings up another question about just how that's going to play out, if neither can be destroyed: will there be infinite reversals from one state to another? Yes; I am layman-familiar with many of the theories, but it's not like we've actually _seen_ the end of our universe before.) Now let's look at that first (or last, depending on which way you're going) step: From "no sight PER roll is possible" to the very next step up: we have to determine precisely what that modifier is. Assuming we have overcome the "a 3 always nails it" problem, what's the next little baby step just under infinite? Ha! I won't lie: I just had a vision of my player's faces rolling dice: "What's my penalty?" "Infinite minus one." "What?!" Yes; I know, and I apologize for the digression, but Dude! It was _hillarious_! We need these benchmarks so that we know how much light it takes to counteract them, and so we can build a more accurate model of the real-world in game terms: just how many minuses of darkness is under the live oak in Partin Park at midnight? How about if the street and park lights failed? We can't list every possibility, but some detailed guidelines would help. It's all just a thought exercise anyway, because of the 3 problem: we can't eliminate that without handwaving: there are no hard rules for "no PER roll is possible." Ooops: rephrase: While I have seen instances of "no roll possible," there are no published rules for this of which I am currently aware. Do feel free to point them out if any of you are aware of them. No: not snarky: I'd like to see them. We need this benchmark because we already know that there is more dark in the cosmos than there is light. (Again: it terms of the unaided normal human eye). That's why outer space is dark: there isn't enough light available to remove the penalties for all the darkness. It might actually help if could calculate the amount of light released if all the matter in the universe were suddenly converted to useful light (without using the Flash mechanic, of course, because we could then simply determine that the inverse of that number, the penalty level at which we overcome the 3 problem, is the point of "ultimate darkness" and build upward from there. Another problem, at least as I see it, with using the Darkness mechanic and basing darkness off penalties to PER rolls is that somethings are two feet away from you. We could assign a sight PER penalty of two thousand if we were so inclined, but even the bulb from one of those old rubber "squeeze to use" key fob flashlights would illuminate that thing two feet in front of you. That is to say that it would effectively remove all two-thousand penalty levels in a single squeeze. Not over a great area; no. Not at much distance, either. But in it's tiny little area, no matter how many darkness penalties you apply, once you squeeze that bulb, the only penalties you're affected by are those induced by the glare on your glasses or any pre-existing sight-related conditions. One light beats infinite dark. Problematically, infinite dark loses to the most finite of light. That little teeny-tiny pool of light on the little squeeze fob above has the power to overcome infinite PER penalties and to be seen by a sniper a mile away, but won't illuminate more than a two-foot-square of area at not much more than two or three feet away. two-thousand penalty skill levels for sight PER, no range? Images gives you a meter, but this light won't. Change Environment gives you a meter, but this light won't. A candle gives you a _huge_ radius (or, more realistically, a dome) compared to that thing, but not a lot of.... Intensity is the wrong word, because if you're close enough, you can read perfectly fine (presuming an angle conducive to getting candlelight on the page and a distance close enough to catch said light before it scatters), but visual acuity more than just a couple of feet away from the candle _sucks_. Perhaps the candle is only minus one thousand to a sight PER? That being the case, then you'd still pretty much need a 3 to see anything, but those of us who have used candles during blackouts know that we don't. We can't see as far, and after more than a few feet we can't really see in color, but we can see. Not as good as that much smaller area offered by the illuminates-way-less-area flashlight, but we can still see more and further. If we are modeling real world, I submit that we need a whole different mechanic; one that as-yet does not exist in the game. Something that deals with what, for lack of a better term, I will for the moment name Light Mass. We need something that defines the volume of the light, and how that mass is affected by focus and distribution. We will need that same mechanic to figure out the "volume" of the darkness so that we can determine how much light is being pumped into how much darkness, using mechanics for determining decompression of that light as it is distributed. If the intent is to truly model the real world, then we have to accept that there is a heck of a lot more going on here than just some PER mods: it's not a bream struggle or anything like that. And because those concepts do not (yet, anyway. We can always hope that 8e has a few textbooks on the subject. ) exist in the game, yet GMs seem to have a general understanding that there is more at play than a few penalties, I feel that this is, at least under every rules set thus far, best left for individual GMs to resolve. And getting into things like the above example of Robin wearing night vision gizmos of some sort while Batmunch simply looked around with his unaided eyes? That's just another thing best left to the GM: if that works for you, then by al means, so long as you're having fun. For me? You'd better be rolling a hell of a lot of threes. Unless we're not playing supers (and I'm usually not). If we're not playing supers, "no sight PER roll is possible." And I apologize (yet again) for the misleading use of the phrase "we need" in the discussion of this proposed new mechanic. Personally, I don't think we need it. It's a game. I don't believe having all this will make the game any more enjoyable, and therefore see zero payoff in the extra work building this effect for every poorly-lit scenario will require. However, I do see it as a much better direction from which to approach the idea of modeling light versus dark. Quote An additional problem is the "immovable object vs unstoppable force" contradiction of a power that creates light vs a power that creates darkness. I think we all agree that a light-creating power (even a mundane flashlight or candle) should work against natural darkness, but it doesn't work against the Power Darkness. I can't speak for all, but I _do_ agree. However, I also believe that it doesn't work anything akin to the Darkness mechanic, either. Sorry-- that's all above: I jumped the gun a bit, I'm afraid. Thank you for the venting, the patience, and I _hope_ the agreement to keep a civil conversation going. I am now going to sit here quietly and wait for Gnome Body (important) to award me my down vote for daring to have an opinion. No; I lie. I'm going to take a trip around the board then go to bed. Good night, All! Chris Goodwin and Lee 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Bob Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 The other problem I ran into with trying to do images as light is that the active point total grows pretty quickly. I was trying to build a character that was sometimes a motorcycle. So I looked up how bright headlights were. And your bright beam headlights are supposed to illuminate things that are ~100 meters away. But images for light, narrow cone, 100m long is quite expensive, for a headlight. I eventually wrote up a version of aoe nightvision, useable by up to 128 people that seemed much more reasonable in point costs, with the note it's a headlight. Adding a reasonably powerful spotlight to your herocar should not cost as many points as giving it armor to shame most tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilFleischmann Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 Duke Bushido: I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Nobody downvoted your post. I will downvote your latest one, because you're being flat-out rude and insulting. You said, "Accordingly, we can't ever come to a point of "and this is the right way to do it," because no right way is defined". By this, I assume you mean to say that it is impossible for us to ever figure this out (how to do light and darkness in HERO). I simply asked you why you think this? I think it is quite possible. It's not brain surgery. Mere mortals invented the HERO System, and mere mortals have made great improvements to it over the years, and have figured out ways to simulate and adjudicate all kinds of different effects - even ones that don't exist in the real world and even defy the laws of physics or even common sense. I don't think it needs to be that hard to figure out light and darkness. The "we" I see here are people trying to figure it out. This "we" thinks it can be done. I don't know which "we" thinks that it can't, other than you. Which is why I asked, "Who's we?" and "Why not?