Jump to content

Killing Attack restructure


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I always figured that was represented by the die roll: you rolled badly on that hit.

Exactly.  That's my point.  A RAW 1d6 KA does 1 BODY on a bad roll, and 6 BODY on a good roll.  With the 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 scheme, a 3d6 KA (with this new method) does 3 BODY on a bad roll and 6 body on a good roll.  And that good roll is 1 in 216, as opposed to 1 in 6.

 

It depends on the style of game you're running, but realistically, killing attacks are dangerous and unpredictable.  You don't have much control over exactly how much damage they will do.

 

When I was a young boy, my mama told me, "Son,

Always be a good boy and don't ever play with guns."

Well I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him take about 6-7 BODY, which wouldn't be enough to kill him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

 

When I was a young boy, my mama told me, "Son,

Always be a good boy and don't ever play with guns."

Well I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him take about 6-7 BODY, which wouldn't be enough to kill him.

 

I wasn't coming back to this thread, but I saw Phil had posted, 

 

And I am so glad I took the chance.  :D

 

Not that I am knocking the design of any of the suggestions (so what are the odds if BODY is counted 1,1,1,1,2,2?); I would like to see some changes myself), but that was funny..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Exactly.  That's my point.  A RAW 1d6 KA does 1 BODY on a bad roll, and 6 BODY on a good roll.  With the 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 scheme, a 3d6 KA (with this new method) does 3 BODY on a bad roll and 6 body on a good roll.  And that good roll is 1 in 216, as opposed to 1 in 6.

 

It depends on the style of game you're running, but realistically, killing attacks are dangerous and unpredictable.  You don't have much control over exactly how much damage they will do.

 

When I was a young boy, my mama told me, "Son,

Always be a good boy and don't ever play with guns."

Well I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him take about 6-7 BODY, which wouldn't be enough to kill him.

 

An excellent point.  I do think however that we are looking for the killing attack mechanic to carry a big burden.  I do not think that these changes on their own give us what we want, the question we need to be thinking is whether this is a decent tool for the toolbox.

 

I think that the proposed method for killing attacks is probably very cinematic.  I like it for that reason.  If you are playing a grittier game then there needs to be more in there, and I think that this is a better platform to build even the grittier elements.

 

In the Johnny Cash scenario, I would expect that the GM has toned up the gritty aspect of this world.  Mooks have the Phys Lim that they take 2x BODY from killing attacks and the GM uses BODY multipliers on hit locations, so a gut shot is 3x BODY, on top of the 2x for being a mook a saturday night special doing 3D6K (equivalent of the old 1D6K) will average 3 BODY (x6) which is 18 and more than enough to take any mook out.  Even hitting them on the leg (a 1x multiplier) will do, a minimum of 6 BODY, disabled and crying in pain.

 

The hit locations would add an element of swing to your 1920's gangster games (see what I did there) and the physical limitation allows deadliness to be ramped up even further, without even thinking about defences etc.  It is this level of customisation that should be the selling point of the game system.  Having the core mechanic deliver more predictable damage makes it possible to have the same weapons have wildly different effects on mooks, soldiers and bosses despite them all wearing the same cut of suit...

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm skeptical that anyone playing Hero is baffled by grade school level subtraction, but people can be funny.

 

I'll be going with the minimum body roll 1, -1 stun model.  Seems like the simplest and most streamlined option.  Least math, most direct, easiest to work with.  I think that's our ideal solution in a nutshell.

 

Now to work on mental powers ;)

 

As long as you're tacking the impossible I'd love a solid fix to the issue of low power entangles with the Takes No Damage From Attacks advantage.  :)

 

I only run Fantasy HERO so having enemies reduced to 0 DCV - even momentarily - results in fight ending called shots to the head. 

I've considered limiting the DCV penalty from Takes No Damage from attacks entangles to 1/2 DCV, but would love to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2019 at 4:20 PM, PhilFleischmann said:

It may be desired by someone who wants greater realism, or a "grittier," more dangerous game.  I think that realistic variability is part of the reason why KA were the way they were in the first place.  IRL, you could be stabbed by a small knife and die instantly, or have a minor wound that heals in a day or two.

 

 

People also fall from airplanes and live, but slip and fall, hit their heads and die.  That suggests the same level of variability should apply to normal attacks as well.

 

On 11/19/2019 at 4:20 PM, PhilFleischmann said:

As to the coin flip minimum/maximum damage power, balanced at what cost?  For what kind of game?  In a typical superheroes game where heroes outright killing villains is frowned upon, then it's probably not the power you want.  But in say a fantasy game, where you'll have to kill monsters with high defenses, such an all-or-nothing power would be quite useful.

