StGrimblefig

Re: Full Metal Alchemist Each alchemist seems to focus on his own interests, but it is a pretty wide open magic system. From a game mechanics perspective, a lot of what is seen on the anime would just be special effects. There is always a lot of light and sound, but the bottom line effects tend to be a lot of transforms and energy blasts. Unfortunately, with enough time and preparation, an alchemist can do just about anything. That seems to point to a VPP. I would put the limitations that Fenixcrest suggested, but it seems that other restrictions would be useful. Something like a list of no more than X AP "spells" that just use those limitations, and anything else that has something like extra time, or something. Hm. Maybe this would work better as an EC for the spells in their "specialty," and a VPP with hefty limitations for anything else. It feels kind of artificial, but it would encourage each alchemist to develop their specialty and use it more often than the wider art. As for role playing, I like the way each alchemist has a specialty (and a name to reflect it), and has little things to help with that specialty. Like Roy Mustang (the flame alchemist), who has his gloves made with flint and steel in the fingertips, so that he can make a spark just by snapping his fingers, and a transmutation circle sewn into the back of the glove. I would strongly encourage things like this for character creation. Better yet, start the characters out as "recruits" and make them prove themselves to earn their names.

Re: Full Metal Alchemist Well, 1) is an immutable law of alchemy, as I understand it in the anime. You simply cannot do transmutation without following it. Ed and Al find this out the hard way at the beginning ofthe series. 2) and 3) are more like ethical rules. You will see later in the series that both of these are broken by people they meet. Although, both are very hard to do correctly (and/or permanently) without using the Philosopher's Stone. Also,you might add that most people need a transmutation circle to perform alchemy. I remember seein an early episode where Ed scribbles one on the side of a train engine to create a small cannon to knock a badguy of the train.

Re: Aldaric Gaming Presents: The Illuminati Are you explicitly avoiding the "historical" Illuminati? Their name was, iirc: the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria. I can understand why you would want to avoid any of the group names used in fiction or in other games (e.g. SJGs "Illuminati" card games). However, for thematic ideas, you really should read the "50 Awful Things About the Illuminati" (if you haven't already). A copy of GURPS Illuminati couldn't hurt either -- don't worry, there is a minimum of GURPS-specific mechanics, and a wealth of conspiracy information. Perhaps two or more of these groups claim to be descendents of the "historical" Illuminati, and call the others pretenders. That would give them something other than pure ideology to fight about.

Re: No Levels for Familiarities I have always been of the opinion that Familiarity rolls should be for information only, unless the player can explain to my satisfaction that having heard or read about combat piloting techniques (e.g. at a party or in a magazine) gives him any real ability in a cockpit. A Familirity is not a skill. If you want to really do what the skill includes, buy the skill. Given that, it does not make sense to allow skill levels to apply.

Re: THE ULTIMATE METAMORPH -- What Do *You* Want To See? Of course, there are also interesting but more limited kinds of shapechanging, such as the "mentalist" form of shape change that fools people and animals, but not cameras. Best used for NPC villains, but interesting nonetheless.

Re: Broad category skills So, is this intended to replace the PS and KS, or is this more of an open-ended Familiarity? Personally, I would allow most of the things you mention for a character that had bought both PS and KS for Military Combat Pilot. But then, I tend to see the PS especially as a pretty broad skill, with some implied "related familiarities" that go along with it. Note that those would generally be for information only -- if the character actually wants to be able to do something in one of those related areas, they need to buy the appropriate skill. By that I mean that perhaps the character has helped do some basic maintenance on his arcraft, and has had some classes on what does what in the engine, but he has never had to actually do that work on a regular basis, so he does not have the experience to do anything that would require a skill roll to perform. Even then, PS and KS seem a little bit inexpensive for this broad of a usage. For the example given, I would probably require that the player be more specific than Military Combat Pilot. Since I know that those pilots in real life train extensively to learn the ins and outs of the specific model of aircraft that they will be piloting, I would probably rule that they would have to buy those for one model of aircraft (e.g. PS:F-15E Pilot & KS:F-15E Pilot), and if they wanted that level of proficiency in the F-22, they would have to buy that skill separately. And, as you said, skills are more directly applicable to combat, like Combat Pilot or Gunnery, would have to be purchased separately.

