Nelijal

On reading the last post, I visited Fireflyfans.net, and I have two suggestions for any Firefly fan: 1. Do visit the site, it has some interesting reading. Currently posted is the script to "Heart of Gold," an unaired episode. It's quite good, you can hear the actors' voices in your head as you read. 2. The DVD set offered by trs80 is definitly worth the $25 he's asking ($40 for a set in standard DVD cases with color labels). I have a set and I'm very pleased with it. If you read the above thread, you will see nothing but positive feedback from owners of his DVDs. He puts these out not for profit but to promote the program, and he goes out of his way to help the people who have trouble getting the discs to play--there apparently are a lot of variables between players and media. And if you're looking to write a Firefly HERO campaign, what better reference material is there?

Here ya go, Old Man, SVGames is looking for people to try a new Mac utility for joining files: http://www.svgames.com/macpdfsupport.html

I had considered this, and obviously that's what's going on during a Dodge Maneuver. What I'm thinking about is that people in real fights move around A LOT. Boxing, Karate, or just a street brawl, the participants are all over the place. To counter the fact that moving an entire hex is a lot in the context of combat, I had also thought of allowing 1/2 hex moves, but that would require a great deal of forethought to make sure it didn't create a pure mess, or leave huge loopholes for people to try and take advantage of. I'm not quite ready to take HERO to the level of Advanced Squad Leader.

In Steve's "What do you want to see?" thread in the Fantasy HERO forum, a poster suggested building countries using HERO stats just like we build everything else in HERO. I thought this was an interesting idea, and I'll probably use it in the future. Looking at current events, this begs the question of what stats to give the major players in the present world scene. Any suggestions? (And don't everybody do France. )

Perhaps we're carrying old bad habits from our D&D days, but my group has very static HTH combat--each character is glued to a single hex while slugging it out. In real life, most any kind of fight is very dynamic, with the participants moving quite a bit. Note that I'm referring to Heroic level play, FH in our current game. My intention was to offer some incentives for characters who kept on their toes and moved during combat in order to get/keep an advantage on their opponents. So far I haven't done this, one reason being that I couldn't come up with any ideas. All I've come up with so far is to offer additional modifiers, nominally a +1 DCV, for judicious use of side-stepping or backing away from an attack. This would be in addition to the normal Maneuver bonuses: +3 DCV for a Dodge, +4 DCV for a Dodge while stepping back one hex. There should also be an offensive version of this, say a +1 OCV for pressing the attack into your opponent's hex. Am I thinking too hard, or is this viable? Should these things just fall into the category of circumstantial combat modifiers to be assigned on a case by case basis? I do concede that the one main thing I have NOT done to encourage this behavior is to have the NPCs be more dynamic--it's my bad habit, too. My brain cell appreciates your input.

FREd p118 says "A gliding character has some control over his movement, but not the total control provided by Flight." FREd also gives hanggliding and parachuting as examples. Since the Space Shuttle maneuvers during reentry (S-turns to bleed airspeed) I would think Gliding applies to it. The earlier capsules followed a ballistic path with no means to alter their trajectory, and that sounds like a freefall to me. It's a close call, I mean it's not like the shuttle can turn around and go the other way. In HERO terms, the Gliding power for reentry would require a heavy Limitation on how much control you have in maneuvering the vehicle.

Re: Two pieces of cardboard Now that's an interesting idea. After all, we build everything else using Characteristics, Talents, Perks, Powers, and Disadvantages, why not countries? I think such a build would be useful only in a big picture sort of way, describing the way societies as a whole interact with each other, but that's not a bad thing. It would probably help many--including me--to start world creation at such a high level in order to solidify that big picture. From there, the details of the individual societies would be easier to flesh out. I like it.

Re: FH Requests (Long) I would tend to disagree with this. Yes, some of such material may seem redundant, but what's obvious to one isn't always obvious to another. This info should just be specific to FH. African Swallow or European Swallow?

