Duke Bushido

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

It might surprise you to learn that the jokes didn't come just from the airplane "disaster" movies, but that Airplane was nearly a line-for-line remake of a much older movie (who's name escapes me)-- a reasonably good movie, actually-- with some jokes and skewed presentation to totally change the entire feel. There was a lot more work that went into Airplane than most folks ever realized.

Wait--- is that last one a nine-year-old "spinster?" Dude, what the Hell...?

Agreed.

And things like that are why I've done things like this: Dabbled in it a _lot_, actually. Never really found anything I was totally happy with, but I found two that came fairly close: First "success" (the air quotes are because, as I noted, I was never _really_ happy with any of the results, but these things came close) was when I decided that using magic was ECV-based. That didn't work terribly well (peasants with 18 EGO? Who knew?!). I refined it further, declaring that things that were aimed-and-fired like fireballs, for example, were OECV vs. defenders DCV (the regular one). That worked a bit better. There was still the problem that Ego was cheaper than DEX-- minor, I thought, but it rankled the players. Second "success" came when I tried basing a magic CV of INT/3. The drawback there (obviously) was the costing of INT. Magicians were bad, _bad_ news. (For the record, players don't like "spell casters pay more for INT, either. Just so you know. ) Third success came as a base-0 custom Characteristic; a characteristic that I truly wish I had the artistic and creative flair to have named Arcana. Well-done, Joe! (you know I'm stealing that, right?) I just called it Magic, because the only other thing I could come up with was "Wisdom," and I sure as Hell wasn't going to open that can of worms. I priced it at 2 pts per (remember that it was a base-0; it was something not innate to people, and had to be learned, practiced, and developed). It was used as the Base Characteristic for magic-based Skills (though I have to level with you: I can't remember any of them we used at the moment-- It's been a really, really, _really_ rough day. I need water and sleep) as well as the Base Characteristic from which Magic CV was pulled. Magic CV was a bit different from other CVs, in as much as you used your MOCV to launch an attack (bodily or ego-based), but it was defended by regular OCV for bodily attacks or DECV for EGO-based attacks. when a magic wielder (or anyone who had an MDCV was attacked by magic, he had the option to defend either with the appropriate "normal" DCVs, _or_ his MDCV-- this type of defense being defined as defending himself via magic, either by being "proof" against the spell or overwhelming it with his own defensive spell of negating it by simply turning it off-- - you get the idea. We used some of the maneuvers with Magic CV as well, particularly Block and Dodge (re-defined as a "deflecting" of incoming magic attacks) and rarely Haymaker (if your spell already took extra time, double that time to get the Haymaker effect). I have to be honest: I feel like I was closest with the third attempt: mentally and visually it modeled so much of what we could see in our heads. It's just that in actual play, it proved a bit cumbersome. Doesn't seem like it would be, but it was, particularly since players would want to stop and run all the defense possibilities and jot some numbers... We all know (even those of us who are loathe to accept it) that HERO's combat system is _slow_, real-time, and having the either/or option turned certain players into chess masters, studying the board and running scenarios.... It was disheartening, given how close the idea was otherwise. At any rate, Sir, even to this day I can't say I've found a perfect option, but those are the things I have tried. Again, I liked the third try the best, though there was some grumbling from some players that having to buy a stat up from zero was "unfair," in spite of the fact that, given the nature of the spell options, they really were a bit over-powered once they started spending EP..... I may get it licked one day, or I may simply run with #3 again with an additional "Shot Clock" rule in effect for making up your defensive mind. I don't know if this is of any use to you, but I hope something in there helps at least a bit. Duke

I don't think there are, but I am intrigued by your assumption. My own assumption has always been a bit different: I have taken DEF to be the point at which you begin to damage the material itself: it's an amount of damage to which the material is naturally "impervious," for lack of a better term. Increasing the amount of the material (in this case, the thickness) does not alter the amount of energy needed to do actual damage to any given area of the material. It does, however, alter the amount of damage that has to be poured in to destroy the item. In game terms, I have always taken it that the thickness of something-- assuming no changes to the density of the thing-- does not alter the DEF, but _does_ increase (or decrease) the BODY. Certainly there are exceptions on the extreme ends-- a .02 mil sheet of stainless tears easily, while you'd be hard pressed to dent a piece of steel 1/2" thick, but does it take considerably more energy to scratch that piece of 1/2" stock?

If he's got no powers, then no; he won't be terribly disadvantage. Which brings up the other point about a disadvantage that doesn't limit. Hmm.... I see your conundrum. Well I suppose if you opt to let him sell it back, he's _technically_ limited if the players will at some point have access to mental-power-imbuing plot devices. Though I have to say that in the case exactly as you present it, I'd probably let him sell it back anyway. Not sure if I'd allow a "full value" sell-back or not. I guess that would depend on the vibe of the group as a whole.

