actingkeith

Re: I think I broke Hero System.

This sort of thing (when you figure out how to build it right) ends up just following the whole 'Rod of Tyrannon' syndrome.

It's not a big deal.

If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, look up the old Mystic Masters book.

I like the *NIX quote as well...

-k

Re: How to: Ego Roll Wall

I disagree completely. The net effect on the target is that they cannot pass. We happen to want to base that on an Ego roll of some sort.

Here's the original request:

Okay, I'm trying to make a spell to block doorways, sections of hall, and so on. The special effect is that a person who wants to walk accross the barrier has to apply a great deal of willpower, since the wall robs you of your desire to cross. I was hoping to represent that with an EGO roll, possibly with modifiers. Crossing the wall does not dissipate the wall, so everyone who crosses has to make their own roll. Each time you cross the wall, you get a positive modifier next time.

So, the net effect is that they can pass... if they make an EGO roll. That's Mind Control.

The mechanics behind any sort of Force Wall, Force Field... based on EGO are daunting and ridiculous seeing as an amazingly simple Mind Control (check back in the thread for a few examples of a Persistent, AE, Telepathic Mind Control, Only One Command *Don't Enter This Room*) accomplishes everything the original poster needs and comes with none of the stultifying Rules Gymnastics that any other solution requires.

-k

Re: How to: Ego Roll Wall

A metarule also states that no Power should be used to duplicate the effects of another Power. Wouldn't that suggestion also be using Mind Control to do something (hindering or preventing movement) that is normally done with Change Environment' date=' Force Wall, or Entangle?[/quote']

 

Well... The power as described doesn't hinder movement... it hinders (affects) the desire/impetus/motivation to move as expressed by the original poster's comments.

 

He wants a power that will stop folks from entering a room (passing through the doorway), unless they make an EGO roll. That's Mind Control by definition.

 

Any other thoughts on the idea are merely exercises in creative rules gymnastics.

 

Ockam's Razor applies... if you've got a simple solution right in front of you that solves all your concerns... stop looking for harder stuff

 

Cheers,

 

-k

Re: How to: Ego Roll Wall

This is a clear cut use of Change Environment with EGO Roll penalties. When a character hits the field they have to make an EGO Roll immediately. If they fail they can't cross.

I would have to completely disagree. My reason for that is that Change Environment specifically states that you shouldn't use CE for things that are done with other powers.

This is clearly Mind Control (don't go in there), Just like Dust Raven posted. (and later I did as well).

Using CE to do things that other powers are designed not a good way to go.

...just my opinion.

-k

Re: Tactics Skill

I know that there are people who strongly oppose rolling for the players' date=' but sometimes it's the only way to avoid telegraphing something to them. Asking the players to roll is basically telling them that something is about to happen, and in some cases it can ruin surprises, tension, etc.[/quote']

Or, it can heighten tension... If the GM brings the players into the fun of the adventure (rather than trying to surprise them with stuff)... the players can roll their dice, and tell the GM to:

 

1 Screw them royally because they missed by a lot

2 Do them wrong because they missed their roll

3 Groan and hurt them because they barely missed

4 Groan and bless them because they barely made it

5 Do them justice because they made their roll

6 Trounce the bad guys because the made their roll by a lot

 

If the players know how they're doing by the numbers, they can also role play better/more-appropriately to their levels of success.

 

In case you couldn't tell, I'm a big fan of bringing the players into the story generation process. Now, I'm not talking about players who only love and enjoy their gaming experience when their characters are kicking *** and taking names... I'm talking about players who enjoy role play and know that failures can be enjoyable and fun (like in real life)...

 

Here's an example of what I mean (true gaming example):

 

GM: You're in the super-hip club, talking to the informant, trying to get her into your confidence... make a Seduction Roll with a -2 because this girl is really underconfident.

 

Dice Roll...

 

Suave Player: Ah Crap! I rolled an 18... (laughing)... OK, my character smiles at her with his brilliantly white teeth, confidently reaches over to take her hand reassuingly, and says, "I admire your courage to be the wonderful you that you are... showing up here with spinach in your teeth and not caring at all who knows or sees or what they might think. I think your flaws are amazing..." Again, I flash my pearly whites to let her know my admiration is ultimately sincere."