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 24 minutes ago, PhilFleischmann said: Duke Bushido: I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Nobody downvoted your post. I will downvote your latest one, because you're being flat-out rude and insulting. You said, "Accordingly, we can't ever come to a point of "and this is the right way to do it," because no right way is defined". By this, I assume you mean to say that it is impossible for us to ever figure this out (how to do light and darkness in HERO). I simply asked you why you think this? I think it is quite possible. It's not brain surgery. Mere mortals invented the HERO System, and mere mortals have made great improvements to it over the years, and have figured out ways to simulate and adjudicate all kinds of different effects - even ones that don't exist in the real world and even defy the laws of physics or even common sense. I don't think it needs to be that hard to figure out light and darkness. The "we" I see here are people trying to figure it out. This "we" thinks it can be done. I don't know which "we" thinks that it can't, other than you. Which is why I asked, "Who's we?" and "Why not?" Fair enough. Though I did address those questions (I believe sufficiently; there may have been gaps or omissions caused by haste): Please forgive this; I do not intend a self-quote to be arrogant or aggrandizing. It's simple that there was considerable typing. So skipping to where the actual topic at hand is discussed sincerely, starting with why I disagree with Images, it crops down to this: 1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said: First, this was related _specifically_ to the build "Images: creating light." Images has a clearly defined area. At no point does it roll off (apparently Killer Shrike and I both do an explosion-style decreasing effectiveness on light; I imagine others do as well, in which case the area is not so clearly defined, instead); it has a clear and distinct edge. Additionally, if we may revisit the sniper example someone suggested above: the one thing that works relatively spot-on with the Images build is that so long as I am within a normal line of sight, I will see the illuminated area. I will see everyone in it as if it were well-lit, etc. There is nothing there for intensifying shadows. A flashlight in a dark warehouse does _not_ illuminate everything in front of it; it will illuminate only those parts facing it, and will indirectly light some parts catching scatter off of nearby illuminated suffices, all of which serve to make many of the shadows much, much darker. Images by default does not do that. An observer in the dark staring into a lighted area has a very easy job indeed. An observer in a well-light area staring out into the dark has one of the hardest jobs there is. Images doesn't really model this, either. [SNIP] Next is in reply to your statement that we had to model light / day and base it on the real world (Not your actual words; paraphrased only for brevity with no malevolence or ill-will intended) Also included are thoughts on other ideas offered in this thread and previous threads regarding Dispel / Suppress builds 1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said: For the sake of the discussion, I will accept this. I don't agree that we have to do this at all, _personally_, but for the sake of the discussion, I will [EDIT for God-awful grammar] accept this, however, I believe that it is precisely trying to use game mechanics applied to this real-world phenomenon that is the crux of the problem for a large chunk of the suggestions regarding suppress, dispel, or penalties versus penalty skill levels. Entropy: the absolute resting state of everything. Cold cannot be added; heat must be removed. You have a similar problem with dark: Darkness cannot be added; light must be applied. There's the real world. On the surface, that seems fairly easy to simulate: "You can still use the Dispel darkness mechanic to represent countering darkness penalties, etc," and _YES!_ Yes; you are absolutely right! You _can_ do that! But unless they've changed in 6e (read it when it came out, and haven't had that much free time since, so it ain't getting re-read anytime soon), neither a dispel nor a suppress can remove penalties, etc. You've got to handwave or add other builds. But I'm getting onto other problems; forgive me. Using the power Darkness as a model for "the night has fallen with a particularly sickening thud" on a starless night deep in a cave in the bottom of a ravine, what's the appropriate amount of negative modifier? Darkness (and philosophically, Light as well) is an absolute. You hit a point of "No PER roll is possible." Doesn't matter who you are: infrared, ultraviolet, whatever, they are all light spectrums, and we have tools to allow us to pretend we can see in those spectrums, but _we_ can't. And even then, enough darkness, and those spectrums aren't available to the equipment, either. Which poses another problem: I'm not readily familiar with the limits of starlight scopes, etc. Perhaps Shrike or some other person with backgrounds that include the modern military can enlighten us, but I'm willing to bet that there are damned few-- if any-- light conditions in the modern world that render this equipment blind. But if we're going to define normal darkness (lower case d) in terms of Darkness (capital d) for purposes of assigning penalties, etc, then we kind of need to know what the difference is between "normal vision is rendered useless" and "modern tech is rendered useless." We need to know that so that we can assess the proper penalties to, as suggested, simulate the real world. We also need to create a few benchmarks. I think "daylight on the prairie," "just after the last bit of the sun drops below the horizon," "moon bright," "starless light with no distant city lights reflected on clouds," "normal vision completely useless," "modern tech completely useless," and "one-hundred-percent-absolute darkness: the point at which light no longer exists in the universe" are reasonable benchmarks. I will also admit that "normal tech is completely useless" is going to be a hard call, because, as we all know human beings _radiate_ light in the infrared spectrum. So let's be a bit more specific on the modern tech benchmark and speak only of that equipment which amplifies ambient light and rule out anything that uses gimmicks like IR projectors (back-up cameras, security cameras, etc). We will concern ourselves with the spectrums that "real world" people can see. No matter what scale we develop, we will forever be hampered by the jump from "light doesn't exist" to "human eyes are useless." In truth, we can't get to a point where human eyes are useless using pure game mechanics because were we to assign a -230 to the PER roll, a natural 3 will always succeed. If all the matter in the universe were spontaneously converted to energy and burned itself out in the most radiant glory imaginable and all the energy radiated until it lost all excitement and fell apart into its component photons (or other relevant particles), which were then burned up again.... ten minutes later, the single bit of matter left in the universe-- one lone human and his tiny pocket of warm oxygen-- will make his PER roll on a 3. Not that it matters much: there is _nothing_ left to perceive. (which brings up another question about just how that's going to play out, if neither can be destroyed: will there be infinite reversals from one state to another? Yes; I am layman-familiar with many of the theories, but it's not like we've actually _seen_ the end of our universe before.) Now let's look at that first (or last, depending on which way you're going) step: From "no sight PER roll is possible" to the very next step up: we have to determine precisely what that modifier is. Assuming we have overcome the "a 3 always nails it" problem, what's the next little baby step just under infinite? Ha! I won't lie: I just had a vision of my player's faces rolling dice: "What's my penalty?" "Infinite minus one." "What?!" Yes; I know, and I apologize for the digression, but Dude! It was _hillarious_! We need these benchmarks so that we know how much light it takes to counteract them, and so we can build a more accurate model of the real-world in game terms: just how many minuses of darkness is under the live oak in Partin Park at midnight? How about if the street and park lights failed? We can't list every possibility, but some detailed guidelines would help. It's all just a thought exercise anyway, because of the 3 problem: we can't eliminate that without handwaving: there are no hard rules for "no PER roll is possible." Ooops: rephrase: While I have seen instances of "no roll possible," there are no published rules for this of which I am currently aware. Do feel free to point them out if any of you are aware of them. No: not snarky: I'd like to see them. We need this benchmark because we already know that there is more dark in the cosmos than there is light. (Again: it terms of the unaided normal human eye). That's why outer space is dark: there isn't enough light available to remove the penalties for all the darkness. It might actually help if could calculate the amount of light released if all the matter in the universe were suddenly converted to useful light (without using the Flash mechanic, of course), because we could then simply determine that the inverse of that number, less the penalty level at which we overcome the 3 problem, is the point of "ultimate darkness" and build upward from there. Another problem, at least as I see it, with using the Darkness mechanic and