Galadorn

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

Definitly!

I did an actual test may years ago where I let the players be as powerful as they wanted. I mean anything they wanted they could have. To balance it out I just designed many of the scenarios to be figuring out things in order to win with some combat of course.

 

The result was they ended up falling over each other trying to use there incredible powers to win the game instead of role play, talking to NPC's and communicating as a heroic team.

 

Because I actually did it, I am totally convinced that less powerful characters are more likely to role play.

You could also keep the active point levels for attacks down, this would force players to spread their points around. You don't have to limit the character points in this case.

Re: Medieval Wages

But to answer your question -

No, I'm not sure. I didn't do any research AT ALL.

 

The medieval period is not one I am that interested in getting historically accurate, I'm more interested in the dark ages. However it is a good period to set high fantasy roleplaying campaigns - which I do intend on doing soon.

 

To create a roleplaying setting with elements of fantasy and magic, I'm not too worried about making it exactly duplicate real history.

The best period for High Fantasy I think is 1283-1299 in England. This was a colonizing period, and alot of castles were built. But there was also alot of Wilderness era left. I try to place all my games in a concrete Medieval time frame, so it makes it easy reference work for me.

All I have to do is look up technology or law in this time Period and I'm set.

Re: Alignments

No' date=' I'm not looking to incorporate deendee-type alignment rules into FH, nor any type of rules at all. What I want is a simple list of "alignment terms" to breifly describe the motivations and likely reactions of monsters, creatures, and characters to the PC's. This is something I feel could have been helpful in the Bestiary and MM&M.[/quote']

 

I agree. I just stick with the Good-Neural-Evil Axis. The Law-Chaos axis seems implicit in Good-Evil-Neutral.

 

I know it's a tall order, but if we put our heads together, we can probably come up with something useful.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

It means plenty. It is used to carry said armor. A 25 STR can lift 8x as much as a STR 10; it should also be able to carry 8x the protection (all else being equal). Also' date=' remember STR was the basic building block of the whole game system.[/quote']

 

Yes, but there are other considerations, than just STR considerations. If a character is strong enough, he might be able to carry the weight more easily, but the armor is still constricting. He might rip his way out of the armor if he uses his full STR, as well.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

It would still serve as a deflective surface (which is why shields are given a DCV bonus in HERO), or soak the missile so that your armor doesn't have to. On the other hand, it wouldn't deflect a bullet as well.

 

JG

No it wouldn't. It would pierce right through the shield and armor, both. You think it matters that you have a deflection device, when the material the deflective device is made of, cannot stop the projectile? That would make no sense...

Now for game purposes, we call a bow is like any bow, and arrow is like any arrow, and a shield is like any shield. This is to avoid myriad rules on different weapons and armor. But in reality and historically, it's a whole different ball of wax...

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

Lancelot might also have a shield up while advancing.

 

JG

Speaking from a real-world reality matrix: I think the example I gave of the longbow arrow piercing through full armor and a horse, would mean that it will pierce through shield and armor, as well. Given that most shields in the Middle Ages were made of wood, sometimes with a thin metal overlay.

Re: The great armour race...

Also as noted above to some extent' date=' if you take away weapons and armor, you only make Mages and Magic users that much more powerful.[/quote']

 

Let's face it, if you want to realistically dissect many fantasy novels, and overlay a real-world reality matrix on them: you would have to say that Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and other members of the Fellowship, had combat luck. I don't think there's any other rationale. And no matter how you slice it: whether you say there's a magical, spiritual, dexterity justification, it still boils down to combat luck with varying special effects or rationale.

 

So if you allow combat luck, the advantage Magic-users have, would fade into the woodwork. And this tends to be the trend in many fantasy novels.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

Exactly. And at the same time' date=' before modern firearms, there were very few "he hits you and you're dead!" one-shot kills. Most casualties were troops who were wounded or demoralized and taken off the field before death. This is the way it's worked in most of the combats I ran in Fantasy HERO.[/quote']

 

Yep. There was one exception to the pre-gun period: longbows. At the battle of Agincourt by Henry the Vth, a longbow arrow pierced through a fully armored knight, his horse and into the ground. The longbow was the death of many a knight from this time onward.

