Lamrok

Re: Background skills

In which case he'll have to spend the points on them, unles Zorn wants to use a different rules set.

 

8- gets the character a better than 40% chance if he takes a normal amount of time with the task in question, and 50% or more if he takes extra time. For something that's not a primary part of the characters design, that seems fair to me. If he needs more, IMO he shoul spend the points. However, it's Zorn's game; if he wants to use any number of other solutions (allowing Overall Levels to apply to Everyman skills, introducing Universal Professional Skill a the same price as Universal Translator, just raising the campaign point totals or giving background skills for free, etc), that's his call.

[getting nitpicky - avert eyes if such things are bothersome]

8- is about a 1/4 chance.

The game under discussion is one in which Zornwil is playing, not running, so he can't really change the rules.

[nitpicks done. Sorry, couldn't restrain myself]

Re: Background skills

Beyond that' date=' a character has personality on top of his or her stats. He is interested in snuff boxes? Cool. I'll try to work that into the story at some point, and he can roleplay it. If he really wants some definable stat, he [i']could[/i] buy another full Skill or Familiarity to reflect this (KS - Snuff Boxes) and use it as Complimentary to rolls such as Trading. Even if he didn't, I might give small situational bonuses that have to do with a character's non-bought background, especially if the player actually wrote a background out (I may be rather unconventional in this, because I will often even reward a small bit of Experience to any player who wants to write out a character background).

That attitude of GM customization is indeed salutory and should be the goal of every GM. But, sometimes the sheer number of players makes it difficult. It is one thing to do this in a game with three players, one of whom has put a lot of effort into background. It is an entirely different thing to look at seven or more players, each of whom has pulled together a meticulously detailed personal history fully deserving of personal attention from the GM. In that case, as a player, I want my skills fully detailed on my character sheet and ready to allude to when the opportunity presents itself. Expecting a GM to be on top of the nuances of all characters in a large group makes the job of GM a bit too big for a casual game, and tends to lead to GM burnout.

Re: Background skills

I'd let him slide by with his PS' date=' an 8- in anything that PS implies and that he hasn't spent points for, and his purchase skills in the areas he wants to be good at.[/quote']

 

The problem here is that he probably wants to be good at the things that are getting lumped together on an 8-. If the character runs across a situation in which one of these background skills is suddenly important, he's going to want to be able to have a better shot at success than an 8- + whatever he can get for extra time.

 

You can build characters in such a way as to cover skills that will probably be needed. Or, you can build characters with the skills that their background suggests that they should have, whether those skills seem immediately useful or not. The first method saves points. The second method insures that a character will be able to perform as envisioned if the game takes a sudden curve into the area of a character's specialization. If the group suddenly winds up spending three weeks deep in naval battles off the coast of India, Zornwil's character is going to want to have a full complement of skills that supports that aspect of his background.

Re: Creation philosophy

Zl'f has been run seccessfully in your campaign for years' date=' and your GM is fine with her build. After that, Internet opinions don't much matter.[/quote']

 

Exactly. Looking at a freshly designed character is one thing. Looking at a character that has been adjusted over many sessions with ample input from the GM is another.

Re: Background skills

Action skills as RDU Neil called them are not background skills. If the skill is useful in combat it probably is not a background skill.

 

Hawksmoor

That kinda depends on how the GM says the points should be spent. In my GM's case, Acrobatics was allowed. In RDU Neil's case, the example might be "Knowledge of Ancient ancient Babylonian Merchants" vs "Knowledge of Campaign City." Same difference.

Re: Background skills

In other words, "it does prod players to have a good reason to write up a background - or suffer where not." It does indeed prod them hard to choose their backgrounds wisely.

 

Are you trying to simulate a genre where there's nobody lacking an artfully useful life story? If so, you've hit upon a great game mechanic. Making background an area where a character can win out "or suffer where not" in character construction will apply the discipline you want.

This is a reasonable criticism of the Savage Worlds approach, but I think it is the kind of thing that will setlle down over time.

The humble convenience store clerk might spend his time reading all the magazines in the rack. The couch potato might have an incisive knowledge of police procedures and general gossip. The stamp collector might have an excellent grasp of geography and world history. Bringing these kinds of backgrounds to relevance is just the kind of challenge that would appeal to the group I game with.

Re: Background skills

Another option might be to give the player more points (for instance' date=' 100 + 75), but require 25 points be dedicated to background skills (approved by the GM).[/quote']

 

I GM I used to play with used that approach and it worked OK. The main problem was that all background skills aren't created equal (KS: "European History" 18- vs Acrobatics 14-), and it could be hard making a call as to whether a skill should be a background skill or part of the player's regular combat arsenal. Still, the end result was a good step towards making sure everyone had non-combat options, and lowering the penalty on characters with detailed backgrounds.

