Hugh Neilson

How different would this be from the Mutants and Masterminds approach (emulated a bit, I think, in Champions Complete) of providing template characters.

The main difference I perceive would be taking this one step further to package up "upgrades" and "compromises" as pre-fab packages, rather than making the player hunt around for +2d6 Blast or -1 SPD.

I think this would be another example of a "game powered by Hero", as it requires setting campaign defaults, maximums and even minimums (assuming each upgrade and compromise can be taken only once, or only X times).  Games, not just a game design system, are needed to attract new players and GMs.

21 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Firewing's obsession with great victories in honorable combat is really just an excuse to have a big super battle. There's no need to rationalize why a battle would break out, Firewing just showing up probably means one will.

Firewing holds a place in our Game Legends for the game where he was expected to distract the hero team.  Until the (massively) overconfident Brick called out "Hey Flame-boy.  You and me. One on one. Or are ya CHICKEN?"

In Phase 12, the player asked for the penalty to his EGO roll to bring himself to Dodge in the hopes of getting a PS 12 recovery.  He insisted on an Ego roll.  He succeeded, and Firewing missed by 1.  The Brick lasted another half a turn.  Meanwhile, the rest of team stopped the real opposition while he kept Firewing busy.

On 2/2/2024 at 3:13 PM, tkdguy said:

I thought about using opposed skill rolls for easy resolution, but it would just give the end result, not the details like how many shots were traded during a rally or whether the serve was good. It also doesn't take into account fouls, unless you rule that a fumbled roll constitutes a foul.

 

Then again, a lot of combat systems are abstract for a reason.

To me, this is another area that comes down to more or less granular resolution systems.  A game focused on hockey or baseball needs a granular resolution system for the games themselves.  But a fight can probably be resolved with opposed skill checks if combat won't be a major factor in the game.

3 hours ago, Trencher said:

Well if you modify Clown to have better defenses atleast the players dont have to feel like murderers for fighting them. 

 

Not to defend Clown specifically, but the possibility of challenges that cannot be resolved by violence seems quite appropriate for most games, especially Supers games.

If a Triggered power won't go off after the character who set the Trigger dies, land mines seem to have an issue...

So...a rhinoceros?

It would not be that unreasonable to expand the destruction to both Windsor and Detroit.  You can look north across the river from Windsor and see Detroit.  If it were not for the international border, they would likely be one city already.

A high-tech city in two countries would make for some interesting politics.

6 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I think this was specified in the initial build.  Which made it sound to me like something that takes a variable amount of Extra Time, and combining multiple attempts into a single dice roll. 

 

Or, almost the inverse of Autofire or Multiple Attack.  In this case you keep rolling until you hit once, the series is exhausted, or the Physical Manifestation is destroyed. 

That was the initial build, however a mechanic has to come from somewhere.  I started from a different angle, being the ability to hit multiple times  without needing a new roll to hit, with an Uncontrolled Constant attack.  So how might one buy  a single fire and forget action that keeps attacking, but has to roll to hit each time? That's less limited than what the OP wants, so how do we drop that down?

4 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I thought I'd expand my reasoning a bit.

 

Let's assume for the sake of easy math that the initial attack hits on 10-, or 50%.  Which means it has a 50% to miss.  Two attempts gives it a 25% chance to miss, or 75% chance to hit.  Three gives a 12.5% chance to miss, or 87.5% chance to hit.  I'm reasonably certain both my math and my reasoning are correct. 

 

Going back to the dice probability chart for 3d6, 12- is a 74.07% chance to hit (approximating 75%), and 14- is 90.74%, close enough to 87.5%.  Because we're working on 3d6 and not percentiles, we can call +2 per pass "good enough".  We can buy +4 OCV with a single attack for +8 base points. 

 

I'm assuming each attempt is a separate "pass" taking +1 Segment of Extra Time.  -1/2 is an Extra Segment, or -3/4 is an Extra Phase.  Let's assume -1/2 for a variable amount of extra Segments that could be 0, 1, or 2; it could as easily be -1/4 if it seems too much.  With the +4 to hit: if you hit exactly or by 1, it hits on the third pass, at +2 Segments, if you hit by 2 or 3 it's the second pass, at +1 Segment, and if you hit by 4 or more it's the first pass, on the Segment it's fired. 