 

But soldiers didnt have a longbow, they used a shortbow or crossbow. And crossbows were expensive, so most soldiers had only shortbows, which would bounce off plate armor, for the most part.

 

Again the question stands, how much realism do you want? I don't think killing Lancelot in full plate, by a longbowman, is very heroic. But making Lancelot take cover behind a rock, so he can advance on a longbowman, boulder-cover by boulder-cover, would be pretty heroic if Lance got an arrow in the arm at one point.

 

It all depends on the realism you want. The point of heroic fantasy, IMO, is to shine on the heroic, and realism might be shadowed or downplayed a little bit, for the sake of face-paced drama.

Re: The great armour race...

Which is another area where literature and gaming are hard to reconcile. In literature' date=' characters don't wear platemail all the time because the author says they don't. In a game, if there are no penalties for wearing plate, there is no "author" to prevent PCs from wearing their ironmongery 24/7.[/quote']

 

Sure, so the GM has to create these "house rules" by himself, and for his players. But I think the point is this: What kind of game do you want to run? Do you want to focus on the inconviences of Medieval Life, including armor restrictions.

 

Or would you rather focus on the Ringwraiths and their bid to reclaim the One Ring. And alot of this is up to the GM, but I prefer to focus on magic, rather than the incoveniences of Medieval Times and equipment. Not that I don't include these details, I just don't concentrate on them, for the most part.

 

It's all a matter of tastes, and our tastes differ.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

My implication was that spells that provide any defensive powers' date=' FF being the most obvious and common, don't exist, but I think you knew that already.[/quote']

 

I could surmise you meant any resistant defense powers, but that's not what you said. You want me to put words in your mouth? I don't think so.

 

Eh? My rule doesn't address the issue? But then you paraphrase back the same thing I said and that sounds good to you?

 

Your rule was unclear to me, except something about the dramatic sense of things. Which is fine. But I said a GOOD game, and drama is part of a good game, I would say. But to me, a good game includes many other elements:

 

• Creative and efficient character design and development.
  
• Balanced and challenging antagonists, that don't rely of 5000 points to be scary.
  
• Familiarization with the rules enough to play a sort of "chess" game with resistant defenses and killing attacks. This prolongs attacks: "Now you take 2 body, and you miss the arch-villian." (The PC knows he is in trouble). "Now you take another 4 body, and you miss the arch-villian again."(Tension builds) "You finally hit the villian, and stab into his shoulder doing some damage. But, you take 3 body." (Tension builds some more). Etc.
   
  In short, incremental combat (i.e. instead of "he hits you and your dead!").

 

There may be circumstances in the game, in an adventure, where the best armor in the world isn't enough. 8 DEF plate armor isn't going to save you from the 6d6 RKA Dragon's breath. How do you handle this? Well, there can be defensive spells (that stack with armor) which might grant reasonable protection (say a total of 21 rED - you take a few BODY on an above average roll), but these spells should be difficult to use in some way* so that player's characters aren't walking around all the time with near-total immunity to an orc's sword.

 

This is exactly what happened in Medieval Times, until the advent of guns. Knights on armor were feared. Why? Very little could penetrate the armor of a knight in plate armor, except a longbow arrow, a pick on a pickaxe, and a few other weapons. In short, common soldiers would run away from a knight, in many instances. The average soldier simply couldn't effectively attack him, one on one, or even three on one.

Re: The great armour race...

What's the climate? Ever try wearing plate armor in ninety-degree heat? That would reduce anybody human or near-human to a quivering pile of jelly in short order. There's a good reason that heavy armor was' date=' historically, predominantly a northern European artifact. Check a map; Europe is about the same latitude as Canada.[/quote']

 

And has the gulf stream to warm up England, Norway and Sweden. It's not all cut and dry...

 

How to game that out? Apply LTE END penalties FAST as temperature rises. 1 END every minute would not be out of line as a maximum: I doubt anybody could last an hour in the hot sun wearing full plate. When END is gone, start draining STUN. When STUN is gone, start hitting BODY (maybe a bit slower).

