Mr. Negative

See, to me, this isn't totally true, because, at least for creating spells, HERO has a lot of what I call "front end" knowledge required, while most other systems have a lot of "back end" knowledge required. That is to say that designing a spell to create a specific effect requires either a fairly complete knowledge of the system, or a lot of references to the rules (and ususally both). On the other hand, once a spell is built, you can look at the spell-write up and know how it works. You don't have to really look much up in play with the spells, nor do you have to do a lot of GM rulings. Other systems with pregenerated spells, or even some systems where you can improvise spells (say Mage) require very little preparation to select/create spells but it often requires a lot of looking at the rules/consulting the GM to see how a spell actually works in play. While this is very intimidating or time-consuming to new players or GMs, creating spells from scratch or modifying spells to fit your system, I feel that it is time well spent in that, for the most part, you don't have to have these discussions later, during play. Bringing this back to VPPs. I'd really like to emphasize that a VPP doesn't necessarily indicate that the character can actually improvise spells. It is simply a rules construct to represent a particular ability to use magic. There is nothing wrong with a VPP of all pregenerated spells, created by either the GM or the player, or both. If the idea of creating spells during the game gives you pause (as it does me) you can disallow it without impacting, at all, on the utility or nature of the VPP (however, if someone does have a limited selection of pregenerated spells, this would be an ideal use of the 'limited selection of powers' limitation on the VPP). I have liked VPPs in my FH games because players don't have to spend any points on specific spells, or even on spell colleges. If some wizard wants to learn some minor spell that allows him to do some minor trick, then he can, without spending any points on it. If he wants to become a more powerful wizard, or master some powerful magic, then he must funnel points into his magic "in total", rather than just putting points into one power. Multipowers work fairly well, but they seem to discourage the creative minor magics (common to GURPS Magic) that I really like in my system, and which I feel add a lot to the distinctive feel of the wizard ("Anyone can kill an orc, but I can keep my stuff dry in the rain, and set up magical perimeters around the campsite, too!")

So by replacing STR, CON, and BODY with one stat costing 6 points, aren't you basically using the 2 point/Str cost and simply requiring each character to purchase the same score for their BODY, CON, and STR? Similarly, with INT and EGO being bundled together into MIND with a cost of 3 per level, it again effectively requires purchasing the same score for both stats? I don't see this as ANY change in the system (other than increasing the cost of STR, which is another basket of threads in and of itself. If this works for you, that's great, but ultimately, it seems trivial as a game system idea. Now you haven't discussed the Derived Characteristics, which is where this could get interesting. How are those determined? Also, since STR, BODY, and CON are bundled, how do you represent healthy but small beings, especially animals and the like that would normally have a negative STR score in HERO? For instance, a badger would have a quite low strength, but should have fairly decent CON rolls. Also, are you REMOVING Speed, or simply giving everything the same Speed score? If Speed is being done away with, how do you handle multiple actions and the like? If everything has the same Speed score, what is it (out of curiosity) and how do you model exceptionally slow or exceptionally quick characters who might have more or less "actions" than normal?

Re: Re: Re: Flame Games Indirect Allows you to ignore barriers but "...not personal defenses like Force Field or Armor" (p. 167). I had always assumed that the DEF of armor would be treated as Armor for those purposes. If that's not the case, then Indirect would work fine.

Re: Flame Games For both, use Delayed Effect or Gradual Effect on a Killing Attack. This will allow the victim to remove, or try to remove their armor, or drop their weapons, if they so desire. The choice would depend on whether you envisioned this as a slow broiling, or a magical heating that began as mild heat, but rapidly escalated into burning. On the "armor" spell, put a limitation like "DCs limited to the DEF of metal armor worn" and use Armor Piercing (only vs. metal armors) or the like if you really need to make sure the damage gets through the armor. I'd advise the first limitation because the person in chain or plate should probably be in more danger than the person with a helmet. On the second, you could again limit the damage by the amount of metal within the targeted object (a greatsword would probably give off more heat than a broach). By tying the damage to the metal on the victim, and making the damage delayed in some manner, you give a strong incentive for the victim to divest themselves of metal objects, which can be just as useful as the damage-dealing aspects of the spells themselves. I wouldn't recommend NND in either case, as very few metal armors are worn without other, non-metal defenses as part of them, such as cloth padding, etc. Also, most metal weapons aren't held so that the metal is directly in contact with flesh, as many have wooden hafts, leather grips, etc. If you made the attack Armor Piercing, most FH defenses are low enough that damage will get through, but that's just my opinion. Now, I don't know if you are planning on the weapons and armor staying hot to the touch (like real heated metal) or becoming cool instantly thereafter (which would be possible if a Fire Imp or the like was involved). If they retain heat, the attack would need to be Continuous. Also, I don't know if the spell damages the weapon/armor, for which you would need either a linked attack power targeting the weapon/armor itself (the underlying spell actually attacks a character via their metal implements) or a Transform. It's a fun spell. I'd like to see a similar one used which made your clothes painfully constrictive (a Delayed Effect Entangle, perhaps?) which would encourage PCs to rip off their clothes to avoid being immobilized (thinking of the scene in Mystery Men). This would be one of those spells that would be more humiliating than lethal, but still entertaining to see role-played.

