Frenchman

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

Well' date=' I was thinking more of circumstances in which the use of a power directly affects the character. Maybe "affects" is the wrong word. It should impose some kind of harmful change on the character. "Does not affect women" restricts how the power works, but it doesn't make the power itself have any deleterious affects.[/quote']

 

The point Sean & Hugh were tryiing to make was that a power, such as a 6d6 Drain EGO (Not vs Women, -1) could earn the character who purchases it points if it also has a 6d6 Drain side effect. The power costs 30, but the side effect 'costs' 60, so the character gains 30 points.

 

The reason I don't like side effects always as a limitation is because I think it's possible that you could have a "power" that's more of a disadvantage than an advantage' date=' but limitations can never make the cost of something negative.[/quote']

 

No power can be more of a limitation than a benefit, unless the activation of said power cannot be controlled. Even a 1d6 KA (Side Effect: 4d6 KA) is a beneficial power to have (though not very) because the character chooses when to use it - that would be when 1d6 KA is going to help him/hurt his opponent more than 4d6 KA will hurt him. If it doesn't have a net benefit, he doesn't use it - why would he?

 

So I would propose a new category of Disadvantages....maybe call it a Curse (or something' date=' so not to confuse it with the Side Effects limitation). The Disadvantage would be defined as a power with the automatic limitations of "useable only on self" and "linked" applied to it...but those limitations would not be applied to the cost of the power. [/quote']

 

This sounds a lot like a susceptability to me... I do agree that susceptabilities should scale to more than 30 AP (I think thats the limit), but a side effect, or disadvantage representing one, would never be worth what the power build is, because the character can always choose not to suffer it - it's worth something, just not as much.

 

The major drawback I see to this approach is that you could define a "Curse" disadvantage that doesn't really create a drawback. For example' date=' let's say I define a 10d6 EB, with a 2d6EB as feedback. Trouble is, if you have 12 or more ED or PD, then effectively, the feedback doesn't harm you at all. I would therefore suggest that if you define such a disadvantage, you either have ZERO defenses against the side effect power, or you must calculate the "average damage" versus the defense to determine how harmful the side effect is. [/quote']

 

In general, damage from disadvantages and side effects is NND damage or enough damage to always get signifigant amounts through the characters defenses. Otherwise, as you are aware of, there is not point. The old corralary "A disadvantage (or limitation) that isn't disadvantageous isn't worth any points!"

 

In my first example about the Super Steroid pill' date=' let's say a character has enough Power Defense of 10, and the Drain is defined as a 3d6 BODY and EGO. Half the time, this Drain is useless, and therefore the 3d6 Drain should have a -1 limitation applied to the cost. But calculating how "effective" a side effect is can get tricky.[/quote']

 

This would be a good way of getting around the 'earning points' aspect. If the 'Negative Power' automatically recieved a limitation equal in value to all the limitations on the power, plus a limitation which varies with the defense the character recieves against the power, plus (possibly) linked, then the 'cost' of the power could never exceed the absolute value of the power it applies to, as long as it had the same or fewer AP than that power.

 

Ohh' date=' I forgot to add...some may ask, "why not just make it a 'susceptibility' disadv"? Because you may want specific affects, like Adjustment powers to various powers or characteristics that isn't handled by a "Suceptibility to own power use". The Side Effect Limitation can handle things for which the side effect could be useful sometimes...say for example a power that Transports you randomnly everytime you use it (it could help or hurt.....badly). But I think there are more specific cases that could be modeled by a better implementation. I don't see how saying that applying a Drain, EB, or RKA against yourself is ever helpful.[/quote']

 

Susceptability can do things to a character other than just damage. I've had characters who had drains from a susceptability, and I saw a character who began to float off of the ground (helpless, since they couldn't fly) higher and higher the more they used their power. We defined that with susceptability.

Re: The Future of Small Arms

 

I'm not going to derail this thread by getting into a huge debate on 2nd Amendment Rights, but I would like it noted for the record that I object to the implications of this statement.

 

Dale A. Ward

(law abiding citizen and gun-owner)

I meant that in most places in the world (not just the US) which have any gun laws at all, automatic weapons are illegal for civilians to own.

