Manic Typist

Links below, make your own determination, but a super quick summary is:

1) Wendy's has a mustache-twirling level of bad behavior with respect to human and workers rights

2) Wendy's used their corporate rivals AND the UN as their main villains

     -Using your rivals is kind of crass/on the nose, and more a criticism of the lack of imagination/choice of going a low road instead of simply making something awesome. I view it as "blue" humor - I see why it's funny, but I also recognize it as not creative or clever. I am also less and less inclined to view "clapback culture" as something worth my esteem - and they literally call Wendy the queen of clapback.

    -The UN is an organization that has called out Wendy's on their business involvement with supply chains that use child/labor exploitation, so Wendy's going after the UN goes from "random" to "AYFKM?"

3) They didn't credit any of the game designers. That is a big deal in the creative community. One of the designers even quit as a result of some of the stuff above.

4) The game gives you buffs/debuffs based on the real world consumer behavior you do during the day. You want a +1? Go buy a Wendy's burger for lunch! Beyond the standard problem of not rewarding in-game for out of game behavior as an unhealthy practice, this is egregious in that it's a brazen attempt to take our hobby and make it about their business. It's not just a clever marketing move, where they show "Hey, we love nerd stuff too!" It tries to replace what our hobby is about with their products. There will be at least one group of young, impressionable kids who will think it's ok to "game" the system in this way - who will devote time, energy, and money to buying Wendy's "in order to" play an RPG, when this hobby is about pen, paper, and friends (dice optional).

Not trying to be a downer - at first I was excited/amused, and then I grew annoyed and angry as I read about them and skimmed the PDF. I like it when companies show that they consist of people - I don't like it when companies try to co-opt someone else's culture, and this extends to the RPG culture. But it is laughable for a company that conducts itself the way they do to put out a marketing campaign leveraging a medium that focuses on the fight between good and evil - it's like Sauron standing up his own Habitat for Orc-Manity, in the hopes that no one will stop and think about who is doing this and why.

Bonus links that flesh out some of the above:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/why-boycott-wendy-s-ask-women-farmworkers/?fbclid=IwAR1hMoaG6E0vORvSlFGdVVXBCKk8RMaz5gi2LmTCsasLDT_6b9vKk8gE0q8

http://ciw-online.org/wendys/?fbclid=IwAR1NRq6MVwQ8rqpoRFyM2Pq_zyfoh9Ae5BcLUFzGjM1R1VmMRDRf5ABR8OA

I actually find it extremely distasteful on several fronts. I was excited by the cleverness of it when I first saw it, but when I actually read it and learned more about the sketch practices of Wendy's - such that one one the RPG designers quit as a result.

So, I think it's unfortunate that such a clever idea was executed by this company, and that it was executed in a way that's against the spirit of what we do.

On 9/17/2019 at 8:32 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

...In mechanical terms, the Cover maneuver is proposed to prevent Aborting.  This makes no narrative sense to me.  Why does Robert taking longer to fire prevent the heroes from reacting?  If anything, it should make it easier! 

The Cover maneuver does not prevent Aborting, period. However, isn't intuitive narratively, as has been seen.

Narratively, the difference between the two scenes is writing. In one, the heroes use their powers to prevent the danger. In another, they pause because they KNOW (or at least worried enough to give them pause) that they can't successfully use their ability before the target from being hurt. They exchange tense looks and begin to plan on how to get out of this situation.

Meanwhile, on reddit, fans are engaged in debates about how plausible it is - some defend it, some think it's ridiculous, others thing you should just go with it for the sake of telling a more interesting story and aren't worried about consistency.

Put another way: it's the same as "Why don't 99% of fights versus the Flash end before they even begin, since most opponents shouldn't even be able to realize he's there before he's beaten them senseless?"

The reason is because of The Writers.

If Cover hits, then the Writers wanted it that way. If Cover misses (or is thwarted), it's because the Writers wanted it that way.

To Chris' example - situations in which the hero stomps a foot/thwarts the cover are situations in which Cover missed, or even because the hero aborted to a Block/Dodge when Cover was being used and that's how it played out.

Most stats aren't relevant - only worry about the stats most likely to come up.

Low level opposition - don't track their Endurance or Recovery, since the fight will be over before that could become relevant.

Also, don't feel the need to build every ability out - you have an infinite budget and know you CAN achieve any build... so you don't need to do the homework. However, be generous in working with players to confront these abilities, so you don't accidentally create an impossible to beat build.

13 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

No, in response to the Cover being declared. 

 

Especially since a Block or Missile Deflection makes zero sense at that time. 

It sounds like you're in violent agreement with me, since that is an alternative way of stating what I said.