Well, one of the things you could use to "encourage" attributes other than the "breakpoint" attributes is a house rule for "contests". In any case where you have a Attribute roll or Skill roll based on an attribute competition (say Int vs. Int, or Int vs. Sleight of Hand), if there is a tie, then the person with the higher basic score in the attribute in question wins instead. In any case where two characters roll BODY to determine a contest (say a Str vs. Str contest), the person with the higher basic attribute wins by one. This is a really minor rules tweak, but it means that the person with an 11 Int is slightly more likely to outwit a person with Int 10. It doesn't come up very often, but the person who has paid for an extra point now occasionally gets a concrete benefit from it.

Although most of the headlines submitted were of the tabloid variety, I wasn't sure from your original post that tabloid headlines were what you were looking for. I though you may have been looking for "normal" headlines that hinted at High Strangeness to people disposed to look for it. I'd highly recommend looking at Fortean Times, a British periodical (available in America) which chronicles a lot of strange reports from around the world. Recent issues have covered SARS panics, Japanese cult activity, theories of disease from space debris, strange deaths (a monthly column), out-of-place animals (big cats in Britain, etc), and a lot more. They both reprint, without commentary, articles reported in other news publications, and print longer articles on particular topics, which range from sober and scholarly to panicky true-believer. They have a web page at: www.forteantimes.com where the daily news headlines for today (8/28) include: Pony injured by 'big cat' Rainbow miracle Fired Fair Employee Strips, Hit by Train Satanist trial opens in Brazil Mars Approach Will Spawn Record Number Of Alien Hybrid Babies Bonsai trees pampered in own hotel in Portugal Man Burns Down Apartments in Wasp Hunt Eating bats not as healthy as you thought

Re: Haste Spell How about this idea, which gives you the same Speed Boost, sidesteps the issue of how Costs Endurance should work, and still costs Endurance (I blatantly hijacked my own post from elsewhere): +4 Speed (40 Active Points), Major Side Effect always occurs and does a predefined amount of damage (3d6 END Drain Standard Effect) (-3/4) This costs 22 points and gives you a speed boost which immediately drains 18 END (9 Character points worth). Alternatively, you could write up a lesser END drain, and make it continuous: +4 Speed (40 Active), Minor Side Effect Always Occurs and Does a Predefined Amount of Damage (1d6 Continuous END Drain, Standard Effect) (-1/4) This one costs 32 Real Points and the Side Effect (which is equivalent to 20 Active Points of effect) drains 6 END per phase. If you stop using the Speed, you stop losing the END, and, of course, if you don't do anything in a Phase, you can probably use your REC to regain the END lost to the Drain that phase. Technically, the Minor Side Effect only needs to be 15 points, but Drain is 10 point per d6.

How about: +4 Speed (40 Active Points), Major Side Effect always occurs and does a predefined amount of damage (3d6 END Drain Standard Effect) (-3/4) This costs 22 points and gives you a speed boost which immediately drains 18 END (9 Character points worth). Alternatively, you could write up a lesser END drain, and make it continuous: +4 Speed (40 Active), Minor Side Effect Always Occurs and Does a Predefined Amount of Damage (1d6 Continuous END Drain, Standard Effect) (-1/4) This one costs 32 Real Points and the Side Effect (which is equivalent to 20 Active Points of effect) drains 6 END per phase. If you stop using the Speed, you stop losing the END, and, of course, if you don't do anything in a Phase, you can probably use your REC to regain the END lost to the Drain that phase. Technically, the Minor Side Effect only needs to be 15 points, but Drain is 10 point per d6.

