Vanguard00

Re: A Thread for Random Musings

Tonight I've mentioned my girlfriend three times in various contexts. My girl's pretty cool, and here it is 11pm and I kinda want to call her and tell her so, but I'll have to wait until tomorrow.

But yeah, she's pretty cool.

Just thought I'd share.

Re: The cranky thread

My girlfriend let me know that her son's bike got stolen this afternoon. It had just happened, so she jumped in the car and trolled the neighborhood to see if she could find it. She made it all the way around the corner (she's one on corner lot, she made it to the one right behind her) and saw a kid with a bike. She pulled over, asked him about it, and he denied it, taking the bike (which she didn't get a good look at) into the backyard.

She goes home and goes upstairs, looks out her back window to the house and sees him hiding the bike. She goes over there, confronts the kid, gets his mother to fetch the bike, tells the kid to not be caught in front of her house again, and leaves.

She called me, bitched for 20 minutes about how now she has to make sure everything is locked up, the kid's parents are clueless, he'll be going to jail soon, etc.

My girlfriend is a sherriff. She opted not to play the badge and the "scared straight" role and would rather bitch to me.

Kinda blew my good mood this afternoon/early evening.

Then I had dinner and felt better, but man I hate it people bitch without going for the obvious solution.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

So you snuck to JoeN00bs house and stole a pic of his female? Or Ben's house?

You snuck into Ben's house didn't you? Didn't you?!

Kara did mention something about "Rage's friend" on a certain Bikini thread...

Re: Cool to the touch disadvantage...Thoughts?

Yeah, I'd go with a "Distinctive Features" disad, as well, and make it "Extreme reaction" (-3 to Interaction rolls).

Re: Answers & Questions

A. Terrible. No, awful. Bad, just plain bad. Horrible! Bad! Unbelievably bad! Infinitely bad beyond all imaginable levels of badness!! The apex of bad, the very pinnacle of utterly bad!! Completely bad!! The uncontested universal champion of stinking, putrid badness!!!

 

Well... maybe not that bad, but man, it wasn't good.

Q: So what'd you think of the movie "Catwoman"?

A: I'll try anything once, twice if it doesn't leave scars.

Re: Answers & Questions

A: I will follow you were ever you go.

Q: What are you, some kind of stalker?

A: I tried it your way and got shot for my trouble.

Re: Thanks to Keith Curtis...

So you see, Steve, it's your own fault for publishing the products you do. Your rule books have an entire GM section (just about every one, if I'm not mistaken), just about every character you put out (if not all of 'em) have 1-3 plot seeds, you devote entire books to "supportive" information, and you provide even more such ready-made material for selected NPCs, organizations, etc.

It's quality merchandise like this that's going to be the downfall of...um...you know, other quality merchandise. And stuff. Like this.

Crap. I started with a point. Really...

Re: My Dee-en-Dee conversion!!!1

Actually, when I first saw the handle I immediately though of Mariah Carey. Go figure.

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

Cool. Just checkin'. It just takes a while to get to know people's posting style.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

I have to go to the store now. I have to find something to make for dinner. I have lots of stuff to put on and around food, but no actual food. If it was just me I could handle it, but the girlfriend frowns on mac'n'cheese, Rice-a-Roni and stuffing dinners. Apparently she wants something called an entree. Something about carb overload...

Sheesh! Women.

Re: My Dee-en-Dee conversion!!!1

I thought it was pretty funny. Liked the pun on Killer Shrike's name.

 

In fairness, I should point out that I like all those World's Most Terrifying Police Chases shows. I have no taste.

That would explain a few things....

Kidding!

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

There is no need to knock it if your not interested. [/indent]

Soulcatcher, please understand that I didn't intend to knock your example of Real/Active Cost caps. When you solicited information on how to make it better, you also open yourself to the question of "Is it worth making it better". As I said before, it can be difficult to post something new and then see criticism of it. However, if you're posting here to the boards you'll see that quite a bit. Don't get too thin-skinned.

