Killer Shrike

Sad to report that George Perez has died, aged 67, from cancer.  Details:
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/george-perez-dead-wonder-woman-teen-titans-comics-1235261261/
 

I offered a level to points guideline for the purposes of converting characters from D&D (3e) to Hero System (5), but one of the main advantages of converting a D&D game to the Hero System for me is to get rid of class & level straight jacketing so I personally never used level semantics for my Fantasy Hero campaigns as anything other than a conversion tool and as an approximation for some players who were stuck in that mode of thinking and wanted some kind of touchstone to cling to. 
 
http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Conversion3e/Conversion3eStep1.aspx
 
Tangentially, this document spoke to considerations for how to adjust the way in which a DM coming from D&D (level based) might challenge PC's as a GM running the Hero System (point based):
 
http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Conversion3e/Conversion3eOpposition.aspx
 

I would do it procedurally, starting at the first regional settlement(s) in antiquity and walking forward in time introducing various events (wars, famines, new technologies, natural disasters such as floods, rivers changing course and / or getting damned and / or bridged (etc), over / under population, trade imbalances, and so on). Layer it up over time, to attain verisimilitude.
 
Also, it's useful to remember that contrary to common belief rivers flow downhill, not toward the equator, not toward a particular cardinal direction, and not in arbitrary directions. Thus the topography (particularly in regards to relative elevation) of the region should be carefully considered. If you have a giant lake with a bunch of rivers flowing into it, then it would logically need to be at a lower overall elevation to the areas the rivers are flowing to it from. If there is one river flowing out of it, then that outbound river would need to be flowing towards an even lower elevation, and there would need to be some barrier between that even lower elevation area and the adjacent areas or else some of the rivers flowing into the lake would actually flow towards that even lower elevation area instead.

I would do it procedurally, starting at the first regional settlement(s) in antiquity and walking forward in time introducing various events (wars, famines, new technologies, natural disasters such as floods, rivers changing course and / or getting damned and / or bridged (etc), over / under population, trade imbalances, and so on). Layer it up over time, to attain verisimilitude.
 
Also, it's useful to remember that contrary to common belief rivers flow downhill, not toward the equator, not toward a particular cardinal direction, and not in arbitrary directions. Thus the topography (particularly in regards to relative elevation) of the region should be carefully considered. If you have a giant lake with a bunch of rivers flowing into it, then it would logically need to be at a lower overall elevation to the areas the rivers are flowing to it from. If there is one river flowing out of it, then that outbound river would need to be flowing towards an even lower elevation, and there would need to be some barrier between that even lower elevation area and the adjacent areas or else some of the rivers flowing into the lake would actually flow towards that even lower elevation area instead.

I would do it procedurally, starting at the first regional settlement(s) in antiquity and walking forward in time introducing various events (wars, famines, new technologies, natural disasters such as floods, rivers changing course and / or getting damned and / or bridged (etc), over / under population, trade imbalances, and so on). Layer it up over time, to attain verisimilitude.
 
Also, it's useful to remember that contrary to common belief rivers flow downhill, not toward the equator, not toward a particular cardinal direction, and not in arbitrary directions. Thus the topography (particularly in regards to relative elevation) of the region should be carefully considered. If you have a giant lake with a bunch of rivers flowing into it, then it would logically need to be at a lower overall elevation to the areas the rivers are flowing to it from. If there is one river flowing out of it, then that outbound river would need to be flowing towards an even lower elevation, and there would need to be some barrier between that even lower elevation area and the adjacent areas or else some of the rivers flowing into the lake would actually flow towards that even lower elevation area instead.

I would do it procedurally, starting at the first regional settlement(s) in antiquity and walking forward in time introducing various events (wars, famines, new technologies, natural disasters such as floods, rivers changing course and / or getting damned and / or bridged (etc), over / under population, trade imbalances, and so on). Layer it up over time, to attain verisimilitude.
 
Also, it's useful to remember that contrary to common belief rivers flow downhill, not toward the equator, not toward a particular cardinal direction, and not in arbitrary directions. Thus the topography (particularly in regards to relative elevation) of the region should be carefully considered. If you have a giant lake with a bunch of rivers flowing into it, then it would logically need to be at a lower overall elevation to the areas the rivers are flowing to it from. If there is one river flowing out of it, then that outbound river would need to be flowing towards an even lower elevation, and there would need to be some barrier between that even lower elevation area and the adjacent areas or else some of the rivers flowing into the lake would actually flow towards that even lower elevation area instead.