basing darkness off penalties to PER rolls is that some things are two feet away from you. We could assign a sight PER penalty of two thousand if we were so inclined, but even the bulb from one of those old rubber "squeeze to use" key fob flashlights would illuminate that thing two feet in front of you. That is to say that it would effectively remove all two-thousand penalty levels in a single squeeze. Not over a great area; no. Not at much distance, either. But in it's tiny little area, no matter how many darkness penalties you apply, once you squeeze that bulb, the only penalties you're affected by are those induced by the glare on your glasses or any pre-existing sight-related conditions. One light beats infinite dark. Problematically, infinite dark looses to the most finite of light. That little teeny-tiny pool of light on the little squeeze fob above has the power to overcome infinite PER penalties and to be seen by a sniper a mile away, but won't illuminate more than a two-foot-square of area at not much more than two or three feet away. two-thousand penalty skill levels for sight PER, no range? Images gives you a meter, but this light won't. Change Environment gives you a meter, but this light won't. A candle gives you a _huge_ radius (or, more realistically, a dome) compared to that thing, but not a lot of.... Intensity is the wrong word, because if you're close enough, you can read perfectly fine (presuming an angle conducive to getting candlelight on the page and a distance close enough to catch said light before it scatters), but visual acuity more than just a couple of feet away from the candle _sucks_. Perhaps the candle is only minus one thousand to a sight PER? That being the case, then you'd still pretty much need a 3 to see anything, but those of us who have used candles during blackouts know that we don't. We can't see as far, and after more than a few feet we can't really see in color, but we can see. Not as good as that much smaller area offered by the illuminates-way-less-area flashlight, but we can still see more and further. If we are modeling real world, I submit that we need a whole different mechanic; one that as-yet does not exist in the game. Something that deals with what, for lack of a better term, I will for the moment name Light Mass. We need something that defines the "mass" of the light, and how that mass is affected by focus and distribution. We will need that same mechanic to figure out the "volume" of the darkness so that we can determine how much light is being pumped into how much darkness, using mechanics for determining decompression of that light as it is distributed. If the intent is to truly model the real world, then we have to accept that there is a heck of a lot more going on here than just some PER mods: it's not a beam struggle or anything like that. And because those concepts do not (yet, anyway. We can always hope that 8e has a few textbooks on the subject. ) exist in the game, yet GMs seem to have a general understanding that there is more at play than a few penalties, I feel that this is, at least under every rules set thus far, best left for individual GMs to resolve. And getting into things like the above example of Robin wearing night vision gizmos of some sort while Batmunch simply looked around with his unaided eyes? That's just another thing best left to the GM: if that works for you, then by al means, so long as you're having fun. For me? You'd better be rolling a hell of a lot of threes. Unless we're not playing supers (and I'm usually not). If we're not playing supers, "no sight PER roll is possible." And I apologize (yet again) for the misleading use of the phrase "we need" in the discussion of this proposed new mechanic. Personally, I don't think we need it. It's a game. I don't believe having all this will make the game any more enjoyable, and therefore I see zero payoff in the extra work that building this effect for every poorly-lit scenario will require. However, I do see it as a much better direction from which to approach the idea of modeling light versus dark. And that's why I'm pretty content, playing or running, to simply declare "it's about minus 4 dark in there" or, as a player, to accept "your flashlight cuts a silver-gray cone through the night, dust and moisture dancing like a fine fog through the beam. You can read the words "Property of Thorsen Research" painted on the crates in large serif stencils...." it keeps things moving, and it models enough to have fun. Lee and Chris Goodwin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianaJoe3 Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 6 hours ago, Crusher Bob said: The other problem I ran into with trying to do images as light is that the active point total grows pretty quickly. I ran into the same problem with Light spells in my Vancian magic system. Each individual spell is a slot in the Spellbook multipower. High-AP spells take up more points in the pool, restricting the amount of other spells the mage can have memorized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 17 hours ago, dsatow said: I believe the official rule from HERO games is that the world is a construct of the GM. How the GM arbitrates the world is how the world functions. So we should not argue whether the official rules should do something or not in every world. Just on the merits of the house rule that's being suggested. After all, the GM can make a game in a teletubby world where light is intelligent and that in order to see in the darkness, one needs to make an Presence attack or a Persuasion roll for any area to be visible or to affect how many modifiers to your perception rolls exists. The GM also begins with the Hero rules and defines how their game world differs, if at all. The GM can also make a game world where there is no gravity, but that is a departure from the Falling and Flying rules we currently have. He can change how fire works - perhaps it, too, is intelligent, and can choose what to burn and what not to burn. I think what many on this thread are suggesting is to define natural light and darkness, and how they are manipulated, for the default Hero System world. To me, the official rules do something in every world, subject to the ability of the GM to alter any and every rule. 14 hours ago, PeterLind said: > But what does, say, 10 points of unopposed darkness manipulation mean? < First, I would just put it down on my character sheet and then see what the GM will do with it. . . First, I think trying to use the existing game mechanics to try to define something like this -- simply manipulating natural phenomena -- is more trouble than it is worth. Which power should I use to cover this? Another problem is that the power can end up being cost-prohibitive. Example, Telekinesis defined as only vs. the certain natural phenomena. This can be cost prohibitive because you now having to consider such things as strength, area of effect, and so forth. So first I think what we need is something that has all of the limitations built into the power itself. Why don't I just buy two skills - "know stuff" and "do stuff", write them on my character sheet and let the GM decide what they do, and how effective they are? One of Hero's hallmarks has been defining the rules - summarized as "you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get". This comments, from that perspectivem is "AntiHeroic". To me, the answer starts with defining how light works in general (we have some of that) and then defining how we can manipulate it. As a natural environmental element, such manipulation sounds a lot like Change Environment to me. 10 hours ago, Duke Bushido said: You are absolutely right. I cannot say with any degree of expertise as I own fewer of the 5e books than I would like, and I have the only one 6e genre book I wanted, but I am willing to bet that this is because it isn't discussed _at all_ in any of those books. I think I've seen a couple of scenarios in adventures of the years of "-3 PER because it's dark out" or something along those lines, but even then: pretty vague. How much is "-3 worth of darkness," ultimately? It depends - over how large an area, is it ranged, etc. Change Environment sets the cost of a -1 penalty to PER rolls for one Sense Group is 3 points, so I will start with 9 points. Let's make it a 4 meter radius (+1/4 under Hero 1e) and No Range (-1/2). That's 11 AP, 7 real points. 