 

This leads to one of my favorite home-grown magic items: Comfy Armor. It's a set of full plate with two Change Enviroment spells, each with its own Trigger. It warms up when the weather is really cold, and cools off when the weather is hot. Keeps the wearer at a steady 68 degrees F. Alternately, it could be designed with LS.

 

Heroic fantasy generally doesn't worry about the details. Did Aragorn and Gandalf get frostbite when they crossed through the snowy mountains? Heroic fantasisits generally don't sweat the details. But there is another realistic Fantasy sub-genre that sometimes does (Druss the Legend, ala.).

 

How heroic is this? "You die from frostbite, sorry Sauron wins." Now low fantasy is another story all together.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

I've never like the anti stacking rules, I personally think they're extremely stupid.

 

A mage in armor, with a force field up .. why wouldn't they stack? The arrow has to pass through both to hurt him? Does it somehow mysteriously bypass the armor if the force field is the higher defense?

I think this illustrates a cogent point. There is no logical reason, based on physics, why a forcefield would not stack with armor. This can ruin the suspension of disbelief for many.

I think logic and sepcial effects should prevent stacking, you can't wear two breast plates for example.

Of course you should take an additional dex penalty (including figured DCV penalties) for wearing such clumsy assembled armor.

If I were having a problem with the defenses getting out of hand in my game I would ask the players nicely to please refrain from doing such things as wearing plate armour and tossing up the high defense force wall spell with the stone skin spell. Simply for dramatic sake, or story. If they didn't comply I'd stomp them so far into the ground they'd pop out the other side.

 

At some point players and GMs alike need to step back, abandon what "is possible with in the scope of the rules" and go with what would make the better story/game/scene/daramtic sense. Forcing them into this role with arbitrary restrictions will only tick them off and make cause for arguements.

 

If you get that one player who insists on maxing the defenses every single time start hitting him with penetrating or exotic attacks. Mr PD isn't going to be protecting from Mr Psion's Ego Blast no matter how many force wall spells he's got up.

 

From my experience and point of view there are many more in game ways to work around this issue than doing something like "Sorry, it just doesn't work because I said so."

I agree, this is what I am trying to avoid in my game. And I think the best way to achieve it, is with a "gentleman's agreement." For the sake of the game, don't stack on super-high defenses, unless it's part of a character concept (i.e. magically impervious character).

Second of all, I think people have forgotten the economies of scale in Hero. So what if the character has 14 rPD and 22 nPD? Hit him with a bigger attack! If you're throwing kobolds with daggers at such a character, your scenario deserves to be laughed at!

And I think this comes to my first option: power levels restrict super-high defenses, because GMs and players alike, want a GOOD game. Im my twenty-some years of playing hero, this has worked excellently well.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

Hi!

The skill comes in for the FAM w/ spell limitation. This means that a wizard must learn a spell by studying it + pay 1 Point for a Familarity with it.

Therefore every spell costs 1 Point to learn and has the same limitations ( I don't like the atmoshere of wizards at combat movement firing a spell in an blink of an eye).

This could be done in a Multi-Power as well, for about the same cost.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

Hi!

 

In my upcoming campaign I am planning a mixture of VPP and skill system for spells.

 

A wizard must buy a cosmic VPP along with these limitations for the control cost: Incantations, gestures, Skill roll, Focus, extra time:1 Phase, concentration (1/2 DCV), FAM w/ spell (-11/2)

 

The skill comes in for the FAM w/ spell limitation. This means that a wizard must learn a spell by studying it + pay 1 Point for a Familarity with it.

Therefore every spell costs 1 Point to learn and has the same limitations ( I don't like the atmoshere of wizards at combat movement firing a spell in an blink of an eye).

 

As the VPP increases, so the power of the learned spells do...

 

What do you think? Will it be to limiting for spellcasters compared to fighters?

I think with the right power in combination with the right advatage a mage can easily outpower a fighter (what about a DRAIN Movement or STR to 0 for example?)

 

best regards

swobeas

I think you will learn the frustration some GMs have with VPPs. Here is a list of the reasons for, and against VPPs, said by many or none at all:

• Reasons For:
  
• Paradigmic Transcience: VPPs allow flexibility. A GM is not trapped into a certain spell list, or a static Framework of powers.
  
