smoelf

I think I have only ever once come close to something that was 'immersion breaking' to the point of taking me out of the game. We were playing in my GM's world, where he had designed a few different religions. One was modelled after the medieval Catholic Church while another was basically a powerful sorcerer-god and ruled his nation of worshippers as king. I played a D&D barbarian and had decided to play into a kind of zealot with a long term goal of uniting the religious leaders of the former religion to bring order to the world - and perhaps eventually invade the neigbooring heathen nations. At least, so was my thought. But the premise of it was quickly snuffed out, when my barbarian (IC) expressed his view that this sorcerer-god was not really a god, but simply a pretender. A reasonable conclusion for a religious zealot. But at that point our GM just basically said (OOC to me as a player) "No. He really is a god."
 
We never got far enough in the campaign for me to really discuss it with our GM. I'm sure he would have accepted my reasoning (he's a reasonable guy), if we had had the time, so this is not just about being told no. Where the immersion breaks is where the concept of 'a theology' is simply removed from the world building and replaced with metaphysical realities that are identifiable with their dogmas. Working with historical theology is a big part of what I do, and seeing how dogma and theology evolve and develop over time, it has become impossible (or at least very difficult) for me to accept the idea that the dogma(s) of a religion should be identified with the metaphysical reality of 'the god(s)'. This is also why I'd rather build my own world before playing in a D&D-based world again, such as Forgotten Realms; which I had previously LOVED.
 
I suppose another part of it is also the interaction itself, where an IC-development is met with an OOC response of "No, you can't do that." That in itself can really take you out of a game. Sometimes it's probably needed, if there is disagreement on the premises of the game, but I think it works better if those are solved either IC or after the game - unless they are of major importance. 

I ended up building everyone's characters, then we had one test run, tweaked the characters then resumed our campaign. We've had about 4 sessions with a cadence of buildup session then fight session that seems to be working for everyone. I totally did the plastic speed chart thing and it makes combat flow very quickly, thanks for that!
 
In case anyone else stumbles across this in the future in terms of my original question about AP limits, I ended up going with the defaults (60 AP attacks/ about 8-12 resistant defences / points for equipment) from the champions setting book and basing the characters off of the champions book templates. My villains for now are also drawing from the champions math. I just reflavored the viper agents as magically enhanced shock troops of the evil empire. For the spell casters, we are currently using a regular multipower with fixed slots, until the players get comfortable with the character points part of the game math.
 
Everyone's having a good time with the new ruleset. All the players' minds were blown when the bad guy wizard haymakered a fireball and I described it as spending extra time to gather magical energy. The real "whoa" moment was telling them that they could do that too.

YES!!!!  OMG!  One of the most annoying things you see in *some* fantasy sources - and almost always RPGs, rather than novels or movies.  (My Rep Wand is out of charges for the day.)
 
Yes, I know elves have very long lifespans so they have plenty of time to learn and say each other's names, rather than getting anything useful done.  Maybe elves have an inclination to procrastination even more than humans.  They say each others' full names when they're avoiding doing work.  But it still doesn't make much sense, since they still have to interact with the real world in real time.  An animal you're hunting won't run slower to accommodate your slower action.  The sun is going to set at the same time, regardless of how much work you got done today.  etc.
 
Two things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYMRjnM6j6w
 
Are you familiar with the "Bulwer-Lytton" contest?  "It was a dark and stormy night."  If not, go look it up now, I'll wait.
Back?  Good.  On another website, they held their own version of the Bulwer-Lytton contest, but specifically for fantasy and similar genres.  This is my entry, which won the contest:
 
The night was as black as the scales on a rock dragon of the mountains of Thrûng’gahhrnix, but not one of the albino ones, born with an eerie lack of pigment and bizarre psionic powers, but one of the regular black ones, from the mountains, not the ones from further west, near the shores of the Zwěill’k’bołian Sea, which is still part of the kingdom of Thrûng’gahhrnix, but not the mountainous part, because the rock dragons there tend to be more of a dark gray, rather than true black; and of course, not one of the red ones either, because those come all the way from the haunted steppes of Bŗœđ’ĵæȥ-Ƙųźŵűƀ, five hundred leagues away, which look very different, even though the venerated sage, Gølåȶ of the Free City of Sęôţ’ǧäħ, says that they’re really the same species.
 