10 hours ago, Duke Bushido said: First, this was related _specifically_ to the build "Images: creating light." Images has a clearly defined area. At no point does it roll off (apparently Killer Shrike and I both do an explosion-style decreasing effectiveness on light; I imagine others do as well, in which case the area is not so clearly defined, instead); it has a clear and distinct edge. Additionally, if we may revisit the sniper example someone suggested above: the one thing that works relatively spot-on with the Images build is that so long as I am within a normal line of sight, I will see the illuminated area. I will see everyone in it as if it were well-lit, etc. There is nothing there for intensifying shadows. A flashlight in a dark warehouse does _not_ illuminate everything in front of it; it will illuminate only those parts facing it, and will indirectly light some parts catching scatter off of nearby illuminated suffices, all of which serve to make many of the shadows much, much darker. Images by default does not do that. An observer in the dark staring into a lighted area has a very easy job indeed. An observer in a well-light area staring out into the dark has one of the hardest jobs there is. Images doesn't really model this, either. All of these natural traits of light are poorly simulated by the Images power, agreed. So I also agree that "you can't use CE and you have to us Images" is a poor rule decision, and should be changed. So how do we change it? To me, we already know how to price reduced light levels - we can do that easily with Change Environment. So let's base the pricing of enhancing the light level on that knowledge. We're not "using CE to provide bonuses". Rather, we are creating a new "noncombat effect of equal magnitude listed on the accompanying table, or which the GM permits" (6e v1 p 175) and determining its exact effects, as indicated on that page. We know that "The GM may limit how much of a negative modifier or other effect characters can create with Change Environment.", so let's limit the negative modifier which can be applied by Change Environment (suppress light). It costs 5 points to make a 1 meter radius impervious to the sight group using the Darkness power, and another 5 points for each +1 meter radius. That means a 4 meter radius would cost 20 points. A -4 penalty to Sight rolls costs 8 (note that this is one sense, not the sense group which includes Nightvision) and adding a 4 meter radius boosts that to 10. This seems like a reasonable cost - significantly less effective than the Darkness power, but also only half the price. It is eliminated by Nightvision. Since a -4 penalty still allows PER rolls, we need a greater "penalty" to eliminate all light so sight is useless. So what if we simply said "hey, that's awfully close to Darkness" and priced it at a 10 point base CE cost. Darkness would get the whole Sight Group, and this only gets Normal Sight, and needs AoE to affect an area, where Darkness starts with a 1 meter radius. It is cheaper to make our CE cover areas exceeding 4 meters radius, though. OK, so far we have not done much to create light, have we? Digging down further into CE, I note that, right after telling us you cannot use CE to create bonuses (yeah, it also says you can't create light, use images, but we've* already decided that's getting crossed out). It even goes on to say that (emphasis added) "GMs may wish to require characters to use Images instead of Change Environment to negate PER Roll penalties based on darkness, shadow, gloom, or the like, since Change Environment cannot be used to create light." I think that we have decided that we do not wish to require characters to use Images instead. So we will not. So that gives us a CE power that reduces these PER penalties. * "we", for this purpose, is defined as "those of us who have decided Images is irreparably flawed as a means of creating light". Unless otherwise stated, or context requires otherwise, this definition applies to the entire discussion. If you are not one of "we", consider yourself one of "them" instead. Well, if the creation of natural darkness costs 10 points as a base CE effect, then let's price the removal of natural darkness at the same 10 points. This creates enough ambient light for just the one character targeted by CE can see in a small area. It's an Attack Power, so it is perceivable by two senses, including sight. So what do we have? Maybe a tiny penlight flashlight, a small candle or those head-worn reading lights. But now we have something we can add Area of Effect to. If it's a four meter radius of natural light, then it illuminates an area in that 4 meter radius. People outside can see in, with no PER roll penalties other than range. They can see that there IS a light from a pretty fair distance - that's part of SFX. We can use AoE to give it a bigger radius, a line area or a cone if we want. Now, how do we get that Light that fades over a larger area? Well, there I like KS' Explosion. Normally an explosion loses 5 AP per two meters away from the source, but the possibility of buying a larger or smaller area and having it diminish slower or faster is in the RAW. So maybe our Light is purchased with a 16m Radius, Explosive (+1/4 net advantage). It needs to fade from full normal sight at the center to a -4 penalty at the fringe (a dark night rather than a complete absence of light), so five gradations. With that in mind, perhaps we simply rule that there is a 3 meter radius where there are no sight penalties, each further 3 meters imposes a -1 penalty, except the last two meters where a -4 penalty applies. That totals 16m radius. Thoughts? 10 hours ago, Crusher Bob said: The other problem I ran into with trying to do images as light is that the active point total grows pretty quickly. I was trying to build a character that was sometimes a motorcycle. So I looked up how bright headlights were. And your bright beam headlights are supposed to illuminate things that are ~100 meters away. But images for light, narrow cone, 100m long is quite expensive, for a headlight. I eventually wrote up a version of aoe nightvision, useable by up to 128 people that seemed much more reasonable in point costs, with the note it's a headlight. OK, that's a Line with a +1 advantage, and I assume 0 END, so 10 x 2.5 = 25 AP, with No Range since it always starts at the headlight, so real points. The cost should further be reduced by its limited arc, and any vehicle-specific rules. Duke Bushido and Vanguard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 9 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said: Duke Bushido: I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Nobody downvoted your post. He did not say anyone downvoted his post. Dsatow's post on the prior page (suggesting a similar semantics issue between "every world" and "the default world") was downvoted. dsatow, Duke Bushido and Lee 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsash Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 11 hours ago, Crusher Bob said: I was trying to build a character that was sometimes a motorcycle. So I looked up how bright headlights were. And your bright beam headlights are supposed to illuminate things that are ~100 meters away. But images for light, narrow cone, 100m long is quite expensive, for a headlight. I eventually wrote up a version of aoe nightvision, useable by up to 128 people that seemed much more reasonable in point costs, with the note it's a headlight. Adding a reasonably powerful spotlight to your herocar should not cost as many points as giving it armor to shame most tanks. Agreed. So silly 🙂 Note that using the base Dispel/Suppress power without the No Range AoE lets you dispel effects on a single target at normal ranges with an attack roll (Iron Man often does this with narrow spotlight beams [when his armour isn't broken in a pit in Avengers 115, thanks Hugh ;-]) Or simply place an AoE effect using normal attack power ranges. You don't have to take the No Range Lim. All depends on how you design it. I like Suppress since it's scalable (cheap candles!) and uses the existing rule framework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsash Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 Hi-Beam Headlights: Suppress natural darkness 4d6+1 (standard effect: 13 points), Area Of Effect (128m Line Explosion; +1/2) OAF Fragile (Headlight; -1 1/4), No Range (-1/2), Costs Endurance (to maintain; -1/2) 19 Active Points 6 Real Points ScottishFox 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterLind Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 > To me, the answer starts with defining how light works in general (we have some of that) and then defining how we can manipulate it. As a natural environmental element, such manipulation sounds a lot like Change Environment to me.< Hugh: and you have given some examples. . . i agree with this approach. Is there any way to make this "Variable" so that the player can determine the area, dimensions, etc. at the time the power is used? CE (light) and Images . . . I think it would be clear that CE is not intended to be used to duplicate other existing powers. So if you want to create a light illusion, then use the Images power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said: The GM also begins with the Hero rules and defines how their game world differs, if at all. The GM can also make a game world where there is no gravity, but that is a departure from the Falling and Flying rules we currently have. He can change how fire works - perhaps it, too, is intelligent, and can choose what to burn and what not to burn. I think what many on this thread are suggesting is to define natural light and darkness, and how they are manipulated, for the default Hero System world. To me, the official rules do something in every world, subject to the ability of the GM to alter any and every rule. I agree with what you say, and what you seem to be implying. I would like to point out, if I may, that your example is falling, which is a function of gravity. As falling is well-defined in the rules, we can assume that gravity works "thusly" (which is to say, according to the falling rules) in every game. The "default" such as it is. There is no such thing for natural light or darkness (as before, "of which I am aware." I am receptive to correction here, as I would be interested in seeing what official rules 1) I have missed 2) have to say about it.). As there is no detailed ruleset or explanation of how one works or is affected by the other, it's not unreasonable to assume that it falls to the GM to make the determination. As I understand it, this entire thread is devoted to creating precisely such a system, presumably because the official rules completely lack one. Much in the way that HERO leaves designing the actual game to the GM, it seems to leave this to the GM as well. As I've stated before, I have no major issue with this, because-- while i like tinkering with models and systems as much as anyone else, I don't find modeling this particular thing to be strictly necessary. Still, it's interesting. 