Galadorn

Re: Pulp Hero??

In a similar vein' date=' it would be worth your while to watch for Mr. Allston's [i']Lands of Mystery[/i] sourcebook for running a pulp era "lost worlds romance," with dinosaurs, lost civilizations etc. Many fans here have rated it among the best supplements ever published by Hero Games.

I would agree, definately one of the best supplements around. Aaron really captured the "feel" of the Lost World, subgenre. I wonder how it sold...

Re: Pulp Hero??

Just curious as to whether anyone out there has ran, or is currently running, a Pulp Hero game? If so, what is some of your best source material and how is the campaign going?

 

Thanks!

 

Doc

Pulp Hero was a Hero Games Supplement in fourth edition HG, I believe. Try buying this supplement on e-Bay.

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

3. What's a suitable cap in the first 6 months of the game when the opponents are city guards, thieves and orcs doesn't fly so well in the second year of the game, when the opponents are Demons and wizards. That means either laying out a progression in cap based on character points in advance (possible, but more work, and it tends to distort character balance a bit) or adjusting it as you go - a fine art and also even more conducive to a "gamey" feel.[/b]

Progression Cap: Defenses equal total character points/15. Sounds fine to me. You may think that this thread is about how not to make a cap without being heavy-handed.

I think this thread is about what the title says: "Mew Limitation: Does Not Stack. GMs Please Look." I don't see any comment about perceptual "heavy-handedness" in this thread at all. And I don't think a cap is heavy-handed at all. I would say it's rather: "Game Balancing."

Some people can handle rules and discipline. Some people rebel against both.

Originally posted by JLXC

Well thanks all and of course that is the tricky part Markdoc.

 

All spells that give FF or Armor will have it as a required. Items and such will have to go case by case.

 

I'm just making a game mechanic to avoid a

 

Combat Luck, Leather Armored, Mage with a FF, and a ring of protection of Armor to give someone 13+ resistant Def without many points involved.

I think this is beating around the bush. I think you should just tell your players what maximum defense they can have. And tell them not to have that cap, would unbalance the game.

Really it will allow for greater flexibility in spells though as if you make a FF (10,10) the GM only has to consider the implications of (10,10) not 10+a gazillion other things.

I would do what I said as above. I think an interesting insight I have gotten from writing both fantasy adventures, and short fiction, is that gameplay simply can't be the same as a fiction story. It just doesn't work.

If you try to make a consistent magic system, and rationalize your disadvantages because of the way magic works, you end up like Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, in your rationale.

GM: "Magic just doesnt work with armor."

Player: "Why not?"

GM: "Ummmmmmmm, spell-casting requires great physical freedom for the subtle gestures needed, armor prevents that."

Player: "So can I carry a backpack?"

This puts us in with D&D.

This is interesting though. I think the thing to do is develop a list of rational alternatives to justify the no stack rule:

• 
  1.Religious Limitation: Wizards take a vow not to wear armor. It's against style quotient. J/K. Maybe because it's a indication of a lack of faith in magic. And a kind of human faith is required to cast magic.
  2. Freedom Limitation: As described in the quote, directly above this list.
  3. Magic Metal Limitation: Magic doesn't work with large amounts of metal.
  4. ...Role Limitation:Wizards must take combat luck, they cannot have any other protection, because of their societal role. Social factors do influence human behavior, btw.
  5. Form Limitation: Platonic Philosophy and Plato has the theory of "forms." Forms are the "ideal," or perfect structure, of a given object. So there is an ideal form (in heaven?) of the ideal chair. Only as a chair conforms, in some way, to the form of the ideal chair, can an object be called a chair.
   
  The same with wizards, only as they conform to the ideal image (form) of the ideal wizard, (in heaven?) can a wizard be called a wizard. This includes dress, apparatus (staff, wand, etc.), incantations, gestures, etc.
   
  I know it's specious, but that's Plato.
  6. And the most pandering...Genre (Satisfaction) Limitation: It simply ruins the genre for wizards to have armor and forcefields, thus it ruins it for other player's and their satisfaction levels.
  

Personally, I like the first limitation. According to critics, it's an underlying rationale behind much of Tolkein's work. I'm sure GM's can come up with many more, though.

Originally posted by cyst13

One of the earlier posters made an excellent point. A high point total does not necessarily mean a high-powered character. I ran a game with a 225 pt. character who blended in well with the local normals in medieval Cairo.

Sounds interesting.

Instead of spending all his points on increasing his combat effectiveness, he broadened his range of skills and language abilities and entered the game with a network of contacts. The combat abilities he did have were horizontally broad rather than high CV/damage. He had three different martial arts styles (unarmed, H2H weapon, ranged).

