Markdoc

I've run low level Wuxia games - both set in Ming era China and Sengoku era Japan and played in a modern era martial arts game (with a sort of BTiLC feel). I like these sort of games since a) everybody seems to like martial artists and it places the emphasis on what the CHARARCTERS can do, rather than on what gear they have acquired. With regard to your SciFi game: a simple premise - you have a highly advanced and probably hi-population density civilisation. You think they are going to let people wander around with firearms? On spaceships? That sounds about as smart as letting people carry firearms onto planes or cruise ships. If only the military carry much in the way of lethal weaponry, then martial arts or cyber enhancements with "useful" functions such as increased STR, etc might become the preferred way of settling things at street level, with the occasional illegal fiream thrown into the mix. That means lasers or big blades built into your forearms are probably out, but leaves plenty of other possibilities. cheers, Mark

As I understand it this is not a power you want to be able to tag onto anybody, but a bodyswap with one specific person, right? In that case, I would go with trigger and side effect, and ignore the attack aspect. The downside is that they would have to agree to accept the power: but if it is a specific NPC or another PC then that should be OK Rationale: If the King could simply move to the Castle when surrounded by Mechanons, then that's cool. If the Castle - the only person on whom you can use the power - is then dropped inthe middle of mess of Mechanons who have just been irritated by the disappearance of the meat-being - not so cool... Cheers, Mark

I use different currencies - I even have picures of many of the coins. And to add to the fun, some cultures have lots of "odd" coins minted for special occasions, or old coins that are in circulation, but no longer made. Not only does it add atmosphere, but it also allows me to throw in coins as clues. When the players search the body :-) and find a pouch full of rudely-formed gold beads instead of the expected coins, it makes the smart ones go "Hmmmm. Where did THESE come from?" As a final bonus, it allows me to strip away wealth from the PCs though the need to change strange "furrin" currency into somthing that people will accept where they are currently living. cheers, Mark

Sorry, I should have specified: these are minimum values. In general, the new encumbrance table is thought to be a bit easy on players - most of whom have high STR. There has been discussion on the boards here of a variety of alternate systems. This may well be the result of claims that the 4th Ed. table was too severe :-) My approach is to use the standard encumbrance tables, but assign the penalties I gave for armour (-1/-2/-3) as minimums. That's because armour, being worn, encumbers you less than carrying the same weight in a backpack, but it hinders your perception and flexibility and it induces fatigue (overheating) which also reduces your chances at most skills. So....I take the weight of armour into account when figuring encumbrance, but the penalty can never be LESS than that assigned for the armour unless the character buys levels to offset the penalties. Only to offset armour penalties, I rate at -1. Since the smallest level you can limit is 5 points, this means in practice 2.5 points per level. 5 point levels can be used for a group of skills, so you could use a 5 point level to (for example)prevent penalties on magical skills such as casting, detection, etc. In general, though people just buy it to offset the penalty on DCV. Nobody has ever asked, but I would allow, for example, people to buy an 8 point level for larger groups of skills (eg: only to offset combat penalties, -1) or a 10 point level to offset all penalties for amour (to justify this the character would have to practically live in armour, but that's another issue...) the rationale behind this is that players can buy positive levels in skills, PER, DCV, etc which would effectively negate the penalties anyway. "Only in armour" is a valid limitationin my game, so why not? How this works in practice: a STR 20 fighter in plate (using the standard encumbrance rules) would be at -1. Using my house rule he is at -3. However, since that -3 reflects bulk, noise made while moving and lack of flexibility, as much as weight, he can carry a crapload of stuff without any further penalty, until what he is carrying (armour + stuff) pushes him into the -4 category. In contrast, a really puny guy might be at -4 right off the bat in plate armour. In that case he gets the -4, with worse to come as he loads up on more gear :-). Short version: I use the standard encumbrance table, but assign a minimum penalty. I like this system: it's simple, and has been extensively (3 different groups, about 12 players and more than 6 years of playing time) playtested. cheers, Mark

Chris, good to see we are in agreement - at least on the Frog :-) I think the system would work. But on the whole, I would prefer to stick to a more vanilla system. In my case, I have kept the dreaded potion/scroll/item makers under control by keeping control of resources: if you need star of mercury to make a "fast-running potion" I can easily deny the potion maker the required ingedients by saying "It's cloudy tonight". Surprisingly, I have found that players actually seem to LIKE this restriction, which adds flavour to the spellcasting. Many enjoyable adventures have resulted from: "To get past the dragon, we need a big bag of sleeping powder. To make a sleeping powder, we need the bones of a lich. Where are we going to find a dead lich? Well, I can make a scrying wind spell, to try to find the bones, but for that I need a live mandrake. That's dangerous. On the other hand, I can try to make a divination with a sand rune, and for that all I need is sand, a dagger and a live person's hand. Hey Ruger, put your hand on this table after I sprinkle some sand on it..." etc Cheers, Mark

