Shaun Hendricks

Re: Re: ATRI Problems... and solutions! I was talking in game system terms. 8RPD is 8RPD... no matter what ATRI it comes from. The only adjusters there are conceptual.

ATRI Problems... and solutions! I'd walk carefully through the idea of mixing ATTACK, DEF and other concepts into technology relativity. You run into some really nasty problems. However, you also gain some keen build issues that can make things more real. It's true that ATRI can 'cap' things like hyperdrive distances, or speeds or even dice of damage. What isn't true is that lower ATRI items cannot harm or do significantly less damage than higher ATRI items. Example: A knight in plate mail might as well be wearing tissue paper when facing an opponent with a decent sized gun, but smaller guns may bounce just the same as swords and such. The reverse is also true, that a person wearing kevlar is not invulnerable to say, a crossbow, because they aren't (A nice, sharp, stilletto-point bolt will cut through kevlar like butter). Weapon/Def being solely limited by ATRI is NOT a good idea. It can be 'generally' true, but hardly always. Instead, what you need to do is build the weapon and defense according to the concept it holds to. The concept is bound by ATRI limits and principles, of course, but even then, there are exceptions. It's also possible for a race/culture to cross ATRI boundaries in areas, meaning they could be ATRI 9 in ship technology but ATRI 11 in computer-tech or genetic-tech (this is an extreme separation, but possible). An example of this is WWII America. Our weapons were roughly the same as our opponents, yet we jumped an ATRI level when we detonated a nuclear weapon. All of our weapons didn't suddenly hop up a level in ATRI, instead, it took 30 years for us to develop the kind of armaments we use today. So we were 'crossing' ATRI boundaries at that time. With the way technology is advancing, we could concievably cross another ATRI boundary again in a couple of decades... Design accordingly.

The driving force... This was kind of touched on in a couple of previous posts but perhaps not to the extent it should have been pointed out. Larger Military Vessels, would likely have two different drives as they would be 'multi-role'. They could go into hyperspace as well as 'jump'. The advantage on 'jump' is that a ship (or battle fleet) can get form point A to point B without risking intervention. "Poof!" you're there and ready to rock. However, that's a problem as well, you can't intercept someone in hyperspace with a jump drive. Pirates would eat your civilian traffic (using hyperspace drives) alive. Combat can occur in hyperspace as well, or at least I didn't read that it couldn't. Depends on the detailed definition. The issue that two drives would take up too much space would be far more relevant to smaller vessels, say, frigate or smaller. That's where you'd probably find more specialization. System defense/patrol ships might only have hyperspace drives so they can respond to ships in distress as rapidly as possible. System scout ships might have a single displacer so they can hop between systems in a fairly rapid fashion to patrol larger routes. Missle cruisers might only have displacer drives to 'jump' into a system, commence long-range bombardment and jump out again to reload. Anti-piracy cruisers might only have hyper-drives to nab the bad guys and enough guns to take 'em down. I suppose, the way I'd look at it, is what is the role of the ship and then decide if the role needs two drives or not or if one would suffice. BTW- redundancy under the old Hero rules was cheap, 5 points got you a redundant system- both systems can't be engaged at the same time though, that would cost full points. I haven't seen this under the new rules yet, so either I missed it or I am missing a supplement that describes it. Not a bad option for starships to have available.

I wouldn't make this assumption. If you assume that the characters are trained fighters, and a presence attack is not being made by the snake, there should be no 'natural reluctance' to anything in my opinion. The default should be that it's nothing more than an unorthodox combat maneuver that a trained character would think of and be able to pull off. Now, if the character had disads like a lack of confidence or was a rookie/inexperienced, then I'd agree with applying an additional negative to an unorthodox maneuver, otherwise, I'd chalk it up to improvisation that experienced fighters are capable of. Growth negatives implicitly deal with this bit of math. The CV mods are all there under Growth. You don't need to go overboard with the exactness of the numbers. It slows down combat and doesn't really add much to the game. Get it close enough and let the dice fly. If a player really objects and wants to get too anal about the numbers then we'll calculate them out, but the player shouldn't be surprised when their creativity bonus suddenly vaporizes for making a pain in the tush of themselves... This is all my opinion, your playstyle may vary...