 

GM: (nodding), Yep... that'll just about do it... and a couple of stunningly beautiful women who were standing/dancing behind you overhear and start giggling and pointing at the girl's mouth... She is mortified, starts crying, and runs through the crowd... The girls behind you start laughing and the really cute one says to you smiling, "Wow! How bad did she hurt you that you went to all this trouble to do that to her? You're awesome, can I get your number..."

If the GM had hidden the roll, he'd wouldn't be able to tap the brilliant creativity of the player. It takes a lot of weight off a GM's shoulders when he's got players who aren't in the game to 'win every dice roll'

 

For me, a game is about teamwork between the GM and the players, the players knowing the strengths and weaknesses of their characters, and a group of people not afraid to have life's downs impact the game...

 

...but then again, I'm an idealist.

 

Peace,

 

-k

Re: Tactics Skill

Some people don't like skills like Tactics (and other Interaction Skills) because those people would prefer the players role play through things... I'm one of those guys who likes to remind everyone that game skills exist because players may not have those skills' date=' and why would you penalize a player who is a tactical idiot who is playing a Green Beret...[/quote'] I don't disagree with you. But [engage devil's advocate mode] what about the player to his left, who is a tactical genius? Does he then have to pay points for a skill he doesn't really need? Or not take the skill, even though it's in character? Or does he get the skill for free, even though the player to his right had to pay points for it?

Here's my time-worn answer to this oft-asked dilemna:

 

You need to separate out the Player from the Character...

 

If the player is a tactical genius and the character is a tactical genius: The character must pay for the skill, and the player gets a bonus ExP every now and again when the player's tactical thoughts work really well into the game in character.

 

If the player is a normally tactical person (meaning no real tactical experience), but the character is a tactical genius: it's the situation that I originally laid out.

 

If the player is a tactical genius, but the character is a normally tactical person: The character doesn't buy tactical skill and the player gets bonus ExP now and again when he plays 'in character' by purposefully playing "non-tactically-optimally"

 

Lastly, if you've got two players, one a tactical genius and one... not, and both characters have Tactics, then you treat each player and each character separately per the guidelines above...

 

At least, that's what I'd do.

 

Now... if your issue is that the Tactical Genius Player is getting upset that the other players don't see the wisdom of his plans... that's another issue.

 

Peace,

 

-k

Re: Tactics Skill

...Tactics Skill? Do you actually have any hard mechanics that you utilize?

I don't. If the Tactics Skill comes into play during combat, I have the character with the Skill make a Skill Roll. I will generally apply a modifier to the combat based on the results of the Roll. I also give a guy with Tactics Skill the 'tactical edge' over someone without the skill.

Some people don't like skills like Tactics (and other Interaction Skills) because those people would prefer the players role play through things... I'm one of those guys who likes to remind everyone that game skills exist because players may not have those skills, and why would you penalize a player who is a tactical idiot who is playing a Green Beret...

I'm sure that that's a debate for somewhere else.

Peace,

-k

Re: Exploding Duplicates

For the most part, I like Liaden's solution as well. The thing I'd change (or spell out more concretely if this was how it was intended) is this:

Each Duplicate also takes a Physical Limitation: Recombines When Takes X Amount Of Damage.

I'd make it "Recombines when takes X BOD in a single... Phase/Segment/Attack" Whatever seems right to the reality of your desire. Single Attack is the most restrictive, Single Phase is the least...

Spelling it out this way makes it so that the Duplicates can actually be killed. The way Lord Liaden spells it out could be construed to make it so that Duplicates would never be killed... I guess you could spell it out that way if that was your aim.

Peace,

-k

Re: Power Dialing: SFX or Mechanic?

Doesn't the "real weapon" Limitation cover this?

Yes, yes it does.

As a matter of fact, the original poster's concerns are exactly why the 'real weapon' Limiation was added to the game.

Re: How to: Ego Roll Wall

Looking back at the original question...

I think I'd build the power as Mind Control, telepathic, AE 1Hex, Continuous, 0END, Persistent, Only One Command (Do Not Enter), IIF (Thing in Wall), Independent. You could also build it as AE (whatever) so that as soon as they walk into the AE, they get hit by the compulsion not to enter the door.

