Duke Bushido

To be fair, though, it's a holiday weekend for a lot of us. This is an excellent idea, so long as you are asking "general" questions such as your question about rule of X and such as that. Apparently not as many as any fan of HERO would like. I hate it for Jason, but evidently he got stuck with a lot of material after some political backlash. Evidently, the author of the source material is a loud-mouthed fellow who doesn't play politically correct very well, and poor Jason caught the brunt of it. Personally, I can differentiate between a person who said something that offended me (God knows, JK Rowling can't open her mouth without irritating the crap out of me) and something I'm interested in (still watched the Harry Potter movies). I don't know who is aware of it, but realistically the only one getting burned when someone decides "I won't buy this tie-in product because I'm mad at the author hurts only the makers of the tie-in product; the author already has his money. I did buy the MHI complete book (it really feels "unfinished" or "accidentally over-edited" or something; there just seems to be some stuff that's flat-out missing), and have read it a couple of times, but I'm afraid I don't play it. It has nothing to do with the author, though: I don't like the source material, and am not interested in reenacting it. I bought it to support HERO, who I want to move beyond this slump and reattain their former glory. I will attempt (in a general way; I am very sorry, but I'm not 6e-friendly, and so I can't help you with specific rules or examples) to help you with the damage classes the best I can. The problem you have is rather unique with regard to damage classes, because your players will often be fighting humans as well as monsters. If you allow DCs high enough to take out the monsters, human enemies become something of a joke, then something of a fine red mist. The first thing you want to do is determine just _how difficult_ should it be for a single player, or perhaps two players, to take out a single monster. That information will help you get a rough idea of your max damage cap. A quick and dirty method I use-- and again, this is just to get the ball rolling; it won't put me right where I want to be, but it provides a convenient start-- is to look at the characteristics of a couple of the "typical" foes I expect the PCs to encounter. I then think about how "tough" they should be: what does it take to bring one of these enemies down? How many "typical" successful hits should it take? How many players do I expect to have? If I'm expecting say... well, let's keep it easy. Let's say I'm expecting 5 players. I want each player to have to get in a solid hit or two, so I'm going to start by figuring that the typical foe should go down with roughly 10 "typical" hits. As we're talking MHI, we're talking killing (as opposed to knocking them out or subduing them), so we're going to look straight at the BODY score. Let's say the BODY score is 20 (just to keep it easy). Divide that by the 10 hits I expect this opponent to take and I get the need to inflict an average of 2 BODY per hit. Add in the foe's DEF-- again, as this is Heroic and relatively "normal" weapons, we're talking Killing Damage, so just add in the Resistant Defenses. Let's say there are 10pts of rPD. Now we need a "typical" attack that averages around 12 BODY per hit. With an average roll of 3.5 on a D6, we're going to need somewhere between 3 and four dice of KA-- somewhere around 10 or 12 DC-- of "typical" damage to get the action-packed fight I'm looking for. Now again, you also have to remember that you will periodically have human opponents that may bring a firefight. What does 12DC do to a human in your game? Now to be clear, you're opponents will likely be unwitting agents of the monster, or other Monster Hunters, so beef them up appropriate before doing the math. Easiest way is to grab two player characters and "average them together" to get a baseline "Monster Hunter" generic template at which we can throw damage. Let's say he ended up with a BODY 15 and an rPD 5. Thow a 4d6RKA at him and typically you can expect 14 BODY worth of damage, meaning he's going to take over half his BODY (9 points after rPD). He may live to get another shot off, but he can reasonably expect to be downed (and probably in need of immediate medical attention) if he gets hit again. How does this compare to your typical monster? Is this what you want-- monsters roughly 5 times tougher than a Monster Hunter? If not, adjust (either the humans or the monsters) to what you think they should be and try again. Or-- and this is important-- alter the damage classes. Maybe you want humans and monsters to scale out about like this, but want them both to be easier or harder to kill. Changing damage classes can do that for you. Add or subtract another die and run through it again. One other important thing: this is probably the best place in this operation to make adjustments to your DEF caps as well. Higher DEF-- especially in Heroic-level games-- can really change things up with regard to what you and your monsters can endure. This is because of the way HERO allows DEF to modify (in this case, reduce) the amount of damage actually applied to the character. Even then, though, remember this same method has drawbacks as well. Consider that an rPD of a mere 4 can be expected to consistently nullify one entire die of Killing Attack. That's _3_ DCs you are likely to shrug off. rPD6, or course, guarantees it, but a mere 4 makes it consistent. The drawback, of course, is that adding another die of KA not only gets through it, but it carries a _lot_ of damage with it. Another 2 dice and-- well, you can see where this is going. Just remember at all times to attempt the model what you are looking for as a "typical" situation. Once you have established a baseline of the "typical" attack, think about the limit. What is the most powerful weapon the characters could conceivably run across without too terribly much difficulty (that is to say, something they could _technically_ access, but it won't be particularly handy and likely not always available). How much more easily should such a weapon take out the monster? Or a rival Hunter? Or a human agent of the monster? Toss on another couple of DCs and run your quick-and-dirty simulation again. When that attack does what you want, then likely you have found your _max_ DC limit. If all the players want to jump straight to that limit, then reduce it a bit to get more of what you want. Before finalizing it, think about the "boss monsters," if you'll forgive the video game terminology: that one big-bad that shows up after you have waded through a couple of other monsters-- either one that's been better at hiding until your success has put him on the run, or perhaps one who was running the entire pack of monsters you've already waded through-- at any rate, he's generally notably tougher than those who have gone before. How are you going to make him tougher? You can add BODY and STUN and END so that he can soak more damage and make more attacks. This creates for some powerful scenes. But for less investment, you can also add Defenses. BE CAREFUL IF YOU DO THIS! Yes, he can get hit _way_ more times and keep going. The problem comes in when you stop to consider your DC caps: is there an attack anywhere in your campaign that can actually penetrate his DEF? If not, then you have created an effectively-unkillable beastie. While they are fun for pushing things in a certain direction when things are too far adrift, I absolutely _promise_ you that your players are going to absolutely _hate_ running into things that flat out don't bleed, ever. I am sorry; I did not mean to ramble on quite so much, but I do hope that this little "quick and dirty" test helps you in some way. It's been doing great by me for three decades or so, so I thought I'd pass it along.

