Markdoc

FWIW, I agree with your points (though I think you were a bit sharp with Keith :-) ) I can see his point with the "pay for what you get" argument, even I don't feel it is the best approach for many fantasy games. So I have been using "tweaked NCM" for years, and it works fine for what I want. It encourages but does not force stereotypes. I am careful to balance off tweaked NCM so that the points come to 0 overall, which may be one reason that I have never had a problem with it. The other reason that I have perhaps never had a reason is that I prefer to run long term games that can run for years: limiting your options in such a game really IS a limitation, as I have seen. So I have to admit to having no patience at all to the "it's not really limiting" argument, since it is just as true of Age, the bonus you get from EC and many other aspects of Hero system. Limiting your options seems to be a valid form of limitation. cheers, Mark

Actually, Phil, I don't think iyt was you that ws called narrow-minded, but people who just blew the whole thing off. Personally, while not helpful, I'd describe that as (too) broad-minded rather than narrow-minded, but that's just me. On the issue of NCM, I think we have now officially reached the end of the thread, since both sides seem to be saying the same thing, but drawing different conclusions from it :-) On weapon STR min, here's what I do: ================================ STR Min is calculated using Active Pts/2. OCV Mods, whether positive or negative, do NOT figure in. Stretching DOES figure in. HAs are calculated at 5 pts active each, not 3, to make calculation standard at 5 pts per Damage Class. Finally, Two-handed melee weapons get an automatic -5 STR Min; 1.5H weapons have two STR Mins listed (one for one-handed fighting, the other for two-handed). The STR Min for a normal weapon used two-handed is -3 STR Min. Weapons that are +1 Stun or AP use their active points for calculating STR Min; ones that are -1 Stun have their STR Min calculated as if they were -1 DC from their listed damage. STR Min for Autofire throwing of weapons is based upon their active point cost, same as with +1 Stun weapons. However, these weapons have two STR Min listed: one for single shot, and one for autofire use. ================================ The details, rationale, etc are posted here: http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/Sengoku/weapons.html as well as a credit to the guy who did most of the work :-) This system works fine: it gives most weapons STR mins in the7-12 range meaning most people can use normal weapons wihout penalties due to STR problems, it's simple, and it has not led to problems (in several years of play) with the ability to add damage to an attack. cheers, Mark

>>>Basically magic is tapped from the AEthereal plane, and that requires a certain degree of talent. Once being able to tap the AEthereal plane, mages basically allow the energy to flow through them and they manipulate it to do what they want. However, some spells are so complex they require study and experimentation in addition to lots of time to cast (these would be spell that could banish a demon, scry the location of a magic item, etc...).<<< OK, so it's clearly a VPP. See? That was easy. :-) However, some of the effects you might want spellcasters to do will probably run outside the active point limits you have set and the size of the pool Heroic characters can afford. So... here's a suggestion. Allow casters to buy a VPP (up to 30 points) for their spells. That makes them flexible, but keeps them within the active point limit you want. Within that limit they can do all sorts of cool magic stuff. Also allow them (but don't require them) to buy one - and only one - magical power outside the pool: Aid: to any magical power (+2), two powers at once (+1/4 : I think, I don't have FREd to hand), and Trigger (+1/2 (?): cast ritual spell). Make it require a difficult skill roll (-1 per 5 points) and I would be inclined to give it some kind of side effect as well. Allow people to buy up the maximum amount you can aid. I'd call it "Ritual" The way this works is: you can perform a ritual in advance of a specific spellcasting. use the Aid to boost up both your VPP and the specific spell you wish to enhance. That lets you pump more than 30 active points into any given spell, but it would take you quite a while to pump it up to any great level, and you would have to either have a really good Ritual skill, or spend lots of extra time to make sure you could do so reliably (and maybe use props or their sorcerous library to get the tools/conditions bonus to their skill roll). It will let PCs/NPCs make up impressive one-shot spells, without letting players "turn them on" easily during an adventure. It gives them a reason to spend lots of time studying and/or preparing a specific spell. At the same time a hgh degree of ritual skill will distinguish the "real mage" from a dillettante. Cheers, Mark

>>>A "Long Time Ago"<<< In a gaming system far, far away....

