Underling

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

By giving all animals a low INT score and buying up the most appropriate senses for that animal, I think that you get more interesting and somewhat more accurate animal models. For player character modelling, I don't see where it makes a difference.

Well, humans are basically just animals with a few more advanced mental capabilities (and manual dexterity and endurance abilities, too). Consequently, the fact that animals must be built differently in HS is a red flag to me.

OTOH, if INT is processing speed and not analytical abilities, then plenty of animals should have INT scores as high or even higher than humans. But then skills based on analytical abilities shouldn't be based on INT. But then what characteristic should be used for analytical skills? A new characteristic? Yikes.

Another thought...higher SPD allows more actions in a turn, which logically must require correspondingly faster mental processing (you can't perform three times as many actions in a turn as someone else without also being able to process information three times as quickly, right?), and SPD is based on DEX. That's actually another argument for basing PER (which involves faster mental processing if you're going to combine sensing and interpreting in one roll) on DEX. Doing so would also free up INT to be used for analytical abilities/skills.

Well, like I said, reaction times are one thing that's Dex-related and more reliant on PER. But perception is still a seperate thing, and DEX already does quite enough in the game for its point cost. Tweaking it by giving dex yet another bonus makes for more problems than it would solve IMO. Splitting if off from any statx makes more sense as a tweak.

As I understand it, many think DEX is too powerful for its cost as is. I wonder if it would make sense to make PER based on DEX and then up the cost of DEX to 4 c.p. per point. Hmmmm....

Derek

Originally posted by badger3k

Interesting discussion... I just want to ask what you mean by that - perception chances? Would you break down the perception roll into two? One to actually sense, one to determine if you know what you sense means in the right context? My way of thinking is that's all rolled up into the one roll. If you base senses on Dexterity you'd need another INT-roll to determine if you can use what you sense in a coherent manner. If you go with Perception as just senses, why not make a separate characteristic, like some games (gamma world comes to mind right off the bat)?

That's basically it, yes: two rolls. One to sense the object (which has nothing to do with intelligence or speed of thought) and another to interpret the meaning of the sensation. Combining both into a single INT roll appears to be what HS does. I question the "realism" of such a tact, but it doesn't seem to bother most people here, I gather.

Sorry if that's a little long - tried to put out a few points to consider, edited for clarity (I hope), then reposted. Like I said, this one is interesting - certainly got me thinking. Hope any of this helps in some way.

No problem. It was noticing the kludgy need to buy up enhanced senses for animals to make up for their lower intelligence that got me thinking about it. That and noticing an odd correlation between species dexterity/agility and high perceptive abilities. First with GURPS, then with HS.

Derek

Originally posted by Farkling

Yes I do...I can picture where you're coming from...

But I still state that INT has nothing to do with smarts. It's interpretation and access and processing. The PER roll is to assess your surroundings, interpret them, and apply them AT SPEED. The Wits rating in White Wolf is an example. The supermart super observant character buys INT...the superobservant character buys INT, or buys PER levels. The supersmart character buys skills and skill levels. McGuyver does not have an ultrahigh PER roll...but he has TONS of complimentary skills. McGuyver typically has to stop and THINK about what to do. Extra Time on his PER roll, and a few science rolls.

 

HERO design flaw, bug, or feature?

Bah, who cares. Here's how I picture it going down::

 

I think that both the high and low character have a chance to hear the noise, but the question is interpretation....let's put this between...um....

 

Wolverine, the old style Iron Man, and Cyclops...

Wolverine has the highest INT ... mostly to drive his PERceptions and the "best at what I do" ... keep in mind, Wolvie has an 8- with stuff he doesn't do, and an 11- with a whole mess of Area knowledges...bought without the INT based roll (exceot Singapore )

 

Ole Shellhead has a mediocre PER roll, but a goodly amount of TScope and some funky PER powers...a radar set...motion sensors...whatever...some are likely frameworked, so why NOT buy up the specific roll? The PER roll interprets that data. Rhodes has a LOUSY roll in the comics...Stark is better...and Stark has the higher INT, to drive a portion of his skills, and he has Overall levels, and Armor systems levels...for skills, PER, or sciences...so he is distractable...because the levels are someplace else. Rhodes just has Combat levels...subtly contributing to his PER problems. And then there's Ben Grimm...

 

Cyclops has a decent PER roll...but less than everyone but Ben. He does however have TScope for his eyesight and those long range pinpoint Energy Bolts, so he can SEE a long way...it's hearing and taste and smell that generally don't register.