 

"Useful" is not a synonym for "balanced".  Let's consider that Supers game.  A 12d6 Normal attack that does 0/0 half the time and 72/24 the other half is a 50/50 chance of a guaranteed STUN and likely KO in most Supers games I have seen.  Give the opponent 30 defenses, and I like the 50/50 a lot better than a 12d6 attack that gets 12 or so STUN past defenses reliably on each hit.

 

Worried about killing the target?  Make it a 0 BOD attack.

 

On 11/19/2019 at 5:22 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

It also never rolls less BODY than it has DCs, which I think is swinging way too far in the opposite direction. 

The variability is also very low.  Just 15 rDEF is enough to be pretty much immune to a 12DC KA under that model.  I feel that being able to very confidently say "Oh, 12d6 KA?  I've got 12 rDEF and 15 BODY so I'm totally good for four hits" will make KAs seem very nonthreatening. 

 

3d6 is less swingy than a d20 too.  That does not make it inferior, but it does make success or failure a lot more predictable.

 

That wide KA variability has frustrated many gamers wanting a bulletproof Superman for many years.

 

Perhaps, with less variable KA's, people could simply buy lower rDEF - lower the cap in your game, and the KA is deadly again, even though 20 DEF = immune to long term harm from Bricks and baseball bats.

 

In my view, the best way to simulate Supers that get bloody battling other Supers is replacing much of the defenses with Damage Negation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

3d6 is less swingy than a d20 too.  That does not make it inferior, but it does make success or failure a lot more predictable.

 

That wide KA variability has frustrated many gamers wanting a bulletproof Superman for many years.

 

Perhaps, with less variable KA's, people could simply buy lower rDEF - lower the cap in your game, and the KA is deadly again, even though 20 DEF = immune to long term harm from Bricks and baseball bats.

 

In my view, the best way to simulate Supers that get bloody battling other Supers is replacing much of the defenses with Damage Negation.

I'm of the opinion that the bulletproof Superman issue is more the result of firearms DCs being overtuned for supers (arguably due to the fact that there's no fractional KA DCs like there are for normal attacks, but more likely due to Normals having 8 BODY and people applying damage expectations based on that) and the old x5 possible stun multiplier. 

If the big guns in the campaign are 1 1/2d6 KA and the STUN multiplier is d3, Supes needs 9 rDEF and 27 DEF to be totally immune.  Easily doable.  A Normal can just be given a PhysLim or really low characteristics to keep it deadly to bystanders.  If rifles are 2d6+1 and the multiplier is d(1,1,2,3,4,5}, Supes is looking at 13 (doable) and 65 (haha no).  If the campaign premise involves "superheroes tough enough to ignore bullets", that should say as much about guns as it does the heroes. 

 

That digression aside, I support highly swingy KAs because I want KAs to be both threatening and unpredictable.  I detest the mindset of "I've got 12 rDEF, he averages 14 BODY, I've got 10 BODY.  I can take three attacks, absolutely no problem.".  I want the tension of "Oh god, but what if he rolls really high on this second attack, maybe I should Block, I can't take an 18.".  And when the distribution is "Within 2 of 14, 95% of the time.", that tension evaporates because people have seen the dice fall enough to get a vague idea of how it works even if they haven't mathed it.  Because they know from experience that there's no 18 lurking in the wings. 

The swinginess creates, at least in my experience at my tables, psychological pressure that causes people to behave more in line with "Guy trying to murder me!  Lethal force!".  That's why I want the high variance.  It creates desirable metagaming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules may not be perfect, but so long as everyone at the table plays by them, it can still be fun.  The first character I played back in the day was a martial artist with no resistant defenses.  Back then, killing attacks were not so common (pre-Iron Age) and they were used only when appropriate.  When confronted by enemies/agents with killing attacks, I would have the character respond appropriately -- move to another part of the battlefield, use a martial block or dodge, etc.  This character made it to 90 xp and was retired, but not killed.

 

I found a little solution that works for me from looking into old wargames.  I found an old wargame that involved miniatures battles between barbarian warriors and roman legionnaires.  The barbarians would use a normal 1d6 roll for attack resolution and the romans would use a 1d6 'averaging' die.  This six-sided die hits the averages but not the extremes, and is arranged like this:  2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5.  I thought that if this could be used as a stun modifier (1d6-1), you get a range of 1-4, which still preserves the original 2.5 average.  Also, you have only a 1 in 6 chance for a "1" result and a 1 in 6 chance for "4" result.  This gives you some of that range but avoids the extreme results we would sometimes see.  Not a perfect solution by any means, but preserves some of the original game play and takes care of two issues:  1) eliminates the "5" stun mod possibility which may discourage meta-play for the stun lottery, 2) eliminates the 2 in 6 chance  of getting a "1" stun mod, which helps those "unlucky" folks who tend to roll those low stun mods . . .  I was able to get a set of 4 of these "averaging dice" from amazon for pretty cheap . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterLind said:

The rules may not be perfect, but so long as everyone at the table plays by them, it can still be fun.  The first character I played back in the day was a martial artist with no resistant defenses.  Back then, killing attacks were not so common (pre-Iron Age) and they were used only when appropriate.  When confronted by enemies/agents with killing attacks, I would have the character respond appropriately -- move to another part of the battlefield, use a martial block or dodge, etc.  This character made it to 90 xp and was retired, but not killed.