Thank you, Brian. That's very kind of you. I think, as I have a bit of time off tomorrow during which the wife _should_ be sleeping (she works tonight), I will have time to begin slicing up Horror HERO. After finishing that, I'm up in the air about resuming Star HERO (which I had already begun to slice at the outset of this project, as it was equally important to me as was Western HERO), or moving on to Cyber HERO. I can't really decide (though I'm a good bit away from having to), particularly since the quality of the current Star HERO PDF is passable, but still-- If I had the resources, of course, I'd do everything out there. On a related note-- everything out there-- I would really like to ask the entire community to keep their eyes peeled for Adventurer's Club #1: this thing seems to be _impossible_ to find at _any_ price. If anyone finds one for sale-- and damage can be digitally repaired, so long as it's legible enough to make out the words, etc-- I would be most grateful. Still slowly gathering AC magazines for when it's truly their turn, but between cost and availability, that project may never get done. Although I do have some ... well, it's just news, I guess; some good to it and some bad to it: Evidently there are a very few "bootleg" scans of some of the ACs out there. Two players have brought me copies of what they could find (I think there were four? Five?). I don't have any software at the moment that can pull apart a PDF or even edit a PDF, so they may get turned over the Jason as-is, if I can't find actual originals to scan from. I'm not happy about handing them in as-is (they are crooked, cropped poorly, and in a much lower resolution, but they are extremely readable), but the upshot is if I can't find those particular issues, well at least I have a back-up plan there. Seriously, though: Anyone who finds an AC #1 for sale, give me a shout, please! Thanks. Duke

So I'm guessing you don't refer to specifically-colored beagles as "black and tans" anymore?

Have you considered tying the refresh rate to the LTE mechanic?

Okay, AC 12 has completed the initial scanning. This sample was _not_ selected at random, I'm afraid, but it's still honest, because it was also _not_ selected on the basis of quality. It was selected on the basis of nostalgia: the adds brought back memories. The chevron effect is lessened as you approach the center of the book (as if the pages slide while being cropped by a dull blade), but it's still obvious. Note what happens to the margins as you move down the pages, complete with the intrusion onto the DC Heroes add. (If I can find a Mayfair Games logo like that, of reasonable resolution, to use as a guide, I will attempt to repair that add while repairing margins). I present to you: The centerfold from AC 12, 1988. Enjoy.