4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said: Why don't I just buy two skills - "know stuff" and "do stuff", VPP. Done. And while I don't generally buy NPC books, so I can't tell you how often that's been done officially, I can tell you it turns up a _lot_ on character sheets posted all over the net and even offered on these boards. Check out some of the "how do I build X character" or "here are some comic book characters done on X points" threads. Buy a couple of their defining or more iconic traits, then drop on a VPP. (Seriously: I'm trying really hard to not let my personal dislike of VPP cloud this. Yes; I understand the utility. I dislike the utility. This thread is not about that, so I'm trying to be objective here). If we need to break it down a bit, we can do a skill pool ("know stuff") a characteristic pool and / or a power pool ("do stuff.") [on a personal note, this echoes my complaint from years ago about the dogged pursuit of mathematically perfect balance resulting in a rather boring game where you spend points on one of two characteristics: "Affect universe" and "resist universe." ) 4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said: To me, the answer starts with defining how light works in general (we have some of that) and then defining how we can manipulate it. As a natural environmental element, such manipulation sounds a lot like Change Environment to me. Ditto. 4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said: IOK, so far we have not done much to create light, have we? Digging down further into CE, I note that, right after telling us you cannot use CE to create bonuses (yeah, it also says you can't create light, use images, but we've* already decided that's getting crossed out). It even goes on to say that (emphasis added) "GMs may wish to require characters to use Images instead of Change Environment to negate PER Roll penalties based on darkness, shadow, gloom, or the like, since Change Environment cannot be used to create light." I think that we have decided that we do not wish to require characters to use Images instead. So we will not. So that gives us a CE power that reduces these PER penalties. Completely with you. I would to point out something that I believe is going to be the big stumbling block, particularly in the "math must be equal" camps: The math isn't going to be equal. This is because "dark" is a default condition. If there is no light applied, there will be dark. Dark cannot be applied. Dark can only be "increased" by reducing the application of light. While my example of a -2000 penalty to sight PER was hyperbolic, the fact remains that _any_ light-- any light at all-- will remove all of those penalties within the affected area. All of them. And as I type this, it occurs to me that we may be looking at this completely wrong simply by assuming that this is a light v dark situation. Likely this assumption is from decades of affect versus defense that is the core of the game. If dark is the default condition, then we are dealing with light, period. Only light. PER modifiers-- both positive and negative-- are functions of light. So we need to decide how to model "reducing light" and "increasing light" and just what effects those have. Zero light is "no sight PER roll is possible." That brings us to the 3 problem. How is the 3 problem overcome without handwaving? How do we go from "but if I roll a 3..." to "you have acquired a temporary physical limitation?" The 3problem prevents absolutes, and total absence of light is an absolute. The other problem is going beyond the "just right" amount of light. If we model light as being able to "add to your sight PER potential" or "remove negative penalties," then it follows that there is a scale from "none" to "microchip assembly plant." it follows that continuing to add light should continue to increase the sight PER ability. Problematically, this is not accurate (again: if we are modeling "real world" conditions). Adding light _also_ makes seeing more difficult. As light levels rise above "ideal," colors wash; glare increases, and eventually we get to a point that we can't even bear to look at it. Moving further up the scale, we can't bear to look out into it. In game terms, at some point it becomes an ongoing Flash attack, and can still increase beyond that! It can become a transformation attack, causing permanent blindness. Forgive this morbidity (it's not meant to be in bad taste), but the shadows on the wall in Japan suggest that it can be increased to a truly staggering killing attack. Now this is not to say that "light cannot be modeled better than it is." It is saying that modeling "real world" light is going to be really, really ugly, especially if we are going to stick to some kind of concept that there is mathematical consistency in this (how many PSLs equals Killing Attack, for example). That's a rather long-winded way of offering the suggestion that before we begin to create a model, we should first decide the upper and lower limits of what we are trying to model. Of greater difficulty, we must _agree_ on these limits: it's so very easy to say "but just a bit more should mean x" or "just a bit less should mean y." 4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said: * "we", for this purpose, is defined as "those of us who have decided Images is irreparably flawed as a means of creating light". Unless otherwise stated, or context requires otherwise, this definition applies to the entire discussion. If you are not one of "we", consider yourself one of "them" instead. Accepted. 4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said: Sorry. I am out of time. Thanks, Hugh! PhilFleischmann 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 51 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: There is no such thing for natural light or darkness (as before, "of which I am aware." I am receptive to correction here, as I would be interested in seeing what official rules 1) I have missed 2) have to say about it.). As there is no detailed ruleset or explanation of how one works or is affected by the other, it's not unreasonable to assume that it falls to the GM to make the determination. As I understand it, this entire thread is devoted to creating precisely such a system, presumably because the official rules completely lack one. 6e V2 provides us with a sight PER roll modifier for "Extremely high contrast (e.g., a lighted object in darkness) of +5; Night -2; Dark Night -4 (p 142 elaborates "such as might occur on a moonless night way out in the country, far from any of the lights of civilization"). It also indicates we can spend a full phase at half DCV to get +2, so those night modifiers seem pretty charitable. At least size modifiers are noted as generally applying only to things that are far away, or that someone is trying to conceal. From v1, we know that Darkvision is modeled on +4 Sight PER Rolls, only to eliminate penalties for darkness. With that in mind, I am starting from the presumption that anything below -4 from Darkness is "absolute lack of light". That alone does not fill me with confidence, but the fact that my pricing aligns with the pricing of Darkness makes me happier. 59 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: I agree with what you say, and what you seem to be implying. I would like to point out, if I may, that your example is falling, which is a function of gravity. As falling is well-defined in the rules, we can assume that gravity works "thusly" (which is to say, according to the falling rules) in every game. The "default" such as it is. There is no such thing for natural light or darkness (as before, "of which I am aware." I am receptive to correction here, as I would be interested in seeing what official rules 1) I have missed 2) have to say about it.). As there is no detailed ruleset or explanation of how one works or is affected by the other, it's not unreasonable to assume that it falls to the GM to make the determination. As I understand it, this entire thread is devoted to creating precisely such a system, presumably because the official rules completely lack one. What we don't have is any mechanic for lighting a dark (or semi-dark) area. To me, the Light we produce cannot do more than cancel penalties for Darkness, but I am starting from "enough to wipe them out". It's easy to build "dim light" that reduces the penalty by only 2 points, if desired. 