• Gap Rule:VPPs allow powers or advantages to be created "on the fly." If a player could justifiably have a certain attack, defense or power, but the GM didn't consider that possibility, VPPs allow the GM to have instant flexibility in allowing the character to have a power that the GM didn't consider in the first place.
  
• Modularity: VPPs allow a character to have all the powers he thinks his character should have, without spending massive points to gain them all. For example, a character have a 30 point multipower, and 30 powers he wants his character to have. 30 pt.s + 3 pt.s per ultra-slot = 120 pt.s
   
  For 45 pt.s a character can buy a VPP that covers all possible variations, without the 75 extra points cost. Then the player can mix and match VPP powers to magnify or add modifiers to an existing multipower or elemental control, or for some extra wallop, to his attacks. Thus the character can mix and match until he comes up with an ideal, and appropriate, power.
   
  Reasons Against:
  
• Scenario Transience: VPPs allow for infinite variations of powers. Accounting for all these possible powers, can make scenerio design nearly impossible.
  
• "Hunt and Peck:" VPPs allow for varying special effect (depending on the VPPs rationale), thus opening up rotating special effects in an effort to find a enemy characters susceptabilities and vulnerabilities.
  

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

Well on to the basics of the thread, try to think like this. how flexible do you want people to be?

 

the larger of a VPP you allow the more flexible you are.

 

at one point we were discussing a 75 point VPP FireMage who would build things like 2d6 Continuous AOE Megascaled Megaranged fire spell to take on armies with.... for a 75+75 game.

 

veddy veddy frightning.....

And this is why we have power levels for our games, so an occurence like this can't happen. And why I structure my spell-casters magic as I stated above (Multi, VPP, Defenses, etc.) And give an active point limit to mage spells. BTW, 75+75 IS a power limit in itself.

Secondly, it's not total flexibility I want my spell-casters to have, just someflexibility (5pt. VPP in a 30 active point game).

I had a character with a 30pt. VPP, in one Champs game. And he could almost do anything. On the big approach to our fellow NPC protagonist's spaceship, where I was supposed to be inside our spaceship going "Ooooh, and Ahhh!" with my fellow PCs, I instead teleported outside (I had sufficient life support) and FTL'd to NPC's ship. Then I put on my full presence effect (120 PRE) and presenced this supposed "demi-god" out. Well my character was an angel! LOL.

30 points of this presence was from my VPP.

And yes, from the GM's point of view, it probably ruined the effect he wanted to give. But my character was an angel! Probably a demigod in his own right, so to speak. And I guess a more impressive demigod, at that!

Of course this was Champs and not FH, and these were the early (and lucious) days of VPPs.

Plan plan and more plan. that is the danger with giving VPP's to players there is NOTHING you cannot overcome in Hero with enough imagination and a good VPP.

That's true. But there is a limit to what powers you can come up in 30 seconds, which is the usual time period a player in my game has between actions. Come on, how hard can creating and obeying rules be?

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

I take a different approach. Instead of saying that defenses don't stack or that there's a cap on DEF. I just say that Force Field spells don't exist. You can have one level of combat luck and any suit of armor you can find/make/buy/steal. Knights in armor are well-protected in combat. Wizards in robes aren't' date=' but they are useful for many other things.[/quote']

 

Just to illustrate how difficult this issue is...I will buy armor as a spell instead, special effect: force field.

 

OK, yes, you can have a FF spell, but it must be bought with severe increased END or Charges (non-continuing.)

 

Well, I think there must be a solution. But pat rules like this don't address the issue. I have no problem with saying a certain level of defense, isn't available to players. Was there armor better the plate armor in the middle ages? Nope. The high defenses simply aren't available rule, is sounding pretty good and justifiable right now...

Re: How do you handle Str magic and End?

A strength potion bought on charges would have no end cost for the Aid power' date=' not the aided power, I would say.[/quote']

 

Yes, so to be clear, you would still have to spend the END for STR. Your comment also assumes you are using the AID power, what about characteristics bought as a potion? That would still require end to use the STR, IMO.