Also, don't be discouraged by those who disagree with you. Continue posting your ideas and sift through those posts you don't agree with to find those you do. Perhaps it's a simple matter of not responding to those in open disagreement with you, or perhaps you shouldn't try so hard to convince us it's a workable solution. It may be, but it's up to us to accept it or not. And being Hero System gamers we tend to pick apart just about everything that comes our way. You'll see it a lot.

In the end, I have introduced a new concept for campaign limitations for peoples consideration and am looking for input into making it the best possible tool that it can be. I had not realized it would be a new concept. This statement is not to be misconstrued in that I am seeking to make this the best play balance tool. I am simply trying to make it as good as it can get. There is no point in trying to shoot it down because it is simply presented as another option for people to consider just like all the other options available for GMs to use. It seems pointless to attempt to nullify this as an option for people to choose. I look for input from people who may wish to contribute ideas to develop this concept further.

At the risk of being argumentative, you can continue looking for the positive input you desire, but be prepared to accept the negative input, as well. My first reply to you was solely in answer to your questions and you didn't seem to like it much. I'm sorry you felt that I was trying to shoot it down. I wasn't. I was simply offering alternatives.

I had not realized that this would be such a new concept. I had assumed that some people had already used this idea beforehand. I was looking for what I had assumed would be practical solutions from people who had already tried this idea to say how it has been done elsewhere, what problems might have been encountered and solutions found. Hopefully, I can get a more positive infusion of ideas from people who might like to see where this can go.

And I sincerely hope you can, too. Again, don't let this round discourage you. Continue posting your ideas and try to gracefully accept that not everyone is going to agree with you.

Re: What if REC was based on EGO, not STR?

Oh yeah! I forgot to say welcome!

My mom would be so ashamed...

Re: What if REC was based on EGO, not STR?

Long time lurker, first time poster...

 

What would be the repercussions of changing the Recovery characteristic from a (Str/5) + (Con/5) into this: (EGO/5) + (CON/5)?

 

In my limited logic, I don't see how the character's actual physical strength should apply to the character's recovery, but I can understand the logic if the character's force of will and determination to stay alive and kicking affect Recovery instead...

 

Has anybody else thought of this?

Um...I have to say that I haven't. I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I probably won't change anything.

It might be an interesting limitation on a power, though:

How Does He Keep Going? +10 REC, Must make EGO Roll (-1/2)

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

First of all' date=' vetting means checking out something. Secondly, whether a game is going in the right direction is reflected in its popularity. I know of several gamers who find that the rule set is becoming more problematic and have, as a result, shied away from the game. The result is that it is harder to get a campaign going with this system which means less playing and less sales. You can't say that my suggestion make it weaker because it is in the same line as house rules, real limits dice limits on attacks or any other restriction that people put on the game. Then all of them make it weaker by your definition.[/indent']

Usually, if someone introduces an approach that no one has heard of or thought of , it is classified as a novel approach.

Of course, the beauty of this system is that everyone does it their own way. If you think that my definition of "Active Cost" and how to do Real/Active cost ratio is not right, then you simply implement you own version to make it workable. Thus, the approach, now customized as your approach could be worthwhile to check out. Just because you reject my version of the approach does not negate the potential of the overall approach as other people may choose to customize it.

Re: My Dee-en-Dee conversion!!!1

I don't suppose you'd share...?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Re: Mystery Disad? What the....?!

Generally I assign a hunted or a DNPC through the course of game play. If it's a Hunted, I try and develop a good archnemesis for the character, someone who will bring something to the table whenever the PC and the villain clash.

A DNPC might be a love interest or a fan/wannabe-sidekick or even a long lost relative. Something that might make for good non-combat roleplay.

On rare occasions (like, twice), I've used that "mystery disad" as a revolving disad, changing it with each adventure. One adventure it's a hunted and the PC must somehow deal with it. The next adventure it was a DNPC (the stereotypical "guest star" type thing), and the DNPC would no doubt move on at the end of the adventure. Maybe a shift in powers has led to a new vulnerability, and that adventure needs the PC to find a way to fix it.

