Kabluey

Re: Free Will I think the problem here is that it relies on a specific build of the power, which we haven't seen because the OP didn't provide it. And in any case I don't really think it's relevant to the discussion. The question wasn't, "How to build the power," but rather, "How would you react to this circumstance"? For all your character would know, it might actually do all that.

Re: Free Will

Re: FH without Stun Here ya go [ATTACH]22341[/ATTACH]. This is the program I wrote and use. It uses a similar dice syntax as Simon's Javascript page, but has a number of enhancements, specifically in this case that it does roll hit locations. It's a Java program, so you'll need Java 1.5+ to use it. Take a look. If it does what you need, cool. If you have any problems, comments, or suggestions, feel free to let me know.

Re: Free Will Nope. Same problem. Sooner or later, even if he's "immortal", something will take him out of the picture, at which point people will have to deal with being human again, after having lived for years without developing coping skills. Really? Because it occurs to me that this might very well be a way to build a charistmatic character like Ghandi or Martin Luther King - any individual who seems to have an extraordinary ability to influence the opinions and actions of another.

Re: New Player freaks the heck out of me. In my first Champions game, I had several players who wanted to take Independent. I just didn't allow it. When I explained that it could be permanently taken away, I was particularly amused at the response: "But no GM would really do that." My guess is, assuming your player correctly understands Independent, then that's what he's thinking too, in which case it's not a limitation.

Re: FH without Stun First, I agree with what everyone else has said: removing STUN really can have a major impact. I would recommend against it.

Re: What setting does your campaign use? At least based on the replies, I'm one of the few people who actually uses a published setting, Harn specifically. Like a lot of the people here, I've been GMing 20+ years or so, and in that time I've created quite a few worlds. But I've never really been happy with them. I've tried various approaches, but none of them have really worked satisfactorily for me. Harn meets my desire for a consistent, low-magic, realistic-yet-still-fantastic world. It's got beautiful maps, and since it's been supported now for over 20 years, there's a ton of information out for it (including an inordinate amount that is fan-produced and of high quality and free). We're still pretty early in the campaign, but thus far it's worked out wonderfully. I've sent the party on a quest that will take them from one end of Harn to the other, thus giving me the opportunity to show off all the wonderful places I've been reading about, and will give me the chance to tie in to some of the bigger political plots present in Harn (the Jarin rebellion and the Kaldor succession crisis, to be specific). And overall I think the players have responded well to it. I was a little concerned, given that we all had a long D&D/high-magic background, but thus far the response to Harn's lower-magic setting has been quite positive.

Re: Well, I finally gmed Hero System (long) Killer Shrike has a lot of good advice. I'll just offer two little tid-bits in addition to what he said: Rolling Damage: For normal damage, I found it simplest just to assume an average BODY. That is, let people roll their dice and count STUN, but always assume 1 BODY per die. While KS is correct that counting STUN or counting BODY is pretty straightforward, I find that having to do both all the time can slow things up quite a bit. (Of course, if you're game is using more Killing Attacks than Normal Attacks, then this may not be much of an issue. For my 4-color Champions game, where 90+% of the attacks were Normal, I'd guess it saved a lot of time. For even faster die rolls, though, consider a computer die roller, if possible. END for NPC's: I never keep track of END for NPC's. But I do try to keep END in mind while playing the NPC. For instance, if I have an NPC with a really big attack, I might in my mind imagine that it would take a lot of END and thus only use sparingly. I wouldn't necessarily build all the NPC's with 0 END or Charges, however, just because of Pushing. Though again I only Push sparingly. Basically, I just manage NPC END through more of a "feel" appoach rather than tracking numbers.

Re: mass group combat Forgive my ignorance, but I've not heard the term "mosh-combat" before. I take it from your post that it basically means, rules for dealing with characters in large combats but not rules for playing out the battle itself. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. At least for my purposes, this isn't what I was looking for. I've done battles before using several different rules sets, including AD&D's Battlesystem (both 1st and 2nd Editions) as well as some miniatures rules. When I've run the battles, I don't so much worry about the players as heroes but rather as generals. I wouldn't build a campaign around something like that, but as a single session, it's been a lot of fun in the past. And in my current fantasy campaign, my plan is that the players will be among the leaders of a crusade. So again I'll focus on them as generals, not as heroes. Unfortunately, I've lent my FH out but as soon as I get it back, I'll take a closer look at the mass combat rules. Thanks for everyone's opinions.