That's a pretty bold assumption. I assume it's based on the idea that "in this campaign, mental powers will never come up." If that's correct, then it applies to pretty much all characteristics: If Dexterity is never going come into play, then selling it back doesn't disadvantage someone. Same for STR or INT. If I know that it's not going to come up in the planned game, then would let them pick any value they wanted for it, as it's irrelevant. Would I let _one_ guy sell it off, knowing it won't matter? No; probably not; if it's not going to be used, they might as well all not have it. Would I let one or two players pitch a convincing argument that if they aren't going to be using it that they should be "rebated" those points to spend elsewhere? Sure; I probably would. Would I be swayed by their well-thought-out and beautifully-organized ideas? Don't know. I've never had it get beyond whining and yelling. Seriously, though: probably not: it would just be a "non-thing" for that campaign. The obvious exception would be if there were to be a custom stat of some sort: Sanity, Taint, Magic, etc-- I would easily allow the entire group to take the point value of OMCV (which I know isn't going to be used) and place it into that new custom stat. By making sure it came into play every now and again.

Couple of questions: Can I snag those colorized images, and if so, to whom do I credit the colorizations?

As GB pointed out, any DEF you want the character to have. It's as justifiable as coating something in diamond and still letting it have a DEX value.

And if it's not quite high enough, it's still a Bulky OAF for Armor.

Man, Brian: You typed all that out on a phone?! Give yourself a couple EP there, Sir. Loved everything you said. Tiny quibble: Heroic first came to be in 2e, not 3. The title was Espionage; it was the forerunner of 3e's Danger International. Still: lots of great thoughts you've put up there.

Gotta level with you, Brian-- The only thing limiting the effectiveness of a Contact in a global game is you. Much like the early days of Skills: _you_ define their scope, which got slowly altered as we began breaking things down into smaller and smaller bits-- got expensive, as each "bit" broke out to cost the same as the Skill from which it was pulled--- You can treat contacts the same way without having to work in fancy things like resource pools or stacked Contacts or "I don't have access to this guy anymore, so give me the points back so I can buy another guy I have access to--- My solution, as I mentioned above, was a slightly-more-expensive version of Contact; I would like to note that I only came up with that because I wasn't starting a new Campaign, and by the time Contacts became a problem (the PCs had started to regularly move out of their Contact's areas of influence, as we had at that point, by tradition, established that Contacts have an area of influence. But nothing really spells that out-- unless the newer editions have changed that). Is there something in 6e (asking because I really don't remember and it's a bit late at night to attempt a re-read) that specifies your contact is limited in his area of influence? Or look at it another way: What is the difference between one guy with global influence and a dozen guys who have smaller areas of influence, but are scattered across the globe? Or, put it the HERO way: what is the "mechanical effect" versus the "Special effect?" The mechanical effect is what matters in-game, right? Bullets and ice daggers are the same. So I would think that one guy who can do it all is identical to twelve guys who can do 1/12 of it all, or one guy who can reach out to anywhere is the same as 360 guys who can each affect one degree of the earth's surface. As someone above noted, the Contact roll isn't to see if you're contact is _available_; it's to see if your Contact can _help_. Given that, and the above idea of looking at the mechanic, what is the in-game difference between one friend with a global network of influence and friend in every port who has regional influence? Personally, after all this discussion, I say "no difference." I say I'm going to give my players in my Brunswick game (only current game in which anyone has a Contact) the option to knock that price down to "normal Contact" and do something else with the rebated points. If you lose a Contact, you get the points back to buy another Contact. All things being equal, you effectively have unlimited Contacts that way anyway. Considering everything else, I choose to interpret the Contact Roll as "can my guy help me?" as I think it's the most accurate. That being the case, it's not a big stretch to go with "Can my guy here help me?" for every place you visit. You'll never have to rebate those Contact points, because going this route you can't really "lose" the contact anyway: No matter where you are or how out of touch you are, "you've got a guy...." Look, I'm pretty sure this is coming bout as a bunch of rambling nonsense, so I'm going to re-word and resubmit it to you when it's not pushing one-thirty in the morning (I fell asleep at my desk a couple hours ago: rough day), but I wanted to get this down both as a possible option for you and as a reminder for me to do it up better when I get the chance. In poor summation: pulling from everything tossed out in this conversation, I don't have a real problem with a globe-spanning game having Contacts with globe-spanning influence. The Contact is meant to be useful, after all: you paid for that. Given that the difference between one guy reaching across an ocean to set something in motion for you versus a local guy calling his neighbor to set something in motion for you is straight-up special effects, I don't have a problem with the idea that you've got a contact in every place you've ever been. Hail Viper!

I was especially tickled by the Persuasion-Deception-Intimidation-Roll Initiative progression, myself.

This was sent to me by a player who then had the audacity to ask "we're not that bad, are we?" https://i.redd.it/35w2wbpo57v21.png Didn't want to do a hot link on someone else's bandwidth, so you'll have to go check it out.

