Catseye

Re: Limitation comments... Sorry, I dont follow... How does that end up producing a breakage roll dependent on the amount of strength over the max that is used? Thats the mechanic Im looking for. It can be used forever, as long as you don't over-muscle it. If you DO over-muscle it, it has a chance of breaking dependent on how badly you over-muscle. Imagine for a moment a 40 pound bow. Now imagine someone trying to pull it back with 100 pounds of pressure. result-- snapped bow. Thats the behavior I want to model.

Re: Limitation comments... I follow the weapon DEF suggestion but its more bookeeping then I want to impose on the players. I'm looking for something a bit more streamlined and I like the burnout roll as a mechanism

Re: Limitation comments... Okay, how about this.... Advantage: Can be Overmuscled +1/4 The player can use his or her strength to more then double the DC of this weapon, however they must make a burn out check for breakage at 9 plus the number of DCs over double the weapon's base that they are doing. Example: Conehead the testosterone has lost his sword and picks up a club to smash his enemy with. The club is a 1D6 HTH attack (1DC), with a Damage Max of *2 (2DC). Conehead has a STR of 25 and in a beserk rage he swings with his full strength, which is +5D6. He connects and does the full 6D6 but must roll a burnout for the club of 9+(6 -2) or 13 or less to break the club.

Re: Limitation comments... I was planning on dropping the x2 rule with this in place... but you make an interesting point that maybe I ca cover both with an advantage "Can be over muscled". Let me play with that formulation a bit and Ill post something for consideration.

Alright, forgive me if I've asked this already but I'm getting back to this project seriously after a long hiatus. I's like to invite some useful opinions on the following limitation. (Note that "that sucks" in of itself is not a useful opinion.) Its for a low power fantasy game. I'm particularly interested in opinions on the multiplier/value chart. Limitation: Breakable Weapon (Damage Maximum) A weapon with this limitation can be broken by applying too much strength to its use. If the weapon is "over-muscled" then it incurs a burnout roll for weapon breakage at 9+(the number DCs over the max damage.) The value of the limitation is according to its maximum safe DC expressed as a multiple of the weapons base DC. Maximum Value Base DC -1 BaseDC * 1.5 -3/4 BaseDC * 2.0 -1.2 BaseDC * 2.5 -1/4 BaseDC * 3 or more No value Example: Conehead the testosterone has lost his sword and picks up a club to smash his enemy with. The club is a 1D6 HTH attack (1DC), with a Damage Max of *2 (2DC). Conehead has a STR of 25 and in a beserk rage he swings with his full strength, which is +5D6. He connects and does the full 6D6 but must roll a burnout for the club of 9+(6 -2) or 13 or less to break the club.

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Btw... thanks all. This has been a really valuable mental exercise for me, at least.

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Well having *finally* come around to a clear definition in my mind of SysOps. I see where you could well be right. I guess it depends how much your sailor is just grunt labor pulling where hes told by the Sailing Master. If this was true on tall ships (I honestly don't know) then I 100% concede that as correct 8)

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Or using a tool... radio... Or using a tool... photon blaster Point taken? A pulley system is a pulley system because the definition of a system is " A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/system) This discussion has been useful to me though as I'm now finally clear on the diff between familiarity and Sys Ops. Driving the car is familiarity. Tuning the car is sysops. That is because you are operating on the system, changing its internal operation. And sailors working rigging *definitely* operate on the system. They change the tensions and lengths of the various lines to deal with various situations. The only problem with this definition is... a lot of things people normally assume are SysOps *arent*. Like working a radio or firing the photon blaster. *shrug*

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Uh huh. GA is (currently) insisting its not a system cause it doesn't have independent power. (This is after he had to retreat on the point of pulleys, gears and levers doing work for people.) I'm pointing out that independent power is not a defining characteristic of a system in any definition I am aware of. That, and the fact that the interface is unfamiliar, seem to be the only two arguments I've heard and to me neither wash. A pulley system is called a pulley system because... its a system. Thats English. And the interface point IMHO is simply 20th c. hubris.

