Lamrok

Re: Always use the biggest gun

I wanted to add' date=' in any case, that there's nothing wrong with villains building abiltiies suited specifically to what a character has habitually done. That's what they'd do in real life. And if a player is particularly effective, the come-uppance will likely be even more brutal. It seems fair to me.[/quote']

 

Once upon a time, my passion in life was foosball (table soccer). When I was in college, I was damn good at it. At a fairly large university, with lots of table and lots of players, I was top dog. My pull-shot was nearly unblockable. Then, there was this one guy who decided he was going to beat me (there were a lot of guys who took an unhealthy obsession in being the one to beat me, but this guy was a standout). He watched me play, studied my tactics, and practiced a lot. He finally challenged me (was a real jerk about it), and, for the first time since I learned the game, my offense was shut down. He played the psych game well - talking trash is part of the game, and I'd always been immune, but, seeing my offense shut down and hearing the taunts was a memorable experience. I can still remember the experience of flailing about unable to get anything to work, and feeling anger begin to build (anger is the enemy in games like that. You lose your cool, you lose the game.)

 

This is why I had backup offensive sets. Sets he'd never seen before. Once he lost the advantage of knowing how I ran my offense, I beat him handily. Showing up prepared counts for a lot, but there are ways to negate this. I think of this match from time to time when building Champs characters. It is very important to me to have characters with more than one way to win.

Re: Player vs. Character

Just because I play my characters Smart doesn't mean they aren't heroic. There's a difference between walking through the doors with guys blazing and going through the skylight because it allows you to get a surprise response out of the bad guys- both are heroic' date=' one is just more likely to get you killed(the door).[/quote']

 

That's entirely true - as long as that approach is consistent with the character.

 

As a GM, I want the game moving forward at a brisk pace, and I want players trying chancey maneuvers with big payoffs. That keeps people interested, and makes games more fun for everyone.

Re: Media Darling

Yeah' date=' that is one of the other things I was pondering, but I was seeing the idea is that whenever a news story is done about him (or his group) he always ends up looking good, wether he really did or not, which isn't really a rep, more a bonus trick kind of thing*, which is why I was thinking a perk - the rep would be gained for the general public after he has had a few news stories done about him. [/quote']

 

There's always the "buy every reporter in town as a follower" tactic. That should cover the intent nicely. It might be hard to get the GM to sign off on it, though.

Re: Player vs. Character

If I think the character would play a situation a certain way, that's how the character does it. I trust the GM to save my butt if this gets me in over my head.

As a GM, I love it when players play this way, and I'm willing to cut them the slaack it takes for them to play heroes who act heroicly. As a player, I return the favor.

Some other systems have mechanisms in place to reward and protect this kind of behavior. Players earn "chips" (or whatever) by roleplaying in ways that are consistent with character but inconsistent with optimized gaming. Maybe 6th edition Hero could consider such a construct.

Re: Pulp TV Shows

Ah' date=' I [i']loved[/i] that cartoon. Imagine...a cartoon in which when someone is shot with a rifle, or blown up...they die! But just too much for the weak stomachs of the children of America, I guess, because it only lasted one season. (Yeah, I know it was the parents that didn't like it. I'm bein' sarcastic here!)

Jonny Quest was originally a prime-time show, aimed at parents as well as kids. I don't think it was faulted all that much for violence - westerns in the early 60's were plenty violent. I think it failed because people weren't ready for an animated show at prime-time. Of course, "failed" is a relative term. It did run for 26 episodes, and never really had a chance to go downhill.

Re: Pulp TV Shows

When Jonny Quest was created, the intent was to bring pulp adventures to TV, but in a more modern context. Almost all episodes of this series (now avalable on DVD) make excellent ready-made adventures for a pulp game. They're even designed as challenges for a group of globe-trotting adventurers (rather than an intrepid solo adventurer.)

