Dauntless

Re: Character Help: name for female powerd-armor Muslim heroine While I'm not muslim, my grandmother was. I'm actually Buddhist myself. My knowledge of Islam comes mostly from my own dabbling in the research of various religions. I firmly believe in the Japanese saying; "if you know only one religion, you know none". My mother who grew up in the Islamic region of the Phillipines (on the very island that unfortunately most of the Abu Sayyaf hide out on) has also told me about some Sunni muslim customs in the Phillipines. As for the meaning of jihad, a word can have different meanings depending on how it is used. Look at the english word conflict. Correctly, America was involved in the Vietnam Conflict, not the Vietnam War (no war was ever declared). But was it a war? It sure was to all those poor guys that had to be in it. And conflict can also mean a battle on a personal level. To see jihad simply as "war" is akin to seeing the word conflict only to mean war. So in the Koran, you have to look at the context of how it is being used to understand what the connotation is. It can indeed mean war, but as the quote pointed out, there is a greater and lesser Jihad. The lesser Jihad is war, the greater Jihad is personal struggle against naf(self). Unfortunately in Islam, there are various levels of closeness to Allah. Those who wage the lesser Jihad (war) against oppressors are deemed to be close to God. But in Sufi thought (it was a Sufi who declared the hadith in the quote I gave), those closest to Allah are those who wage the greater Jihad, or the abandonment of naf in order to accept the love of Allah. As I read more about Sufism, it really reminds me a lot of the Buddhist and Hindu ideas of abandoning the self. It's because of this metaphysical and esoteric teachings that many muslims don't see Sufis as "real" muslims. Here's another Hadith from another Sufi: and also The assertation here is that one can not truly wage the lesser jihad (the external war) until one has waged the greater jihad (the internal struggle).

Re: Character Help: name for female powerd-armor Muslim heroine First, about Islam... Not all muslims are as restrictive towards women as you may think. Many muslim women (especially Sunnis) don't have to wear veils, and can even wear makeup. In the Koran, a woman can not be forced to marry someone she doesn't wish to (her parents can't force arrange a marriage) moreover, by Islamic law, a woman is allowed to keep her last name. So why don't you see this more in the Islamic world? Because there's a difference between religion and culture. Many arabic nations don't uphold these laws because it goes against their customs (remember, Islam is a relatively new religion). Of all the muslim sects, the least repressive (and IMHO) the most interesting are the Sufis. They are a mystical branch of Islam that has many many similarities between Christian Gnosticism and Jewish Kabbalism (and even Hinduism). Indeed, many muslims (predominately Shias) feel that Sufi's are barely muslim at all, despite the fact that all 4 Caliphs (a Caliph is the "head" of Islam, akin to Pope and king...though there hasn't been one since the 13th century) proclaimed them to uphold the highest ideals of Islam. If you ever watched the movie, "Jewel of the Nile" (the sequel to "Romancing the Stone"), then you will at least have been exposed in a Hollywoodish way to the Sufis. The Sufi's also believe that the most important Jihad is the inner Jihad (jihad means struggle, not holy war). Here's a quote from an important Sufi in the middle ages: As for a good name, how about: Kashf al-mahjub which means, "uncovering the veiled" It has a double entendre, meaning unveiling of a woman, as well as it's implied meaning, to discover truth by uncovering the veils that hide truth(Allah).

Re: Miko of the Morning Mist If you're curious about real-world Shinto beliefs (and therefore of real world Japanese mysticism), I might recommend the book, "The Spiritual Foundations of Aikido" by William Gleason. Morihei Ueshiba was predominately a Shintoist, and not a Zen Buddhist, despite his early training in Buddhism. In fact, he was an ardent supporter of the Omoto-kyo branch of shintoism up until his death. He often began his training in Aikido by chanting while holding his sword saying, "Let the dance of the Gods begin". It's a fascinating read and insight into the esoterics of Shintoism. While it's very light on going into detail of the some of the o-kami (Gods) of Japan, it does give a very indepth look into the true mysticism of Japan's Shinto beliefs. No talk of Oni or anything like that, but there is some revelation about what kami truly are if you really read between the lines (and most of Ueshiba's students came to firmly believe O-sensei himself was a kami). You can also download the Kojiki (The record of ancient teachings), which is akin to the bible of Imperial Shintoism, off the net for free. BTW, there's several different "interpretations" of Shintoism, just like there are different interpretations of Christianity. Speaking of endings of series, I've always loved how the Japanese do end their series. None of this Superman #1000 stuff. As Neil Gaiman once said when asked what makes a good story, "A beginning, a middle, and an end". I think all good stories need a permanent closure.

Re: 'Empire': a cliché? Sounds to me like what you've got is a Union. In essence you have several client states which have some local sovereignty but must defer some matters to the central government. In effect, what you describe isn't too different from our own american form of government. For all the reasons that you describe, I'd avoid the word Empire. Now, there is one reason why Union or Federation doesn't quite fit. From what you've described, the various client states have submitted to the Treaty of Luna under duress. For this reason, it's a little more similar to the former Soviet Union and the warsaw pact. So could could conceivably call it a Bloc Union. But the word empire has been used and abused, and I'd avoid it because of all the connotation it implies (that doesn't seem to fit your game world).