>>> Yeah I agree there should be a penalty for wearing armor, how much is the question. I laugh in the face of people who insist that you would automatically drown in chainmail. What do you think a "shark proof" suit is made out of? Nagahide?<<<< Well, if you don't take the chainmail off, or you stay in the water very long, you WILL sink: that's why you wear a bouyancy compensator if you are wearing a shark suit. Still - it was possible for a strong man to stay afloat in chain for a short period of time, just as it was true that most mailed knights who fell into deep water immediately sank and drowned (probably in part because they were weak swimmers to start with). >>I dont have a problem with _a_ line, the main problem like with every thing else in any system not based totally upon realism is _where_ the line is to be drawn.<<< Agreed. Since even what a -3 to your skill roll constitutes is open to debate, I think exactly where to draw that line will always be an issue of debate. Also, setting a general rule is by definition going to be pretty loose. To take DEX-based skills as an example, realistically, plate armour would not inhibit your Riding skill too much, it would severely reduce your climbing ability, where the ability to twist around or bend your torso and limbs is often important, and it would essentially prevent you using contortionist at all. But I have no patience to try to generate a list of all skills and match them with all armours to assign "reasonable penalties" in each case. So I go for a general rule. -1 for light armour, -2 to medium and -3 for heavy - in which these categories are defined partly by weight but also partly by bulk (Lamellar being generally lighter, but less flexible than mail, for example). I have stuck with this simplistic approach because it serves the function I want: a -2 or -3 is severe enough that it makes my players consider exactly how much armour they want for a given task. But at the same time, -3 is not so severe that they they choose to wear light armour when they are expecting a good fight - they always want the heaviest they can get. I also allow characters to buy levels to offset armour penalties, so if they are prepared to train lots (ie: spend xp.s) then they can ameliorate the problem. Works for me :-) cheers, Mark

>>>I flip-flop. If want a high fantasy campaign, I'll design one; if I want gritty low-fantasy, that's what I'll do.<<< Something I have had fun with is running games at different levels in the same fantasy game world: from games where most of the action revolved around sheep-stealing (famous quote: "I want a sword too! Why does he always get the sword, just because he's the oldest!") through mid-range games where the players were covert troubleshooters ("If you are discovered, the council will of course deny any knowledge of you existence") involved in the middle levels of political and magical intrigue.. through to a game where the players were some of the powers that move things behind the scenes: immortals who interacted with other immortals, kings and high priests ("What are you doing?" "I'm starting a religion. I figure if we help it out, it could be useful powerbase in a couple of centuries.") All good fun, although I have to admit my heart lies in the games played at lower points levels. cheers, Mark

Well, I am planning on getting it: I am a fantasy Fan and a Hero Fan. However, I am also a long time Hero GM, more than capable of making up my own stuff on the fly and I never buy stuff (any stuff) "just because". I can say straight up that I will buy FH, because if there is one thing Steve excels at, it is "compilation" volumes. I have never run a Dark Champions game, but I bought Dark Champions because it had a lot of neat "stuff" -weapons, gadgets, character ideas that could be adapted to things I DID want to run. Likewise, UMA - one of my essential gaming reference items. I expect FH to be the same - only more so, hopefully :-) cheers, Mark

>>>Not so. It would take 1 week to create the scroll. The scroll is actually not a Power in the pool<<<< Right, it's just a special effect. The power is the, well, the power (in the example, HKA) and therefore should be subject to the same limitations as the control cost. Not, as I pointed out, that it matters. It's a tiny amount of points to drop the one week deal. And no, I am not being hard of understanding :-) just indulging in a smidgen of facetiousness. I get what you are saying now: that the power is on the scroll, not a product of the pool. I have to admit any player who tried to slip that one by me would be set upon by the Dolorous Frog of Doom - especially since you can do most of this with a regular VPP. >>I'm not sure why HeroDesigner calls it 60 Active Points, unless it's adding the Pool Cost and the Control Cost together. It otherwise looks like it's done all of the math correctly.<<< 'Cos any advantages on the control cost go on the pool as well. So it is a 60 point pool as written - although as you note, the +1 is not really necessary, which drops the cost back to 30. cheers, Mark