Actually I'd suggest you ignore all the previous posts Seriously, though, you are going at this backwards. Decide how YOU want magic to work in the game: on a practical level, not game mechanics-wise. If magic is really hard to learn and mages keep libraries with big books of spells, with specific names (like Erveton's Whirling Eviscerator), which they study endlessly, then either buying spells straight or a multipower is probably the way to go, depending on how powerful/flexible you want Mages to be. A VPP with "only change spells in Library", works the same way, but swaps out a little raw power for flexibility If Mages are Dr. Strange types, who can wave their fingers and do all kinds of "mystic stuff" then VPP is more appropriate. But first, I'd decide where magic comes from, if there are different sorts, what effects it has on the caster, if any, if a glance is enough to trigger it, or you have to chant and shake your booty - all the non-rules stuff. Once you have that down, the rest pretty much follows automatically. To take some examples off the top of my head, a decadent Sorceror from san Francisco who practices tantric magic might have a multipower of "biomagic" (Mind control and metal illusion spells, the ability to augment himself physically, etc) running off an END battery that only recharges when he, umm, when he.. you know, withholds his Kundalini. A medium from New York might have no other spells than "Summon Spirit (Friendly, large group)", so she can buy it straight, limited, by concentration, incantations ("Are you there, Attilla?") A bayou sorceror from Louisiana probably practices some kind of bastard mixture of Voodoo. Or you could decide that all these guys are charalatans and that there is really only one way to practice real magic, which is.... up to you. Cheers, Mark

>>>well, at 4 pounds, the "warbrand" is heavier than most real bastard swords.<<< Ahhh, such confidence :-) Having spent some time recently at the royal military museum here in Copenhagen, hefting the *real* things, I should point out that the modern replicas made for cutting tameshigiri have significantly lighter blades and hilts than (some, at least) real made-for-killing-armoured-folks blades. There is, of course a great deal of variation in the "real thing". 4 pounds is at the heavy end of the scale, but it is not completely unreasonable. cheers, Mark

I'd go with the human aspect for a start: more suspenseful. As pointed out, you can set the players up with a choice later on - become vampires, or remain human? One possibility is to force the choice on them by having them "vampirized" later in the game: if you are inspired by the WW setting, starting vampires can be a bit weedy compared to older versions, so some tension remains. Finally, I always go for the susceptibility thing: crosses are potent against vampires because they are vampires - to a human or a werewolf, they're just two bits of wood. Cheers, Mark

heh. I think we have taken this thread as far as we can. Tesuji's position (which I obviously disagree with, but which at least he has stated clearly and politely) is that you can easily customise DnD if you want to run other than the standard settings with the standard classes. Having tried it, I can only emphatically disagree. Once you start changing classes about, the very basic examples given in 3e carry you only a very, very short distance. It's only possible to make significant changes to the basic rules without destroying your game if you have: a) a really comprehensive knowledge of the rules, a good understanding of the largely unwritten and poorly defined metarules behind the system and c) a really nice, understanding group of players. I've watched enough DnD campiagns melt down under attempts to mutate the basic system, to see that this is a very common problem. It can be done - I've done it myself when I ran DnD games. But it has NEVER been as simple as with Hero which provides guidelines for doing precisely that. And that's it really. It's the reason I shifted from Gm'ing DnD to GM'ing Hero. It's not that I don't appreciate having stuff done for me - I experienced a flicker of interest when 3e came out - that died once I got the rulesbooks and realised what would be involved in doing anything I wanted with them (doesn't mean DnD modules aren't full of ideas to plunder, of course). As for the comment on detail: one of my own game worlds (for an asian fantasy game) is up on the web, so you can check for yourself. In comparison, I'd be mortally embarrassed to have a piece of lort like "Oriental Adventures" purporting to be an asian fantasy setting with my name on it.... cheers, Mark

