Manic Typist

It doesn't cost 10. It costs 2. That argument is a strawman and nonsense.

 

And it costs 2 because it was decided that combat order was extremely important and DEX determines that so it was costed at twice the price of other Characteristics. It was purposely costed at 2:1 because of initiative.

Actually, it's neither strawman nor nonsense. It's reductio ad absurdum and refutes you ridiculous assertion that because something is more expensive, people want to spend points on it. It doesn't follow and is easily refuted.

DEX costs 2 points because, in games in which DEX is a relevant stat (all of the ones I've played in, certainly), it is a highly useful/powerful stat.

However, that doesn't mean in all games players will want to invest in it- such as games where there is very little in the way of combat or Action! events but instead focus on pure social interaction. In that scenario, DEX is an overpriced investment.

Completely true;

 

However, by pricing DEX above all other Characteristics, you've inherently said that no matter what style of game and genre you're playing, it's more important and worth more points.

That reasoning doesn't necessarily follow.

If DEX costed 10 points per pip, then I'd sell back 1-2 from base, and let everyone else bankrupt themselves for an additional 2-3 pips.

They were already going to be go before me, so my relative loss from selling back is severely curtailed. Meanwhile, I have 40-50 more points relative to those who wanted to "go first" that I can spend on surviving a first strike and then winning the fight.

Price does suggest certain things; however it can make certain strategies cost-prohibitive rather than cost-effective. The context, as always, is key.

My favorite way of making a map:

Go to a bar where there are well-worn, painted tables. Take a picture of the patches of worn away paint on a table. Print the picture, and trace the outlines from that worn away patch onto a clean piece of paper. Boom, you have random and fairly realistic continents/islands/countries.

Well, first, magic is a substitute for advanced technology in fantasy settings. So the problem isn't fantasy- if you're running a low fantasy game that would be the same as a low tech non-fantasy game (historical, post-apoc, whatever). Those games would face the same issue- they don't have radiation/laser/sonic weapons either.

Of course, there's more situations that allow for ED in a low-magic fantasy game than you're giving it credit for- boiling/burning oil was the bane of many a besieger. Acid was also another weapon utilized by man and nature. Steam was also weaponized by both man and beast.

Also worth noting -- many game companies don't have an operating system-like approach that requires official answers to ensure the operating system is being used as intended.... making your statement a rather disingenuous one, as you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare things like support for WoD to support for Hero System, for example.

 

To be fair- I offered up the analogy of the OS, not Tasha. I think it captures the feel of HERO well, but that's me. To respond to it, I'd say you're significantly misrepresenting the reality. First, there are many OS's out there that are primarily driven by "fans"/users- Linux leaps to mind. Heck, if I have a question about how to do something in MS Word, there's a good chance I'm going to find an answer through Google searches that lead me to non-MS affiliated message boards where experienced users talk about similar problems (using the same or different edition of the software) and what the official word is on how to do what I'm trying to do (if it's even possible)- AND what users find is a really helpful workaround way to achieve that or similar goals. Often, that's far more useful than what I went out looking for.

Second, there's nothing about HERO that says there is an "intended" way to use the system. There's no hint or suggestion of it, and that position is explicitly stated in the rules- play however works for you. It's Rules As Written, not Rules As Intended. So while I think it's better to have a vigorous support system from system designers, it's not required.

His point is valid- it does represent a real barrier to "new players" who have the Complete rules (which are Complete- for the genres they intend to emulate) who want guidance. Ideally, Steve would answer questions either using the Complete rules ("What you're looking for is on p.73 of your book) or, should the question deal with something that is beyond the scope of the particular genre the player purchased, then a reference to the core books would be appropriate.

Been lurking this thread, and I feel like I can crystalize a lot of what has been said into a hopefully useful analogy.

HERO is like a really powerful game engine/OS, capable of being used to create lots of great games that span all kinds of genres/verisimilitude styles (everything from Superhot to Thief to the Witcher to... you get the point).