 

All five are sitting around playing cards. The backgound noise and the jet flying by and children exercising mutant powers on the basketball court in the distance.

 

GM has them make a PER roll.

Wolvie makes his (like we doubted it) by, oh 5. He hears an odd noise in the area and lays his cards down to turn and scan the area with all his senses (Extra Time, PER levels). Wolvie identifies the sound as ninjas crawling through the trees, armed with traditional weapons since he doesn't smell gun oil.

 

Shellhead notes the odd noise also, determing it is not a plane. He activates the radar in the armor. He's bored and they aren't playing for much by his terms. The next PER roll breaks even. The radar pcks up 30 moving objects in the forest. Tony does not know what they are...other than human.

 

Rhodes doesn't hear a strange noise...he made his PER roll, barely, he thinks it is the jet flying over. He observes Tony flipping on the radar unit and Wolvie looking into the trees...so he dons his helmet, and rockets into the air to get a good 360 scan of the area with radar and motion sensors...he can't SEE a thing. His PER roll is pretty good, by maybe 3. The ninja stealth won't work against the radar, so GM rules that Rhodes is aware of many humanoid objects in the forest. A very successful roll would have noted no guns. The plane registers as a normal aircraft.

 

Cyclops didn't notice anything out of the ordinary, he made his PER roll spot on...failed after accounting for range. It sounds like the kids playing tag in the forest again. Cyke looks up from his inside straight as Rhodes launches into the air. He glancs at Wolverine and looks into the trees. Not being able to spot anything (normal vision, cover, concealment)...Cyke turns his gazde to the sky and watches the plane, prepared to fire if it initiates action on Rhodes.

 

Ben (failed PER roll) is still asking who wants a card and complaining about the injustice of his hand when he looks up at Rhodes up in the air. He can't figure out what is going on. However, it's take Dr. Doom to hurt him, so he waits and makes a loud crack about whether or not the kid wants his card or not. Ben might not have noticed till they hit him...

 

So, we will just have to continue to disagree.

Actually, I agree with all those descriptions, it just seems that you're dealing with what should be a series of perception chances first, followed by rolls to understand what the sounds mean.

The problem becomes evident when you look at how skills based on INT work. You use INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to determine if a character knows something. A character wants to know the top speed of a car he sees. The GM has him make a car knowledge roll. No processing speed involved there, but a character with a high INT has a higher roll and therefore a greater chance of knowing that particular piece of trivia.

Success with skill rolls to determine the success of disguise, forgery, survival, etc.--all INT-based skills--depend far more on knowledge than any speed of processing information. If INT is intended to represent speed of thought, then almost all INT-based skills should really be based on something else that DOES represent memory and analysis. Yes?

Looking at your superhero scenario above, what are the relative DEX values of each superhero? I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure what they are myself, but doesn't Wolverine have the highest DEX and The Thing the lowest? Don't their DEX scores correlate rather nicely with their basic perceptive abilities?

If so, then doesn't it sound logical to shift PER to be based on DEX and leave INT to represent the memory and analysis characteristic needed for all the skills that are dependent on memory and analysis? Oui? No?

Derek

Originally posted by Farkling

Maybe it should be a PER stat instead of an INT stat?

 

Yes, it is for sight/sound/smell/touch...PER covers everything. And anyone who thinks high agility lends to PERceptual skills needs to live with my cat for a while.

 

But then we would make PER rolls to use our knowledge skills, a far more complicated thing to explain than using an INT roll for perception...silly game designers.

 

How do I make a brilliant character? How brilliant?

I usually buy piles of skills, and knowledges/sciences and overall skill levels. The "less than brilliant" scientist would be like Doc Brown from Back to the Future...he's not the most observant fellow until he sets his mind to it. A low INT and some INT skill levels or overall levels are good for this. He just doesn't do the Metagame thing of "I put my levels on PER"

Psych limits like "Inattentive" "Absent Minded" " or "Unperceptive" also complement this character type...as does a player who WANTS to play this type of character.

GM:: "Everyone roll a PER roll"

Doc:: "Not right now....I am involved in analyzing this"

 

You stated::

"it's basically memory, understanding and analysis (remembering something or figuring something out), not so much how quickly you process information. Even PER doesn't really have much to do with how quickly you process information, at least not as it's actually used in the game--it's used to determine whether you happen to see/hear/smell something, not how long it takes you"

 

I beg to differ...a PER roll IS processing information. The PER roll is to determine if you process it NOW or LATER. The PER roll is to see if you can notice and assess it RIGHT NOW under fire. Does your game not play like that? If you don't hear the bank alarm going off right away...you NEVER hear it going off? If you can't identify Mega-guy's Energy Bolt, you never can? Seems anti-genre to me.