 

I found a little solution that works for me from looking into old wargames.  I found an old wargame that involved miniatures battles between barbarian warriors and roman legionnaires.  The barbarians would use a normal 1d6 roll for attack resolution and the romans would use a 1d6 'averaging' die.  This six-sided die hits the averages but not the extremes, and is arranged like this:  2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5.  I thought that if this could be used as a stun modifier (1d6-1), you get a range of 1-4, which still preserves the original 2.5 average.  Also, you have only a 1 in 6 chance for a "1" result and a 1 in 6 chance for "4" result.  This gives you some of that range but avoids the extreme results we would sometimes see.  Not a perfect solution by any means, but preserves some of the original game play and takes care of two issues:  1) eliminates the "5" stun mod possibility which may discourage meta-play for the stun lottery, 2) eliminates the 2 in 6 chance  of getting a "1" stun mod, which helps those "unlucky" folks who tend to roll those low stun mods . . .  I was able to get a set of 4 of these "averaging dice" from amazon for pretty cheap . . .

 

I looked at getting custom killing attack stun multiplier dice made with the following pattern:  1,2,2,3,3,4.  Ultimately, I decided not to get them made as the cost was fairly prohibitive.

 

Initially I found the 1d3 (avg 2) multiplier to be too low in Fantasy HERO where hit locations generate an average closer to 2.8.  Over time the prevalence of AoE killing damage which is much harder to deal with in HERO system (automatically eat the hit or abandon your turn for a chance to avoid damage while you lay prone and vulnerable until your next phase).  The 1d3 works very well for the AoE killing attacks in our Fantasy HERO campaign because it makes soaking the occasional larger area, but relatively weaker attack a viable tactical option.

 

That being said - I like the original dice methods - and I wonder - How would you apply the penetrating advantage to killing attacks using proposed idea of treating them like unresistable normal damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

How would you apply the penetrating advantage to killing attacks using proposed idea of treating them like unresistable normal damage?

 

Seems like Penetrating would work the same as for normal damage (the body rolled gets through) but its the body that gets through instead.  So it kind of makes killing attacks AVAD (hardened defenses), by making the body always do the full amount rolled unless the target has hard defenses, in which case it acts like normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

People also fall from airplanes and live, but slip and fall, hit their heads and die.  That suggests the same level of variability should apply to normal attacks as well.

 

No, it only suggests that there is *some* level of variability of normal attacks.  What percentage of people who fall from airplanes (without parachutes) live?  What percentage of people who slip and fall die?  As opposed to the percentage of people who take a chainsaw to the neck and live, or who get stabbed by a small knife and die?

 

Quote

 

Quote

"Useful" is not a synonym for "balanced".  Let's consider that Supers game.  A 12d6 Normal attack that does 0/0 half the time and 72/24 the other half is a 50/50 chance of a guaranteed STUN and likely KO in most Supers games I have seen.  Give the opponent 30 defenses, and I like the 50/50 a lot better than a 12d6 attack that gets 12 or so STUN past defenses reliably on each hit.

 

 

That was exactly my point.  We agree.  As to the question of balance, we still need more information, the same information I asked for the first time:  Balanced at what cost?  In what type of game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>How would you apply the penetrating advantage to killing attacks using proposed idea of treating them like unresistable normal damage?<

What he said . . . the averaging die would only be for the stun modifier.  I have picked up the "ivory" colored die so that it looks different and can be rolled at once . . . they are currently available for $7.30 from amazon:

 

https://www.amazon.com/WCXXQ2100E4-Numbers-Averaging-2-3-3-4-4-5-Chessex/dp/B010QI01BS/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=chessex%2C+averaging+dice&qid=1574365513&s=toys-and-games&sr=1-2

 

A couple of anecdotes:  After 6e came out, I started using the D3 stun modifier when I ran my 4e/5e Champions games.  But in a recent game, since it involved some powerful heroes and villains, I announced at the beginning that we would go back to the D6-1 stun modifier because it was a "high entropy" game. No one had a problem with that.  Then more recently, I played in a heroic/street level game where the GM announced a house rule at the beginning:  No Hit Locations, Killing Attacks are at a x2 stun modifier.  No one had a problem with that.  Then on the same day, for a Champions game, the GM announced a house rule at the beginning. Killing Attacks are at a x3 multiplier.  In this game, there was a villain with a high powered rifle that started sniping . . . so we started looking for cover . . . Again, no one had a problem with this . .   we just play accordingly and still have a good time.  . . :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Seems like Penetrating would work the same as for normal damage (the body rolled gets through) but its the body that gets through instead.  So it kind of makes killing attacks AVAD (hardened defenses), by making the body always do the full amount rolled unless the target has hard defenses, in which case it acts like normal.