I would disagree, versatility is powerful. Being adaptable is a power in itself. Also, I believe, having many languages is powerful as well. Here's how:

The thick-furred bugbear charged the priest with a savage speed. The priest stepped back, holding the palm of his hand toward the bugbear, his hand open. Not moving an inch the cleric stared at the bugbear, with a steady, steely gaze.

 

The bugbear looked at the cleric, quizically, it's thick eyebrows raised, and stopped dead in it's tracks. "Arooo?" said the bugbear.

 

"Parley!" said the cleric firmly.

 

"Aroooo?" said the bugbear.

 

"Parley!" said the cleric, more forcefully.

 

"Arooo?" said the bugbear again.

 

"Parley!" said the cleric one more time.

 

The bugbear shrugged and swung his blood-crusted and spiked club at the cleric's head.

That's, how language can be very powerful.

He was a lot of fun to play and was able to handle himself well in a wide variety of situations. At the same time, he was not invincible and still had to be afraid of the local authorities and follow the law most of the time.

Sounds like an interesting game. I wonder where your GM got the resources to run the game.

Re: Doesn't anyone like low-powered campaigns?

Originally posted by Jhereg

I can’t help but notice that most of the Hero Players I meet online prefer High-powered campaigns. All the Champions campaigns seem to be 325 pts or more. And even the Fantasy/Sci-fi campaigns are 250 with superheroic house rules.

 

I just want to know if there’s anybody else out there like me, who prefers low-powered, realistic campaigns. I run my fantasy and sci-fi campaigns on 50+50. At most, if I want an action movie feel, I’ll go 75+75. And my Champions campaigns start at 100+150, or sometimes 100+100.

 

And it’s not just coming from me. My players love being underpowered, especially in any “real world†campaing. To me, nothing gets the blood pumping better than knowing the possibility of my character’s death is very real. Maybe it’s just a matter of taste.

I agree totally. My fantasy hero campaign is 50+50, and characters are fairly powerful. I do allow Multipowers, Variable Power Pools, Elemental Controls and Spells outside any framework. I also created optional rules for skill usage, that magnify the applicability and usage of the limited amount of skills that players can purchase.

There's a few other posters on this board, who love low-powered games. If Steve sees enough demand, then maybe I'll submit my low-powered fantasy hero campaign for publication.

It seems there's a growing demand for low-powered games, I suppose this comes with the advent of fantasy realism and other genre realism literature.

Originally posted by Arthur

For instance, dragon scales may come with 10 Real Points toward making a suit of armor.

 

Fits your ideas (which are perfectly in genre, BTW) and the point-based item creation system together.

Good ideas.

Heres the ironic story. You spend YOUR character points on a sword that you created, and a thief steals the sword and stabs you in the back with it. I'd rather have a focus, instead, thank you.

Re: I dont know if im supose to be here

Originally posted by Hell_spawnEod

i know nothing about this stuff. I think i shouldt come here because i dont know anything about fantasy story slang and what the slang means..

Best way to learn the slang of fantasy roleplaying games and stories, is to start reading Eod. Why not start with "The Hobbit," By J.R.R. Tolkien? It's a good read for people your age.

Also, you might like "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis. Though, the Chronicles might be written for people a little younger then you.

Originally posted by Talon

HKAs tend to be more powerful, because their BODY damage is only stopped by armor. If most characters wear armor, HAs do slightly more STUN damage -- if the average armor is enough that people aren't taking a lot of BODY, normal attacks will take them down earlier. (For example, a 1d6 HKA does 9.3 STUN on average, while a 3d6 HA does 10.5.)

 

I once used a group of NPCs who all had normal attacks and did notice the STUN difference -- it wasn't unbalancing but it was there.

 

OTOH, if it's a low-armor game, HKAs will be much better as people will be dying left and right.

I agree with 99% of what was said here. I've played Hero Games for twenty-two years. Well I don't if I would say that HKA's are much "better" in low-armor games, but they are more effective.

My experience has been, that GMs award experience at different times, and in different ways.

I had one GM who awarded 32 experience points to one of my characters, for a five session game. Which seems kinda high.

I tend to follow the Hero Games Rulebook guidelines, with a caveat. +1 experience point is awarded to characters who use their variable power pool, creatively, during a game session. For a creatively, culturally, and mythologically appropriate use of the VPP: That is, a way that adds new ideas to my campaign-setting.

I suppose this experience point could be given to non-spellcasting characters, as well. Since only spell-casting characters have a VPP. So, I'm going to expand it, I will add:

• 
  1. Warriors for a new tactic; relevant to my campaign world (monsters, magic, politics and peoples).
  2. Rogues for a clever ploy, relevant to my campaign world.

