Lupus

Re: Cheap excape The latter option is quite workable. If you need to stat it out, either make it a side effect on the regeneration, or build the EDM with a window of opportunity (New Moon). That way, of course, he can ONLY port in on the new moon, regardless of prior death. Up to you.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate Not to mention that in Hero, characters are assumed to be acting at FULL CAPACITY at all times (unless 'out of combat', or restricted by rules). In real life, combatants don't always fight at full capacity. Many of the 'incapacitated' results are in fact people falling down and going 'ow, this hurts, I'm gonna sit still and blubber for a while.' You may choose to interpret that as negative STUN. I interpret that as 'has been Con-stunned, and has simply chosen to stay out of the fight until things calm down.' It's not a 'mook rule.' It's somethign that applies to all characters, PC and NPC alike. PCs make decisions for their characters - do I keep fighting, or do I cower? The GM makes the decisions for the NPCs, saying 'is he really motivated enough to keep moving with a wound?' That's the way I choose to interpret things. Requiring people to go down to negative STUN is a valid interpretation, but I don't believe it's NECESSARILY more realistic. But yes, it does work for the right kind of game.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate So what would be the problem with leaving damage where it is, and using the impairing/disabling wounds? O_o A stat 10 normal gets a disabling wound to the chest 50% of the time under these rules. Go for a mid-body shot and you have a chance of hitting the vitals (possibly the heart) or stomach (extra STUN!) and that makes it even better. Sure, an impairing wound to the chest won't FORCE someone out of the fight, but most NPCs can be assumed to make that choice of 'I'm going to sit down and be quiet for a while.' You're the one, after all, who pointed out the FBI documents. There is only, it seems, a very SMALL chance of physiological incapacitation after a single hit from a mid-size pistol round, and that's more to do with hit location than anything else (say, Vitals or Head hit). Over all, as I noted in my 'realistic' rules set, 'Realistic does not necessarily mean more deadly.' In fact, it can often be extraordinarily random. The Tactical Briefs site also mentions that the 'real-world' data for fatalities/stops by bullets are weighted towards those used by police officers and military, due the level of skill possessed by them. Perhaps, then, another solution would be to allow people to buy some variant of 'Deadly Blow' (or, perhaps, a ranged martial art. That said, I'm very much in favour of adding in Penetrating Points. Reduced Penetration for pistols also sounds like a winner. Basically, the damage levels for HERO firearms looks fine to me (with the exception of the .45, which appears to be based on cinematics alone). In short, I fear that raising the damage of pistol weapons significantly... well, it doesn't strike me as 'realistic', just 'deadly.' I'd much rather use disabling/impairing wounds and up the penalties involved with them. (As well as, prolly, reducing the penalties for rapid fire, to allow people to fire lotsa bullets, if they're well-trained and the opponent isn't being defensive.)

Re: What do you do onboard a starship? Um... article dated April 1? I'll wait for confirmation.

Re: Stats for a Webley? Why do people try to hurt me with backgrounds. >.<

Re: Star Wars conversions: Stormtroopers questions Note that even in the Ewok battle, the Stormtroopers weren't getting caned until the Ewoks started doing some very nasty things (triggering their huge log traps, for instance). The small rocks tended to just make them fall over, the arrows sometimes bothered them, sometimes didn't (I'd put that down to whether they found a joint or not). We only explicitly saw one Ewok killed, but I'd say at LEAST a half-dozen died on screen, and who knows how many off-screen. We also didn't see any of the Rebels (aside from the main characters) after the start of the battle. Can't discount what they were doing. Basically, for the first part of the battle, the ewoks really were little more than a distraction that seemed to be getting the crap blown out of them. In the second half, they pulled it together and actually began destroying AT-STs and killing troopers.

Re: Viperia: Less Pow Than Champions?? I don't allow it to result in an automatic miss - that's just gameyness. I do allow it to take someone behind cover.