To quote a Star Wars character: "Apology accepted..." only I'll forego the telekinetic strangle bit... I DON'T have a FORCE power package... Sorry about the "War and Peace" post, it's pretty hideously long... Anyway, I've said enough to fill a thread by myself, I'm bailing out of this one now...

I'm sorry, did I say something that deserved a response like this? The thread topic spoke for itself. I figured the context and concept of it was fairly apparent from that topic. My post addressed that topic as well as the generalization concept that was being applied by the other posters in the thread. Since I am now being portrayed as some kind of 'idiot' for trying to quantify points regarding a device used, and story continuity, I think I need to respond to your points. Point #1: You supposed that I am 'complaining' about story in a show that doesn't hold true to known physics. -First: The two have nothing to do with each other. Special Effects and audience belief effects are completely different in concept and scope from a story that should hold true to it's own tenets. Whether or not ships make sounds or change vectors in sweeping motions have ziltch to do with whether or not blue is blue throughout the story. -Second: There are a few dozen explainations for ships 'banking' like aerofighters in space fiction. Most deal with limiting G forces on crews or equipment designed to protect crews from these G forces. Any halfway decent Trekker can tell you why starships 'bank' in the show. As to sound in space, I think that's fairly obvious. If the soundtrack went dead silent in space combat scenes or external space scenes, people would be bored and disinterested in seeing those scenes. Watching flashes and explosions, action and combat without sound removes your second most important sense from the action, thus disjoining the audience from important scenes. Our theaters tout sound systems in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and they don't do it so the audience can listen to the air conditioners run. Point #2: You assert that nobody cares how something works because it is 'magic'. -You are addressing a bunch of Hero gamers. Hero is a system whereupon people try to 'figure out' some of the craziest, most minor, underlying principles of how things work. Something COOL like a lightsaber certainly will NOT be tossed into the bin of "PFM"; as you put it. You're insulting nearly everyone here when you insinuate they are idiots for trying to surmise, supposition, and discover possible underlying principles of a object. They do this so they can most accurately portray a device using the rules of the game system. Point #3: Star Wars is Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction. -That's a very blurry line you're crossing into there. One that Star Hero doesn't help explain much. Any show that inserts elements of actual science into it, can be called Science Fiction. Star Trek would have to qualify as Science Fantasy by your definition as well. Each series has fantasy elements in it, yet neither are hard core science or complete derivations of it. Science Fiction in the broadest sense, covers all Science Fantasy, yet Science Fantasy does not encompass Science Fiction but is subset of it. Having said that, I have to ask the question whether or not it has any relevance what genre the story is in. See my responses to your Point #1 and Point #2 for an explaination of that question. In the end, Hero Gamers want to know all the details, no matter the basis in science fiction or fact. It's a simple desire, so they can 'build'. My intend on the story aspects was to point out that Star Wars is missing in technological and conceptual continuity between it's movies. This is in order to facilitate the greater storyline George Lucas is attempting to tell, but in doing do, it creates problems for Hero System users that are seeking continuity between shows and concepts. Thus were my comments made, and to point out this problem. To which you responded in a highly aggressive manner that was unnecessary, given the context and the fact that I was only pointing out some unmentioned sticky points of building the device. The real questions are: Why are you so worked up over this? Why would you care if people want to know the trivial details? Why vent your anger and rudeness at me, who only added a single blurb in an ongoing conversation? If you like Star Wars so much, you should learn the lessons it's trying to expound: Patience and understanding are the path to peace and self worth. Anger and hatred lead to hurt and more anger and hatred. If you care to reply with tact and some relevant building issues for lightsabers, then I'm sure everyone reading this thread will be more than happy to pay attention to what you have to say. My only request is that you calm down and answer with more civility than contempt for the people involved in this thread.