Scooby Do was heavily influenced by the pulp Weird Menace genre. Most of the episodes of this show provide most of the stuff you would need to run a nice self-contained four hour mystery-adventure, complete with clues, red herrings, and some backround material on characters and settings. Some years are better than others, but most shows have plenty of content of just about the right difficulty to a good group of role-players (in my games, I call this the "Scooby Do rule - for maximum fun, mysteries should be about as hard as the ones on Scooby do.)

Re: Media Darling

How about paying for an appropriate positive reputation?

Re: I want to play Hero,

First, become a good player. Be the kind of player that GMs love to run and that players love to have along. Be funny. Be helpful. Build your RPG cred. Once you have the respect of your group, they should be happy to try whatever you want to run.

When you run it, start simple. Keep points low. If possible, pre-generate characters for your players. Build villains who put up a good fight, but go down quickly. Rehearse the game to make sure you can run it quickly. Too many players have a conception of Hero as a game in which it is difficult to build characters and in which combat is slow. Show them that this is not the case.

When I moved to Portland, the group I found played only GURPS. I learned GURPS, and I played it for a year or so. After the group was comfortable with my presence, I suggested we try Hero. I asked them what kinds of characters they wanted to play, then pre-built characters for them. I started with characters built on a 50+50 template with no powers. Once these were done, I made a second set of sheets that included the characters with an extra 50 points of powers. At the first session I handed out the non-powered version of the characters. They spent the next several session discovering their powers, and eventually gaining possession of their full sheets. I plotted adventures carefully making sure to feature plenty of investigation along with combat. I got them completely hooked, and after a few sessions, Hero became the only system we played.

Re: Who do you trust? Hero Board savants

I look for 1) people I'm not familiar with - they are more likely to say something I haven't heard before. 2) People with an understanding of how to divide sentences into paragraphs.

Re: How long to make Master Mold?

Here is the biggest discussion in our group. The team wants one person to build a Master Mold compuuter and set of robots, so they will help them build a home base for them.

The PC has slightly above average INT with some mechanics skills. They think they can can construct and program a functioning robot that will help build other robots, weapons, and other items for their base. The do have some money, and bought toys from a local Wall Mart to make the basic robot.

 

The problem is that they think that in 2 weeks they can get the first robot helper built, programmed, and helping with other items. I told them that it would take a year to build the main computer, 6 helper robots, and link the master computer into a home made security system. I thought i was being overly fair.

 

So what do you think? How long to create, build and program this ultimate computer/ robot project?

Another approach is to wave your hand and let them go at it. Have it take a bit more time than they thought. Then describe their end result - a bunch of mismatched tin hammered into a maze of 2x4's guarded by remote-control toys duct-taped to hunting weapons bought from Walmart. Redneck Heaven!

Re: How long to make Master Mold?

My biggest problem with this player strategy is bypassing the rules to get quick results. Letting a few rolls take the place of using character points to build the base seems far too easy. To me this seems to far fetched' date=' even for comics to try to get this done in a mere 3 weeks (for 1 person).[/quote']

 

My assumption was that points had been paid, and you were working out the details of how the base came into being. (Stuff like that happens in out games all the time. In Zornwil's game, building the base took a lot of planning and a good bit of game time.)

 

If points haven't been pai for the base, then you're looking at paying points for the building method - Probably some sort of transform (transform with some manner of gradual effect, from your description) to make the shell, then paying full points for the stuff inside.

Re: Pulp Film Recommendations

Actually its a remake of Kurasawa's Yojimbo... but then so is High Plains Drifter.

And Yojimbo is based on Dashiell Hammet's "Red Harvest" which is a pulp-era classic.

Re: How long to make Master Mold?

Here is the biggest discussion in our group. The team wants one person to build a Master Mold compuuter and set of robots, so they will help them build a home base for them.

The PC has slightly above average INT with some mechanics skills. They think they can can construct and program a functioning robot that will help build other robots, weapons, and other items for their base. The do have some money, and bought toys from a local Wall Mart to make the basic robot.