Re: THE ULTIMATE METAMORPH -- What Do *You* Want To See? How about a compare & contrast of the different means by which a metamorph achieves the change in forms? Including a discussion of the implications and minor effects of using Multiform vs. Shape Shift vs. Images vs. ???

Re: The Forumverse name game Elias Ezekiel Edwards never believed in magic -- sure, he watched David Copperfield and Penn & Teller and was entertained, but he never believed in it. He knew it was all misdirection and social engineering intended to hide the very mundane manipulations of the "magician." So it was with some skepticism that he agreed to go on the blind date with this woman named Samantha who claimed to be a "witch." From the instant that they met, however, they both knew that there was a special connection between them. Was it Love at first sight? No, more like two halves of one soul, who were never intended to be parted one from the other, who had simply never met before. Their romance was the stuff of legends (or at least Lifetime network movies). Through it all, he learned more about her witchcraft, although he remained skeptical. Sam claimed that he had considerable power himself, if he chose to use it. She taught him how to do a simple trick: making oneself more noticable to cab drivers through witchcraft. Whenever he used it, a taxi would pull over within a couple of seconds (when he was in the city, on a busy street, etc). He still didn't believe it was anything more than luck, but he used it because it made Sam happy. After three years of bliss, Elias began thinking about marrying the woman who consumed his every waking thought. He resolved to ask her one evening at dinner. He made reservations at a nice restaurant and bought a ring (not necessarily in that order). Just before he could ask, however, a disturbance erupted in the restaurant. A group of robed individuals pushed through the crowd to their table and surrounded Samantha. They mumbled something about her escaping and her punishment, then grabbed her and moved to leave the restaurant. Elias stood and yelled in protest -- How dare they? One of the robed kidnappers pointed a stick of some kind at him and spoke a few unintelligible syllables. Elias vaguely remembered a defensive hand gesture that Sam had tried to teach him once, which he perfomed badly. The pain was incredible, but it did not kill him. When he awoke a few moments later, the kidnappers were gone. He grabbed Sam's purse and ran to the nearest Police station. They were no help, except to identify the kidnappers as part of a cult that called themselves DEMON. Searching through Sam's purse, he found a card for an associate of Sam's that specialized in magic. He called this person for help about Sam's past and how he could rescue her from this cult. After several months of intense training, Elias emerged with a new outlook on magic and a mission: to tear through the ranks of DEMON until he found the woman he loved. But he could not go hunting for her as Elias Edwards. They would find him too easily and thwart his campaign. He needed a new name, one that kept hidden what he was and would be a focus for the fear that he would cultivate in his foes. Thus was born the magnificaent, mystical, masked marauder -- Mister E!

Re: Hex Grids/Maps I use a small program called "Graph Paper Printer" to create hex maps. I use version 4.20, which says in its 'about' dialog that it is "free and unlimited." It is a small (~750K) application that can print a variety of types and shapes of grids (and even music notation sheets) in any custom size you care to define. Of course I just checked the developer's web site (http://www.marquis-soft.com/), and the newest version (5.4.0.2) is shareware, requiring a $20 license to print anything but rectangular grids. I think I'll stick with the free version.

Re: Stretching A Core System: Part Deux The first thing that will have to be agreed upon is specifically what belongs at each level. Otherwise, the vocabulary breaks down when different people understand the same concept to exist at different levels, and the whole thing devolves into semantics arguments. I'm sure that there will be some spirited debates on that subject. But it is necessary to establish a truly common vocabulary upon which to build a dialog. Then you can be sure that when you disagree, you are disagreeing about the same thing.

Re: Stretching A Core System: Part Deux Those of us who are in engineering or scientific fields are more used to it than others, I'm sure. In terms of games, the CCG industry has moved more toward this than most others. The early MtG cards had some rules issues because they varied the wording enough to create ambiguity, which the rules lawyers used to their advantage. They learned over time to always word the same effect the same way, and eventually this led to increased use of keywords. HERO is a complex game, especially when viewed as a "game construction toolkit." It would be a good thing to create a common vocabulary specifically for use in discussing issues of game design using this toolkit. The section in FREd (sorry, I do not have reFREd yet, so I cannot comment on it) is a beginning, but it can and should be expanded upon here in this community.