Just a point of order... For those of you (and this apparently includes the New Star Wars game authors) that feel you need to be a Jedi or have force powers to use a lightsaber: consider that none other than Han Solo picks up Luke's saber and disembowls a Taun-Taun with it. If you have to have a VPP (or other Force package) to use your lightsaber, this wouldn't have worked for Han (unless we agree on Han having some kind of Force package even though he's an avowed Force agnostic). It's my take, based on this single sampling, that a light saber is a stand alone weapon that can be used by anyone. They seem to have a bit of 'back bite' meaning that they have a gyroscopic effect and require STR to use and the harder the material they are cutting through, the more difficult they are to wield due to this effect. If you ask me, I would picture one as an energy version of a "Roto-Zip" saw (go to your local hardware store if you don't know what I'm talking about, or do a Google search on it). I think what the Force allows a Jedi to do is control the weapon better. Also, part of the training is learning how to make a lightsaber, thus said, if only Jedi's know the technique and there is some kind of "Force Battery" that must be charged by the Jedi to give the blade the power, then it would be an END Reserve and it would still work (at least for a while) for a non-Force user and this could also explain Han using the weapon. This is all just theoretical wanderings, I am not George Lucas, and I tend to have my worlds with less backtracking and more solid foundations of concepts than Star Wars (I'm not saying I don't love SW, I do, but man, we're nearing Trek level of backtracking on earlier points here!). Anyway, back to your discussions...

No, Dr. Destroyer. Dr. Who was not involved in this hypothetical situation. He's probably watching from some nearby red phone booth though...