Re: How do you handle Str magic and End?

I run 1 END per 10 STR.

 

-AA

Me too. The "END Monster" was a problem in earlier editions of Hero Games. The END Monster was the systematic drain on a characters end, so much so that he could barely fight two turns without running on empty (burning stun instead).

I prefer the 10/1 rule myself.

Re: building villains

hi im playing in a game where there's 6 to 8 players and were having problems with our gm throwing huge villains at us all the time. This is his first time GM'ing and were playing 150 point characters where he s throwing 350 point villains 2 to 9 at usat a time. What guide lines can you guys suggest in building villains and or in throwing villains at us? He doesn't want it to be too boring for us where we beat the villains in no time but frankly with his tough villains it takes forever to get anywhere in the game. He also have to make his villains do things to speed up the game that I dont think they normally would. What im hoping is to get good suggestions in building villains and also how powerful to build them? is there a good guideline to go by like for a 150 point player throw a 250 point villain or every 200 point player then throw a ??? point villain(S) at us?

It's up to your GM. In Normals Unbound, there was a villian who could be defeated through a susceptability to love. That's right, if two parents showed up who loved their child, the villian would start taking stun. So I guess in this circumstance, you can see why there is not hard and fast rule.

I think a better guide is active points in villian powers. If a villian has 50 active points in attacks, but has 250 character points, he might have all his points spread out into different special effects. If the PCs come along with 100 point characters, and 75 active points in attacks, they will probably wipe the floor with the villian, depending on susceptabilities, vulnerabilities and other factors.

Fantasy Hero is a Universal Roleplaying System, this means the key word for Hero is "flexibility." The problem with flexibility is that a system can be too flexible, so much so that GMs and players alike find the system hard to standardize.

I think this is what the present D&D does better than Hero with the new monster challenge ratings system. I know if I put a CR 2 (Challenge Rating 2) monster against a group of four 1st characters, for the most part they will be challenged. If I put a CR4 monster against these same characters, they will be defeated - most likely.

That's one weakeness I think FH has compared to D&D, lack of standardization. While standardization can feel canned after a while, GMs can always adjust the standardized monsters to suit their needs.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

That's the system I ended up using. I made a spell list which was related to foci the magic users had to obtain and gave a -1/2 limited selection of powers limitation for it. The cost and flexibility ended up being pretty much the same as an MP.

 

From the examples I've seen here, I think I might have overdone it on the limitations. There's at least -2 1/2 of limitations on all spells, and it's often closer to -3. Has anyone had problems with an overdose of limitations making spellcasters too weak? Specifically, all the spells in my game have at least OAF, Extra Time: Full Phase, Concentration: 0 DCV, and RSR. So far, it seems like someone trying to use magic is helpless on their own but playable when everyone is working together.

If i were you, I would pick an archetype, i.e. what do you want wizards to be able to do. How is magic going to look, function and act? I would decide this before I design a spell. Then with the give and take of spell design (too much cost, not limiting enough, etc,), work out the details within the Hero System.

About small VPPs for minor effects, there was a part in Fantasy Hero that mentioned allowing appropriate Power skill rolls to accomplish minor effects like that. For instance, a fire mage could roll his pyromancy or his magic skill to heat up his coffee, resist cold weather, do a light show, or stuff like that. That could work for low point games where you wanted to give magic users minor flexibility but points are too tight for people to buy it.

First, minor special effects for Gandalfs "firey cones of doom" are not that minor. Gandalf's firey cones spell would have killed the warg, if the goblins had not come along and put out the worg's coats.

Secondly, cantrips are much more useful in my campaign than just heating a pot of coffee. I have spells like:

• 
  1. Alter Self (Disguise +1)
  2. Charming (Persuasion +1)
  3. Light (5pt.s of Images)
  

These are far more useful than heating a coffee pot, and are capped at 5 active points per cantrip.

I also allow skills as cantrips to be far more useful, simply because they are magic. So a wizard with Alter Self could instantly alter his appearance to a high degree of detail. For instance, he could change his hair and beard color, put a fake wart on his nose and make tears, and holes in his robes and make his robes dirty as well.