Re: The Future of Small Arms

I think the biggest change will be the continuing growth of the gap between military and civilian technology.

Ever since armies have been hurling rocks at eachother there has been this gap - up until Roman times or so, this was enforced by the fact that anyone who had weapons was part of the local military by default.

In the middle ages this was still largely true, but as soon as standing armies were developed, they started getting better equipment than was generally available - usually just because it was too expensive for most people to afford it.

Then came cannons - you had to be really wealthy to afford a cannon. Any group of smart peasants could get a catapult if they knew how to build one, but a cannon required specialized skill, equipment, and lots of money.

As firearmes became more advanced, they also became more ubiquitous, but large weapons were always the province of the military.

Then came the invention of assault rifles and hand-held machine guns. For some time, they were the province of the military (and still are in most law-abiding places). As weapons technology advances, the gains made by the military are achieved much faster than the trickle-down which civilians recieve.

Think about the gap between early machine guns and bolt-action rifles, assault rifles and hunting rifles, or the gap between the latest MetalStorm weapon and your brand-new .45 automatic.

Civilians (and guerrillas/resistance fighters/rebels) will continue to get the shaft because they can't afford the latest and greatest - and the gap will keep growing.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

Whatever this something called luck is' date=' it carries equal weight in improving your chances of beating people up (and blah blah blah) as natural reflexes do. So someone who had no DEX, but lots of LUCK, will have the same chances of hitting a particular target as a character that has no LUCK but lots of DEX.[/quote']

I don't really see what you find strange about this. Personally I don't particularly see any greater connection between Intelligence and Perception, or Dexterity and most Dex-based skills like Atheletics, Breakfall, Stealth, or the ability to dodge attacks.

Re: Please look over this character

Well... I tried looking at it from a couple of angles, and I don't see anything inherently abusive or wobbly with it.. a 2 pt level with clubs lets you use it on any manuever as a bonus to OCV.. move by's, blocks, missile deflection, converting skill levels to damage, blah blah blah...oh, and strikes..

 

3 pt tight skill group including "Strike with X" just doesn't raise any flags with me.. You'll have to explain why you don't like it..

 

You'd never see "Strike With X" for a m/a combat skill level.. At 2 pts you get +1 with a manuever, at 3 pts you get +1 with the whole shebang.

 

-CraterMaker

And you're right. Like I said, its in the book. It's just that when I see "+1 w/Grab, Move Through w/Sword, and Strike w/Sword" I wonder why they aren't getting a level with grab, and another level with swords...and thats the context they've come up in in our games.

Re: Please look over this character

If she was my character, I might make one small change to her - Change her +3 with Clubs (9 pts) to +3 with Grab, Roll With Blow, Strike with Club.. all bouncer skills (a.k.a. tight group) and would really set her apart...

 

Other than that, she's beautiful..

 

-CraterMaker

I'd murder any player of mine who wanted to include "strike with X" as part of a combat skill level - unless they're a martial artist and they define which strike.

Just a little quibble I have with the rules

Re: Nnd

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I had to comment on:

The defence tot he latter SHOULD be that the object doesn't contain any waters' date=' but you can't have 'negative definers' for NND.[/quote']

 

NND (LS: Safe in Intense Heat OR Target is made entirely from non-liquids)

 

The restriction against Negative Definitions is pretty silly, as anyone with siblings will be able to turn a negative into a positive in about 4 seconds, tops.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

Sorry I haven't posted in a few days - had a presentation on Albert Camus to prepare for.

As to the actual house rules, wow, interesting, I don't think much can be added in terms of advising because it so departs from the norm that all sorts of ripples will occur. But that's not bad, it's clearly the intent to reshape HERO here on the significant side. The only real advice I guess I would have is to be sure the players realize this is experimental and subject to change, so they don't complain if you find stuff is broken and needs repair.

 

Please do tell us how this works out, I"m really eager to here if it creates the play experience you are intending.

Those ripples are what I'm really interested in. I chose Luck because it came up in a conversation about different gaming systems and I wanted the statistic to affect CVs. I had also thought about dividing DEX in two, as Agility and Co-Ordination (or something) but decided on Luck because it changes the break-points so much. With (DEX+LUCK)/6 the break point for DEX changes depending on what your Luck is.