Re: Background skills

I have a couple of reactions to this.

As a player, I do tend to pile on a lot of background skills since if a situation in-game shows up where the skills would be useful, I feel my character needs to have them. This tends to divert points away from main powers, but, on the other hand, it gives me a better grasp of the character - enough so that I think it helps me come up with alternative approaches to tricky situations. Sometimes I do go overboard, though, and wind up with skills like "Whittlin" on a 14-. Properly corralling background skills is definitely a metagame in itself. The Savage Worlds approach avoids most of this part of character creation, allowing me to focus on the background I want as opposed to the background I have points to pay for. Essentially, as a player, I'm fine either way, though the Savage Worlds approach does save a some time.

As a GM, I'm quite fond of the Savage Worlds approach since it entices players to come up with interesting backgrounds, which give me good spots to hang plot hooks on. I don't have to worry as much about creating situations that spotlight characters who have spent a lot of points on odd skills - I just need to work various backgrounds in from time to time.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

I have no idea who I'll play. Maybe I'll get an idea before the game?

Hopefully.

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

I think the talk and the cape have something to do with it. In fact, it's the only cape in the group unless I'm misremembering Spectrum's outfit.

 

Then again, capes can be dangerous...

If you are a Master of Dimensons, you have to wear a cape. Failing to do so is a direct violation of the Interdimensional Compact.

Re: Biggest whine about HERO

I would argue that to a character who would take zero BODY on a perfect roll from a 4d6 RKA antitank missile a 7.62 mm low powered assault rifle round does not constitute a "hard hit" by any stretch of the imagination.

Unless you hit them exactly in the funny bone.

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

Metagamers!

 

A big problem with Nexus that I didn't think of at first was that he attracts as much attention as the Troll. At first I figured some more attention to "the new guy" since there'd be a blanket assumption he'd fill the Troll's role until villains knew better. Then I realized that the way Nexus was played and with his presence, there was no way he wouldn't be subjected to some big hits at probably the same time you (um, Lamrok "you") sent the revision.

Nexus talks a good game, but he only has a 20 presence. Perhaps there's some reason to grow in that direction...

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

That triple digit Int comes in handy...

I don't think the triple digit intelligence is the distinguishing factor in this particular case...

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

To set lengths of combat you have to factor in more than just End use. It's very similar to how a GM sets the power level of the bad guys. Take into consideration how much damage the heros can take' date=' and how big a chunk of that total is going to be done with each successful hit. Then figure out how often the attack might be successful given the ocv/dcv involved. Now you have an idea of the total number of phases that Hero is going to last in combat. I know this very well from personal experience playing for the most part a "glass jawed normal guy". In his typical form, Laughton only has 22 stun (similarly to Nexus who spent a great deal of the recent past combats knocked out). Unless Laughton is lucky, or I pull out a trick from his bag of options, I know if he gets hit by someone other than a thug, he's gonna be stunned, and then soon after (like next phase) out.[/quote']

 

Just to set the record straight - Nexus has 50 stun and 50% damage reduction. This is enough for him to be stunned on the first hit and unconscious on the second. If he only had 22 stun he'd have virtually no chance of remaining conscious after being hit by any villain we've faced recently. When I originally built him, I figured that 20 defenses plus 50 stun would keep him from being one shotted. That turned out to be a false assumption, as he was repeatedly one-shotted over the next few session. The addition of damage reduction was necessary for the character to function as conceived.

 

Laughton never seems to be around when the damage is getting dealt.

Re: Demonic Metabolism: how to model it?

"Dude, you won't believe this. That guy just scarfed down twenty slices of the greasiest pizza known to man, followed it up with an entire canister of Slim Jims, a two pound bag of sour cream and onion potato chips, two packs of chocolate Zingers, and now he's washing the whole ungodly mess down with a three liter bottle of Cherriwine and a fifth of vodka."

"And he's still alive?! Daaaaamn!!!"

That's nothing comapared to some of the characters in Zornwil's game. The Troll used to have "LS: doesn't need to sleep - as long as he devours huge quantities of raw meat." That was good, since his wife only ate raw fish (no disad or lim there at all.) One of the base followers is well known to exist primarily on a diet of bologna sandwiches (the Justice Squad has a perpetual food machine in the base, but it has been stuck on "bologna" for years. No one seems to care much, as it turns out that most team members are perfectly happy with bologna sandwiches.) Sammy the Slime exists on a diet of nearly anything organic, as long as it is currently dead and as long as there are mass quantities of it. He's single-handedly lead to the disappearance of all-you-can-eat restaurants in the Detroit area. He takes a lot of pride in his intimate knowledge of restaurant dumpsters around town. I really doubt he has any sort of Life Support for this - in his case this is the appropriate diet for a mutated slime.