In fact, that's kind of what I'm considering, for each character: a Heal Body with a single charge that is also limited by having to be used immediately after taking damage. This would allow the PC to convert what might be a killing blow (one that does loads of body) to a painful injury (like a nasty cut on the face, or a kick in the goolies). This way, a player might still be incapacitated by STUN damage, but could "ignore" one bad (for them) roll each game. However, I don't want to do regeneration, as I don't want this to be a "shake it off" sort of effect, but rather, the sort of vagaries of fate that always conspire to protect characters. I'm unsure how to write it up so that it can save PC's when they are unconscious or stunned, as Healing normally requires a half-phase action. Perhaps some sort of trigger would work, but again, how would a unconscious PC use it, or how would a conscious PC use if if stunned, but not unconscious? I mean, the Trigger could be "whenever PC loses more than 1/2 body in a single blow, or goes to zero body", which would technically work, but seems kludgy. Unfortunately, since it would need to be able to allow PCs to avert death (as the "killing blow" never occurred) it would also have to have the Can Heal Limbs and Resurrection adders. It would also need to be Invisible as there would be no evidence of it having occurred (it is as if the blow were simply less lethal). Thus, the power looks something like this: Nearly Had Me: Healing (4d6 Fixed Effect Body Healing (6 Body), Can Heal Limbs, Resurrection (65 Base Points), Invisible (+1), Trigger (+1/4) (146 Active Points), One Charge (-2) Self Only (-1/2) (41 Active Points) However, that power is 41 points! That seems ridiculous for a power that basically allows the PC to ignore 6 points of BODY once per game. However, I can't think of a better way to write up a power that works "instantly" to retroactively undo a lethal blow. I'm open to other ideas like this, but I would like them to function similarly (like GM cheating to preserve the PC, but under the PC's control). Maybe I should just suck up the points, since I'm granting them to all the PCs (and probably to the most essential central antagonists) and run with it. Thanks for all the useful comments. I was planning on tracking BODY from wounds separately and allowing a paramedic roll for each anyway. The "healing herbs" that I envision being used most are more like smelling salts, in that they heal back STUN, so that you are still injured, but mobile and in less danger of passing out.

However, some of the GURPS complexity isn't a matter of smoothing or simplifying, but of a decision to base rules on real units and reality, rather than game units. GURPS has chosen, by and large, to do their rules by "cause" rather than by "effect" as it is in Champions. This means that instead of having general rules that you modify to create specificity, you instead have specific rules for specific effects. For example, Pyrokinesis raises the temperature of a specific cubic area by a specific temperature in GURPS. This would mean that perhaps a pryokineticist could raise a human's temperature by 1° per second (and GURPS tells you the temperature at which humans lose consciousness). Thus, you have a LOT more complexity than HERO, but it's for a specific reason, which you may or may not like.

For those using "high-tech" humans in Champions, or a Star Hero setting, here are a couple of non-lethal weapons on the drawing boards (oddly enough, culled from a British men's mag called Front): Veiling Glare Laser: This is one of the coolest,in my mind. It's a frequency of light designed to produce fluorescence within the human eye, creating a "white-out" of vision. Two nice things about this: if possible, it shouldn't damage the eye and it's not temporary, but lasts until the light is shut off. Photic Driver: a device using strobing infrared lights to disorientate people. As it is infrared, the light cannot be seen, but can penetrate closed lids and affect the eye anyway. Active Denial System: a microwave-based pain delivery system. This one causes intense skin pain without burning, and is being developed (and tested on volunteers!) in New Mexico by the USAF Research laboratories. Reportedly, no test subject would stand in the beam for more than 3 seconds. Now, how would you write them up? For the Photic Driver, you could have an area of effect, invisible Drain DEX, with No Normal Defense (defense would be shielding from infrared, such as with an ED force field or the like). For the Active Denial System (as there is no permanent damage), I was going to say an invisible Mind Control (based on CON) with a single command (Pain!!!), but there may be a better way (it seems to cause no lingering effects, so even a Stun-only attack is perhaps too much). For the Photic Driver, perhaps a Continuous Flash, NND? The continuous would reflect the fact that this isn't a momentary overloading of your senses, but a constant overwhelming. The NND would reflect the fact that normal means of protecting from Sight Flashes (goggles, third eyelids, etc) don't work as they don't completely block the incoming light, so that it can still cause fluorescence in your eyes. Defenses would be having A) non-human chemistry (your eyeball goo is different), Closing your eyes (which still leaves you unable to see) or C) getting behind something that blocks the transmitting light (although, it might still affect you even when reflected off surrounding surfaces). Just some more cool ideas for the Gadgeteers and Criminal Masterminds out there.