Re: Y R axes better than swords??? Swords survived post-gun era partially because of their "genteelness", and partially because of their versatility. Hell, knives survived best of all But I think the biggest reason was because guns eliminated the need for armor, and by making armor obsolete, it took away the axes greater advantage of doing more damage. Swords, being quicker and lighter came in handy as backup weapons to early hand cannons and arqebus type weapons. This gradually found its way into the hands of the aristocrats as well as the educated middle class (quite a few scholars were known to have been duellists as well). Swords are relatively expensive compared to axes, and so have always been a mark of distinction. Generalizations are always fraught with peril, but sometimes they make sense as long as you don't take them too far. While the scottish are probably best known for the claidgh moor (claymore) sword, they too weren't averse to spears, and neither were the Norsemen. The chinese, who call the spear the "king of weapons" also had a penchance for other polearms, and at least under the Qin dynasty really loved archers. Even the Japanese for whom the common myth is that they loved the sword above all else, this generalization is actually erroneous depending on the time frame. Prior to the Heian period (about 1200AD), the mark of the best warrior was how good he was in kyudo (archery). It wasn't until about the Kamakura and Muromachi period that swords became revered to the degree that they were (and was the era of its most legendary swordsmiths). The movie the Last Samurai got it wrong when it said that the Gods created Japan by dipping a sword into the sea...it was actually a spear. Even the word bu as in bushi (bu means "war", so bushi is warrior) is composed of the kanji characters for "to stop" and "spear". I never actually realized that FH had axes with a lower STR min than swords. That's just wrong in my book. It's right that it does more base damage, but it should have a higher STR min. I'd also give it (depending on size) a -1 to OCV only for blocking to represent the high recover times and the slower speed of the axe (which makes it easier for a person to get out of the way, and represents the difficulty of trying to recover from the momentum of the axe swing). EDIT On second thought, I realize why they gave it a lower STR. By lowering the STR, it makes it easier to add DC for an axe, which makes sense. However, it also makes sense to have axes have a high STR min to account for the fact that it's harder to control an axe, so if you don't have the proper STR, you'll suffer an OCV penalty.

Re: Y R axes better than swords??? There's something that's not accounted for about axes that makes swords better than them in one resect, which is also why I highly question why an axe has a lower STR min than a sword. When you swing an axe, it takes more force (or more time) to accelerate it if it is the same weight as a sword overall. Why? Simple physics. In physics, when you swing an object in an arc, it's a special case of rotational movement, with the point of rotation being at the end of the lever. In rotational torque, there's something called the Momemnt of Inertia. The Moment of Inertia is really what mass is in rotational movement. Most people are familiar with the expression that Force = mass x acceleration. In rotation objects, there's another hitch. It's actually acceleration x Momemnt of Inertia (which is the change in mass/change in volume). In other words, the Moment of Inertia is the change in density over an object's length. Because an axe has an uneven distribution of weight at the tip, it has a higher change in mass/volume (it's really the derivative of the change in mass respective to the change in volume for every point in the body relative to the rotation's origin). This also means that the greater the length of the axe, the stronger you have to be to wield it. To illustrate, imagine sitting in a spinning chair, and spin in your chair with your arms tucked in. Now spin again at the same speed, but this time fold your arms out...notice how you slow down. That's because you've changed your body's change in mass/change in volume. You applied the same amount of force (the spin), but when you increased the length of the lever arm, you slowed down. There is a catch however...given that a human can constantly accelerate the weapon through the swing, the human therefore has more time to put more energy into the swing...this also means that longer weapons are slower per given strength. So what does this all mean? It means that given an axe and sword of the same weight, and a user with the same strength, the user can accelerate the sword faster than the axe. This has a few ramifications. The first is that the axe is still going to do more damage. Why? Because when the weapon hits a target in a swung arc, only a portion hits and it's this portion that contributes to momentum and kinetic energy. To imagine this, imagine an old fashioned record player spinning away and envision a white line going from the center to the outer rim. Would you rather get hit at the outer rim or towards the center? The angular speed is the same in both instances, but the outer rim carries more force. In an axe, the weight of the head is much greater than the tip of the sword. Some will say, but kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity^2. Since the sword is travelling faster than the axe, it should have more kinetic energy. This is true except remember, since the axe is slower, the user actually has more time to impart more energy into the swing. In other words, given the same time frame, a sword might travel through a 90 degree arc, while the axe might only swing through a 60 degree arc (given both weapons have the same speed and same strength user). Once the axe finally hits...it may take longer, but by the time it hits, the user has more time to put more energy into the swing (remember, power = Force/time). So overall, the axe will do more damage than at sword. But it's slowness and uneven distribution are its drawbacks. First off, since the axe is unbalanced, it is slower. Secondly, once you have swung an axe, it is harder to recover it for another strike. And this is where the sword shines. A sword though not as damaging is faster, and more easily recoverable for another strike or defense. Skill in blocking also relies on these physical principles. One shouldn't try to block an attack near the tip of a weapon, because that's where most of the energy is. Instead, one should try to stop the block close to its pivot point. Swords being better balanced are more accurate and better able to do fine targeting than an axe (because you can also change its movement in-flight more easily). Granted, if you try to do a head-to-head block, the momentum of the axe will push it out of the way more easily. There's one last drawback to an axe...the wooden haft. Wood meeting iron is never a good thing, and blocking with axes is a dangerous thing. So while there may be a "myth" to the sword, it's still a very versatile and potent weapon. It explains why it survived the coming of guns better than the axe did (for combat purposes). So I'll put on my flame-retardant suit and say that swords are overall superior to axes. Axes are more damaging, and they are more difficult to block, but they are also more difficult to block with. But swords are faster, are easier to block with, and more versatile (you can thrust as well as swing, and you can even use some 2H swords like a 2H spear). To be fair, spears are often given short shrift and it was the weapon of choice for many cultures (the Chinese and Irish for example). One must also think of mass combat vs. duelling combat. While the saxon huscarls and the Vikings under Harald Hardrada were known for fighting with axes en masse, axes are difficult to use under such circumstances. The same is true of any swing type of weapon. This is why the strategic use of massed spearmen took place. A group of men tightly packed together made for an impenetrable wall of spear tips. The huscarls came up with a tactic of actually attacking the spears to chop off the tips with a moderate degree of success, but in general, pikemen ruled the field against other infantry. Because of their dense formations, they were very vulnerable to archers (also because they lacked shields).