With Alter Self I allow anything short of instant change, simply because it is justified by the spell's special effect rationale. So while the wizard could do the above alterations, he could not change the material his robe was made of (cotton to wool), the functionality of his robe (summer wear to winter wear), or the clothing items he was wearing (robe, to tunic and pants). But anything short of that is allowed.

So, as I'm sure you can see, cantrips in my game are far more useful than simply cooking bacon. I didn't remember that statement in FH, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

Love this thread

Thanks.

The point I think that has to be made, is that VPPs are limited by special effect. For your average wizard in my campaign, shapechanging is not possible. And each power has to be justified by a rationale that is relevant to the character's special effect.

For example, for Gandalf to suddenly turn his nose into dogs nose, so he can sniff out the enemy is not a part of Gandalf's rationale for his special effect (divine archetypical magic). Not only is it gauche, it's downright silly.

Now if the player could come up with a rationale for Gandalf to have enhanced smell (proxy animals sniff for him), that would work out fine. But I leave the burden of proof and rationale to the player. Putting the burden of proof on the player, has created some very interesting, subtle, and excellently justified spells from VPPs, in my experience .

And making the player justify it is time consuming, I don't allow much time for the player to come up with a rationale. This usually happens between games. Of course, my VPPs are only five points at this point - not much of a threat to game balance.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

Thanks all for the great ideas and talk here. I have decided to use this new limitation in my games. There is just too much reason to in my mind. Thanks again for reviewing it for me!

 

You're welcome.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

It depends on whether you want to make it the kind of "progressive" game where the opponents are scads more powerful over time than when the PCs started. These considerations wouldn't apply to a "low-fantasy" game. If you're in a High Fantasy game' date=' either the Limitation shouldn't be used in the first place, or you give the PCs defenses that aren't entirely dependent on stacking DEF- amulets of Missile Deflection or DCV, for example.[/quote']

 

Well I think there are a couple considerations with having defense caps:

• 
  1. Magic System Justification: How can you justify it in a consistent magic system, that doesn't present a cartoonish rationale?
  2. Game System Justification: Using average defenses, and average DCs, how can a GM justify a cap rule that doesn't provide a "gamey" rationale?

 

Tough task IMB.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

Should I consder buying a VPP for a wizard character in FH to reflect the vast number of (relatively) minor spells he knows?

We've talked about frameworks alot in this discussion board. But I will restate the framework system I use in my campaign:

• 
  1. Multipower 30 pt.s
  2. VPP 5 pt.s
  3. Defenses (outside any framework)

Starting character points for my campaign are 50+50. Active point caps on spells are (in almost all cases) 30 points.

Why do I make players take a 5 pt. VPP? To facilitate effects:

• 
  1. Gandalf casting his sticky, continuous, multi-colored fire spell; like he did in the tree with the worgs surrounding him (the "Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire" Chapter). He used pine cones for this spell.
  2. Gandalf casting non-detect spells on the treasure he and Bilbo hid at the end of The Hobbit.

These are neat effects, I think: I think they give the Hobbit alot of color, richness and character. But, I'm not going to try to account for every miniscule spell that characters might have, and I don't expect them to either. Hence the VPP.

Also the VPP can add points to an attack, provide needed defenses that are logically justifiable to a wizard in my campaign, but we forgot to account for. Also they provide some color and cultural development that will make the playing experience in my campaign, much better for players and GM, alike.

Not only wizards have VPPs; but clerics, and spell-casting bards, as well.

Re: Do all Gm's use the Skill roll for magic?

My experience is that I have never played in a campaign where the magic skill was not used, except a short-lived campaign of mine. The magic skill roll, while generally not used in the best of the fantasy genre, helps create tension in fantasy roleplaying. I can't remember a spell-casting attempt that didn't work in Tolkein or Le Guin, except early on in Le Guin.

As I've said before, I don't think a person can exactly translate fantasy fiction conventions into roleplaying. I believe the magic skill roll is one of things that, while a quality and well-conceived disadvantage in roleplaying, just doesn't work high quality in fantasy fiction.