It depends on the desired effect... Steve: Depends on the effect you are looking for... If it is just a sight gag: it's a GM tool effect and normally occurs only when there is no combat going on or a large pause in the combat. Thus it has no real game impact. If it can occur during combat and has effects, you get choices depending on the seriousness of the effect: Not serious, usually to give the character a moment of pause: x2 Vulnerable to Presence Attack from Pretty, scantilly clad females. An 'attack' but can't truly hurt the character without a follow up strike by a foe: 1. Entangle (the character stands there stupified) based on INT (use EGO instead to simulate a lack of will if the characters problem is with his 'karma') with appropriate letchery minuses if the male is a letch. 2. INT Drain (simulates the character being incapable of doing anything but babbling incoherently and wandering about after the girl- Duh, Duh, Duh, kind of thing) An interesting possibility is if the girl doing this is the foe and does this intentionally to the male- you could make it a Transfer! In either case, the INT would come back REALLY quickly, like every phase, so the character could 'snap out of it'. 3. Physical Limitation: Could be used in nearly any version of this with a descriptive of what happens when the character is confronted thusly by the girl. Swap out infrequently, frequently, all the time with dice rolls: 8-, 11-, All the time: and Slightly, Moderately, Greatly are based on the effect with the latter two possibly heaping damage on the character which would take us into the next category. An 'Attack' (note the capital "A"!) that causes damage and might be able to be used against even non-virginal males (comedy effect that some players might have thought themselves immune to! Funny in certain situations, especially if the male characters SO is right there!): There should be a required COM minimum of the girl, as well as a PRE minimum here. 1. Energy Blast: Indirect, Area of Effect: Radius 4" (any further away and it likely wouldn't have the effect), Limitation: only characters sexually attracted to pretty girls, Stun Only, requires full phase (girl needs to flash and 'pose'), Attacker is ½ DCV while doing action. (many more options here but these are common ones I can think of.) 2. Ranged Killing Attack: See options in EB description. (Use the Killing Attack if you want to have BODY being done due to blood loss and not STUN.) An additional option here may be Penetrating so there is at least that initial 'Spray' of blood. You can use that on the EB as well, but that would kind of sit between these two attacks in concept. Lastly: if the 'attack' is intentional (using any of the above effects except the first) I would definitely apply a bonus to a Seduction roll, and perhaps attach a mind control on the target if the attack is successful in any fashion. Thus the target may be unwilling to attack the girl. A good looking villian girl (Kodachi Kunou sort) might have this as a real power and a darned effectively nasty one at that!!! I'm sure there's a million other ways folks can come up with (this being the Hero System and all where there is never just one way to do anything...) but I figured these might be common ways to try and pull it off.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting... You have more faith in forum threads than I do sir... This is very true, the problem is exascerbated at the lower levels. Having said that, it's why I don't mind 'Agents' even up around the 400-500 point mark. This is about James Bond level of skill. In the end, what we've really accomplished by tossing out point maximums is an end to the 'silly disads' and 'limitations for limitations sake' just to bring point costs down. The characters build faster, play better and everyone seems more flexible to charater manipulation due to plot constraints. It makes it feel more like an authored story as well as having many of the trappings of movies/TV perceptions. (You also can enforce the disads a bit harsher and more regularly since the players aren't as worried about overall point balance and that the disads are there because conception has put them there. It also gives me the choice as a GM to give them disads during the campaign if they are using a "Hero Bonus" and not have to give them an ability to counter the added disad cost, thus I don't feel guilty! ) I'm toying with the idea of creating a SUPER AGENT VILLIAN that can do just about anything because he's built on unlimited points (that's his ability) yet because his CV's, Skills and 'powers' are down with the players, he's still fightable and can be engaged by the players without them feeling like they are going after Mechanon!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting... On the surface, that 'seems' to be the case, however, my group have discovered major flaws with the 'total points' acting as a balancer. This doesn't come out as much in playing Super Heroes as it does in other genres, since the Hero System was primarilly designed for Super Heroes. You can still come across problems in total points though. Due to the way the rules are applied and how points are assigned, you can have a great character conception but with no cheap way to build a medium to low utility ability, even if it's central to the concept. You can (and we have found "frequently") end up with characters built on the same points as others yet can't hold a candle to them in combat. It's the old efficiency arguments about which class is most point efficient, and the problem there is, it's very TRUE, there are more efficient classes of character archetypes, and this is because of the cost and point breaks. Therefore, relying on total points as your absolute arbiter of character ability would seem highly suspect to me in an advanced building environment. I'm sure you are using corrective mechanisms, of some kind or another. There's nothing worse than spending hours and hours on building a characer only to find they don't work as intended OR can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Let me say this again, clearly, it's not as bad in Supers as it is in other genre's, but since I tend to use Hero for other genre's and play few Supers, it's a problem I've had to face often and have discovered that limits on the abilites work FAR better as a balancing scale than point total limits. I can build a 1000 point character that doesn't exceed human normals and has no super powers, and might even be able to fight a low powered super, BUT that doesn't mean the character is inefficient, it just means that they have a greater depth of abilities than even a 350 super. It also means that I forced combat and power limits on them, and it means that other talented normal humans (even in the same party) can be just as useful in combat or max ability as the heavy pointer. So now, to use your logic to it's fullest, the points don't matter, but the end product in abilities do, and those need to balance in order to make the 'team' work. You just seem to have gotten lucky that your players are dialed in well enough as a team that they instinctively build compatable characters. Not everyone has that kind of playing group. Again, I personally don't require a system at all with a single player or as a single player. With a group, it's my personal preference that I limit ability, not points. I've seen disparagements as far as 130 points and the players fully happy all the way around. Experience is unnecessary since if a character needs an enhancement then I, as the GM, can find a way to get it to them in the course of the game. Disads become what they are meant to be, conception fulfillers, and not just a means to get more points. With the points being thrown out the window, suddenly, the important thing becomes the character conception, motivation and action, rather than the system mechanics or biases/flaws themselves. This is all opinion, and my own experience I'm sputtering out here. Your mileage may (and probably does) vary...

Arguments for Arguments sake... You guys do realize you are debating make-believe characters, which rely on a great deal of personal perception as to abilities and capabilities, as well as rules to a system which seem to be flavored by the 'author of the moment' and some built in flaws that spawn massive amounts of house rules in many gaming groups. Is it REALLY worth it to start sniping at each other and making this personal? Dunno about you guys but I'd rather have a bunch of friends with the sytem in common than enemies made by getting technical or devisive. Just some food for thought...