The flow pattern Killer Shrike ably describes above applies to North America's Great Lakes when taken as a whole. Each lake, except Michigan and Huron which are hydrologically one lake, is at a different elevation and flow into each other: water flows from Lakes Superior and Michigan to Huron, then through the Detroit River to Lake Erie, then over Niagara Falls to Lake Ontario, and finally down the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean, ultimately the only outflow for all the Lakes.
 
The St. Lawrence and its region may be relevant examples for how circumstances might have influenced the evolution of Mr. R's cities. Upthread I already mentioned Quebec City, the capital of the province, built overlooking the St. Lawrence; but Montreal, farther upriver, is a far larger and more economically important city. It's built on an island in the middle of the river, so river traffic almost has to stop at it (and could easily be forced to if naval power was applied). Montreal is also near the point where the Gatineau River, Quebec's longest, joins with the St. Lawrence. Thanks to the St. Lawrence Seaway, the river is the sole route for deep-water shipping between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, and Montreal is smack in the middle of it. In this case the benefits of location outweigh those of being a government center.
 
That weight also shows in comparing Montreal to Ottawa, capital of Canada. Ottawa is built at the juncture of the Gatineau River and the Ottawa, another major river and traditional trade route. The incorporated city of Ottawa is over a million population, and its whole urban region adds to that by nearly 50%; but the city of Montreal is more than half again as large as Ottawa, and its urban region almost triple that of Ottawa's. (The city and urban region of Quebec City are close to 550,000 and 800,000+, respectively.) Ottawa and Montreal are around 100 miles/160 kilometers from each other, and while water travel between them is rare today, road, rail, and air travel is extensive.

I would do it procedurally, starting at the first regional settlement(s) in antiquity and walking forward in time introducing various events (wars, famines, new technologies, natural disasters such as floods, rivers changing course and / or getting damned and / or bridged (etc), over / under population, trade imbalances, and so on). Layer it up over time, to attain verisimilitude.
 
Also, it's useful to remember that contrary to common belief rivers flow downhill, not toward the equator, not toward a particular cardinal direction, and not in arbitrary directions. Thus the topography (particularly in regards to relative elevation) of the region should be carefully considered. If you have a giant lake with a bunch of rivers flowing into it, then it would logically need to be at a lower overall elevation to the areas the rivers are flowing to it from. If there is one river flowing out of it, then that outbound river would need to be flowing towards an even lower elevation, and there would need to be some barrier between that even lower elevation area and the adjacent areas or else some of the rivers flowing into the lake would actually flow towards that even lower elevation area instead.

Yes. I generally like it when players rotate characters. When I get the chance to play, I rotate characters as befits the narrative. As the GM I do enforce character shtick / niche protection, i.e. I wouldn't allow a player to make a new character that just steps on another existing PC's niche. And of course the introduction of the new character and exit of the old should be bent to fit the continuity of the campaign rather than the other way around.
 
As long as it isn't super disruptive, like every session of two, I see it as a beneficial thing. It can be an opportunity to extend the larger story of the campaign, reinvigorate the group dynamic, provide new hooks and / or pull in new antagonists, and so on.
 
 
Try not to make everything about you. Are the players there to serve you? Or are you a group of peers getting together to enjoy a collaborative creative activity? 
 
In the end, its just about having fun together. If any of the players, including the GM, are not having fun then either adjustments need to be made or one or more people should leave the group.
 
If this player isn't having fun playing the character they have, and them wanting to change their character is making things not fun for you, pick a path and go down it:
Player keeps character, possibly with some changes to the character or the campaign or both. Player makes new character Player leaves group GM ends campaign My experience in life is that most people problems start and end with a failure to communicate effectively. Try talking to the player to understand why they want to change characters, why that bothers you, and then figure out together which of the above four choices is best to your situation.
 
 
Right and wrong are irrelevant to subjective / emotional things. I would ask instead, is it productive for you to think / feel this way? Are your feelings making things better or worse? Seems to me that it is making things worse. So, flip the script and find a more productive footing to proceed from.

I agree with that. He sounds like he's ruining the fun for everyone else. He conceded now, but if he acts up again, give him the boot. I know you said he's a friend, but is he showing any friendship with that kind of behavior?