59 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: VPP. Done. And while I don't generally buy NPC books, so I can't tell you how often that's been done officially, I can tell you it turns up a _lot_ on character sheets posted all over the net and even offered on these boards. Check out some of the "how do I build X character" or "here are some comic book characters done on X points" threads. Buy a couple of their defining or more iconic traits, then drop on a VPP. (Seriously: I'm trying really hard to not let my personal dislike of VPP cloud this. Yes; I understand the utility. I dislike the utility. This thread is not about that, so I'm trying to be objective here). This is more a challenge of duplicating characters with a long publishing history and many examples of doing many different things. At some point, a Multipower is more expensive than a Cosmic VPP. That is the point at which I would transition to a VPP, even if one with only pre-defined slots and or limited SFX (which further reduces the cost of the VPP). With 6e decoupling max AP from pool size, this becomes more viable for, say, the Archers with an arrow for every occasion. The problem with VPP is that it opens up a world of possibilities, but that is the same world many other games open by allowing "but logically, my power/spell/whatever should be able to do X". That is really a VPP with a limited SFX. 59 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: I would to point out something that I believe is going to be the big stumbling block, particularly in the "math must be equal" camps: The math isn't going to be equal. This is because "dark" is a default condition. If there is no light applied, there will be dark. Dark cannot be applied. Dark can only be "increased" by reducing the application of light. While my example of a -2000 penalty to sight PER was hyperbolic, the fact remains that _any_ light-- any light at all-- will remove all of those penalties within the affected area. All of them. Once we cap the penalty at -4 and accept that anything " more dark" lacks any light and requires enhanced senses, that issue is markedly reduced. And as someone in the "math should be equal" camp, if I'm sold, many others probably can be as well. Dark is not the default condition. We assume as a base that you get normal PER rolls, so that assumes you are in the light. You want to make it dark, you buy an ability to do so. To say "dark is the default" because it is an absence of light implies that absolute zero in a vacuum is also the default. PhilFleischmann 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Goodwin Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 How about... 1d6 Blast (light), Stun Only, Does No Stun, Constant, AoE, etc. (My terse replies like this one are from my phone.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said: 6e V2 provides us with a sight PER roll modifier for "Extremely high contrast (e.g., a lighted object in darkness) of +5; Night -2; Dark Night -4 (p 142 elaborates "such as might occur on a moonless night way out in the country, far from any of the lights of civilization"). It also indicates we can spend a full phase at half DCV to get +2, so those night modifiers seem pretty charitable. At least size modifiers are noted as generally applying only to things that are far away, or that someone is trying to conceal. From v1, we know that Darkvision is modeled on +4 Sight PER Rolls, only to eliminate penalties for darkness. With that in mind, I am starting from the presumption that anything below -4 from Darkness is "absolute lack of light". That alone does not fill me with confidence, but the fact that my pricing aligns with the pricing of Darkness makes me happier. Not a quibble; this is a request for clarification: Are you submitting the idea that anything below a -4 sight PER (due to lack of light) rolls over to "no sight PER roll is possible?" At least for the moment? I have no problem with this; I just want to be on the same page so I can more easily follow along. Follow ups: If this is the case, we agree that this effectively limits PSLs at +4, only to negate the effects of darkness (lower case d)? How do we deal with the character who's sight PER is high enough that even with a -4 he still has a reasonable chance of making that roll (say a 12 or less or so)? We accept that the complete lack of a sight PER modifier is the mechanical definition of "ideal lighting conditions," even if only in an illuminated area? Second request for clarification: owing to your mentioning of Darkness (capital D): we are not assuming that light (other than as SFX for some other power that deals with Darkness (capital D) is able to alter penalties created by Darkness, correct? 1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said: What we don't have is any mechanic for lighting a dark (or semi-dark) area. To me, the Light we produce cannot do more than cancel penalties for Darkness, but I am starting from "enough to wipe them out". It's easy to build "dim light" that reduces the penalty by only 2 points, if desired. This part is easy, especially when you establish benchmarks for "no sight PER roll is possible" and "zero penalties attached to sight PER roll" and then decide how your scale works: is a -2 penalty "twice as dark" as a -1, or is it "one more level darker," so to speak. You just fill in the scale blanks with numbers. To offer up something with numbers in it: Using your suggested -4 as the maximum darkness penalty and-- for the sake of this example alone, until you can clarify-- the assumption that -5 equals "no sight PER roll is possible," we can say that either -4 is "only half as dark" as -5, or we can say that -4 is 4/5 as dark as -5. It's a matter or assigning meaning to the numbers. Skipping the VPP drift-- not because it's not a fun thing to discuss, but to maintain focus: 1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said: Once we cap the penalty at -4 and accept that anything " more dark" lacks any light and requires enhanced senses, that issue is markedly reduced. And as someone in the "math should be equal" camp, if I'm sold, many others probably can be as well. Good to hear. 1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said: Dark is not the default condition. Request for clarification: Are you stating an assumption from which to work, an assumption upon which your above suggestions are starting, or modeling the "real world" as was put forth much earlier in the thread? 1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said: We assume as a base that you get normal PER rolls, so that assumes you are in the light. You want to make it dark, you buy an ability to do so. To say "dark is the default" because it is an absence of light implies that absolute zero in a vacuum is also the default. If we are working from this assumption (which is acceptable to me, so long as we are on the same page), then we may have to also model a means of "adding dark" beyond just sight PER penalties. If we are modeling the "real world," then yes: dark and cold is the default. All light and heat are added by introducing energy. Entropy tells us that this energy will eventually run out. Cold and dark (and presumably gravity) will be all that remain without the _addition_ of something to counter them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: Are you submitting the idea that anything below a -4 sight PER (due to lack of light) rolls over to "no sight PER roll is possible?" At least for the moment? I have no problem with this; I just want to be on the same page so I can more easily follow along. Given this is what we have from the limited current rules, I think that makes the best starting point. I don't see how we get darker than the description given for "a dark night" and still have any light to make sight useful. As well, any further penalty makes Darkvision more expensive, which just starts "point inflation". "A complete absence of light" is as dark as it can reasonably get. 38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: Follow ups: If this is the case, we agree that this effectively limits PSLs at +4, only to negate the effects of darkness (lower case d)? This is my basis for the determination - 6e refers to Darkvision being constructed as "+4 PSLs to counter darkness penalties". If it could be dark enough to impose -5, that construction fails. 38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: How do we deal with the character who's sight PER is high enough that even with a -4 he still has a reasonable chance of making that roll (say a 12 or less or so)? This bonus is very easy to achieve - a SuperScientist will often have a 15- PER roll from INT alone. Such a character can effectively navigate in anything less than total darkness just as effectively as we navigate in ordinary light. Of course, that -4 penalty remains meaningful if there is some other penalty to overcome, and that character's visual acuity is still reduced - it simply started out far better. 38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: We accept that the complete lack of a sight PER modifier is the mechanical definition of "ideal lighting conditions," even if only in an illuminated area? Again taking my cues from what we find in the rules, there are no bonuses for better lighting, so the base must be as good as it can get. 38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: Second request for clarification: owing to your mentioning of Darkness (capital D): we are not assuming that light (other than as SFX for some other power that deals with Darkness (capital D) is able to alter penalties created by Darkness, correct? That would be the default, and another reason for using CE - that power does not simulate a Dispel or Suppress. Darkness typically affects the entire Sight Group, and is by definition impenetrable. It also makes 20 points of Darkness (5 for Sight Group + 15 for extending the radius 3 meters to 4 meters) better than 4 meters of CE "complete darkness". 