Thanks, Toadmaster, I understand now. I'm going to pull together some of the items in this thread and post a semi-cohesive set of suggested guidelines. Some of the posts are a little repetitious (of course, I've never done that ), each person giving their own take on very similar ideas. That's not a complaint, the input is great, it just looks like time to put the stuff together and give the thread a new reference point for further discussion. It may just be a day or two before I can do this due to the weather here in NC, my ISP was down last night and I lost power this morning. Transformers make a nice *pop* when they go. Anyone else is of course welcome to post their own summary of what's been discussed so far. Less for me to do, and it's much more fun for me to critique other posts than the other way around.

Maybe I'm just dense , but I'm not following what you're saying. It seems interesting, though, so could you offer another explanation?

Greenstar, I imagine that once we've exhausted our hair-splitting tendencies, we'll have something along those lines to use during the game. For armor, your rule sounds right to me, we just have to figure in how such a rule applies to other objects. My players, too, will balk at more calculations; for some reason, nobody wants to do integral calculus during combat, go figure.

The DEF of a damaged object should definitely be lowered, as I suggested above, but I don't think adding another stat to keep up with is the way to go. The input is good, though; some of us do seem to be thinking along the same lines. Heroic HERO players unite! Once we get this hashed out, we'll have to run it by Steve.

Yes, I think we're making progress, although I'm not comfortable with you sharing your tingly sensations with the rest of us. Okay, it sounds like we're heading in the direction of DEF being defined as the BODY damage required to "poke thru" something, and BODY describing the amount of damage to make a given size hole. FREd describes that sort of thing, just not very well, IMHO (no offense, Steve). This makes sense in that, by definition, if you exceed an armor's DEF, you do damage to the sucker wearing the armor, so we're in tune with FREd there. But, if you've poked thru the armor and the resulting hole is permanent, then you've also done damage to the armor itself; this needs to be accounted for as well. Same for shooting thru a door; the hole remains after you've snuffed the guy on the other side. So I would say that if you've gotten past DEF, there is at least the possibility of damage done to the object/armor. (I say possibility because you could do BODY damage to someone wearing maille armor without damaging the maille links to a significant degree.) Once you've done that DEF+BODY to make that initial breach, further BODY done to the material increases the size of that breach. There is also the issue of armor slowly degrading as it is damaged, and what we're doing here will help define that for those who want to include that in their game. After all, a few good strikes to the same Hit Location, and the DEF for that area should be reduced against future attacks. (This will probably also apply to weapon breakage, which has not been addressed very well.) 1. What constitutes making that original breach? BODY damage to an area that's equal to some factor of DEF? For example, DEFx2 in BODY makes a hole in the armor or door. 2. How does BODY done translate to the size of the breach? Compare total BODY to BODY done and apply that ratio to the size of the object? For example, once you've damaged a door to half its original BODY, then half the door is gone. Or should we say that at 1/2 BODY done, 1/4 the object is gone, since I believe FREd states that to totally destroy something requires 2x its original BODY? This is kewl, a nice, productive thread with no flaming (knocks on wood). Keep it coming.

Kewl, I think we're getting somewhere. BODY should probably be a linear function as you describe above--twice the stuff, twice the BODY. DEF might work better as a log function; for example, adding the DEF factor for each doubling of the thickness/material. So, for the DEF 2/BODY 3 per inch wood above, two inches would be DEF 4/BODY 6, four inches would be DEF 6/BODY 12, and so forth. How does that sound? We just need a good chart of base values to go from.

I couldn't agree more.

Re: The thread Temipel vesuidik! Come say that to my face!

I think one problem is that HERO assumes DEF to be a function of material type only, and BODY to be a function of how much of that material is in an object. In reality, DEF is also affected by the amount of material present. For example, a sword or .45ACP can do a lot of damage to a steel car body (they still exist, don't they?), but the same weapons used against a battleship turret will do nothing more than chip the paint (even assuming the two were made of the same grade of steel). I think this is somewhat taken into account in the rules, it's just that those of us running Heroic level games find flaws with the values given in the book. I don't fault Steve and the gang; I've toyed with some numbers before, looking for a way to scale game attributes so that a single standard could be applied to everything: humans to elephants, Faberge egg to aircraft carrier. It can be done, but the results look like the Fractionary Speed Chart, and who wants to play that? Probably the best to hope for is to come up with a set of values that work within the frame of a given game. If you can come up with something that works for swords, axes, oak doors, and castle walls, but not with artillery and battleships, run with it (assuming you're running heroic fantasy). And that's why I started this thread, to get you guys to give me some good ideas for my game.