Normally if I want to use something that takes Extra Time, I have to wait the Extra time.  One example using levels is a rifle scope.  Applying the rules in that way, your model provides a considerable advantage in that the attack could hit without suffering from the time delay. You are also applying a limitation to 2-point skill levels, which RAW does not permit. 

As the linked thread shows, there's no simple Hero mechanic for this. As well, most power-based builds end up on the pricy side when I could just buy extra OCV and be more likely to hit with no delay every time.  The added OCV simulation also supports the use of an adder rather than an advantage, as skill levels would be a fixed cost.  For +4 points (+2 OCV with one attack), I could have been more likely to hit with every attack, so one extra chance to hit on (say) my next phase should cost less than that, or at least no more than that.  Perhaps a 3 point Adder for one followup attempt, +2 for each doubling of the followups would be a reasonable price.

One thing the OCV bonus analysis shows is that this should not be an expensive ability, given how cheap it would be to just have a better chance to hit with the initial attack.

Still liking that Uncontrolled without Constant +1/2 for an attack that keeps trying no matter how many times it succeeds, though.

For +1, the power could be Uncontrolled and Constant - dump in your END, hit once and it just keeps on hitting.

+1/2 would have made it Constant - hit once, and as long as you keep using your phase, you keep hitting again.

So let's take the extra +1/2 for Uncontrolled (I don't have to keep spending phases, but I have to commit the END up front) and have a +1/2 advantage that allows me to pay END for multiple attacks. One goes off now, and one goes off each subsequent phase, making a new attack roll each time.

If it can only hit once, that makes it less useful.  Maybe we call that a +1/4 advantage.

That seems like a starting point, at least.

You're too subtle for this crowd, Duke...

11 hours ago, starblaze said:

The original.  Not very complex but man that killing attack is brutal.  I used him several times when I just want a near unstoppable villain.

The first victim of edition changes not resulting in character rewrites.  In 1e, for which he was written, STR added to HKAs without limits.  Monster had, IIRC, 60 STR and a 1d6 HKA, for a 5d6 HKA with STR.  In 2e, when republished, no changes were made, so he had a 1d6 HKA + 1d6 STR = 2d6 HKA. 

To Menton, that aspect of his character is no different than the first season of Alias on the Netflix Marvel shows, the same as the Killgrave/Purple Man character evolved in the comics.

He can control minds. He abuses that ability. Do you think it would be different if those abilities existed in reality?

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

In all honesty I don’t want combat to be simplified.  If that is what I am looking for I will play a different game.  The reason I play the Hero System is I like the tactical flexibility of the system.  I don’t want the game reduced to roll to hit, and damage.  I want to be able to dodge and block and perform risky high damaging strikes and all the other things that Hero System allows. That being said speeding up combat is a completely different issue.   To me that is what people should be focusing on.   Since the math seems to be the main thing that slows down combat speeding that up is where we should be focusing.    

True.  If the goal was to simplify it, toss a coin.  Heads we win, tails we lose

Or make it a skill check - "well, you guys are quite a bit tougher, so you win on a 14-".

Added granularity slows down combat. 1e D&D (just stand there toe to toe) was a lot simpler, but a lot less fun.

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

Rolling dice and figuring the results seems to be one of the biggest time traps in the game.  Working with larger numbers usually slows down people's calculations.  For most people it is easier to figure out 7-5 than it is 37-12.   When you add in multiple steps it gets even worse.   Rearranging some of the formulas can speed things up.  The formula to figure out the odds of hitting is OCV +11 – DCV, but if we change it to OCV- DCV +11 it will speed thing up for most people.  For example, if I have an OCV of 15 and my opponent has a DCV of 12.  Using the traditional formula, you get 11+15 =26, 26-12=14.  Using the one I suggest you have 15-12=3, 3+11=14.   The end result is the same, but you are using smaller numbers.  If your players have had a few drinks or are tired helps even more.

We had a player years back who was very math-challenged.  We built a grid.  3-18 on one axis (what he rolled), and a spread of possible OCVs based on his character's abilities on the other.  The grid set out the maximum DCV he would hit.