38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: Using your suggested -4 as the maximum darkness penalty and-- for the sake of this example alone, until you can clarify-- the assumption that -5 equals "no sight PER roll is possible," we can say that either -4 is "only half as dark" as -5, or we can say that -4 is 4/5 as dark as -5. It's a matter or assigning meaning to the numbers. "Twice as dark" seems inconsistent with your premise that "dark is the default". If we start from -5 is a complete absence of light (i.e. it is no longer a penalty - normal sight has nothing to see), then: -4 is "black as a dark night" -3 is probably "a moonless night" -2 is "night in the city and -1 is "dimly lit/twilight". 38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: Request for clarification: Are you stating an assumption from which to work, an assumption upon which your above suggestions are starting, or modeling the "real world" as was put forth much earlier in the thread? Perhaps the better phrasing would have been "dark is not the in-game default - the in-game default is ordinary lighting such that there are no penalties to sight rolls". PhilFleischmann and Vanguard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 Excellent. Thanks, Hugh. And my mistake was choosing the shorthand "twice as dark" as opposed to typing out a lengthy description of the amount of lighting available. Ignore the shorthand. It's irrelevant now anyway: we have a scale to work from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome BODY (important!) Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 I'm just going to leave this as a standing challenge to everyone's illumination models: How do you build the ability to see in darkness? Can your system model that too? Not dim light, darkness. As in "Gads, even my hyper-eyes are useless in this subterranean gloom!" "Haha, puny surface people's puny surface eyes are useless, unlike the superior eyes of the Cavelords of Chthonia!" dsatow and PhilFleischmann 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 58 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said: I'm just going to leave this as a standing challenge to everyone's illumination models: How do you build the ability to see in darkness? Can your system model that too? Not dim light, darkness. As in "Gads, even my hyper-eyes are useless in this subterranean gloom!" "Haha, puny surface people's puny surface eyes are useless, unlike the superior eyes of the Cavelords of Chthonia!" Immediately, I'd suggest a sense, any sense, that doesn't rely on light visible to the naked (normal) human eye. Attach it to your sight group. Baring that, go with a Steve Long-inspired model: Images: only to see what's in front of me. Less immediate: One of the goals of this entire exercise, as I understand it, is to figure out how to do the very thing you're asking about. PhilFleischmann and Vanguard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilFleischmann Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 I feel I should mention that I may not have quite as much of a problem with Images Only to Create Light as others here do. I don't think it's the best solution, but it does kind of work, mostly. Yes, I'd prefer CE, or something like it. The problem with Images is that it effectively creates a spotlight, unlike a regular lamp or fire, whatever is in the light is illuminated, and it has a "hard" edge, beyond which nothing is effectively illuminated.. The reduced visibility of things within the light is only based on how far away the viewer is, not how far away the viewed thing is from the light source. Another possible hint might come from the rules for background skills: If you have a base 11- in a Professional Skill, that's enough to get a job, and you don't have to roll at all under normal circumstances. For example, a dentist with PS: Dentist 11-, doesn't have to roll when a patient comes in to have a cavity filled. It's a routine application of the skill, done under normal conditions, so we assume automatic success. We can apply the same idea to perception. If your PER roll is 11- or better after all circumstantial modifiers are applied, and there's no other circumstance that would cause you to fail to see something*, then don't bother rolling - you can automatically see what you're looking at. *Such as being distracted by bad guys shooting zappy guns at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsatow Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 2 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said: I feel I should mention that I may not have quite as much of a problem with Images Only to Create Light as others here do. I don't think it's the best solution, but it does kind of work, mostly. Yes, I'd prefer CE, or something like it. The problem with Images is that it effectively creates a spotlight, unlike a regular lamp or fire, whatever is in the light is illuminated, and it has a "hard" edge, beyond which nothing is effectively illuminated.. The reduced visibility of things within the light is only based on how far away the viewer is, not how far away the viewed thing is from the light source. I am beginning to wonder if people believe that the Images power is simply negating modifiers. If I am wrong, please ignore. My understanding is that the Images are not an image of a light source but of the object illuminated. So, if you shine a "light" with images +4 on a person in a darkened warehouse, the normal -4 penalty is still there, but you get a +4 bonus to the image of a person in a warehouse. The Create Light limitation is in effect saying you can't change the image to make it look like a unicorn, only just to light up the object. It does not indicate there is a hard edge to the light radius unless you want the light to have a hard edge. If you want it to have a bright spot in the center and gradually fade out in illumination, then the image in the area of effect will do that. Ex: a Images Create Light Only 4m radius can have a +4 PER in the 1m center and fade out such that at 4m from the center its only +1 to see the image of a lighted object. PhilFleischmann 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsatow Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said: I'm just going to leave this as a standing challenge to everyone's illumination models: How do you build the ability to see in darkness? Can your system model that too? Not dim light, darkness. As in "Gads, even my hyper-eyes are useless in this subterranean gloom!" "Haha, puny surface people's puny surface eyes are useless, unlike the superior eyes of the Cavelords of Chthonia!" I would just use spatial awareness and base it off of sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 12 minutes ago, dsatow said: I am beginning to wonder if people believe that the Images power is simply negating modifiers. If I am wrong, please ignore. I am not saying you're wrong. However, as Phil is not the first person to comment on the "hard edge" created by Images, and there are a number of other issues: the increase in the size of the "image" based on the distance of the light source (If I buy a one-hex image and use it to shine a flashlight on an object twenty meters away, why is that light just in that one specific hex? Why are there still people hiding in the flashlight beam between me and that object?). I think it's safe to say that there are at least a number of us who do understand the way Images is used in this instance. We just find it to be a poor choice. The problem with _any_ model is differentiating what you _want_ to model _and_ how to model it. For example, I don't believe it's possible to model the real world interaction of light and dark with currently-existing mechanics. Finding _better_ ways to model them in game terms for game purposes, though: that's something I can get behind. 