Building it this way, anyone entering the AE is automatically hit, the effect is invisible by default, and the default special effect is exactly in line with the desired effects.

But what do I know... I'm not into the exotic build strategies if an old-school one works.

Peace,

-k

Re: Clearing Away Soil

I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Anything that removes dirt in an area, but doesn't suspend the 'finds' won't help an archeologist. They need to know how deep something is in the soil so that they can tell how old it is.

For a really cool effect, I'd go with Invisibility UAA, AE (any shape), with Fringe effect, only vs Dirt/Soil. with the Special Effect of some sort of Electronic VR Grid thing that strips away the soil, but leaves all the goodies suspended exactly as they are in the ground so that they can be measured precises before being dug up.

Peace,

keith

Re: House Rule: Banning Multipowers & Elemental Controls?

I don't have a problem with a GM banning anything from a game, necessarily. I think the GM in this case is a bit daft and probably a simpleton, but that's not what concerns me.

Here's what would concern me in a game where Frameworks are banned... I would be pissed as hell if the GM's NPC were built with lots of Villain Bonus points to make up for the 'lack of efficiency' that Frameworks provide.

Other than that, as long as no one has Frameworks, I would feel that the game should be pretty balanced. I agree with the observations of others on this thread that there would be a prevalance of bricks, martial artists, and one-tricks, but that's not so bad as long as you can think in those terms (which is where I came of with the 'simpleton' comment above).

Personally, I wouldn't play with a GM like that. I'd have a hard time playing with a player who bad-mouthed Frameworks, let alone a GM who banned them for emotional reasons (ie he just doesn't like them).

Those are just my thoughts,

-Keith

Re: Favorite Abuse

One of my favorite 'abuses' is the building of a suit of power armor (eg Ironman) as a Vehicle rather than character powers with Focus.

Use 1/5th of the Character Points to build a vehicle that is a suit of armor... gaining an identical number of points to the original character to build the armor. Give it an Attack MP (with +5pts to get 2 of them... one for each arm/side), a Movement MP, a Sensor MP (lots of 360 perception)...

Then, you spend the remaining character points on skills (like Repair, PS Armor Suit Pilot, Combat Driver, TF: Armor Suit), contacts, Wealth, and Martial Arts...

I actually like this version of Power Armor as it has built in damage-to-armor functions.

Cheers,

-keith

Re: Request: Generic Marine Build

I do know that all Marines spend part of Basic learning Marine Corp History' date=' so that should be a required KS.[/quote']

 

And I can assure you that they do such a good job that even 20 years after getting out, most of it is still up in my head bouncing around...

 

Peace,

 

Keith, Former Marine ('85-'89), Security Company 8th & I, India Co. 3/8, and Mar. Det. UNITAS.

Re: Damage: Realistic vs. Epic

First, welcome to my favorite RPG system of all time.

Is there an optional rule that makes Killing Damage more deadly?

I think you need to take another look at things because I think that your perspective may be a bit skewed... Here's why:

Killing Attacks are amazingly deadly to everyday normal folks like you and me.

When you compare HERO's combat/damage/injury stuff, it's vitally important for your sense of perspective to always come back and test the effect you're looking into against normals first, rather than just comparing them to the Superheroes you're building...

What we're really looking at is not that various powers and attacks are underpowered, but that the heros you're building are just that frickin' tough!

Always compare a Power against a Normal (2PD/2ED, 10 BOD, 20 STUN, no Resistant Defenses, 10 EGO, No Mental Defense, No Power Defense) to give yourself a "Real World" example of the Power's effects because that 'normal' guy is what you see most every day in this world... and a HERO System Normal is probably better than the average normal person in the world we live in.

And like others have suggested, if you use Hit Location Rules, Killing Attacks become even more threatening to Normals...

Peace,

Keith

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

This might serve well for combat, but combat wasn't the problem. The problem was more the strategic issues where taking a few minutes here and there to get thespell right is perfectly reasonable and forcing the character to a 5 second spout would be inappropriate for.

 

In combat, with the time to switch powers and all, he played fairly fine, if a little underpowered. Out of combat, he could take his time a devise the spell-for-the-moment.

Ah right... I remember this problem. The solution that we ended up with was the player taking the genre seriously and purposefully not having the character come up with an "I'll save the day!" reaction...

