Zephrosyne

ghost-angel, on 17 Mar 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:ghost-angel, on 17 Mar 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

I have the same experience with most game systems:

 

Those who want to learn a system, any system, will sit down and read the book and learn it.

 

Those who don't, but want to show up, play a character, roll some dice, and game, won't. Ever.

 

Doesn't matter if it's Hero or D&D Basic. Someone will have to make the character for them, let them fill in non-mechanical details, keep their sheet updated, and get input when it's time to add things; You generally only have to show these types of players where things are on the sheet once or twice, maybe help them with the dice here and there, mostly they simply do not care about mechanics. Simple or Complex.

 

Anecdote is not Data; but the experience tends to be pretty constant from my view: Some will learn the game engine because they want to, Some will learn only their character sheet. And the type of system is completely irrelevant.

This is so true from my experience.  I have had players that absolutely will not read anything.  Hell, I give a handout before every campaign I run detailing the setting and any applicable house rules and some of my players barely read that.  I ran a D&D 3.5 campaign several years back and had a player that would read virtually nothing.  He just wanted to get his dice and go.  All he ever wanted was his "rolling chance."  However, to his credit, he did not whine when his refusal to read the rules and my handout bit him in the ass.  He wasn't much of a roleplayer (inexperienced) but he was fun and brought some very interesting elements to the table.  In fact, I probably got the highest compliment I have ever received in all of my years of gming from him.  His fighter ended up dying and apparently he decided he wanted a character with some "mojo."  Therefore on his own he purchased Complete Arcane and read it.  We were all in shock!  He actually wanted to read more about the new class he chose (the Warlock) to make better choices and be a better player.  I still contend that D&D is no easier than Hero System.  It has a lot more moving parts to look up and try to coordinate (the feats, the spells, the class features, etc.).  It is just a tad easier to gm (as far as set up) because you have a lot of the work done for you since it is a matter of picking things from a menu (a potentially lengthy menu) instead of making them yourself.  Furthermore, at higher levels, with all the modifiers and number crunching, I think the actual gameplay is a bit more complex than Hero.  Yet, Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder are the big kids on the block.

Vondy, on 16 Mar 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

Leaving aside politics (and he is a whack-a-mole), Correia's writing is repugnant to me. Its awkward, sloppy, unnecessarily purple, and his sense of camp and humor is ham-fisted and badly timed. I simply could not finish his first book despite the fact that I am traditionally forgiving of author's early works.  

I actually read his first two Monster Hunter novels.  They actually didn't bother me much.  I think that his political ideology is reflected a bit in his writing but I don't really care: I'm reading his book, not dating him.  He does keep things moving and he writes action scenes better than a lot of other writers.  However, he seems to really like guns in his writing.  It is almost jarring the level of detail firearms and things related to firearms get when compared to other story elements or subjects in his books.

Well, I am firmly in the the camp that selling back OMCV is nothing but pure munchkin.  The absence of Mental Powers on the character as justification is total BS as far as I am concerned.  By that logic 99.999+ percent of NPCs on most game worlds (e.g. regular people) should be selling back OMCV.  While I do acknowledge that selling back Characteristics is not the same as a Complication or Limitation, I think the same principle still applies: if it doesn't limit the character, it is not worth any points.  I do not equate selling back OMCV with selling back Swimming (in the case of a character that flies) or selling back OCV (in the case of a pure mentalist) because there are very real possibilities of those deficiencies coming back to bite you in the ass.  However, barring something exceedingly unusual (imho) such as a character finding a mental gadget that requires OMCV(as I believe mentioned by someone above), selling back OMCV is nothing more than a point grab, a small one but a point grab nonetheless.  Of course, if a campaign has a practical, more common use for OMCV (besides OCV for mentalist) such as the optional rule in the Advanced Player's Guide which uses OMCV instead of Ego for Breakout rolls, then I say sell back away.  Needless to say, I bet all of the people boasting that they selling back OMCV because of concept will probably want nothing to do with selling it back then!

I'd use Object Creation (Advanced Player's Guide 2) with appropriate Limitations to do it; although, technically it is a bit questionable for the same reason as Transform in that it steps on the toes of Life Support (with Usable By Others).  As gm, I have a tendency to be not as strict about such things.  For example, I wouldn't care if someone used their RKA 2d6 fireblast to burn wood for a campfire (as opposed to making them buy the appropriate Life Support).  I just can't bring myself to get worked up about the little things. 