I will have to say that it's hard to critque this character, without knowing the campaign and setting he is operating in.

Generally, I would say he needs some magic points. Some very simply things like images, burning hands or ignite fire, presence-enhancing spell, comeliness-enhancing spell, etc. Should be very helpful.

But, again, this depends on the campaign, setting and character design guidelines. You character should do extremely well in a Medieval Historical Campaign.

But, for a campaign packed with magic: I would call the character experimental. Play him a few times in such a setting, and see how things go, would be my suggestion.

Originally posted by Markdoc

I have no problems with basic economc theory - or with understanding your points - it's merely that I feel you are wrong in this case. Pretended expertise is hardly convincing.

Pretended expertise indeed. Go on ignore.

Originally posted by Markdoc

Not really. I think you are confusing the way land was obtained (often with a bribe) with the whole idea of feudalism which is that all land was a gift of the head honcho. In fact, what defined a king or prince was their ability to gift lands. A baron or noble family might hold lands larger and richer than the king's - but any fiefs that they passed out were held "in lieu" - in other words at the king's pleasure - at least in theory.

Mark, I suggest you read the Medieval Village in Digital Hero #14. Check out the references. I have studied this issue thoroughly. The idea that land was not a commodity at all, is a myth of the Middle Ages. Check out "The Medieval Village" by France Giles, the chapter on "The Villagers," I believe has information on the exchange of land amongst villagers.

If you don't understand basic economic theory, you won't even understand my points.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Land and Wealth

Originally posted by assault

Fundamentalism is Heresy

I agree.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Land and Wealth

Originally posted by assault

Sorry, Galadorn, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You seem to be confusing ownership of land with land being a commodity. These are two entirely different things.

 

Obviously people owned land. Duh!

 

And yes, its ownership was transferred. Sometimes money, rather than services, was involved. But not generally.

 

Land ownership was _generally_ tied up in a web of social interactions and committments. The modern pattern of "hand over the bucks and it's yours and I have no futher claim to it" was a rarity.

 

Unless you're dealing with diplomatic agreements, of course. Whole countries could be bought or sold in this manner.

True, the acquistion of land was an elaborate set of affairs. Bit I think this begs the point.

It doesn't matter what scale of land exhange and trade we are taling about, nor what the law said, we are talking about the norm in society. And the norm was, to treat land as a commodity, no matter how involved the process was.

Bottom line is land was a commodity, and tended to be used by the owner, however the owner wanted. This is not an all or nothing affair - owning land was part commodity, and part social obligation.

Take care.

Originally posted by Eosin

Once again you shower us with your wisdom and constructive advice. I believe that is semantics but if we want to play semantics once again you have opened your mouth and proven that somepeople should stay silent.

I'll let this slide...

Originally posted by Nightshade

Whoa... Hey there. Calm down a little.

I agree. I was just being specific. Geesh.

Originally posted by Eosin

I have a fantasy lang chart RIGHT HERE but you will probably need a much more extensive chart. These are just the continental languages of my homebrew. I need to graphicize it.

Ummmmmm, this is a table. A chart would be a graphic, like the one in the Hero System Rulebook, with the square and round boxes.

Originally posted by Nightshade

The reason I have so many countries is just that I have so many ideas for cultures. I have been working on this world for many years (more than I care to admit), and almost everything written has been roleplayed at some point.

I think the assumption was, that you had just started on designing this world. Well, never miiiiind.

Currently, I would guess that I am about 2/3 done with the main world book, other than the updating part that happens when the PC's change stuff.

Sounds cool.

I agree on the language chart. Since a lot of my world history has been roleplayed, I know where the "base" languages were from, geographically and historically speaking, and where the influences in dialect came from. So, yes, there are many countries that speak dialects of the same language (ala Spanish), or have pretty related languages (Portuguese), and languages that are somewhat related (English) and totally different (Mandarin).

Great. Whats the premise of the world? Tolkienish, Le Guinish, Brooksish, or something all together different?

Re: Re: World Creation Issues - Opinions Wanted

Originally posted by Greatwyrm

Let me stop you right there. A gentleman named Ray Winnenger (sp?) said it best, "Never create more than you have to." Not everybody agrees with all of Ray's worldbuilding rules, but this one is vital.

 

If you NEED 90 countries and expect your players to visit most of them, that's fine. Otherwise, most of them would probably be just as well done as an outline on the map with a few historical and economic notes. Don't go overboard here.

I agree, take a page from the scriptwriters book. Start out small, then expand. If you study the comments made by scriptwriters, most of them, Star Trek included; started out small, then built upon their small foundation.