I just wanted to comment on two things that emerged from this discussion that emphatically were not part of the original Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist essays: First, combat, wanting combats, or creating combat-capable characters isn't Gamist. All three types of gaming can accomodate and encourage combat. For examples: Narrativists might want to roleplay a disgraced knight, or a wandering samurai, or a feckless but undefeated swordsman. They might be frustrated because the rules don't allow them to be as capable in combat as they envision their characters to be, or a Narrativist game might allow them to be deadly in combat, simply because that is how their character is conceived. Simulationists who desire combat would want that combat to "make sense" in the game world. If firearms haven't been invented, making plate armors obsolete, then fencing weapons would be rare or non-existent. Fencers fighting heavily armored knights would lose quickly, as they couldn't hurt their shielded opponents. A simulationist would be frustrated in a game where unarmed, unarmored monks were just as effective in combat as knights, because, if they were, why did we develop weapons and armor in the first place. They would enjoy combats that seemed believable or historically accurate. Gamists tend to want an equal chance in combat. If characters A and B have spent 40 points each on combat skills, then both should be equally effective. More than an accurate simulation, or a story to integrate into their narrative, Gamists want a challenge that they have an opportunity to win, not based on story needs, but based on their character's design and usage. Gamists might be frustrated by GMs who present a fight that they MUST win, or MUST lose, to advance the storyline. A gamist wants to know that they won the fights on their own merits as a player. Also, Gamists are not necessarily combat-oriented, or combat-monsters. A gamist is concerned with the challenges encountered in the story, as challenges (not as part of their personal narrative). For instance, a Gamist running a thief might want to know what kind of skill levels he needs to have to be a good lockpick. He wants to know that if he puts X points into being stealthy, he will be effective at being stealthy. This isn't limited to the points based system. If a Vampire gamist player puts 5 dots into a skill, and 5 dots into the attribute that skill uses, he wants to know that he is going to be successful with that skill a LOT, whether that is Dexterity+Melee or Perception+Search. The gamist wants to match himself against the challenges in the game, and wants to have some idea of how his character design will help him against challenges. Thus you could argue that: Hero encourages Gamist play as it uses a consistent points-based system that starts out players on level playing fields and allows them to be matched up against points-equivalent opponents. HERO encourages Simulationist play as it's system is easily modified by the GM to reflect the reality of any campaign world you might imagine. HERO encourages Narrativist play because the open-ended character creation process allows you to create the character you envision. but you might also argue that Hero discourages Gamist play because the rules allow certain combinations of skills and powers to be disproportionately effective (say free equipment for warriors but no free spells for wizards). Hero discourages Simulationist play because the open-ended nature of the game allows and encourages Players to use powers, skill, and attributes that may be disruptive to the setting (Precognition, Teleportation) Hero discourages Narrativist play because the points limitations on characters prevent certain character conceptions with high points totals (a god disguised as a wizard).

Evidently I was wrong. Never mind what I said about the potential benefits of trying VPP in FH. Variable Power Pools are not allowed in Fantasy Hero, only in Champions. Thank you for clearing that up.

On the subtopic of making VPPs viable in low fantasy, I'd like to point out two things that others may or may not have noticed. First, looking at a VPP like the one listed by sbarron above (fantastic list of spells by the way) should make something clear. While these spells are certainly not impressive in a High Magic setting, in a low fantasy or swords and sorcery setting, this wizard is very impressive. He has defenses, life support, movement powers, illusions...all kinds of useful stuff that the fighters and rogues don't have. All for 20 points! This wizard is a fantastic "Swiss Army Knife" character, and can have even more versality just by designing more spells. Given that the FH mages generally are written up with 40 points in spells, this guy could have a 1d6+1 killing attack, a 4d6 Energy Blast, etc... If there is actually very low magic, then the magic this wizard is capable of will be pretty useful. It may not be "ZAP! He's dead!" useful, but I certainly wouldn't mind having him around. Secondly, I think that low fantasy and "low powered" fantasy are getting mixed up a bit. It is quite possible to have 250+ point Low Fantasy characters (Conan, etc) and 150 point High Fantasy Characters. It is, admittedly, VERY DIFFICULT (probably impossible) to simulate the powerful spells of High Fantasy with low points total wizards using standard VPPs. The Active Point Totals will be a wash. However, that's not necessarily a flaw of the idea. I myself like it. I don't look at a 150 point wizard and see him doing the standard 3rd level D&D wizard stuff (fireball, etc.) I see him instead as a beginning wizard, or an accomplished wizard of not much raw power. The wizard doesn't conceptually have to compete with the warrior in terms of sheer killyness. That may be the style you want in your game, where ultimately, both characters toss out 8 DCs of Killing damage to their foes. That's a valid choice, and it works for many groups. The multipower (or the free points systems in FH ) are probably the way to go for that. If however, you see the wizard as being more capable of accomplishing things that cannot be brought about without magic, even if those things aren't themselves overtly powerful, that's another interesting conception for sorcery. I think too many players are seduced into thinking "how many points of damage can my character do?" instead of "what can my character accomplish?" On the other hand, if you really want to simulate particular, specific spell effects from novels or other games, the active points are quite often going to be too high to make normal VPPs feasible. If that isn't a problem for your conception, the VPP can really work. Looking at the "Wizard" Package deal, if you drop the 40 points of spells, you have a package that costs 41 points (even though you don't really need such a stellar spell roll, since the previously mentioned one doesn't require a skill roll to change). Spend 49 points on "wizardly" stats like those of Valerius the harper (also in the book). You now have 60 points left over for a 150 point character. Give him a 25 point VPP pool (as sbarron's above, with a 25 point control cost) and you still have an additional 10 points to customize the character. Using Sbarron's pool as a template, this wizard could have a 5d6 EB, a 1.5d6 RKA, 15 STR TK, 10 PD/10 ED Force Field, and a 10"+ teleport. Heck, he could even have 10PD/10 ED and +5d6 HA at the same time! Tell me that's not effective! (If you want a little more "flavor" give the mage both No Skill Roll and No Time Required and balance this with Variable Limitations -1. This will mean every spell has to have -2 in total limitations, so you will get lots of Incantations, Gestures, Foci, Side Effects, Skill Rolls, etc. The "cosmic" nature of the pool, however, will mean that a wizard with such a pool can unlock a door one minute, and cook dinner the next, then cook an ork shortly thereafter.) My long-winded point is that, while YOUR magic system may indeed not work in a VPP structure, there are a great deal of flexible, potent, interesting systems that do. The fact that a VPP doesn't allow you to create the spell that you are envisioning doesn't make VPPs a bad idea. Even if they aren't what you were intending, you might be suprised at how interesting VPP magic systems are. They don't have the same type of magic that many players are used to (D&D), but that's both a hindrance and a benefit. I've had more than a few players react with suprise and delight when "getting" the magic that a VPP system produces.