Hi, Steve.  I have a question about the Object Creation Power (Advanced Player's Guide 2 pg. 32), specifically about purchasing PD/ED for the created object.  According to the rules, 3 Character Points pays for 2 points of defense.  Do the points of defense apply to both PD and ED or do they have to be purchased separately?  In other words if I spend 3 Character Points, can I increased the object's PD and ED by 2 each or do I have to split the 2 points between some combination (e.g. PD 1/ED 1 or PD 2/ED 0 or PD 0/ED 0).  The wording in the second column as well as the math in the example under the Advantage, Configurable, (next page) seemed to imply that 3 Character Points is enough to increase both PD and ED by 2.  I just want to make sure.  Thank you.

It's in the 6th Edition Book 2: Campaign and Adventuring, page 9, second column, under the heading "The Touch Sense Group."  That section of the rules references OCV penalties and a few other things in addition to the Dex penalty you already mentioned.  I assume that is what you were looking for.

Hi Steve, I am a little confused about the answer you gave to the previous question (the last question and follow-up made by Steve (the poster, not you Steve Long)) regarding Damage Negation and attacks with Advantages.  Your answer seems to imply--unless I am reading it incorrectly--that Advantages applied to attacks are not taken into consideration when reducing Damage Classes via Damage Negation.  However, 6E1 pg. 184, 1st column under Area Of Effect, the example shown clearly takes into account the +1 Advantage of the Area Of Effect; otherwise, the example gm would be rolling 4 dice (10d6, -6DCs) and another 2 Dice (10D6, -4DCs) instead of what is cited in the example.  The example clearly reduces the effectiveness of the Damage Negation because of the Area Of Effect Advantage.  What am I missing here?

I am firmly in the camp of caps not being a hindrance, regardless of the gm's experience.  I don't think that you should be a slave to them but I think they can be a very useful guideline and baseline, particularly at the start of a campaign if the caps in question are well thought out and applied sensibly.  That being said, caps are no substitute for gm oversight and sound judgement. 

I have been roleplaying for nearly 30 years.  I can honestly say without any doubt that this is the book that I am looking the most forward to seeing in all of those years.  With all of this teasing, which I--perhaps foolishly--masochistically read, I truly hope that it sees the light of day.

Christopher Taylor, on 07 Oct 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

There's a lot of truth to this.  Superman holds back constantly (insert world of cardboard speech here).  He pretty much lives in fear of killing people he fights, of turning his opponent into a smear of strawberry jam by accident.

 

As for who is faster on foot: The Flash, by a long shot, but Superman can fly as fast.  At least, that's what the comics show.  Depending on what era, story, etc.  DC isn't real big on specifics and benchmarks - that's why Who's Who had almost no specific data like The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe.

Well, frankly considering how often Marvel ignored the "specific data" they wrote, writing it was almost pointless, outside of making for an interesting read.

Just curious, can someone who has the product list what the 1-5 scale for both heat and cold or is that a copyright issue?  I'm really curious.

According to the rules under Extra Time, Full Phase: The character can perform Zero Phase Actions before he begins activating the powers but may not perform Half Phase Actions.  I typed it word for word.  So, if you used a Half Phase Action to draw your sword, you cannot begin preparation on your spell.  You cannot use your remaining Half Phase to start preparation on your spell and complete the spell on your next Phase.  Now, I directly quoted Hero 6th Edition Vol. 1, which is a tad more specific than Champions Complete (which I don't even use but I double checked my pdf) since it specifically addresses the Half Phase Action.  Hope that helps. 

So: 10 BODY - (10 BODY damage - 5 PD) =

10 BODY - 5 BODY damage = 5 BODY remaining after the damage is dealt.

5 BODY + 10 CP absorbed = 15 BODY after the absorption.

 

Wouldn't the 10 CP Absorbed only convert to 5 BODY,  giving the character a total of 10 BODY (instead of 15) after the absorption since BODY counts as a Defense Power (6E1 pg. 141) or am I missing something?

6E/CC - Full PD/ED applies to STUN from Killing Attacks. (6E2 103 /CC 157)

I always wondered why that rule got changed.  I don't really have a problem with it.  I'm fairly neutral on it but I have always been curious as to the reasoning.

If this is a common perception among Hero players, then I suppose Mr. Long has some 'splainin' to do... it would be nice to hear his rationale behind these armor numbers. Just keep in mind that what "seems" right might not be right if you aren't an expert in such matters (or did a ton of research as part of, say, creating official writeups for published product).

 

As for your expectations of the performance of a 60 STR Brick, I think you may be thinking too abstractly. You, like most comic book writers who don't play RPGs, appear to think that 60 STR should destroy tanks regardless of what era the tanks come from, and I can't help but think this is a poor way to calibrate your expectations. 60 STR may have been enough when the The Thing first appeared in print, but I don't think it is anymore. Military hardware has improved dramatically since then, and either the active points in attacks have to go up to match, or you have to put your heroes against vintage hardware. Or you nerf the hardware so that it always performs like it did in the 1960s and you don't ever have to recalibrate your notion that the "standard Brick that can trash anything" ought to only have a 60 STR.

