nexus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Well, the Great Linked Debate petered out....we need SOMETHING to fill our empty gray lives! Join us, Laiden....JOIN US.... it only hurts if you fight it....

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far That's an interesting rule and seems to make sense from a sfx stand point and from a cost basis at least superficially.(Com is half the cost of Pre) and works with similarly to one method of writing up a horrific appearance (Pre: Only to Frighten/intimidate) I might have to use that. Thank you for pointing it out.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Where did I say you were "too stupid to play with big boys". I wanted to know how you came to position you have, no more, no less. The statement that come has no function is provably not true in the current editions of the game so the statement that it doesn't confuses me and you were simply the most recent person to voice it. In your original post you mentioned that the Talent would likely be less work for a overtaxed GM which I gathered to mean you felt Comeliness was tiresome and added work, that's it. I don't think that its an unreasonable assumption that if someone says they thing the new way will much simpler than the previous method that they found the earlier way at least something of a chore. I has nothing to do with their intelligence or competence just their opinion of both methods. Who doesn't like things simpler? I've been griping about Instant Change and Regeneration because they were simpler than the current methods. That doesn't mean I'm stupid or can't play with the big boys. It means I don't like doing extra work when I don't have too. I was simply wondering why you had found Com complicated enough that a simpler method would be an ease. Okay but a vague use is different from no use which is what you (and may others) have said in the past. That it didn't have a mechanical use 2 editions ago doesn't seem to justify saying it has no use now as a reason why people shouldn't care if its dropped. And as I've said before all the characteristic rolls are vague. They need to be fleshed out more not canned, IMO. I don't think that's being overly or unreasonably pedantic. The Talent is going to have the same limitation on it (in cases where the character's appearance matters) after all. I can understand feeling that is too narrow a scope for a characteristic even if I don't agree. I never contested your right to feel that way. Your opinion is your opinion and you are welcome do it just like everyone else. I was wondering what line of thought lead you to make some statements that appeared to be mistaken in one case and making a major assumption the play style of others. You're not the only person on the "anti" (or more "meh" in this case I gather) side to make them. Just the most recent.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Emphasis mine. That's how pervasive the "Com has no mechanics" meme is, Now I don't want to go mining around in those huge threads looking for specific incidences particularly because it is no longer possible to quote directly from it.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far There are also times when pricing Talents by Powers doesn't produce play accurate effects even if the math works out. I think Ambidexterity is a good example. Nine points works out from the base effect (penalty skill levels) but IME the Talent rarely works out to be as important as the other things that 9 points could have been invested in.

Re: Appearance Effects, special and other Yep, that's the one. I was under the impression he was doing for Haymaker but I may be mistaken.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far You'll all feel quite silly when Striking Appearance is Pre with Does Knockback.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far back dooring figured characteristic getting straight poop on Unified Power Slipping into Com Man, these mechanics threads get so blue! Grow up people.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I'm not getting "wound up" about it. I hope the Talent is not that crude a tool. That would be a shame to those that chose to use it. I was interested in why Tasha felt Comeliness had no mechanic that effected interaction skills or perhaps why she (I assume) felt it was too complicated to handle. Though the Com wars I heard the first meme pursued aggressively by those that didn't like Comeliness. I started to interpret it as "I don't think Comeliness has enough function to warrant being a characteristic" but I'm curious if that's the case.

