Doing so requires we not think ourselves above another. Any other. We may not agree with them, and we may even be forced to fight them, but none of that makes us 'better.'
Often it requires us to give way when the urge to be unmoving is causing the blood to pound in our ears.
It can require us to stand silent before the jeering mass even when we feel justified in bringing the hosts of heaven down around their heads.
It always requires us to accept our own fallability. No matter how much we would like to protest to the contrary, we are the cause and center of our trials and troubles.
Pride erodes away at us slowly and steadily. The longer we let it do so, the greater the distance between us and the rest of our world will become.
Close friends become acquaintances.
Friendly rivals become enemies.
Disagreement becomes intolerance and hate.
We like to ignore how destructive pride is. We'd like to make it a virtue. We want our posturing and chest-thumping to be seen as good and righteous.
Doing so requires we not think ourselves above another. Any other. We may not agree with them, and we may even be forced to fight them, but none of that makes us 'better.'
Often it requires us to give way when the urge to be unmoving is causing the blood to pound in our ears.
It can require us to stand silent before the jeering mass even when we feel justified in bringing the hosts of heaven down around their heads.
It always requires us to accept our own fallability. No matter how much we would like to protest to the contrary, we are the cause and center of our trials and troubles.
Pride erodes away at us slowly and steadily. The longer we let it do so, the greater the distance between us and the rest of our world will become.
Close friends become acquaintances.
Friendly rivals become enemies.
Disagreement becomes intolerance and hate.
We like to ignore how destructive pride is. We'd like to make it a virtue. We want our posturing and chest-thumping to be seen as good and righteous.
from Death Tribble. A tribute to Hermit's zany imagination and I quote the mighty Hermit:
Dr Destroyer speaks,"As you can see, my genetic make up is...difficult to duplicate exactly. Still, one of my duplicates matches my intellect even if physically he has come up a bit ..short."
The tiny helmeted figure hops up onto the chair and glares malevolently in his three foot five inch armor.
The Doctor continues, "I call him... Mini-D.""
While I'm here, I ought to post something I just completed the other day. I've posted the black and white version of this piece in this thread before, and now here's the color version. The original had a few "speedlines" to denote motion. Here, I"ve erased those in favor of the backdrop. I found a picture of the New York skyline that was at a perfect angle for my needs, and motion blurred it. Looks pretty decent if I do say so!
irond_will,
First, welcome to the boards.
I found myself in the same position you are a few years ago.
I had played Champions in the early 80's, lost contact with all the people I knew who had played, and then many years later, happened upon the previous version of these boards while searching the internet for a place to buy Champions stuff.
On to general considerations.
I don't really consider your questions to be trolling, but they were somewhat like picking up a stick, walking over to a dead horse, and saying:
"Did you guys see that? He tried to kick me! We need to give him a good beating!"
The points you brought up have indeed been discussed to death, but that does not mean that they are totally invalid.
I think the problem is, some people see them a bit like laws.
Not that they cannot be changed, but that changing them may very well have unintended consequences, throwing off game balance in worse ways.
I don't think that everyone is "resistant to change".
But, I have seen cases, not necessarily on the specific points you bring up, where someone will say:
"I think rule Z is broken, here is how I am going to fix it!"
People who know the system inside and out (I don't claim to be one of those ) will start posting questions:
"Do you realize that your change is going to change the balance of X?"
"Do you know that under your rule, construct Y is now possible, which is more abusive than the problem you are trying to solve?"
I do not mean to say that all changes should be "shouted down".
But most things that people see as "flaws" in the system work fairly well when used properly.
And since any significant change in the rules will invalidate a huge amount of existing material, there should be really compelling reasons for these changes.
The fact that something is "open to abuse" is not necessarily a system flaw, it is more like "user error", or "deliberate misuse".
Think of even the most basic games.
Checkers:
"It would be possible for someone to put a Checker up their sleeve and place it on the board.
They could use this Checker to create a "King" or to replace a piece that had been taken by the opposing player.
There should be a specific rule that all players must submit to a strip search before play begins.
Also, before the start of each turn, a referee should count the Checkers on the board, and those that have been taken, to assure that no player has hidden a Checker on their person."
Now I am sure that there is a rule in Checkers, or at least an implied rule, stating that you can't just add in an extra Checker on your side when you feel like it.
But some immature players are going to fall back on: "Well, you didn't do anything to stop me from putting in an extra Checker, so I did! The rules are broken!"
Now you did say that when you were playing that you and your fellow players were not very mature. I understand that completely. We came up with some ridiculous stuff in my group too, back then.
But a lot of the "problems" in Hero really come from GM's who are too weak to stand their ground when players are creating characters.
The rules are pretty clear about sticking to your concept, not being abusive, etc., many people just choose to throw their hands in the air and let the players have whatever they want.
