Duke Bushido

Thanks, Chris, And REPRESENT! So the guesses of my youth weren't too terribly far off (I confess: I selected the orbit times based on the idea first: if this is what I want, what would roughly get that? ) Can anybody shoot holes in this, or am I good?

Yes; I know-- odd request for Fantasy, but hear me out: Many, many, _ma--- you know what? That's enough "manys." I'm old. There. Now we all know. Some years ago, I went all-in and built a fantasy world-- I mean months of work, pencils-and-notebooks type work, if that tells you how long ago it was. It did not survive the years. Hell, it did not survive the campaign, since it had no race of Mary Sue elves. I mean elves. It had no elves. That's a really important thing for me: no Tolkien, and no damned elves. Let's face it: if ten people ask you "can we play Fantasy next?", nine of them are saying "this game would be better if I could be Legolas...." At any rate, my daughter, having grown up watching me play this game, has been making headway in learning to play Fantasy HERO (3 and 4e blended; same way I play it), but.... man it pains me to say this, but the fact is that spending the bulk of her free time to a damned screen instead of reading or playing like normal kids the way we did growing up has left her really, really short in the creativity department. Seriously: I love my kids, but the damned screens have rotted their ability to imagine. They don't even play video games! I _thought_ they did; bought them one a couple years ago. Came home one day to a house full of kids. All of them at the computer, on youtube FREAKIN' WATCHING OTHER PEOPLE PLAY VIDEO GAMES! But that's a serious digression. There was a reason I posted this: I am considering re-creating that fantasy world for her and her friends to use (or not) as they will. I was winging it way back when with the design of the solar system, the seasons, and the tides, etc. I know: I'm the GM, and there's magic, so by gum, anything I say "just works like that" just works like that. I get it. Still, I'd like to at least have the seasons right, for personal satisfaction. I know that this board is a pale reflection of what it was even back in the 5e days, but there are still a lot of really talented, really knowledgeable people here, and I'd like to ask some simple questions to anyone who might be able and willing to advise me as to "what would actually be correct" or "here's _roughly_ what would happen. To begin: The planet (like Chris Goodwin, I like my fantasy to be on a planet rocketing circles through space, not on a turtle or in a jar or through a mirror or whatever the current edginess is. Screw the cool kids! ) is in orbit around a binary star. Well, sort of. The idea was this: there is a large star. The planet orbits the primary star at a rate of four (real) years per year. There is a much smaller star (say 1/4 the size of the primary) also in orbit around that star-- I don't remember the term, but let's say "in the first orbit," as Mercury revolves around our planet. The orbital star, though close, moves slowly, let's say it takes it six months to orbit the Sun (we're also going to call the big primary star the Sun for the rest of this conversation, just to avoid confusion. ) Yes: I totally accept that the smaller sun would have fallen into the larger sun or some other "this isn't possible" catastrophe, but I'm invoking "Fantasy: magic world" on this. I really wanted the alien look of the two suns, the upheaval of seasonal patterns, etc. So let's go with "for some reason that doesn't matter, that part works." Assuming an ellipsoid orbit similar to that of earth, and an axial tilt similar to that of earth, what would the pattern of seasons be during on game planet year? Is there some kind of online plaything that could help me figure this out? (I miss a lot of the neat stuff people had on personal websites, back before Facebook pretty much killed the personal website). Thanks to anyone with hints, suggestions, or reasonable guesses. Duke

I'd have to sneak it to you. I really don't think I could plop down the current library and say "You're going to love this! First, brush up on Character Creation...." I'd either start you with 6e Basic (Why is that not Sidekick? That worked _twice_ before! ) or a much older edition (likely 2, but possibly 3) and make a couple of characters, play a couple of scenarios... I'd keep the "real books" hidden until I knew you liked it.