Re: Hattori Hanzo Steel Sort of off topic, but Hattori Hanzo was a real ninja who lived just before the Tokugawa era (late 1500's). He was a ninja Jonin (leader) of IIRC the Koga Ryu ninja who brokered a peace between the Koga and Iga clans in order to help support the Shogun. Hattori was both revered and spat upon. Revered because of his charisma in getting the Iga and Koga to put aside their enemity, and scorn because most ninja were pro-Imperial, and didn't like the Buke caste. As for how to represent this...I'd definitely give it a bonus OCV and DCV to represent it's fine balance. I'd also definitely give it the armor piercing advantage...maybe even twice. Just as a side note though, good kensei never blocked a sword straight on. In RL, swords were just too valuable to ruin by edge to edge contact. There were some Feudal Era swordsmith's who were known to have made only a handful of blades in their lifetime....such blades were priceless. In the movie, creating a blade in a month is actually a rush job...most master swordsmith's would take at least a year if they wanted to produce an exceptional blade. So the samurai would instead block a sword with the side of the blade, and rather than use force to stop the blow, would rather parry it by pushing the blade out of harm's way. This is why the most noted samurai of their time could actually defeat other samurai in duels with a wood sword (bokken). If the master swordsman tried to block an attack with a wood sword directly, the bokken simply would have been cut in half. There's even a legend about two master sword smiths, Muramasa and Masume who were said to be equal in skill. To test the swords, each placed their sword in a river. With Muramasa's blade, every leaf that drifted by was cut cleanly in two. With Masume's, when a leaf approached the blade, it swerved around the blade, thus Masume's was declared the finer blade because it actually "won" without even having to cut. So against a master swordsman, even a Hattori Hanzo blade really isn't going to be much of a benefit. It's a cool movie gimmick, and would be of use against mediocre adversaries...but not highly trained ones. But it'd sure scare the hell out of the mediocre and untrained one's to see their blades cut clean in two.

Sometimes artillery wasn't an option, either because it was tied up for another patrol out on recon, the firebase itself was under attack or because the sniper is near a civillian population. Ditto for CAS. But hey, if you got it...definitely use it If I didn't have any big guns at my disposal, I'd probably split up by squads to try to surround the position, popping smoke to obscure the squad movements. Of course there's always the potential that that's what the enemy would expect....split up your forces, so they could lay an ambush against a split force. So I'd probably split my platoon in half, each half bounding against the other to look out for that. I do wish the Hero System was a bit more "crunchy" in certain areas. I want to know how bulky a weapon is, what its aiming class is, how reliable the weapon is, etc etc. You can model alot of these with limitations or advantages, but it seems to me that weapons should have a universal format depending on the genre.

If you can get your hands on the game Phoenix Command, I'd play your Vietnam era game with that. Back in the 80's, I ran a few campaigns with that system, and they were very fun and sobering at the same time. That game system was lethal, but hitting someone was also not that easy. And Phoenix Command still to this day has one of the best initiative/resolution of order systems I've seen of any game. It takes a a lot of record keeping, but it's very nice. Every Action takes a certain amount of phases to perform. Depending on how smart you are, how combat experienced you are, how fast you are, how encumbered you are, and how fatigued you are, you modify the phase cost of each action. Also, some weapons due to how bulky they are require more actions to aim, or from their complexity to set up (think of trying to set up a ATGW versus a simple LAW). Things like reloading a magazine required fewer phases than loading shotgun shells into the tubular magazine. For example, combat starts at phase 1. Let's say I want to take aim (put the rifle to my shoulder) and spend 2 phases aiming. It takes for example 3 phases to bring the rifle to my shoulder, plus the 2 for aiming. My opponent is racing to make to a tree for cover, and it takes him 4 phases to reach the tree. So by the time I'm ready to shoot, he's behind the tree. Now he decides to pop out from behind cover and take a quick pot-shot at me. It takes him 2 phases to make a quick non-aimed shot, but, I'm already aiming at that position by the tree by Phase 5. So I get to act on Phase 5, whereas the enemy doesn't get to shoot until Phase 6. However, I no longer get my aiming bonus because I lost sight of him when he went behind the tree...so I have to make a quick aimed shot too. It's more data-tracking than the Hero System....but it's really really nice for very precise combat engagements. If you can find the Advanced Supplement on ebay or something, I'd get that too as it has some rules on Morale. Anyone remember the original Recon game not done by Palladium? It was a small print book, and I remember it dealt with Special Warfare teams. I think there was a supplement Called Haiphong Harbor where you HALO dropped into North Vietnam. I wish I could remember that game more...but I was only around 13 or so, and only played it once or twice before I loaned it out and never got it back.

How about an environmental disaster? Either climatic changes or my own personal favorite, the reversal of the magnetic poles. The magnetic pole shift will release an EMP burst which will fry virtually all electronics in the world, not to mention screw around with many AC devices. This will paradoxically make the most advanced nations the most vulnerable, and many third world nations will be less affected. So more well developed states like California, Florida, New York and Texas will be more damaged than more rural states. A relatively quick climatic change (not the overnight change that seems will happen in the movie The Day After Tomorrow), but one which happens over the span of a few decades is another possibility. If a new ice age occurs within 20-40 years, the resulting impact will probably tear asunder civilization as we know it. Another similar result can be achieved with a meteor impact. As for why less powerful states won't absorb the smaller ones....just take a look at how the United States was before the Civil War. Today, we take it for granted that we are Americans first, and Virginians, New Yorkers, Floridians etc. second. That wasn't always the case. In fact, the major reason the Civil War was fought (despite the myth that it was fought over slavery) was that the south was fearful of a strong centralized government in Washington D.C. telling the local states what to do. Our original government was actually a Confederation...a loose grouping of sovereign states which held to a common cause. In fact, before 1783, each state had it's own currency and its own military.