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Just to belabor the point.... Here is an example of a direct-cranked computer. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/babbage.aspx?page=2 Does this not count as sysops because there is an operator inputing force to make it work?

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity So really, your making an argument based solely on the construction of the interface. What if you wrap a string around that knob and pull it to turn the knob? is it no longer sysops?? Or, if we want to get a more realistiic, though still silly, what if i tie the string to stress gauge that acts as input to a space ship control panel? Sorry but to me all this rings of *exactly* the kind of "modern-tech egotism"I was talking about. Because the interface is unfamiliar to you, you assume its unsophisticated. You don't necessarily pull on "the rope" in a sophisticated pulley system by the way, you pull on *a* rope. That rope may in fact be adjusting the distance between two pulleys that effects that way *another* rope distributes the distance/load equation. Pulley systems are very much the equivalent of gear boxes. I think this argument actually ended about two messages back with the statement "If the ship had a series of levers, pulleys and wheels that you pulled to adjust the lines and sails then I'd say that was a SysOp situation." Now we're just into systems education

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity So, that mean we are now violently in agreement? 8)

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Not entirely just for the point of argument... I'd point out that levers, pullies and wheels are all machines that are doing the work for you. To me, the salient point seems to be the complexity of the system as it appears to the end user. And I'm having trouble seeing a complex set of pullies and ropes that has to be maintained and used in the right manner as less complex then pushing some buttons and twisting some knobs. We may just have to agree to disagree.

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity The original question, which was answered some time ago really, which I appreciate, was "whats the dividing line between TF and Systems Operations on a high technology, multi-person crewed vehicle." I purposefully used the space ship as an example because it put peoples heads in the "right space." I want my players to really be thinking of sailing ships as the "high technology" of the world. For that reason I am applying the skills to the sailing ship exactly as one would naturally think to apply them to a space ship today. I personally think that thats more then justified in that the technology at the height of the tall ship era was really very complex, arguably at least as complex as running the USS Enterprise seems to be on Star Trek, maybe more so. That make more sense?

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Well, this isn't a general case. Its a specific one. It fits best the tone and tenor I'm going for. You forgot the most important FRED rule... that its a set of guidelines not a straight jacket. This is reiterated by Steve many places, but one of them is.. Fred, Revised, Page 560. "The next thing to do is figure out how the rules system needs to be adapted to give your world the proper 'feel'. This may sound difficult, especially to novice GMs, but it really isn't that hard. Its just a matter of figuring out what the main elements of the genre you want to simulate are, and then determining what changes, if any, you need to make the HERO System to best simulate or reflect those elements." I think thats MORE then enough license to violate a "generally..." case for a specific purpose. Can I rant a minute? HERO system is one of the best defined RPG systems ever written. Unfortunately, that can *sometimes* lead to a level of pedanticism over individual words in the rule book thats totally unprecedented in the DMIG world of RPG gaming.

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity uh... not according to Hero Designer... it includes weapon systesm, medical systems and all sorts of things beyond your suggested categories. If you will excuse a somewhat lengthy XML quote... SYSTEMS_OPERATION SHOWDIALOG="Yes" DISPLAY="Systems Operation" MINCOST="1" FAMILIARITYROLL="8" FAMILIARITYCOST="1" EXCLUSIVE="Yes"> MAXCOST="2"> Star Hero MINCOST="1" > Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero MINCOST="1" > Star Hero MINCOST="1" > Star Hero MINCOST="1" > Star Hero Star Hero BASECOST="1" MINCOST="1" > Star Hero MAXCOST="2"> Star Hero Star Hero MINCOST="1" > Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero BASECOST="1" MINCOST="1" > Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero Star Hero MINCOST="1" > Star Hero Star Hero MINCOST="1" > Star Hero Star Hero INPUTLABEL="Type" OTHERINPUT="Yes" BASECOST="1" MINCOST="1" EXCLUSIVE="No" > Star Hero Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book Star Hero Sidekick (Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book, page 50; Revised, page 72; Star Hero, page 47) Characters with this Intellect Skill understand how to operate sensing and communication devices properly. Choosing any of the defined Systems or System Groups will use the expanded rules from Star Hero. Not selecting any Systems or System Groups will use the default rules as stated in Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book.