 

The problem is that they think that in 2 weeks they can get the first robot helper built, programmed, and helping with other items. I told them that it would take a year to build the main computer, 6 helper robots, and link the master computer into a home made security system. I thought i was being overly fair.

 

So what do you think? How long to create, build and program this ultimate computer/ robot project?

Let them roll for it. A really good roll should cut the time a lot. Suggest to them that they might be able to bring in outside experts to help with this task (making complementary rolls). Of course they'll have to do something for the expert to get him on board. Tell them that if the capture a robot from X, they might be able to reverse-engineer it and get a nice bonus on the roll. Make it a fun challenge.

Re: Dem's the Breaks

Regency Hero, huh?

 

I foresee a LOT of Highwaymen being written up, as well as former sailors, etc.

 

I would LOVE it if Peter Francisco were mentioned under the section on America.

That era covers the time of The Scarlett Pimpernel as well.

Re: The best of Other Pulp RPGs

I think we should take a moment to look at what makes other pulp rpgs work, so we can insure pulp hero a place at the head of the class.

titles like Adventure (original and d20), Forbidden Kingdoms, Gurps Cliffhangers, Bloodshadows, Noir, Pulp Zombie, Pulp Era, etc...

what do you guys think they do well, and how could that success be improved upon in hero?

I've got quite a few at home, but I don't think Hero has much to fear from the bulk of them. The most important mechanical features of a pulp game are the ability to add interesting abilities and combat mechanics that produce cinematic results. Hero covers these very well. I have a very strong presumption that Pulp Hero will provide a set of excellent tools to fine-tune the rules to get the exact feel a GM has in mind.

I think Savage Worlds gives some strong competition, though. It is a simple, streamlined system that has a very complete feel to it. It is a universal system, but the base rules seem to be targetted at the pulp genre. The streamlined nature allows for quick combat resolution, allowing for more non-combat role-playing time - something I think is fairly critical for a pulp-genre game.

Re: Hero System women are all insanely attractive

I've been more in lurk mode myself' date=' [/quote']

 

44 posts in the last 24 hours is "lurk mode?"

Re: Background skills

As to le Comte' date=' by the way, it was a shame we weren't able to play at the same time as I missed the first adventure and you the second - I was looking forward to a particular rivalry that would have occurred, and not so much the French/English thing (if you see his background, you probably figured it out and what Regency Perk I bought...bwa ha ha...- I did so without knowing, btw, that this was the same ability your character had, as I didn't really connect that when you wrote "dandy" you meant it in the true genre sense and the perk that brings).[/quote']

 

There's nothing I like better than a PC rival, and with no Chromatic, I need another vict-I mean-candidate. I imagine we'll have other chances to play the characters in the future.

Re: Background skills

I like to roll dice. I miss it in PBEMs though it's eminently logical of course not to do so. And rolling virtually is just ho-hum.

I like rolling dice also - but I feel a bit uncouth admitting it in public.

Re: Character Design Theory

When I write character backgrounds, I do it because it is fun. It gives me a chance to write some playful prose, and hopefully entertain the GM or the group. If I go more than about two pages, most people won't even read the first paragraph, so with that in mind, I tend to follow "Lemming's first rule of RPGs: Don't annoy the GM." When I'm done, I generally have a rough outline for the character, and, more importantly, a good place to start working out how I'm going to actually play the character.

I'm more than happy to work with the GM if I want a character embedded into the campaign background. I'm also happy to keep things entirely generic.

When, as a GM, I receive backgrounds, I like them to be either entertaining, concise, or, preferably, both.

Re: Background skills

Mine come from 5thER' date=' p.43, however I'm being slightly more generous as far as when not to bother roling. I also think that characters should be portrayed as competent most of the time; my own style tends to be to reflect that (and speed up play) by not bothering to ask for a roll for what I would consider a routine task at that skill level.[/quote']

 

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about my personal GM style here. As a GM, I don't ask people to roll too often - missed rolls on routine tasks can bounce the game off in directions it doesn't need to go. In the last Hero session I ran, (a mystery, which required a lot of player investigation,) I think I asked for a grand total of three rolls - everything else was deemed too routine to need a roll - posession of a skill at adequate level was sufficient to gain access to the information sought.