I definately prefer "gritty fantasy" - which is strange-ish, since my fantasy world has magical artifacts of great power, flying castles, dragons, etc. But the approach is exactly that of the Elric novels: big powers and human-sized characters. As Elric and Corum show a character can be excessively powerful, but still feel "gritty" because of the issues he deals with. OK, Elric talks to gods and ancient elementals - but he walks to the next town, has to worry about where his next meal is coming from (or at least his companions do). He can make a huge difference in battle, but he doesn't always have the option of raining firey death on his enemies, like a DnD mage/orbital weapons system. I think that's where the "gritty" comes in. One of the nice things about Hero is the way it handles "low magic" settings - which in this case I use to mean settings where the PLAYERS have low magic. We have tried this with DnD and it never really worked well: 3e is a bit better in this regard, but it is still kludgy. As for the telekinetic duels, I agree. What's with that? Enough, already. The Saruman/Gandalf punch-up was one of the low points of the films so far. Although at least Saruman didn't hiss "Hah! Your kung fu is too weak!" cheers, Mark

Sorry Chris - maybe I was reading too much into a maths error: when I looked at the cost of the pool I assumed you had "houseruled" that you not pay for the +1 add, so that the pool only cost 30. But the comment about the "1 week extra time" would apply to the powers means that it would take 1 week to cast the spell off your scroll! Not very useful.... Not that it matters: if you use a VPP for this, the change in the control cost is not huge - you go from 64 real points to 68 real points if you take the one week limit off. Likewise it does not matter how much of the pool is taken up with a given spell: the trigger advantage means that once you have cast it (made the scroll or whatever) you are done - you can shift the whole pool to something else, so limitations are less important than active points. I'd drop the no skill roll required (+1) limitation, since the "creating" part of the VPP is not meant to be used for on the fly magic: a mage could easily take the time to change powers in the pool out of combat. That drops the cost of the pool back to 30 real points. cheers, Mark

Knowing nothing of the internal workings of Heromaker, I can only speculate. But Martial arts (as long as you don't buy too many maneuvers) are already pretty cheap for what you get. In previous discussions with the Hero guys, putting limitations on martial maneuvers was discussed and the general conclusion was that in general it was bad idea. So maybe that is why. As to the original suggestion, I would go for B. If the "light armour" limitation is to mean anything it has to be a limitation: giving a limitation on DEF6 means that Chainmail is "light armour" and those saved points can be used to buy combat luck giving you DEF 10 "lightly-armoured" rogues. Ugh. Instead of this approach, I prefer to enforce a DCV/skill roll/PER penalty on armor across the board.* That makes it advantageous for all characters to occasionally doff their metal skins ("Whaddaya mean, i take a penalty to my high society roll, just because I haven't taken my plate armour off for 6 days?") cheers, Mark *There are always people who bleat that armour isn't really "that" encumbering. Having both worn armour and done lots of activities (rock climbing, etc) where you carry extra weight it is pretty clear to me that it does not take much to throw your balance off - even when the weight is distributed the way armour is (sorta).

Here's what I would suggest: Scroll of Discern Alignment: Detect Alignment of all within range, Ranged, Discriminatory, 360 Degree Sensing (Base 25) Usable by other (+1/4) Trigger (read Scroll, +1/4) 38 real points OAF -1 Focus is fragile -1/4 1 Continuous Charge: 5 Minutes -3/4 Incantations to start -1/4 (Read the words) Power requires difficult, expensive or otherwise inconvenient ingredients (-1/2) Gestures to start -1/4 (Unfurl the scroll) Must have adequate light to read by -1/4 Extra Time: Full Phase -1/2 Concentration (1/2 DCV, -1/4) Real cost: 9 That's more points, but you can make as many of these scrolls as you can get ingredients and give them to your buddies. It costs you no more points. As a GM, I rule that the "ingredients" ned to be prepared/extracted/distilled for the raw materials, which takes time, to stop mages dashing off a bundle of scrolls during a lunch stop - depending on how nasty you are about this, you may want to increase the limitation for ingredients to -1. I dropped the does not work in anti-magic field limitation since (unless people can get anti-magic shields for free in your game) people normally buy these as Dispel or Suppress or something similar. I'd give no points for "does not work against powers that it would not normally work against" cheers, Mark