I just don't see luck factoring as heavily as dex in CVs.

I do. In the real world one can make a very good argument that luck doesn't exist (I happen to believe otherwise), but I don't play games set in the real world - it sorta defeats the purpose of playing a game for me. Why else would people speak of things like a "lucky shot?"

If that were true in the real world' date=' the NFL scouting combines would have all the recruits rolling dice and drawing cards in addition to the strength and agility drills...[/quote']

I think in the real world luck also tends to be a bit more specific. You don't get many people who are lucky at every thing. You have people who are lucky at card games' date=' or at getting the last seat on the bus, or beginner's luck. I don't think dodging luck would be found in the same person who was lucking at poker.[/quote']

 

You both kinda address the same point - that someone lucky with one thing (dice) isn't neccessarily lucky with something else (cars). By the same token, someone who is agile or graceful may not be co-ordinated or dexterous, and smart people are rarely (in my experience) very perceptive. I would think it'd be perfectly OK, or even pretty neat, if a character were to buy things like +10 Luck, Only with Money, or +10 Luck, Not with Women.

 

The other thing that bugs me about the implementation is that luck is constant.

 

If someone were consistantly more accurate than their reflexes would suggest, that would be the effect of buying applicable combat levels.

 

Luck should (IMO) not have a constant and reliable effect.

 

Luck being random is a tradition, a Sacred Cow if you will, of role-playing games. In many computer/console RPGs luck does function as a constant - and in others it doesn't. Since luck cannot be quantified or qualified in the real world, there is no 'right' way to quantify or qualify it in a game system. At least not if you ask me.

That said, I have kept some of the aspects of luck being random - with Luck Dice and (in my planned game) bonuses to other skills. While it would be possible to have the part of Luck which figures into CV to be randomized (roll dice to see if/how much of it you get before every attack roll...) it would be far more trouble than its worth.

If someone is "consistantly more accurate than their reflexes would suggest" that could be the result of skill levels. Or maybe they're just lucky. Someone who really was luckier would have better results on average.

As for its predictable effect on combat: I would argue that the changes I made make characters and the initiative order, at least, more unpredictable over the long view. DEX uniformity won't be an issue.

For example, a quick look at the heroic characters in the back of ReFred shows me that the average Characteristic score for any one characteristic is 13.54. Their average DEX is 16.33. Where other characteristics range from 8-20, DEX ranges only 14-20 - half the spread. This leads me to conclude (well, actually I allready concluded this a long time ago from looking at the characters in my group) that DEX is far too valued, characters (and monsters) tend to cluster near the top of the DEX scale, and certain character concepts (low-dex ones) are not valid.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

Yes, and in the real world where there is no such thing as luck in the sense that there is in many games, that is true. But when one person has better luck than another person, then the odds don't even out over the long run - thats what being lucky is all about.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

I'll stay out of the issue regarding increasing the cost of STR' date=' but I do notice that you effectively doubled the cost of Luck. Is this because Luck now adds to CV? Does Luck do anything else?[/quote']

 

Yes, I did double the cost of luck because it now adds to CV - you got it exactly. Someone could always buy it with a -1 limitation Only for Luck Dice.

 

A note on Gambling: The actual Skill should not be based on Luck. being something of a gambler myself, there is little actual luck involved in how you play. Everything is calculated. You know the odds, you know what to do, and you know how to make the other players do what you need them to in order for you to win. There is luck/chance involved, but the actual skill in playing has nothing to do with luck.

 

Luck may help though. Perhaps allowing a Luck Roll as a complimentary skill to gambling...

The majority of gambling I've done has been with cards and dice - and to me it seems that the large part of winning is based on what cards you get and/or what you roll - your intelectual skill can only affect the outcome so much - or rather so little. Luck deals you 5 cards out of 52, and your concious choice allows you to exchange some of those for another random draw. To me, seems like luck is doing more there.

I'd say allow an INT roll as a complimentary skill...but opinions vary.

Heres a copy without the gambling adjustment if you like.

Some of you may remember last week or so I posted a thought about adding Luck as a 9th primary characteristic. Well, I finished the Template I promised, so here that is.