 

That's a pretty massive upgrade in the effectiveness of the Penetrating advantage under the proposed method.

 

Old way a 2d6 RKA averages 2 points of penetrating BODY damage.  The new way your 6d6 RKA would get 6 BODY through?  If I'm understanding this correctly the Penetrating advantage would probably need to be bumped to a +1 in this scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the averaging die & hit location:  As we know, the probabilities involved in the 1d6-1 and 1d3 stun modifier rolls are not reflected on the hit location table.  So the question becomes can the hit location table be adjusted to follow the probabilities that come up from the use of an averaging die as the d6-1 stun modifier?  Here is what I have come up with:

 

HIT LOCATION PROBABILITIES - Proposed

X4 = 16.19% = ~ 1 in 6

-Head (3-5):  4.62%

-Stomach/Vitals (12): 11.57%

X3 = 36.57 = ~ 2 in 6

-Shoulder (9): 11.57

-Chest (10-11): 25%

X2 = 31% = ~ 2 in 6

-Upper Arm (8): 9.72

-Upper Leg/Thigh (13-15): 21.28

X1 = 16.17% = ~ 1 in 6

-Lower Arm/Hand (6-7): 11.56

-Lower Leg/Feet (16-18): 4.61

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

That digression aside, I support highly swingy KAs because I want KAs to be both threatening and unpredictable.  I detest the mindset of "I've got 12 rDEF, he averages 14 BODY, I've got 10 BODY.  I can take three attacks, absolutely no problem.".  I want the tension of "Oh god, but what if he rolls really high on this second attack, maybe I should Block, I can't take an 18.".  And when the distribution is "Within 2 of 14, 95% of the time.", that tension evaporates because people have seen the dice fall enough to get a vague idea of how it works even if they haven't mathed it.  Because they know from experience that there's no 18 lurking in the wings. 

The swinginess creates, at least in my experience at my tables, psychological pressure that causes people to behave more in line with "Guy trying to murder me!  Lethal force!".  That's why I want the high variance.  It creates desirable metagaming. 

 

We have an existing mechanic to create higher variability of damage - Hit Locations.  He averages 14 BOD - what if he rolls a head hit, and rolls a mere one above average damage?  Then the same 6 BOD is inflicted as an 18 against your 12 rDEF.

 

6 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

 

No, it only suggests that there is *some* level of variability of normal attacks.  What percentage of people who fall from airplanes (without parachutes) live?  What percentage of people who slip and fall die?  As opposed to the percentage of people who take a chainsaw to the neck and live, or who get stabbed by a small knife and die?

 

That was exactly my point.  We agree.  As to the question of balance, we still need more information, the same information I asked for the first time:  Balanced at what cost?  In what type of game?

 

How much realism (or quasi-realism) do I want in my game is also a question to answer.  While "every hit could be fatal" may be quite realistic, does it make for good gaming?  Not in my experience.

 

If it is a 12 DC attack, balanced against a 12d6 Normal attack with the same cost as a 12d6 normal attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, grandmastergm said:

As a house rule, the group I game with plays killing attacks as normal but with a 1/2d6+1 (so d3+1) STUN multiplier which we find works out well as a middle ground between 1d6-1 and 1d3 for the STUN multiplier

 

I'm not sure I like this variant. It has a higher average stun than either of the other two options. It's still going to make KAs the go-to power for generating high stun results, which is kind of contrary to the whole point of having killing attacks in the first place.

 

It averages more BODY than an equivalent active point Energy Blast, it's going to generate the same average stun for any attack that has full dice of killing damage, and past a certain threshold, it's going to generate more knockback, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How much realism (or quasi-realism) do I want in my game is also a question to answer.  While "every hit could be fatal" may be quite realistic, does it make for good gaming?  Not in my experience.

 

If it is a 12 DC attack, balanced against a 12d6 Normal attack with the same cost as a 12d6 normal attack.

Yes, that's a question that I already asked.  I'll ask it again for the third time:  What type of game?