However, what many consumers want are games- the want HALO and Rainbow 6 and Thief and DoTA and Quantum Break and etc. And HERO can do those games, but the consumers don't want to build them themselves (at least at first). They want to buy, choose their difficulty setting, pick a few mods maybe from the internet, and go.

After they used it and see how easy it is to slot in different fan made mods (made by players like us on the boards), maybe they'd be more interested in paying for the full game engine (HERO core rules) and building their own game from scratch, modding the core games they already own on their own, playing with code, etc.

So, in the ideal world, HERO would find writers to work with popular IPs to release small "Complete" games (and they are Complete- they have all the rules necessary to run THAT game, just like a video game has enough software to run what it's supposed to run but it doesn't have everything that it could have if you gave the players a full developer's suite) that are fun to play and widely known.

Of course that takes money. I'd love to see an official Dresden Files HERO, HALO HERO, Thief HERO, Into the Borderlands HERO, etc. But HERO would have to find a way to persuade these IPs to license them the IP at a really low rate, perhaps by promising the lion's share of proceeds to the IP owner- which leaves very little incentive left over for Hero Games (Steve) and whoever is writing the actual splat books.

Does this sound like a fair encapsulation of the problem, the kinds of solutions we would like to see, and the chokepoint? Because this is what I keep thinking of.

I'd suggest a Full Phase for Mesmerizing Gaze, and then the PC is free to try to break out. It's more expensive in terms of "Action Economy" but feasibly allows the snake to use it to disable and then feed on prey.

Tasha's right- I treat what she describes as a "Surprise Maneuver" with appropriate OCV bonuses, as opposed to a "Sneak Attack." However, those are specific interpretations of meaning that should have been noted.

Perhaps some amount of Desolid or Images to facilitate it's movement/disorient enemies?

A mesmerizing gaze?

If it's a sneak attack, then Hit Location modifiers are halved. So it'd only be -4 to target the head.

If I buy fire insurance it doesn't mean I want my house to burn down. I might buy insurance so that, IF my house happens to burn down, I'll be able to replace my extensive collection of Hero Games books.

 

Similarly, if my character has Regeneration and ability to regrow lost body parts, that does NOT mean I'm "asking" to be dismembered. It might mean the character concept is such that I can't envision the character not having that ability, whether it comes in play or not. It might mean I think it's something that could happen, and IF it does, I want to be able to recover. It probably doesn't mean I want my character to get maimed - I don't remember ever actually wanting that for a character.

 

 

That said, I do agree that if a character's Complications, Limitations, and yes, sell-backs, come up in play, the player doesn't have a right to complain unless it seems excessive or vindictive.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying to insure a palindromedary

So in your case, you would buy insurance/sell back OMCV/buy Regeneration for zero points. No harm, no gain, just an official description of the character. If it ever came up in play, then points would matter.

Yeah Zslane, we all know that, but now someone will trot out some nerd academic that can bench press 900 and pretend that's not abnormal.

You're comparing different populations, and arguing extremes that no one is discussing.

Who are these super tough, super fit, paragons of martial skill fighters we are discussing?

In a fantasy setting, they will almost always be military/part of the warrior segment of society (or outlaws, but those are really just the same kind of person operating on the other side of the law). People whose profession is violence. Therefore, you should include adventurers. There's simply no reason that an adventuring/military mage should be unfit simply by virtue of being a mage.

In the US armed forces, you have a wide spectrum of physical ability and intelligence, as well as fields of speciality. Nevertheless, your nuclear engineers, chemists, and biologists, engage in the exact same core physical training as their infantry counterparts. They have to pass the same physical fitness standards (even ones that don't make sense, like BMI tests which would flunk people like Dwayne Johnson) as a military police officer or water sanitation troop. Of course each group has additional tests and requirements on top- but in general they all march and do pushups.

Of course, in reality, many people who are in the profession of violence are also unfit.