For those just tuning in, here are the changes I've made and why. Keep in mind I intend this for Heroic level games, and I don't really think it would be too appropriate for Super-heroic level ones.

STR - I've made it costs 2 for one. I think STR is way to cost-effective at 1-per in heroic genres, and I wanted to 'streamline' all the physical stats so they all cost 2 points.

DEX - Biggest changes here - I reduced the cost to 2 per, changed CV calculation to DEX/6+LUCK/6, and un-linked speed from it. The last was kinda hard for me, because I like the idea of DEX being linked to Speed, but in practice it never was.

EGO - I reduced the cost to 1-per. Partly because I wanted all the 'mental' characteristics to have the same cost, partly because I don't feel that Mental Defense is as useful in Heroic-level games because Mental Powers are pretty rare most of the time, and partly because I change the ECV calculation to EGO/6+LUCK/6.

Speed - Removed DEX from the equation. Characters start with a 3 speed base, and can increase it normally.

LUCK - The whole point of the exercise. Costs 2 points per point of luck, and luck gives Luck/5 dice of luck dice and also adds 1/6th of its value to OCV, DCV, and ECV.

Gambling - I changed it so that it is based on Luck instead of INT.

Luck - I removed the Luck power, since it is now redundant.

DI, Growth, and TK - I doubled the cost of these powers to reflect the increased cost of STR.

Thats about it, I guess.

Here's the Template, I'm gonna see if I cant get a chance to test it out soon.

Have any thoughts? Please let loose.

Re: Henshin!!!

Do you reember Men In Black 2. Size (or Volume) are relative and matters of perception...

Great point. Repped

Hearing more about this, and still refusing to actually watch anything that threatens to bring back nightmares of power rangers in french...um where was I?

Oh yeah

Maybe you should put the armor into a multi-power or something

If you have access to some powers with the armor 'on', and others with it 'off' then you could possibly simulate that by having one slot be a compound power with the armor/increased stats of having it on, another slot a compound power of it being off, etc...

I'd say BastardlySwede will let you get away with the whole calling/casting off of the armor as special effects - unless you want the caste-off to knock people around/deal damage. Then it can be another slot in the multipower. It really depends on what "certain powers" are available and why.

Brings me to this point - why does casting off the armor give you better speed - is it because the 'armor' is somehow making you move faster (i.e. putting its power into making you go faster instead of protecting you) or is it because you aren't encumbered by it anymore? If its the latter, you can buy some of your characteristics with the lockout limitation, defined as Not When Wearing the armor. Probably a -1/4 or -1/2, depending on how often you wear it.

For the 'clock up' power you can use Aid, Succor, or limited characteristics (as QM suggested) but again we get to why/how does the clock up work in special effects terms. When can the character use it? When in the armor, when not in the armor, or just whenever? Why does it work for only a limited time? is it because it is very tiring (costs end, increased end cost)? does it drain the power of the armor (side effect: cannot use armor for x amount of time after speed wears off), or maybe it has its own 'batteries' that get used up (charges or end reserve)?

For the rider kick, I'm thinking to shy away from HKA - is it really THAT deadly? Is it deadly on the same level/in the same manner as swords and laser rifles? I'm just not seeing you kicking limbs off of unarmored people. Of course, maybe you sprout blades of force from your feet or something - that would change things a bit. Enough rambling. You have two ways to go for it (well, more, but two direct/basic ones that aren't too wierd). Either you buy it as a HtH attack (again, as QM suggested, you probably want some kind of advantages or disadvantages on it) or...Martial Arts. If your character is going to have Martial Maneuvers, which from the descriptions I've heard I'm guessing you likely will, then you can buy an Offensive Strike or some other maneuver and call it your Rider Kick. You could also buy limited combat skill levels or something and make that your Rider Kick.

As for explaining it, I like QM where I quoted him above, but there's lots of different ways to 'splain it. Find one that you and the Bastardly Swede both like and agree upon - I don't think it'll be that hard.

Re: Bleeding Mounts for Food

I would just have them deal the horse a small amount of damage - 1 body at most, maybe 1 body every few meals. Don't make the horse take starvation damage, after all it still gets to eat grass. I'm not too sure about the Mongols particularly, but there are still people who do this in central asia, with both horses and camels. As I understand it, they choose a particular vein and always drink from it, and I think I heard somewhere that they use an anasthetic of some kind, probably herbal.