12 minutes ago, dsatow said: My understanding is that the Images are not an image of a light source but of the object illuminated. So, if you shine a "light" with images +4 on a person in a darkened warehouse, the normal -4 penalty is still there, but you get a +4 bonus to the image of a person in a warehouse. The Create Light limitation is in effect saying you can't change the image to make it look like a unicorn, only just to light up the object. It does not indicate there is a hard edge to the light radius unless you want the light to have a hard edge. If you want it to have a bright spot in the center and gradually fade out in illumination, then the image in the area of effect will do that. Ex: a Images Create Light Only 4m radius can have a +4 PER in the 1m center and fade out such that at 4m from the center its only +1 to see the image of a lighted object. There's a good example of the problem as well as how Images is currently used. Let's take a 500-watt metal halide bulb-- not uncommon as a job site work light (usually mounted on a stand). We write it up as a 4m radius images for light only. What's the range on that? (seriously; I can't remember if 6e is still 5 hexes x pts in power or not). We set the light back twenty meters from something we want to illuminate. Twenty meters away, that 4-meter radius is all lit up with zero "dark penalties." Outside that radius-- to include the 18-meter long cone leading up to it, there is no effect. At least, not using Images, and not without taking on an AOE Cone, and who knows what else. It gets stupid pricey to model a relatively basic piece of equipment that I can pick up in a supply house for fifty bucks or so. There is also the fact that Images doesn't cause further penalties for those in the illuminated area looking out into the darkness. It should. We know the light drops your pupil size, making it more difficult to see from a lit area into an unlit one. Even the source material nods to this now and again, particularly the old jungle explorer and cowboy movies where someone must hastily dash a torch or cook fire so that the hero can see into the darkened areas beyond camp. And lastly, though I fully accept that I may well be the last person on these boards to whom the _feel_ of something is extremely important, I personally just can't get behind a flashlight that has a built-in mechanism by which I can "disbelieve" the light and make it go away. The idea that the light is a lie by strictest definition of the mechanic rankles something very, very primal in my sense of right and wrong. And considering what I _will_ put up with, that's really saying something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsatow Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 46 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: I am not saying you're wrong. However, as Phil is not the first person to comment on the "hard edge" created by Images, and there are a number of other issues: the increase in the size of the "image" based on the distance of the light source (If I buy a one-hex image and use it to shine a flashlight on an object twenty meters away, why is that light just in that one specific hex? Why are there still people hiding in the flashlight beam between me and that object?). I think it's safe to say that there are at least a number of us who do understand the way Images is used in this instance. We just find it to be a poor choice. That acceptable, but the question I would then ask on the flashlight why did you confine it to one hex? If you wanted the light radius to have an even larger effect, why not 4m radius? Its costs the same and you can also buy reduced by range to reflect dimming. And the rules state you can't shoot an image through an object in the way (people hiding in the shadows between you and the target) but even with this, you could change the images to a cone like the headlight example in Ultimate Vehicles for 5e p42. 46 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: The problem with _any_ model is differentiating what you _want_ to model _and_ how to model it. For example, I don't believe it's possible to model the real world interaction of light and dark with currently-existing mechanics. Finding _better_ ways to model them in game terms for game purposes, though: that's something I can get behind. Personally, I don't believe any game system models real life properly nor would we want to. Characters get thrashed to the point of death and two weeks later are up and doing their god awful feats of physical near impossibility again rather than in years of physical therapy. The question really should be, do the current rules handle the situation enough for your gaming group. If it doesn't, how do you handle it as a house rule. And, if you are bringing it up in the forums, people are going to discuss it and argue over its points. To be honest, I think like Phil on this. I am not crazy on the mechanic, but I don't think the drain/suppress/aid mechanic is any better. 46 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: Let's take a 500-watt metal halide bulb-- not uncommon as a job site work light (usually mounted on a stand). We write it up as a 4m radius images for light only. What's the range on that? (seriously; I can't remember if 6e is still 5 hexes x pts in power or not). We set the light back twenty meters from something we want to illuminate. Twenty meters away, that 4-meter radius is all lit up with zero "dark penalties." Outside that radius-- to include the 18-meter long cone leading up to it, there is no effect. At least, not using Images, and not without taking on an AOE Cone, and who knows what else. It gets stupid pricey to model a relatively basic piece of equipment that I can pick up in a supply house for fifty bucks or so. Yeah, its stupidly expensive and if you pay the points for it, it'll probably take a shotgun blast and still work unless you make it a fragile focus. If you think a halide light is bad, there's the concept of a smart phone which probably costs more than some of my characters. Again, the current game design isn't perfect. I like the idea from the smart phone cost argument in an old thread which says to call the light as a perk of 1-5 points based on how useful it is, but then again, I am not HERO games so that would just be implemented as my own house rule. 46 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: There is also the fact that Images doesn't cause further penalties for those in the illuminated area looking out into the darkness. It should. We know the light drops your pupil size, making it more difficult to see from a lit area into an unlit one. Even the source material nods to this now and again, particularly the old jungle explorer and cowboy movies where someone must hastily dash a torch or cook fire so that the hero can see into the darkened areas beyond camp. That's acceptable, but again this could be simulated by a modifier as assigned by a GM or as a 0 point advantage/limitation. I think that is my biggest issue to this argument with drain/suppress/aid on a modifier is that the game doesn't really support it at all. Its not in any supplement in any form I can think of (not just in reference to light but with anything) which given 35 years of publication and variations from HERO games is a pretty good warning bell. If you can find a reference, please post, but I do not remember anything official that is close to this. 46 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: And lastly, though I fully accept that I may well be the last person on these boards to whom the _feel_ of something is extremely important, I personally just can't get behind a flashlight that has a built-in mechanism by which I can "disbelieve" the light and make it go away. The idea that the light is a lie by strictest definition of the mechanic rankles something very, very primal in my sense of right and wrong. And considering what I _will_ put up with, that's really saying something. You still see the image with the Images mechanic, you just aren't fooled by the image.* Disbelieving and it going away is a mental illusions thing. Off subject: Reminds me of a game a long time ago where a hero using Images made a villain look like another hero. The lieutenants of the villain stumbled in and the first one blasts the villain having failed his Int roll. The second lieutenant blasted the hero and basically said "The hero would never wear them socks with those shoes. Total fashion faux pas." the hero later seduced the lieutenant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said: There is also the fact that Images doesn't cause further penalties for those in the illuminated area looking out into the darkness. It should The first sentence is correct, the second is not. 😛 I think you would be loading too great a burden onto that power and, in many heroic adventure games, it would inappropriate. If you want more realistic reactions to light and darkness then they should be built into the game you are playing. This allows GMs to set the level of detail to suit the game being played. So, your core HERO game says that a dark night penalises PER rolls with -4. A moonlit night possibly only -2. If you decide to, you can add modifiers to that. That may be the base for everyone running about without light sources. You could provide an additional -2 for characters whose night vision has been compromised by a light source. You could provide a +2 versus targets carrying a light source. Or any level of detail you want but it should exist as a table in environmental rules rather than bulking out the images power for a niche use. Doc Grailknight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said: The first sentence is correct, the second is not. 😛 I think you would be loading too great a burden onto that power and, in many heroic adventure games, it would inappropriate. If you want more realistic reactions to light and darkness then they should be built into the game you are playing. This allows GMs to set the level of detail to suit the game being played. So, your core HERO game says that a dark night penalises PER rolls with -4. A moonlit night possibly only -2. If you decide to, you can add modifiers to that. That may be the base for everyone running about without light sources. You could provide an additional -2 for characters whose night vision has been compromised by a light source. You could provide a +2 versus targets carrying a light source. Or any level of detail you want but it should exist as a table in environmental rules rather than bulking out the images power for a niche use. Doc THANK YOU! This is all sounding eerily familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.