Warp9

Re: What costing for noncombat movement without penalty?

GM permission is the only way to handle it by current RAW.

 

I consider this to be one of the last big holes left in the rules.

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

I think video-game-as-RPG is exactly the direction Hero intends to take with 6E; close integration with Champions Online seems almost inevitable. This is the path "role playing" is taking as a whole; as computers replace GMs and online strangers replace friends sitting around a table.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I want nothing to do with this kind of gaming.

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?

Any Mental Martial Maneuvers?

Yes, for people who are "master ninjas" in their own minds.

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

Isn't that what buying No Turn Mode' date=' or just Skill Levels w/ Flight, are for?[/quote']

IMO it's kind of a simulationist thing.

 

STR ties together lifting, jumping, HTH damage, plus a bunch of figured characteristics.

 

We could also fix it so that strong characters only get lifting ability. If they want to get the other things they'd have to buy them. For example, if a strong character wants to do extra damage, he'd have to buy HTH attack.

 

But all those things go together because it makes sense that they would go together. It is the same issue here with the flight stuff.

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

Actually, Turn Mode is tied to current, not max velocity. And whether or not it's Combat or Noncombat movement.

Yes, but we are discussing captainNeda's alternate rules concept.

Well, there might be a reason for improved turning. Perhaps, with the extra power, he's able to do some sort of "bootlegger reverse" move?

 

But generally, I think that due to real-world inertia being darned hard to ignore, Turn Modes should be primarily based upon one's current velocity and whether or not it's Combat Velocity.

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?

Oh by improved turning I mean doubling the number of turns the character can make at combat velocity.

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?

Your right. I just hadn't gotten that far yet as I'm not comfortable with the level of testing I've got to do on the ideas I've come up with. I'm considering 5 points could buy improved turning and 5 points could buy improved acceleration or a Non combat multiplier (these are mutually exclusive) instead of 5 points for improved acceleration and turning, or 5 points for a non combat multiplier. I'd appreciate your thoughts and input.

 

Thanks

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?

Funny thing is because of this formula I had realized long ago turn mode was tied to acceleration. The force required to accelerate from 0 to x velocity is the same force that would be required to travel at x velocity and make a turn with x radius.

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?

Not bad' date=' Warp9, but figure in time and you'll agree with me. [/quote']

 

Yes, I do agree, as I consider the time factor I see that you are correct.

 

It is clear you've thought this through better than I.

 

Excellent points!

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

Yeah, I actually found that chart for VLF back in 1999 and was using it in my 4th Ed game. I was excited when I saw it make it into 5th entirely unchanged. I used his calculations to study physics and learn how Mass and velocity could be calculated for damage.

 

I figure Noncombat movement could be purchased the same way it is now, it just takes extra time to get up to speed, and each NC level adds 2d6 for doubling velocity.

 

I think there should also be two other modifications to combat movement I didnt' include. First every DC used in a move through or move by could be a -1 CV.

I can agree with that.

The Second involves turning which is a long discussion, but basically I think turning should be limited to 1 60 degree turn for a full combat move, and every time a player cuts their movement in half they should double the number of turns they can make. For example if a character has 32" of movement if they move 32" they can make one turn at the end of the 32" run. If they use 16" of movement they can make 2 turns, or 1 every 8". The reflects real world physics and gives players the option to purchase 5 point turn levels to cut the turn mode down. These 5 point levels reflect increased acce

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?

I agree. Here is some fun things I learned about KB and hero games systems if it was exponential.

 

With real physcs a bullet from a high power rifle would take -70 str to lift and a velocity of about 512"/segment. If it struck a man sized target that takes 10 STR to lift, the big a difference in Mass would result in no knockback in an completely elastic collision (no energy lost do to the deformation of either the target or projectile). This bullet would bounce off the target with essentially the same velocity it struck the target with 512".

 

Now lets say the projectile was the Superman who as a projectile took 10 STR to lift and he ran into a human size target say Bizarro. In a perfectly elastic collision, because the target and projectile have the same mass the target would stop moving, and the projectile would begin moving at the same velocity the projectile had before the collision. IE if Superman was traveling at say 512" per segment, then struck a target like Bizarro, Bizarro would now have 512" of velocity and Superman would be stopped.

 

This application of real world physics would cause bullets to do no KB, but larger projectiles like most Super Hero's use would do a lot (car's, rocks, Thor's Hammer, Cap's Shield, other characters...).