 

IMO, regardless of the type of game, a 12 DC KA should be more likely to kill than a 12 DC NA.  I'm assuming they have the same cost.  In some games, the KA should be only slightly more likely to kill, and in other games,it should be a lot more likely to kill.  In games where killing is specifically not desired, KAs might not be appropriate to have at all, at least for most PCs.  In games where enemies are to be killed, most PCs wouldn't bother with normal attacks.

 

-----

 

Another possibility that just now occurred to me:  Perhaps a new Power Advantage should be added for the one use for KAs in games where you don't want to kill: Breaking Things.  So maybe a +1/2 Advantage, "Does 2x BODY to Inanimate Objects", or something like that.  Or maybe, fully within the rules, a partially limited power:  Xd6 Blast, +YD6 Only vs. Inanimate Objects.  The limitation value would then be based on how often it is likely to be useful in the game, which again depends on the type of game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Perhaps a new Power Advantage should be added for the one use for KAs in games where you don't want to kill: Breaking Things.  So maybe a +1/2 Advantage, "Does 2x BODY to Inanimate Objects", or something like that. 

 

I've actually bought extra dice just to damage inanimate objects in the past, for characters.  You see it in comics all the time, people casually tearing things apart, but never doing that much damage to actual people.  Something like this would have a good superheroic feel to it, and seems a valid construction.

 

Quote

In some games, the KA should be only slightly more likely to kill, and in other games,it should be a lot more likely to kill.

 

That's why Hero gave us optional rules like impairing and disabling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Yes, that's a question that I already asked.  I'll ask it again for the third time:  What type of game?

 

If we are designing around the type of game, that is typically an optional rule like impairing or disabling, not a change in price points.

 

So, a Hero Game :)

 

5 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

IMO, regardless of the type of game, a 12 DC KA should be more likely to kill than a 12 DC NA.  I'm assuming they have the same cost.  In some games, the KA should be only slightly more likely to kill, and in other games,it should be a lot more likely to kill.  In games where killing is specifically not desired, KAs might not be appropriate to have at all, at least for most PCs.  In games where enemies are to be killed, most PCs wouldn't bother with normal attacks.

 

Agree with KAs being more likely to kill, and less likely to KO (more BOD, less STUN) at the same cost.  How much more becomes the issue.

 

But you were asking about 50% no damage, 50% max damage.  I do not believe that has the same value as rolling damage normally, as defenses and Stunning skew the utility of max damage versus no damage (or minimum damage).

 

Restricting certain attacks in certain games is valid - as is restricting other abilities.  Not sure I agree that no one will bother with normal attacks - as long as they are still effective.  There's more than one way to defeat an opponent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I've actually bought extra dice just to damage inanimate objects in the past, for characters.  You see it in comics all the time, people casually tearing things apart, but never doing that much damage to actual people.  Something like this would have a good superheroic feel to it, and seems a valid construction.

 

 

That's why Hero gave us optional rules like impairing and disabling.

 

And Tunneling, it seems, at least for breaking _through_ objects.  Elect to "leave hole" and the object is broken.  "I tunnel through that lamp."  Why not?  I have the example of it being used to smash doors, and I can't go through the lamp without leaving a hole so big that the lamp won't survive.  :lol:

 

Okay, tongue in cheek, but not especially firmly.....

 

(for what it's worth, I despise that build.  I lump it up there as "I'm pretty sure this is some new angle to the Harbinger of Bullets) 

 

 

On November 20, 2019 at 6:42 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

An excellent point.  I do think however that we are looking for the killing attack mechanic to carry a big burden.

 

That.

 

So very much that.  Yes, obviously it should provide a higher likelihood of killing via damage, but I think one possible way to increase the burden without adding math (and no; this entire conversation has show us there are a lot of ways to do that) is to give a default Stun multiplier of 1.  Or even less.  Certainly the appeal of the Stun Lotto is _gone_, making the BODY damage the primary component of the power without adding any sort of "but if I roll just right, then....." seduction.

 

A trade off for that, I think, would be to use  1,1,1,1,2,2 to calculate BODY.  I tried to play around with the any dice site (thanks, GB(i)! ), but i could be the 70-odd hour week I've worked (and still not done!) or the fact that the wife had insomnia last night (and if the wife has insomnia, the whole damned house has insomnia!  :lol:  ), but I couldn't figure out how to run the tests I wanted on the results, so maybe if I get bored, I'll roll a couple hundred times for comparison.  :lol:

 

Short version: if you want it carry a price tag of lethality, there are _two_ options, one of which is upping the lethality, the other of which is dropping the non-lethal aspects.  Get creative "Sorry, Sanjay; sixes count as zero STUN" That sort of thing.