No, it's not from Tolkien.  Tolkien's names were excellent.  Even the longer ones were pretty easy to pronounce.  Although it's possible that this practice was started by someone who was trying to imitate Tolkien without really understanding Tolkien's methods.
 
I'm not saying you need to invent six languages to come up with good fantasy names, like Tolkien did.  But it wouldn't hurt to put a little thought into what the names mean in their own languages,  After all, names mean something.  Names are not just made out of random letters and phonemes - they start out as words, with meanings.
 
I remember seeing a shallow attempt at this recently, but I don't remember where.  It might have actually been in The Turakian Age (or maybe The Valdorian Age).  A character with a name something like "Lifo-Mok", and the text explained that his name means "brave explorer of the northern sea and slayer of mighty serpents" or something like that.  Really?  So how do you say "brave explorer of the western sea and tamer of mighty serpents" in the same language?
 
Ans speaking of The Turakian Age, does anyone pronounce "Thûn" any differently from "Thoon" or "Thune"?  Diacritical marks are added to make your fantasy setting look more like an 80's heavy metal band.

EDIT FOR DOUBLE-POST ANNOYANCE: OTOH when I map out a castle or whatever, I include "necessities" such as garderobes and wells/water cisterns. In play, I try to slip in mentions of ordinary life such as the pushcart vendor on the street or the two guys in the tavern arguing about which chariot-racing team is ahead. It's not that I think my players' immersion will be interrupted if I leave these out, but I think it will be improved by little mentions of the everyday, to remind them that this world and its people "exist" even when their characters aren't around.
 
Dean Shomshak

I think I have only ever once come close to something that was 'immersion breaking' to the point of taking me out of the game. We were playing in my GM's world, where he had designed a few different religions. One was modelled after the medieval Catholic Church while another was basically a powerful sorcerer-god and ruled his nation of worshippers as king. I played a D&D barbarian and had decided to play into a kind of zealot with a long term goal of uniting the religious leaders of the former religion to bring order to the world - and perhaps eventually invade the neigbooring heathen nations. At least, so was my thought. But the premise of it was quickly snuffed out, when my barbarian (IC) expressed his view that this sorcerer-god was not really a god, but simply a pretender. A reasonable conclusion for a religious zealot. But at that point our GM just basically said (OOC to me as a player) "No. He really is a god."
 
We never got far enough in the campaign for me to really discuss it with our GM. I'm sure he would have accepted my reasoning (he's a reasonable guy), if we had had the time, so this is not just about being told no. Where the immersion breaks is where the concept of 'a theology' is simply removed from the world building and replaced with metaphysical realities that are identifiable with their dogmas. Working with historical theology is a big part of what I do, and seeing how dogma and theology evolve and develop over time, it has become impossible (or at least very difficult) for me to accept the idea that the dogma(s) of a religion should be identified with the metaphysical reality of 'the god(s)'. This is also why I'd rather build my own world before playing in a D&D-based world again, such as Forgotten Realms; which I had previously LOVED.
 
I suppose another part of it is also the interaction itself, where an IC-development is met with an OOC response of "No, you can't do that." That in itself can really take you out of a game. Sometimes it's probably needed, if there is disagreement on the premises of the game, but I think it works better if those are solved either IC or after the game - unless they are of major importance. 

Yeah, I think I'd have let that one play out.  A  barbarian thinking a god is a false God doesn't really hurt anything in the game, and gives a character a motivation.  Let it ride. 

Whatever game I'm playing in, whatever the genre, I want it to feel like the sort of media that contains the same genre of stories.  I want the characters to do, and to be able to do, the kinds of things the characters in those stories do, with the same rationales and for the same motivations.  
 
Besides genre, there's also tone and feel.  I don't need or want all of my games to have the same tone and feel.  With Hero, I know they don't need to, because I've played in Hero games with tone and feel covering the entire range of the poll options.  
 
I can't therefore chose any single option.  I vote "Any and all of the above." 

What this fine fellow said. 
 