 

An interesting note is that if champions movement system was changed to be exponential, where movement would cost say 10 pts to double combat velocity and increase move through/by damage by 2d6 this would simplify a lot of things. First of all lets look at the bullet example. 512" of movement/segment would be 100 pts. Now a bullet that takes -70 STR to lift moving with 100 pts of movement would logically be a 30 point attack and would do almost no KB to a human size target (aren't high power rifles 2d6 RKA's?) Also KB becomes a simple chart based on how many points of movement are involved in the relative speed of a collision. Text me later and I'll include some excel spreadsheets with the math.

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?

One of my chief complaints about the first FF movie is that Doom was knocked around like a pinball, something that doesn't happen in the comics. If your concept involves ominous threat or imperiousness or dignity, KB Resistance is a must. Sure, pimpslap Binder to the moon but all of the Big Guys (Dr. D, Gravitar, Takafanes, Holocaust, etc.) should stand their ground.

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?

Don't feel so bad. Along with being asthmatic' date=' 1 TURN-and-out-of-END creampuffs, the lack of KB Resistance is almost a signature characteristic of 5th Ed supers published characters. Makes my head hurt.[/quote']

Maybe I just don't understand, but shouldn't KB Resistance be something that you buy only when it fits the character concept?

 

And how often is that ability something which actually fits a character concept?

Re: Knockback "realistic"?

It's not "realistic" either but OTOH' date=' if you get mega scale knock back and your character should have flown for 10 miles. "realistically" they're move much faster than the previous character but take no additional damage for it.[/quote']

That is a very good example of why I dislike "mega-scale."

 

Mega-scale isn't the only option; there are other methods to get high levels of knockback.

 

We can start by assuming an exponential scale for DCs. If we then apply that exponential logic to knockback, then a high DC attack would knock somebody into orbit. And we'd get consistant results; more knockback = more damage.

 

Instead (with Mega-scale) we have a situation where you might take more damage from 15" of normal knock back than you would from 10 miles of mega-scale knockback.

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

What I don't like about Knockback is how it doesn't scale at all.

 

A 14d6 EB is guaranteed to knock back anyone without knockback resisting abilities, regardless of whether we're talking Normals, Heroes, Superheroes, or Absurd 5000pt Superbeings. We ran into this a while ago, during a Galactic Superheroes campaign. The characters were built on 600 pts, and usually had enough defenses to withstand serious punishment, yet were being knocked back practically every hit. It rarely resulted in any damage, but it was annoying. My first thought was that you should use BODY after defenses to determine knockback... but that's broken, too. The problem is probably a perceptual one: characters that powerful should probably buy KB Resistance as well as high defenses to represent how they can just ignore smaller stuff... but since KB Resistance isn't a Characteristic, we all sorta glossed over it and forgot it. =/

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"?

Or that they're bodies are so dense they resist being knocked back automaticaly (i.e.' date=' Knockback Resistance)?[/quote']

 

 

Maybe. But that would be a lot of mass.

 

I've never seen any indication that Superman was supposed to have the mass of an aircraft carrier.

Re: Knockback "realistic"?

Except for the fact that in most Superman stories from the 1950s and 1960s' date=' when Superman was actually fighting opponents that he could actually engage in true combat with (mostly rogue Kryptonians), his attacks rarely did knockback. Heck, even in a Curt Swan drawn L.E.G.I.O.N. '90-something Annual, and Superman was fighting Lar Gand and they weren't doing knockback.[/quote']

I liked a lot of the art in that Superman vs Lar Gand book, but I thought there should have been some knock back in there.

 

In that comic you had two characters with vast strength hitting each other. But the result looked more like two ordinary humans going at it. It just seemed wrong to me.

Re: Alternative: Death, Destruction, and Function

I've always just called this "BODY, BODY, and BODY." In the default situation, all three BODY scores would be the same: Do damage = BODY and the object stops functioning; do another BODY score worth of damage and the object is irrepairable; do a third BODY score worth of damage and the object is reduced to bite-size chunks (or goo, depending on what the object is made of).

 

So if an object has 10 BODY, it will completely stop "doing its thing" when it takes 10 BODY, but it could still be repaired. When it's taken 20 BODY, it's beyond repair. When it's taken 30 BODY, it's in pieces small enough that they can be ignored for almost all purposes.