I've heard/read that among some of these peoples, they prefer to ingest blood in this fashion to eating "normal" food (normal to us).With my extremely basic knowledge of nutrition I cannot think of any reason offhand why a person couldn't subsist on this almost indefinitely, since blood is full of water, sugar, and all the other nutrients a horse needs. Probably some vitamin deficiencies, but those can take months to show up.

A question asked by an earlier poster inspired a few questions:

1 - Can a character with Martial Arts Sweep a maneuver? (Say, Martial Strike)

2 - If so, can they perform a Sweep with two (or more) different maneuvers? (Martial Strike followed by Legsweep)

If not, I assume the reason is because Sweep is a maneuver, and therefore cannot be combined with other maneuvers, just like you cannot combine a haymaker and an Offensive Strike.

so...

3 - Can a Martial Artist buy a 'Martial Sweep?' If so, would you have any reccomendations or thoughts on the cost of a "can attack multiple times" element?

Thanks

Re: Weirdest Party You]ve ever had

These are from back when I played dnd

Good Party:

Gnome Necromancer. Had a skeletal bat for a familiar, and wielded a shovel in combat with a bit too much gusto. Used short-duration animate dead spells to get temporary zombie servitors for simple tasks - like fetching drinks from the bar and running errands around town. He was pretty clueless and gave lectures on how undead weren't neccessaily evil and could be reformed from their brain-devouring ways. He used a spell which turned a rope into a rope leading to an invisible floating tent every night, secretly, so the party thought for a while that he buried himself or something.

Storm Priestess. Wore no armor, carried no weapons. Zapped people with lighting enthusiastically, but claimed to be a pacifist. She refused to heal the party (Except the dwarf, who she had a crush on for some bizarre reason) if they complained about the weather or went in from the rain. Thank god the necromancer could heal...

Glaivyn, cuisinart-style warrior. Named for his weapon of choice...for about the first 3-6 rounds of combat, till he rolled a 1 and pole-vaulted. Fortunatly he believed that if he was proficient in a weapon, he should carry at least one. So he had 4 or 5 polearms, plus axes, spears, swords, maces, flails, and other, more unusual weapons. Terrible, terrible luck. I don't think I ever saw someone celebrate more when he rolled a crit success - probably because for every 20 he rolled, he rolled 5 or 10 1s. No joke.

The Tallest Dwarf. A 5' tall dwarf. Not much of a dwarf I said, but the DM didn't care. 18 STR, 20 CON to start with - and he kept rolling 12s on his barbarian hit dice. We called him the Heal Glutton because after a battle we'd have to rest for TWO days to get enough healing spells to heal him back to full - and then a third day so the Necromancer and the Priest had some more spells to toss around.

The Barbarian Thief. A huge barbarian (I think he was 6'8" or something) who wielded a greatsword in one hand (he later dual-wielded two magic ones - I hated Monkey Grip) who was cowardly in the face of authority and immune to the concept of danger, and partially retarded to boot (INT 6), he never ever took any ranks in open locks. He just broke the doors down instead.

Elven Conjurer. An elf wizard. The GM let us roll 3 sets of stats, and I rolled two with all 8s and 11s, and one with four scores above 15, including an 18, but also a 3. I chose that one and put the 3 into con - since he was an elf, this meant he had a constitution score of 1 (one). He made Raistlin look beefy and tough. With a whopping 1 hp per level, he was in constant danger of being killed by atmospheric pressure. Understandably the character was absolutly paranoid about disease, cleanliness, pointy things, violence of any kind, and generally everthing in general. His first action every combat (I put one of those high stats into dex and bought quickened spell as soon as I could) was to summon a Meat Wall (12 goblins, who were trained to form a pyramid, like cheerleaders) and improved invisibility. Riotous "fun." I think he was the only character the priestess would heal, because he used his Shield spell as an umbrella and floated everywhere he went. He was raised from the dead at least a dozen times before the GM remembered that rasing someone from the dead permanantly drops their con score by 1... so I created the Gnomish Necromancer.