Well, at high levels of martial arts in the real world, it really IS more a matter of ECV than physically based CV. So I think there's something of a fine line at which point a martial artist is relying more on his mental capabilities than his physical ones. Internal styles are far more likely to encourage this training at an earlier stage than harder more external styles. There's some interesting anecdotes about Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, and some of his practically superhuman abilities. One of them was that he simply couldn't be surprised. Ueshiba even said that while he served in Manchuria, he could always tell if someone was trying to aim a gun at him. As an old man, several of his ukemi (live-in disciples) would try to sneak on him during his sleep, but they could never surprise him. And how can a late 60's year old man hold a stick straight up in the air (holding it only at the bottom with one hand) while Japan's greatest baseball player of all time took his hardest swing at the stick, and Sadahara Oh said he felt like he hit a 200 yr old oak tree? And that's not going into stories attributed to Tai Chi or Bagua masters either. There's obviously a mental component going on here. So I definitely think there's something to be said for this even at a Heroic Level campaign. There's already sensory powers that martial artists can use that are based on mental capabilities (Defense Manuever, Combat Sense for example). But what about actually basing one's combat skill on mental levels? Anyone who's ever trained with older martial arts masters can attest that there's something beyond physical ability in these men. So how to model this? I think basing it off of ECV is too expensive to recreate this kind of special effect. Instead, basing it off of skill levels would probably be more cost efficient. However, there may be certain "zenjoriki" abilities that can not be modeled simply with CSL's. For example, Ueshiba's zanshin abilities would be some kind of Danger Sense. What about the ability to dodge bullets ala Chun from "Remo Williams"? You could either model that as Chun did with super-sensitive hearing that enabled him to literally pre-dodge the line of fire of the weapon, or you could have a mental precognition that allowed the martial artists to sense when the firer would actually pull the trigger. In Aikido theory (and also explained by Chi theory), when someone wishes to attack you, they must first generate in their mind the notion to attack. This generation of an idea is created by two things...the mind (the Chinese would call it Hsin) which in turn uses the Spirit (the Chinese call this Shen) to generate the Chi necessary to actually carry out the attack. However, this mental intention can be picked up (the Chi vibes so to speak) by very sensitive and astute defenders. Ueshiba said that it is not the physical mode of attack that is stopped, but rather the direction and intention of the attack...it's very foundation in the mind of the attacker. And before someone gets the idea that you could have booby traps or the like...ALL things (according to Chinese theory) generate and have Chi (unlike Lucas's notion of the "Force" in which only living things generate and have "Force"). So even booby traps or mechanical devices generate a chi "intent". Don't know if any of this helped, but it hopefully gives an idea for people who are interested in this thing ata Heroic campaign level as opposed to just a Super Mentalist Martial Artist.

I think Bruce did have physical talents that bordered on the edge of human potential. Do I think it's greater than a 20? Yes. Why? Because if we define 20 as the absolute maximum that any and all humans are capable of, it should therefore be an incredibly rare trait. In other words, there should be only a handful...perhaps 10 or so who possess a 20 in the entire world. Does this justify paying only 10pts to be stronger than 99.99999984% ( approximately) of all the human beings on Earth? Since the Hero System is all about paying for abilities for how powerful they are, it does not correlate that human maxima should be absolutely bound by certain limits. I see the 20 limit as a guideline to use for general use, and a "rule of thumb", but it's not a law. How many people could do what Bruce could do? Probably quite a few, they're just not as famous. STR has a well defined quantifiable definition...since your STR determines the amount you can lift. But what about skills, or SPD, or DEX? Bruce's reaction time is insane. Take a stop watch and press the start/stop button as fast as you can and see if you can get .03 seconds. You simply have to move the button a milimeter as opposed to an arm's length away...nor do you have to factor in any reaction time. Now, what do you rate your own DEX? I personally think mine's pretty good, not great, but definitely not bad...maybe a 12 or 13. I can usually only average .06 seconds trying to start and stop a stopwatch as fast as I can with my own finger. The unfortunate fact is that when you pay for attributes in the Hero System, it has a linear cost increase (some steeper than others of course), but in reality, human ability follows an bell curve. But the cost to buy them is linear...a straight line, where the X-axis is the score of the attribute, and the Y-axis is the cost in points. They don't jibe with each other. That's why I don't quite believe in the Normal Characteristic Maxima in that I allow players to purchase characteristics over 20 (though I apply a more complex algorithm than simply doubling).

I agree that Bruce wouldn't have been able to lay a hand on O-sensei...but then again, I consider Ueshiba O-sensei to be super-human too If you wish to split hairs, then the correct term would perhaps be suprahuman. But definitely their abilities are perhaps in the order of one in the hundreds of millions. By Hero costs, that simply means that they had to pay more for their "powers". Think for a moment of Ueshiba, who while in his 70's held up a stick straight up in the air, and told Sadaharu Oh (Japan's equivalent of Babe Ruth) to hit the stick with a baseball bat as hard as he could...and Sadaharu couldn't even make the stick bounce. Sadaharu said he felt like he had hit ancient oak tree, rather than hit the stick being supprted only by the wrist of an ancient man! I therefore posit that 20 is not the absolute limit of human ability, but rather a guideline for what 99.99% of humanity will fall below. Think about that Indian boy they found almost a hundred years ago who had developed calculus on his own and with no formal education (unlike Liebniz and Newton...and Leibniz has been called "the last man that knew everything"). What kind of intelligence would you rate this? a 20? If this is a 20, then even most "geniuses" should rate only about 15 or 16 at best, with Einstein, Bohr, Curie, and perhaps only a handful of human beings should be rated a 20 throughout Earth's history of human intelligence. So where do you draw the line? Well, I also posit that as time advances, human limits are constantly being broken. It wasn't too long ago (less than 40 years) that the max bench press was 600lbs, now guys are hitting 750. It wasn't too long ago that breaking the 4 minute mile was considered impossible (I think that was a little less than 40 years ago too). Physical limitations are falling faster than dominoes. However, most of the other non-physical stats (EGO, INT, PRE, COM for example) have remained pretty static. INT, depending on how you define INT may or may not have gone up in the last few hundred years (though in some ways, I feel it has regressed). If you define INT as education, then INT has definitely gone up since more and more people are receiving higher education. I however feel that INT is seperate from Education (as I've seen my fair share of educated idiots, and many "ignorant" people who were extremely keen and quick to learn). I think you have to draw the line based on your campaign. Since we're talking Heroic level campaigns, I think you have to consider the genre and time-frame of your world. In the future, God knows how technical advancements (namely with genetic engineering and nanotechnology) could affect the potential of humanity. Conversely, if you set it in ancient times, humans were much smaller than they are today by several inches, and were probably less strong as a result (if you look at the statue of Hercules, whom the Greeks considered a demi-god and the pinnacle of human perfection...he'd be a flabby weakling by even non-steroid using body builders).