Re: How far to stretch a core system?

Re: How far to stretch a core system? I both agree and disagree. I am open to adding new powers if they truly are needed to include an effect that is not provided by an existing power. I always go back to the old "reasoning from effects" guideline. Once you figure out what the net effect is in game terms, then decide if you can or cannot do it with an existing power. New powers are always very difficult to balance with and against the existing powers. It may take years to get it balanced correctly, during which many players (read "customers") will be unhappy with what the designers are "doing to the game." It will likely drive away as many players as the new power would attract (at least temporarily). I can understand why DOJ is reluctant to go through that. I have not seen any of the discussion on Invulnerability, so I cannot comment on that. That being said, I have two problems with the poison example you gave. First, just because some people think it is a "pain in the butt" does not make it wrong. I know that sounds more harsh than I meant it -- I don't mean that as a personal attack. I just mean that we all have our own personal level of comfort with the "abstract design" aspect of the system as a whole, and some things are going to go deeper into that aspect than others. Poisons are complex things. Animal venoms took millions of years to evolve into what they are. Manmade chemicals took hundreds of years, and the work of some very smart people to get them to the point where they are relatively easy to use. A kind-hearted GM might remove some of the work and abstract it down to a scalable build, so that a player merely needs to buy a "3d6 Paralyze Poison" at a cost of, say 4pts per d6 (note: I have not done the math on this, so please don't nitpick the build). That still uses the printed rules, without forcing the players to do all that math by themselves. Second, a single power for "Poison" seems too narrow to me. There are many different substances that are collectively called poisons, and they have vastly different effects. Some of them work on the neuro-muscular systems to immobilize a target. Some of them work directly against other body systems to stop those systems from working (some fatally, some not). Some prevent the blood from clotting, making wounds bleed longer and/or heal slower. Others just destroy body structures from within. How can you fit all of that into one power? And all of those effects already are represented by existing powers. There is a fuzzy line between "poison" and "drug" here as well. I realize that some of the examples that I give above could be argued to be drugs as opposed to poisons. But just about any substance could become a poison if taken in sufficient quantity. I feel I must take issue with one statement that you make. My problem is that this is the real power and elegance of the HERO system. Everything CAN be built with the existing powers. They have created a set of simple, balanced effects that cover a wide range of abilities, and provided the tools to customize those effects to fit just about anything you want a character to do. There is not a need to invent new powers in every new genre book or suppliment. If you continue to add new powers, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep them all balanced. Alternately, the newest powers become the latest "silver bullet" that all the powergamers must have to remain "competitive." Urk, this is getting longer than I wanted it to. And more argumentative.

Re: How far to stretch a core system? I really like the 'tiered' system. It captures in a compact, understandable form much of the discussion that has transpired. To apply this to a licensed product (as I believe the OP was talking about), you would need concise "marketing friendly" names for each tier. Something like: a HERO System Suppliment (probably reserved for things that DOJ publishes) a HERO System game Based on the HERO System Built with the HERO System toolkit (yes, I am an engineer. thank you for noticing) Of course, a GM may do whatever he wants in his own game. That has always been the case. Go ahead. Mix rules from HERO, CoC, Deadlands and D20 into one game if you wish -- if it works for you, then more power to you. Even if some people might think you have "broken" the system. But to publish a game variant, you need approval (i.e. licensing) from the owners of the mechanics that you are using. I do not think that DOJ has ever mentioned creating this kind of licensing strategy (or even that there was a demand for it), but this discussion is a good place to start.

Re: Crazy Idea to Remove the Math You made the same mistake that I did earlier. You do not take a single equation for the whole thing. What you need to do is sum up the modifiers first, so Mod = (-1) + (-½) = -1½ Now, since Mod is negative, you use the normal Limitations equation from FREd/ReFREd/SK (removing the negative from Mod): Real Cost = Base / (1 + Mod) = 30 / (1 + 1½) = 30 / 2½ = 12 pts Had Mod been greater than zero, you would use the Advantage equation as you did. If Mod comes out to zero, then there is no change from the base cost.