And more than that, I don't actually want realism.  I want verisimilitude.  I want that genre-appropriate veneer of realism, but without all the headaches that accompany actually being realistic.  Faux-realism, if you will. 
I don't care what the relationship between volume and jumping height is, I want halflings to jump worse than humans.  Yes, I know that cats are much smaller than but easily outjump humans I don't care.  Bilbo can't bunnyhop. 
I don't care if assault rifle shots should be able to penetrate that brick wall we're hiding behind.  I've seen enough action movies to know that what should happen is the wall trembling and chips flying as the heroes figure out how to deal with the situation. 
I don't care what sort of fuel efficiency my spaceship gets or what transfer orbit makes the most sense or how the engine works.  I just want to know how much I have to pay for enough space-fuel to get from Earth to Mars.  The physics aren't important to the story, we just need a consistent number. 

What genre and theme?  That makes a _huge_ difference, at least for me. 
 
I like my supers and my space opera to be like the comics of the the sixties and eighties, with a bit more drama but supers-are-super. 
 
I like my westerns to be realistically lethal- everything short of hit locations is on the table, and nobody catches three bullets and keeps running. 
 
My cyberpunk and pulp are action movie, and the rest of my space-related sci-fi is either Traveller or Atomic Age. 
 
My fantasy swings from gruesome to action movie, depending on the campaign in question. 
 
Everything else falls into the cracks.  Honestly, it depends on the tropes we want to play with at the time. 
 
As you can probably tell from that, I have very little problems picking and choosing the rules I am using and the ones I am ignoring. 
 
 
 

I think Chimpions just started a new season.  

I want to thank everyone for their patience with this project, its been years I have worked on it and been trying to promote and keep people interested.  I know that its tough to keep interest up in a product line when its so long between updates and releases.  I hope to have another out by the end of the year (a adventure module) and the following year I'll be working on putting out the Players Guide for making characters and play in the world.  Then next on the agenda is another adventure, and then the Master Guide for running games in the Jolrhos setting.  Down the road are a treasure book and another volume of the bestiary planned for release.  I hope I can get these all done, and done in a timely manner.  When its all said and done, people will have a complete campaign setting with adventures to play in it ready to pick up and run with.
 
Somewhere in the mix I want to get that Champions Begins project done and a Fantasy Hero Begins one as well.  Thankfully unlike the Jolrhos setting, other people can pitch in and help with writing and building those.

A very simplistic way to put in "saving throws" for that one race is to required purchasing the 10 point immune to all poisons but have it activate on 11 or less.
 
For more granularity, I suppose weak poisons could be at 14-, medium poisons at 11-, and saves for strong poisons at 8- and package that together at the same cost as the 11- for everything would be.
 
 
 
 

Quoting myself, simply because last night's game had a classic example of hit location making things fun. PCs were essentially set up to walk (knowingly) into a hard core, criminal, white supremacist biker bar... none of the PCs, for probably the first time ever, are white... things go south pretty quickly... bar fight ensues. The PCs are Jason Bourne level pros, who are on their best behavior and trying NOT to just kill these guys... so initially it is all fisticuffs. We are using modified multiple attack rules, so characters are encouraged to throw not just one attack, but a combo of shots that feels much more like fighting than the "one big swing" typical of HERO champs.
 
Our Haida merc, Jackson Massett, rabbit punches the first guy in the chest as he grabs an outstretched hand and twists him to the ground, sidestepping his second attacker. As the first guy falls back and staggers to his feet, he turns to the second biker and drives a shot into his stomach so hard the guy doubles over, Massett's second punch missing contact over his head, the first guy lunges from a squat swinging wide, going right over Jackson's roll. As the second attacker swings again, Jackson slams his hand up into the man's throat, windpipe collapses and the biker drops like a wet sack. First biker thinks he has position and goes for a bear hug, trying to use his size to overwhelm Jackson, who slips to the side jamming the man's arms  inside, then he turns and brings a hard left right at the guy's nose (High Shot).

This is where it got really fun, because despiste the high shot roll, it hit the biker in the 7/forearm. The biker threw his arm up just in time... but Jackson's player rolled... and dice were crazy... 26 Stun on 5d6. The player cackled, "Oh man, I punched his arm right into his own face!" which was a perfect example of how an arm shot could end up doing enough damage (to an already woozy dude). And just created a perfect visual image the guy basically punching himself on to his back. 
 