Honestly, I've only had "mystery disads" a few times, but for the most part they've been positive experiences for all involved. "Mystery hunteds" are more common in the games I've played in, which usually leads me to adventure-specific hunteds (guest villains), or a permanent nemesis as stated above.

Re: My Dee-en-Dee conversion!!!1

Methinks Melvin has a new handle...

..but I don't think this one is funny at all.

Re: Help? Need power to counter shapeshift

Brainwaves.

*nods solemnly*

Yep, that's the way to go. Brainwaves.

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

The problem with a game system in which GMs have to play such an important role in vetting characters is that GM bias' date=' some players pushing the GM farther than others, among other factors, can result in unbalanced characters or in a situation where some players may feel shortchanged. House rules and arbitrary decisions abound in the Hero Universe. I have to wonder if the system is going in the right direction.[/quote']

 

 

Um...how'd you get from using your own balancing act to wondering if Hero System is "going in the right direction"? I don't even know what "vetting" means, but all I've seen thus far is you overcomplicating the rules already in place. As for "house rules and arbitrary decisions" abounding, that's kinda the point of having such a flexible system. There isn't a game out there that people don't modify for their own ends. Sometimes it's minor, sometimes fairly extensive. Don't knock the system if your home improvements make it weaker.

 

 

Its like fast food. the most successful companies are the ones, usually, with a good product (not including McPukes), but, more importantly, consistency from one area to another. When you have so many customization issues in how people play due to abusability, I think you have a recipe for stunted growth. I am not saying that everyone must play the same way but the rules should be more internally consistent to allow for less need for GM vetting.

 

 

Bad example, really. Hero system is like a buffet or a salad bar. The same things are going to be there every time, but it's up to you to put 'em together in the manner which best suits your purposes. It's about variety, not "stunted growth".

 

We have tried to find more ways to reduce the need for GM vetting. We have found that this method reduces the rejection rate of characters and the need to change characters.

 

I maintain that if it works for you, cool. But you're trying to convince the majority of us that it's a workable system and some of us, at least, just don't see it.

 

It seems this thread has changed from the best way to calculate characters for this type of system to whether it is a worthwhile system to try or utilize.

 

 

Forgive me, but, um, duh. You brought up a system that no one had ever heard of (myself, I've been playing Champions for about 24 years). Another reason for the thread shift, perhaps, is that you didn't really like anyone else's answer. You've made a couple of comments to invite the "this isn't a good system" discussion, as well.

 

Example:

 

am surprised that no one has tried this before and I think it is worth checking out as a new and, apparently, novel approach.

 

 

You think it is, many of us think it isn't.

 

For example, I maintain that you are not using the appropriate definition of "Active Cost" in most of your calculations, and you have failed to convince me that your own example of how to do a Real/Active Cost ratio is workable. Thus, this is not an approach that's worth me checking out.

 

You get opinions here at the Hero Games threads, and while we do try and be helpful, "helpful" rarely equates with "say what you want to hear".

 

It's nothing personal, Soulcatcher. You'll get it a lot.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

Fooey. Four hours' sleep ain't enough after a good night's partyin', but here I am, checkin' out the boards.

Ah, well. Breakfast soon, then a nap.

Re: Answers & Questions

A: Dead or alive' date=' I'm going to kill you.[/quote']

 

 

Q: You remember that song from the 80s, "You spin me round round like a record baby round round"? I love that song. Think I'll play it over and over again...

 

 

A: A carton of milk, a loaf of bread and a stick of dynamite.

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

I agree that ain't right' date=' however, since you pay for the control cost it should be included because everything you pay for the character is incuded, including what the character pays for perks but not any points generated by the perk such as a base for example. This approach only adds up the direct costs to the character that is created.[/quote']

 

 

Again, no offense since this system seems to work for you, but Active Cost is Active Cost, not Real Cost. Changing that because that's how you want to figure it is one thing, but I was going from the book's definition of such. "Real Cost" is what the character actually pays for the power, and that includes the EC "control cost", IMO. The analogy to what perks can purchase is spurious, by the way, since it's not the same thing at all.