The 10s trick is so ingrained I don't even think to suggest it any more. Our math-challenged player buddied up for counting.

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

When dealing with the targets DEF a way to speed it up is to count out the targets DEF and then count what goes over.   This can be combined with the method above.  Doing this you would still sort the die in groups of 10 until you get to near the targets DEF and then use individual die to equal the DEF.  After this count the remaining and that is what the target takes.   For example, if the target has 12 DEF and took a 10d6 attack, pull off 12 (probably a group of 10 and a die with 2), then start grouping the remainder of the die by groups of 10.  Count the groups by 10 and add the remaining die.

Keeping defenses evenly divisible by 10 makes this a lot easier. Divisible by 5 is an option; a bit tougher.

Actually, if you really want to reduce adding dice, focus your game less on defenses and more on damage negation!

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

Many of you are already doing these things, but someone new to the system might not be.  This sounds complicated but in reality, it is very simple.  This works best if all the stats are known to both player and GM.  If you GM likes to keep the stats of your opponents a mystery or is using some other method for combat it does not work as well, or the GM needs to do all the work.  

Typically, the GM will be among the most familiar with the system, so that helps. The GM can also implement tricks that players need not follow, like using averages for most dice in an attack so the villains get less volatile damage, but less GM dice-counting.

One easy change, especially for players who struggle with "low roll is good"...

Make high rolls to hit superior. The attacker rolls and adds OCV.  The defender is hit if that total exceeds DCV+10.  Get DCV+10 on the sheets instead of base DCV.  This would need a different critical system if you're using "roll half", but the system isn't really designed for criticals, and a need to halve the rolls only adds more math issues.

I recall looking at a Supers game years back where combat seemed really long and realizing that, if I reduced every villain's defenses by about 10 and added 3 DCs to their attacks, combat would go a lot quicker.

If your game features 12d6 attacks and 30 - 35 defenses (no one likes being stunned or one-punched), combat will take a long time.  Take the villains designed on the same model, bump their attacks to 15d6 (so they average another 10 or so STUN) and drop their defenses to 20-25 (so they also take about 10 or so more stun) and combat will go faster.

How many average hits will it take to KO an opponent?  That number will drive length of combat.

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

And don't let bad guys recover unless they are important or have a role to play.  Once they go down, they stay down.

Treat stuns as knockouts for all but important enemies.

I personally dislike "different rules for PCs", but my equivalent is that the NPCs are generally far less committed (stubborn?) than PCs. Recovered with 4 STUN after PS12?  Glance around;  looks bad for our side?  Time to slip away, not rejoin the fight.

It's hard to say how to speed it up without knowing what is slowing it down.  Players struggle with adding up all those dice?  Standardize some at 3.5 STUN and 1 BOD (best to knock off even numbers of dice) and only leave a few to roll. 

Player struggles with changing OCV/DCV?  Put a list of common configurations together (max OCV, Max DCV and standard use of each typical power or maneuver.

In my view, the change from 5e to 6e achieved the objective of making killing attacks serve that purpose: KILLING, not knocking out, the opponent.  In a four-colour Supers game, this would relegate KAs to a niche power - this is not a genre where killing opponents is a common occurrence. With slightly higher average BOD, the KA may have some utility dealing with automatons, barriers, entangles, etc.

And eventually we get the AVAD (or NND - if someone has the defense, it was acquired for this specific attack) against Hardened Resistant Impenetrable Smell Flash Defense.  "Beware My Power - Green Trashcan's Scent!"

This is a great way to have an arm's race - "Oh yeah, well Captain Skunk's attack is AVAD against double Hardened Resistant Impenetrable Smell Flash Defense!!"

Or we simply rule that exotic defenses are resistant by default and assess AVADs and NNDs with care.

26 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

AKA the Joker syndrome.

I was more envisioning the situation in your game extending over years, first just being reminded every game that this guy is still out there, charging for Super-Services.  Then, when you become aware of his behind-the-scenes activities, you spend many games investigating, but nothing ever sticks. This drags on incessantly - you never get that satisfying win, or even the opportunity to confront Captain Heroic.