Re: Great Cthulhu's Cute Neice Rather than being evil, curious, inexperienced, or untrained in her powers, you might consider another alternative. One of the most horrifying aspects of the Elder Gods was that they were not malevolent, curious, or cruel, but that their motives and intentions were simply inscrutable to mankind. Their actions, because their very existence was so completely different from ours, were likely to be destructive in the extreme to humanity, but there was little to no sense of them being "classically evil". One way to reflect this might be to have the girl behave as an autistic. One of the more common ways of describing the behavior and experiences of an autistic is to say that autistics have no filter on their senses. They cannot ignore the feeling of the clothes on their bodies, or background noise, or the titles on the spines of the books behind them (this, of course, is a simplification, and not necessarily applicable to all autistic people). Mark Haddon's novel, "The Incident of the Dog in the Night Time", is written as if it were actually written by an autistic 15 year old boy, and has this reflected in the work. The main character also likes math and logic, as he appreciates things being in order, and in a predictable format. He also knows that he makes illogical emotional responses (he hates brown and yellow foods) but reasons that other people are illogical as well (you can't like everything you eat, so he chose to dislike brown and yellow foods, instead of disliking things on the basis of taste). The girl could have extensive, or even really quite limited reality-altering powers which she is using, consciously, but without sophisticated understanding and moral reasoning, to reshape the world around her. This could either be through mind-control (she "wears grooves" into the minds of her mother and father, so that they serve her the same food each day, behave in the same manner every day, do the same activities each night...) or through transformation or change environment (the neighbor's barking dog can no longer bark, the faucet can't drip, all the books on the shelf look the same....). Most insidiously, she might even be reshaping people's perceptions so that they don't even notice that this "normalizing" is taking place. The players might have to figure out some way to shield themselves from being similarly "smoothed out" in order to address the issue. To make this more insidious, perhaps her powers start as being very limited in scope (just her room, then her house, then her block...) but expand once everything within her current radius is "adjusted". This would give you both pathos and horror. This girl's galactic consciousness/awareness is overloading the human sensory/emotional system of her brain, causing her reptilian hind-brain (linked with the Elder Gods) to reshape her reality in such a way that it isn't disturbing her consciousness. Perhaps they can readily stop her "reality altering" powers, but they cannot cause reality to revert without her help and acquiescence. More tragically, perhaps there is no way to shut down the unfiltered reality that is threatening to overload her consciousness. So they can either cut down a morally innocent child, or consign her to a life of extreme unreachable autism. If you wan to be really heartless, she might even be able to understand this, and be allowed to make the choice herself between oblivion and being walled off from the world around her. Man, I knew there was a reason people only play Call of Cthulhu with me once a year (Halloween).

On the introduced sub-topic of having an offensive and a defensive power going at the same time within a VPP, the normal problem seems to be that the Offensive and Defensive powers have Real Point costs that, added together, are greater than that allowed by the pool (otherwise, what would the problem be?). Has anyone tried this solution (or is it even legal)? Buy your defense with Costs End and Uncontrolled. Then, the wizard can "cast" the defense, and allot the END that he thinks he will need to keep it up for the combat. After the END is spent, the defense stays up until it is exhausted, even if the points in the VPP are shifted to something else (right?). This has two nice features for me as a GM. The player isn't POSITIVE that his defenses will last through the entire combat, so an unexpectedly resilient foe can sometimes outlast them. Also, these advantages (plus Usable on Others as Attack, which allows the wizard to cast the defense spell on others and control the duration himself) add substantially to the costs of defenses. Most wizards need a substantial Active Point "reserve" to simulate some of their spells, but this often tempts them into trying to buy huge defenses cheaply. With those three Advantages, common magical defenses are quite expensive, and quite flavorful.