Rather, the player would do something like this... "Yes, there's a spell to make this work... I believe it's called Mar-alarka and I don't know how to do it. The only being that I know who knows the spell is my enemy, Dr. Draconis, and he's in the prison dimension of Oblivion... If you really want pursue that course of action, you'll do it without me..."

Great role play... and no stepping on your plot points. If your crew don't see the fun in that type of gaming, then your solution of limits is what I'd do...

Peace,

Keith

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

Now' date=' as to VPPs, I stopped allowing anything but "significantly limited" VPPS a long while back. basically, there have to be usable limitations on both the siwtching of powers and the types of powers or i don't approve it.[/quote']

 

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do as a GM. For me, the VPP just has to make sense, meaning that it has to be pretty clear that the player and I have the same understanding with regards to what it's capable of... Although, truth be told, that's a basic component of any concept/character/power that I allow in a HERO game.

 

A couple times i allowed a magician with "magic spells" vpp where he ended up being the universal answer man "lets let warlock dial up a spell for this" proves less than satisfying. It really wasn't the tactical issues as much as the strategic and logistical ones.

 

They way we got around this issue in the games I've had a say in was to make the VPP *PLAYER* come up with the build of the power, on the spot, in less than 5 seconds, including Active and Real costs... or the *CHARACTER* would not be able to put the plan into action. This is especially fun if the VPP is something like a magic VPP that has a Side Effect of 'Magical Backfiring.' It really raises the stakes.

 

It provides a lot of fun at a gaming table to hear a player choke out a power, it provides a real sense of stress for the players in combat (given that HERO combat can be slow), and it sends players off during 'down time' to do real 'spell research' as they churn various powers in their heads.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

Keith

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

Well, there is a more logical way to do it, that Amadan pointed out not long ago in a forum, although he claimed it wasn't his exclusive invention but the fruits of an earlier long-term online discussion.

 

 

Hopefully, such a reform will be incorporated in the next edition (there's always another edition to look forward to eventually isn't there?)

I've been thinking about something along a similar line for a very long time myself (Like just shortly after VPPs were introduced back in the same book with the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (to which I stll owe character points for enrolling; anyone got the address?))... a modification to the existing VPP design rules that I think is more generally useful yet still balanced (with the given here that VPPs are in fact balanced in the minds of the game designers).

If I were drinking beer with the game designers and throwing around ideas for improvements to the rules here's how I'd build the VPP rules set:

I'd separate it into 2 pools, calling them the Active Pool and the Real Pool. These correspond to the current Pool Cost and the Control Cost respectively. Whereas the Pool Cost and the Control Cost of the current VPP rule design are linked by a 50% cost ratio, the 2 new pools are not related in any way other than that the two of them define the VPP.

The Active Pool would be almost exactly analogous to the Pool Cost. It would be the part of the VPP that could have modifiers. It would provide the upper limit of the Active Points of any power in the VPP. The only change is that the Active Pool no longer dictates how many Real Points can be used in the VPP.

The Real Pool would not be allowed any modifiers and would be equal to half the amount of Real Points that could be spent within the VPP. (This could be thought of as being equal to the maximum Real Points allowed in the VPP with a built in -1 Limitation).

What this allows is a complete separation of Real Points and Active Points within the VPP. A character can have a Large Active Pool and a Small Real Pool to describe the ability to have very few (and/or) very limited powers, a Small Active Pool and a Large Real Pool which would be the guy who has *lots* of weaker powers (gadgets/spells/what-have-you) with fewer Limitations, a Small/Small or a Large/Large... Because each Pool is independent of the other, it gives a greater ability to design specific flavors of VPP.

Note too, that with this rules design, you can even exactly recreate a Classic, 5th Edition (or any other edition except 1st) VPP merely by setting the Real Pool at half the value of the Active Pool. Thus, it does everything that the current rules set does and a whole lot more while still preserving game balance.

As to why/how the game designers came up with the existing structure of the VPP rules and called it balanced... I don't know, but as a proponent of VPPs in a game, I can tell you that I've never seen a VPP unbalance a game, ever... and we've tried.

As with most things in life, a competent GM goes a long way toward making a balanced game.

Peace,

Keith