schir1964

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier Consistent application.

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier I don't have time now, but I do want to discuss this in more detail. - Christopher Mullins

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier Updated Original Post. Gave some initial costs for the levels. Not sure if they are appropriate but it is a start. - Christopher Mullins

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier Bump. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

Game Mastering Styles Here are some different styles labeled and categorized based on discussions here and my own experiences. I'm curious as to what would be considered to be a bad style and what would be considered a good style. Or suggest additions to the list if you think something is missing. Tyrant: The GM has final say and may change any prior ruling or even ignore all written rules. The GM lets the players know what the rules are for the game. Any thing during the game that comes up will be decided by the GM as the final word. The GM is more concerned about the storyline following the path the GM has envisioned regardless of what the characters might do to change the storyline. Benevolent Dictator: The GM has final say, but chooses to take input from the players. The GM modifies the rules as needed to make the storyline interesting for both himself and the players. The GM attempts to guide the character's to follow the storyline, but will allow the character's actions to change the storyline and will use any changes to enhance the storyline to make it more interesting for all. The GM is more concerned with letting the story be molded by the character's actions via the rules. Constitutional Monarch: The GM has powers, but they are agreed upon within the social contract of the players. Pure Democratic Gaming: All players have equal say. Majority decides the rules and any decisions during the game. The storyline is governed by the rules unless challenged and overturned by the majority. A player is usually selected by the majority to handle duties of the GM. Many times GM duties are shared by different players. These are the basic styles. There are more, but I'm not sure I could describe them adequately. I'll add any well described style to the list for reference in discussions. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Alternative: Death, Destruction, and Function This is a perfect example of what I've suggested above. Each object has three values instead of one. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Alternative: Death, Destruction, and Function Bump. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement As I've posted in other threads, I think the rules for how objects are handled in general need to be overhauled. I even posted a thread where I gave a possible alternative system for handling objects ([thread=51286]Alternative: Death, Destruction, and Function[/thread]). I don't know if that would be of any use to you, and I certainly don't expect the 6th Edition to make such a drastic change, but it seems like it is a step in the direction you want to go. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I think there are two ideas getting confused here in the exchange. I think there are two different definitions of "Trusting the GM" being used here. One has to do with the intent of the GM using the rules to force the storyline against the players. The other has to do with the GM making a mistake in rules interpretation or mis-judgment of application of the rules (with no real intent of forcing the storyline against the players). - Christopher Mullilns

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I think this is touching on a subject that was discussed before in a thread a couple of years ago. With Hero you could define the different aspects of the RPG into the following: Campaign: The imaginary world/universe the GM creates to interactively tell a story with the players. The GM defines many of the Campaigns rules that define how it works and how the characters are viewed by the world in general. Typically, this aspect is where the GM may exert direct influence over the story. If the GM exerts this influence in a manner that is too inconsistent, the players may think they are nothing more than pawns in the story the GM is telling (equates to no fun). Player Characters: This aspect is what grants the Player direct influence over the story and the campaign world. The PC tends to be the protagonist of the story being told. The player can only have as much affect as the character the control allows. The character's actions is the one aspect that the Player may have absolute control over (disadvantages grant the GM some control over the PC, but the player decides this at character creation). Certain powers may allow other players to have influence over the character, but the player knows this at the beginning and chooses to build the character to mitigate this or whether the Campaign is one they want to play in or not. Non-Player Characters: This aspect is what grants the GM direct influence over the story and the campaign world. This is similar to PCs, but they can sometimes be part of the Campaign world. Blurring this too much can create sense of helplessness in the players since NPCs tend to be the antagonists of the story. Mechanics: This aspect is what gives the Players a framework for which to know how the PCs can interact in the Story/Campaign and have an idea of the results from that interaction. If the mechanics allow for some uncertainty, then the Player knows this and can expect that uncertainty. If the mechanics are reliable, then the player will expect consistency in that reliability. The GM has the power to ignore the mechanics and results of the mechanics in order to make the story better (possibly even for the players). But there is fine line that must not be crossed. If the GM does this too much, then the players will no longer have framework for interacting with the story/campaign since they have nothing to base their expectations on as far as the mechanics. The GM has the power to adhere to the mechanics and let the results of the mechanics drive the story. While this is consistent it could end the story early for one or more of the players. As long as the players know this from the start and have some way to re-enter the story then frustration can be avoided. In addition, there are some mechanic results that are easily ignored with very little frustration for the players (such as a good to-hit roll), but there are other mechanics that are more difficult to avoid frustrating the players if ignored (such as a good damage roll). Just A Summation - Christopher Mullins