I'm also considering (among everything else) running a low/swords & sorcery fantasy game. In fact, I really want to run one set in Lankhmar. In addition, I'm intending to run most games as stand-alones (all set in the same world, with the same characters, but not running over from week to week). I'm envisioning players largely being members of the Thieves Guild (or the Brotherhood of Slayers) and having everyone being relatively combat-capable on their own (so teamwork is an option, rather than a necessity). Also, as members of the guild, most "adventures" will really be more like jobs, assignments, or 'free-lance opportunities' so that it isn't unreasonable that 2-3 people go it alone. My concern is this: Lankmar has very little reliable magic available to the Player Characters. While the loss of offensive spells isn't really a problem (as virtually none of the opposition will have any either), the lack of Healing seems to loom large as a problem in the game. For those of you unfamiliar with Lankhmar, while the Gods are real in Lankmar, the priest is a profession, rather than a "character class". Priests get no divine abilites from their god, nor any special insight or communication from them. Wizards themselves are in short supply in Lankhmar, and magic is difficult and dangerous to use. Spells require long, intricate rituals, or must be bound up into magic items to summon. Magic items themselves are exceptionally rare and precious, and even then, are not particularly awe-inspiring (wands of lightning, or potions of shrinking). This all means that magical healing seems to be in precious short supply in my proposed game. Having access to a potion of healing would be, in itself, a suitable goal for an adventure. What I'm looking for is experience from others who have run games either in such a setting, or have run adventures where the PCs had no healing available. Given that there will almost always be sufficient time for recovery between games (as the sessions will be standalone), will this be sufficient? Will the generally low lethality of HERO combat allow the PCs to face 1-3 combat situations per adventure, or should I really limit the combat to 1 substantial fight per adventure (so they don't have to worry about running out of Body? Does fantasy really require some "in-game" healing to encourage PCs to be heroic instead of avoiding combat like the plague (a problem I had when running GURPS fantasy)? Thanks for sharing any experiences you've had.

I have to admit, I kind of like the idea of the Sorceror Supreme not being chosen, or being bestowed, or being acquired, but simply occurring. That is to say that it would be something like being enlightened, in that it simply occurred to a particular wizard, not necessarily the most powerful before, or the "heir apparent". Then, from that point on, any wizard worth his salt could recognize that wizard as the Sorceror Supreme (good vibes,or the like). On the other hand, I also think the sorceror supreme should be largely forced to focus on mystical tasks, threats, and concerns, which, while in actuality totally essential to the continued existence of all, seem petty, bizarre or obtuse to the non-enlightened. Thus, the sorceror supreme cannot afford to spend time dealing with petty threats like bank robbers, plagues, or meteors smashing the earth to flinders, but has to instead focus on weighty concerns like Null-concept spheres being generated from a pre-existing Anti-Universe. This seems weird, but if really powerful magic were in the hands of people concerned with normal earthly concerns, wouldn't the world be radically different than it is now? Poof. No disease. Poof. No overpopulation. Poof. No want or suffering. Poof. No people of the wrong religious/moral/political beliefs. By forcing the Sorceror Supreme to confront those foes whose nature beggars imagination, you keep the world recognizable for the rest of us (plus, no PC gets really hot under the collar for the job) "So, there's no pay, and I have to oppose Infinitely Regressive Thought Migrations and Soul-powered Fractal Engines? Thanks, but I'll keep on turning murderers into newts."

That's right. I think I'll just limit it to 10 before Maneuvers, but including CSLs. Whoops.

I myself also normally use the Distinctive Feature limitation for Martial Arts, but the PC gets no points for it unless the martial art in question also carries some sort of a social stigma (The Hand of Kali? Only the most vile of assassins would resort to such!). This means that the PCs sometimes get short-sheeted by a knowledgable opponent when the guy with bunches of CSLs doesn't.

For the equipment issue, this is going to sound sort of fuzzy, but basically, if the players expect to get it for free, they had better expect to see the opposition's low to mid level grunts getting it for free. Thus, if the players are toting around swords, pistols, bullet-proof vests, walkie-talkies, and a big black van, then so can the opposition. If someone insists on using flash-bang grenades, or tear gas, or a machine gun, then there must be some sort of black market military equipment available in NY, so the criminal element would have access to it to. I'm going to "encourage" the players to maintain a level of equipment that doesn't get the cops and federal agencies breathing down their necks (though a bust on a weapons locker may be uncomfortable to explain), but allow them to feel out the genre as they wish. I suspect, given the limitations on their superpowers, the first time that a machine gun/grenade/tear gas is used against them, they'll rapidly get the idea that such stuff should really be left to military actions, instead of vigilantes.