Hmmm. I get the impression of a control freak, my way or the highway, personality in this description. Throwing fits during conversations is not a sign of maturity, and I’m actually now thinking he is trying to take control of your campaign with his actions. You let him change characters once already, which caused you to retool some aspects of the campaign and now you’ll need to do it again.
 
Frankly, he does not sound like someone happy being a player, since your description is of him makes it sound like he was only GM-ing in prior play sessions. Give him one more chance if you want, but be prepared to let him walk away.

I have a possible solution to the ever-swapping player.
 
I built a character that had like 20 multiforms, each one a different superhero.  Kind of like Dial H, or the Miracleman concept, where you swap into a "body suit" of some different character.  Except he had no control.  The GM selected or randomized a character and handed the character to me when I activated the multiform.  That would give the guy variety without being terribly disruptive.

Yes, absolutely.  And its often a really great chance to have a really dramatic moment in the game when their old character retires, disappears, dies, whatever.  I've done it multiple times.   I've changed characters multiple times.

We here at Hero Games are deeply saddened to announce that our long-time friend, and frequent Hero Games author, Scott Bennie passed away earlier this week from complications due to pneumonia. As many of you already know, Scott suffered from extensive health problems for most of his life, and unfortunately this was one last struggle he simply couldn't win.
 
I personally met Scott in the early Nineties -- probably at one of the first DunDraCons I attended -- after I began writing for Hero myself and hitting the con circuit. In addition to being a talented writer and game designer -- perhaps best known to Hero gamers for his superb work on Classic Enemies and two VIPER sourcebooks -- Scott was quite simply one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever had the privilege to know. I'm so glad I had the chance to work with him on several projects, including the VIPER and Villainy Amok sourcebooks for HERO System 5th Edition.
 
The world is a darker place without Scott's light in it, and all of us here at Hero Games shall miss him terribly.

There was also discussion around the fact that no one ever bought up REC and END, rather than buying reduced END. Similarly, no one bought up STUN and REC - they just bought more defenses. They were overpriced, so their price was reduced. To mitigate that, at least to some extent, they were made "defensive characteristics" so adjustment powers would only have half as much impact.

Hey, good to see you! It's been a bit, it feels like. 

There are many books that I'll never crack open because they give strong indication that they are not meant for me and I likely won't enjoy them. I've started books that didn't grab my interest and thus I put them down. I've finished many more books, some of which were disappointing and / or instantly forgettable. However, I can't think of any books I've actually hated, as hate is a strong emotion and not something I'd so carelessly apply. 
 
Having said that, I've found most licensed novels to be drivel and I generally avoid them on principle.
 
 
 
 

Also, the various Sorcery variants in my urban fantasy setting Here There Be Monsters work somewhat as described. Invokers and the custom Invocation power are particularly close thematically (as I mentioned yesterday in the replies to the corresponding facebook post). Meanwhile, Necromantists, Daemonologists, and Elementalists use a variety of Followers, the Summon power, and various skills for some of their magic. 
 
Separate subject, a long time ago I threw a "fun" character up on these boards as an example for some other poster, to demonstrate a "summoner" whose powers were all various slots in a couple of MP's with a SFX of summoning things but no actual usage of the Summon power. There's a copy still laying around on my web server here: Mythic. A great benefit of the Hero System is that one can handle quite a lot of thematic woo woo simply with creative use of SFX.
 
Make of it what you will...
 

Also, the various Sorcery variants in my urban fantasy setting Here There Be Monsters work somewhat as described. Invokers and the custom Invocation power are particularly close thematically (as I mentioned yesterday in the replies to the corresponding facebook post). Meanwhile, Necromantists, Daemonologists, and Elementalists use a variety of Followers, the Summon power, and various skills for some of their magic. 
 
Separate subject, a long time ago I threw a "fun" character up on these boards as an example for some other poster, to demonstrate a "summoner" whose powers were all various slots in a couple of MP's with a SFX of summoning things but no actual usage of the Summon power. There's a copy still laying around on my web server here: Mythic. A great benefit of the Hero System is that one can handle quite a lot of thematic woo woo simply with creative use of SFX.
 
Make of it what you will...
 

Also, the various Sorcery variants in my urban fantasy setting Here There Be Monsters work somewhat as described. Invokers and the custom Invocation power are particularly close thematically (as I mentioned yesterday in the replies to the corresponding facebook post). Meanwhile, Necromantists, Daemonologists, and Elementalists use a variety of Followers, the Summon power, and various skills for some of their magic. 
 