I gotta level with ya: I _love_ the character. Don't know if it's yours or from some other work or not, but I love it. It reminds of me of first character my daughter asked me to hammer out for her (origin-wise, that is), so right away just reading it gave me great memories. I love the name "Dragonfly Studios," because quite frankly, I'm a bit nutty about dragonflies. They are beautiful, and so cool, and it's fun when one lights on you when you're drifting down the river. Dragonflies are some of my favorite things. Neither of those answer your question, but they immediately make me want to help you in whatever way I can. On to the question! Like Amorkca above, my eyes aren't what they used to be. However, I'm assuming that the single-page blurb will be be "page size" in the book, as opposed to the imbedded image, so it will likely be easier to read. Traditionally, in the published works from HERO, The characteristics, powers, etc-- the "character sheet," if you will, are in one place, usually with a character portrait beside it. If not beside it, then somewhere very close to it. Then one with all the background, etc, that makes the character interesting. I personally prefer the block of write up, even though it's not terribly helpful to me. You see, I have played, like many others here, from the very first edition and up. Time-wise, that is. I never really moved beyond second edition-- it was nigh-perfect for me. We've incorporated bits of stuff here and there from 4th (which was, I think, the most perfect edition ever produced, but thick enough to make it a bit of a nuisance as a reference, and intimidating to new players, so 2e was more or less my well-worn groove. All that means that just about every character I've ever created, or run for, or had submitted to me was on not just a character sheet, but a 2e character sheet. I discovered a few years ago (when I finally started hunting up old 4e books, as I never had the money for anything beyond the core Champions book when I was younger) that I have looked at 2e sheets for so long (like, say, for the youth group game coming up this afternoon! ) that I actually can't even _understand_ a character that's not on one! Yeah, it's okay to laugh at me; I do it, too. But I am serious. If a published character from 4e interested me enough, I would write it onto a 2e sheet so I could "take a good look at it." I have, since the release of 5e, made a bit of progress reading some of the newer formats, but it's still like reading something in French, then studying it a bit in my head, repeating it in english a couple of times, doing some re-phrasing, etc, until I have finally "interpreted" this bit of hieroglyph into a language I understand. (It's still faster and easier to write it onto a 2e sheet, but I really do need to move beyond that eventually). Short version: I can't even comprehend distributed sheets. I can read a block of characteristics over on this page, scroll down to the next page and read some skills, find a couple of powers over here in the margin of another page-- and find myself totally unable to comprehend how they interrelate, what their actual effects are, and what impact they will have on my game. Show me an 80STR on one page and 4D6KA on another, and I simply will _not_ make the connection. This is undoubtably a personal shortcoming related to over thirty years of "personal training" and the oncoming hardening of the thought patterns that accompanies old age, but as you are opinion shopping-- well, there's mine. And thank you for asking. Duke

As a guy who has been rear-ended sitting in a turn lane, and knocked into the car in front of him-- Resulting in both a nearly four-hundred dollar ticket for "following too closely" and a healthy uptick in my insurance premiums, I resemble that remark quite a bit.

People who drop into turn lanes to slow down and turn but _force_ themselves in ahead of people in the turn lane who are accelerating to merge.

You fellas are making me glad to be on this side of the pond, where black and tan is either a drink or a dog.

Stop this madness! Stoo it before you craft the Harbinger of Justice all over again!

And that's where you lost me, Dude.