That kind of visceral fight just doesn't exist in any other system I've played, with the simple, intuitive nature of the Hit Location chart.

Best part of the game, IMO.
 
 
 
 

In my Nyonia campaign I have different Min/Max characteristics for the various races.  I also talk to players about character concept including fighting concepts.  In the current campaign there are four characters who have varying degrees of skill as fighters:
Big viking type - Very strong/tough, extra running, is really good with his battleaxe and has specialized type of martial arts.  He has one maneuver that he is very proficient with.  But he can never have a DEX higher than 15 and a SPD higher than 3. Fencer - formally trained sword fighter, former pirate, who fights with two swords.  She has the min. strength needed for her weapons (she can't buy any more STR, CON, BODY) but she has a high DEX 18 or 20 and a 4 SPD Warrior Priest - Very strong/tough, extra running.  He is good with a wide variety of weapons and is pretty amazing on horseback.  He has spells to boast his strength (any time he wants) and deadly blow against specific enemies.  He can't buy a higher DEX or SPD.  I am also not going to allow him to buy any martial arts. Bard - See fencer but with lower DEX and 3 SPD.  When he first started he could keep from getting beat up by ruffians, but he saved XP to learn martial arts from the fencer and now he can not only hold his own but do some damage when he hits. There is a race of bipedal cats in my world who have a very high starting  and max DEX/SPD but their strength and CON are limited.  I have a race of people who are like hobbits who have a very high DEX/SPD, low STR, limited running, but can basically disappear if you take your eyes off of them for a moment.  And last but not least something like a dwarven race (physical size, STR of Tolkien dwarves w/out beards who fight with swords), they could best be described as walking fireplugs (tough as nails, strong, slow as a slug).

Well, we all have our complications, mine is ADHD I got the big books first (6E1&6E2&FH) because someone said that Fantasy Hero Complete is an awful place to start... and tried to power through them... three times.. but I always ran out of steam. So this time, a couple of weeks ago, I finally decided to purchase FHC and it was much better fit for me. Yes, it's very dense (they managed to fit almost all the rules in there) but it didn't give me the drowning sensation like the big tomes did. Having read it I think I now have a decent overview of the system and how the parts fit together and I can use the big rulebooks when I want deeper explanation/examples. I got Turakian Age next and started sketching characters and playing with the power system. I still feel a bit overwhelmed but I think I'm finally over the largest hurdle and on my way to finally getting to play(GM) the game ?

This is pretty much why I went from 3e to 6e in the rules. I quit playing with my friends when I went to college, and always meant to teach people the HERO System, but time marched on and I never got around to it. I saw the 5e book a few years ago at a used book store, and my friend got it for me. Then I discovered 6e had been out for many years and I decided to make the full shift to those rules. It was a long debate with myself because I always liked the figured characteristics, but once I made the decision I’ve been trying to master the rules enough to teach others. Now, I finally have a group of friends who are interested to learn! So for the first time in over 30 years I have a group again. 

For me it depends on what is happening.  
It can be Phase 12, Post 12, a D12 to randomize or I pick a starting phase based on PC's.
 
For example. 
 
Heroes and Villains are aware of each other and ready.  Phase 12
Heroes and Villains have been in action and are aware of each other but do not have the spare time to recover, Post Phase 12.
Heroes and Villains run into each other unexpectedly and neither side is prepared, D12 roll.
One team surprises the other.  I select a starting phase that allows the "winners" to each act on one phase before the "losers".  If there is too much phase overlap to work, I have the winning side each take one action ending in 12, then everyone gets post-12 recovery and normal rotation goes into effect.
 
A note that this is not "surprise" as in the rule book which I do still use.  It is just a way to enter the scene and starting phase.
A Squad of soldiers ambushes an enemy squad.  The attackers get the "surprise" bonuses but also get off one round of fire before the victims get to respond.  
 
 
 

The Jolrhos Field Guide approaches completion, its down to the last stages of editing, layouts, etc.  It should be out before the end of May, barring no major setbacks.  This has been a very long road, more than three years work with many delays.

When it comes to OCV/DCV... I still think it is possible to start out. "You want to roll low for hitting... high for damage." Done. They roll, you tell them if they hit or succeeded.
 