Separate subject, a long time ago I threw a "fun" character up on these boards as an example for some other poster, to demonstrate a "summoner" whose powers were all various slots in a couple of MP's with a SFX of summoning things but no actual usage of the Summon power. There's a copy still laying around on my web server here: Mythic. A great benefit of the Hero System is that one can handle quite a lot of thematic woo woo simply with creative use of SFX.
 
Make of it what you will...
 

call the overloaded singleton getter:  com.hero.HeroDesigner.getInstance(true);
That'll give you an instance of HD without a GUI constructed. From there you can call the non-GUI methods as normal (loading characters, exporting, etc.). Most of the methods you'd be calling will be in the HeroDesigner class itself.
You'd be refactoring more than you think -- the HDC files are only half of the story. They have the build information (how many levels, what options are selected, etc.) but the rules are contained in the template -- you need to combine the two to get at a full character (determining costs for abilities, etc.). And that wouldn't take into account the...idiosyncrasies in display, layout, and cross-ability interaction that need code to handle.

His name was Robert Paulsen.
 
His name was Robert Paulsen.
 

In my magic systems, it's a design choice; mundane weapons have STR Min but an artificer making a permanent magic item that happens to be a weapon only has to comply with the required / forbidden restrictions of their particular magic system. 
 
In the case of permanent runic weapons, the magic system does not require STR Min to be applied, but also doesn't forbid it. So, maker's choice. 
 
The practical effect of not applying STR Min to a runic weapon is that it will effectively do more damage on average without requiring more dice of effect. From an SFX perspective, as you note "part of the enchantment is that they are almost effortless to use" is a perfectly viable justification. 
 
If you are trying to get a specific permanent runic weapon to a lower point cost and are reaching for plausible Lims to do so, then STR Min is fair game. 
 
On the other hand, if you as the GM want permanent magical weapons to be consistent with mundane weapons, you can just modify the magic system to require permanent magical weapons to take STR Min at a level appropriate to their base weapon type. It's up to you.

The Metier style has this to say about SFX for matrixes (the metier equivalent of spells) from a top down perspective:
 

 
Each of the sample styles further suggest how matrixes of that particular style are perceived by those with mystic senses, under the label of "signature"; for instance:
 

 
However, there's nothing preventing further elaboration. For starters, each individual matrix has some relevant SFX particular to what it is / does. It's a matter of taste if multiple practitioners with the same matrix (the exact same mechanic at the same point cost) have personalized SFX or a common SFX for that specific matrix. 
 
In the case of Metier where the intent is to emphasize a strong notion of identifiable styles of magic I would opt to have the same matrix of the same style have the same SFX for all practitioners of that same style. The conformity to magic as taught by that style would cement the idea of rigid differentiation between the different styles. I would be concerned that allowing practitioners of the same style having different personalized SFX for the same matrix would subvert the intended notion of style recognizability.
 
The vector of differentiation within Metier, for me, is between practitioners of different styles. Using the example styles as a for instance, imagine a practitioner of Preciat using a fireball type matrix and practitioner of Conde also using a fireball type matrix. They will have some mechanical differences due to the [required | restricted] [advantage | limitation] structure of Metier. But while they share some SFX (both have the SFX of Arcane, Metieran Magic, and Fire), they are also differentiated by other SFX and would reasonably have different sensory effects; how different is left as an exercise for your playgroup to decide as you see fit.
 
However, that's just my preference. It doesn't really matter either way if you prefer to have each caster have personalized SFX for all of their matrixes. It's a very fine grained tonal consideration.

In my magic systems, it's a design choice; mundane weapons have STR Min but an artificer making a permanent magic item that happens to be a weapon only has to comply with the required / forbidden restrictions of their particular magic system. 
 
In the case of permanent runic weapons, the magic system does not require STR Min to be applied, but also doesn't forbid it. So, maker's choice. 
 
The practical effect of not applying STR Min to a runic weapon is that it will effectively do more damage on average without requiring more dice of effect. From an SFX perspective, as you note "part of the enchantment is that they are almost effortless to use" is a perfectly viable justification. 
 
If you are trying to get a specific permanent runic weapon to a lower point cost and are reaching for plausible Lims to do so, then STR Min is fair game. 
 
On the other hand, if you as the GM want permanent magical weapons to be consistent with mundane weapons, you can just modify the magic system to require permanent magical weapons to take STR Min at a level appropriate to their base weapon type. It's up to you.