>>> Why wouldn't a three year old who is in fact an abandoned fey son of a ruling effreti hidden away in the world who can throw fireballs not even worth considering in a fantasy world populated by dragons... but Mongo throwing fireballs without a day of magical training is FUN and COOL?<<< Well, if Mongo is possessed by a destructive fire spirit, why not? And in my case, the Fireball-casting swordsman had a background (of course) that explained why and how. But you seem to be intent on making my point for me! Either of the options you mention above above would be OK and easy to model in Hero: neither would be even possible in DnD without wreaking havoc on the system. You are confusing world design with game design. Should Fantasy worlds have their own internal logic? For me that goes without saying, whether you are playing Hero system, DnD or Teenagers from Outer Space. Does DnD have more internal consistency than Hero? HELL, no! I have played in plenty of DnD worlds where logic and consistency went out the window (Day-glo pink mummies with bowler hats and spats, riding on flying sharks, is one example from a DnD game that springs to mind - and actually a pretty cool game, too.) Is UnderEarth (DnD) more logical than Western Shores (Hero?). Of course not. Both are settings, not game systems. This is why in the example you cited (the dangerous three year-old) I said 3 year-olds do not NORMALLY throw fireballs: because of course I could envisage situations (such as the one you posted) where it COULD happen. But that's as true in DnD as Hero (see Day-Glo pink mummies, above). You are making the (mistaken) assumption that because many possibilities are easily modelled in Hero system that all possibilities must be considered, which of course is nonsense. The possibilities available are defined by the setting and the setting needs to be discussed between players and GM before starting off. I think where the confusion arises is that DnD presupposes a setting - with rangers and clerics, thieves and fighters, where magic works thus and so, and adventurers look thus and so. Doesn't matter if the background setting is GreyHawk or Magical Knight RayEarth, if you use the standard DnD rules, then the game could be set in the same universe. It IS reasonably balanced (no argument there), simply because it is predesigned. I am converting Runequest to Hero system right now and when I have finished I will have a 6-8 page document that I can give to my players in the full expectation of being able to say "here are the world guidleines, make up a character" - and then take it from there. Due to the beauty of the Hero metasystem, I know that will also provide reasonably balanced characters. That document says nothing about spell-casting three year-olds either :-) cheers, Mark

>>>Now, a player will likely gain points for CHARs which will never be limited by the reduced caps.<<<< Presumably then you would never let a character purchase the Age limitation, which acts in exactly the same way? I assume you also don't use skill modifiers such as Scholar which gives the character free points if he buys lots of skills? I'm being facetious, of course - simply pointing out that yes, if you take this approach then players who conform will gain a small cost benefit - and that this is precisely the point. >>>>In its defense, though, this nicely enforces the purpose of racial packages in that it shows a 'standard' for the race. Point-wise, you save points by developing skills which fall within your NCMs. You should not see a ton of Ogre scholars and I think this method works rather well for that.<<<<< You have stated it succintly, my dear sir. >>>>Now, in the case of a person who works up an interesting, creative, and in depth background (not just overly complex or munchkiny), I would suggest this is just handled by awarding extra CPs<<<< Ah but this, I wish to avoid at all costs. I am a practical GM. I like to make my life as easy as possible. I have seen all too many character concepts that are clearly beloved of their inventors which to me smell strongly of Gorganzola - and to be fair, I have had GMs reject what I felt were very interesting and fun character concepts. I have seen at least one high-quality game implode over this very issue. As a GM, I am confident of my ability to skim a character sheet and note what is legal, what is not and what is questionable. I am not confident that I can always and fairly rule what is "a good concept" - nor frankly, do I want to. Indeed, in my last long-runing game, the character that I thought had the highest dairy content turned out in play to be one of the most fun, and altered the game in ways that I had not anticipated. Ya just can't tell.... I have also noticed that some players will generate highly detailed backgrounds with glee, while others hate that aspect. You can force adherence to the rules: you cannot force creativity and attempts to get the players to make the characters that you would like to see as a GM just foster resentment. >>>Oh, also, as far as CHARs bought as powers and the effect on NCM, I find this concept to be sheer crap and pointless, other than encouraging people to make up annoying & cheesy ideas. Suck down some math, and have em adhere to the NCM caps...<<< Amen, brother! piously, Mark