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming. YEah, I got the link to Tactical Briefs from your posts. That's what crystallised the inspiration for this madness. Doing it with HERO 'cause I like HERO. I also feel that it's essentially alterable. I'm really leaving the vast majority of the system untouched. It's also the most appropriate system that I can think of. Note that most of the changes I'm pondering, I'll prolly leave out. I'm just coming from the theory that you discuss everything instead of dumping it on face value. So which systems would you suggest?

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming. That could certainly work. I'm in two minds about dropping dodge, really. But I like the idea. Sounds pretty cool. I put stunning based on EGO, due to the FBI theories that it's fully psychological (but for me, still based on the damage done - hence based on STUN damage). Also, removing CON from the equation devalues that stat slightly (CON being one step down from STR in terms of value - which is also a reason for removing STR from the STUN formula). Still, putting too much on EGO makes it too valuable (though I'd intended to leave its cost at 2, since I don't envision there being much in the way of psionics in this setting). Another option for stunning is that it doesn't necessarily stop you acting... it just stops you taking offensive action. So you might sit there and go 'buh', you might just dive for cover and stay there panicking. That might be better left to roleplaying, however. Certainly, I'd encourage GMs using this system to have NPCs act in varyingly different ways, based on EGO rolls (or fiat, in the case of hardcase bastards). Some good ideas there, too. I'll let 'em all simmer, see how things go.

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming. Y'know, I think you're right there. I never quite expected to be able to get such a system going, but you've managed to resolve one of the problems I had with having no system to do so. Thanks for the post. Very handy. You have some good analyses of the situations and rules, and presented a viable alternative that (at the moment) I am preferring to having specific rules.

Re: What do you do onboard a starship? Study, for one. You'd need a lot of teachers if you're planning on having a lot of kids. In fact, how many of the initial 1000 will be children? It would make sense to have a lotta kids - get the later generations started faster. Meet&greets. You want the population to increase, you need couples to form. If you don't want to have arranged birthings, then you need the singles bars and the like. Manufacturing - how is this handled? Is it all automated, or do you need people pumping out things like cutlery? Are there people involved in crafts such as sewing/knitting/tailoring? Interior decoration? Or is that counted in the 200 essential crew? Law enforcement - how stringent are security regulations? What laws operate on the ship? Is there a police/security/military contingent? Neighbourhood watch? I can see some need for armed guards on certain vital systems, in the event of cabin fever going rampant 3-12 months in. Speaking of that, SHRINKS. Lots of them. Oodles of head-shrinkers, psychiatrists and psychologists and doctors with counselling diplomas alike. (Diplomae?) These people are being taken from their ordinary lives and bottled up in a tin can that could explode AT ANY TIME. And they'll be there for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Psych tests can only sort out so many of the ones prone to psychotic breaks/cabin fever. Just plain doctors. Unless there are real good air filters, a simple cold will infect the whole ship. You'd especially need pediatricians to ensure that the next generation grow up safely. I'm sure there are others, that's just what comes from the top of my head (like dandruff).

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming. Yes, very good point. Prolly make the rules apply /mainly/ to impairing/disabling wounds, but allow a small chance of smaller wounds to become infected if left untreated. Long-term stun sounds interesting. Got any more details on that concept? Pushing DOES sound like a good mechanic to use... perhaps allow the pushing of CON or EGO? It's a possiblity. One other idea I came up with is somehow working PRE attack mechanics into wounds... that would prolly come down to WAY too much dice rolling, though. As I noted, this entire section could simply be unworkable. I'm mostly just testing to see if there's ANY chance it could be workable, rather than tossing it out instantly. Thanks for the comments! They were really handy.

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming. At the very least, it's a weird mutant hybrid (small 'h', not capital). It's certainly not a list of things that I'd run Hero with as standard - only for a very particular genre. Thanks for the comments.