For what it's worth, I think this is spot-on. With complete proper and appreciative regards to D for the wonderful and well-thought counterpoints, I believe what LL has proposed is, as D said quite precisely, a "campaign feature." However, I took it one step further: it's one of those things where the GM gets to have some fun. Maybe this is why I was confused a few weeks back when someone commented along the lines of "no one wants to be the GM; if you're the GM it's because no one else wanted to be" or something along those lines. I never had a problem with being GM: there's so much to enjoy. Let's face it: there are things that the players will never know. Every time there's something "running in the background," the GM has to keep that going until-- _if_ -- the players find it. Did they take too long questioning the people at the warehouse? Then they've missed the opportunity to see Mr. Likely Suspect get into a red taxi and head to meet his contact. Things like that. There are, in a lively world, a thousand things the players will never know. Why do they exist? That's exclusively for the GM to enjoy. Or maybe it's to give him a "leg up" toward patching together a "how does this work in my universe" situation. A few extra hooks to play with. Story seeds, I think we've been calling them in recent years. For example, now that you know there's an artificial intelligence putting all this together, and you know _why_ he's doing it, well that combination of characters, reasoning, and technique could lead to some interesting spin-off situations leading to new mini-arcs are one-shot adventures. Why, Oversight might even be the source of a couple of anonymous tips! Why? Because something he foresees goes horribly wrong if the villain is victorious, or if he is not at least postponed a bit. Think of all the adventure module's you have read over the years that toss in things like "What the players don't know is" or "Captain Grumpy is like this because horrible situation Z from twenty-eight years ago" or "as soon as the player characters leave, Chet is going to " or even "He's lying. He's actually got to get the bar to meet his mistress, not get to choir rehearsal" even when these things have _bumpkus_ to do with _anything_. Even if the PCs not only will never find out, but actually have zero way to find out, and zero reason to even wonder about it. The GM is in charge of making the world come to life for his players. Stuff like this-- throwaway bits in modules? Background details that are never going to leave the background? Oversight? That's just stuff that makes the world come alive for the GM. As such, I appreciate both the effort and the offer. Simply because _I_ know it exists does not mean that the players ever will, or even that they ever _should_. Like using an incredibly alien-- so alien as to make even communicating with them impossible for the total lack of shared concepts, as part of a backdrop. They are so distant that it would take a thousand years to get to them. There is _zero_ that the characters can do with that piece of information. They can't interact with them; they will never see them; they will never know what they look like. It's just a backdrop. I'm still okay with someone deciding that this is a major and crucial part of their setting. Why? Because it's fun for the GM. Duke

I very much appreciate the enthusiasm, Chris, but the fact is I'm 58 with a bad heart and blood pressure that even on meds is well-above stroke level. I can't shake the feeling I don't have forever to make this the way I want it to be.

Okay, folks: I totally missed my self-imposed deadline. Further, I'm only about halfway done: life happens in a big ugly way, etc-- you don't want to hear excuses; I understand that. Suffice it to say that I don't have much "hobby time" or "me time" or whatever the current trendy phrase is for "time I'm not obligated to use for more pressing matters in the real world." I have made a bit of headway scanning some Adventurer's Club books-- well, one and a piece, anyway. I know: Horror HERO should be next, so let me explain: 1) Horror HERO is glue-bound, and it takes a really large block of time to go _anywhere_ on such a project, as to get the results I want, each page must be very carefully separated one-at-a-time from the binding. I haven't had a block of time like that since Thanksgiving. 2) Adventurer's Club is staple-bound, meaning it's really nothing to take apart, and I can scan two or three pages in the small blocks of time I've managed to steal. 3) Yes; I have been doing this instead of finishing up Western HERO, simply because that, too, takes large chunks of time to accomplish small bites. See that note about time since Thanksgiving to understand why I have made appallingly little forward progress on this project. 4) I figure _any_ work I can get done toward any part of this project is a good thing. On that note, having finished the primary scans on AC 15, I am currently doing AC 12, and it is danged annoying. The book I have-- while in absolute _pristine_ condition otherwise-- was cut funny. That is, soft-cover books-- even the staple-bound ones-- go through a trimming process right after they are bound. This is to give the finished work a nice, even, crisp look by forcibly causing all the pages to be "aligned" perfectly with each other. However, the one I have was trimmed crooked. The measurements are all correct, but the book is _visibly_ out of square. As it is one of the early small-format books, I have been trying to save some time by scanning it "full page;" that is to say, two pages at a time. By laying the entire leaf into scanner (because with the small format books, they fit! ) I can scan say page 2 and page 71 simultaneously. It's easier to duplicate the file and crop off the unwanted page than it is to scan each page separately. Or at least, it _would_ be, if they weren't all shaped like chevrons. Ideally, I'd get a square image by hand-laying the piece. This isn't possible in this case, so the best I can do is square the text. But then I have to re-build the missing parts of the pages and crop off the "peak" excess of the chevron-- all of which can only be attained by determining the margins and then measuring from the text. It doesn't _sound_ like much, but it's rather maddening, as the page-rebuilding process ends up of-kiltering the text _and_ deleting the staple holes, which are quite helpful in determining the gutters when it comes time to cut the image into two pages. Yeah--- no one wants to hear it, and everyone expected to have something in their browser by now, but honestly, it takes time I don't have a lot of right now. I just haven't updated in a while and I wanted to take a minute to say that this project has _not_ been abandoned. I _am_ working on it. It's just going a lot slower than any of us really wanted it to, and I am -- sincerely, I am, because I, too, would value having it available by now, if only as a carrot before me to reach my next goal-- very sorry about the time this is taking. Duke