Since 5th Ed has legitimised naked advantages, the easiest way to do this is to allow casters to buy a "scroll-making/potion-brewing" power allowing them to add UBO and trigger to their spells. You could either do it one-spell-at-a-time or buy the "affects multiple spells of a special effect (known spells)" to have single generic skill. The mage will need to buy this up to a sufficient level to cover their biggest spell, but that's OK: in most games it would be easier to make a simple "healing-lite" potion than a "re-animate the ancient long-dead Hero" scroll anyway. An alternative idea if naked advantages offend you (and they do offend me): you could buy Aid with the "add advantages" adder, and "affects two powers of the same special effect", and use it to pump up your multi or VPP and the chosen spell, so as to include those advantages (this last part is not needed if characters buy spells outside frameworks). I agree with Archer on one thing: the independant limitation should not be used on one use items. When I read that suggestion from Hero a long while back i just thought to myself "My, that's a stupid idea" and gave it not a second thought. OTOH, I can't go with the VPP as suggested. 1. It's illegal as written (any limitations on the pool control cost must also apply to the powers: like the one week extra time). Also it should cost 60 points for the pool, since that cost cannot be limited. That doesn't mean you can't choose to use it as a GM, but I like to stick as close to the basic rules set as I can. If #1 does not move you there's 2. It's horribly open to abuse. House rules are one thing. House rules that enter the game with a big sign saying "whip me, beat me, make me write bad cheques" is quite another. If you use a VPP fpr spells, it allows you mutate your spells to include trigger and UBO anyway - no extra rules needed. If the triggered power has charges, then continuing and/or persistent is not needed, which keeps the cost down a bit. And according to The Steve, triggered powers do not take up space in your VPP or a slot in your multi: once set they are essentially cast and you can move the points elsewhere. cheers, Mark

I'd check the points on these guys (Desolid, on No. 2, for example) but to answer your question yeah, it looks like they could inflict significant harm on each other. cheers, Mark

We have opened a whole new topic here, when it comes to cultural packages! :-) I have always treated culture seperate from race and would never have contemplated putting skills in a racial package. The idea that all dwarves share the same culture when clans might live continents apart and seperated for hundreds of years is just as silly as assuming a monolithic "human cuture". Racial packages (for me) are physical/mental/magical characteristics. So if you are an elf you get the tall, skinny, slanty-eyes routine along with the magical powers and susceptibility to iron. If you are a dwarf, you get short, hairy and strong. But just because Elves have a tendency towards hairdressing and interior design and dwarves towards digging and designing Weapons of Mass Destruction, doesn't mean tat every Elf or Dwarf has those skills: they therefore do not belong in a racial package, as far as I am concerned. All that stuff belongs in cultural packages, which (in my games) is in effect a short list of everyman skills, I generate for each class and culture. Likewise, I list the available skill modifiers for cultures. So if a Dwarf is not afraid of being stereotyped, he can choose the "dwarven smith" skill modifier and buy up all the appropriate skills (weaponsmith, PS: Smith, KS: weapons and armour, etc) at 1 point off the normal cost. In other words, being immersed in a culture makes it more likely that a particular dwarf will have typically dwarvish skills. But it is not a given. Likewise, the psych lim.s greedy and vengeful are common among dwarves because in dwarvish society these are regarded as character traits, rather than flaws. But they are not universal. Cheers, Mark

If I recall correctly, Fitz generated a table which he could use to generate consistent-sounding fantasy names without them being obviously stolen from an earthly culture. I also recall a town called Soosoosoosoosoo generated using said table.... :-) cheers, Mark

Susano wrote: >>>I think I want to use your Demon Hunter X stuff make a Ninja Hero/anime monster hunter character (with the tight cheongsam and a whacking big sword-thingy).<<<< Like this? BTW, Mike, recognise the guy? cheers, Mark

Languages can add a lot to a game and SHOULD (IMO) be well worked out in advance. I went to the "trouble" of developing a laguage table for my game world showing the development of the various major languages and language groups, so I know how they all relate to one another. Note: I wrote trouble in quote marks be cause a) it was fun and it took all of oh, maybe an hour... cheers, Mark

Personally I think it's a great idea, since I have a similar idea in the works, with the first few play-months of adventures written up. My emphasis will be India/China/Europe, but you could play such a game anywhere. A couple of suggestions: When I started thinking of the campaign, I also considered a 20's setting. I shifted it back to late Victorian for some of the same reasons you mentioned: Reduced portable firepower (no tommyguns!) places more emphasis on fisticuffs, stealth and thrilling sabre duels rather than the players loading up with as much ammo as they can carry. Poorer communications and poorer maps allows me to more plausibly insert odd happenings, lost tribes, etc, and slower international communications lets me keep the players where the action is happening (no, the next steamer out of Goa doesn't arrive for 12 days...) It also lets the players get up to all sorts of shenanigans without immediately becoming front page news everywhere. cheers, Mark