Hmm, I can see where you're coming from. I've just never thought of PER that way because the majority of uses of PER that I've noticed have been singular detections--either you do or you don't notice, not something that you eventually notice. Someone is sneaking up on a character, roll PER, and he hears a sound if he makes the roll, and fails to hear a sound if he doesn't. That sort of thing.

Your description of PER sounds more like a range of focus, from highly focused to easily destracted. Someone who doesn't notice an alarm ringing because he's focused wouldn't necessarily have less INT than someone who does, don't you think? Do you give characters another PER roll when they stop concentrating on some task they're doing? And what about cases where characters of different INT are doing nothing at all to occupy their minds? The way you're describing PER, it sounds like the person with low INT would notice a sound just as easily as someone with high INT--because his brain isn't inundated with too much incoming information to process. Yet this isn't how PER is used in the game.

Do you see where I'm coming from with that?

Derek

Originally posted by Farkling

And for the record...everything on my list IS INT based according to FREd...

 

I was trying to show that PER isn't "seeing things", otherwise it would be a sight roll. Danger Sense takes a PER roll...one could rule it is more of an INT power.

 

A PER roll in Hero seems to be how much you notice with your senses, and well and quickly you can apply it to your current situation.

 

Hugh's plodder has an abysmal PER roll...well...noit abysmal...it's (11-), and his complementary roll could come from KS: Gigantic Multiple Board Equations...if two people have an equal INT roll with this skill, the one with the higher PER roll will find the error FIRST....but they will both find the error. If the plodder fails his PER roll, he will have to work it all out and make a new roll (Extra Time)...

Hmm, if this is the case, then what characteristic do you use to create a character who IS brilliant? And...isn't PER used for sight rolls?

Derek

Re: Re: Re: Hey Underling!

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You;re confusing the issue. INT is not how trained you are. It is not your IQ. It is not how smart you are. In Hero, INT is how quickly you process information. We all SEE what's going on around us, but perception is more than seeing it - it's taking it in context, interpreting what we see and assessing the big picture quickly enough for it to matter.

 

A brilliant scientist need not have a 30 INT in Hero. He could have an 8. He's brilliant in his field, but he's a plodder. He doesn't walk in the door, look at the equation filling the blackboard and go "Your problem is on the middle of Board 1, 13th line - X should be Z". He methodically worked out the problem, and finds the answer no one else will because he IS brilliant. But he isn't fast.

Yes, I realize how the HS rules define the meaning of INT...but if you look how it's actually used in the game, it's basically memory, understanding and analysis (remembering something or figuring something out), not so much how quickly you process information. Even PER doesn't really have much to do with how quickly you process information, at least not as it's actually used in the game--it's used to determine whether you happen to see/hear/smell something, not how long it takes you. Also, have you ever known anyone to create a brilliant scientist character who DIDN'T have high INT? Regardless of how INT may be officially defined, in game use I think it's used more for things that have more to do with memory and analysis.

Derek

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

The reason that PER is based on INT is the simple fact that Perception is a form of intelligence. Animals don't have high INT, they hae Enhanced Senses.

I'm not arguing that in HS PER is a form of INT, I'm arguing that perhaps it shouldn't be.

The non-perceptive scientist is just a fictional sterotype. Most scientists are very perceptive individuals; they're trained observers, after all. If you want the Nutty Professor, then you buy a lower INT, buy up levels with SS, and you've got him.

Having been a scientist myself, I agree that scientists can be trained observers, but it's a case of using KNOWLEDGE to know what to look for when studying something within their area of expertise rather than being more perceptive than less intelligent people. (In game terms, I'd say it makes sense to have the scientist make a roll based on his scientific skill to notice something related to that science, and a normal PER roll--based on, perhaps, DEX--to notice things outside his direct field of knowledge.)

The animal theory has several holes:

 

1. The general perceptiveness of animals is overrated.

2. Animals which do have better than human senses usually have one or two highly-developed senses, and are frequently deficient in others. That's modelled by Enhanced Senses, as already mentioned.

3. Basing the PER roll on physical attributes such as DEX and CON to fix the percieved problem modelling animals presumes that animals generally have better than human DEX and CON, which also isn't the case.

I'm not making the claim that all animals are more perceptive than humans. My claim is that those animals that are highly dexterous and agile are also generally more perceptive. Animals with high body mass, armor, camouflage, poison sprays, spines or other deterrents don't need to waste energy by evolving high agility to survive their environments. They may still have some highly developed senses (often smell) to find food, but those can be considered enhanced senses. But animals without the various deterrents mentioned above (and their predators) often rely on their agility. That agility is almost always linked to perceptive abilities, since agility is meaningless as a defense without them.