Re: Spending Experience

You need to consider two more things.

1) As time passes, you forget things. I graduated from college 20 years ago. At this point in my life, I'd probably roll that entire experience into a single skill at 8-.

2) Some training opportunities are more equal than others. There are intensive training courses in technical fields that focus heavily on practical matters. These can be completed in a few weeks, and they are expected to produce a skill level that equates to an 11- (average degree of expertise of someone using the skill to make a living.)

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

1 end per 5 points made for a lot more constructs built around charges. High strength/high con bricks could get by ok, but other builds had more trouble generating end without buying reduced end.

Re: PULP HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

My only problems with this approach are that 1) it essentially enforces character classes which Hero gamers generally detest and 2) it is very likely that you will get two players who forcefully insist on playing the same type.

It sin't so much a matter of character classes as "schtick." Everyone likes to carve out their own niche in the things they are responsible for. This is the same no matter what setting you are playing in.

Re: PULP HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

That's why he keeps asking for some kind of concealability stat in the weapons chart' date=' just like in Justice Inc v1. He's said this over and over, I can't figure out how you keep missing that.[/quote']

 

Another way to phrase this would be "a concealability stat, Just like Steve Long included when he wrote Law Dogs for the Deadlands system."

Re: PULP HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

To "Lamrock" and "Old Man" The referee might have to supervise the character creation process carefully to avoid character clashes; or tell you players in advance that you will only accept ONE of each of a group of archetypes and ask them to sort out who gets what among themselves !

The first time, I replied thirty minutes after the email went out but found out the other player beat me, so I changed characters (Gypsy Circus performer). The second time, I beat the other player (same guy), so I played my cowboy (the same one I had ready to go in the previous game)

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

I believe I was rather upfront about my goals on the theory page and the real world conversion page. I continue to hold to those statements.

Fair enough. I don't have anything more to offer on the topic. The article was an interesting read, though.

Re: Hero Mods

Oh' date=' I know. So what do they need the Pre attacks for? [/quote']

 

Clients.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

It should in HERO' date=' that's how the games played. [/quote']

 

That's how the game is played by you. Not by everyone.

 

HERO is genre gaming' date=' people in the movies and fiction I watch don't curl up in corners when shot, they fall down. It just so happens that reality also indicates that they fall down. Happy is I.[/quote']

 

That's doesn't match what I've read or the article you referred to. If you want to simulate people consistently dropping to unconsciousness from a single shot, you aren't simulating reality, you're simulating some manner of cinematics. Here's what your source has to say about this: "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth." If you want to simulate something else, that's entirely fine. But you need to be a little clearer about your actual goal.

Re: PULP HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

In particular' date=' what happens when two players bring the same character to the table. The leading cast of a pulp story usually has one each of each character arche/stereotype. What if there are two professors or two gumshoes?[/quote']

 

Or two freakin cowboys, which has happened in our last two pulp games. My advice is to let the GM know your archetype ASAP.

 

Two professors works out fine if they have different areas of expertise.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

While having that was important to me, the actual factor that caused me to re-write the firearm damage was the need to have a single hit have a significant chance of taking someone out of the fight (i.e. reduce them to zero stun). That's the result of most shooting events and the result of the genres I typically game, but was impossible in in the standard HERO list.

I guess main main thrust of what I'm saying (fueled by the document you linked to, and reflective of the way I've always run things) is that "taking someone out of the fight" (or incapacitating them) does not have to equal taking them to zero stun. Most people don't deal well with getting shot. One bullet through a non-vital organ is going to make them seriously consider whether they want to continue to fight or whether they curl up in a corner and cower. This can be modelled by GM fiat, or if you are looking for a game mechanic, the wounding rules address this. I don't think stun is the right way to go, since you aren't necessarily knocking them unconscious.

Ego rolls have been a part of the game since the beginning. The wounding rules may only be a mere 16 years old (maybe older), but the mechanic behind them is a full 24 years old.

It would also require changing the vitials hits to x3 body (one would have to assume vitials is any spinal area hit).

I tend to think of a vitals hit as a hit to the heart. I'd lump spinal hits in with headshots.

However this doesn't work for me' date=' it overpowers rifles (I don't want that many people dying). Also does nothing about proper scaling of the weapons. And also does nothing about one-shot incaps.[/quote']

 

The article seemed to imply that high caliber rifle wounds are a lot nastier than handgun wounds, giving some justification for this.

 

I hope I can go a week without having to type "incapacitate" again.