This actually touches on the point of my original question when I started this thread.  I don't really care about whether or not comic book reality is being simulated or not.  Frankly, I run games with people having super powers but I ignore a lot of comic book logic because I think it is completely idiotic.  While I enjoy reading comic books, I have very little interest in running a campaign where a lot of the illogical things in comic books happen.  I have a tendency to use a bit more realism and common sense in my campaigns mixed with a healthy dose of the cinematic.  I was just wondering if tanks are actually supposed to be able to withstand a direct punch to the front from someone with a Strength of 100.  I know that no one in the real world has that kind of strength.  I just thought someone with a working knowledge of physics could explain it.  If there is not a mathematical way to figure such a thing out then I guess we are all left to our own devices to decide what is in the best interest of our respective campaigns. I was just wondering from a purely physics point of view.  I was looking for something more objective than subjective.  I was not looking for anything from the perspective of whether or not characters starting with 60 APs of powers should or should not be able to face roll military forces.  All that being said, there are a lot of good points brought up in this thread about questionable numbers when comparing the stats of "real world" things (e.g. tank cannons versus bridges).  Once again, I would like to thank everyone for their input.  I actually did manage to find a workable albeit untested solution for me.

Looking at APG2:

"With these rules in mind, here’s how you’d

build an attack capable of instantly destroying

Earth: RKA 10d6 (standard effect: 30 BODY),

Area Of Effect (1m Radius; +¼), MegaScale

(affects entire Earth; +2). Total cost: 487 points."

 

Clearly this attack wouldn't count as being against the front armour of an Abrams, so the latter would take 10 Body.

 

And survive the destruction of the Earth.

Actually, I was referencing the APG 2 in response to Hugh Nelson's post about destroying the Golden Gate Bridge--specifically option #1 where the Body of a large structure only refers to a part of it instead of the entire structure.  I wasn't addressing the potency of the tank's defenses, which I just think are too high.  Perhaps I should have been more specific.

This does not change the fact that a blow powerful enough to demolish a large bridge (100 ktons; 9 DEF and 27 BOD on p 171 of 6e V2; 25 BOD on p 172) inflicts only 6 BOD (16 if avoiding its front armor) to the Abrams, leaving it damaged but largely intact. Two average shots from that Abrams' main gun (8d6 KA, so average 28 BOD) will more than demolish the bridge, but not scratch the tank.

 

The tank, and other military hardware, are specifically over statted compared to the rest of the world, not just to Supers.

 

BTW, the Golden Gate Bridge, according to http://gocalifornia.about.com/cs/sanfrancisco/a/ggbridge_3.htm, weighs just over 800 kilotons, so three doublings up from the Large Bridge. Since +1 BOD doubles the size of a hole in the wall, I take that to mean the GG has 30 BODM and is also demolished by 2 hits from the tank. Even if we add 5 BOD per doubling, so 15 BOD, that's 42 in total, and the tank requires all of three average hits to destroy it. +1 seems right - small and large bridges have the same defense, and the weight checks out at 6 doublings from 21 to 27 BOD. A third shell would just be overkill.

Actually, this is addressed in the Advanced Player's Guide 2 page 113.  While those rules are specifically designed for extremely large structures such as mountains and planets, the same principle could apply to smaller structures such as buildings and bridges.

Well, I certainly didn't expect this much debate when I started this thread but I did find a resolution that works for me.  I just compressed DCs and Defenses for high end hardware (more than 3d6 base damage and Def. 10).  I suppose one could also use the Standard Effect Rule for real world weapons.  That is how handcuffs are built on the sidebar of 6E1 pg. 219.  That would keep damage results consistent and predictable.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong; someone mentioned a 2d6 handgun blowing a human sized hole in a wall.  Isn't that impossible since handguns--and arrows for that matter-- are built with the Beam Limitation?  Am I missing something somewhere?  Just asking?

Anyway, thank you all for your contributions.  I really appreciate it.

First of all, I appreciate everyone taking the time to reply.  I'm looking through the Hero System Equipment Guide, pg. 89 to be specific, high end weapons (those doing 3 1/2d6 K and up) do seem to scale up really fast and I would imagine tank armor and what not probably scales to accommodate that.  Maybe the simplest thing is to compress those higher numbers somewhat.  That seems to be a rather simple solution for me anyway and one that I can live with.

I'm doing this with my current Heroic fantasy campaign. Not a lot of special powers, common spells or special abilities, so skills are a natural focus and I've never been fond of the way they were don in HERO.