No, of course this isn't perfect--you're always going to find exceptions--but it seems a significantly better fit to me than using INT.

Derek

Re: Re: Re: Re: Perception

Originally posted by badger3k

Good points, but here's a few more:

 

1) If an animal lacks the image (and reasoning) to respond to something, is it perceiving it? An antelope can see the rabbit, but since it doesn't recognize it the rabbit is ignored. So in game terms, does it perceive the rabbit? I think if you exclude any kind of intelligence/reasoning capacity in the equation, then it's useless. Its like computers - GIGO. You can see the stop sign. You can react to it. But not if you don't recognize it and know what it means. Basing your perception solely on physical characteristics is too one sided for my taste.

I'd say yes, the antelope does perceive the rabbit even if it ignores it. Just as a human can notice a person and choose to ignore him. We react to stop signs because we know what it means; similarly, an antelope ignores a rabbit because it knows what it means (i.e., no danger).

2) Part of the problem seems to be that the standard is the human one. The game system is really designed around humans as a base, so anything with better senses need enhanced senses. If you have an olympic athlete (high CON and DEX), he would automatically be more perceptive (maybe as good as a wolf or owl, for example) than a medium characteristic detective. That's a little odd as well.

This is a good point. I agree that an olympic athlete with high DEX and/or CON isn't likely to be more perceptive. But you're always going to be able to find exceptions to any game rule used. I just think that the relatively small category of olympic athletes (and other high DEX, high CON persons who have no correspondingly high need for high perception abilities) causing a bend in "reality" is less than the relatively large category of almost everything BUT humans. Note that it's just as easy to find fault with INT using your same argument, only applying it to smart people (which is a larger category than olympians, BTW).

3) I also think some of the difference is our perception of the system (har har), its that when you say animals and high DEX, to me you seem to be implying reflexes more than agility or coordination (what I view DEX as). (Maybe not after thinking about it). Hmm - anyway, i'd still argue that DEX and PER are related, but not directly. Animals with a higher perceptive ability would survive more, the same way that animals with better reflexes and abilities (say, a monkeys ability to climb well or fast, etc). The ones that had both would have the best chance of survival. Have you ever met anybody with fast reflexes who couldn't notice a hand in front of his face until it hit him? Or better yet, look at all the people who can play video games and get max scores (or learn martial arts, perhaps), but don't notice their wives new hairstyle? Perception helps reflexes more than reflexes help perception (IMO). Survivors tend to have higher everything overall (generalization warning!)

Another good point. However, you can say the same thing about intelligent people--they're no more likely to perceive something than someone who is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

4) That's about it for now, but I'd go with {[(INT/5) + (CON/10)]/1.5}, used as a straight bonus. I.E. - use figured PER + 9 = perception roll. Used that way, CON isn't a major part but has a minor effect. Although if I wrote up a disease now, I'd probably include a PER drain to the effect now. [/b]

Well, it's a thought. I want to see peoples' reasoning for accepting or rejecting my DEX-PER connection, and I appreciate your giving it some serious thought.

Derek

Re: Hey Underling!

Originally posted by Farkling

Ok...I've braced myself.

Let's take a look at which skills are solely analytical...

 

Analyze is based on observation...

Bugging is based on observation...

Computer Programming is analytical I imagine, unless used for hacking...though I know some code crunchers who would insist it is merely trial and error and observation.

Concealment is observational

Criminology is observation and analysis...

Cryptography is pattern analysis, stemming from observations

Deduction is NOT analysis...it's divine providence and beyond this comparison

Demolitions...analysis and/or observation

Disguise...analytical and observational...

Electronics...education and ability

Forensic Medicine...analysis and observation (CSI anyone)

Forgery...analyse subject, observe duplicate effectiveness...

Gambling...if you think this is NOT observational and analytical...play high stakes poker.

Inventor...many Inventors admit they simply thought of something nobody else did...comic book inventors are not so much analysts as tinkerers...

Lip Reading...observation and analytic

Mechanics...education and ability

Mimicry...observation and vaguely analytic

Navigation...oobservation and analysis...the Boy Scouts would vouch for mostly observational...

Paramedic...observation and education

Security Systems...observation, analysis, education (Sneakers)

Shadowing...observation and movement?