The Joker is more recurring - Batman wins, but the Joker keeps coming back. Even a long-running game will never approach the number of Bat-Stories published over his long history, though, and reappearances  of old enemies should therefore be commensurately fewer.

A well-used recurring villain's return will be seen as an "event" by the fans (or the players).  A poorly-used recurring villain will get that "them again?" reaction like your comment above of "Anytime we saw these guys, we knew it was gonna be a long night. "

7 hours ago, Pariah said:

There was a one-shot my friend ran for us when we were all home from college on winter break. The antagonist in question was Captain Heroic™! He had Superman-esque powers: brick, flight, super senses, a couple of ranged attacks, etc. He just showed up in town one day and started doing good deeds.

 

The catch: there was a fee schedule attached.

• Help an old lady cross the street: $5
• Get a cat out of a tree: $20
• Rescue people from a burning building: $50 per person
• Stop a robbery: $500 (Mom and Pop store) up to $10,000 (large chain bank)
• Fight a team of supervillains: $5,000-$50,000 per villain

...and so on. He even had a toll-free help line: 1-800-HEROIC-1.

 

It was annoying, but as he and his well-dressed publicist pointed out, there was nothing legally or ethically improper about it. We had no real reason to shut him down.

 

Until we discovered that he was using his powers to cause a lot of these problems. For example, using his heat vision to start an apartment building fire, hiring villains (through shell companies) to rob banks or kidnap the mayor, things like that.

 

It was a hard final fight, but it was incredibly satisfying to take that guy down.

This seems like a positive example of an "annoying villain".  The PCs were engaged with an active dislike for the villain, and challenged to find even an excuse to try to take him down. When they did find a reason and win the struggle to take him down, that "incredibly satisfying" result would not have been nearly as strong, I suspect, if he had been less annoying, or more easily/quickly dealt with.

I think a lot of "annoying villains" (and other annoyances in RPGs) start out with this kind of expected result, but the GM (or maybe a player whose character may have an annoying trait or two) becomes overly enamoured of the villain, background element, NPC, etc. (or the player becomes overly fond of that annoying trait), so it doesn't get resolved, but just drags on.

On 1/8/2024 at 4:39 PM, Stanley Teriaca said:

I'm so use to how things were done during the Big Blue Book where the Complication points actually mattered that I kept that "starting points + complications" formula. Just assume that when everyone appears they have about 75 points of spent experience. Or feal free to bump powers down by 75 points. I mean once published on the site it is all yours to modify as you wish.

325 points + up to 75 in complications is not much different than 400 points and 75 points in matching complications.

Either way, you have 400 points and 75 points of complications, or you can have 325 points and no complications.

7 hours ago, redsash said:

That said, I recently ran an all-newbie intro session using pre-made characters from the MCU Defenders and it worked very well. But going in, I drastically simplified the character sheets and the game mechanics. No END, no killing attacks, no noncombat movement, combined PD/ED, everyone at 4 SPD (except Spider-Folk at 8), no point costs or any math elements on the sheets. I basically just had them decide on actions and roll.

Starting with limited elements of the game is a good teaching mechanism.  You could also design a game (Hero is less a game than a system for building a game) that carves out a lot of elements.

7 hours ago, redsash said:

Going through that process made me realize just how complex and flexible the system is, and in many ways, how it's still too complicated. All the different types of rolls is very confusing for new players especially.

 

Roll low, now roll high what? Presence attacks what? Ego attacks what? I mean, there are two ways to break things! No, wait, three including killing attacks. You have to ask the GM which one to use.

I'm not sure that this is any greater variety of concepts than a d20 game, other than the one element of rolling low rather than high to hit/succeed on a skill roll.

7 hours ago, redsash said:

For a long time I have toyed with the idea of re-scaling Hero game mechanics to support one type of aim-high roll. Then you could let characters buy bigger dice for mutant abilities! d12 for 12 points base, d8 for 8pts, etc. (d6 still costs 5: you get a discount because anthropocentrism 😉

I'd stick with d6 thanks - much higher average per point spent.  Even if you made it 6 per die, it would still be marginally better than a d8 for 8 or a d12 for 12.