Note 1: ‘Realistic’ is in invereted commas, because true realism is impossible to achieve in a tabletop game. Instead, what is being sought here is a realistic feel rather than realism itself. HERO system as standard has a heroic feel; the purpose of these rules modifiers is to alter that basic feel to a more realistic tone. Special note: for me, ‘realism’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘hard’ or ‘deadly’. Some of the ‘realistic’ systems out there are actually quite unrealistic in how easy it is to kill someone. So what I’m aiming for here is a system where you can get shot repeatedly and live; or sometimes, get shot once and die. (Usually by disease. Yay!) But even shots to the head at close range can be lived through, if the target is lucky enough. Note 2: For firearms and other combat, the FBI theories on ballistic wounding are taken as true. To summarise: damage from a bullet is determined by two things, and two things only: what a bullet passes through, and how much it tears up as it passes through it. ‘Energy transfer’ and like effects are not important, except as they aid penetration or cross-sectional damage. A person can be incapacitated in three ways: 1) a hit to the central nervous system (brain and upper spine). This will almost always incapacitate immediately. 2) a hit to major organ or blood vessel that causes bleeding. This will incapacitate in seconds to minutes. 3) psychological incapacitation: shock, surprise, emotional trauma. These are highly individual and random reactions. Tehy are primarily phychological, although some physiological factors are involved. For the purpose of this system, it is assumed that the actual damage done will raise or lower the chance of this effect. There is no such thing as a reliable one-shot-stop, even from the heavier bullets. Rifles are more likely to damage vital areas, as they leave a much bigger cavity as they pass. They are also high-power enough that the ‘temporary cavity’ may tear open more permanently. Furthermore, they are more likely to fragment and thus cause physical damage past their penetration route. However, even these are not reliable one-shot-stops. Note 3: I’d rather not get into a protracted debate over the FBI ballistics theories, but I’m willing to entertain criticism of any of the rules I’ve come up with. Keep in mind that this is intended to reflect a realistic-seeming game. It’s for relatively low-powered ones, where an 11- knowledge skill is good, and stats of 20 are very rare indeed. I’m thinking 50+25 for the most part, maybe 50+50. Note 4: I’ve put extra effort into weapon reliability rules because my long-term plans for these rules is to use them for a post-apocalyptic setting, where one’s weapons are vital and they’ll be subject to all kinds of bad treatment (AK-47s will be in great demand, I predict). They can easily be ignored in most games, with little or no effect on the realism. Additionally, what I certainly want to see is people who have suffered deadly wounds (either BOD score negative, or bleeders that will kill them in minutes) fighting on until they’re actually physically incapacitated. This won’t happen in every fight, but I want it to be a possibility! Note 5: For some of my inspiration here, see the following analysis of the FBI firefight on April 11, 1986: http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm The rules: 1) DEX costs 1 character point per point of characteristic. It has no figured characteristics (SPD or CV). It affects skills, and skills alone. SPD starts at 2, and is bought up with character points as normal. CV is 3, and only ever 3 unless modified by combat skill levels. 2) STUN is determined by CON and EGO. EGO takes the place of STR in the (otherwise unchanged) equation. 3) CON is no longer used to determine stunning (STUN damage greater than EGO is now required to stun the opponent). Ideally, I’d like to figure out some kind of system for adrenaline rushes. Essentially, according to the FBI, highly motivated people are more likely to keep operating after an injury. This is reflected in the basic system by EGO factoring into the STUN score, and using EGO for stunning effects. However, I’d like to see some additional factors, such as the traditional ‘mother defending her child’ scenario. I have no idea how to work this, other than allowing psych lims to add to EGO, perhaps? HERO system, at base, is hostile to these kinds of tinkering. Characters are assumed to be operating at full power and ability at all times. Adding in some kind of system to allow characters to vary their performance is an entirely new factor. As such, it may be unworkable (or require just TOO much work for the result). 4) The SPD chart is used, though this is, as usual, optional. The highest of DEX, INT and EGO is used for initiative. Initiative is then modified by a 1d6 roll (1d6+characteristic). Maneuvers may modify this as well (such as using weapons in cluttered areas, see point 10 below). 