Warp9

Re: What costing for noncombat movement without penalty? I agree. But, as has been pointed out already in this thread, having ultra high move characters creates problems if you are using the scale of standard minis. And I think that is why combat motion was set as linear by the original designers, otherwise you'd need a room the size of a football field to run your games. However, I think we could adapt if we used the standard of +10 points doubles combat velocity, whereas +5 points doubles non-combat velocity. +10 per doubling helps keep combat velocities down, unless you want to spend big points, but it still allows higher point characters to have VAST combat velocities. And the +10 points to double velocity keeps pace with the idea that +5 points doubles kinetic energy (2 X velocity = 4 X KE), which in turn mirrors the +5 points = double power approach.

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others Well this "online stranger" thinks that change can be good---if it is the right change. I'm with you on the specifics, but disagree with the more general sentiment. There is a lot of stuff that I really don't like about modern computer games. However, much of what I dislike relates to design choices rather than the necessity of the medium. I don't mind having a computer handle the game mechanics, as long as there is something more intelligent dealing with NPC's psychology (like a human GM running the NPCs) . And a group of online strangers is just fine with me.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? Yes, for people who are "master ninjas" in their own minds.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th?

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? Yes, but we are discussing captainNeda's alternate rules concept. I believe that captainNeda's alternate rules make a great deal of sense in many cases. If a telekinetic is flying by telekinetic power, then the ability to alter course is probably going to be based upon that power as well. A more powerful TK will have more points in flight, and more power to turn with as well.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? I understood that point. Maybe an example would help me make my point a bit better. . . . Lets say that my character has a motorcycle with 10" combat movement. And if we go by your rules I'd assume that he could turn 60 degrees per segment while going 10", which is fine. During one of our adventures, it becomes clear that my character's bike needs a bit more speed. So one of the other characters (Gadget Guy) comes up with a means to temporarly supercharge the bike's engine. Lets assume that this is an Aid to my character's bike's movement. And Lets assume that the movement goes up to 20" combat speed. So my character's bike is now faster for a bit---and that is what we'd expect. But we'd also find that when my character is driving at 10" (while still super charged) something else happens, he can now turn twice at 10" per segment. IMO that is not something we'd expect from the supercharged engine. Turning on the bike shouldn't be affected by the engine's power.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? I'm not sure that buying improved turning would fully fix the situation. If combat velocity is tied to turn mode, then anything which increases combat velocity will also increase turning ability. Now, in some cases, that is exactly the result we'd want, but not in all cases. If gadget guy builds me an electric motor for my bike, it could give me better acceleration, but I'm not sure that it would really help me with my 10mph turn radius. But, if I'm understanding what you are suggesting, then getting more combat velocity will help with the bike's turn modes as well. I'm just thinking that the bike situation might be better represented with rules that did not tie turn mode to max combat velocity.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? That makes sense to me. I concern here is that (it seems to me) many objects do no base their ability to turn on the same means they use to accelerate. For example, airplanes use their wings to turn, but not to accelerate. I don't believe that putting a bigger jet engine in your plane makes it turn better. The same example would also apply to something like a bicycle. Your ability to turn, at a given radius, at 10 mph, is not really based upon how strong your legs are. Some objects would turn by the same means they use to accelerate, but not all.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th?

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? I can agree with that. I do have a problem with what you say above in that the centripetal force one experiences does not have a 1 to 1 relationship with velocity. The formula is actually a = v^2 / R (a is the "g force" from the turn, v is the velocity, and R is the turn radius) If you double your velocity, then you need 4 times as much room to turn. And if you cut your velocity in half you'd end up with 1/4 turn radius. If we went with a single 60 degree turn at 32" then things should progress as follows: 32" = 1 turn 16" = 4 turns 8" = 16 turns (and you could add some middle values in there too, for example, 24" would get about 2 turns) However, I'm not fully sold on the idea that everybody gets a single 60 turn as a base. My main problem is as follows: if we assume a low speed, then a single 60 degree turn per move seems fairly low. On the other hand, turning 60 degrees in a single action at extreme velocity would be quite a feat.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? 10 points to double combat velocity is logical; non-combat velocity could simply be a limitation on a movement power. There is an alternate velocity damage chart in the main book that works off of KE (+2d6 per doubling of velocity), and velocity per turn. You'll find it near the area that deals with falling damage.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that there are some comics where Doom does get knocked around like a pin-ball. If he got hit by enough force, he should go flying around like a pin-ball. And it still seems like you need an actual reason for KBR. These reasons might not be hard to find. . . . Somebody who is very threatening might also be big, which would be a valid reason for KBR. And if you want to go the "dignity" route, why not stay above the fight? Let your flunkies battle it out with the opposition, while you observe and laugh. I got the impression that was more the "comic style" Doom's MO.

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th?

Re: Knockback "realistic"?

Re: So, what don't you like about HERO 5th? Steel is stronger than lead. However, a steel ball doesn't resist getting knocked around any better than a lead ball, and probably not as well (given that lead is heavier). High power characters who have normal human mass should send each other flying around the battle field. I just don't see the problem. Of course, given that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, when a superbeing punchs somebody else, he should go flying back too. Now, if those characters have some sort of flight, then it makes sense that they could use that to prevent knockback. But the simplier answer is to work with lower power levels. Lower powered characters don't have to worry as much about knockback.