I have that one, courtesy of an "I give up" GM who always wanted to run it but his group was never willing. I've never run it (too buggy), but since our groups are usually high-morality types with their builds, the only thing we're missing is WWII. And I have the -- oh, you know what? I forgot about the one for 4e. Okay, . Thanks, Doc.

There were three?

Home Alone? Dude, I don't know how anyone can even _watch_ that movie. Seriously. I've tried twice, and I cringe and wince so hard I can't even finish it. It's one thing to see that sort of violence in cartoons, or to hear it in jokes, but actually seeing it in live action--- I'm not kidding when I say this: I find that "fun, light-hearted romp" to be just as stomach-turning as Saw or it's ilk. it's just a disturbingly bad time. And this is coming from a guy who watches bait bike videos for the laughs.

First and properly, Thank you. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about such things, most likely owing to my complete and total lack of interest in the metric system, since-- like pretty much everyone who doesn't work in a lab, it has absolutely no relevance to my day-to-day life, and I will _never_ need that level of precision on anything I do professionally, ever. Please understand that I don't say that dismissively, but instead as method of explanation. Moving on to the topic: It really doesn't require any of that for someone with an appropriate sense to "know" or to "feel" exactly what that distance is. If I can sense (and therefore apply appropriate skill levels) the exact distance, it doesn't matter what anyone names that distance. Realistically, for those who might absolutely insist that a character be able to spit out a mathematical value under nine different definitions, well then if we're playing 6e, we don't need any more granularity than "one meter" and if we're playing 5 and back, we can get as course as "two meters" and still be dead-on accurate, because only hexes count. But of course, you're not disagreeing with that. I am simply rambling because my brain is trying very hard to drown out the Christmas music behind me, and my focus keeps jumping around. I apologize. A lot. Personally, I'd run with the idea that it is a _willful_ deception. This lets you go with a broad "Detect: Lie" ability. If you want to rein in the Power, or introduce granularity: A willful spoken deception or body language that signifies willful deception. That's as far as _I_ would go. The rest would be on-the-fly stuff, but there's a simple reason: Depends. Is he doing it as a willful deception, or does he have Tourette? Is it a willful deception? Same question. Well I'm almost done with this thread. Not because there's been any arguing or uncivil behavior, but I want to get out of it before Steve decides with need a seven hundred page book with a single definition (The Ultimate Liar!), and two supplemental seven-hundred page books (Liar's Guide! Advanced Liar's Guide! More than suggestions; they're now canonical rules!) making judgements on every possible grunt in nine different circumstances each so we have something canonical on the subject. And of course there will be those folks who will spend two hours trying to come up with something specifically difficult, and expect someone to believe it comes up all the time, every game, every group, forever and ever. I agree. And while it's absolutely anathema to internet discussion boards, I think this question-- like pretty many others that aren't related specifically to "official peripherals," is best answered by a group for it's own group, without regard to what other groups have decided is "the one true way." I think this because, as I've noted before, this power's scale and influence is so deeply affected by the dramatic side of the game-- the actual "role-playing" part of a role-playing game. And, as noted above, there is massive chasm, filled with tiny little pedestals of gaming groups, all of them separated by the infinity of what they enjoy in the game, and how they enjoy doing it. Far, far more critical here than hammering out a universal definition of "lie," is an acceptance that this definition isn't going to matter at all to some groups ("A lie is a lie. Everyone knows what a lie is!") while others will wait for Steve's three-book definition before considering the ramifications of the Power at all. That last part means a lot. None of it matters if the GM has a solid case that it will spoil the story. As you note, though, that doesn't mean the Power is particularly hard to build, or even particularly useful. Okay, folks-- I'm out. Holiday things to do today.