Re: mass group combat Any opinions as to how well it works? At some point in the future my fantasy campaign may involve mass combat, and I wanted to get a sense for whether I should start looking at alternatives. For those who may have tried something else for mass combat, what did you pick and why?

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues I agree, which was my point. I don't think I said (or at least I didn't intend to say) that it's all-or-nothing - you must always hold or not. In fact, my comment was meant to counter what I perceived to be Hugh Neilson's comment that you would usually if not always be holding your action. Even my comment about the fighter striking first was qualified with a "generally", meaning not always. You have to take into account the tactical situation and take the appropriate action even if that action to wait until later.

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues Just to be clear, I'm not saying Hero needs AoO's. In fact, I'm happy without them (though I never found them onerous or time-consuming when I played d20 as others have indicated). All I'm saying is that Held actions is not a replacement for AoO. So if you're responding to a d20 player, I do not think its fair to say that Held Actions do what an AoO did in d20. I do think it's fair to say that it's not really a problem - though the player's question would seem to indicate that he thinks it is. Having said that, I have myself thought of the issue of stopping an opponent from moving through one's own hex, and failing your pointing out a rule that I'm unaware of, I do think it may be a shortcoming in the Hero System. Not a major one, and certainly not requiring trying to shoehorn AoO's into Hero System, but something that might be more "Hero"-ish but still address the issue.

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues

Re: Moving from D&D - rules issues I have to disagree. There are interposing rules (p. 140 of Combat Handbook, for those who are curious), but they definitely don't have the same "feel" as Attacks of Opporunity (which was what the original post was about). If you Interpose, all you're doing is trading your DCV this phase for extra OCV next phase. If the attacker is willing to take the hit, you've done absolutely nothing to stop him from attacking the individual. Indeed, if you interpose and the attacker can move beyond your range, then your extra OCV is useless. With AoO, the attacker has to survive your attack, then he can make his own. Of course, as you correctly point out, you can use a Held action, but that really isn't what Attacks of Opportunity are meant to address (they have Readied actions in d20 for just such similar situations). It's more of a, "Oh $#%!, they're trying to get to the mage. Better do something!", rather than a, "After due tactical consideration and party debate, I have determined that protecting the mage is my foremost priority and will therefore Hold my action until the foul creatures attempt to attack him."

Re: Traveller Hero, a major announcement

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign Speaking as a Harn GM, I would like to take some issue with the use of the phrase "low fantasy". While I think it is essentially correct, I think it may give the wrong impression that there is less opportunity for adventure than most other worlds. This is certainly not the case. Want to explore ancient ruins filled with powerful magic? There are Earthmaster sites throughout Harn (Earthmasters were an ancient, very powerful and mysterious race predating any of the current cultures on Harn). Want to fight monsters? There's a god, Ilvir, who lives on Harn and gets his rocks off by creating new monsters and letting them loose in the world. Want to travel to other dimensions? There are Godstones, portals created by the Earthmasters that can transport beings to any number of locations (and even sometimes bring them to Harn, thus another source of monsters and such). Pretty much any trope of the fantasy genre you can think of has its place in Harn (and Harn is really only a small corner of a much larger world). Players can interact with the wildly fantastic and magical all you want. It's just that the wildly fantastic and magical can't be found on every street corner as in most "High Fantasy" worlds. You're not likely to see a flock of griffins mounted by warriors serving as the local kingdom's air force, but there's no reason you can't have a griffin being ridden by a mad mage. Just because your average peasant doesn't encounter magic and monsters doesn't mean that your players don't. I'm not saying that Harn is for everyone. I'm just saying that equating low fantasy with low adventure is a big mistake.

