Hugh Neilson

While a lot of players and GMs focus on active points, and 6e provides a "typical range of Active Points in characters’ Powers.", Steve Long indicated back in the SETAC days that the system was not designed around AP caps. I find it better to focus on DCs, defenses, CVs and SPD. A 12d6 Blast is a lot more powerful than an 8d6 Blast Affects Delid (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2), Personal Immunity (+1/4),even though the former is 60 AP and the latter is 90 AP. Supers tends to gravitate to a 12 DC attack (6e suggests a range of 6 - 14 DCs for standard Supers, but I don't see many with attacks less than 10 DC and a lot of GMs cap at 12 DC). Defenses are suggested at 20-25, of which 12-18 are resistant. SPD is suggested as 3-10, and CV ranging from 7 - 13. The rules also note that "As the tables’ names indicate, their numbers are guidelines; the GM can alter them as he sees fit." I think 4e was the first version to set guidelines. I find most very broad, and especially noteworthy that defenses have the smallest range of the four items I listed. I have never seen a game where SPD or DC varies more widely than defenses. Of course, it also doesn't discuss how many characters would be in the average range (say 10-12 DC, 5-6 SPD, 9-10 CV) and how common outliers would be (e.g. 1 in 8 characters would have a SPD of 3, and of 10, or 1 in 1,000 would have such SPD). A lot of games seem to result in a "maximum is a minumum" model. That is, you can't exceed 12 DC and 25 defenses, and every character has 12 DC and 25 defenses. In my view, there can be some tradeoff, but the greater the deviations, the more issues that can arise, and those ranges are way too broad for most games. The ratio between DC and Defense is a crucial one, in my view. A survey done pre-4e through the old Adventurers Club magazine found incredible variation between groups. They saw some where DCs averaged 10 and Defenses about 35, where combat would be a slow process of whittling down the opponent, and others where DCs of 15 and defenses of 15 were common, first strike and use of cover, dodge and block becoming far more important. One key, to me, is that defense + CON should be enought to weather a typical, or at least slighty above average, damage roll without being Stunned. After that, how long do you want combat to take? A game featuring 12 DC attacks (average roll 42) that hit 50% of the time, with defenses of 25, will mean an average hit does 17 STUN past defenses. If characters typically have 40 STUN, it will take 3 average hits, or six attacks, to KO a target - more if the target gets to recover in between. Drop defenses by 5 or raise DC by 2 (+7 average damage roll) and combat will be bit quicker. Only two hits needed. If being Stunned is also more common, combat will be even quicker, and more volatile. Make average defenses 35, so only 7 points trickle through from a typical attack (6 attacks to KO, plus more to cover recoveries) , and a single combat could easily take up the entire game session - and feel never-ending.

By the time we saw the bus attacked by a missile, and the ability of Tony's design to rain down enough fire to destroy London, Tony wasn't going to be realizing any mistakes, or growing up any more.

Speaking of buses and Far from Home, it seems like Peter went through a great deal of effort to protect his own secret ID while preventing a busload full of kids from being hit by a missile he had (accidentally) targeted towards it. Oh, and it was Tony Stark who designed the system that had no checks or balances to prevent someone, deliberately or accidentally, firing a missile at a bus full of kids, or even wiping out a major metropolis with all that firepower. Yeah, Tony's the poster child for well-considered, perfectly planned and executed heroism.

I don't think the Forum is the best indicator, given most posters were Hero fans first and Forum users afterwards. It will have a lot greater percentage population familiar with older editions. The difference between any two Hero editions is minimal compared to the shifts between 1/2e, 3e, 4e and 5e D&D. IMO, at the 3e planning stage, the D&D designers decided to change "edition" to "new game iteration". Even the most substantive changes in Hero are minor tweaks by comparison.