 

As a player, I have no way of knowing how a GM is going to deal with the issue, so it is best to build a character who can function adequately if a GM decides you need to roll frequently. The guidelines in the book spell out the baseline for where skills should be, and I tend to keep those in mind when spending points.

 

Most players tend to be pretty keen on rolling dice, though. So, GMs that hand-wave most skills aren't necessarily making the game more entertaining. You need to be sure that you are gaining something for the players when you do this.

Re: Background skills

I see an interesting dichotomy. I think Lamrok's numbers above re 8-' date=' 11-, 14-, and what they mean reflects the [i']common usage[/i] and where a large number of not majority of GMs think. It's where I think most people play and - most importantly - where play experience has set the bar.

Actually, I think those numbers came out of a book. I don't have any sources at hand right now, but I don't think I (or Oddhat) made them up.

OTOH' date=' from a realistic perspective (whatever that is... ), I do think that someone good enough to make a living is 8-, don't know if I'd call an expert an 11- but certainly that's a master, and 14- is astronomically good. I say this because almost nobody responds in HERO terms off the cuff, and because the scale of reality includes a ton of prep most of the time and under pressure I think that in one second only masters will get it right around 60% of the time.[/quote']

 

That depends on how you set the base time for skill use, and how you set the bar for allocating skill penalties. That ton of prep might just be part of the base time. If you do without it, perhaps you take a penalty on the skill.

 

And in the real world played via HERO' date=' you can be encyclopedic in a few seconds, and that's not realistic actually, anyway. "Extra time" is an odd construct in hobby and background skills whether realistic or romantic. And most GMs won't give you extra time, partly because it's a bit boring and because, they'll say, taking 12 or 18 extra seconds shouldn't make a difference if you know how to haggle (for example).[/quote']

 

Reality isn't a necessary component in heroic fiction. In most heroic fiction (including movies) characters tend to be able to wield skills in a small fraction of the time it would take to perform them in reality. Pacing is more important than a strict adherence to reality. I prefer that games follow a similar model.

 

Paying to be the best floral arranger in the world (presumably a 16- or such) is hardly worthwhile in almost any genre except a few niche Japanese or other games. But what if you want to be? Is it really worth that investment' date=' when faced with the realities of a campaign? Remember, we're talking about things that are almost never going to come into play - the campaign I'm referencing merely as an example was to be specifically set in England and remain there. [/quote']

 

Perhaps perks could provide some relief here. The best flower arranger in the city (when I wrote that I was actually thinking of Dion O'Bannion, "Flower arranger for the Chicago mob") might be worth a 1 point perk.

 

 

By the way' date=' how do you guys buy Latin as a language? It's only read, not spoken, so it's hard to use the HERO scale.[/quote']

 

Just because most people don't speak latin doesn't mean they can't (as underscored by recent events in the Vatican.) If two characters know latin, they should be able to converse in it. For most purposes, all you need is fluency, though - anything higher is a waste (this is how I have bought it in the past, including in your own game. )

Re: Background skills

And here is my character:

Le Comte de Chareau

Val Char Cost

10 STR 0

14 DEX 12

8 CON -4

8 BODY -4

13 INT 3

8 EGO -4

18 PRE 8

14 COM 2

3 PD 1

2 ED 0

3 SPD 6

4 REC 0

16 END 0

17 STUN 0

[stats stripped down to what he actually needs]

7" RUN 2

2" SWIM 0

4" LEAP 2

Some swashbuckling modifications. I like for characters in games like this to have a 4" half move.