Re: Re: Re: Interesting... When I role-play via the internet, I play (and GM) without a system at all... the story rules the 'game' as it were. So I agree with the post here, but the ultimate extension of that 'logic' is simple cooperative storytelling. The GM builds the universe, runs the NPC's and the Player runs the protagonist. This works well in solo-player games, but tends to break down with multiple players. Thus the system is needed to act as a comparative restraint method to the players, even if they are incredibly mature. By nature, people (read: players) are competitve with each other. No, limits aren't necessary, but you still must have SOME kind of limits on the game, be they CV, Points or ceilings of other sorts. You can't have one player build "Docter Dexterity" with CV's in the neighborhood of 20 and someone else build "Miss Manners" who only has CV's in the sub 10 range. These characters can't face the same badguys, can't fight well as a team. As a GM, when you say "I want your CV's between 8-11" you have just set a limit. "Doctor Dex" may end up with an 11 CV and tons of levels of Lightning Reflexes to make up the character conception points, but in the end, you have to have a realistic 'spread' of characters and this requires limits to both the upper and lower end of the stat/power/skill spectrum. My current ruling philosophy for players is: use as many points as you like, but here's your CV/Power/Skill limits. We've even developed a sophisticated 'balancing' system for these limits so that they can 'slide' around in relation to one another and keep characters balanced between each other. It seems to work really well and also keeps the badguys balanced in relation to the players without much hassle.

No Snake pics here... (Sorry) At any rate... "Combat Effects" like this are fairly easy. We all get into trouble if we try to work out the exact mechanics of it in the game terms. One persons 2 hex snake is anothers 'monster of horrific' proportions as the previous conversations have so eloquently demonstrated. Best thing to do as a GM is just determine Difficulty of the maneuver. Personally I would've given a -10OCV to the maneuver (regardless of size problems, I'm assuming the proportions are right) because it's a -8 to hit the head and I'm giving another -2 to 'wedge' the stick in and time it with the creatures bite. However, factor growth pluses to hit in and the creature basically aiming right at the character and being too dumb to avoid the trap, I give the Hero about a +5 for creativity and the preceding reasons. For the creatures part, it really just has to make an INT check to open it's mouth a little wider and let the stick fall out. Even a Dog figures this out given time, you know this if you've ever seen one with a tennis ball rammed half way down it's mouth (which over zealous ones tend to have happen in an enthusiastic game of 'fetch'). So realistically, it only gives the Heroes a few phases to down the beast. In "Jedi" the particular creature had more muscles than brains so it just took the only way out it could figure, crush the bone in it's jaws (something it was likley familiar with anyway). Perhaps, since we are talking movies, the best example of this 'Mexican Stand off' (apologies to any Hispanics, it's the only term I can think of to describe it) is represented in the movie "Dragonheart" with the knight and the Dragon at odds over a precarious bit of dental working. Food for thought...

Interesting... I'm intrigued by the idea that you can have any kind of "Stat" race, or any race at all for that matter. You are supposed to have SET limits by the GM (it's that interesting thing called a Campaign Design Sheet, The Word of God, or whatever you want to call it.) You hit that wall and the GM is supposed to squash you like the pathetic bug you are if you try to go beyond those limits. Sure, some cleaver character conception and an offsetting weakness in the character some place else, may allow you to 'bend' this wall, but you should never be allowed to stray too far from it. Characters that always hit = boring Characters that cannot be stopped = boring Characters that have no failings or limitations = boring Characters that have flaws, personality, and aren't the best at everything they do = fun and exciting That's the whole idea behind 'balanced' characters. If you are an amazing combat monster, your personal life (or anything out of combat) should be hell. If you have a stellar normal 'life' you should suck in combat or be about as useful as a paperweight. (Used correctly, a paperweight COULD be dangerous in combat, but never by itself! ) Most characters should fit somewhere between those two ideas. BALANCE is what makes the game fun. Sometimes ya gotta lose, at least somewhere, with the character. There are no such things as "Stat/Skill/Power Races" in a balanced campaign. Points limits and character conception should always dictate the boundaries of a characters ability.(argh, I used THAT weak notion, apologies to powergamers everywhere... yes Virginia, that is sarcasm... )