buzz

Just looking for recommendations for creating galactic/interstellar campiagn maps (as opposed to battlemaps) for my Star HERO campaign. Any software or sites with basic maps that can be folded, spindled, and dodgered would be appreciated. (Yeah, I have Illustrator and PhotoShop, but am looking for any other suggestions. My Illustrator-fu is still pretty weak.)

Re: Handling money in a Star HERO campaign Thanks for the ideas, guys!

I'm gearing up for a Star HERO campaign that will likely focus on a group of PCs with their own merchant ship looking to pay the bills moving cargo and takng on passengers. I.e., typical Traveller/Firefly type stuff. I'd like advice on how to handle money in a campaign like this. I'm wary of having the PCs count every last credit; I don't want to make this feel like D&D, i.e., where one player always gets designated the "Excel bitch." . I'd like the freedom to begin adventures with "So, down on your luck once again...", i.e., just handle money more as a plot element, but I don't want to negate the PCs accomplishments. Doesn't seem like much fun if the GM just handwaves away any money you earn in order to get an adventure going. And, of course, being a Heroic campaign, money also has a lot to do with available equipment, so I need to keep that in mind. So, how are you guys handling money in your own campaigns?

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these?

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these? NP. I find the stuff fascinating, so I take any opportunity to yammer on about it.

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these?

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these? Ah, yes: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/dogsinthevineyard/strategy.html

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these? Dude! http://www.burningempires.com/ Go! Now! And: http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#Burning_Sands:_Jihad http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#Under_a_Serpent_Sun Woo!

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these? I can't resist, and I'm only interested in clarification, not criticism. First off, they don't technically end in "-ist," they end in "-ism." Why? Because they classify agendas, not gamers. Gamers can waft and switch between them, even wihtin a single session. And "story" can really relate to any of the three. I'm using http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/ for these definitions. Narrativism, i.e., "Story Now": you address premise through play, premise being "a moral or ethical question concerning human interaction." DitV is the best example of this, as the whole game is about making tough moral choices. Simulationism, i.e., "The Dream": exploring the game universe is the big priority. "This player is satisfied if the system 'creates' a little pocket universe without fudging." HERO 5ER is big time about this sort of play. Gamism, i.e., "Step On Up": "It demands performance with risk, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. The social, real-world risk is usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem." Basically, you kick ass with your bad-mofo build, and the other players appreciate your mastery. "Dude, nice killing attack!" Hello, D&D. Mind you, this is all Forge/Big Model/GNS theory. There are other models that use some of these terms differently. See, the wacky thing about HERO 5ER is that, in terms of this model, it can sort of support any of the three modes. Point-shaving an minmaxing feed the Gamism, the detailed modeling is all Sim, and the "complications" like Disads and heavy GM fiat reach into Narrativism. But there's really no strict support for any of these, unlike hyper-focused RPGs such as DitV. Basically, IMO, HERO is a game where you pretty much bring your own agenda. I think it's most successful when Sim is a big part of what you want, but that's just me.

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these?

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these? I like them, but, yeah, I can understand. They often require a certain amount of "directorial stance", which I know ruins immersion for some. It's hard to reconcile deeply indentifying with your PC while at the same time saying, "It'd be so cool if he died in this scene." Still it can depend on the system. I think Burning Wheel (a Nar conflict-resolution system) encourages acting in-character and immersion, to a certain extent. But that's a whole 'nother thread...

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these? It's the difference between resolving an action and an intent. Let's assume a PC is searching a crime boss' office with the goal of finding incriminating evidence. In HERO (and GURPS, D&D, BRP, and most RPGs), you're resolving an action. Did I make my Concealment or PER roll, i.e., do a good job searching? That roll doesn't determine whether there is actually anything to be found, just whether you searched successfully or not. If there's no evidence to be found, no amount of successfull rolls will change that fact. In games with conflict resolution (e.g., Dogs in the Vineyard), the mechanics will determine whether your intent is met. A successful roll might mean that, yes, there is incriminating evidence and, yes, you found it. In some games, the degree of your success can determine how well your intent was met. A bad or failed roll in your search could mean that, no you didn't find any evidence that incriminates the crime boss, but you may have found evidence that incriminates someone else. Or even that you found the right evidence, but not before the crime boss and his thugs arrived back at the office to catch you in the act. Essentially, it's the difference between measuring performance and getting what you want. The conflict resolution systems that I've seen put a lot of narrative control in the hands of the players.

Re: Design implications and play experience - how clearly does HERO address these?

Re: Outside the HERO Box I like Bloodstone's idea. There's room for condensation; maybe not to the point of having a single "attack" power, but there's room. GURPS4 actually handles some powers very in the way we're discussing here.

Re: The interaction skills Based on a discussion I'm having on another forum, I wonder if it's mainly because most HERO players don't make use of any mechanics that are not directly combat- or Power-related.

Re: The interaction skills

Re: The interaction skills So the PC earns XP based on your assessment of the player's attempt to grow as a gamer?

Re: The interaction skills Where does it say this in the rules? Persuasion and Seduction say they are "typically" not used on PCs, but allows for their use in some circumstances, or at least their influence. Only Conversation states explicitly, "You should roleplay most conversations without using Conversatoin rolls." Which begs the question as to why the skill exists in the first place...

Re: Tell me of your Hero Point/Dramatic Editing mechanics This is what GURPS 4e does, actually. I considered it, but EPs are already pretty minimal in HERO. On top of this, I wasn't sure I liked the idea of forcing a player to choose between advancing their PC or fudging a roll. If you ever wanted to dial up the "fudge point" usage for a really wahoo game, the PCs would be screwed.

Re: The interaction skills I didn't want to derail too much into the issue of using mechanics for social interaction, but... I tend to agree with Hugh. The numbers on the sheet should mean something; it shouldn't be about who can impress the GM the most. That said, there are RPGs out there that have intricate social skill mechanics that don't impede "roleplaying" at all: e.g., the aforementioned Dying Earth, Burning Wheel's "Duel of Wits", and conflict resolution in general in Dogs in the Vineyard. As I mentioned, interaction skills and personality-related mechanics (INT, PRE) go virtually unused in our games, and, well, I don't really like that. Points spent on anything that is not combat-related are pretty much a waste. It seems like a lot of groups play this way. At least, I'd like to find out if this is so or not and see how people handle things in their games.

Re: The interaction skills The Ultimate Skill.

Re: The interaction skills

Re: The interaction skills

Re: The interaction skills I can see your point. Still, Fast Draw has an entry, and it's got just a couple paragraphs of rules, same as many of the Interaction skills. I suppose that's part of the reason for my asking: are they self-evident in use, or just rarely used?

Looking through the 130+ page 5ER faq document, I noticed that skills get about seven pages. In those seven pages, none of the questions cover any of the interaction skills (e.g., Conversation, Seduction, Acting). It's almost entirely combat-related skils, KS, and TF. Since the questions in the FAQ are (AFAIK) generally fan-submitted, it made me curious... Do you use these skills in your game? If so, how? If not, why not, and what do you do instead? My group has been playing FREd/5ER for three years now (mostly Champs), and these skills have never once come up.