A language familiarity chart will go a long way to making it feel like a real world. Again, don't go too far overboard. I'd suggest working out some basic regional languages and then more specific dialects from there.

I agree with this point. A language chart helps to crystalize a world as "real" in many fantasy fans minds. I use a language chart in my campaign, and it does wonders, if even for my own concentration and suspense of disbelief.

Re: Re: Re: Land and Wealth

Originally posted by assault

Actually it's dead wrong.

 

The whole point of feudal societies is that land is not a commodity. That is, it can not be exchanged - bartered or bought. It can not be bought with money. Therefore it is _not_ money.

Actually, your point is dead wrong. If you study the feudal economy, you would know that land was traded from one person to another in exchange for services and goods. Early in the Middle Ages, possession of land was common, Only in the later Feudal period, did Nobles possession of land become absolute in many cases.

Now, fealty to the king was required to take possession of the land, thats why we have "My Lord Bishop:" Lord and Bishop being two different titles. But there still was exchange of land, and for all intents and purposes, it was treated as property.

Of course we are talking about England, it seems, by the tone of your argument. In Papal lands things were quite different:

We have also learned that it sometimes happens that when tenants die their relatives are not allowed to succeed them, but their property is taken over for the use of the Church. In this matter we decree that the relatives of those who lived on the possessions of the Church should succeed them as their heirs. Nor should anything be taken from them that belonged to the deceased.-St. Pope Gregory the Great, AD 600.

In The Holy Land, this tended to be the state of affairs:

It has pleased Master Viviano, sometimes called Guiducci, to pledge, grant, and concede to you, Hugh by the grace of God, Archpriest of the Holy Church of Volterra, receiving under that name, and by profession a Canon, for seven marks and five and a quarter ounces of good silver of the mark of Monterius (?) two pieces of land in the field of Martius...

In England, this was what Henry II said about the Jews:

Chapter Concerning the Jews: All debts and pledges of Jews shall be written down, lands, houses, rents, and possessions. But a Jew who conceals any of these things shall be in forfeit to the lord king both in his person, in what he has concealed, and in all his goods and chattels*. Nor shall it be lawful for the Jew ever to recover what he has concealed.

*Chattels = Possessions.

Obviously, Jews owed land according to Henry II. Seems possession of land was more common than you want to think.

Secondly, land was bequethed by lords and others (Jews for example) to the Church. How can someone give to the Church what he does not himself own?

Case closed, nail driven into coffin lid.

Re: Land and Wealth

Originally posted by GrimJesta

I have a quick question. I like to make wealth in my games based more on assets than gold pieces (thats too video games for me). How would you translate the wealth table into land square-footage? Or trade assets? Any ideas?

I don't know if this has been said before, I'm not going to read every post. But land is money. Yes, that's an oversimplification, but I'm saying it to make a point.

All assets an individual owns has a monetary value. Money is just a medium of exchange, so in short, land is money. If we didn't have money, we would be trading goods instead, and that would be tooooo tedious - that's why a monetary system was invented in the first place.

So, economically, if you would rather have a barter system stronger then a monetary system, just research the early Middle Ages in England (6th-11th centuries); that's how their economic system was set up anyway.

Originally posted by Markdoc

Ooh! Here's where I can be helpful. Lich isn't derived from Anglo-saxon. It's derived from the nordic root, lich and means body or corpse. That's why the word is most common in the northern part of the country. It survives today in modern Danish (Lig) and Norwegian (also Lig, IIRC). Thus a lich-gate was the gate out of a church enclosure through which the bodies were carried: the term later became sometimes used for any small gate, or a gate through which the dead were carried. Likewise Lichfield - "body field" - a graveyard or sometimes a battlefield.

Regardless, the roleplaying mythology, is a whole other story.

Re: Lord of the Rings question of sorts

Originally posted by Badger

i was wondering about the 9 Nazgul. I was wondering what were their names or background. The only one I know much about is the Witch-King. I was wondering if any of the diehard Lord of the Ring fans knew anything about them (or steer me in the right direction)? Thanks for any help.

We had this topic discussed months ago in the Hero Games archive. Here is a basic encyclopedia on Middle-Earth:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm

Originally posted by Eosin

Nope, it is sorta like a sell your soul for immortality kinda thing. Lichs really want to live, so much so that they are willing to be putrid vessels of undead flesh so long as their minds are intact. Call it a poor man's route to immortality.

Ummmmmm, it depends on your mythology, but a lich is usually preserved by magic. Some GMS say it is simply the desire to live, in a mage, that causes him to live - but this desire works because of magic.