Actually for my own game design, I'm getting away from any statistic with divisonal effects, since it's just a case for potential mini-maxing abuse. A system that can base task resolutions directly off of the skill + attribute without any direct modifications will help reduce this power-gaming side effect. So yeah, I'm tired of seeing STR or EGO that ends in 0, 5, 3 or 8. Ditto with never seeing odd COM. It sorts of disrupts the scale of attributes because of the divisional effects to determine secondary attributes (dividing by 5, 3 or 2 and rounding appropriately). As for the luck of combat, when you require only one die-roll resolution, you are essentially simulating actions in one lump sum. Imagine for a second if you fought a large scale strategy battle like the battle at Gettysburg, and simply summed up the strategy and tactics skills of all the generals, the fighting scores of all the troops and then made one roll. When you do this, you start losing internal accuracy since you are simulating only one action....the final outcome. Instead you should be simulating each sides actions in their own right, and comparing how well each side did to the other. So instead, if you factor out each side....take all the skills and fighting ability of the Northern side, and the skills and fighting ability of the Southern side, you now have a more complete picture of what happened. Each side is affected by fate and the personal conditions at the time. As another example, imagine you are fighting an equally skilled opponent. The attacker rolls really great and hits you. Why is that? Did the attacker just happen to get lucky? Or maybe you unfortunately put your foot on slippery ground leaving you wide open? In other words, where was the "luck"? Was it with the attacker or against the defender? This is why the more you factor out events involving chance the less detailed it will be as to what is going on. Moreover, you can't get the same margins of success. In the above example, the best margin of success I could get is a 8 (on an 11 or less, rolling a 3). Now imagine both characters roll in an opposed system. Imagine if the attacker rolls a 3 and the defender rolls an 18 (oops). Well, you now have a margin of success of 15 (perhaps the attacker got really lucky, and you stepped on that slippery ground at the same time). I'd actually use a comparison system though....adding the die roll to the respective OCV or DCV, then whoever rolled highest wins (so in this case, you always want to roll high instead of low in order to beat the other side). In any situation in which one character is performing a skill or attribute related task versus another character's skill or attribute, then both characters should roll. Afterall, both characters can be affected by fate. In another forum, someone argued that you can factor the luck of both sides into one roll. As I pointed out though, the more elements you factor out, the less accurate it will be. Imagine for a second extrapolating this out, and just making one die roll for an entire war. After all, you can just factor out all the luck into one die roll. Not to mention that the Hero System itself sometimes has opposed rolls for some tasks. I definitely think it should apply to combat, as it's not only more realistic from a simulation perspective, but it also adds to the dramatic description of what's going on action wise, and it takes no extra time since both players can roll at the same time.

Since I think almost all roleplayers have the "game design bug", it's interesting to come up with different dice mechanics. I've been wondering myself whether a more flat curve or a steep bell curve makes more sense. I know I don't want a flat linear line however, since that means it's just as possible to roll the mean as it is at either extreme. Real life is graded on the curve...you usually don't have exceptional success, and you usually don't critically botch things either. While the 2d10 system could work, you might have to change a few rules. if you use critical hit rules, you may want to rethink them since they will be easier to achieve. Also, would you stick to using d10's for damage rolls? If so, that will play havoc with the damage values of weapons. I do have one major beef with the Hero System though that I'm seriously considering correcting for any future games I run. I believe that combat rolls should be opposed skill rolls rather than 11+OCV-DCV. When combat is done the standard way, all the "luck" is in the hands of the attacker. However, the defender is also performing a skill, whether it be a dodge, a block, or any other manuever, so why shouldn't he roll for his skill as well? This way you allow the defender to roll for his luck and it also allows for a more vivid description of what happens during combat. For example, in the normal system, if the attacker just barely hits...does that mean the attack was poorly aimed and it barely hit? Or perhaps both combatants performed extremely well, having adroit movements and well-timed blows...but the attacker just happened to be a little better? I'm also thinking of having "Straight" CV's based off of pure DEX, rather than DEX/3. Why? When was the last time you saw a 16 or 19 DEX? Other than getting an extra point for SPD, I've seen only a handful of players chose a DEX that couldn't round up to the closest CV (and most players that do have an "odd" DEX only do so because they paid for it with experience points) I'm even thinking of allowing extra DC depending on the margin of success. The Hero System is great, but it's far from perfect (for my own tastes). But what I like about the Hero System is that it's very easy to tweak things to your liking without disrupting too much. Changing the entire die mechanic is certainly possible, but it might create a domino effect that knocks over other rules that you also have to adjust. If you change it to a 2d10 system and leave the damage system with the standard d6 system, I think it's doable...though I think the flatness of the bell curve might introduce more "deviant" behavior (you'll get more extreme results more often with a 2d10 system).

I think there's a difference between a Gamist and a "Rules-layer" or "power gamer". A gamist is interested in "winning". But victory can come in several shapes and forms, but it's usually something rules bound, or some kind of quanitifiable object to get. For example, a player who just wants to increase his character's levels, character points, etc would be a Gamist. A player who wants as much wealth as possible, or the best kill ratio would be a gamist too. Instead of focusing on subjective things like story and roleplaying, a gamist will focus on the empirical or quantifiable. These kinds will tend to be the "Pro from Dover" more often than not. However, I agree that rules-lawyers and power-gamers suck. Both are deviants of the Gamist type. The key to remember about all the types is that they want to have "fun". But the rules-laywer gets his fun from making sure every rule is exploited to gain him maximum advantage. Similarly, the power-gamer throws out any sort of character concept in order to create what he considers the most efficient machine possible...often combining the trait of the rules-laywer to find loopholes to make his creation even more powerful. Often, they are argumentative, and as you said, "mood-killers". But just regular gamists I have no problem with. In fact, I posit that the Hero System is designed more for gamists than any other group. The whole concept of balancing out costs is a very Gamist concept. For example, if you read Fantasy Hero, there's a blurb talking about why "Absolute Powers" were frowned on in the Hero System because they were too unbalancing. And yet many genres (especially magic) is rife with them. Because the Hero System hinges around character "equality" this caters to the gamist mindset that everything has to be fair. Fairness is not that relevant to either Simulationists (reality isn't always fair) nor Narrativists (sometimes its fun playing the underdog). You can use the Hero System almost purely as a wargame...with characters on hex maps and writing down actions for every phase. So regular gamists are alright, they just want to win...we all do, they just want it in a more concrete and less-subjective form than the other types.