True. While memories of TOS by that time included Sulu, Chekhov, Scotty, Uhura, Nurse Chapel and even Ensign Rand, there was never any question the show had three stars, throughout the three seasons it ran. TOS was also '60s TV - whatever happened during the episode, by the end, we were back to the status quo, ready for the next episode. Major character development was not expected. Even Spock's development was more universe-building, getting into the Vulcan society and mindset, perhaps with some insights into Spock's mindset, but minimal, if any, character growth. TOS rolled out with Picard, Riker, La Forge, Yar, Worf, Dr. Crusher. Troi, Data and Wesley. While some characters came and went (Dr. Pulaski in Season 2; Miles and Keiko O'Brien, Ro, and other recurring cast), there was a much larger focus on an ensemble cast. There was also a lot more realism in fields of expertise. We would never have seen a ship's botanist usurp Spock's command of all sciences, a medical specialist push McCoy out of the limelight, or a transporter chief who was more expert on transporter tech than Scotty. We didn't even have anyone in charge of security, a ship's counsellor or kids on board (seems like "community in space" was abandoned pretty early on). That was noted when the movies came out - you couldn't have character development moments in every movie for everyone's favorite character. No big deal in a weekly series - that character might take the background for an episode or three, but not the whole season - but a much bigger deal when they only appear at all every two or three years. We didn't expect the TOS movies to feature character development - we were happy to just see Chekhov appear in the second movie.

Captain America, the poster child for PRE, rarely uses fear as a tactic (unlike Batman, another high PRE example). For examples of what PRE can do, look at the PRE skills. There's a lot more than Fear-based Intimidation.

Hmm..."I dislike this issue and here is why" receives a polite response and a change. "AAAAAHHHHH The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!" is received with a more dismisive tone. Go figure. It took me a couple of minutes to find "mark forum read" after the change. It's perfectly readable. I am pretty sure either Windows or my monitor, maybe both, can adjust brightness, if the light from your monitor is scorching the wall it faces.

I'd also note that Secret ID is a complication. If you are designing your Secret ID to avoid any complications, something is wrong. Tony Stark often faced "do what is good for you and your company, or save the world from the Threat of the Month" challenges. That needs to be mixed with the appropriate level of suspension of disbelief that people seldom notice Clark Kent is never around when Superman shows up, and that a pair of glasses so readily disguises him, but if there are no complications, there is no Complication.

I as wondering why Durkon had not brought that up too...

3rd Ed added the "take 10" mechanic. In standard situations, where your skill is typically enough to see you through, you can take 10. Let a Hero character "take 11". There's my Rogue at the Gates. Or just say it is automatic if routine - if the Rogue must roll in such cases, it indicates that this is not routine (e.g. he might still only need an 11-, but the guards are on alert, so failure is a real possibility). But that's not RP - that's just using your skills. You don't have to act out your discussion with the guard - "I bribe him" covers it.

I have no issue with a high enough skill being autosuccess - but that has nothing to do with the player's role playing, just the character's skill. A cobbler should be able to make and repair shoes without needing a roll.

I would say that the dice can create a loss which is not legitimate as well, but I agree that changing die rolls is "cheating" if the group social contract is "let the dice fall where they may". I have never seen a player volunteer to change that third successive Critical Hit into a miss, or a normal hit, because the dice were skewing the results. And just imagine the reaction to the GM suggesting that conversion! Yup. I would suggest that a very eloquent speech by the player should get the same bonus (or lack thereof) that a great description of an action in combat would receive. The mechanics are what they are, and I will suggest the vagaries of social interaction are no less random than the vagaries of combat.