Good catch! I don't know if that would really model scaled Shrinking though. If at some point you added another Advantage-- let's say you put Reduced End: Zero END on your STR, suddenly you're losing less actual strength with each level of Shrinking you activate. It gets more hinky with powers that typical have more advantages: you go from losing a whole die of Ranged Attack / Energy Blast / Blast / I-hit-someone-across-the-room-without-having-to-go-over-there when it has no Advantages to losing very little when it has Red End, Area of Effect, Indirect attached. Not something I can't live with, but it would disproportionately "proportion" the losses of different characters. Were I to use this rule, I'd think maybe tweaking it to "5AP of the base power" or whatever particular wording implies losing, if you'll pardon the expression, "a level per level" of Shrinking that's activated. I don't want to derail the topic, but I want to say "Dude, Hugh! I _love_ that multipower option!" Seriously; I do! It rather elegantly scales STR and Movement up and down depending on how much Shrinking is in play. That's beautiful. I love it not for the points-effectiveness, but for the sheer simplicity of it, especially compared to some of the published builds of late-- you know, the ones with so many Advantages, Adders, and Limitations that you have sit down and study it for half-an-hour to know what it actually _does_. Well done, Sir! It's beautiful. (wish I'd thought of that _years_ ago.... ) Duke

Take some Leaping, and a couple Advantages like "Armor Piercing" and "Penetrating" on an RKA: Range limited to Leaping and have a very literal Move-Through.... No Knockback, of course.

Covers eyes? Flash defense, often telescopic, occasionally microscopic. If character is weapons-oriented (guns and whatnot), maybe a couple of skill levels via a targeting system of some sort. Sometimes recording devices for gathering Intel or reviewing something for further clues. Covers face? Add on some life support against poison gasses and the like. Face-covering helmet? Flash defense against hearing, radio communication. Voice scrambler not uncommon, and megaphone in about half the helmets. Obviously there are many one-offs that go in different directions, etc, but these are the most common, mixed differently from character to character. Duke

By the book, Growth adds mass; Shrinking reduces it. This makes sense, and is consistent. By the book, Growth adds STR; Shrinking does not reduce it. If you're opinion shopping, I have long-suspected that this is a concession to players more than to the source material. (I may be completely wrong: please keep in mind that I was never a "comic book guy," even when I was a kid. Even when I did read one, it was usually a western or a Creepy). The only source material I have is book and movies where the hero(es) is shrunk, and almost invariably, they become weaker. Plot weaker, anyway-- sometimes they are still strong enough to knock over a phone and push the dial around, but let's not digress too far here). I say that I believe it's a concession to players because I would think that "and if you pay _this_ many points, your STR can drop into the negatives! How cool would _that_ be?!" Yeah. Unless you and your players are really, really into the cerebral (and I'm not knocking that: I'm the first guy to endorse story and conception over rules or "effectiveness", it's not going to be cool at all. It's going to be heinous with a capital "anus." And I have a suspicion that, regardless of "rightness" or "consistency," it's going to still be that way when our grandkids write HERO SYSTEM Eighth Edition, and for very much the same reason. Just my two cents worth, and you're probably getting ripped off. Duke

Been a while, folks, but I promise: I have _not_ given up. In fact, I've been really, _really_ busy. Well, it's _crawling_, but it's taking up almost all of my spare time. The problem there is, of course, that I _really_ don't have a lot of spare time! The proofreaders and Chris and Scott (ta-da!) should by now have the first proofs of the repairs to the covers. We've almost got a releasable result, guys! Duke

Here's one: Can I use a held Phase to recover?

I've already said my piece, but I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the mental image that inspired. Truly awesome. Thanks. Thank you so very, very much. Duke

Ouch. That actually hurt a bit.

Ditto on wanting a printed copy myself. I was too late to back this one, so I've got my fingers crossed.