16 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

In the Dark Knight film, when Joker left Batman with the dilemma of which of two bombs he would choose to defuse, who he would allow to die, classic Batman would have had a contingency to cut the Gordian knot and prevent both bombs.  THAT is why he is a SUPERhero, not one of your run of the mill heroes.

 

The Joker gives the writer free rein to imagine excesses, it is his job however to ensure he gives the Batman a way to rein that it.  any sacrifice should be personal. If it came to it, Batman would die and save both people.  I hate that they wanted to make drama by having the Hero fail.  If I pulled that crap in a fame, my players would string me up and it demonstrates to me, again and again that the big studios fundamentally do not understand superheroes.

Back in the day, the Star Trek RPG (old enough that no one had to ask "which series") stimulated a great article about the tropes needed to get the feel of Star Trek.

The Prime Directive - we don't interfere.

Integrity - Starfleet Academy is filled with tests of character and opportunities to flunk out, so those who make it through all have high inegrity.

"Take me and free my men." - the Captain would trade his life for any crewman.

But it also discussed the tropes the GM had to honour.

That integrity leads to challenges, but success and not failure.

When the Captain walks into a hopeless situation to save that random crew member, it's not really hopeless- there is always a way to turn the tide.

"Phasers, Sir?  Ye've got 'em - I managed to restore one bank."

I'm amazed how often I read GM diatribes of their players who refuse to follow genre tropes, and instead gravitate to murderhobos who don't trust or care about NPCs.

Then we dig a little deeper.  Heroes show restraint?  They lose the combat and the villains win.

Heroes don't kill?  The villain comes back, this time causing even more damage to anything the PCs/players care about.

Trust an NPC?  You get betrayed.

Those genre tropes the heroes follow cause them challenges, but they also come back to the heroes' benefit, not their detriment.  If the GM won't follow that trope, why would the players follow their genre tropes?

15 hours ago, Old Man said:

Well, I thought it was funny.

I think how one takes that scene (and the joke in general) depends on...well, in case someone does not want the joke spoiled

From 6e v1 p 266

Quote

The cost for Multiform, which only the true form pays for,

So only the "true form" pays for Multiform.

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Correct... but as I said, IF your alternate forms can change into any of the other alternate forms without going back to the primary form first, THEN they have to buy those forms.

No, they do not. Page 268 is clear and unambiguous.

Quote

A character with two or more alternate forms can shift directly between any two forms without having to use the true form as an intermediary.

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

But even if you aren't down any points in those forms, you still are in your main form, and a weaker character and trust me, that character feels it.

What is the "main form" - you have introduced an undefined term to the discussion.  The character must have a true form, which can be any of the forms.  Again from 6e v1 p 266

Quote

The true form can be any of the character’s forms, depending upon character conception.

As a result, many find Multiform overpowered.  The true form, Willie Weenie, can spend all his points on Multiform, and spend all his time in alternate forms. When the Multiform is unlimited, most GMs will restrict alternates to the campaign normal point totals, so no 1,000 point alternate form in a 400 point game.  Even so, having eight alternate forms, each at campaign maximum, plus a true form that sinks all those leftover points into skills and perks, can make the rest of the team feel entirely redundant.

APG definitely includes things that were left out of 6e core for whatever reasons Steve had.  We discussed suffocation when 6e was in drafting stages, but I believe it was left for APG due to possible balance concerns, for example. But some stuff in APG was likely "too niche" to merit word count in the main book.

I definitely agree with costing things out, even if only roughly, to have a sense of the value of the item.

I think extradimensional space is an easy approach, provided you're comfortable with APG content.

Given the space is, by nature, extradimensional, I see no need for Transdimensional.

The important thing is that you get the desired results, and this seems to do the trick (even if a bit of judgment is required around the edges to fill in "GM call" aspects).

Many of us (myself more so than most) get wrapped up in the build details.  Getting the desired effect and feel is what's really important, especially as it looks like this will be a magic item for which character points aren't paid anyway. I can't imagine the choice of mechanics used to get the effect you're looking for having much detrimental impact on a game, although it's handy if you want to replicate the effect later (e.g. a player wants a spell with a similar effect).