5) Hit location is used, but so is STUN multiplier. This is because incapacitation by psychological effect (STUN) is essentially random. The STUNx is 1d6 plus the entry on the hit location: 2x becomes -2, 3x becomes -1, 4x becomes 0, 5x becomes +1. This is then further modified by weapons. Anti-targetting penalty skill levels are permitted. However, not even the most skilled person can reliably shoot ANY hit location without aiming first (IE, high OCV). Penalty skill levels against targetting penalties can, at most, negate HALF the hit location penalty. Thus, a head shot has a minimum target penalty of -4 (or -2 if target is unaware etc). 6) Pistols have a much lower chance of stunning. All except the biggest have a STUNx of -1. 7) Optional damage effects: Impairing and disabling wounds are used. These are played more or less as written, except can take longer to recover from (and if the CON roll is blown considerably, permanent injuries can result from even impairing wounds). Largely, impairing/disabling wounds hang around until most (75%?) Of the BODY damage in that injury heals. Bleeding is also used. I haven’t looked too far through this section, as I’ve never really used it before. Certainly, BODY damage can result from bleeding, and wounds will bleed more profusely if they are of higher BODY value – a person with a single 10 BODY injury will bleed to death much faster than a person with 10 papercuts (1 BODY each). So this means players (or perhaps the GM, see below) will need to keep track of injuries. If the GM has good memory, a laptop, or insane organisation skills, make all damage secret. Players roll to hit, and know the general location of their hit (torso, centre mass!) as well as how many DCs they inflict (after all modifications, etc). But the GM rolls the damage. Players also do not know how much damage they have taken. They can ask questions (‘So, how am I feeling after that hit?’) but the GM can give them misleading information, particularly if there’s a low STUN result (‘You feel fine. You think it missed you.’ *five minutes later, to another player* ‘You notice that Bob is dripping blood all over the place.’) This should be carefully used by the GM. It should NEVER be used to bamboozle the players. It should be used sparingly. 8) Healing is made more difficult. I’d like to eventually come up with rules for healing other than abstracted BODY damage. This would ideally include some vague system for infection, which would only come into play in adverse conditions with insufficient medical supplies or skill. I’m not looking for a complex system here. An idea: if a character suffers an impairing or diabling wound and fails the CON roll, there is the chance of infection. After the standard duration of the impairing or disabling injury (or after a few days, whichever is less), further CON rolls are made. The difficulty here is modified by how badly the character failed the initial roll. Failure here extends the duration of the impairment/disabling and opens up the possibility of infection. Enough failed CON rolls result in serious infection, which may endanger limbs or even the life of the character. Medical treatment can intervene at any point, although it is more effective if applied early. PS: Doctor (or, in immediate treatment, Paramedics) rolls do not heal the infection on their own, but apply a modifier to the character’s CON roll to recover. Advanced medical treatments such as antibiotics can apply major bonuses, or even cure the infection altogether. This will be subject to GM fiat, depending on whether the GM particularly wants characters to suffer death or maiming as the result of gangrene. Such ‘realism’ may well mar the enjoyment of the game as a whole. Few players enjoy watching their characters waste away and die. This section will almost certainly require the consultation of medical professionals, or at least textbooks and other information sources to determine the probabilities of such infection setting in (or what kind of infections exist, and how difficult they are to treat with or without antibiotics). 