Just pulled out BBB to check the 4e rules. Right away there's a big change: In prior editions, a Stunned Character was at CV0. In 4e, he was at 1/2 CV. That's huge, and I don't know how I'd forgotten that. Moving right along.... 4e mentions that non-persistent Powers turn off. Earlier editions expected you to realize that are unable to opt spend END to keep them on. I think most of us did okay with that, but still, it cleared up any possible confusion. But we're talking about recovery, so here it is: So here we full-on spell out that Chumbawumba-style attacks are possible. There's some more stuff about being unconscious, then on to Recovering from Stunning and being Knocked Out: This opens with, as I suspected, the same idea in 2e and 3e: if the _one_ attack was enough to do both, etc. Then there's a reference to the new (for 4e) idea of "degrees of unconsciousness," and it's effect on how often you can recover. There's a chart, but it's not relevant to the point of the discussion, at least not as I understand it. Some talk about moving Recoveries up and down the Time Chart. There is absolutely no mention of taking damage while already Stunned, and certainly nothing on how it affects a Stunned (or unconscious) character (beyond what we would assume with regards to adding the damage itself). Interestingly, it seems in 4e Champions (not Deluxe. Years later, upon learning that it included the errata worked into the text, I regretted not buying it, but at the time I thought the extra expense was for software I didn't want anyway. Anyone with Deluxe, speak up if the Stunned rules are different or if your Deluxe is for sale ( ) .) Now let's look at the 4e HERO System Rulesbook to see if that's different (sorry-- I looked also in my softcover 4e Champions, and it's no different there). Nope. As expected (but always delightful to have verified! ), the 4e Champs book is exactly what it claimed to be: the HSR _plus_ Champions-themed campaign stuff, and not an actual different rules set. So we can say that, sticking _exactly_ to the rules, that getting Stunned in 4e was safer than in any other edition, period.

I expect it was. Here it is from 2e: Now everyone's mileage will vary, but I always focused on this part: If I recall correctly, that's essentially how it reads in 4e; I know it does in 3e. However, the reason I focus on the "by the same attack" part of this is precisely what's being discussed: locking someone into Infinite Combo Stunning. To be clear, I _do_ allow a character to be re-Stunned-- i suppose "kept Stunned" is more accurate if he is attacked _for sufficient STUN damage to exceed his CON_, as per normal getting Stunned in the first place. Yeah, it kind of sucks when it's your turn to be the Chumbawumba, but it's harder to do than you might expect, so when it does happen, it's _almost_ funny. Almost. (and of course, the whole table will break into the chorus, so you end up laughing in spite of yourself ) At any rate, I've played it that way since '81, and there's no new rule, new chapter of rules, new book of rules, new library of rules that's going make me change it. It works too well. Duke

It's funny. When Derek first pointed me to this board, I was shocked at seeing conversations that included the phrase "haymaker his energy blast." Shocked because, as I mentioned before, I scrapped quite a bit in my youth, as did easily half of my gaming group. A haymaker was, to our way of thinking, a roundhouse punch, period. If you wanted damage-and-a-half, you went with a kick. It was right there in the rules. It never occurred to us to allow "haymakering" (that's just never going to feel right as a verb) as a thing you do to any sort of attack..... Considering that Pushing was a thing that already existed... Well it just never struck any of us as an option, so we never did. Skip ahead about a year and a half, and someone mentioned something along the lines of "if only there were maneuvers for mental attacks." In much the same way that haymaker-as-a-verb never occurred to us, mental-combat-is-not-combat-in-which-maneuvers-cant-be-used never occurred to us, either. Certainly there was nothing in the rules spelling out" no; you can't do this!". In all fairness, there was a lot less" no" and "not unless" in the older rules, and we've been running with it since 1e, and the only effect it's had on our games have all been positive. We even have Ego-derived martial arts. Much like the old school net running, each character gets to decide for himself how he perceives the various strikes against and by him, and players groove on it pretty hard-- at least, those that are onto Psi characters. They don't come around often. Now as I mentioned a post or so back, we do have one game world without Psi powers, period. In that game, ECV has no value, period. And I have realized just how far afield I'm tracking, and feel the only recourse is to stop abruptly

What are the further implications of this? There is an obvious corollary: if it does limit then it is worth points. But what other states does "non-limiting 'Limitations' are worth zero points" (quotes denote paraphrasing; I am not in a place to double-check book quotes at the moment) imply? Personally, I have no issue with a player voluntarily limiting his character simply because it's in concept, but with the way discussions tend to go the last few years, - and how often "you get exact value for what you pay for" gets thrown around, I believe myself to be in a very small minority. It seems a goodly portion of us diehard fans are more interested in chasing the mythical perfect balance and points-tweaking characters for cost/effectiveness ratio first, and making adjustments to concept to fit the expenditures. That is the way this conversation has been going: 'you can't lower it because it has no points value' or 'if you do it, you won't get points!' in the tone of a punishment. But getting back on course: if there is no actual limitation to the character for lowering it, is there for that same character a benefit for raising it? If not, what would you charge him to do so? How much should a character with zero ego-based powers pay to increase his OMCV?