Evil Party:

* Hobgoblin Enchanter. He thought himself a dashing and charismatic mastermind. His only notable possessions were a bunch of disloyal goblin slaves and a cloak which could teleport him away, announcing both his dpearture and arrival with a puff of smoke.

* Ogre Thief. His primary weapon was a magic brick, wrapped in a magic sock. It dealt subdual damage, but lots of it - at range. He also had a Bag of Disguise - like the hat, but a bag. When worn over the head (as he was wont to do) he was blind.

*Gnomish Mad Scientist. He was only good at making poisons, which he though were beneficial potions and tried to sell or push down the parties throats. He wore a suit of armor covered in spring-loaded spikes and wielded a motorized 3-headed flail that allowed him to fly short distances. His usual method of attack was being thrown at people by the Ogre. He did'nt always expect this.

Arriving in town always went something like this:

H: Ah, a town where we can rest our weary feet and hatch a proper scheme. Goblins! Wait for us here. Ogre! You too, we can't bring you into town without attracting undue attention.

GM: The goblins flip you off and prepare to ambush the next person coming into town.

O: *Pulling bag of disguise over his head* I can go to town, see...I'm a Troll! *Starts stumbling blindly towards town*

G: *Distracting H by trying to recruit goblins to sell his 'potions' in town* Come on, come on, the more of you help out the more money you'll make, I sell you the potions for 1 gold each, you sell them for 5 - easy money.

H: They don't have any money. I take it all. Now stop peddling your poison to my slaves and lets find an inn.

G: It's not poison! I'm just allergic to them. Here, try one for yourself.

H: Where'd the ogre go?

G: Meh. Who care's.

GM: You hear the town gates being closed, and the guards shouting "Troll!"

O: A Troll! Where?! I'm scared of Trolls! *Runs headlong into the gate*

H: I guess I'd better tell the goblins to set up camp...again.

That game was hilarious fun - we played in on the weekend of april fools a few years ago. The player playing the Ogre had a great voice for him too.

Re: Please look over this character

I wouldnt consider the stats to be unusually high for a 150 point character.

Really? In our game it's odd for a character to spend 60 points in stats - and those are the warriors and hybrids.

Paramedics makes ok sense for a bouncer - dangerous job, but it doesn't pay enough to see a professional everytime you break your nose.

Re: Spending experience points

Basically' date=' your approach strikes me as mandating certain approaches to character growth while prohibitting, or at least discouraging, other approaches. It sounds like a holdover from other game systems where your stats are rolled at the start and stay the same, more or less, forever, while your xp gains result in greater skills and other abilities, but rarely, if ever, increased stats. Hero is designed to be more flexible than that, so why not take advantage of that flexibility?[/quote']

Ah...yes. You assume we TELL our players how we're going to restrict their xp spending.

No, I'm just joking.

While the issues you are talking about do come up, in conversation, it doesn't really bother us too much since characters with high stats/low skills tend to be pretty useless outside of combat, and theres an awful lot of non-combat stuff (Y'know, roleplaying) in our games. Also, if a player were to approach me (or any of our group's GMs) and show me their character 'vision' at 250-300 points, I suspect I'd just kinda giggle and let them know that they'll have to play that character for around 100 sessions before they'll accumulate that much xp - with an average of 3 sessions a month, that works out to almost 3 years in real life. Only a couple of our games have lasted that long, and it was never because they were intended to.

Re: Spending experience points

Arg...silly firefox just crashed and lost my page+ long post.

Basically, I said I like Zornwil's thingy of 'pre-spending' bonus xp for a player depending on what they did during a session, and that my group of GMs restricts xp spending in the following ways:

Skills - One xp point can be put into a particular skill per session, and not more than 2 or 3 sessions in a row - so learning 5 points of Russian will take at least 6 sessions. Of course, this is waived if there is signifigant down-time or other extenuating circumstances (PC is a cyborg who paid points for an integrated computer which allows him to download skills, magicly-enhanced tutoring, or whatever)

Stats - No more than one characteristic point per session, total. Generally, stats cannot be raised more than 2-3 points above what they started at, and you can't step on other characters toes. Again, extenuating circumstances apply.

Powers - Few, if any restrictions, but we do require the character have a logical way to learn/gain them in-game, and it usually takes time and 'grows' - generally the character gets no more than 5 points of the power per session, though they will often spend all the xp up front.