Survival...observation and education

Tactics...observation, education, analysis

Tracking...observation and analysis

Area Knowledges:: observation and memory of landmarks...locations...maps

Cultural Knowledges:: Observation of ritual and civilizations of a people

Knowledge Skills:: Ah...education, recall, memory.

 

Shucks...looks like most skills a PER based...

But imagine HERO with all thos stats and and a PER score instead of INT...that would get more bad press than the 3d6 die rolls, the tons of damage dice, and the new tag line from critics would be "they have 14 Stats, and NO IQ rating...the characters are all idiots!" or worse...we'd have 15 state...with a PER AND an INT score...

 

**Prepares to deflect thrown missiles**

Weeeelllll, I think I understand what you're saying...but again, I think you're not distinguishing between perceiving something and analyzing something. Most of the skills you've listed involve much more analysis than perception--in other words, they involve knowledge and "figuring out" much more than especially sharp eyes or ears.

Even skills that are expressly used for spotting something, such as Bugging, don't require a keen eye so much as knowing where to look for bugs. It's the analysis portion that's more important. (And if you don't have Bugging skill, you can use PER to find something that's hidden, right? Using PER in that situation is a case of having to rely on keen eyes to find something, rather than the knowledge of where to look. That's what animals would have to rely upon.)

So...almost all the above skills are INT based, and you could base PER on DEX. It makes sense to me--after all, do the world's top-notch forgers, paramedics, mechanics, etc. have sharper senses than anyone else? No, it's their knowledge that tells them where to look and how to interpret what they find. There isn't the correlation between intelligence and perception that there is between dexterity and perception.

Derek

Originally posted by Farkling

I've always told people that PER is not "How smart you are" it is "how fast you think" ... thus Wolverine and the infamous Reed Richards can be built with the same level of INT...and we will put the Beast and Iron Man quite a ways behind them, as they are both very intelligent fellows, but they frequently mis things...now, is Spidey a high (INT) perception character, or is he riding on that nifty Danger Sense power?

 

optionally, following the CON argument, your house rule could base PER rolls on BODY....

Should INT really be how fast you think, rather than memory and analytical capabilities? There's no other characteristic to simulate that. Besides, isn't that how INT is actually used in the game--making INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to reflect how much you know and how well you can figure something out?

How fast you think, however, is probably best simulated by DEX, since DEX is the main characteristic for figuring SPD, and you can't be speedy if you can't think as fast as your SPD, right? Also, if INT is how fast you think, then someone with a 20 INT and 3 SPD should accomplish more INT-based actions than someone with a 10 INT and 6 SPD, and that doesn't make sense, does it?

Of course, basing PER on DEX makes DEX too valuable. Others have complained that STR is too weak (right?). One way to reduce the value of DEX and increase the value of STR would be to make SPD based on 1+((DEX+STR)/5). Strength should influence speed? WTF? Well, the argument for this would be that body mass slows a person's speed and acceleration, and high strength counteracts the effects of body mass. Thus, for two people of equal body mass, the one with the higher strength can overcome the inertial effects of his own body mass faster and therefore move faster than the other person.

This same logic could apply to inflicting damage with melee weapons and fists. SPD should influence damage based on simple physics: f=ma (force=mass*acceleration). If two people have the same STR and body mass but one moves faster, the one who moves faster would do more damage (not the same as Move By Attacks, but similar in principle).

But now things are getting too mixed up! Well, since most abilities seem to overlap, perhaps all abilities should be based on the average of all characteristics. ;-)

Derek

Re: Re: Perception

Originally posted by badger3k

I believe you can relate PER to INT in several ways - the most obvious to me is that if you are smarter you can process more and theoretically should be able to notice things faster/better than someone/thing with less intelligence. If you have an absent-minded professor or a sensitive-nosed giant, buy the PER rolls up or down. (FRED has INT as the ability to take in and process information quickly (p 23)).

See my above post. Humans don't notice things more than most animals do, they just usually understand the significance of them better (the INT roll after the PER roll, you might say). And while the definition of INT may be the ability to take in and process information quickly, I suspect that should be interpreted as taking in and processing ALREADY PERCEIVED information, since the actual game effect of Perception is no different from how animals perceive their environment. Animal senses are no less developed than human senses, even though they may be processed by smaller brains. Just giving most animals Enhanced Senses is a kludge, I believe, since the need for animals to have good senses is no different from the need for humans to have good senses (especially for the environment in which we evolved). There's MUCH less need for a workaround if PER is based on DEX.