This may work. However, I would also keep track of how many points characters are spending vs. a "traditional" VPP write-up. Given enough spells and KS, a major wizard might actually be spending more points this way. I have to admit, I myself have an "irrational" fear of giving away free magic points (though I know all the arguments: balanced by the free points of weapons and armor, balanced by the points spend on KS and spells, etc...). It's just that in every campaign I have ever run, or played in, there was no shortage of people willing to play wizards and pay points for all the spells, and the wizards were just as (if not more) effective than the warriors who got all the "point breaks" on weapons and armor. I'm not opposed to the "free magic points" systems, but I've just never seen any need to have them, except to model some sort of magic system where wizards CAN use powers far in excess of their points totals, which seems to favor them highly and unfairly over all other character conceptions. After all, within HERO, there's nothing to stop the wizard from using those "free points" in chainmail, shield, sword, and crossbow either. If there is in your game, then that itself should be a disadvantage worth points to the character.

I've been wanting to do a Fantasy campaign, but the group of players I have can't all get together consistently (and it seems that Fantasy really needs a group with skill specialists). Therefore, I decided to do a Superheroic game, as it seems that superheroes, while they CAN use teamwork, don't depend on it like Fantasy Heroes do. While I'm doing a low powered Superheroic game, I am going to run it off 150 + 100, but limit the powers fairly strongly, as well as the attributes. My idea is running an urban superhero genre, much like Frank Miller's run on Daredevil. I really want "powers" to be mystical in nature (much as Stick hinted to Matt that his sensory abilites weren't a mutation/chemical accident, but an ability to be connected to others which we all can chose to develop. Furthermore, the world must be ignorant of "superpowers", so no one can have powers which are obviously "super", but may only appear to be exceptional mortals, or have great luck. Some of the villians may violate this rule, but they must keep those powers hidden as well. For the villians, I'm planning on using a mix of "normal" criminals from thugs/street gangs/Tongs and a series of mystical opponents, much like the Hand from Daredevil (a conspiracy of evil mystics and assassins). The PCs will have the opportunity to train with each other under a wizened teacher, but this will not be necessary to the campaign, nor particularly encouraged (he'll be there if any players want to explore that side). Here's my ideas of how to limit the points for the characters. I'm looking both for any commentary on my ideas for limitations, and any good suggestions for particular mystic villains. Most attributes will be limited to either a score of 30, or an active point total of 30. Normal Characteristic Maxima is not allowed. Str 40 Max (I thought that perhaps this should be limited to 30, but perhaps it would be better to rekey the strength chart so that Str doesn't double lifting capacity every 5. I wanted character to be able to deal substantial damage without HAVING to use martial arts, and 6d6 while substantial, isn't very difficult to achieve with martial arts. Dexterity 20 Max (I know that seems low, but I really wanted players to spend more on skill levels and penalty skill levels than just having a great basic CV. I'm open to making it 30 max if people think that would be more appropriate. Con and Body are both 30 max (not that anyone other than my Stone analog would pay for 30 CON and BODY.) Int, Ego, and Pre, as well as Com, are all 30 max SPD is 6 max PD and ED are 12 max, with a max of 1 rPD and rED (more can be obtained from body armor and the like, but no character may have skin/force fields/whatever that innately grant them more than 1 point of resistant defenses. This is really important to my conception, as I want the players to have to take normal thugs with guns and knives seriously. REC is 15 max. END and STUN are both 75 max. All "powers" are limited to 30 Active points if not limited, and if limited, they must both be below 30 Real Points and cannot have more than 30 "base points". Thus, you could have a 2d6 Armor Piercing Killing attack, provided that you had some limitations to reduce the real cost back down, and, of course, providing you had some explanation of how it worked (perhaps a sword blade replacing your left hand, or whatever), Again, all powers must essentially be "invisible". The character cannot exhibit abilites that would convince people that he MUST be superhuman. A lot of the "non-powered" powers from the UMA and Ninja Hero will be in use here. Characters will not pay points for normal equipment (this further encourages them to carry a billy club or a sai, instead of sinking points into Killing Attack powers. Thus, they end up spending points on more flavorful powers, like Radar sense, or Desolidification, only to avoid damage, requiring a Dex roll). I'm STRONGLY inclined to disallow Increased Damage Classes, as I have always hated this mechanic. If a player wants to do more damage, I really want them to: Increase their Strength Use a weapon Use a vulnerable hit location Use skill levels to increase damage Push or use a haymaker Buy some mystical ablility (Ghost Palm, or Quivering Palm, or Really-really sharp fingernails) To me, Increased Damage Classes really let the martial artist, who is the quick, agile, skillful fighter, totally step all over the big bruiser, who is slower, clumsier, and less skilled, but should at least hit harder. However, they seem to be INSANELY popular with the martial arts crowd. I'm inclined to limit OCV (before martial maneuvers) to 10 as a starting max, and limit DC (including martial maneuvers, but not pushing or haymakers_ to 10 as well. This may be too low of a limit for OCV/DCV, but as maneuvers themselves aren't included, I hope it would work. I'm going to, of course, lift some of the Daredevil characters, avoid giving them "supervillain names" (what evil assassin picks a catchy name for themselves?) and use them in the campaign. Bullseye will be present, as well as Electra (less as a villian or ally, but as someone they might cross, much like Catwoman in Batman). However, I never really read a whole lot of Daredevil, and many of his foes seemed to be costumed supers, so I need suggestions either from your own campaign, or from people with a better knowledge of the comic, for more ideas in the above vein. I'm also looking for "in-game" ways to communicate and enforce the "powers must be hidden and secret" idea. Of course, the Hand wants to control/sacrifice/recruit those with mystical abilites, and perhaps the authorities would be inclined to imprison and study any "aberrations" that they discovered, but I really don't want to turn it into a Vampire: The Masquerade or X-Files theme. Perhaps the threat of the Hand and the pressure of intrusive press/media attention will be sufficient. Any interesting ideas for this are also welcome. Any comments on my game limitations or ideas for villians?