Re: AsSFXiate

I agree with Ghost Angel, Sean Waters (for once!) and the others who have said that the difference between Source (or Mechanic) sFX and an effect sFX. Like GA said, sometimes it doesn't really matter, but sometimes it does. Does Magic Fire act like Fire?

I would personally suggest that in *some* games, codifying a set list of sFX would be a good thing. In a Fantasy Hero game I'm working on (always working on games, never playing them...) I'm going to have all spells fall into one of six 'elemental categories.' Lightning, wind, and weather go into Sky, Light, Healing go into Holy, etc... If (more like when) I'm approached with something that doesn't fall neatly into one of those, I'll tell the player to pick one, and it will interact with other sFXs that way.

So each of these elements will have a small benefit against one other element, and a weakness against another. This will be codified before the game starts, and players will know about it.

If you can't tell, I think codifiying sFX can work quite well, but only if the GM restricts them a relativly short list. For most games it would be a futile exercise to try and come up with every possible contigency for sFX interactions. Add to this that some sFX are going to work 'better' than others more often than others, just by their nature, and it becomes pretty impossible to do it (without artificially restricting them, at least).

So good luck in your endeavors and all that jazz. Back to homework.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

Only when 'losing' equals 'death' of all or much of the party should the characters not lost against a major opponent. As GM, I keep contingencies and prison-break contingencies on hand in case they do lose.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

Something I haven't seen addressed yet...

How would this idea interact with Unluck?

A negative Luck score. Just as you can have negative STR or COM as a base value, you could have a negatuve LUCK all the time - thats unluck. If people want both luck and unluck (which is only provinally allowed by the book, anyways) then they could buy the Disadvantage. But most of the time Unluck could be simulated with a negative characteristic.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

First, thanks for the responses, I was a bit afraid I'd run into someone decrying me for befouling the Hero system. As much as I'd like to respond to everyone, I'll have to cherry-pick from you guys. Before I do, I'd just like to mention one other reason I wanted to make luck a characteristic that I forgot to put on my previous post - It makes Adjusting it a lot easier. If you want to have a spell/power/doohickey that makes someone luckier (or unluckier) you currently need a transform, since most people don't have luck/unluck, and it just seems to me that Aids and Drains are so much...neater than transforms for doing this.

As for responding to particular points:

You would have to create a very clear framework in terms of when this characteristic applied and did not apply' date=' and how opposed MoS rolls were to be interpreted. I say this because the original Star Trek RPG had a luck characteristic, and it pretty much dominated all other factors in the game. This would have to be very carefully implemented to avoid turning the game into a luck roll bonanza.[/quote']

 

I agree mostly - Just as I like Luck dice to be a 'fudge factor' once in a while, I see Luck as a characteristic working the same way - GM asks for it, you roll it, so the whole party doesn't get screwed over because you missed a skill roll by 1 (or something). But I would also want to have a fairly clear outline of what a player could expect to use it for - so they know not to ask for it for every single attack roll, but they know they will get it for every gambling roll. For example. I can see your point about getting carried away with luck, but if its not rolled alongside every other roll (especially in combat) that should be easily avoided.

 

Luck could have a part in OCV and DCV -- say, (DEX/2)+LUCK.

 

You could also let PD = (STR + LUCK) / 10 and ED = (CON + LUCK) / 10, just to make STR and CON less "cost-effective."

 

Of course, both of these would wreak havoc on our familiar "break-points."

 

I actually like the idea of using Luck for CVs quite a lot - repped (Ironic how the boards sense me a message bidding me luck). I agree with BNakagawa that applying it to defenses is going a bit far...especially since it allready applies to DCV.

I happen to Like that it screws with our break-points for Dex, and it might be nice to uncouple Dex entirely from one - such as if DCV was Dex/3, but OCV was Luck/3. Personally I like the idea that CV=(DEX+LUCK)/6.

 

I think if you wanted every character to have some luck, making it a characteristic makes perfect sense.. At base 10, everyone has their 2 dice luck, and for characters who's definition of powers is "Luck", they could go to town, perhaps even basing certain skills on the Luck Characteristic rather than Dex or Int.