9) Segmented movement is used. This discourages effects such as charging someone with a gun. 10) The Dodge maneuver does not exist. In hand to hand combat, you use block. In ranged combat, you use cover, or you Dive For Cover. DFC is an exception to segmented movement - it is instantaneous. You MUST dive either behind cover, or into a position that is more difficult to hit. You end up prone. You MAY simply drop to the ground – this will give opponents a bonus to hit you if they are close, a penalty if they are far away (IE, you are at ½ dcv, but far opponents will get penalties). More rules here to come. Essentially, there is no ‘stand there and dodge bullets’ maneuver. Dodging involves getting to somewhere that the bullets aren’t. You can still buy DCV levels, however. This can reflect things such as moving in a way that presents a small target profile. DCV levels CAN be bought with the limitation ‘only against single target’ (-1) or ‘only against targets you can perceive’ (-1/4) 11) Weapons charts will be altered to reflect the FBI theories. Damages are raised or lowered accordingly (this requires further research). OCV and Rmod levels, in particular, are to be changed. OCV mods are used for those weapons which are easy to put on target: ‘handy’ weapons. Pistols and SMGs are more likely to have OCV mods. Weapons that are inherently more accurate instead receive Rmod bonuses. Rifles are more likely to have positive Rmods. 12) Weapon sizes will be important when in cluttered areas, such as indoors. Rifles are bulky and not as easy to swing around in narrow corridors (machineguns even worse). SMGs and pistols rarely, if ever, take penalties. Rifles will take no penalties if you are simply firing forward (say, down a corridor in the direction you are already facing). If you want to turn round and fire to your rear, you will take an OCV mod, and also an initiative modifier. This also applies for maneuver such as door entry. The penalties will be variable according to how difficult the GM thinks the maneuver is. Thus, pistols/SMGs may be superior weapons for these CQB situations. However, some weapons are simply better. The FBI guidelines suggest that pistols are important, but if the agent expects action, they should ALWAYS attempt to gain heavier weaponry. No attempt will be taken to ‘even out’ weapon types. Some are just better, and these are usually the bigger ones; however, smaller weapons may be better in some situations (such as listed in the paragraph above). 13) Weapons will be rated on two axes of reliability: tolerance and ruggedness. These will be on a 0-5 scale (0=worst, 5=best). These ratings can change (usually decreasing) over the weapon’s life. Straight from the factory, a well-made weapon will have a 0% failure rate. However, as the weapon is subjected to conditions or treatment in excess on its tolerance or ruggedness, it may pick up a failure rate. The reliability ratings determine how badly the weapon must be treated before it develops a failure rate, or begins to accrue penalties. For example: an extremely finely-tuned sniper rifle may have a ruggedness of 1. If treated carefully, it is a highly reliable weapon, shooting on target all the time (Rmod +4). However, if it is bumped even slightly, it has a chance of picking up penalties. This will depend on the rifle. Likely, if bumped hard enough, it will lose some or all of its Rmod. If abused (say, used as a club) it will almost certainly be knocked out of alignment, and not only lose its Rmod but also take penalties (and probably beginning to jam). Meanwhile, an AK-47 will have a ruggedness of 5. It can be used as a club and still work fine, unless it does damage over its DEF rating. At that point, it will pick up a failure rate... but it’s still likely to work okay. Tolerance works similarly, except it’s to do with fouling. A 1 means that it will begin to foul under normal use (IE, if you fire a few shots, you’ll likely pick up a failure rate). A tolerance 5 means it has to be caked in mud before it takes any penalties, and even then they will be minor (say, jam on 17-18, or even 18 alone). In both categories, a 0 is represenatative of a makeshift weapon such as a Zip gun. These weapons start with failure rates, and are easily broken and/or fouled. These rules will be unlikely to be used too often. If you have a finely-tuned sniper rifle with ruggedness 1, you take care of it. Failure rates only accrue if you exceed the advised usage guidelines. Treat your weapons well, they work reliably. Now, if you do exceed the advised usage limits, then penalties will not accrue automatically. Perhaps a jam is introduced, or something. I haven’t gotten all the way through what happens.. Realistically, there should be SOME failure rate even for well-treated weapons. However, such failure rates would be much less than even 1/216 (IE, a roll of 18). That’s it, so far. Questions/comments/flames? As noted above, I'd rather not get into a debate about the founding theories of the FBI ballistics. If you really wanna say 'but that's crap! It's all about isntead!'... well, I can't stop you. But I'm not gonna get into that. I'd rather hear people's impressions of: whether these rules would really give some kind of verisimilitude of reality (yeah, bad grammar, I know); if there are other ways things could be implemented; if people have other ideas; or other such thingamies. That's what I'm looking for, anyway. Say whatever you want. Fire away!