Re: Knockback "realistic"?

Re: Knockback "realistic"?

Re: Alternative: Death, Destruction, and Function That is a good concept. I do have one comment. It seems to me that some types of damage might be effective at causing an object to stop functioning, whereas those same attacks would be fairly useless when it comes to actual destruction of an object. Example: a long sharp needle could be used to kill a person, but it would be fairly useless in terms of actual destruction of the body.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement As I've mentioned before, there is an example in the Amber RPG book which is a competitive style game. In this set up, the King dies at the start of the game and all the PCs are Princes of Amber who in competition for the throne. The PCs plot and form factions, and stab each other in the backs. And they write the story with their actions. The GM isn't really calling the shots in that case, he's more of a ref than a story teller. It just doesn't seem like he has to do as much in that case. I think that in many competitive games, the GM is not really in charge of the story, and doesn't have to do as much, as I said above, he is more of a referee.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement It depends on how exact you need to be. In the Amber case, I did ask a lot of questions. Of course, Amber doesn't have that many rules, and I needed to know exactly what to expect in the game. Although in the Amber case, I never got thrown out for asking questions. On the other hand, the GURPS case was a bit different. There was no deviousness involved, I just wanted to know how the GM was going to handle one specific aspect of my character. Namely his INT based skills. Before going on I need to give a small background on how GURPS does skills. This may or may not be something that the reader will already know. . . . Note: everything I'm going to say about GURPS is 3rd edition stuff, I don't know about GURPS 4th edition rules. In GURPS skills are fairly similar to Hero. It is a 3d6 roll under system. The real difference is that rather than some formula of 9 + STAT / 5, GURPS uses the straight stat. For example, you might have a Stealth Skill of DEX + 3, which means if you had a 12 DEX, you'd have a stealth skill of (12 + 3) or 15, and you'd have a Stealth roll of 15 or less. There are no skill familarities in GURPS, skills start at 1/2 point and go up from there. 1/2 point in Stealth would give you a skill level of DEX-2, so our 12 DEX character would have a 10 or less Stealth roll for 1/2 point. And rather than "everyman skills," GURPS uses skill defaults. For example, the default Tracking Skill is INT - 5, of if you don't have tracking and you have a 11 INT, your default tracking skill is (11 - 5) or 6. That means your base roll is 6 or less. The issue was that my character had a 20 INT, and I was concerned that the GM might find his default skills too high. For example, my character's default tracking skill would be INT - 5 or 20 - 5, which would be a skill of 15 as a default. I realized that 15 or less is a pretty high default skill roll. Apparently it was a good thing that I asked, because the GM did find this level of a default skill to be a problem. Which was fine with me, the GM doesn't have to use the rules in the book, I just want to know what rules we are using. I just wanted a specific answer about how he wanted to handle the defaults for my character. The GM continued to be evasive on the matter, and seemed to get more and more irritated as I continued to try to get a straight answer. Since defaults seemed to be a problem, I suggested that I might instead buy a large number of 1/2 point skills for my character, so he wouldn't have to default on most skills. As I said above, my character should have a default tracking skill of INT-5. But for 1/2 point, I could buy a skill level of INT-2, which would be a roll of 18 or less. And for 15 points, I could buy 30 such 1/2 point skills for my character, which would cover a great many skills. And with a 20 INT, any 1/2 point INT based skill he got would come out pretty high. The GM didn't seem to like this idea much better. And, at that point, he seemed to be tearing up the entire skill framework of GURPS. I think maybe he would have preferred something like Hero's 9+INT/5, which would have toned down the impact of a 20 INT somewhat. And he might have liked the idea of a low cost skill "Familiarity" which did not actually benefit from INT. But that is not how GURPS works; and that GM didn't know the Hero System. In any case, I never got a straight answer for how that GM was going to do things, because I got kicked out over this discussion before we even started playing.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I do think that the pre-written rules can cover the important situations. And I think that Hero does a pretty good job of that. Let me give you a specific example. At one point I was playing in a game (non-Hero-system) and had a character with super-speed flight. My character was always zipping around all over the place, which was starting to annoy the GM. My character would come up with his own ideas of what he wanted to do (things which had nothing to do with the GM's plans), and he'd go flying off to distant places. And the GM was looking for a way to limit my character a bit. Unlike Hero, there were no specific rules for turning or acceleration. It wasn't really the sort of game system where you'd map everything out, and I don't think that the designers felt it was a big issue. The description "super-speed flight" was good enough for them. And I don't think that the GM would have felt the need to get specific if he didn't feel that my character was abusing his super-mobility powers. But the GM apparently thought it was necessary to create some specific limits. And the whole maneuverability factor apparently seemed like a good place to start. After all, super speed isn't useful if it takes forever to get going fast. Obviously, it would have been best if the rules were already established (as they are in Hero). And I wouldn't have had a problem with that if it had been done by the GM, out side the game---before the situation with my character came up. However, IMO the GM's ideas on the super speed flight issue were created while he was being annoyed by a character with those abilities, and I think it showed.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement For me it is about having an understanding of how things are going to work before you actually get to specific in game situations.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Perhaps I could have worded it a bit better. But it is just a natural consequence of going with the mechanics, rather than pre-empting them with "common sense."