Re: EC's cannot have non-END powers!!!! I agree. I don't like inconsistent rules. (Yeah, I know that came as a surprise. (8^D)) - Christopher Mullins

Re: EC's cannot have non-END powers!!!! Just an additional note. 4th Edition Hero (Champions) did have a rule that "Special Powers" may only be placed in an Elemental Control with GM Permission Only. In other words, the default rule was that "Special Powers" were not permitted in Elemental Controls at all. What were the "Special Powers"? It was a category of powers that when examined were all Persistent powers by default. Just A Little Trip In The Wayback Machine (8^D) - Christopher Mullins

Re: Redirected for Discussion: STR + (1) Variable Advantage As a GM, I'd allow the Variable SFX at 1/2 Advantage level. - Christopher Mullins

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier Okay, So what you are saying (CTaylor) is that the first group of components aren't necessary since they can be handled with existing modifiers. I can see that. So that leaves us with the other two groups that should affect the value of the Danger Sense Modifier that can be applied to Detects/Senses/Clairsentience and possibly other things I'm missing right now. Any suggestions on what values the current components would equate to? - Christopher Mullins

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier Well, my effort right now is to categorize the different components and possible variations that may exist for different examples of Danger Sense from the Source Material. Since I have specified anything beyond this, it is possible to view this as a possible Sense Modifier, Independent Sense, or even a Power. It could be any of these depending on how the components are defined with mechanics. - Christopher Mullins

Re: New Mechanic: Danger Sense Modifier Updated. - Christopher Mullins

Danger Sense Modifier This modifier allows a Sense/Detect to also alert the character to immediate Danger. Severity Of Danger Harm To Life: Only danger that will cause death in living things. Hurt To Life: Danger that will cause damage to people but not necessarily death. Harm To Objects: Danger that will cause destruction to property or things. Harm To Anything: Danger of any severity. Precognitive/Retro-cognitive Danger Immediate: Danger that is currently occurring in the same time frame. Precognitive: Danger that will occur at some time in the future. Different levels of this exist. Retro-cognitive: Danger that has occurred at some time in the past. Different levels of this exist. Costs Harm To Life: +1/2 Hurt To Life: +1 Harm To Objects: +1 Harm To Anything: +2 Immediate: +0 Precognitive: +!/4 Per Time Increment Retro-cognitive: +1/4 Per Time Increment Any Comments So Far? More To Come - Christopher Mullins

Re: New Mechanic: Different Approaches For Deflection/Reflection Possibly, but then so would a Suit of Armor that takes extraordinary effort to unlock and take off a character due to locking mechanisms. It doesn't change the fact that it is still a Focus in that the power requires the Suit and can be used by anybody (Universal). So? Okay, don't give a limitation for either, doesn't change the point that if one can be restrained, then so can the other. Which is all that I was suggesting. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Hero System: Sidekick See! The secret to posting on the boards here is to let everyone know exactly what you are trying to achieve as an end result. A lot of times there is more than one correct answer. There was a free document for download called Genre By Genre, and another one called Reasoning From Special Effects. That is one thing you may want get across to players. There is no Laser Blaster that you purchase. Instead you reason from special effects. Example: Player: I want a Laser Blaster. GM: What does the Laser Blaster do as far as damage? Player: It uses high intensity coherent light to heat up and burn through things in less than second. GM: Does it burn though person in single shot or just causes a bad wound that hurts? Player: It just causes a wound that hurts. GM: Okay, that attack will ranged, it will cause damage by using energy will hurt someone but won't be burning whole pieces of the target off. In the book, there are Normal Attacks and Killing Attacks. This will be a normal attack. In the book, there are Hand-to-hand Attacks and Ranged Attacks. This will be a ranged attack. In the book, most attacks must specify whether they are Physical or Energy as far as the damage they do. This will cause Energy Damage. The prime power for a Laser Blaster SFX is Energy Blast vs Energy Defense (Ranged Attack By Default). So it is always best to get an idea of the what Special Effect the player wants first and then reason out what power would best simulate that idea. Hope this helps. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Hero System: Sidekick Does anyone in your group have any experience with RPGs at all? If so, give a run down of what you and your players are familiar with. It might help with what advice is given. Are you going to be the GM who runs everything or someone else? - Christopher Mullins