I would not allow a Thief PS more than "Oh, this looks valuable..". A merchant might be able to make a better guess, as well as know what is considered valuable in the areas wher he travels or trades (for example slaves are common and cheap in Saharn, but slavery is (technically) illegal in P'nume, so they are much more expensive there and so on. For general "how much is this worth" questions, PS: Appraiser seems about right, although a character with for example KS: Wines would be able to appraise wines, and a character with PS: jeweller would be able to appraise gems, jewellery and precious metals. cheers, Mark

Amusing. My first "Gun Kata" character (from way back in the '80s) was also a priestly sort (although in his case, an enforcer for the Inquisition :-) As for the question, you've essentially already done this with the Chow-Yun Fat write-up - the same way I did Father Azreal: the ability to pump an amazing amount of bullets into people/things, with pretty much any firearm. So, a multipower with area effect, autofire, etc, for which the guns are simply a special effect. If you want a more boring UMA-style write up, then it would be CSLs, PSLs and range levels in various combinations, together with DC, to simulate the ability to hit vital spots, even with low cailbre weapons. If you can use DC to boost the damage of a knife, it seems reasonable that you can do the same with a handgun. cheers, Mark

Just the thought of getting players to buy their fief/kingdom/bakery with points in a heroic game is like fingernails on a blackboard to me. First, I'd discuss with the player in question what he wanted to do, suggest some options on how the fief could be built up. Trade? Build a market? Bring in settlers to settle the high downs? Get a warrant to build a new town? War? Take back the rich grazing land along the river that was stolen by Sir Fewmet Fizzob? Build an (illegal) keep and start taxing merchant trains passing through his desmense? Root out that annoying Locksley and his gang of bandits that have been preying on trade? etc, etc. Then I'd get your player spend his points on the things he would have needed to get his fief built up and running smoothly: a few trusty followers, some basic accounting and social interaction skills (heraldry, High society, etc), some AK: for his lands and the surrounding lands, some contacts and/or favours. If he used martial endevours instead of peaceful ones, perhaps Tactics, KS: mercenary captains, AK: Great Gloomy Forest, etc. That will give the player more flavour, the points he spends on KS: Important burghers, and AK: Neighbouring Fiefs and so on will tie him to his fief as much as spending 10 points: Base (Fief of Gruntfuttock) - and also make logical sense: by spending his time in his fief, he will "get to know" the place. As a bonus, how he choses to spend his points should generate plot hooks and also define how the player can deal with them... As for handwaving, I'd certainly draw up a bunch of maps and 1-2 line descriptions of important people in the neighbourhood. I'd also generate his fortress and the local towns. But I'd do it generically ("Here's a map of the keep. The walls are made of dressed stone"). We KNOW how much DEF and BOD stone walls have: there's no need to stat it out in advance any more than there is a need to buy "life support, does not need to eat, 1 continuous charge lasting one month, usable by up to 128 other people (siege supplies)" cheers, Mark

Me, I always hated package bonuses, so farewell and good riddance, say I. However, I do use extended skill modifiers, as already noted, which allow GM-defined castes and trades to buy lot sof appropriate skills at a reduced cost. This works well, since it encourages people to buy lots of appropriate skills and also encourages people to specialise, so notaltheplayers havehe same "useful skills" list. cheers, Mark

Sounds like you already have a good handle on it. I've played in a few low-magic/no magic games, one set during the first crusade (one of the most fun campaigns I ever played in!) another in Dark Ages England and one in medieval spain where all the characters were Franciscan monks (not only no magic, but no armour or weapons either - unless you count a small piece of cutlery for peeling fruit :-)) I've run a two year medieval Japanese game with very little magic. There's no doubt it is just as much fun as high magc games. Having said that, two decisions you should make before starting are: Will you allow "powers-as-skills" ? This allows players to build very "heroic fantasy" characters but may detract from a gritty atmosphere (it could be appropriate for a Robin Hood style game where characters display larger than life capabilities, though) and (along the same lines): How "fu-ey" do you want your martial artists to be? A limit on the amount of damage martial artists can generate might be in order, unless you want a Wuxia-style effect (and note, such an effect is perfectly suitable for a game with an Arthurian flavour) where a lone warrior in his tunic with a small piece of cutlery for peeling fruit can face down 20 armed and armoured thugs. Once you've settled on your "feel" all you need are cool adventures and those you can rip off from any heroic genre. cheers, Mark