 

Essentially, with the exception of VPPs, the "Active Cost" of a character should be the same whether he uses frameworks or not. For example, take away Armadillo's multipower and pretend to purchase all the powers separately. That's his Active Cost. Now put all those into a framework to cut back the Real Cost.

 

That's not a bad model to work with in terms of game balance. It's unnecessary in my eyes, however. Even more so since it appears you are unnecessarily complicating the model.

 

Multipowers are treated according to my formula because that is what a character actually pays for the power. What you actually pay is a reflection of its value in the system, approximately. You do not pay the full active cost for each slot but only a small portion in slot cost because that is the reality of the Multipowers true capability. Our system is designed to quantify actual cost and capability of characters.

 

 

Which is, of course, perfectly fine if that's what works for you. But again I reiterate you are not using Active Cost anymore.

 

 

I am just limiting the total active points built into the character design according to my proposed formula. The VPP can still be utilized in any way they want according to the available powers. Also to get to where you would compromise the overall active point limit would take alot of limits. This system is designed to prevent the abuse of limits to generate super powerful effects just as any other character is restricted from that approach.

 

 

'kay.

Re: Best way to post characters?

The only character I ever posted (way back when), I simply viewed the .hdc file, which brings it up in HTML format, selected "view source", then cut and pasted that into the reply box.

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

Real/Active Point Limits:

Apparently, Stephen Long has not come across this in his 25 years of gaming. I have wondered if this is a relatively unique style of campaign structure?

Sounds like it might be. I've never heard of it myself.

*snicker* Stephen, he called him. How formal

Elemental Controls:

You should add up all the numbers under Active Cost except the cost of the EC itself. In other words, just add up the AC of the powers themselves, not the "control cost". Thus, you'd end up with 149/262. Conversely, adding up only the "remaining cost" gives the player a free 100 pts. That ain't right.

Multipowers:

To calculate a Multipowers total Active/Real Points, I determined that you would add the total Active Points of the Pool to the total Active Points of each individual slot cost to determine the total Active points of the multipower. The Real Cost would be the Real Cost derived from the same areas. In the Armadillo Example on page 207, this method would result in a Real/Active point total of 58/86. It should be done this way because it reflects what you pay and the amount of access you have to your powers. This method appears to be supported by the rules and examples.

Here's where your logic begins to fade on me.

Granted, MPs only allow one power to be used at the same time, but that doesn't change the Active Cost. It just changes how they are used. Using your method, Armadillo has a Real/Active point total of 58/143. Just because he can't use them all at the same time doesn't change the fact that there are 143 points in Active Cost for the powers. Active Cost doesn't change regardless of whether it's in a framework or not.

Variable Power Pools:

Lastly, we come to costing VPPs'. My method, which was not under direct dispute ended up being the same as in the FAQ: Active Points = Pools' Active Points + the Total Active Points of the Control Cost. The Real Points = the Real Cost of both of these totals. The one point of contention ended up being the ability of utilizing limits on powers generated from the VPP. An extreme but useful example is you have a 50pt VPP and create 10 powers utilizing a -9 limit. Now, your VPP has generated 500 Active Points in powers, thereby breaking a characters 1:2 Active Point Limit.

 

My proposed solution is that your VPP is restricted to generating Active Points up to and including your limit but not beyond. For example, you have a Real/Active point limit of 1:2 and your character has 200 Real/350 Active points including a VPP with a 100pt Active cost. In this case, you could create 150 Active Points of powers from the VPP, which is 50pts higher than the Active points of the VPP. The result is that your total Active points being run by your character has shifted from 350 to 400, which is the limit for your character.

That seems like an arbitrary solution, but it could be workable. Since you as the GM are limiting it, though, it might be worthwhile for you to give an accompanying limitation value to go with it. Perhaps a mandatory limitation on the Control Cost itself; Active Cost of powers within pool cannot exceed R/C Cost limitations (-1/2 or even -1). The characters now get a break on the Control Cost in accordance with the restrictions now placed on VPPs.

Remember, though, it's your campaign. Whatever works for you and your players is usually good enough.

This is my first post on any type of bulletin board.

Well, then, welcome aboard!