How does that differ markedly from losing combat, even after a great plan and brilliantly described move, because the dice roll poorly? What should determine success or failure? The subjective arbitration of the DM, or the objective results of the dice? Perhaps I did some very clever wordsmithing, and an impassioned and stirring oratory. Did my character achieve the same? I don't know - let's find out. Is he a great speaker (what are his social stats and skills)? How well did he rise to the moment with this impromptu speech (what was the roll of the dice)? Did the way he presented just happen to sit poorly with his audience (again, poor luck on the dice). And either result should advance the game. The Duke may be convinced, but he's not handing over the keys to the treasury. Or perhaps he is not convinced, but it does not mean "off with their heads". If success or failure of the adventure hangs on a single die roll, either the players played poorly or the GM fumbled his adventure design skill. And the results have to be adjudicated in context. If we have provided sufficient evidence to the Duke, it is likely impossible he fails to believe us. He may or may not be impressed enough to bankroll our desired expedition to address the issue we have now solidly proven exists. Maybe he wants to send a couple of his own men along, when we would prefer to avoid that, or hire someone else, forcing us to re-think our own plans, but certainly we may have situations where success is certain. But because of in-game actions of the characters, not out of game presentation by the player. If your character has a 5 CHA/PRE and no social skills, yet you prortray him as an eloquent and persuasive speaker, I am forced to assume something prevents that from having the impact it should on the listener. Perhaps he is a spitter. Maybe he has horrible personal hygiene and reeks to high heaven. Clearly something is preventing that impressive oratory from resonating with the audience, which it clearly does not based on the chatacter's abilities.

Using my own social skills to substitute for skills I did not develop in my character is also metagaming. So is bringing my knowledge of creatures in the game world when my character would lack that knowledge. This is a matter of degree. We could sloff combat off exclusively to dice rolls. "Your group has been ambushed by a raiding party of Ogres. What do you do?" My guess is that this is not resolved by making the players "role play" the Rogue's use of his Sneak Attack to target vulnerable parts of the Bugbears' anatomy, the Barbarian's mighty axe wing or the Wizard's lightning bolt and the Cleric's Searing Light. I doubt it will be resolved by the Rogue rolling his Sneak Attack skill, the Warrior his Brutal Fighter skill, the Wizard his Magic skill and the Cleric his Piety skill to determine that the Bugbears are now defeated. Rather, we will roll for initiative, the Rogue will attempt to flank, the Wizard and Cleric will cast their spells and the Barbarian will swing his axe, each describing individual actions in combat. Each action will then be resolved by dice rolls, not by whether the player was able to get past the DM's guard and bean him with a cushion from the couch. Similarly, an interaction encounter is not resolved by "I use Diplomacy - here is my roll". How are you using that Diplomacy? Perhaps I will try to persuade the Ogre leader than we are no threat to them, and sweeten the deal with a bribe of a couple hundred gold pieces. Maybe I will brandish my Axe and ask that Ogre if he is SURE he wants a piece of this (Intimidation)! I could try to trick the Ogres into chasing a (nonexistent) lower threat, higher profit target that passed us by a few minutes ago (Bluff). Maybe I will try to Seduce the ogre. There are lots of approaches which could be taken, some of which may generate small bonuses (Yeah, we can go after the bigger score that takes less work) or penalties (Why take a couple hundred gold when we can kill you and loot your corpses?). One roll need not resolve the entire situation - maybe the ogres are persuaded not to attack immediately, or even to leave us alone for a bribe, but 200 gold is not enough - give us 2,000, and the donkey. But we're way more likely to succeed if we have a character with massive social skills than one with an 8 CHA and no non-combat skills. When someone uses dice to adjudicate the success or failure of actions they have selected, based on the objective resolution systems of the game, they are playing that game. Their choices are role playing. The Barbarian may well not know that Ogres react to a physical threat with a "fight" instinct, so they are not likely to back down. The player may know that, and know the characters are likely to take a beating if he does threaten them, but if he is playing "Tongor the Mighty, who backs down from no threat", having him decide to kiss ogre butt to avoid that beating is pretty 💩 role playing. I will add that selecting the best possible means of achieving success using those objective resolution mechanics is not role playing - playing the foibles and failings of your character, as well as his strengths, is role playing. Playing Tongor the Mighty as a diplomat or a sleuth because, hey, the DM will let me even though Tongor lacks any social skills or sleuthing inclination is not role playing. It is moving a playing piece around the board. Sure - the player should be using Igor's natural sleuthing abilities (which is none), not trying to leverage the player's much higher deductive skills to make Igor a successful sleuth.