 

For example, if people regularly drop money or secret passwords on the ground when you're around, it could easily be defined as "Sleight Of Hand, based on Luck Char"..

 

Another example of redefining the base CHAR of skill rolls is Missile deflection - You could easily redefine it to be based on 9 + (Luck/3) rather than the old dex roll.. though Luck is so much cheaper than Dex, the characters are still going to have to purchase a decent amount of Dex to have combat effective characters.. I don't think it would be too unbalancing for a Luck based character.

 

And in a figured stat like Fate points (experienced gained/5 + Luck/10) and use them like Hero Points or .. or whatever. I don't know. It sounds cool..

 

-CraterMaker

 

I really like the idea of basing skills off of luck when coupled with Zornwil's 'all-or-nothing' idea, but I think it would be going too far to let characters base whatever they want off of luck - why have high Dex, Int, or Pre, when a high Luck score covers all of your skills?

 

It would be sort of interesting' date=' if you have a Luck stat and to allow players to put skills onto it, to make it so that for those skills success or failure is absolute, no shades of gray - you either suddenly see a piece of paper in a book with the answer or you have no clue; you either remember your Aunt May used to go out with that guy or you have no idea; I say this to put in variation with how many if not most GMs play skills where how much you succeed or failure by matters.[/quote']

 

As I said above, I like this idea - but I would want some guidlines for how many/what skills can be based on Luck, and why (mechanically) would a skill-based character not just buy tons of Luck and have all their skills based on Luck.

 

As another idea' date=' Luck could generate a Luck Pool which is Luck/5 (or whatever) that in any combat indicates the number of Overall Levels you have for any purpose at all (whether an attack, a skill roll, etc.) per Turn. But these Levels are perishable, and you can use them at once or spread them out. So if you have 30 Luck, you could spend all +6 on one action in a Turn or spread it out to a +1 on each of your Phases if you're, say, 6 SPD. Using Luck/5 means it's really cost-effective but does ensure it will be used/featured; using Luck/10 balances it a little bit more against buying actual OCLs (though still definitely not balanced since you can use Luck for other things), but doesn't make it so you get to use it to much dramatic effect.[/quote']

 

This is also a good idea, but I like making CVs partially figured off of Luck better, and this would feel like double-dipping. Though perhaps Luck as a characteristic vs. Luck as a power could be distinguished by having the dice 'fade' - A character with 15 Luck has three dice, if they roll two 6s on a luck roll early in today's game session, then they only have one die of luck for their next roll - and so on until they roll another 6. Conversely Luck bought as a power doesn't 'fade' like that.

 

By the way, if I end up using this, it will be in a heroic game, and I may want a hand with designing a HD template to include the Luck stat - but that'll come later, if at all.

 

Thanks for all the ideas, everyone!

Schools' been keeping me away from the boards here, so I'll make this brief - OK, its me, so probably not.

Had an Idea while brainstorming with a friend a few days ago - it built off of my fancy for the luck power, my dissapointment that it never seems to get used in our games, and my thought that every character, being a Hero, should be at least a little lucky.

What if luck was a characteristic? Base 10, costs 1 for 1, get Luck/5 dice of luck from having it. Luck would also determine ties in skill vs skill contests, so 'fractional' luck would have a purpose. It could even be the base characteristic for some skills (like gamblings and, uh...gambling). I'm sure other uses for it could come up, if needed - but I don't think they would be.

Thoughts, suggestions, flames?

Re: Daily Art Findings

http://features.cgsociety.org/stories/2006_08/farewell_kiss/wallpaper.jpg

Re: WWYCD in the event of an approaching army

When this happened to Thurg, the Half-Orc Warrior-Priest, he and his companions (both the 9-Months pregnant Mage and the 10-year-old war orphan) stood alone in front of the city gates to confront them. Thurg used his holy powers to project a message from the Goddess (duo-theistic setting, Good Goddess, Evil God) informing the approaching army that they would have to fight and slay a child, a pregnant woman, and a holy man in order to breach the city gates and do unspeakable things to those within, and such an act would doom every last one of them to an eternity of torment in hell.

They left the city alone (as far as we know, since we left only a few hours later to pursue the bigger army marching east)