Characteristics Cost: 24

Cost Skill

3 Acting 13-

3 Bribery 13-

3 Climbing 12-

3 Concealment 12-

3 Contortionist 12-

3 Regency Skill 12-

3 Jack of All Trades

1 1) PS: Baker (2 Active Points) 11-

1 2) PS: Farmer (2 Active Points) 11-

4 3) PS: Fashion Sense (5 Active Points) 14-

1 4) PS: Fisherman (2 Active Points) 11-

1 5) PS: French soldier (2 Active Points) 11-

2 6) PS: Vintner (3 Active Points) 12-

7 Disguise 14-

3 High Society 13-

3 Scholar

1 1) KS: Diseases and Maladies (2 Active Points) 11-

1 2) KS: European History (2 Active Points) 11-

1 3) KS: Fashion (2 Active Points) 11-

1 4) KS: French aristocracy (2 Active Points) 11-

1 5) KS: Who's who in English society (2 Active Points) 11-

1 6) KS: Wine (2 Active Points) 11-

2 CK: Paris 11-

1 Language: French (imitate dialects) (5 Active Points)

4 Language: English (idiomatic)

3 Lockpicking 12-

3 Mimicry 12-

3 Persuasion 13-

3 Riding 12-

20 +2 Overall

3 Stealth 12-

3 Streetwise 13-

1 TF: Two-Wheeled Muscle-Powered Ground Vehicles

3 WF: Early Firearms, Blades

Skills Cost: 99

Cost Perk

10 Follower - valet

4 Regency perk

10 Money: Wealthy

Perks Cost: 24

Cost Talent

3 Regency Talent

Talents Cost: 3

Total Character Cost: 150

Disads are pretty much setting-specific.

Disadvantage Points: 75

Base Points: 75

Experience Required: 0

Total Experience Available: 0

Experience Unspent: 0

Background is shrouded in secrecy - to players anyway. Suffice it to say that he spent a lot of time helping French nobles escape Mme Guillotine.

The only compromise on this sheet is the somewhat short shrift given to combat abilities. His two overall levels help somewhat, but he's a character much more at home outside of combat. Other than that, he has every skill he should have at the level he should have it. When combat rolls around he's happy to yield to one of the "vigorous young fellows" in the group. (Le Comte is in his early 60's, though he can apparently still clamber up a rope ladder better than any English sailor in the group )

Some of his skills relate to his personal history, some are essentially complementary to his disguise skill. He's designed to reflect a character from "The Scarlett Pimpernel", with an emphasis on non-combat swashbuckling situations - Le Comte would rather escape than fight.

Re: Background skills

I guess some of the problem stems from the fact that if you design a character who is an expert at Flower Arrangement, he probably pays more points for it than if he'd decided to be competent with persuasion (which can generally be used to significant effect in nearly every session).

Part of the point of a system like Hero is that costs should at least try to match utility - but there's no clear way to express a character who is well versed in something that isn't very useful. Perhaps utility-driven limitations should be applied to background skills of this type. For instance, "Flower Arrangement" might merit a -2 lim. Sanskrit might be a -2, but Spanish would be -0 (in many, if not most, games.)

Re: Background skills

Zorn' date=' I'm not sure I agree here. Just imo, but I think that the existing rules work well enough to allow a rich background if the GM is willing to let broad PS, KS, and AK trickle down into more specific applications. If you do have PS:Ship's Captain, it's fairly intuitive that you should be able to perform all the basic tasks needed for that skill (navigation, haggling over the price of supplies, management, at least a working knowledge of ship maintenance, etc), at least in that setting. I prefer an "OK, you can do that" approach with trickle down skills, an 8- with logically related items or a penalty to the base skill (-5 per step down would be by-the-book), but other methods work as well. [/quote']

 

That's fine until you pick up the dice and try to make that 8- navigation roll to keep the ship off the rocks. Or until you match your 8- haggling skill against a 12- haggling skill.

 

Skill inflation happens because some character concepts shouldn't miss certain skill rolls. If you have the skill on an 8-, most GMs are going to expect you to roll an 8- to use it. You can hem and haw about extra time, but sometimes you don't have extra time, and sometimes what the player thinks is "extra" time is the amount of time the GM considers to be "base" time.