I think you have to have the "right game for the right player". I agree that no gamer type is better than the other except rules-exploiters and argumentative rules-lawyers...they suck. I think all parties are guilty of lambasting others though. Narrativists think Simulationists are hung up on realism. Simulationists think Gamists forget about the means by focusing too much on the end. Gamists think Narrativists are too subjective. The trick is in understanding how players want their games to play like since this is what they find "fun" about roleplaying. I think it's fairly easy to accomdate 2 of the 3 game styles, but I think it's extremely hard to have all 3. The Gamist-Simulationist is the easiest hybrid to set up. Both sides have concerns about point totals and rules...they just have different reasons for why they care. The gamist won't care if you introduce an unrealistic piece of equipment....as long as he can have it. The next easiest hybrid is probably Simulationist-Narrative. The simulationist wants to play within the construct of the game world and will get enjoyment out of exploring the possibilities of that world...including getting into character. However, while a narrativist doesn't care if something doesn't make logical sense as long as it tells a good story, this will bother the simulationist (for example, if you have a world with high magic, and it's easy to make self-powering teleportation portals....why will people need lots of caravans or ships...such things will have to be explained to the satisfaction of the simulationist). The other difficulty is that the Simulationist cares about rules, since the rules "simulate" possibility...if the concern for accurate rules bogs down gameplay, the narrativist may balk. The hardest hybrid is the gamist-narrativist campaign. While it's possible to be a good roleplayer but want to "win" at whatever you do, the fixation on balance and rules may bother the more pure narrativists who feel character concept and letting the story flow be more important. It's definitely possible though if done right.

Depends on the power level of your campaign. If your base characters are only 150pts, then maybe you could make the sword alone 150pts. But no matter what kind of attack power you give the sword, think about giving a whopping PRE bonus (and PRE defense) to whomever is worthy of holding it. I'd also consider giving it other defensive powers. Many Japanese believed that swords had life breathed into them by their makers (Ueshiba, the founder of aikido, often spoke of the sword as being a conduit of truth...for it already knew truth, you just had to ask it the right questions and learn to hear what it said), and they also believed many swords were cursed (Muromachi blades for instance). So you may want to think about giving the sword an INT or at least an EGO. In other words, construct it almost like a computer.

I was thinking about the very first time I played the original Star Wars game from West End Games, and how everyone in the group but one wanted to play a Jedi. From that group, I'd say two were powergamers, two were simulationists, and the other two were narrativists. The narrativists loved the idea of playing a Jedi because of the roleplaying opportunities of having to control one's emotions and the constant struggle between the dark and light side. As for me being in the Simulationist camp, I wanted to see what it would be like to have powers beyond human ken, and how they would affect my playing of that character and others reactions towards my character. The powergamers simply felt that being jedi would allow you to be more powerful. The lone exception was the other simulationist (although he was borderline sim-narrative) since he had his heart set on playing a fighter pilot. But the thing that struck me as absurd was that Jedi are supposed to be rare. The gift of Force sensitivity is something extremely rare in the Star Wars universe. So having everyone in the group wanting to play one struck me as odd and not consistent within the logical framework of the Star Wars universe. But that was the Simulationist in me speaking. The narrativist people had no problems about having lots of Jedi, and the powergamers were somewhat reluctant since they thought they had lost their ace-in-thehole, but on the other hand it was less likely that the NPC's they came up against would be more powerful (one of the gamists was what I'd call a good powergamer...he wanted to gain his objective, whether it be money, victory, possession of an item etc, for the benefit of the team as a whole...the other gamist was pretty much out for himself). But we eventually created a training cadre of the new class that skywalker was training...so that appeased my need for logical consistency to explain why practically everyone in our group was a rare jedi. I've been thinking about a similar sort of issue in Fantasy Hero concerning magic use. Depending on your game world, if magic is rare but powerful, the different kind of gamers will want it for different reasons, and the GM may have to plan accordingly. I wouldn't mind giving a character like Gandalf to a Narrativist (as long as he wasn't a power-hungry narrativist)...I'd think twice about giving a Simulationist a character like that, and I wouldn't allow it at all to a Gamist. That's the narrativist in me, since I feel that who the character is more important than what he can do (given reasonable constraints...so it's a matter of trust). I feel that as long as the player can play the character in a manner which fits the game world (that's the simulationist in me) then I say let him play an "unbalancing" character. In a Star Wars setting....according to my Simulationist mindset, Jedi are rare but are more powerful. If a player wants to play a Jedi character, let him, and let his character have more points than others. But to the gamist mindset, this might be unfair, unless either he wants to play a Jedi, or if he feels his fighter pilot character (say Wedge for example) should be built off as many points as a newly knighted Jedi. I think balancing constructs are primarily for the Gamist type....and to a lesser degree the Simulationists so that we can gauge whether something isn't quite right logically speaking (if STR 10 character can do more damage with a knife than a STR 20 character can with a broadsword....we're going to wonder what's going on and need a logical explanation of why...for example perhaps he's extremely skilled and bought extra DC to reflect his uncanny ability to target vital anatomy). Sometimes I even find it more enjoyable to play lesser point characters versus slightly higher point characters (about no more than a 33% spread). Perhaps this is from my wargame background from playing the "losing side". For example, playing the confederates at Antietam and Fredricksburg, to the French at Borodino and Waterloo. There's a certain challenge in playing the underdog and "hopeless" character that's appealing to me. The best scenario for a GM is that all his players are of one type...that way he can cater his games to that type. The trick is when everyone is different or all the players are balanced between gaming styles. Sometimes it's a bit harder to create a game world and customize the meta-rules to appease everyone...but I definitely think it can be done.