Being healthy doesn't make you more perceptive than one who is sick or tired - I've been dead tired and still caught things faster than my friends (and the situation was reversed other times). Is a handicapped person (low CON and phys lims) less perceptive than a non-handicapped person? Actually, that depends on the handicap, but hope I made my point. It doesn't matter if the parts are healthy if the processor isn't there.

I agree the argument isn't as good for CON as it is for DEX...but I think it's still better than the argument for INT. Regarding your example, a handicapped person wouldn't necessarily have low CON, nor would a person who was tired, so I wouldn't use those as arguments against using CON for PER.

Relating it to DEX is a little odd to me - there doesn't seem to be any correlation between PER and reflexes except that one enables you to use the other more effectively. I would keep DEX out of it.

I disagree. In most cases, especially when including animals, I think you'll find perceptive abilities to be directly proportional to dexterity, for without perception, dexterity is meaningless.

I haven't looked at the Bestiary, but I know in another game animals are given bonuses to their sensory rolls to reflect their senses, so for them I'd buy extra PER rather than start out as a different default. Also, animals also have limitations on their perceptions - a lot of animals have prey images or threat images - if a creature or object isn't in their image file (so to speak), the animal doesn't react to it like you think they might. (Of course, the same has been postulated for human beings too).

GURPS too uses INT (IQ) for perception. I think that is inaccurate as well. The fact that they need to buy up animal senses is a red flag that something in the concept is off base.

And while you're right about animal prey/threat images, that doesn't mean their perceptive abilities are lesser in any way...only that how they process the information provided by their senses is limited. An antelope will still perceive the rabbit before a human is likely to, but since the rabbit doesn't match the antelope's prey/threat images, it doesn't respond. Even many extremely unintelligent organisms (insects, fish, amphibians) can perceive motion and shapes very well (commensurate with their dexterity) even if they can only recognize a limited range of patterns (commensurate with their intelligence).

Personally I'll stick with the standard system, mainly for the reasons above. However, you can use either (or even make another stat - Perception, used to reflect all of the things that have been mentioned). Give it modifiers for health/dex/etc (or make it a figured char - [iNT/5+CON/5+DEX/5] or something similar).

As a figured characteristic would make sense, particularly if PER rolls are intended to be fairly averaged out among individuals with varying characteristics. (DEX+CON)/2 anyone? The real headache, it seems, is that DEX and CON are too valuable as it is.

Derek

Originally posted by bjbrown

Intelligence measures ability to process information, and perception rolls are often made for characters to notice something inobvious, which sounds like processing information to me.

Animals and creatures with low intelligence and good senses of course have this simulated with Enhanced Senses. The bumbling genius could be simulated with a Disadvantage.

Your argument for CON makes some amount of sense, but you're still going to have situations in which a high CON character should have low perception, and cases in which a low CON character should have high perception. While INT doesn't necessarily perfectly correlate with the level of perception desired, no stat will.

Based on the way that INT and PER are defined, I think they fit pretty well. Also, another reason not to base PER on a stat like CON or DEX is that those stats already have so many combat benefits, additional benefits don't need to be associated with them. (Especially DEX- it's already useful enough.) My thoughts fall into the not broken, don't fix category.

Originally posted by Col. Orange

Don't know how FRED explains it but GURPS (waits for the hurled rocks... no, safe) bases it of Intelligence because a single roll is used both to detect an object and to understand it's significance.

Actually, GURPS has a perception roll first, THEN another IQ roll to understand the significance of the observation. But, again, IQ doesn't seem to fit for perception either!

Derek

I'm curious why Perception is based on INT. I don't see the correlation. I mean, someone who is stupid doesn't seem to be less aware of his environment as someone who is brilliant. Actually, high intelligence is arguably a distraction from perceiving one's environment. Consider even the stereotypes of the oblivious genius professor vs. the dumb giant who can nevertheless smell "the blood of an Englishman." The problems with linking PER with INT becomes especially noticeable when it comes to animals, which often have great perception compared with more intelligent humans.

Thus, I propose that PER be based on either CON or DEX. The argument for using CON is that a reduction in health directly corresponds with a reduction in perceptiveness; if you're sickly your body doesn't function very well, and a reduction in perception would logically coincide with a reduction of the body's physical state. Conversely, the healthier the organism, the better all its parts should function, including perception. The only problem here is that according to this logic, all other physical and mental characteristics should probably be reduced as well. Hmmm.

Perhaps DEX would make a better base characteristic. The logic behind this is that animals that depend on DEX to survive tend to have terrific perception, whereas those that don't depend on DEX often have lesser perceptive abilities (compare a gazelle with a porcupine, for example). After all, all the DEX in the world does a critter no good if danger can't be perceived in time to actually use that dexterity.