Re: Do you have Active Point Limits? For me, the answer is: It depends. My first Champions game about two years ago, I used AP limits. I ended up begin very unhappy with that and going to Damage Class limits. This included Advantages as specified on p. 404 in 5ER, so - referring to an earlier poster's example - 2d6KA and 2d6KA AoE would not be the same DC. I coupled this with some other limits (e.g., defenses, SPD, OCV/DCV), and this worked fairly well. In my current Star Hero campaign, I have no AP limits, but then there's almost nothing a character takes in the way of powers, and equipment is already built for them, so there's no real need. I have one guy that has some implants, but I evaluated this based on effect not on AP. For my Fantasy Hero campaign, I am using AP limits sort of. Spells are rated in levels and the level is determined by the AP of the spell. But all spells start at 1st level and advance through higher levels; there's no set spell list per level like there is in D&D or similar sorts of systems. And I provide the list of 1st level spells. So I have control over what initial spells are introduced, though players have flexibility in terms of advancing spells to higher levels. So there's no absolute limit in AP's, but you can't advance a spell more than one level at a time, which equates to 10 AP's.

Re: What fundamental things did they really get "right"? So many things, it would be hard to name them all. If I had to pick a few, I'd say: * The fact that everything (equipment, spells, talents, etc.) is built off powers - makes it easy to read a spell, for example, and to know exactly what it will do and makes the whole system more balanced and less arbitrary. * The speed chart - it really allows a speedster, for example, to shine. * Abort actions - adds a tactical level to combat I found lacking in other games That's just my quick list. And since something I said they got wrong in the other thread was pointed out to me not to be so (specifically that normal max stats cap at 30, not 20 as I thought), I guess they got that right too.

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign At least on this point we certainly agree.

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign I think MM is correct, a manor lord would never want his peasants to be well armed or trained. It would just be too likely that the peasants would turn that training on their lord. Most likely, rather than giving them extra training, he'd just tell them to flee into the keep when monsters appeared. And if a few peasants died? Well, that'd be a shame, of course, but better that than losing his holding to a revolt.

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign I'm currently in the early stages of a campaign set in Harn, which is a much more realistic take on medieval world than most other published settings. All of my PC's are freemen, though two started out as serfs. One's family actually purchased his freedom from the manor lord, but there is the expectation that he will send money back to compensate them. The other was given his freedom after he saved the lord's wife. My plan is that at least one of these will be given a knighthood, after they've achieved some more noteworthy accomplishments. Also, Harn has a rule that a serf can gain his freedom if he escapes to a freetown and remains there for a year and a day. I don't know if there was a similar tradition in European history, but it does allow the possibility for any serf gaining his freedom. Of course, it's assumed that very few serfs try to escape (the life of a freeman was in some ways worse than that of a serf), and that of those who do the vast majority are caught very quickly. So, yes, I think a serf can become an adventurer and a hero.

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system? Really? The current weightlifting record (according to Wikipedia) is 472 kg, whereas a 30 STR is nearly 4 times this much (1600 kg). This is the normal human max? Those weightlifters are all wimps! If 30 is meant to be the cap, then perhaps the STR table just needs to be adjusted. The other stats one could easily accept as capping at 30, since they have no specific correlation to measurable performance.

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system? I agree with what others have said about Killing Damage, but only because I have a few players in my group that seem to have no ability to grasp the differences. I haven't adopted any of the suggest house rules on the topic (though the Advantage actually appeals to me), but a more streamlined system would be nicer. The STUN lotto aspect doesn't bother me, though, ever since I moved to the Hit Locations chart. I'd also change adjustment caps. I'm not sure the best alternative (I have given the topic quite a bit of thought), but I just don't like the amount of recordkeeping the current system requires. (I realize, btw, that this is not a fundamental change, but it's a big deal for me.) The other big thing I'd change is increasing the gradiant for stats with heroic-level characters. A range of 10-20 just seems too small, given that it takes only 10 points for a character to reach the upper limit of human STR, for example. With 150 points, I can't ever see building a fighter with less than 20 STR and most likely a 20 CON and BODY or DEX as well. Solutions could range anywhere from a more mundane lower of Normal Characteristic Maxima to 15 to perhaps a more radical increasing cost of stats a la GURPS.

Re: Luck Options I've been using a variation on this for a little while now and have liked it quite a bit. I actually use poker chips, and the specifics for each chip type vary a little, but otherwise it's what I use. Thus far my players have all had positive things to say about it.