Funny how "Stealth is 14 or less" never seems to cause problems, but rolling low to hit is a nightmare.
 
Then, if they want to know "How does it work?" then you can say something like. "Because we use 3d6, 11 is the median score you are likely to roll... So 11 is base and add your OCV you have your Attack number. Write that down. Now, going forward simply subtract what you roll and that tells you the Defense number you hit. So a low roll... subtracting less... leaves you with a higher remainder."   But do NOT say all this unless they ask, and only do it outside the game.
 
I've played with plenty of people who are happy with "I rolled X... did I hit?" and are ok with nothing more than that for years of gaming. They are ok with maneuvers, too... because they get the basics... "This maneuver means more damage, or puts the guy on his back, but there are penalties to hit... this other maneuver gives me bonuses to hit, but lower damage... etc."  That intuitive stuff comes quickly, as long as it isn't buried in formulas and numbers... at least in my experience.

Also, it has been said several times here (myself, Killer Shrike, Deglar) that I don't want it to get lost... I really REALLY think the best way for newbies is to "Just describe what you want to do... and then I'll talk about the rule that best captures that maneuver. You'll catch on to what the rules are doing as we use them."  And do the same yourself as GM. "The bandit sees you draw you sword and is attempting to slam his shield down on your sword arm. Basically he is trying to knock the sword out of your hand rather than really do damage, so this is a Disarm maneuver, which some characters have. If he hits, instead of doing damage he gets a bonus to his STR vs. STR roll to knock your sword away."

That should lead to things like, "I don't have Disarm... can I do that?" and "Yes, you can try, but since you are untrained, it will be harder to do. It defaults to a Grab roll then STR vs. STR without bonuses." (the idea that most answers to "Can I try that maneuver?" in HERO is "Yes... you just might not be very good at it based on your skills, etc." 

And hopefully this leads to, "Can my character learn Disarm?" and now we off and running. "Absolutely... that kind of thing is exactly what EXP is for. Your characters learn new skills and maneuvers and knowledge, especially in cases like this where there is good reason for him to train/learn this maneuver."

Story and description first... make it cool... then bring in the rules. Personally, I often try to emphasize that I prefer "the rules to be invisible." I much prefer a dramatic, descriptive statement than looking in the rule book. "As you play, you'll learn a lot of the basics and start to realize when certain maneuvers are better than others, but the rules should never over-rule what is dramatically appropriate."
 
That might not be your play style, but I certainly emphasize it in mine and have found new players tend to respond to that well.

Here is Roddy Reyburn with nothing but (damage dice), (dice modifiers) and [END costs].
 
Doc
 
PS: I do not have an electronic build sheet yet, just lots of scribbled notes...
GA-RoddyReyburn[10].pdf

Do not allow Diverging Speeds for Heroes. I would fix it to 3 or 4, depending on powerlevel.
The problem is that in the lower Points of Heroic, every single point of difference is huge. Hero lacks Granularity in those low vlaues. And adding variation to those values only makes it harder.
5, 6 and 7 are pretty close together action economy wise. 5 has 1/6th less then 6. And 7 1/6th more then 6. +/-17%
But with 3, 4, 5 we talk about +/-25% compared to 4.
And 2, 3, 4 or 1, 2, 3 are even worse.
 
For monsters and adversaries of course, you got a full amount of SPD values availible.
SPD more then most other values can be used to simualte the Power Level differences. Look at Shadowrun where combat Characters can get up to 4 actions per turn for a granular example. And Hero is propably more combat focussed then Shadowrun.
A random Guard with 2 SPD is no match for most Heroes with 4. The Hero can abort to both attacks and still act 2 times. Never mind if the hero has the first strike, forcing the enemy to abort. The Hero can get 3 strikes in while the enemy does nothing but defend.
A "Boss"* has to have more SPD to allow it to challenge a whole group.
While someone in another Thread mentioned a Superheroic foe that had only 1 SPD, but a really OP attack and defense for a interesting challenge.
 
 
*Single, strong adversary in any form or shape

Boringly I'm basically like everybody else. Maybe even slightly more stingy.
 