No one's arguing that a dedicated magic user can be/should be as good as a dedicated fighter at melee combat (absent spells used to boost melee abilities)- just that the requirement that the magic user be "frail" is a false start.

If anyone's interested, there's a fairly good fantasy series (Schooled in Magic) that makes the argument better than I. The kingdoms in the setting are in a war against a bunch of insanely powerful, mad necromancers. All students at their version of Hogwarts must take at least a certain level of defensive magic yes, but on top there is a program called Martial Magic. It consists of grizzled sergeants making the students run with full ruck, camp, engage in search and destroy (or escape and evade) exercises, and the trainers employ every dirty combat trick they can think of to prepare these students to someday become combat sorcerers. 

 

Air mages can do their stuff almost everywhere, but the need to transform lots of hexes of air one after the other, or have a really big area effect on their transform, means that they have the slowest recovery mechanism. Either they need to devote lots of Xp to recovery, or husband their resources carefully to avoid running out of power ... or both.

 

 

Perhaps Air Mages are also dangerous in their recharging. If they are "destroying" 100 hexes of air, that could potentially lead to some interesting affects upon personnel/structures that are in that area. At the very least it might create a localized Flash to Hearing from the ensuing thunderclap (no idea how loud it would be compared to a lighting bolt).

It would also lead to some interesting moments, where you could hear the enemy army's Air Mages powering up before they continued the next day of a siege, for instance. Like artillery, almost.

 

Who knows, perhaps junior mages in magic school are rousted out of bed early to run 2 leagues in frosty weather, to shouts of "Remember children, Mens sana in corpore sano!" .... just like I was. ;P

 

 

 

 

...where did you go to magic school, and is there an age limit?

Also, I suspect there's a strong correlation between higher income status (of which academics tend to be compared to the national average, exceptions abound) and fitness. From the combination of education increasing awareness of the value of fitness, knowledge of the importance of quality food, income to access said food and spending money to invest in fitness instead of just keeping the lights on, PLUS the professional benefits of fitness (people who are physically active are more likely to advance higher in a corporate hierarchy even if the job has nothing to do with physical activity)... it seems highly likely.

Well, I'd hope the weapons' default setting was "Off/Safety"...

  i.e. Most of the time the sellback may not limit the character ... but occasions may naturally surface where it could, in which case, it will ... and that's worth something.

 

And this is where you are actually agreeing with us, because we are talking about slightly different things. If this is a campaign where the situation will NEVER naturally (or even artificially) arise, then it never limits the character and it should therefore (by your logic and ours) be worth zero points. That sounds similar to something...

 

But to my recollection you've never suggested this sellback in a setting where you believe OMCV is a non-entity, so we're talking grapes and raisins.

 

 

One person here has already suggested treating sellbacks and Complications similarly -- specifically (per suggestion) by creating situations in the game based on/because of the sellback.  That's what Complications, not sellbacks are for.  And punishing a player for a sellback by treating it as if it were a Complication (i.e. going out of the natural storyline's way to make sure the sellback comes up as if it were a Complication) is what I referred to as GM Munchkinism ... and it's textbook GM Munchkinism as far as I'm concerned, regardless of how many points the GM has to throw around.

And this is where you are actually agreeing with us, because we are talking about slightly different things. If this is a campaign where the situation will NEVER naturally (or even artificially) arise, then it never limits the character and it should therefore (by your logic and ours) be worth zero points. That sounds similar to something...

But to my recollection you've never suggested this sellback in a setting where you believe OMCV is a non-entity, so we're talking grapes and raisins.

Punishing a player, whatever the reason, is poor GMing. Challenging them in a way that is contributes to the story and their enjoyment is not. And while you may use the "M" word to describe this behavior, you are using it in a way that no one else uses it. Your definition applies only to you. It's also just wrong in the spirit of things.