 

Not all objects will have the same score for all three. Complex or delicate objects for example. It takes relatively little damage to stop a computer from functioning, and not much more to completely and permanently ruin it, but it may still be a good size object that would take a lot more to completely shred. The computer I'm typing on right now, I would estimate has its three BODY scores of about 1, 1, and 5.

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

Sadly, at this point I can only think of a number of moderately negative points to bring up that probably won't add anything.

 

I just want to point out why I put the final decision in the GMs hands:

 

The GM is being asked by the group (himself included) to weave together and tell the stories of all the characters in the group, including his own character. That means in a group of 6 Players a 1 GM he's trying to coherently tell 7 individual stories without making any one of them take the spotlight too long, or leave one of them behind.

 

Just from writing short stories for over a decade I can tell you 1 plot can be hard, imagine 7 that are combined into 1.

 

It's not out of some tradition of power or me vs him. or even trust.

 

It's a simply matter of respect for what I, as Player, am asking this one person to do.

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

If you set out specifically to abuse the rules or a Ref's rulings' date=' I would certainly hope that they would change either the rules or their rulings. I know I would, if I didn't just kick you out of the group.[/quote']

Assume that a Player spends his character's points on a magic sword, one which does not have the real weapon limitation.

 

Before the game, he askes the GM if his character's sword will have trouble chopping through heavy metal doors, or other similar objects (assuming it can generate enough damage on the damage dice, to overcome the object's defenses, of course).

 

Assume that the Player had some specific secret plan to use the sword to chop through doors to the character's advantage---so he's going to take advantage of this situation, if the GM says that the magic sword will be able to chop through metal doors. Perhaps the sword will be built without the focus limitation, so it can be summoned to the character's hand at will, and the Player hopes that his character can use it to get out of jail cells, or similar situations.

 

In that case, you're suggesting that a GM specifically tell a Player one thing before the game starts, and then change his ruling?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Remember what I said about Maximum Game Fun?

 

Well, it has to be fun for the GM too. If you give the GM the impression that playing (notice the word, not competing but playing) is going to be so much work it will detract from his fun (and potentially the other players' fun) then that is exactly the course I would predict.

 

There is line to be trod between ensuring you are clear on the rules and pestering...it sounds like you strayed over that line.

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. . . .

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

If you want to know about a situation before it comes up' date=' ask the Ref. If you're worried about the Ref using the knowledge of what you are asking about against you, it sounds like you need a new group to game with. Same goes for thinking you wouldn't get a straight answer.[/quote']

 

I'll add a different example to the example above.

 

In the Amber example in my previous post, I was being a bit devious when I asked the questions, and I didn't always let on what how I was planning to use a given ruling (part of that was due to the competitive nature of Amber, the Players actually bid against each other at the start of the game).

 

 

But here is a different example, where I was being more direct. . . .

 

This was a GURPS game which I was planning on getting involved with. Before building my character, I asked the GM a number of questions about how he'd handle skills and skill defaults.

 

I'd point out something in the rules (which I'd figured he might find abusive---I definitely was not trying to hide anything here), he'd tell me he didn't like it, so I'd ask for specifics in regard to how he would handle the situation.

 

That guy kicked me out of his game before I even got a character made.

 

 

And I had a Shadowrun GM who got up and walked out on me for asking too many questions before the game.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

There are too many specific situations out there for pre-written rules to be able to cover them all.

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.

If you want to know about a situation before it comes up' date=' ask the Ref. If you're worried about the Ref using the knowledge of what you are asking about against you, it sounds like you need a new group to game with. Same goes for thinking you wouldn't get a straight answer.[/quote']

There was an Amber Diceless game which I played in where I spent hours and hours asking those types of questions.

 

In many cases, there was something which I intended to use for my character's advantage in the game, although often times the questions seemed innocent enough. I most often got the answer I expected, or was hoping for. And I think that the GM would have held to his word, if he'd remembered all the answers given.

 

But I asked so many questions, and they probably didn't seem important to the GM at the time. So, once we got to the game, and it became clear, in that specific context, how my character was actually going to use (or abuse) some given ability/situation, things were different. The GM's answers changed from what he'd said earlier.

 

As I said, I don't think he was changing his direction intentionally, and I often wished I'd recorded all our Q/A sessions.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Reading through the posts, I think Paragon would be happy playing Burning Wheels. It has rules specifically limiting GM power, and GM decision can be overridden by the players.

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

The out of luck phrase just struck me that way. Obviously I was mistaken:eek:

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."