Hmmm. It's funny, but in way, Tesuji emphasises exactly the point that made the original poster rant. He's describingthe way things are in DnD and saying "Now isn't this more logical?" The answer of course, is no. That's the way things work in DnD. Should you build a character with the fireball spell and spend the rest on Fighter skills? Well, dammit, that's not the DnD way. But in fact, I DID play a very similar character in Hero system (a very few attack-type fire spells, a big two-handed sword and an attitude) and he was both fun to play and (gasp) well-balanced with the rest of the party. Hero is a metasystem - it is far easier to generate the world (or character) you want than with DnD. Lord knows I have tried both and I have witnessed the attempts of others to do the same. The price you pay is more metagaming jargon upfront. Yes, you can customise DnD (I always did, when I GM'ed it routinely). The 'orrible prestige classes you wisely avoid show how even the game designers often do a poor job of it. All this stuff about three-year olds is largely a red herring. No, in my game world 3-year olds do not routinely have the fireball power. I do not inform my players of this. In my game world, horses generally have 4 legs on the bottom and the head is normally at the end designated "front". I do not inform them of this, either - or even of the fact that cows use a variant of the basic horse rules, with the addition of an HKA. :-) None of which has much to do with game world design: I WOULD inform them if any of these things were significantly different. When I ran a 3e game recently, I told the players "Make up 4th level characters, standard rules, no prestige classes, you can each choose one magic item from this list - oh, and you better have at least one cleric." Simple, easy, we all know we are on the same page. When I ran a Hero sytem game recently I said "Make up 200 point characters suitable for the WH40K Inquisitor universe, equipment has to be paid for". Simple, easy, we all know we are on the same page. Both games worked fine. cheers, Mark

I agree with Shrike. And I speak from experience here because when we started using Hero system for fantasy games, FH was still far in the future. So we played "champions-style". If you wanted to keep a magic item you found you had to pay for it. Hell, if you wanted to use a normal sword you had to pay for it. It was just too wierd. You get situations like: the party is attacked by zombies. Player1 "Hey, where's that incredibly powerful mace of undead-slaying we took from the high priest a couple of weeks ago?" Player2 "Oh, we left it at the inn. Or it melted. Maybe the cat got it...." Or in other heroic genres: "OK, officer, handcuff him to the railing." "But I don't have any handcuffs. Do you know how many points those are? They only issue handcuffs to really powerful officers." Seriously though, most people now assume that you can come by mundane items for free, but in the appropriate fashion. PC Plod can get handcuffs for free in a dark champions game, but Ortan the Magnificent cannot in a FH game. PC Plod can't get a flaming sword at any price, but Ortan can. But - remember the use of the word appropriate - he can't normally go to Bob's Swords and Cutlery for it: he'll have to cross the Desert of Doom, scale the Peaks of Peril and trade concepts of physical injury with whoever currently owns it. The conceptual leap most people cannot seem to make is that magic items ARE MUNDANE IN A FANTASY WORLD. Sure, someone normally has to pay points to make them in the first place, but if the Sword of Mighty Hacking was crafted by the long-vanished Ducklords of Preen, then to all intents and purposes those are simply free points from nowhere - the same as the ones that haul the sun across the sky or for that matter created the sun long ago. Cheers, Mark