In an OD&D game, I would probably use some form of STR roll to determine whether a character succeeded with a feat of strength for which there are no rules, and a DEX-based mechanism to determine success or failure of an action based on agility. If success and failure were both possibilities, I would not just decide whether the character succeeded or failed. Why would I not similarly use an INT-based roll to see if the character remembers something about the campaign world which the player does not know (IIRC, there was an old DMG suggestion that a player spouting off rhyme and verse about various monsters because he read the Manual should see his character charged for substantial Sage fees) or a CHA-based roll to determine success in social interaction? Here you seem to say that character abilities should matter. You then move on to saying To me, however, the social element of the game does not require imputing player ability to their character. I would not allow a player who is an olympic fencer, boxer or martial artist to impute those abilities on their character. Neither would I permit a player who is a scientist to have his character develop gunpowder, firearms or explosives in a fantasy game, or even techniques to force iron and steel in a bronze age game, because the player knows the science. Tub o' Blub gets to describe his character doing a Kirk shoulder roll through the mass of skeletons, nimbly leaping to his feet to bodyslam the evil necromancer, and we resolve that using his character's physical skills and statistics. We do not ask him to demonstrate that shoulder roll in the hallway because "it's good role playing". Similarly, the social introvert should be able to describe his suave Casanova character sidling up to that lovely young lady at the tavern and charming her into his room without having to provide the character's pickup lines in first person - the player describes what the character wishes to attempt, and the character's abilities, plus the dice, determine the results. This is in no way preventing the socialization of the players in the game. Should players get a bonus for really good descriptions of their characters' actions? That's a table decision. But, at least for me, the bonuses should be consistent. What bonus does Tubby's character get for that description, as opposed to "I tumble past the minions and hit the guy in the back"? The bonus for the glib player coming up with a great pickup line delivered convincingly should be similar. Of course, the player's skills may also come to the fore tactically. Arranging that tumbling roll so the character now flanks the necromancer, and gets a bonus, or so that he can shove the necromancer into a pit, will provide an example. Similarly, having done the work to determine that the young lady at the bar is much more fond of violets than roses, and detests vulgar talk, and therefore working these into his approach, should carry bonuses. But if player ability will override character abilities and mechanics, then get rid of the character mechanics. If they will not be relevant to game play, just get rid of them. No point letting players invest in social skills if their "role playing" will guide the results regardless of their investment in character skill. Smaug could clearly swallow Bilbo in a heartbeat. He wasn't supposed to foolishly wander off (don't you know you NEVER split the party), and he could have snuck away invisibly rather than converse. Is it the DM's fault that the player just assumes every encounter can be a victory for his outclassed character? But hey, Bilbo's player put character resources into social skills, and quick-wittedness, so he should get to attempt their use accordingly. In fact, perhaps the DM even placed this unbeatable combat encounter in the game specifically to let Bilbo's player, the one guy who did not dump CHA and INT to build a better Combat Monster, shine through the use of his non-combat abilities. Or maybe he just likes Bilbo's player better because they're both part of the local improv theatre troupe, so the jocks that hang at the gym instead and play combat monster dwarves get to sit on the sidelines a lot while the DM runs BilboCentric scenes for his imrov buddy. What I generally dislike about classifying this as "role playing versus roll playing" is that the player made their character, which should be designed for the role they intend to play. Playing the dullard Fighter with the social skills of a pet rock as a shrewd Sherlock Holmes or a charming Casanova is not "good role playing", it is 💩role playing. Taking every tactical advantage and playing a "character" with no character is also 💩 role playing. The high INT, high CHA wizard Face with a low STR does not describe how he levers the bars on the portcullis, he asks his burly buddy to get them past this impediment. When the time comes to negotiate with the Duke, the low INT, no social skills Warrior stands back and looks mighty while the party Face does his stuff. Players can also interact socially out of character, and suggest actions for the player whose character is best suited to perform those actions rather than insist on their character being the center of attention in every scene. Sharing the spotlight is the height of a good, social game. When the shy, stuttering farmboy is approached by the femme fatale, attempting to seduce her is more 💩role playing. Describing the blushing farmboy tugging at his collar and falling hook, line and sinker for the femme fatale's wiles (all the while noting that, wow, we are in trouble when she springs her obvious trap) is far superior role playing. That is the role the player designed his character to play.