 

On November 20, 2019 at 6:42 AM, Doc Democracy said:

I do not think that these changes on their own give us what we want, the question we need to be thinking is whether this is a decent tool for the toolbox.

 

Nah.  I love ya, Doc, but in this case, we're way beyond if this is a tool for the box.  This is quite clearly _not_ a tool.  We are _using_ the tools, and making something.  It's not a new wrench; it's a properly-torqued fastener that we're after. ;)

 

 

 

On November 20, 2019 at 6:42 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think that the proposed method for killing attacks is probably very cinematic.  I like it for that reason.  If you are playing a grittier game then there needs to be more in there, and I think that this is a better platform to build even the grittier elements.

 

In the Johnny Cash scenario, I would expect that the GM has toned up the gritty aspect of this world.  Mooks have the Phys Lim that they take 2x BODY from killing attacks

 

This works, but so long as we're discussing it, humor me long enough to let me discuss (briefly; I swear!  :lol:  I'm too tired to go into more depth!) why I don't like it.

 

When we're talking "toolkit," we're talking HERO System, which at this point covers many, many, _many_ genres, only two or three of which are "super:"  Champions, some (but not nearly all) Fantasy, some (but again: not nearly all) of which are _not_ super.  Guns.  Guns are the problem.

 

In a world full of supers, why would a gun work better against one perfectly normal human being than it would against another?  The difference is having "Mook" tattooed on you somewhere?  Sure: it's perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't sit well for me, particularly since Supers is my _least played_ genre.  Anyone else remember the shot-lived sensation of the Barbarian Brothers back in the mid eighties?  The twin musclemen / actors?  (okay, "actor" is pretty extreme, but God love 'em, they _tried_!  And to be honest, they always seemed like they'd be hellaciously fun to hang out with :D )

 

Very athletic, extremely strong beefy men.  One of them becomes a private detective, the other one joins a street gang.  So one of them is now twice as allergic to bullets?  It doesn't sit well-- again, for _me_.  I suppose in supers it's fine.

 

Secondly, there's the whole "special rule for one subset of humanity" issue.  While this is not just acceptable, but commonly used for things like Vampires (Drain: CON on hallowed ground) or spirits (double effect from any spells performed by a holy man)-- things like that--

 

the only difference between a "mook" and a normal person-- say an adventurer-- even a sickly one!-- is that one decided "Ima be a bad guy for a minnit" and now he is screwed.  Street gangs shoot each other up with disturbing regularity, and it's usually the non-mook normal bystanders that get killed or injured.  Sure: the mooks got missed, in game terms, but in real terms, those guns were just as deadly to non-mooks.  The double-standard of "mook rules" outside of supers or high fantasy just...  Bah-- I can't put it into words better than "it rankles."

 

 

On November 20, 2019 at 6:42 AM, Doc Democracy said:

and the GM uses BODY multipliers on hit locations,

 

This I have always agreed with, but I don't use the hit location chart often personally, for several reasons, the two most important (to me) is the additional roll and mathing.  Yes; it's easy, but it's just another set of elements to add to combat, which is a hard sell to people used to the faster resolution of....  pretty much everything else that's popular right now.  Champions / HERO is still pretty much a war-game in it's combat core.  I have no problem with that, but achieving that specificity requires a time sacrifice of the players.

 

Second:  most of my games are "bloodless."  No; that's not the best way to say it, but they're not exactly "PG," either.  I guess they are comics-code approved?  Unless I'm with a bunch wanting to do hardcore grim dark (which is unlikely, as _I_ don't like it much, and I can find it on regular network television almost anytime I want it)-- but I don't do a lot of "mangled arm" or "torrents of hot sticky ichor gush from the bloody stump of his thigh, disconcertingly warm as it pumps in surging torrents onto the frost of the battle field, steam rising in ever-so-slight ephemeral clouds, as his blood itself had its own unique soul, now rising to meet it's own maker and be judged"  or even "Dude!  His head just like, EXPLODED, Dude!  You hear that hatchet-on-a-cantelope sound like a wet sucking thump and the chop of your axe completely through his skull resonating crisply through his frontal sinus."  I don't even care for "a quick double-tap drowns out the sound of his face being pushed through itself, your first bullet blowing out the back of his skull as your second one pulls his brain stem out behind it."

 

While it's all nice and grim dark, and perfectly acceptable in a book I am reading, discussing or pseudo-experiencing it over and over with my friends just comes off all Columbine to me, and I _ain't_ into it, not even a little bit.

 

 

On November 20, 2019 at 6:42 AM, Doc Democracy said:

"The hit locations would add an element of swing to your 1920's gangster games (see what I did there)

 

Yes.

 

And I giggled.

 

Dammit.