Why doesn't everyone in a Fantasy Hero Campaign buy a STR of 20?
Because unless you are a very strong fighter-type, that is probably not in your concept.
How does a wizard, who spends most of his time doing spell research in a dusty lab, justify being as strong as the Strongest Normal Human on Earth?
Sure, it is possible if that is your concept, but there had better be really compelling reasons for it, and you may be considered a misfit because of it.
How will the other small wimpy wizards react to your over-muscled behemoth?
Do you think they will be as willing to share secrets with someone who looks so different from them?
Someone who looks like the brawny fighters who pushed them around in their youth?
And, while it may be great to buy the high STR to get the benefits of it, their may be other repercussions for the Weightlifting Wizard.
He may have the STR, but not the other skills to participate in Hand to Hand combat.
What happens when he bumps into the local tough guy, spilling his drink?
Usually Tough Guy would have looked down and seen the Wimpy Wizard, and just let it go with a grumble.
But when the guy in the robe is built like a tank, he may ask him to "step outside".
What are you going to do?
Fry an unarmed man with a Fireball?
Cast some other spell to end the fight?
Now people are going to consider you an obnoxious bully.
You looked plenty strong enough to fight like a man, but you chose to "cheat" and use a spell.
Not really great for the reputation.
I am not saying that every character that does not fit some pre-existing "class" should be punished for being "different". The beauty of Hero is being able to create whatever you want.
It gives you a great deal of power to be able to put together whatever kind of character you want.
But with great power . . .
The GM has the right, and the duty, to look at a character sheet and say "NO!".
No, you can't have a 20 STR just because you like the figured characteristics.
No, you can't put twenty attacks into a Multipower just to save points.
No, you can't have an "Obvious Accessible Focus" that is the size of a grain of sand and implanted into your cerebral cortex.
No, you can't have a "Cool Powers" Elemental Control and put that inside of a Multipower.
Because Hero allows you the freedom to create virtually anything, it is almost impossible to anticipate every possible avenue of abuse, and cut it off without taking away flexibility. That is where the GM, and a little maturity on the part of players comes in.
On a few specific points. (Sorry this is so long, I must have some pent up posts or something )
1) Diminishing Returns - In a well run campaign, Mr. Massive One-Shot Attack is going to be the number one target of every opponent. If the character is constructed properly, according to the rules, and good sense, he will not have massive overall defenses. Which means that he will get to blast someone in the first fight he is in. After that Viper, Villain Groups, etc. will start thinking about how to deal with him. That is not "GM screwing" that is the natural evolution of a campaign world. I would let a player know that when they were creating the character. But, if they insisted on that concept, they would end up as a target. If you were the cops, and you were called to a scene, and one guy had a handgun and the other had a rocket launcher, who would you have the snipers trained on?
2) Killing Attacks - Already discussed by others. Just a few key points.
a) Stun Lottery - the best thing about them, in my opinion. Just like a bullet or a knife. A "good shot" can take someone down. A "nick" does almost no damage at all. There is nothing like seeing a player who needs to CON Stun a Villain with a nasty attack looking down at 5 Body and a x1 Stun Multiplier.
Perception - I am sure that Thor's hammer would do way more damage than anything the Punisher is carrying, but people see guns and think "bad guy". It sounds like your GM started with this idea, but didn't carry it through.
Killing Attacks that could CON Stun a Brick, are going to flat out kill a normal.
And I don't think mutilating an innocent, even if you can heal them back up, is going to sit well with the public.
3) The cost of Strength - Hey, this is a game. We are supposed to be playing Heroes. The Heroes of fiction, of nearly every genre, tend to be stronger than normal people. Strength is cheap so that you can have a character a little more "buff" than real people are without putting a load of points into it. Same thing with COM. That doesn't mean everyone should be a weightlifting champ, or Miss America. It is all about the concept. Just because it can be abused does not mean it is broken.
4) Heroic Campaigns - Haven't played them that much, but I would definitely use things like Higher Dex goes first, Higher INT notices first, etc. There would be a difference in how the numbers played out so that everyone would not be exactly the same.
5) Power Frameworks - Again, back to the GM. You just don't allow the kind of cheesy constructs you are talking about.
I don't mean this as a criticism of you or your past group. But it basically looks like you all went out of your way to "rape" the rules, and now you are claiming that the rules were "asking for it".
That doesn't really hold water.
Hero describes itself as a "Tool Kit".
If you choose to use a torque wrench for a hammer, you shouldn't complain when it gets "broken".
KA.
P.S. I tried my best to discuss your points. I had no intention of "attacking" you. If anything I said was offensive, please accept my apologies in advance.
beauxdeigh got a reaction from Klytus in A Thread for Random Musings
beauxdeigh got a reaction from zornwil in A Thread for Random Musings
beauxdeigh reacted to death tribble in Storn's Art & Characters thread.