I don't think you can have a "representative" deity - even the brief number of postings here show a wide range of extremes, from the "essential deity powers" list - most of which were absent from deities in classical religions - through to the "giant cosmic power pool" comments which have more to do with the monotheistic pantheons with all-seeing, all-powerful gods, fashionable today. To take a simple example, that everyone loves: old Norse hammer-thunder god. Giant Cosmic power pool? Not in the comics, and not in the classical legends either. Essential "deity" checklist:? 1. Full Life Support? Nope, he had to breathe and could be driven out of a long house by choking smoke. 2. Universal Translator? Hard to say - everybody in the classical legends speaks Norse :-) 3. Extra Dimensional Movement? Yes - the world tree pretty explicity includes normal and not-normal places. 4. Regen from Death. Nope. Thor had an appointed day of death (but then, so did everybody in Norse mythology), but when he was dead, he was dead. 5. Clairsentience, and special detects? None described. His senses seem to be entirely human. 6. teleport without error, probably global range? Definately not. When Thor wanted to go somewhere, he walked, rode or took a boat. 7. heightened stats--superhuman for greater deities. Well, we know he was really strong, and possibly had a high DEX. The stories also suggest high CON and probably a pretty good PD/ED as well. But his INT score does not seem to have been enormous and he could be outrun by a human, so his move - and probably his SPD - can't have been that high. 8. "portfolio"/domain skills at superhuman levels? Again, maybe he was really good at things which are not described in the legends, but in general he seems to have spent most of his points on STR and CSL :-) 9. some kind of mechanism for granting spells. This is more game mechanic than legend stuff, so, yeah, why the hell not. 10. shapeshift? Nope. 11. spot defense? Not sure what this is... 12. a vari-pool(or two)? This is possible. Thor could do things no-one else could do (drink the sea down a couple of inches, shift the Midgard serpent, kill things real good) but there are many things he could not do (fly, turn invisible, run on water, etc). So maybe a pool for STR feats... I picked Thor because everybody is familiar with him, but pick any classical god (Susanoo, Ares, Diana of Ephesus, whatever) and you will find a similar portfolio of limited powers. I'd agree with SteveL 100% on this. Just define your gods as you want them. Stat out powers if you want, but really, Gods are as campiagn specific as the geography of your world and about as easily transferrable. In may game, if a real god actually entered play (not gonna happen) and was offended by a PC, the response would probably be: "The deity thinks the world into a form in which neither, you, your companions or any of their families have ever existed. New characters, everyone". So I don't really need any stat.s :-) OTOH, I have had demi-gods/heroes/immortals enter play, and for them I can quite often just swipe a published hero or supervillian and change their outfit - 250 to 350 points is plenty in most fantasy mileus to embarrass the pleb.s. cheers, Mark

>>>Now, if you wanted to make it more of a racial characteristic maxima than a campaign limitation, I would suggest that your maxima simply be 10 above the CHAR the racial package would provide. This will, however, give 'free' points to certain racial packages. In example: If a troll package gives +5 STR, then I would make the STR NCM value for trolls to be 25. If the troll bought the STR up to 25, this would effectively give him 5 free points as compared to a human (who would pay double for 21-25). While this is nicer from a racial range perspective, it enforces the fact that not all species are created equal and some will effectively be more cost effective.<<<<< And this is EXACTLY what I (and many others do). The trick (as GM) is to balance it off. If the troll gets 5 free points in STR, then he loses 5 points elsewhere (INT and DEX are traditional). That encourages the perception (among the players as well as the fantasy population at large) that trolls are strong, but clumsy and stupid - but does it not *force* anyone to conform to that mould. If a player (or I as a GM) wants to play a smart, puny troll, he can. He may pay extra to move outside the racial NCM, but that's a choice to be made during character creation and play, like any other form of character development. Cheers, Mark

Unless you really, really want your name on a Hero system book or you have a dynamite idea, my suggestion would be webpage it. I've done that with my now-finished Japanese campaign, which takes up TWO good sized printed books. Given that the Hero writers I know don't seem to be living lives of sybaritic luxury surrounded by adoring groupies (well, apart from Aaron Allston :-)) you probably aren't losing out financially. And I, at least, have gotten tons of great feedback, which is nice: websites and yahoo groups devoted to my game, hundreds of emails and literally thousands of hits. By all means, share. :-) cheers, Mark

Two different beasties. At least in my game..... Magic items are things you find. Spells are things you know. If Gnort the Obscene finds a +3 Axe, he can use it to merrily lop off heads without paying a point. But since he knows nothing about magic, a magic ring that allows the caster to use the Spell of Fleet Feet won't do him much good: he lacks the required magic skill, so he gives it to Frum the Mysterious, complaining that they never find any good magic items. A spell book is a list of spells and how to cast them. Neither Frum nor Gnort can do anything with it But if Frum wishes to learn the spells in the book he can do so. He pays the points, he gets new powers and he can sell the book, or stash it in his library or whatever. Hell, Gnort could learn the spells, if was prepared to spend the points on learning magic instead of another 2 point CSl with axe. :-) cheers, Mark