BTW, I think I'm about 60% Simulationist, 30% Narrativist, and about 10% Gamist. So it's possible to be a blend of styles, but usually one will seriously dominate the others. I originally come from a wargame background, in which the whole point was about simulation and gaming. But for me, the fun part about recreating historical battles wasn't winning (the Gamist perspective) but in considering all the what-if and possibilities that could be done (the Simulationist approach). The Gamist and Simulationist do share concerns about tactics, strategies and the composition of forces...but again for different reasons. The Gamist considers strategy and tactics as a means to an end....victory. The Simulationist may consider tactics and strategy an end unto itself, an exploration into how things are done. But to a Narrativist, none of these are as important as the effects they had on the lives of the soldiers or citizens, how those soldiers fought (bravely or cowardly)...or the ramifications of the battle itself. Because the Hero System is built primarily from a Gamist-Simulationist perspective (leaning towards gamist in my opinion), I think this affects the level of enjoyment different players will have. The great strength of the Hero System is of course it's logical consistency in the rules (which is what appeals to me as a Simulationist gamer), such that it can be tweaked in a great variety of ways to produce meaningful results. Just look at Star Hero and Fantasy Hero for guidelines on tweaking FREd rules to get the right feel and flavor of the genre you want. I really think further genre books would take great benefit by looking at genre possibilities and rules modifications/expansions in this light.

I found an excellent series of articles discussing aspects of play style and game design that's very intriguing and helped me understand player needs and my own game design much better. In a nutshell, there are 3 basic types of gamers: Gamists: The best way to describe these kinds are the powergamers...the ones who revel in challenge and like the concept of "winning". They desire balance so that they know things were equal, showing that it was their skill or wise selection in abilities that made them prevail. The perverse manifestations of this kind are the loop-hole exploiters. Narrativists: These are the dramatic license people. Rules are just there to get run over when the story requires it. Indeed, with good roleplayers, rules aren't even necessary. Improvisation and the desire to tell a good yarn is the main motivation of this kind. How a story is told is the first priority, with a close second of what the story tells as being the most important goals of roleplaying. Simulationists: Simulationists want logical consistency in both the rules of the game as well as the setting they play in (not necessarily realism, though that is often the case) in their games. They want it so that they can use the rules to explore the world created for them. Imagine Middle-Earth for example, while it was fantasy, everything was intricately laid out. Their primary concern is in imaginging possibilities...bounded by the constraints of the system they play in (and by system, I mean both the rules and the setting of the game). I actually already understood in a not-so-codified way these kinds of gamers, but having it spelled out really helped me understand a gamer's needs. So, why am I talking about this in the Hero System Discussion instead of general roleplaying? Because I think each kind of gamer group can and should realize these elements with regard to the Hero System rules, character design, world building, and play style. It crosses all genres, and it affects everything from top to bottom. How to modify the Hero System? Gamist: They want everything calculated to the half character point. They are going to scour the rulebooks for every tactical advantage they can. As a GM, if you feel that certain conditions may give a minus to this kind of player, more than likely he's going to balk and ask where it says so in FREd. So the GM will need to cater to this by creating "balanced" fights and also watching out for rules-abuse. Gamists aren't so much interested in the game setting and game world as in the concept of taking whatever is available, and beating people with it. Setting and backdrop can make it more appealing however, so it shouldn't be ignored even for this gamer type. narrativists: Aren't so keen about what a character can do, as who they are, and how they do it. It's not enough for these types to say, "I throw a fast strike, with an OCV of 8 versus your DCV of 6". Instead they'll say something like, "after watching the cadence of your moves, I deftly sidestep when you attempt to lunge and smash my backfist into your temple as you come across". For many narrativists, to-hit rolls, damage rolls, and the effects of such are irrelevant...it's the telling that's important. For these players, point totals can be a drag, since they may not create a character that fits their concept. Unlike the Gamist who wants more points to create more powerful characters, the Narrativist may want more points in order to capture the essence of their character. As a GM, you may need to decide whether it's "fair" (a Gamist or even a Simulationist may balk at giving away free points and consider this "unfair", while a Narrativist may not consider it unfair as long as everyone plays in character....afterall, would playing a pauper have as many character points as playing a Prince?). Setting and mood are also very important for this gamer type. The game world will influence how characters are played, so the two tend to go hand in hand. Simulationists: The key here is consistency. Point totals aren't as important as they are to the Gamist, but they do still have a role in making things fit logically or making them consistent (if a knife does more damage than a bullet for the same amount of points....the Simulationist is going to think its silly without a good explanation). Simulationists require a dramatic exploration much like the narrativist, but the Simulationist, unlike the Narrativist, cares about the rules. They want to explore within the framework of rules and game world around him. Simulationists tend to be realists, so rules may have to be modified accordingly. For example, the debates raging around the effectiveness of armor in FH, or how to minimize getting stunned all the time in melee battles are important to this gaming personality. They are important to the Gamist too...but for different reasons (the Gamist doesn't like the thought of someone having an advantage over his character concept....the Simulationist doesn't care if something is more advantageous or not so long as it models world reality consisently and within the terms of that game setting). The setting is perhaps the most important for this gamer type, since the setting is the sandbox in which the simulationist plays. The more intricate and detailed the setting, the more fun they will have. The setting must also be consistent, and it has to make sense given all the factors of the world. So, has anyone ever modified how characters were created, the rules from Hero, or anything else to cater to these kinds of gamers? I think the Hero System itself strongly caters to the Gamist type. Afterall, the whole concept of balancing powers and character point totals appeals to those who want things to be equal and fair. Even looking at the forums, I'd say the large percentage of personality types are either Gamist or Simulationist-Gamist (leaning towards Gamist). That's not to say that the Hero System can't be used for Narrativist style or Simulationist styles of play, but it was definitely born from a Gamist perspective. Check out these articles from The Forge for more discussions about these "archtypes": Simulationism Gamism GNS and roleplaying theory

AnotherSkip- It was probably a combination of surprise and heat. According to history it was a hot day (though of course there's no quantifiable measurement of the temperature but it is mentioned that it was hot enough for many of the Norwegians to have been swimming in the river), and the Norwegians were caught off guard. They hadn't expected any English troops in the area since King Harold (the Saxon king's name was Harold, the Viking's king's name was Harald) forced marched his men an amazing distance that the Viking's hadn't expected. But the point is that even the one's on garrison duty weren't armored. Meaning that you don't get dressed up to go to a fight unless you expect one. This puts to silly rest the idea that a character could wear armor 24 hours a day.