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Thats exactly the point. Its NOT a non-tech environment. By way of example, for a long time it was assumed that Babbage's difference engine couldn't be built. It was "proved" that the friction between the parts would be too great... However, recently someone who knew a LOT about the OLD skills of clock making took a look at the plans, concluded it could be built, and proved it by building it. The missing information was that the old wooden clock makers knew a great deal of material science about different kinds of wood, how they bent, how they didn't, and most importantly, how they acted against each other. Turns out there is a kind of wood that is effectively "self-oiling", and this is what clock makers used for critical low-friction parts such as these. Similarly the design and operation of sailing vessels was very very complex and sophisticated. It was certainly a highly advanced technology... just one that we eventually abandoned for quicker solutions and mostly forgot. People in our era tend to have this bias where they think all the technologies of the previous eras were "simple and obvious. Far from it. If you don't believe me, YOU try to make a reliable screw driver from scratch without any machinery. Or even a well balanced hammer. Our modern technology is *different*in that it is more powerful, but it gets its power by leveraging itself up on the back of what has gone before. Just look how helpless modern man is when the power goes out... then remember that for most of human history there *was* no power. Frankly, if society collapsed I don't think one in a hundred thousand of us really has the skills to survive. Anyhoo thanks for the brainstorming. It helped a lot! JK

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity I think this gets into the semantics of words, thanks. I appreciate the thinking, but to me SysOps means "working the high tech of the day." In a setting such as this, ship rigging, siege engines, and clocks ARE the high tech of the day. (Well, outside of the gnomes, but they're a special case.) I think we tend to under estimate the technologies of past eras. Ask someone who really knows about the height of wind powered technology and you will find it is quite complex and involves a combination of an astute grasp of mechanics, materials science, some rather inobvious physics (for instance, running before the wind is actually one of the slower ways to move the craft), and detailed skills in different kinds of ropes and knots. I suppose in a sense I am making this specific point *in* the setting by using the sysops skill for things like sailing vessels and seige engines.

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity Thats an interesting way to look at it thanks. Its a bit trickier on a sailing ship because how you point the ship effects its function... but I think I can make the analogy work 8) Steering the ship: TF Working the rigging, etc: SysOps Finding the course; navigation

Hmm... Okay so help me brainstorm here a bit. Suppose I don't want to go to the detail level of "Sysop: Mainsail, Sysop: Anchor Capstan" 8) Most sailors know all of these things. What would the difference between TF: Sailing Ships and SysOp: Sailing Ships be? Maybe TF only refers to one man craft while SYSOp means being part of a crew?

Hi Guys, I'm doing some tuning and tightening of the rules for my house fantasy setting, more or less made necessary by my building an HD template for it. I'm having abit of trouble grokking the line between Transport Familiarity and Systems Operation for complex vehicles. For instance, imagine a space ship. What would Transport Familiarity do? What would systems operation do? (No there are no space ships in this setting, but sailing ships are analogous being complex machines hat are at the peak of the technology of the day and require many people with many skills to operate effective.)

Re: How do i introduce new plyaer? I've been working on a partial character sheet I call a "Action Sheet", to try to make HERO a bit less intimidating for starting players. Attached is the open office spread sheet version and an xls version. I'm working now on an export template for HD.

[moved, accidentally posted in the wrong place]

Re: How do i introduce new plyaer? Gmail e amico tuo (Pardon if my grammer is off, its been 20 yrs since I lived in Italy and I was only passable then.) Gmail (google mail) saves all your mail online for you. Would you like a gmail invite? If so, give me an alternate email to send the invite to.