Re: Crazy Idea to Remove the Math Ah. Yes, I misinterpreted that. So, to make it clear for anyone else who is as thick-headed as I am: You EITHER multply OR divide depending upon whether the result is positive or negative, and a zero is no advantage/no limitation. Do I have it correct? I was trying to oversimplify it down to a single equation.

Re: Crazy Idea to Remove the Math Unfortunately there is a problem with the math. What happens when the limitations are equal to or greater than one plus the advantages? Given the formula that you suggested: Real Pts = Base Pts x (1 + Adv - Lim) if for example, you have +¼ in advantages and -1¼ in limitations this becomes: Real Pts = Base Pts x (1 + ¼ - 1¼) Real Pts = Base Pts x 0 Wow! Free Powers! It gets even more fun if the limitations are greater: Real Pts = Base Pts x (1 + ¼ - 1½) Real Pts = Base Pts x (-¼) Now I get free points for taking the power. For reference, here are a couple tables I created (using a spreadsheet -- I'm not THAT geeky) using a base cost of 100. The first one is the standard Fred cost structure, Real = (Base x (1+Adv)) / (1+Lim) : Limitations 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 A 0.25 100.00 83.33 71.43 62.50 55.56 50.00 45.45 41.67 38.46 35.71 33.33 31.25 29.41 27.78 26.32 25.00 d 0.50 120.00 100.00 85.71 75.00 66.67 60.00 54.55 50.00 46.15 42.86 40.00 37.50 35.29 33.33 31.58 30.00 v 0.75 140.00 116.67 100.00 87.50 77.78 70.00 63.64 58.33 53.85 50.00 46.67 43.75 41.18 38.89 36.84 35.00 a 1.00 160.00 133.33 114.29 100.00 88.89 80.00 72.73 66.67 61.54 57.14 53.33 50.00 47.06 44.44 42.11 40.00 n 1.25 180.00 150.00 128.57 112.50 100.00 90.00 81.82 75.00 69.23 64.29 60.00 56.25 52.94 50.00 47.37 45.00 t 1.50 200.00 166.67 142.86 125.00 111.11 100.00 90.91 83.33 76.92 71.43 66.67 62.50 58.82 55.56 52.63 50.00 a 1.75 220.00 183.33 157.14 137.50 122.22 110.00 100.00 91.67 84.62 78.57 73.33 68.75 64.71 61.11 57.89 55.00 g 2.00 240.00 200.00 171.43 150.00 133.33 120.00 109.09 100.00 92.31 85.71 80.00 75.00 70.59 66.67 63.16 60.00 e 2.25 260.00 216.67 185.71 162.50 144.44 130.00 118.18 108.33 100.00 92.86 86.67 81.25 76.47 72.22 68.42 65.00 s 2.50 280.00 233.33 200.00 175.00 155.56 140.00 127.27 116.67 107.69 100.00 93.33 87.50 82.35 77.78 73.68 70.00 2.75 300.00 250.00 214.29 187.50 166.67 150.00 136.36 125.00 115.38 107.14 100.00 93.75 88.24 83.33 78.95 75.00 3.00 320.00 266.67 228.57 200.00 177.78 160.00 145.45 133.33 123.08 114.29 106.67 100.00 94.12 88.89 84.21 80.00 3.25 340.00 283.33 242.86 212.50 188.89 170.00 154.55 141.67 130.77 121.43 113.33 106.25 100.00 94.44 89.47 85.00 3.50 360.00 300.00 257.14 225.00 200.00 180.00 163.64 150.00 138.46 128.57 120.00 112.50 105.88 100.00 94.74 90.00 3.75 380.00 316.67 271.43 237.50 211.11 190.00 172.73 158.33 146.15 135.71 126.67 118.75 111.76 105.56 100.00 95.00 4.00 400.00 333.33 285.71 250.00 222.22 200.00 181.82 166.67 153.85 142.86 133.33 125.00 117.65 111.11 105.26 100.00 The second is the simplified scheme proposed above, Real = Base x (1 + Adv - Lim) : Limitations 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 A 0.25 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00 -175.00 -200.00 -225.00 -250.00 -275.00 d 0.50 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00 -175.00 -200.00 -225.00 -250.00 v 0.75 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00 -175.00 -200.00 -225.00 a 1.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00 -175.00 -200.00 n 1.25 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00 -175.00 t 1.50 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00 a 1.75 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 g 2.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 e 2.25 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 s 2.50 325.00 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 2.75 350.00 325.00 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 3.00 375.00 350.00 325.00 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 3.25 400.00 375.00 350.00 325.00 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 3.50 425.00 400.00 375.00 350.00 325.00 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 3.75 450.00 425.00 400.00 375.00 350.00 325.00 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 4.00 475.00 450.00 425.00 400.00 375.00 350.00 325.00 300.00 275.00 250.00 225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 Notice how the simplified calculations diverge more from the original the father you get away from the diagonal.