I am curious what other objective resolution mechanisms you perceive. "Objective" means dependent on in-game mechanics, not GM assessment of the player or character's abilities with no mechanics backing that up. Or it is what happens when a DM designs a non-combat encounter with nuances and layers similar to a combat encounter. One successful roll to hit and one damage roll, even really good ones, rarely end a well-designed combat encounter. One skill roll would similarly not end a well-designed non-combat encounter. That scene can be envisioned as a series of skill rolls by each of Bilbo and Smaug. How many "old school DMs" would say "Who could flawlessly match or exceed wits with a dragon unless they themselves were similarly ancient and/or well traveled? Smaug sees through your bluff and glib talk, his nostrils flare and his keen dragon senses sniff you out. **CHOMP** Roll a new character and role play it better* next time." * ie more in keeping with my vision of the campaign and your character's place within it. Sure. A glib player can make a fantastic speech for a combat monster PC with INT 6, WIS 5 and CHA 3. That does not mean the character should succeed because the player is clever, quick-witted and glib any more than his Mighty Warrior with 18/97 STR, 17 CON, 16 DEX should trip over his bootlace, drop his sword, fall to the ground and, wheezing, be unable to rise to his feet before being slain because his player is morbidly obese, struggles to lift two game books and needs two rest breaks to climb the stairs out of the basement.

It only became "1st Edition" when 2nd Edition AD&D was released, clearly labelled as "2nd Edition". From there, we have seen sequential numbering of later editions. In 1e, xp for endeavours other than killing and looting was most definitely a house rule. There was a UK module ("Beyond the Crystal Cave"?) that set a scenario where killing was not the goal, and it discussed awarding xp for nonviolent resolution of encounters due to that module's structure, an the likely frustration (probably sen in playtesting) of "success" in the adventure not being paralleled with "reward" of character advancement.

Agreed, dsatow. I find V&V characters are better written up as "OK, how would I do these powers in Hero" than any formulaic conversion. The games are simply too different. One key difference is that 1d4+2 will pass some damage along to the target in V&V. A character like, say, Nightcrawler can have impressive agility and speed (high DEX), Teleportation, Stealth and 1d4+2 or 1d6 damage, and get along fine in V&V. He'll average 3.5 or 4.5 damage. That big guy with 1d20+6 or 4d6 will average 14 or 16.5 - three or four times as much damage. But in Hero, we have defenses, and that changes the playing field. That big burly guy might have a 14 - 15d6 attack, passing 24 - 27.5 damage past defenses of 25. If we want Nightcrawler to do minor damage, 1/3 to 1/4 as much, that's not achieved by giving him 1/3 to 1/4 of the base damage - 3 1/2 to 4d6. That just bounces off. He needs to pass 6 - 8 damage past 25 defenses, which needs an average roll of 31 - 33, or 9 - 10d6. That's still a pretty wide range, but matches some older 1e to 2e published enemies. What's the V&V multiple actions rule again? As I recall, they rolled 1d10 + Agility for initiative, the highest roll went first, then we count down and each character gets another action every 15 points lower on the count. So if our big, burly dude has 10 Agility, he'll move once or twice in each sequence. Nightcrawler might have an Agility of 30, and be guaranteed three actions, or twice as many as that big, burly guy. That may mean the big guy gets a SPD of 4 (if that's our "low end Super" SPD) so Nightcrawler, to act twice as often, gets a SPD of 8. That's also a broad range, but not wholly inconsistent with those old published characters. As time has gone on, however, we've seen a trend towards the mean in Hero, so we see "campaign cap is 12d6 and 6 SPD", and we get both Burly Guy and Nightcrawler with 12d6 attacks (maybe 11d6 at the low end) and 6 SPD (maybe 5 at the low end). What all this long-winded example boils down to is that the translation between systems needs to capture relative effectiveness in the game the characters will be used in, and that's generally not practical to achieve with formulaic conversions.