Re: Appearance Effects, special and other Take a look at Bob Greenwade's "Based on Com" Haymaker article if you can. It had some cool effects and powers based on appearance. It (obviously) uses the Com stat but if you're switching to the talent I don't think it will be hard to convert.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far All right I have to be a hypocrite here. Okay, why isn't the use of the complimentary skill roll a mechanic tied to the stat? Serious question. Edit: and I certainly hope its not just "when target is sexually attracted" because Com wasn't just about sex appeal. that would be a big Fail for me. Appearance effect reactions in more ways than sexual. A very cute child can be very persuasive due to their looks but I pray it doesn't have anything to do with the target wanting ot have sex with them, for example.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I do want to address this. It's just a game is the answer to your question. There is no need to "upgrade" just because something new comes along. Games aren't like computer software or hardware. They don't become obsolete. There are still people playing 4th edition games and I've heard of least one group that uses mostly the 3rd. You play what is fun for you not the new shiny thing just because it's new and shiny.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Exactly. Sniping at each other isn't going to bring it back, just get the thread locked and it's basically arguing over which kind of pizza topping is objectively the best. Personally, I'd like to start incorporating somethings from "Based on Com' in my current games. No kidding. Nothing that stirs up this much discussion is "trivial" even ifs only the style the index uses. Edit: In the end, it doesn't matter squat what Steve Long says or doesn't say or any random group of people on the internet or even the books. All that matters is what happens at our individual gaming table and groups. Ten years from now, if I'm still gaming and still using Hero, odds are they'll still be Com and anyone that wants to play in my games will have to STFU and deal with that. Same goes if I want to play in a game that doesn't use it. The only shame is that it won't receive anymore official support but eh, allot of things I'm interested in don't when it comes to Hero.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far *raises hand* I haven't used the hit location chart in normal games for years nor has anyone gm I've played under lately.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Yeah but some people are really good with it and I'm glad this offers them a fix they like for a long standing annoying snag in one of the base components of the Hero System.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Well, there's no way to change it now so I'll just have to keep tinkering with my house rules until I work out the kinks. That's not 6th editions "fault" since I have to do the same thing even if I stick to 5th. I was hoping for something I'd like more than the proposed fix; it didn't work out that way. Stuff happens. I'm glad so many people are pleased with it.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I wanted to give my response some thought. Honestly and with no offense to anyone its more the mood on the board than any one thing I could point too in the books and say "That's it!" There's more confrontation and acrimony over disagreement and a seeming obsession with getting things "right" whatever that means. Allot of it started up or at least became much more noticeable when the 6th edition forums opened up and kind of spilled over. And we got threads with people being snarky and insulting about trivia like the "right" way to build a Taser as the entire board has become NGD and every thread was about should Married Gay Aborted Fetuses be allowed to carry concealed firearms. Everyone had to right and anyone that thought differently was mentally or emotionally deficient in some manner. As far as the books goes there does seem to be drift towards "official" and less on modularity. I would have preferred to see more toolkitting and options in 6th edition without so much being dropped. I'm holding that these Toolkitting notes among other things will alleviate some of my concerns about the direction in tone Hero System is taking but only time will tell.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I've always preferred to use Growth and Shrinking since it seems more intuitive, there's more granularity and the Powers package allot of things in a simple to use format. The Inherent Limitation seems costume made for this purpose. It's not perfect but it felt easier and more useful than the other while it might be cheaper in some ways. And you can always use limitation to cut things off powers if it doesn't fit the concept like Tall but Light Guy could have Growth: Does npt provide knockback resistance. Its just fits how I think better.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far One of the reasons I got into Hero was the modular feel to it. You could modify other gams but it took work and some of the collapsed like a house of card if you altered the smallest thing. Hero didn't have the problem and, unlike GURPS, it didn't tell me how my games had to be or like BESM get flexibility mixed up with handwavium powered rules. In some ways it feel like that flexibility is being choked off and not by 6th entirely. Its as if the mood has changed and there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far The jumping ship comment wasn't directed at you but at some others that have been griping about the griping. But why shouldn't they be complaining about the change? Something they liked about the game has been axed, seemingly arbitrarily. We have gotten hints about its nature, hints that don't bode well for it being a satisfactory replacement for what was cut. Not in the same manner as a complimentary roll. For one thing, it's a fixed bonus. You lose the variability that comes from the Comp roll, you lose the Comeliness roll which could serve other purposes. You lose the ability, minor as it is, to create characters with slight differences in appearance that don't necessarily have a mechanical effect but can (and IME, did) have a role playing effect. For that matter, if the Talent is built as Limited Pre skill levels, then unless it's listed an exception, it can't effect everyman skills or fams. Sure, if you don't care about it. It's "meh" but if you do care about those things its important to you. No one gets to define what is objectively important beyond since people are either disappointed enough to complain or happy enough to dance on it's grave (admittedly mostly on rpg.net) apparently Com wasn't as much of a non issue as was thought. Then again, what am I arguing about? It's gone. Pages of impassioned defense didn't change Long's mind (I believe he referred to it as wasted time) this surely isn't. I'll look at this Talent when the book is released and see if it somehow replaces Com in my preferences. If it doesn't but the rest is good I'll house rule it back in.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far One issue I ran into trying to limited Resistant Defense in superheroic games was that basically, it's too easy to get. Unless the character concept justified allot of extra non resistant PD/ED (such as most "brick") types, player would turn to Armor and Forcefield which are resistant by default so they'd end up either going over the resistant cap, being vulnerable to normal damage or having to build odd constructs like linked PD/ED to their defensive powers. or even alter their concepts to include somethging like "padded costume" or some such.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far That was my point. If his mind was set either way, then the forums were just a week long joke, a chew toy tossed at the fans so those that agreed with his choices could think they contributed and those that didn't could be brushed off with "Well you had your chance to chance to his mind." For the sake of avoiding conspiracy theories, I assume when he said he was open to discussion and would it into account he meant that in good faith and at face value.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far First, I've been saying since the thread began. I'll wait and see the whole thing regarding all of 6th edition but it doesn't look good now. Others have too. I haven't seen anyone say they were jumping ship because Com was gone. Either I missed it or that's a strawman someone set up. Finally, IMO, the Talent would have to be Com moved to a different location to make me happy with the change and that's not very likely from what we've heard. I can't imagine what else this Talent might be that it will do everything I liked about Com (including the roll) but be different to make going through all this rigmarole worth it. Comeliness was dropped because Steve Long didn't like it, not because it was objectively broken or a mad mechanic. That's his right of course. It's his game. Edit: And I don't think anyone said the Talent was worthless, they've said they don't think it will do the same job for them as Comeliness did. There is a difference.