 

All the regular stats now cost 2 points, including Dex, and yes, over 15 it's doubled again. But that's mostly to compensate for the fact that you're getting a bonus to your roll for every 3 points (as per APG2), so it's not a big enough change, but reduces non-skill stat effects to a more mundane range (e.g. unarmed damage, stun threshold).

 

And yes, SPD is considered 4 for everyone. As you don't pay for it and there are no exceptions, this basically just sets the ratio of phases per turn. Which doesn't come up that often, apart from some Extra Time issues and the cost of a "Haste" spell.

 

We also have a unified roll-over mechanic, so, yes, I do like Fuzion.

Hmm, thanks for clarifying.  I have to say the Speed thing is interesting.

Mhd, am I understanding you correctly?  Are you saying that everyone in the campaign has a Speed of 4?  Also, core stats double cost?  Do you mean Strength cost 2 points instead of 1, Dexterity cost 4 points instead of 2, etc.?  If a character exceeds 15, do you double the cost again (e.g. a Dexterity above 15 cost an extra 8 points per point)?  Do you do this for long running superheroic campaigns as well or just heroic?  Just trying to understand.  If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.

First of all, full disclosure, I know nothing about military weapons and vehicles nor do I know much about physics, which is probably the main reason that I have to ask this.  The defensive stats for a Abrams MBT are listed at 30/20.  According to 6E2 pgs. 196-197, the 30 defense is for the front of the tank and the 20 defense is for the sides, bottom, and top.  If a character with a Strength of 100 punches the front of the tank, he would have virtually no chance of even scratching it.  A character that strong can lift 25,000 tons.  It seems like someone that powerful could make a better showing against the vehicle even when attacking its least vulnerable area.  Hell, I would think he could easily tear it in half.  Even with a Haymaker and allocating all of his Combat Skills to damage, he still is more likely than not ineffective against it.  Yes, I realize he could hit the sides, flip the damn thing over, or pick it up and throw it down the street since it weighs far less than he is capable of juggling, let along lifting, but that isn't the point. I also realize that there are optional rules in Hero System for making things more breakable in settings where real estate (and military vehicles) are commonly treated like paper (e.g. comic book settings) but once again, that isn't the point.  I just want to know are those defense numbers sound?  Is that tank really that tough?  Thanks.   

I've gmed way, way more than I have played over the years.  As I player, I really don't have a type.  I'm more focused on a character in terms of personality than I am cool powers and what not.  If you put a gun to my head and made me choose a power-based archetype, I would say a psionic.  As a gm, it is pretty much the same thing; although, my favorite personality archetype gming is a scheming manipulator.  I also enjoy running a big bad's ex-wife who allies with the players just to stick it to the ex-husband.  Granted, that instance is rather rare, but it was fun the couple of times that I have done it.  The players have also had fun trying to manipulate the power couple's animosity to their advantage.

I don't want to derail the thread but I have to admit, ORE is certainly on of the more interesting die systems I have ever read.  That system can also get pretty lethal, at least in the case of Wild Talents.

Before a campaign starts, I give detailed character creation guidelines and setting information (in writing).  I set a maximum limit of CVs, Damage Classes, Active Points, etc. and then let players do what they want from there.  If for some reason someone wants to exceed those limits, I'll entertain the reasoning, but I'm not likely to change my mind.  After the character is made, I evaluate what the player has created to see if it is within the character creation guidelines that I have given them and make sure the character is appropriate for the campaign and viable.  I always thought stuff like "niche protection" was rather silly, nor have I ever told a player "sorry, you are a brick you can't have a Speed of 6."  I firmly believe that "concept" is created by the person who made the character.  I shouldn't say what does or doesn't fit a player's concept just because it is different from what I would do.  That doesn't mean I'll allow any BS that is handed to me.  If I have questions about what someone is doing, I'll ask.  If I see something that is clearly going to be a problem because it is abusive or I don't want to be dealing with it, I'll have the player change it.  In general, I set the parameters and then let them go to it.  They have to play that character; I don't.  I've seen people come up with things that don't make much since to me--in fact looked really stupid to me--but the character was within campaign parameters, rules legal, non-abusive, and viable.  More importantly, the player had fun with what he created.  I would look at it, shrug, and then say have at it.  From there, it's your little red wagon; you can push it or pull it!

As is the case with other gms, I do tweak the Character Ability Guidelines according to the campaign.  Also, if a campaign is Heroic, I do use the Characteristic Maxima in most circumstances, with the exception of Speed, which uses the Characteristic Maxima (4) in every campaign that I run--Heroic or Super Heroic.