Most PCs should be at 2, except for fightin' types, who can be at 3. I'd let somebody buy theirs up to 4 with XP but not higher (unless somebody wanted to make a Haste type spell).
NPC schmucks are 2s and elite badass NPC schmucks are at 3 and the occasional, "he's, like, really agile, you guys", types are a 4. Only one of those has shown up so far.
 
I'm wanting to keep the range pretty tight just for simplicity. If somebody was all hot to play a Monk\other archetype that's known for being fast I probs be fine with it.
Depending on the rest of the stats and all that.

personally, I roll hunted when I am beginning to put together a scenario. I want to know, before I begin which of the rogues gallery will be showing up as I can tie them into the fabric more easily.
 
That faceless corporation just became a local franchise of the Chicken King, and the unknown bank raider becomes the brother-turned-bad of the group's flagsuit wearer.

Interesting idea.
 
I am much more liberal than that. The PCs are supposed to be the "heroes". They ARE supposed to be remarkable, extraordinary, astounding to behold and sometimes frightening to face in battle. They are competent and trained, and can dominate the battle field.
 
This is so wonderfully exemplified when they can act twice as fast as a normal untrained character (speed 4 vs speed 2), and will give a trained character a run for their money (4 vs 3). I tend to celebrate reckless behavior and risk taking when it turns into wonderful results.
 
I use the normal characteristic maxima rules, but if the PCs have earned the points for them, they are entirely within their right to buy up their stats even if it costs twice as much. They are, after all, the heroes of the story, the protagonists of amazing stories, capable of things that few other people are able to do. They are the "super heroes" of their times.
 
I ran a game once with a character who played a barbarian, a nordic blonde-braid haired, heavy leather hide clad, axe-wielding adonis of a man (COM 20, back in 4th edition). His name was Rudgar the Barbarian. He was fast enough (speed 3), but he was very strong (21 STR to start) and very tough (CON 23, PD 8, ED 8). He had bought his running to some ungodly value, I don't remember what it was, but he could move.
 
Once, a herd of buffaloes was threatening a small village, and he decided to face them head on. He ran along one of them (he had the speed and running movement for it), and he punched the buffalo in the head. It wasn't enough to really hurt it, but it CON-stunned it, and the buffalo fell very hard, knocking itself out ever further in the process. We talked about it for years how Rudgar punched the buffalo out with one hit. He was building a legend for himself. It became part of his reputation.
 
Another time, the party was in a desert town, where the buildings were build from very flimsy mud bricks. The walls were thick, but not very strong (3 DEF 2 BOD). They were looking for vampire thralls, and found them! The vampires were agile and jumpy, able to move over the rooftops with ease, outmaneuvering the party who had to weave around the densely packed buildings. Rudgar was strong enough at that point (STR 23, IIRC), that on a standard effect move-through maneuver, he could plow through the walls with casual STR without harm to himself. So, in the end, the vampires tried to use the environment to their advantage, but Rudgar just broke through building after building, like a bulldozer, surprising them over and over again by slamming into them as he crashed through the walls like a Kool Aid man on steroids, a blond quisenart of axe fury. In the end, we proclaimed Rudgar a nordic demigod, and his legend grew even more. 
 
None of that would have been possible if I had chosen to limit the PCs to normal stats.
 
So, in conclusion, I encourage PCs to be extraordinary. But your mileage may vary.
 
Don't worry. They are still quite mortal. Between spells and heavy weapons, even the demigods fall.
 
PS: On one occasion, Rudgar had been mind-controlled. You can imagine the fear in the rest of the party as their heaviest bruiser suddenly turned against them. The master sword wielder used a wooden sword to hit Rudgar in the vitals (location 13) so hard (we called it a well place shot to the groin with a martial offensive strike) that he keeled over in one blow. After waking up, Rudgar remembered all that happened, and replaced his 3 PD leather loin guard with a 8 PD metal cup he carried everywhere, even in his sleep. He would never again be hit that hard in the manly bits. We still laugh about it. ?

If you're a PC, playing an unicorn-like equine type creature, with SPD 6, and are being ridden by another PC who is SPD 5, and is an expert swordsman, when everyone else is SPD 4... you and the fellow PC can be ridiculously effective together. 
 
Just throwing that out there...