My Quote: The problem is when you attempt to apply NCM (or age) at the same level(s) to all races/species, which plainly defies its (their) rationale for existence. And Phil said: This is my whole point: That is NOT its rationale for existence! It's for limiting high stats in non-super genres, not for defining races! ---------------------------------------------- Assuming that "non-super" was a typo, I kind of agree. NCM first popped up as a way of limiting high stat.s in *Supers* games, so that your Batman types did not have 40 STR. Essentially, it was a way of defining your character as "human". So of course it IS a way of defining race - it's just that in supers games brimming with aliens, critters from alternate planes, cyborgs, warlocks, uncle Tom cobbly an' all, there is only one default race: human. The problems with NCM only arise because a) in non-supers games (specifically: fantasy) it went from being a limitation you could purchase like Age, to the default and the default was set rigidly at 20, which ceases to make sense when you have "default" fantasy races that are different from humans. Alter either of those conditions and the problem evaporates like (strangely enough) so much hot air :-) cheers, Mark

The chinese had a variety of weapons built around the same principle such as the beloved "Bandit-encampment Sword" - basically a swordblade on a short stick. Not really suprising, since the Chinese tried pretty much every combination of blade and handle one could reasonably use without losing too many fingers in the process. I'd give it the same damage as a bastard Sword (1 1/2 d6 HKA) and class it as two-handed which would drop the STR MIN down a bit: about right for those skinny elves :-) cheers, Mark

Having read this thread, it seems the problem is not NCM, per se (Lucius, if I read his comments correctly, seems not to have a problem with Age, which works *exactly* the same way). After all, do you defined "aged" for your immortal Elves and your humans the same? Do you limit the STR of elves over 60? The problem is when you attempt to apply NCM (or age) at the same level(s) to all races/species, which plainly defies its (their) rationale for existence. Yes, I know The Steve says NCM is 20 for everybody, and I can see why he said so - and also I can see that this thread ilustrates that he was wrong. As pointed out above, NCM (just like Age) is thoroughly useful limitation: as a GM, I have no interest in dropping either of them from my toolkit, but I realise that a) both need to be balanced (if some Stat. limit.s go up, others must come down) and it needs to be changed to fit the GM's plans. For me, the crucial deciders are: has NCM (applied sensibly) caused any problems in my game, or the games of my fellow GMs? (answer: No). has it had a beneficial effect (answer: yes). Is there another method that can serve as well? (Answer: we have tried "what you can justify" - it often leads to arguments. We have tried fixed caps - that were universally despised. So: No) Other people may have had problems that have not been brought up here - but as I say, all the ones discussed here are essentially problems with GETTING ROUND A FIXED NCM OF 20 - and nothing to do with NCM (as a mechanism) at all. cheers, Mark

Heh. That mana/manna thing has always bugged me too. FWIW, technically mana is a polynesian root languages word. You find it in maori, but also other polynesian languages. Generally, it means "Power" rather than specifically magic, although as in most pre-literate societies, there's a fairly thin line between the two - a powerful chief can have lots of mana without being able to cast spells :-) cheers, Mark

>>Just say no to the guy who wants a 30 strength halfling unless there is a good reason for it.<<< And here we are back in the same place: what is a good reason? Your player might consider "father drank an entish potion" a good reason while you consider it unbearably cheesy. (I know I would) And what if you want STR 30 halflings to be really really rare, STR 30 humans to be really rare, STR 30 ogres to be uncommon.... BUT, you also want DEX 30 halflings to be rare, DEX 30 humans to be really rare and STR 30 ogres to be unheard of? In other words, what if you want race to be marginally more than a rubber suit pulled on over the same set of Stat.s? i guess what it comes down to is either GM Fiat "Because I say so" or rules that *encourage* the style you want: personally I come down hard in favour of the latter. And please, enough with the "paying for Stat. increases you might never use.." stuff. We don't DO that anymore :-) cheers, Mark