You asked, after no one suggested this was the case, if PCs can't Abort when Cover is in play. I noted that, once a Cover is successful, that is the case... because that means the attack has happened, and the standard rules for Aborting apply (as always).

That is all.

On 9/4/2019 at 2:35 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

 Do they somehow lose the ability to Abort because a Cover was declared? 

...actually, they kind of do. The player was told that their opponent was making an attack against them. If they don't declare Abort before the attack, then they don't get to do it afterward. You can't abort to a Dodge after you know the opponent hit you in the hopes that your DCV will make the difference.

Remember, with Cover, the PC has already been hit. It's just damage hasn't been rolled yet.

Also, as a general aside... I've only ever played Champions once. I was introduced, have GMed, and with one session exception only ever played NON-supers games. I view equating HERO with supers as erroneous - it's a legacy that's there, but Champions =/= HERO.

Though I still do want to build a PC who can survive a fall at terminal velocity and then use it in a game...

Interesting, Duke. I do the DEX roll of currently but I hadn't considered checking the Activation time as a default litmus.

And interesting... giving the Coverer a chance to "re-Cover" (groan) should they lose the DEX off but had a better chance of winning in the first place. At least, I think that's what you said?

Could you do an example, from "Freeze!" to completion?

So NPCs have been using Cover a lot lately against the PCs. The rules clearly say you can't abort to a Dodge or a Block once you've been Covered, as the attack has already taken place. Obviously this should extend to Dive for Cover.

However, what if the PC has some kind of Defensive Power they could activate, such as Desolid or a forcefield?

I'm torn on it. I think a strict RAW approach would mean no, you can't do that before the damage is applied against you. You were hit without those defenses active. I also don't want to make Cover less desirable than it already tends to be, and this could set a precedent that would be reduce the tactical options employed by opponents and frustrate players when used against them.

On the other hand... it feels dramatic to let powers like that do this sort of thing.

I'm leaning toward... you have a negative to your DEX roll equal to how much the enemy beat their To Hit roll by, minimum -2. Enemy hit your DCV exactly? DEX roll-off to determine if the bullet hits you before your power's effect occurs, at a -2. Enemy beat your DCV by 4? -4 to your DEX roll.

How have you all approached it?

5 hours ago, JesseBFox said:

 

Basically every point of piercing is the same as +1 damage, only vs armored enemies. 

No objection to any of what you said (what works is what works), but I just wanted to flag that this is substantively different from how Penetrating works. I understood it was meant as an analogy, but it's so different from how it actually works that I wanted to make sure you'd reviewed the rules on it recently so you're sure your target solution is what you think it is versus what a player reviewing the rules might think.

Wait... maybe I'm being dense here.

Why not just use various levels of Hardened, Armor Piercing, and Penetrating? Base "small arms" have no AP, stuff not available to typical civilians has one level of AP, scale up from there.

Not actively looking at the moment; currently in the last legs of a 1+ year game I've been running ~2 times a month. Would like to look at virtual groups to move closer to achieving consistent gaming - even combined face-to-face/remote.

Enjoy a good mix of narrative/combat - ideally, combats have lots of roleplaying in them to make the stakes feel real.

Basically what you describe is exactly what I'm interested in, and therefore a good fit. I want to run a D&D 5E game just to use a rules set put out by Matt Colville - or maybe I'll use that to supplement a HERO game, etc. But HERO is my first love.

Gotta you beat - HD 6, 20170109.

I guess I need to update it.

When I'm messing around with Desolid for a PC... it lists IPE under the non-allowed Advantages.

I've reviewed the rules on Desolid and Invisible Power Effect, and unless I'm missing something... I can't seem to find why that would be the case.

Any insights?

That someone is me, and so the fault is purely mine (and moreso for not remembering the Perceivable Limitation).

And thanks for the reminder on Turn Modes - I'm not used to a lot of these Powers and I still have a lot to learn.

Keep it coming!

If "Bravo, flank left and prepare enfilade. Alpha, advance to cover and engage. Charlie, set up overwatch on that ridge. Move!" qualifies to you as tactics... then Liaden's awesome list is full of equivalent tactics/tactical maneuvers/tools.

Just rename LoneWolf's example to the codephrase "Doubletap!" and it would fit right onto the list. Same for Doc's example.

The examples you cited... are basic maneuvers/abilities. They are of course brought up because they are a major part of play, and thus are relevant to discussing the "improvement" of play.

Some things I learned after the last session, and a question I'm still researching.