Neither of these examples is subjective. There are clearly-defined notes for music and signing. Just because I can't hit them with a barn doesn't mean they aren't real. We have all sorts of measuring and comparison devices to determine what is and is not on key. It is not subjective. The only thing human-defined about it is the name of the note, and the only thing subjective about it is wether or not it is pleasant to hear. Having given a particular thing a name and having spent untold eons arguing its merit do not in any way change the nature of the thing, nor in any way alter its existence. The range assumption is ludicrous. If someone hands me a steel rod of a given length, it doesn't matter _what_ unit I use to measure it in, the length does not change. It could be measured to determine that it is 1.4 meters or it is 14 decimeters. You postulate that because we can't agree on what terms to measure it in that the length cannot be accurately determined. So it follows that no one could reasonably expect 1.4 meters to be 14 decimeters. Deciding on units of different origin doesn't change the length of the rod, either. Calling it 55.1181102 inches still doesn't change the length of it. We could take a page out of Roy D. Mercer's book and call it "right fine ass-whippin' size" and it would not in any way, shape, or form alter the size of the rod. Make the rod a thousand yards. Same rules apply, only now one end of it is far enough to classify as "long range." Doesn't matter what you call it, that distance is absolute. Not subjective. Not even a little bit. I agree completely.

You know, as many times as I've used that book over the years (only genre book I bought on release day), I have _never_ noticed that. Thanks!

Thanks. Learn something every day around here.

That's the point I was making: a Catholic priest (appologies to any Catholics: I can't remember if "priest" is capitalized in that usage) would not have told them the deceased was already in Hell. There is great deal of scholarship prior to being ordained. On another topic: By "lay Christian," do you mean actual Christian believers, or the "well, I'm western, and westerners are Christians, so I must be Christian" type person? Or, if I may paraphrase Good Omens (a tremendously funny book, if you haven't read it) the "when I'm completely ignoring religion, it is specifically a Christian religion I am ignoring!" tpye folks. (mostly for my own curiosity)

No; that would fall under heresy. So far as I know, of all the Christian religions, only an assortment of Baptists think you die and go to the afterlife immediately. The predominant Christian belief is that life has two primary components: dust and the breath of life from God. When you die, the breath has stopped, and you completely cease to exist. This is a mercy, as you will not experience the passage of time until Judgement Day. Essentially, you will blink. When your eyes open, you will have been risen to be judged. It goes on and on, but for our purposes here, a Catholic priest would never announce that someone was definitely in Heaven or Hell; it's against his religion. Unfortunately, using any social gathering as an opportunity to spread The Word is not. While it shouldn't be unfortunate, there are those who have an opportunity to speak of uplifting things, but for personal reasons decide it's more important to stress the negative. Sadly, this tendency seems most common in Catholics and Baptists. Not all of them, of course, but it's where I see it the most. It's bizarre to me, because I am reasonably certain that following the sacrements of a religion because you are scared not to doesn't actually meet the requirements of accepting those sacrements as the way to salvation. But I'm not the best scholar here, either. To be completely honest, I can't really accept that, under the circumstances, the family didn't see it coming when they opted for a Catholic service.

That's an interesting take on Chaotic that I had not considered before. It also seems that-- and I admit to being quite intrigued with this next bit- that by this model (if I follow your thinking) then for a CG character, "Good" is more a personal consideration than a societal one, though there would likely be commonly-held beliefs between the two of what defines "Evil.". So a chaotic good anarchist is entirely possible, if he truly believed that all government was a yoke that strained personal freedom, or a chaotic good arsonist if he truly believed that shelter in some way softened or weakened people, or deprived them of a connection to the natural world that he believed to be vital and necessary for their health or spiritual well-being. If I follow you, of course. I like the surface of this thought. I'm going to find some time to play with that a bit. Thanks, Hugh!

I enjoyed the Houston area, too. I will say that you couldn't pay me to live in Phoenix, though, unless I could first get a two-year acclimatization tour on the bright side of Mercury..... Maybe then I could survive Phoenix.