If you bring me a PC who wears heavy armor and has sold back all his swimming, there's a good chance I'll encourage the plot to move you over a body of water at some point so you have to roleplay that aspect of your character. That's me adapting the story to work around your PC. It's not the same thing as me being out to get you. When it's a PC vs. GM environment, everybody loses.

Selling back a stat that you believe to be a non-factor in a particular setting is textbook munchkin, open and shut.

No one said that sellbacks are Complications except the person building a strawman argument. Saying that one is, in a manner, like another is both valid and valuable and in no way saying that they are equivalent.

GM's cannot engage in "munchkinism" and it is a poor rhetorical technique that attempts to smear the opponent rather than address his or her arguments. GM's have unlimited points, they literally cannot be munchkins since they can fiat whatever they want to happen in the setting. Use this power unwisely and you run a poor game or no game at all, of course. Designing encounters to challenge players, to specifically give their particular builds a chance to shine and overcome adversity, is not munchkin. It's good GMing. So a good GM would either eliminate the stat of OMCV entirely, or, if it were not too out of bounds with the tone of the campaign, find a situation in which PCs could use OMCV to achieve victory.

So, is it valid to sell back a Characteristic that has no use in the campaign? I've gone round on this a couple of times myself.

Slap on the Real Weapon Limitation and boom- no slapping arrows aside with your bare hands. Or katanas.

 

But in a fight?  Nuh uh, not unless you get stupidly lucky.  So yeah, roll a 3.  But letting everyone do it, with just a block roll?  Seriously?

In a game of make believe where a dude muttering in faux Latin can bend the rules of (un)reality and there are anthropomorphic animals running around? As far as that can be taken seriously...why not?

The problem is that you're approaching this backwards. An Excel spreadsheet with a list of changes (good or bad) is not a persuasive argument- for anything.

Arguments, supported with relevant evidence (data, rules changes that speak to the issue being argued) are persuasive. Arguments must be tailored to the audience, however.

So if you want to persuade your players to consider switching, AND you want the help of this board to identify what evidence (changes) will be useful in this cause, tell us the KINDS of arguments that you think the players would be interested in.

• Player 1 ( Mr. Indifferent)- I'm perfectly content with my current play experience; in fact I would find learning more rules a bit of a burden given that so far I'm having a great time. However I'll go along with what the group wants.

No rules changes will persuade this player, so save your breath.

• Player 2 (Ms. Verisimilitude)- I'm a bit frustrated by how different character concepts have to have the same stats, such as DEX, to achieve different visions and they end up with similar capabilities. I want to be able to build a highly skilled fighter who isn't amazingly agile or fast (High OCV without high DEX or SPD) or a really amazing, agile person who isn't automatically a precision fighter (high DEX without high OCV)

This person would be interested in the elimination of figured characteristics.

• Player 3 (The Wizard)- I haven't been able to build a VPP that reflects what I'm looking for due to real point and active point ratios.

This person would be interested in changes to how VPPs work, etc.

So, what sorts of things have the players said that they like about HERO (and thus we could tell you how 6E does those things BETTER [or worse]), or what have they complained about (and we could tell you how that issue was resolved, or not)?

Hope this helps.

I always liked using an Entangle, 0 DEF, 0 BODY, Does Not Restrain Target (Unless Eyes Or Eye Coverings Hit), Does Not Prevent Movement, Takes No Damage From Attacks, Removed Completely By Washing, etc.  

Hm, I kind  of like this idea. Especially if you give it the Visible Limitation (at the -0 level, since it's a Limitation meant to fulfill the purpose of the power) since Visible already has rules for PER modifiers.

Thoughts?

Pure O2 gas, of course. Because that's what the designers of the ship decided the ship needed in between its walls.

 

There was a book/story/comething I read a long time ago, can't remember title or even author, in which a newly-starfaring humanity was able to hold our own against other more advanced races because we had so much military experience in our recent past, whereas the more advanced & civilized races had long-since forgotten how to fight. Essentially, we're the orcs. 

If you remember the author or title, I'd be pleased to know it.