1) PC with the Reaper ability of going Desolid and flying around was sneaking through a place. In the moment, I decided that turning into a cloud of black smoke in a dimly lit environment would given him a +5 to his Stealth roll. However, reviewing the rules for Obvious/Inobvious Powers... it's a (-1) to Stealth per 10 APs for Obvious Powers, 20 APs for Inobvious. It's a Linked Desolid (60 AP) / Flight (67AP), which means (-6) and (-3) to Stealth for a total of (-9). Also, the Desolid was bought with Perceivable, so... it should probably give some kind of bonus to the PER rolls of others to notice on top.

2) The Desolid is defined as the Lesser Power, and is Linked such that it can only be used when the Greater Power (Flight) is used at full strength. Does that mean the PC needs to move the full 30m he paid for in order to the Desolid to be active?

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

It's got merit, but you're still in danger of two things I'm trying to avoid:

1) redoing the math every phase (or time the DCV changes)

2) Using information not on your characters, as a player, in front of you.

 

As long as we keep insisting on putting DCV into the equation the Player will needs information not in front of them. That's the whole point of the Attack Roll concept: it only requires information in front you, written down on your character sheet. You roll, you add your attack modifiers to the result. You tell the GM "I hit X" - the GM compares that to the Target DCV, if X is equal to or more than the Target DCV then "You hit the Target".

 

That is seriously the most important point I'm trying to convey: Players should only need information written down in front of them.

I agree 10000%. It also saves me as a GM that most precious thing: Time.

There are 4-5 players - they need to make it easy for me to do these things, and they should do this basic math themselves.

However, I do have one player who this still hasn't clicked for, so I'm willing to go a route where I announce it like D&D - "Give me DC 17 Strength check" etc.

At that point, all they need is on their sheet. It takes me a bit more time but it's still faster than explaining both approaches every session.

On 6/29/2019 at 12:19 AM, ghost-angel said:

I recommend doing it this way: Attack Skill, this is calculated by adding your OCV to 11. Write it down. Do not do the math Every. Single. Attack. (whch, BTW, the old standard has you doing, it slows down play considerably. it's just bad.)

Just, have an Attack Roll. How much they make the roll by is the Target Number, which is the DCV. Know the target number, don't know it, doesn't matter. Add your modifiers to the result. Simple.

 

This got my thinking (dangerous habit, that). I want to test out describing it for one player in more D&D terms, since they haven't really learned their sheet super well (which is fine).

What if if I did "11-DCV = Armor Class/Difficulty Class, the number you have to beat by rolling UNDER. You increase that number via your OCV."

So, attacking a DCV 5 opponent? "11-5 = DC 6." You have to roll a 6-, if you for some reason had zero OCV. 

Anyone try something like this?

Anyone else have instances of "Things I Messed up in the Moment?" 

I owe another installment on this - I think I'm going to start documenting the rulings/questions we resolve, because the same (or very similar issue) came up again with the PC w/Desolid and Disarm.

Shouldn't surprise me - it's a smart move, to want to run around Disarming people and then turning incorporeal.

I'd add onto Massey to further save time:

11- is a 50% success rate. So, roll 11- ONCE, and then look at the variance from that average to determine how many people fall into which group.

So instead of rolling 11- 7 times for 7 potential observers... roll it once. You roll an 8; that's above average success. So, 5-6 people of that 7 should be affected by the power. Assign them each a number, roll a d6 or a d10.... and the ones whose numbers (or less) come up are affected.

I really think you're overthinking it; a maneuver should only be built/paid for if a PC really wants to do it perfect EVERY single time. If there's going to be a roll requirement.... just use Breakfall, maybe with a negative modifier, and a Half Phase Action.

Keep it simple. You can solve this situation without extra work.

Sounds like just a Half Move with a Breakfall roll, maybe with a -1 for picking up the weapon. If you fail, you move forward or end up prone but don't get to attack because you got tangled up grabbing the object... but you still have a Half Phase to get up from being prone, etc. Picking up a weapon is, IIRC, a Zero Phase action.

If you succeed, +1 or more for a Surprise Move to your OCV.

You could do a Full Move I would think, assuming you're willing to take the modifiers for a Move By in addition. Maybe a -2 to the Breakfall to represent it being a little harder to go at a higher speed.

Also.... check the Index in the back of the book. That lists the page numbers a subject shows up on, so you can quickly go and look to see if it's just a quick reference (move on) or the actual bolded entry that discusses it (start reading there).

So, to me, unless I'm missing something... the only major difference is that the order of who does what varies each "turn."

Because for me a round and a Turn are really the same thing - it's a system for tracking "has everyone gone at least once?" Some people get to go more than once but in both HERO and D&D, in the "base unit" of "taking turns" a Round and a Turn fulfill the same purpose. HERO, and your adaptation of Rounds, allows some people to go more than once before everyone has gone at least once (and then yours shuffles the order before doing it all again).

Have I misrepresented?