One of the most important things to remember about Variable Power Pools is that you (the GM) control how variable a pool is allowed to be. A spell pool doesn't HAVE to reflect the abilty to perform any magical effect (of a given active point total), it can simply be a game system construct to represent the ability of the wizard to use magic. For instance, you could take a Limit on the pool of only known spells (which I would vary in value depending on how many spells are known, from the 2-10 of a novice up to dozens of spells, if not more). You could also require the player to have all their known spells written up in advance (less headaches for you and less waiting for the other players). This almost gives the player a multipower without having to pay for each slot (the cost is different of course, but it allows a wizard to have many minor spells without splurging points on each one of them). Even if you want the player to be able to improvise magic, you could require skill rolls to create new spells, or even require that improvised magic takes substantial time to improvise, so that spells cannot be "written up" in combat, but can be created while imprisoned, trapped, etcetera, so that the player can write up new spells in situations where it won't derail or delay the game too much. A nice option for "divine" magic is a No Conscious Control limitation on the pool, which would reflect nicely a source of spiritual power that is governed by the god granting it, rather than the cleric using it. In this way, the priest's access to magic would be a way for the GM to use foreshadowing and hints, in that the god would know what powers would be appropriate (for the god's purpose), even when the cleric might be confused. Allowing VPP pools can be very disruptive, but I really think that if you make sure that it is limited within the rules to reflect the reality you want "within the game"' the VPP can be the best way to run many systems of magic. It does, however, require a mature player who is both conversant with the mechanics of the HERO system, and willing to play within the constraints of the magic system your campaign has. If you have players who are inexperienced or uncomfortable with the game mechanics, it will be a frustrating experience as they thrash out the powers. If you have power gamers who insist on using the pool to be predominantly combat/scenario effective, rather than trying to use it to reflect their character's own personal magical abilities, it will be frustrating for you and the other players as they disrupt the game.

Another, related, but different idea: Has anyone used a sliding points cost for Attributes? This would be, in concept, similar to GURPS, where you pay more for higher scores, relatively, because they are both more likely to help you make your attribute checks, and because they are rarer. Rather than do something complex, you might simply increase the price of each attribute by 1 point for every 5 points of the statistic. I'd do this only to base attributes, as well. You could consider it a variation on 'Normal Characteristic Maxima', so that it would only apply to points spent directly boosting the attribute, allowing Strength spells, DEX drains, and the like to work as they do now. So STR would be 1 point per point up to 15, then 2 per point up to 20.... (that would also apply for every other 1 point attribute) Dex would be 3 per point up to 15, then 4 per point to 20, then 5 up to 25.. CON would be 2 per point up to 15, then 3 per point up to 20.... (same for all the other 2 point attributes). I know that this was a thread dedicated to Strength discussions, but one of the complaints about strength, other than it's basic cost, was that you tended to get STR scores clustered around certain high numbers (18, 23). These same clusters also occur with INT and DEX, while few people who spend ANY points in INT and DEX end up with scores in the 11-15 range. This could serve to curb that "attribute clumping" a bit, and make those with a genuinely high score rare and exceptional. It would also be a little more "granular" than the current Normal Characteristic Maxima, in that it would gradually get more expensive to be exceptional, but it wouldn't be any "rarer" to be exceptionally Dextrous than exceptionally Strong (the "exceptional" cost for each would be the same.)