 

:lol:

 

On November 20, 2019 at 6:42 AM, Doc Democracy said:

and the physical limitation allows deadliness to be ramped up even further, without even thinking about defences etc.  It is this level of customisation that should be the selling point of the game system.

 

Why shouldn't tinkering with a power you're unhappy with not be a selling point?  There's not a real conversation here; that's more rhetorical.  We have all been beating the HERO drum of "do anything you want."  That's what we're doing-- well, it's what we're talking about doing, anyway.  :lol:

 

Gotta run.  I'm going to bed after checking the last two threads.

 

 

y'all enjoy.  :)

 

 

Duke

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If we are designing around the type of game, that is typically an optional rule like impairing or disabling, not a change in price points.

Impairing and disabling rules are fine, but I thought the whole point of this exercise was to simplify the system.  If someone wants KA to be more likely to kill, not impair, not disable.

 

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

But you were asking about 50% no damage, 50% max damage.

Actually, it was BNakagawa that asked about that.  All I was talking about was altering the BODY count on dice for KAs.  Depending on ones preferences and the type of game, you could use any of these schedules:

 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 = Normal Attack

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 = simple KA that was proposed**

0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2 = My usual preference and recommendation*

0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3 = a more radical possibility I mentioned.***

1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2 = an idea Duke Bushido mentioned, which does slightly higher average BODY

 

or you could use any other scheme you like, such as

 

0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 2 = more likely to get high or low results

0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 2 = less average BODY, but swingier

0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 3 = same average BODY, but very swingy.

 

or even

 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7 = the "Hail Mary" KA.

 

* This is the only one I'm actually recommending.

** I find this one reasonably acceptable, too.  Mostly because of its simplicity, but I prefer a little more variability.

*** This is probably as extreme as I'd ever even consider actually using, and only in very specific types of games, like maybe a low fantasy (or VERY low fantasy) game where the main theme is large army-vs-army fighting.  Or perhaps a non-fantasy "skilled normals" game of soldiers in a large-scale war.  Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

But you were asking about 50% no damage, 50% max damage.  I do not believe that has the same value as rolling damage normally, as defenses and Stunning skew the utility of max damage versus no damage (or minimum damage).

 

Actually, my theoretical example was 50% max damage, 50% min damage, which yields the same average damage as a vanilla power, although in most power ranges, minimum damage inflicts no damage against any target worthy of actual mention (as opposed to DNPCs or innocent bystanders)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

This works, but so long as we're discussing it, humor me long enough to let me discuss (briefly; I swear!  :lol:  I'm too tired to go into more depth!) why I don't like it.

 

Only Duke says he is going to brief and means less than 15 paragraphs...  😬

 

I understand what you mean when you say you don't like mook rules but I think your rhetoric is crooked.  🙂 Your example of two brothers, PI and gang member being treated differently in the rules  requires a twisted application of the rules, you are not a mook because of your occupation, you are a mook because of your importance to the story.

 

I was essentially showing that, in HERO, it is easy to dial up the lethality or dial it down to suit the needs of the game, and it should not all depend on how killing attacks work.

 

I can see a street level game where the default 'everyman' has 2x BODY from killing attacks.  I can see that game also having +3D6 to PRE attacks by default if using a killing attack.  Suddenly the presence of men with guns makes a room of people stop and do as it is told.

 

You might want the PCs to be fragile and allow them to buy off those everyman limitations.  You might decide the PCs and their 'named' opponents buy those things off for free.  It might be that, of the brothers you mention, only one is a PC and the other a DNPC, in which case their susceptibility to killing attacks could be significantly different.

 

It all requires the GM to have a laser-like focus on the rules of the game he (or she) wants to run. 

 

In some genres, I want mook rules, I want the players to be able to go into the bar in downtown Hong Kong, machine guns blazing, kind of knowing they will be OK but having to be more circumspect at Professor Lou's lair.  That, to me, is the essence of a cinematic game.  It even works in LotR style games where Legoland might run through a battle slaying orcs by the dozen but spend twice as long duelling with an enemy captain.

 

As for bloodless games, I too tend away from grimdark, even in my reading material.  I think it needs to be possible in HERO to deliver that and the way of doing it should not simply be reaching for the killing attack.

 

I think I need to consider whether this is one of the fundamental books HERO is missing.  The book that helps the GM set up the game he wants to run.  Guidance on how to tweak the fundamentals to deliver a range of core gaming experiences.  Maybe I should be thinking of getting that into the new marketplace

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

And Tunneling, it seems, at least for breaking _through_ objects.  Elect to "leave hole" and the object is broken.  "I tunnel through that lamp."  Why not?  I have the example of it being used to smash doors, and I can't go through the lamp without leaving a hole so big that the lamp won't survive.  :lol:

 

Okay, tongue in cheek, but not especially firmly.....