In general I am Ok with the non-exitence of AoO for two reasons. The first is the ganging up effect, where two people attack one foe. Once the foe commits to an attack, attacker number two comes in swinging. That's realistic, and also good for the GM since it lets players multiple team his big bad guys (gives them a chance, rewards teamwork) and also lets the little bad guys multiple team players (teaches them a little respect). The downside is where attacker numbr 2 does something bizarre ("I somersault over the guardian's head when he attacks Arkon, run across the temple and remove the Orb of Cheesy Plot Device from the altar!") I have not come up with a good solution, since letting someone attack anyone in their attack zone is not inviting abuse, but unrealistic. You can try this yourself: get ahold of any shoot 'em up or slice 'em up video game and see how your effectiveness falls off when you have to suddenly swap your attack to a new, rapidly moving foe from the one you currently have your sights on. If you really want an AoO, then I'd simply buy an triggered attack power, so the next time Norrleth the nimble vaults over the Guardian, it grabs hold of Arkon and uses him to bat Norrleth back down the steps into the great hall..... Cheers, Mark

Hate convoluted magic sytsems? Then try this: Give your mages a multipower. Put all spells on recoverable charges (must study spellbook to recover charge). The number of charges can vary depending on how much of a limitation or advantage the mage wishes to put on (a low pointage mage could greatly reduce the cost of his magic multipower by only having 1 recoverable charge, for example). Each slot in the multipower is a spell and takes the same number of charges. Spells with duration should take the continuing charge limitation/advantage Flavour to taste with gestures, incantations, etc. The way this works is then you generate (or lift off the net) a list of spells, which your mages can learn, scribe in their spell books, whatever. Then, all you need to keep track of is how many spells are cast. The mage who has a multipower with 6 recoverable uses can cast: 6 uses of "transmute blood to acid" or: 6 uses of "Befuddle" or: 1 of "Befuddle", 2 of "Faery Gold and 3 of "Flight of the Phoenix" before he needs to sit down with the spellbook for a few hours. Your players will like it because it gives them more flexibility than DnD, in that they can choose which spells they can use as they need them rrather than picking in advance. You'll like it because it is easy (and also because the charges thing will prevent long term spells like all-day protection spells.) Simple, familiar, but still hero system :-) cheers, Mark

>>>The problem with NCM, or hard limits, is that if the points total is high enough characters will all wind up with about the same stats, right at the border. I've seen several campaigns where evey non-wizard wound up with 20 for the first four stats. It's not hard.<<<<< The borderline issue is a sure sign of a campaign where the players are starting with too many points - and as you note will happen if you use fixed caps just as readily as using NCM (more so actually, 'cos there'll be no way to go over a fixed cap). I'm not sure that dumping NCM and letting players buy 40 STR fighters is a great idea (and the only other option is fixed caps - the least appealing of the 3 options, to my mind) Setting STR at 2 XP per point of STR will help some - but not too much. From experience, requiring 50% to be spent on other things than CHA will result in lots of strong, dextrous, ugly, weak-willed characters, and an even smaller range of Stat.s as the pressure to cluster around cost effective points becomes greater. I'd just start 'em off with less points and let the players make the choices. cheers, Mark

I'll disagree with almost everyone else who has posted so far except Jason - I have gone through the "Why can't we keep playing DandD?" and "I don't want to learn a new system" with my players in the past. After a month of FH, nobody wanted to swap back to the old system. I am gearing up to do the same with a Runequest game. Here's my step by step rules. 1. Explain to your players that you are trading off some combat monster lethality for more flexibility. Explain that - just like in the movies - you can get one-shotted if someone comes up behind you while you are at dinner and pops you one in the head. DnD does have optional rules to allow this kind of thing, but they were always a kludgy add-on to the system. 2. Convert the characters without worrying too much about points. Aim to get the right feel. That way your players will have an "in" into the system, which reduces the apparent complexity. You might have to warn the mages that their "kill everything in a 90 foot radius" spells are going to go bye-bye, because those are a) really expensive to model and one reason for dumping dnd anyway. 3. Be a little flexible in the first few sessions. If a FH PC is really lacking in area where the DnD version shone then give him some more points, just don't go over overboard. 4. Take it easy in combat the first few sessions. Skills are pretty self explanatory and it sounds like your game will be leaning this way anyway. Combat is more complicated and also more deadly in FH than dnd - an off putting combination the first time you hit it. So let them beat up some underlings the first few session, to get them used to things. 5. Run a cool game - this'll get 'em hooked :-) Cheers, Mark