That's right along the same lines I was thinking, Monolith. I would suggest that, instead of an all-or-nothing cutoff where the DEF values cross, a weapon could do minimal damage to objects with DEF equal to some multiple of the weapon's DEF, say 1/2 damage for targets up to 2x the weapon's DEF? Also, part of the problem with getting thru the oak door is that a sword is awkward in that situation, whereas an axe isn't. A better comparison would be trying to cut down a tree with either a sword or an axe. The axe will obviously do better. There's no getting around the GM having to adjudicate these situations--after all, that's his job. For consistency's sake, though, it would be nice to have some guidelines. My brain cell is starting to hurt.

I'm moving this topic from the "What do you want to see?" thread so Steve doesn't have to wade thru it. This is a subject that I've pondered on and I think it deserves some attention. The DEF/BODY of common materials seems to me also to be low compared to the damage HTH weapons do. I don't have an answer but my brain cell just had a thought: What if the ability to damage an inanimate object were based on the relative DEFs (and perhaps BODYs) of the weapon and target. In most cases (sword vs stone wall, for example) the rules take care of themselves since the sword's damage will never get thru the wall's DEF, but what about the gray areas that aren't so obvious (sword vs oak door)? Should the DEFs be compared, or should we simply up the DEF of common materials like wood? I'm spitballing here, so if it sounds like I haven't thought this all the way thru, you're right. I'm posting this to get a discussion going. Two heads are better than one, so a few more can't hurt, as long as too many cooks don't spoil the broth. . .

You can do that in BASIC, right? Actually, the Linux comment was just to bait you into admitting you're a Mac user . I'll spare you all the Mac jokes I use with my sister-in-law. Don't get me wrong, Bill Gates isn't on my Christmas Card list or anything, Microsoft's reach has far exceeded their grasp on some OS concepts, and I'm no huge fan of the W.I.M.P. interface (Windows, Icons, Mice, Pointers). I just like being able to shop for software in the whole computer store, not just one shelf in the corner . And didn't Bill steal the W.I.M.P. interface from the Mac to begin with? And thanks for reminding me, it's about time to do a clean reinstall of XP Home; XP is better in that regard than previous versions, but it still collects garbage. What was this thread about?

So, you're a Linux man?

The World Builder's Guidebook can be found as a $5 PDF download at SVGames: http://www.svgames.com/tsr9532esd.html. I've just bought it, but haven't had a chance to look thru it. SVGames has an odd setup; you buy the first part of a split PDF file, and the other part(s) and the winsplit utility to join the parts are downloaded from the product page.

I just printed the Fractional Speed Chart. It took TWO B-SIZE SHEETS in landscape mode to get it all. I'm going to put in on the wall for our next game and tell my players that we're going to use it.

World Creation Do a web search on "world creation" or "world building." You'll be amazed at what comes up.

Yeah, yea, I know, it's OT. [off-topic] You didn't like Howard the Duck? Yes, I do like George Lucas' stories. THX-1138 was an interesting debut, and American Grafitti is a classic. The Star Wars saga is also good story-telling, but actors such as Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman are capable of much better performances than he got from them. Don't forget Full Metal Jacket. Eyes Wide Shut covers a wide misconception about relationships, but definitely took the long road to tell the story. You are correct about the very obtuse 2001. 2001 is interesting in that Kubrick was inspired to do a movie about an Arthur C. Clarke short story, and the two collaborated on an expanded version of that story. Kubrick did the movie, and Clarke put it in book form. That makes it even harder to understand how Kubrick managed to NOT get the point across to the audience. 2001 is a classic--if you've read the book. [/off-topic] Yes, me too, I do prefer campaigns in which the PCs have "realistic" flaws and vulnerabilities.