A third option might be to average CON and DEX to determine PER. This would give higher default PER to those who are agile and healthy, and lower default PER to those who are clumsy and sickly.

Any thoughts?

Derek

Originally posted by Farkling

To further comment upon this subjecy...

 

Most of us ahree that Hero does a fair job of modelling the comic book heroes...MOST of the time.

 

The system feels pretty stable from James Bond up to Galactic Guardians, and we use the arbitrary comparisons built into the desingn, because we have no REAL examples to compare to...to paraphrase the pioneers of comic book metahuman research, "I have no idea where the energy comes from, but the evidence is that MegaGuy can freely use it as he wishes."

 

After playing too many systems to count, I settled on Hero because it can be rewritten or adjusted to suit my taste. At the convention, we are trying to ge tnewbies into it, so we will dump the speed chart, and the endurance rules for the combat, and likely use a bloody tape measure for speed. I'd hate to run new players off using Hero's versatile and in depth combat system right at the start.

 

And my only real comment on GURPS is this:

Champions reality model breaks down right below the James Bond level, depending on the style of your game. GURPS starts to break down around Indiana Jones or the early James Bond level. So use the system you are most comfortable with for the game you are running.

 

Me? I have a few house rules to implement at LOW power levels, but other than that, well, I find Hero to be a bit more flexible and adaptable in my hands. I certainly find I can design most artifacts and spells and other various special effects more easily...especially when I don't need anything more than an ESTIMATE of Active Points for a paranormals game.

 

Thanks ever so much for letting me stand on my soapbox.

I think your comparison about the "break down" between H.S. and GURPS is about right. I prefer the elegance of H.S., I like the breadth of characteristics (particularly the SPD concept), and I appreciate the whole concept of building abilities based on the desired special effects.

However, the games I run are never as powerful as a typical H.S. superhero adventure. Everything I run is below the level of James Bond, often down to little more than normal humans. If the players have super abilities, they're normal humans who usually have only a single super ability, and they're not all that powerful. An armed special ops soldier can still take them down. I often find that players enjoy this style of play because they can relate to their characters better while still having the sensation of being more capable than others. Occasionally, the games will even star themselves as characters.

For these reasons, it's critical that the physics of the game world works right, all the way down to a doddering old lady whacking someone with her cane. If the players discover that the game mechanics allow them to jump significantly greater (or lesser) distances than they know they themselves can do, or take more (or less) damage than they know they can, they lose their trust in the game system and they lose their ability to suspend disbelief.

For this reason, for the past decade I've been playing GURPS. I think GURPS does a great job with skill costs, skill defaults, damage types and injuries, but the characters often have almost the same characteristics, and there are too few characteristics. Also, strength increases are linear, not exponential, making it virtually impossible to create a character who is twice as strong as an average person (easy enough to find in the real world, and easy enough to create in H.S.). GURPS also lacks a certain elegance. For instance, damage for ranged weapons drops by half at a precise distance, rather than some less abrupt (and realistic) scale. Yet the overall "feel" for a GURPS campaign is one of high realism. The results of a sword strike are viscerally "real." This "realism" comes at a cost in determining battle results, though I'm convinced the rules could be made more streamlined without sacrificing reality.

It seems to me that H.S. could have the best of both worlds by simply revisiting the basic rules and making them apply to normal humans first, then doing what's necessary to make them work for superheroes. Would it be all that difficult to do? I don't think so. Set basic jumping distances and then scale up as needed for super jumping. Cut the length of a turn to maybe half of its current length (does it really make sense that your average joe can only attack once per six seconds, even factoring in half a move?).

Hmm, I wonder if that would be a simple fix? Cut the 1" = 2 yards to 1" = 1 yard. Cut the length of a turn to 6 seconds. Perhaps add some variation to unconsciousness times. Naturally, ranges calculated for real-world weapons would have to use the old scale...but I wonder if overall it would work? Would superpowers be messed up? Just musing here....

Derek

Re: On a soapbox

Originally posted by misterdeath

Are we talking over powered? Perhaps.

 

Unrealistic? Definately.

 

Most game systems, and Hero in particular are designed around the concept that the characters are special in some way. Even in low powered games, the characters start with 10s as base stats. Checking Fred shows that the Average Person has all 8s. Not much of a jump, but still the Average Character is better than the Average Person.

 

A normal person can't push. That's reserved for heroes.

 

So, I submit to you that we're not creating olympic athletes, we're creating Heroes.

 

We create John Matrix, and Rambo, and Conan, and Superman.