I forgot to include in that earlier post (sorry: 14 hour day today, and the first truly "summer" day, sun-wise. I'm baked, cooked, dehydrated, and ready for bed): It's easy enough to rationalize a wide-spread skill rather than a bunch of individual skills. Consider that we don't charge for everyman skills. Consider also that many skills are applicable to areas tangential but still related to a general field. For example, Mechanic: internal combustion engine. There are universal aspects of this, and a good mechanic knows them. If you don't like the idea of one wrench bender being able to work on cars, boats, planes, and tractors, well-- it's your game. If you'd rather, have them pick one field of expertise, and assign a penalty (-1 or -2) to "related, but not in your speciality" things. I wouldn't assign penalties for a pulp game, personally (I really like the tradition of the grand adventurers, masters of their crafts, etc), but if it helps you rationalize using broader skill definitions, then go for it. Think of them as "every mechanic" or "every pilot" or "every spy" or "every scientist" skills: you don't have to charge for something related to their primary focus. Honestly, you don't even have to penalize them for it, depending on the flavor you're going for, but if it helps you feel better about it, or if you'd prefer that "master of gerry-rigging" feel, then by all means, go for it.

It's funny.... I've never really put it together before, but 4e seems to be about the time the hair-splitting started getting more and more severe.... It was also the introduction of character-building software..... I have to wonder if there's a connection-- if the spread of the software and the growing reliance on it may have influenced how we began to think about building characters, rather than simply being a tool to help us get our ideas down.

How about this, Brian: I know this sounds awful, but one of the biggest strengths of HERO is so often overlooked or flat-out ignored in the quest to get more and more ticky and finicky with the minutiae of the system that the biggest strength often turns into weakness: HERO, from day one, has been extremely open about skills, encouraging you to build them yourself (professional Skill; Knowledge Skill; Area Knowledge, etc) that folks tend to forget that _you_ decide what that _means_. When you buy "Pilot" or "Combat Pilot," there (unless this was changed in 5 or 6; I don't really remember) was no mandate to specify the make and model and weather restrictions that you were able to fly. You can have "Pilot: B-52" or "Pilot: multi-engine plane" or "Pilot: fixed-wing aircraft" or just "Pilot: If it flies, I can drive it." And it costs the same. The exact _same_. you want to be a mechanic? Fine. You want "Mechanic: Caterpillar 3208" or "Mechanic: Diesel engines" or "mechanic: internal combustion engines" or "Mechanic: if I have the right wrench, I can fix it!"? How often do you want players using their skills? How bogged down with points costs do you want these skills to be? It's up to you. You can even do something wiggy: "Mechanic: Aircraft." Yep. If it flies, you know how to fix it, regardless of what it is. Worried about going too wide when some people _do_ want to specialize? Fine: charge two points more for "broad" skills and apply a campaign max (say 13- or 14-) for "broad" categories, with no upper limit on "specialist" skills. The skill is still super-useful, and best of all, the characters will have more opportunity to use the skills they paid for: you won't have to wait for someone with "Engineering: 200' Zepplin" to slap some sticky tape on a tear in the gas bag. Correct me if I'm reading you completely wrong (and if so, I apologize and will but out and go back to sleep), but you are concerned about characters being weighed down with Skill costs to make their concepts. You're the GM. You're the one helping them decide what skill they need to do what. The ugly side of that is that _you're_ the one weighing them down. If you decide that your aviatrix needs more than "Pilot: single-engine plane" or "Pilot: prop plane" or "Pilot: fixed-wing plane" or even just "Pilot" to fly almost any plane built, then _you_ are the one weighing her down. If she needs more than "Navigation" to use interments or stars or dead-reckoning equally-well, well again: that's on you. If "mechanic" doesn't apply to any sort of engine or airplane part, again--- well, you see where I'm going here. Take a look at it from that angle, and re-consider how you might _define_ the skills before wondering how to pay for eighty of them.

Shouldn't that be LEGO Batman?

Brian: I can't tell you how to do it 6e style, but in the past I have allowed characters to buy "contact network" - a home-brew perk (costing is equal to 3 Contacts) so long as 1) it fit their background/conception and they bought one other complimentary perk such as world traveller--which maybe another home-brew; I'll have to check when I get home-- or "law enforcement" or something to further justify or define the network.

Sweet! Thanks.

I can't help you with making them more "points effective" or such as that, but I can tell you that when a player wants a Contact, I generally ask them what _sort_ of Contact (easy, as they usually have an idea in mind), and then I ask them _why_ they want that contact. Specifically, what is it that they would like a Contact to be able to do for them? Sometimes they start off thinking they want an "in" with a police detective who can share certain case information with them, but when you're done talking to them, you work out that an FBI or national-level contact is more appropriate: a police detective in Campaign City isn't going to know much about what's going on in Empire City, after all. But a Fed who works "the east coast" or "super-crimes" or something like that-- he might be more likely to produce the sorts of info or favors the player is hoping to get from a Contact. I guess the only thing I can really offer you is this: make sure that the scale of the contact is appropriate for the scale of the campaign you're running. Don't get a street informant thinking he knows the first thing about Perth, Australia.

I don't watch Game of Thrones. If it wasn't for the memes that litter the internet, I wouldn't know the first cussed thing about it.