This is what people here are trying to reconcile: Lower it for no rebate because there's no value, but increase it for cost because it has value. They can't be reconciled: either it has value, or it doesn't. ( Schrondinger's campaign, excepted, of course.) Even in the "somewhere down the line" model, you're suggesting that it has value because it might have value later. There are only two choices: it has no value, and can be lowered or raised with impunity for zero points either way, or it does have value and therefore lowering it bestows a rebate equal to the cost of raising it the same number of increments. The maybe-in-the-future angle doesn't change its value _right now_. If a character lowers it and then next spring the GM finds utility for it, the character will get his rebate at that time, not before: it had no value before. However, once it has value, I strongly suspect that that player will decline the rebate, opting to keep the now-valuable thing. Even then, in the moment that it becomes valuable, it becomes valuable _right now_. The fact that it gained value at moment X does not change the fact that it had no value at X minus anything. If it has no value and the player raises it to twenty (for an investment of zero points, because it had no value), then suddenly it _does_ have value, the player has the option to either lower it to default levels or pony up to keep it. There is no _actual_ change to the history of the campaign either way: in a campaign where OMCV has no value, he's never actually had the chance to _use_ his twenty OMCV, or even discover it for himself. You can spend the night drinking with the Queen, so long as the lights don't come on and prove you wrong. I'll have to cut this short. Ollie is quite intent on teaching me all kinds of keyboard shortcuts.... :/

A "Fantasy Game," powered by HERO, wouldn't be too terribly difficult. The biggest hurdle there is deciding how to set up a magic system (or rather, deciding how many magic systems / types of magic, then deciding how each works). Once that's done, it's pretty easy to do a Fuzion (and others)- style "buy a block of this" and "buy a block of that." Each block adds one block of effect, costs one block's worth of END, etc. Supers would be a serious pain in the teeth, though. It makes sense that it would: that's how all this got started in the first place!

Yes; yes-- well done and all that, but the crux of the entire conversation thus far has been trying to waffle out a middle ground between "make it be a disadvantage" and "I wouldn't let them sell off all of it / get too many points from it." The only thing that reconciles all the contentions thus far is that OMCV is meaningless / valueless / not worth any points. Working outward from there, I can have all I want, because it has no benefit. If it had benefit, the penalties for not having would be obvious, and not have to be created to drive home a point. Personally, I think it has value, and I will gladly let a player sell off as much as he wants (so long as it's a game world where it has value: I have one where it doesn't) simply because in my game worlds (except for the one, of course), the limitation _is_ obvious, and having higher than normal _does_ have obvious value. But I'm beginning to think that having a game world where OMCV has intrinsic value is not as common as I would have believed.

So my big takeaway from all this is that OMCV has no actual value. Therefore, I can raise it to 99 for zero cost, right?

Caps and costs and such are your decision, of course, but the biggest decider (for me) would be if the character wants to be able to stop "in between" these points. If he sees himself stopping at 3 feet tall of twelve feet tall every now and again, the multiform is right out.

I want to say the pata, _but_-- the para isn't mounted to a hand-functional gauntlet so much as the guard of sword flows back to fully encompass the hand and wrist. Is that the one you're looking for? If I recalls, it's historically from India.

That was frighteningly helpful. Thank you

Seems like a great set-up, particularly since you're not using Marvel Thor. My only recommendation, if you are planning on the confusion a language barrier can bring, is that you teach bulldozer whatever language Thor is using. As they're engaged in a drinking contest, at least the two of them have a method of communicating.

Funny you mention that. The more I browse through the Hero Designer forum, the more I know I don't ever want it. I'd have to have another encyclopedia handy to figure out what I screwed up, and a third one to fix it. You know: on top of the big blue encyclopedia I was trying to use the software to avoid.