 

A strong Fantasy Warrior has a leaping of 7". That's 14 meters, or 42 feet (about). That's huge. That's unrealistic.

 

So what. Gaming isn't reality, it shouldn't be. Hero System isn't about reality. Reality is boring. It's about playing Heroes. Heroes are fun.

 

Gaming is about fun.

 

D

I disagree with the idea that the rules shouldn't be realistic because it wouldn't be fun. The basic rules SHOULD be based on realism. It gives us real-world baseline capabilities with which to compare heroic abilities. If I have a normal strength character who plans to whack another normal character in the head with the butt of my pistol, I want to know that I have a good chance of knocking the other character out, with a chance of merely giving him a sore head or seriously injuring the guy. If the rules don't have realism at their fundamental level, you can't rely on such intuitive understanding. And without that core realism, the most likely results from that whack to the head could be basically no effect or rip the guy's head off. Additionally, it's hard to suspend disbelief when something defies your sense of fundamental reality.

Derek

Re: Re: Re: Re: +2 to Speed

Originally posted by Monolith

You are looking for WAY too much realism here. My sig file says it all.

Well, you're right there. I just prefer to start with rules that are as realistic as possible, and then relax those rules as necessary when more "heroism" is desired. It's easier than doing the reverse, after all. And HS isn't THAT far off, really.

Derek

Originally posted by Monolith

I think the only real problem you are having with Speed is that you are trying to reconcile it with an amount of time, in this case seconds. If you take the time factor out of it then Speed is really not an issue. Do not think of a Turn as being 12 seconds. Instead think of it as being a “round†of combat. An average person can attack twice per Turn (round). A slightly above average person can attack 3 times per Turn. An exceptional person can attack 4 times per Turn. If you take the seconds out you see that an exceptional person only attacks twice as much as an average person. That is no big deal. Most people just get confused by the time issue because they are trying to reconcile realism with the heroism of the genre, and that almost never works.

Ah, true indeed. However, it seems that changing what a turn means (say from 12 seconds to 6) would still mess with movement (and free REC?). It helps to be able to match seconds to turns for cases where something is occurring on a second-by-second basis (a time bomb counter, for instance).

I realize I'm probably a bit too fixated on realism to be ideal for Hero System, but that's just the environment I prefer. So...I try to tinker.

Thanks,

Derek

Re: Re: +2 to Speed

Originally posted by tiger

None per say.. Speed reflects how often you can do something in the turn. So increasing your speed doesn't effect other stats.

Hmm, but it seems that the free REC at the end of the turn would be affected. I wonder if it should just be dropped?

Plus, movement would need to be modified, I should think. Otherwise someone with a move (jog?) of 7" (that's 42', right?) would go from an 84' run per turn at SPD 2 to a 168' run if +2 was added to all SPD scores. Guess I could do some testing of my own on how fast real people of various speeds run in 12 seconds and divide it by their SPD score to come up with move....

Now, some people factor in spd with def for house rules and such. This of course would be modified, although no game "stat" would.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "def for house rules and such."

Thanksk,

Derek

For the past few years I've been using GURPS to run my games, mainly because I prefer a relatively high degree of "realism" in my gaming, and I've had trouble making what I've learned of combat work with the Hero System (HS). However, GURPS doesn't allow much variation in attributes/characteristics, nor does it have quite the flexibility of HS...and there's something just more enjoyable about using HS, as I remember it. Since the appearance of the 5th edition, I've been seriously considering switching back to HS.

One of the problems I had with HS has been the Speed rules. While I love the concept, I run mostly low-powered "realistic" games, and the difference between SPD 1 and SPD 2 is huge (double). How can your average joe be so slow that he can only act once every 12 seconds? Maybe someone with severe arthritis would be that slow, but your average person? Hmm.

Then I read the "Superpowers in Reality" article ( http://www.herogames.com/digitalHero/Samples/dh11realsupers.htm ) on this site, which suggests simply adding 2 to everyone's SPD score. Adding 2 (or even 3?) to SPD scores would appear to solve my problem--average people would be able to perform more realistically, and the difference between SPD 1 and SPD 2 wouldn't be so drastic. However, that would also mess up movement and who knows what else?

So, I finally get around to actual question: what abilities (like movement) would have to be modified to take into account this change in SPD score, and what solutions would you recommend? (I don't have the HS book yet, so for all I know this issue has been addressed.)

If I can get this issue solved (along with some problems I had with unconsciousness and the low lethality of killing attacks--but I'll leave those for separate posts), I'd be inspired to make the switch.

Thanks,

Derek