Re: Delete me please

Re: The Ultimate Trap Contest LOL! I loved that one! Those books are an invaluable source of inspiration. I especially appreciated the fact that they were not written with any specific system in mind, so the book wasn't cluttered with a lot of data that I couldn't use. btw, Didn't I read recently that there is a new Grimtooth's book coming out soon? UPDATE: Yes, there is a new book. Well, it's not really new, since it is just the "best" from the previous books. And, much to my disappointment, the traps are now "redesigned for the D20 System." If you are still interested, you can find out more here

Re: Fate systems First off, I would agree that 10pts/session seems like a lot. I don't think John McClane used that many points in Die Hard (let's see ... jumping off a building with a fire hose tied around your waist, that's 1 ...). Second, it seems like your players have trouble budgeting their expeditures -- I wonder if they have the same trouble with their money? Third, Remind the players that the Characters don't know how much fate/good karma/etc they have available, so they should not change their behavior because of a game mechanic. As for practical suggestions: I can think of two: 1) Hide the actual number of points that a character has available, and only let them know if they have enough to do what they want to do when they try to use them. That forces the players to play their characters like the third point, above. However, that feels too much like a GM just fudging things for dramatic effect, which you could do without a set of Fate rules. 2) Only give out points for "acting in character" -- that is, the character behaving as defined in their background and/or as defined by their Psych Lims. If a character is defined as having a bipolar disorder, then alternately behaving invincable and useless may be appropriate, but otherwise it is out of character behavior, and earns no points. Alternately, you could make the points less effective (or require an EGO roll to use them) if they are used in out of character activities.

Re: Baking your noodle

Re: Enterprise vs. Enterprise You make a good point, but you forgot the biggest continuity hole ever created in any ST series: Wesley Crusher. Depending upon what point in the series the encounter happens, Mr. Crusher is somewhere between "misunderstood boy genius who understands astrophysics and the ship better than any adult on it" and "angsty misunderstood galaxy-hopping traveller that can transcend time and space on a whim." He can think in directions that Data and Spock cannot even imagine, reverse the polarity of anything on the ship -- ANYTHING -- and make all of the adults around him look like close-minded, age-bigoted dolts without even trying. If Wesley is available (or can be called upon -- he did make it to Riker and Deanna's wedding, although where they sent the invitation I'll never know), then the D wins by continuity overtrump. DISCLAIMER: This is talking about the character of Wesley Crusher as written in the series, not the actor that played him. I have nothing against Wil Wheaton. I read WWDN, too.

Re: Enterprise vs. Enterprise Yes, you are correct. The word "and" kind of gives it away. Maybe they could come up with a way that it didn't sound like two wishes. Like if they used that one language from that one planet where they only spoke in references to past events ("{name} and Picard at Tenagra" -- or something like that). Sadly, I am not nearly geeky enough to remember episode numbers or stardates. Between Spock and Data (and Barkley and a Holodeck program of Mark Okrand), I bet they could come up with something.

Re: Enterprise vs. Enterprise

Re: New To Hero: Character Advancement It is on page 81 in Sidekick (near the bottom of the left column), and yes, it is easy to miss. It takes up less than half of one column on the page, including the table.