 

My take on what the numbers mean goes ike this:

 

8- is a non-serious hobby. A class taken in the area (as per the "Cramming" skill). A supporting skill that the character has some measure of familiarity with.

 

11- is good enough to make a living.

 

14- is expert

 

above 14- allows the character to be an expert under increasingly adverse circumstances.

 

These are the benchmarks I look at when deciding what level skills should be placed at.

 

If you are trying to reflect characters from fiction, 14- is pretty much the standard. It is high enough to expect that you will make rolls when needed if there are no negative modifiers. Most fictional characters tend to be "expert" at the things they are expected to do - that's what gives them the inclination to be involved in the sorts of stories most GMs want to tell. No one wants to be on a ship helmed by a captain who expects to make it through the tricky schoals during a storm with an 8- navigation skill. No player wants to be the captain who has to tell the crew that he isn't up to the task, so they will need to spend a few days so he can take extra time on the roll. That just isn't consistent with the genre examples most GMs are looking to follow.

 

Languages are completely broken. Who wants to spend 20 points on langauges on the off chance they will actually need German during a story? My character in Zornwil's game is Chinese - he is fluent in Mandarin (4 points). Over the course of nearly fifty sessions, this has never been a factor. Even when the group has been to China, the rest of the gang had ways of dealing with the language barrier that worked just as well as 4 points of the appropriate langauage. Otherwise, the adventure would have tilted too far in the direction of my character and the rst of the players would have spent hours just standing around. So, what is the real point of the expenditure? I spent the points because it matched the background I had in mind, but taking +2 to an attack would have been about 30x as useful. (I don't fault Zornwil here - I don't think there would have been any other way to run the advanture in a way that was interesting to the whole group. I only bring this up because his is the only game I've put that many sessions into.) By Oddhat's example, it would seem that 2 points of "PS: Chinese Culture" could have covered this. I just don't see any GM looking at my background and character sheet and not saying "Isn't Mandarin your native language? Why isn't it on your sheet?"

 

Another example. My character in the game Zornwil is using to illustrate his point is a French dandy. He has both KS: Fashion and PS: Fashion. This allows him to discuss fashion and to dress himself well. Should overlapping KS, PS, and SS be eliminated? I assigned those points to let the GM know that I am serious about those aspects of the character, and that he should be viewed as a character who is something of an expert in these matters. In practice, these skills aren't going to save lives or go very far to advance a plot (except under fairly limited circumstances). On the other hand, they make the character more fun to play - there's no doubting the exact level of his fashion expertise, and the GM is more than happy to play along with this. Without the points, I strongly expect the effect would be far different. In effect, what I'm saying here is that spending points is also a way for a player to let the GM know that a certain aspect of a character is important.

 

The bottom line is that, after more than 20 years of this, playing with some really excellent players and GMs, I just don't think that a player can expect for the various point of his background to be useful, or to be taken seriously unless the player sinks enough points in them to properly impress the point on the GM (who is busy coordinating a lot of players, backgrounds, and skills, as well as running an fairly complex story) Some GMs say they can do this, but, quite frankly, I simply do not believe it.

Re: Background skills

I find that as a player in a large gaming group' date=' I can (or have to) myself put forth the effort to incorporate interesting aspects of my character into the game. It is only partially the GM's responsibility, after all. With creative and involved players, even large groups can be detailed enough for everyone.[/quote']

 

Meandering back on topic...

 

In large groups, a different dynamic tends to take hold. Since the GM doesn't necessarily have enough of a spotlight to keep everyone covered, players tend to pick up the slack by playing out scenes with no GM interaction. This is a total win for everyone at the table - more fun for players, less pressure on the GM, more material for the GM to work with. But, to really make it work, players need solid backgrounds for their characters. The Savage Worlds approach to backgrounds pretty well guarantees that this will be the case.