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Really, it's a miracle that the earth has survived the multiple-megaton nuclear tests. They must have all rolled REAL low on their damage dice, because otherwise they'd have destroyed the earth in one hit. (I'm in agreement, btw. There are times to apply the rules, and other times to overrule them. The '86 BOD to destroy the earth' is a blind application of a rule that, in my opinion, doesn't scale well enough. It just doesn't make SENSE. And in my games, I'm gonna ignore it big-time. )

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: "Double Damage" restriction w/ Martial arts in Champion Games As far as Normal Damage goes, sure. In fact, isn't that the standard, in superheroic games? But for killing damage, I wouldn't lift the double damage cap unless I lifted it for non-martial-artists as well. Both or none.

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games Schiavo: the feeding tube has been removed, but it's expected to take about two weeks for her to die. Congress, meanwhile, is trying to pass a law that will allow the courts to intervene. So far, the courts have been saying it's not their place - the new law will MAKE it their place. Thus, it's not a retroactive law. Get around the whole ex post facto problem (as decisions of courts are automatically retroactive). So it's still up in the air. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050320/pl_nm/rights_schiavo_congress_dc

Re: "Ya better talk Oculon, or you'll get the spike!" (A Super law question) There's some precedent in regular law. Just because it may be legal where you are to, say, rape your sister, doesn't mean it's legal here, and doesn't mean you're any less culpable. In the case of Lord Chaos, behaving in a destructive manner may have been normal for him, but he still understood that it's destructive and would result in deaths. In the case of the Alien Strangler, well, that might be a different story. The inability to assist at one's own defence is an interesting notion, though. Thanks for bringing that one up!

Re: "Ya better talk Oculon, or you'll get the spike!" (A Super law question)

Re: Props and your PCs

Re: "So, Thor hits Superman with Mjolnir..." Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand eventually all 'vs' threads devolve into religious discussions. Guys, don't take it all so seriously. This isn't something you need to be so intense over.

Re: "So, Thor hits Superman with Mjolnir..." Diana even makes a comment that Superman always was vulnerable to magic, in relation to him being cut by the sword. The sword's also super-tough and super-sharp (she cuts right through bulletproof metal with it, in the Big Fight), but I think the implication is clear that it cuts him because it's magic. Then again, Kingdom Come is Elseworlds, and thus of limited value in main-universe discussions.

Re: "So, Thor hits Superman with Mjolnir..." And even there, you'll get discrepancies. Extremely mad Hulk has fought extremely mad Thor and they've been at a standstill. Thor can enter 'berserker rages' where his already-immense strength just goes up and up and UP. I'm not even sure about the 'Hercules is stronger' bit even normally, but I've never read much Hercules. So even relative strength is difficult. Me, I just give up and say: at the top end, there's a big mess - Hulk, Thor, Juggernaut, Hercules... it's a wash, really. Marvel's never going to say who's stronger. Chances are, Hulk's the strongest when he gets REALLY going, depending on his incarnation. Green Hulk quite possibly has NO upper limit of strength. So he could potentially get stronger than Galactus - just gotta get him mad enough and hope he doesn't blow the planet up in the process (cf Champion, when empowered by Infinity Gem). In doing any kind of inter-universe comparison, I'd generally try to achieve some parity of power levels, such as by assuming that Superman (being in the top mess of DC) is about equal to Thor (being in the top mess of Marvel). But that's not the only way to go about it.