 

(for what it's worth, I despise that build.  I lump it up there as "I'm pretty sure this is some new angle to the Harbinger of Bullets) 

 

It's a mechanical build to achieve a desired special effect.  Is it markedly more kludgy than extra dice that only damage inanimate objects?  The first step is deciding that attacks which are significantly more harmful to inanimate objects than to living targets are acceptable in the game.  Then we need the mechanic that implements such attacks to our liking.  I think the bigger challenge is deciding what "inanimate objects" are.  Can I target that small lamp (or LazerMan's ray gun and jetpack), or is the power only suitable for breaking through walls or destroying larger objects, like cars (or tanks)?  Can it be used on Entangles, Barriers and Automaton opponents?  Is Mechanon an "inanimate object"?

 

Defining the game effect is the most critical step.  The mechanic used to achieve it should then be easier to define, or at least the options narrowed down.

 

9 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Impairing and disabling rules are fine, but I thought the whole point of this exercise was to simplify the system.  If someone wants KA to be more likely to kill, not impair, not disable.

 

Recall that the reduced Stun Multiple in 6e was selected to make KAs focus on killing instead of inflicting STUN damage.  They should, IMO, be better at inflicting BOD and worse at inflicting STUN.  Pre-6e, they were often a bit better at inflicting BOD (but not enough to actually be lethal) but also much better at getting STUN past defenses.  6e moved them to "this is a power used to kill".  For genres or games where killing is not common, they are not the right power.  I've designed clawed characters for 6e Supers games with AP normal attacks instead of KAs, simply because the game is not about killing (and because AP is now priced more appropriately for its benefits - maybe Penetrating should also be +1/4).

 

9 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

All I was talking about was altering the BODY count on dice for KAs.  Depending on ones preferences and the type of game, you could use any of these schedules:

 

***list removed***

or even

 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7 = the "Hail Mary" KA.

 

You and I are largely on the same page as to what we would recommend.  There are really two questions here.  The first is how much the average KA bod should increase over Normal damage.  You and I both lean, I think, to "the present model is fine".  That is, average of 3.5 BOD per 3 DCs as compared to the 3 provided by normal attacks.

 

The second is how volatile - swingy - the BOD damage should be.  The present 1d6/3 DCs is already much more volatile than normal attacks just because it tosses fewer dice.  I have never seen anyone suggest we change normal STUN from 1d6 to "no STUN on a 1-5, but each 6 does 21 STUN".  That's the equivalent to "7 BOD on a 6, none otherwise" for BOD damage.

 

I look to likely player response.  If I have to worry about a 6 DC attack rolling 28, 35 or even 42 BOD - not often, but often enough - my thoughts on defenses change radically.  Move from a 6 DC Fantasy game to a 12d6 Supers game and the chances of 3 - 6 6's in a 12d6 damage roll increases quite a bit.

 

So 15 or 20 rDEF does not cut it any more.  42 BOD will carve my character up.  I want enough defenses to feel secure I will not be making a new character due to a single lucky roll.

 

To my mind, there are three broad "defenses" in RPGs:

 

"you missed" - high DCV in Hero, high AC in d20.  These are not perfect - a 3 (or nat 20) always hits.  So I need something else to back this up.

 

"didn't hurt" - high defenses in Hero; damage resistance in d20 - the two games take a different approach, with defenses (reducing the damage that gets through( being much more prevalent in Hero.  So I will likely lean to 35 rDEF so that 42 BOD attack is painful but not fatal.  Of course, sooner or later someone will roll 7 or 8 6s...

 

"tis but a flesh wound" - high BOD/hit points - here again, the two games take a different approach.

 

In both games, PCs can generally take a few average hits.  In d20, double damage to an average hit means I can only take one or two more, instead of 2 or 3 more.  But in Hero, it means way more than twice as much STUN/BOD taken.  In that 6 DC game, roll average KA damage of 7, and my 5 rDEF knocks it down to 2 BOD.  It will take a while for you to whittle me down.  Max out with 12, and I take 7 BOD - OUCH - but I am still alive.  But make that 42 BOD and my character soaks up 37 BOD and likely dissolves into a fine red mist.

 

I don't envision Hero characters with 75 BOD, so more defenses are the only answer.  But now, only those massively high damage rolls will do anything.

 

If the players are OK with a game where PCs drop like flies, high volatility can work.  I don't find role players are big on making a new character every two or three sessions, but YMMV.  To me, such a high lethality game mandates a much simpler, and quicker, character creation system,, and likely players who do not flesh out their characters' personalities and lives as much as they would when the character has a solid chance of surviving many years of play, rather than half a dozen play sessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...