I agree with Markdoc that you don't need to have your characters go to some exotic land to learn "martial arts". The ancient Greeks had Pankration which was an extremely brutal but efficient martial art system. It didn't have lots of high flashy kicks, but for ground fighting, even a jiu-jistu stylist would be challenged (I've seen some paintings on ancient walls depicting some pankration moves...and many of them are lethal...like a suplex designed to break the opponents neck). The French came up with Savate, and even Bruce Lee chose boxing as the style to pattern most of his footwork from (with a touch of fencing and filipino styles). I think Europeans probably had a formalized martial style even before fencing, but it got lost to antiquity. Why? I think the eastern cultures are more bound by tradition, so that even when guns came along, their reverence for tradition saved these skills (not to mention more rigid caste systems that wanted to save their skills), whereas in western countries they were forgotten for the most part. Fencing was saved due to it's status as a "noble" skill. It took skill and a sword was the sign of someone from a high class. Plus, swords were still used in combat up through to the mid 1800's by cavalry troops, so it had a longer chance to survive. So I think you can create a fantasy nation that has martial arts...and not just exotic nations. Combat is a necessity for all beings, so it makes sense that virtually all races will develop a codified and formalized style of combat to improve their combat ability.

I definitely think the Indian mythos is underrated. The gods are pretty strange....so Shiva is the god of life and destruction? And the Rig Veda underwent a "revision" so to speak, so you have different sets of gods, which is why sometimes you'll see Indra as the most powerful god, and sometimes Shiva. Plus, Hinduism did influence Buddhism, and of course Buddhism originated in India. And the Indian contribution to martial arts should not be forgotten. The Indians had their own warrior caste and many martial arts in their own right. I'm fairly certain Da Mo combined certain yoga and Indian martial arts into the exercises he designed for the Shaolin Monks. For that matter, it would be interesting to play out a combined Chinese-Indian campaign...considering that there was a vast exchange of monks between the two countries (and Tibetan Buddhism is in many ways a combination of Chinese and Indian ideas). The Chinese mythos is a colorful one as you said. Replete with strange monsters, wandering knights, a celestial court, martial art sects and brotherhoods, secret organizations to overthrow governments, and secret martial arts styles. They even have their own version of the Ninja (which I've never heard of their ability to throw things...but definitely had the ability to hide very well as well as perform certain "mystical" feats like bending metal bars and the like). I personally like the Japanese mythos myself. There's something about the Japanese culture with its refined elegance. Shibumi they call it....austere and simple beauty. Whereas the Chinese are baroque and loud, the Japanese are quiet and more unassuming. To the Japanese, nothing is too insignificant to escape their attention, and everything has a symbolic meaning. And depending on how historical you want to get, you can have the campaign set in Korea when Japan conquered it, or you could play against the Mongols assuming the Mongol fleet wasn't wiped out by a typhoon. I agree that if you do a Japanese setting, you must buy Sengoku from Gold Rush Games. It is hands down the most authentic coverage of the Sengoku-jidai period anywhere (bordering on college textbook accuracy). I'd also buy their supplement, Shinobi, and Shinobi-Ryu for information about historical Ninja. The movie interpretations of Ninja and Samurai are so hackneyed, that it was a refreshing change to see a realistic portrayal of both of these character types. You'll get tons of ideas to create class packages if you buy these. And if you go to http://www.rpgnow.com, you can get them both for less than $13 in a .pdf format. That's almost 500pages worth of material....it's a steal. And since Sengoku uses the Fuzion system which is a mod of the Hero system, conversion will be really easy.

I'm surprised no one's commented about not taking the combat into context. When I hear stuff like this, it reminds me of when people claim that one martial art style is better than another, or one weapon is better than another. I realize that the post was intended to showcase that under strategy has a lot to do with effectiveness, and I agree. But whenever we create scenarios like these....you have to examine the scenario itself. All good experiments must consider how the environmental variables can impact the outcome. For example, some people think that the sword is the supreme weapon of the combat field. Well, with the samurai, it was their primary weapon because they used it on horseback (which is why it has a slight curve like a sabre) but it was also a good dismounted weapon too. But all other things being equal, a samurai would not want to face a skilled opponent with a spear out in the open. Indeed, if you asked a samurai what the best weapon was, he'd probably give you a wide-eyed stare. Samurai were a practical lot, and if they felt anything could give them an advantage, they learned it. That's why samurai were skilled not just in one or two weapons, but in many. And they even trained for situations in which they weren't armed, or were ambushed (the art of Iaido was started partially in response for the need of a samurai to defend himself while in a sitting posture, and aiki-jiu-jitsu was created as a means for a samurai to defend himself without a weapon or armor against an opponent with a weapon and armor). IFor the Chinese, they felt that the spear was the king of weapons, not the sword. The vikings favored the axe, and many knights preferred maces or other clubbing weapons as opposed to cutting weapons like swords. All weapons and martial art styles were designed with a specific context in mind. You wouldn't want to use Tae Kwon Do in tight narrowly confined spaces. You probably wouldn't want to use judo on rocky broken ground. You don't want to fight an opponent of equal skill with a shorter weapon than his in open terrain, but in a more confined space like dense woods, a short weapon will have the advantage. Etc. etc. When people pick a preference for something, they tend to forget the context of the situation. Take for example sickle cell anemia. Normally this would be a disadvantegous genetic trait....but it confers an immunity to Malaria, which is a good thing. So even the notion "survival of the fittest" has the notion of a specfic context. Look at the jurassic period with the extinction of the dinosaurs....who survived? Mammals that weighed less than about 50lbs. Not the big huge dinosaurs that easily could have ripped them to shreds in a stand up fight. There's no such thing as a better fighter under all circumstances....just a better fighter under certain circumstances. The good fighter must learn to maximize his strengths while capitalizing on his opponents weaknesses. And if the fighter can't do this, sometimes it's the better part of valor to know when to fight another day. But like I said earlier, if every combat the GM makes is a Gladatorial style combat with the environmental conditions always the same....that's pretty boring combat. As Bruce Lee once said, it's not the style that's important, but the artist.