This depends on how frequent "occasional" is. Exotic defenses don't come up often in many games, but it does not make them free. If the character expects to be able to use his powers at no range without the bow, routinely, the answer is an ability he pays for. Watching how often this tactic is used in Arrow, that's an ability that should be costed out. As well, with a 60 AP Multipower, how good does your Power Skill roll need to be in order to substitute "No Range (-1/2)" for "OAF: Bow (-1)" reliably? Ultimately, the limitation for OAF is a big one, and it comes with the cost of being denied access to that power on occasion. If, whenever the bow is gone, the character can reliably use the powers, albeit at no range, then the powers are not limited by that OAF - only their Range is. I would apply your statement as A power skill roll is fine rather than an ability that gets used one time in 20 when the character is denied access to his bow. If the normal result of being disarmed is "well, I will have to use my Martial Arts, not my arrows", then Power Skill for rare use of the arrow powers HTH probably works fine. If the routine result is "Oh, well, I guess I will stab him with an arrow", then the bow limits range only, not the attacks as a whole. In Arrow, he probably also has a Weapon Element of "Arrow" for his Martial Arts!

**wow** No masks - the spot on the floor makes it clear we're in CornonaTimes if the plexiglass that's everywhere EXCEPT between the faces of the staff and the customer doesn't make that clear - bad enough. Barefoot in a food service establishment? "No shoes, no service?" "You cain't take away mah rights!!!" Not that any of that is supposed to be the funny part.

Depending on your source material, and your vision of the character, this may happen a little or a lot. It happens a lot on Arrow. If you want to be able to do this routinely, spend the points on a "no range" multipower and a "naked ranged advantage" bow. If it will be a freak occurrence, then Power Skill covers it. Seems like every now and then, those Archers nock two arrows, which could be a separate build (maybe a VPP that can hold two arrows, maybe a 2 shot Autofire limited with, say, Concentration, whatever) or it could be a Power Trick used once or twice in a campaign. We had a character who had a bow with naked range and 16 charges, IIRC, and a Multipower of no range arrowheads (modular attachments to the arrows, or they could be tossed no further than an adjacent hex), each with limited charges, IIRC no more than 6 each. There is no "one right way" to build a character.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/world/middleeast/coronavirus-israel-schools-reopen.html?smid=tw-share Very sobering as we in North America proceed to reopening of our schools...

-0 means "it's not limited at all". -1/4, at least to me, means "on rare occasions, the power is completely useless" or the limitation comes up more often, but with less impact. A power with a 15- activation roll works over 95% of the time, while a 14- works over 90% of the time. To me, the activation roll is more limiting than "does not work in a defined circumstance that arises with the same frequency" because that is predictable - if I know the power won't work, I don't waste my time trying. At the same time, my enemies cannot plan around my 15- activation roll. They can plan around my inability to teleport to locations not connected to the grid. I would still expect a power with a -1/4 limitation to work around 90% of the time. 13- activation is 83.8% and 12- is 74% - those are a lot higher limitations than -1/4. Defining the particulars is important. If both departure and destination must be within touch range of an active electrical socket, that is much more limiting than if they just have to be within 10 meters of the same active electrical socket. The former is prevented if I can restrain the target - and restrainable is a -1/2 limitation. To the VPP question, if "only magic" means -1/4, tell me what cannot be done with this VPP that could be done with an unlimited one. Well, it does make it impossible to disguise your powers as Technological. Detect Magic will pick up on all of your powers without fail. You can't wriggle around a Dispel or Suppress Magic power. Can I as a GM build in the occasional situation where this is relevant? Sure. Is it worth more than -1/4? Not in most games.

One of my colleagues put up tape walls around a colleague's workspace early in the pandemic, as she is in a bit of a high traffic area, and people were not respecting her space.

To determine whether a movement power (any power) loses 1/4 of its utility, I think you need to look at where he can't go (what he can't do) relative to what he could do if the power were not limited. Given it is an advantage solely for an Entangle to prevent teleportation it seems like a Teleport that cannot escape entangles is already pushing into Limitation territory.