Warp9

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules They have been useful to me so far, but doubt that everyone else would feel the same way. That is a good point, but it has never been an issue for me. With a strict limit, I might have to raise the bar as the game went on. However, with the soft point caps there is no limit (it just gets harder as you focus more in one area), and I've never found the need to raise the cap over time. Players spending experience will have to make the same decision as people designing new characters. There is the choice between making a character more well rounded, and increasing a character's speciality. The increasing costs keep even experienced characters with more points from getting out of control. If I started with a base cap of 50, I'd assume that (in my world) a 12d6 EB would be high and a 15d6 would be fairly extreme. Those same standards would continue to apply through out the duration of the campaign. Although, as time went on, the PCs might tend more toward the more extreme levels.

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules And I also. On the other hand, its not really surprising that a thread like this one will digress a bit. I might help if we only talk about house rules that we personally use, rather even than the house rules of some other GM (even a GM whose game we might be playing in). Still I have found this side topic interesting. Anyway, in the name of getting back on track, here is one of my rules that it would probably not be a good idea to put into the book. Note: The main reason that this rule is bad is due to complexity. I have what I call "soft point caps." They are similar to but different than a "rule of X." Basically a "soft point cap" is a point of diminishing returns, which helps encourage people not to Min/Max. In a standard game I might have a soft point cap of 50 active points. Anything up to 50 would be normal cost. After that costs start to increase. Every 10 points after the cap increases in cost. Up to 1 to 10 points over the cap doubles. Up to 11 to 20 points over the cap triples. Up to 21 to 30 points over the cap X4. For example (with a 50 point soft cap): 09d6 EB = 45 points normal = 45 points after caps 10d6 EB = 50 points normal = 50 points after caps ---caps kick in here EB, no longer costs 5 points per d6 11d6 EB = 55 points normal = 60 points after caps 12d6 EB = 60 points normal = 70 points after caps 13d6 EB = 65 points normal = 85 points after caps 14d6 EB = 70 points normal = 100 points after caps You can go as high as you want, but it will cost you a huge amount of points. Normally you'd exceed the caps a bit in your character's main area. You might also exceed the caps by a ways on a power with a lot of limitations on it (my system makes it possible to build the Human Torch's Nova Blast power). I've tested my system many times in the past. Often I build Characters for the Players based on their description of what they want (since I'm doing the work complexity is not a factor). But I've had some Power Gamer types build their own characters (they don't trust anybody else to do it for them), and my system has forced them to make reasonable characters (at least in terms of Min/Maxing).

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules I can understand the "out-of-character" motivations here, but these should not be confused with "in-character" motivatons. The villians probably aren't going to care if the mentalist isn't taking the same risk as the other PCs. This paragraph is confusing to me because it seems like it mixes "in-character" stuff with "out-of-character" stuff. Is it your character who has problems with mentalists, or you? Or is it both of you? I still haven't seen the reasons for why the bad guys would care that much about going after the mentalist. I understand that you'd like them to go after the guy, but that should not be confused with the villian's motivations. I have no problem with the villians working to exploit any major weakness in the PC's tactics. I just don't see the mentalist's tactics as a "major weakness." Sure, with the right abilities, the bad guys could go after the mentalist. But if the bad guys have such resources, then they could probably exploit a number of other weaknesses of other PCs as well.

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules Agreed. I actually made that correction myself in a previous post. That brings up an interesting point about constant powers. Does there always have to be a visible link between the source and target as long as the power is in operation? (there maybe a simple answer here, but I don't know it) I would definitely assume that there would be a visible contact between source and target when a power is activated. And I could also understand that there would be a strong argument that the link should stay visible. But if a constant power like Mind-Link leaves a visible (at least to the right senses) web that can be used to easily track all the users around the city, then that would be a pretty big draw-back. Of course this whole set up with the "Mental-Awareness-Tracking-Scanner" assumes that the assassian knows specifically what is being done. This knowledge assumes that he is aware that there is a "mentalist sniper" who is using a Mind-Link to establish Clairsentience, and in turn using the Clairsentience to establish LOS for attack. Even if one is aware that there is an mental sniper amoung the PCs, those specific details might not be all that obvious. There are definitely a number of ways that a "mentalist sniper" might operate. If the character was using Clairsentience more directly, then there would be no link to follow back. And if the character were establishing LOS through N-ray, there would also be no link to follow back.

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules I don't want to take this thread too far off topic. (And I do have a few of my own house rules which I do NOT think should be made "standard issue.") But I did want to take a look at the whole mentalist problem which was brought up. Other people's philosophy in regard to the "mentalist sniper" is a bit different than my own. Obviously the concept of a character who can use his powers from safety while remaining untouchable can cause problems. The Hero system is flexible enough that this feat can be accomplished in a number of ways. The best way to handle the situation (assuming you don't like the idea of that concept) is to stop it before it starts. But once the character is actually in the game, I would have a problem with the GM being "out to get" the offending character. Zapping the badguys from miles away, while drinking coffee, is a pretty good trick (if you have a character who can get a way with it). It would involve some small risk, but nowhere near as much risk as being on the field of combat. IMO the only way that things are likely to play out differently is if the GM goes out of his way to make things hard for that character. It may just be that I come from a "simulationist" perspective, but those sort of tactics on the GM's part do not appeal to me.

Re: All stats are 2/+1 Maybe I'm just not getting what your point is here, but I my quote was: "it would cost 9 points to get +1 OCV & DCV with all combat though buying DEX, and you'd get other stuff as like initiative, Dex Skills, and SPD. An 8 point Combat Level would allow for +1 OCV or + 1 DCV, or increase damage" I used "&" with the Dex stuff because it does things simultaneously. I used "or" with the CSL stuff because it does one thing at a time. You may be right. If we were to buy DEX, with the limitation "No Figured Characteristics," then for 6 points we'd get + 3 DEX. We'd get the +1 DCV & OCV with all combat, and be well on our way to increasing the DEX based skills. This setup would be the same thing as having 2 points per +1 DEX. And it would be like the idea of 1 point per + 1 DEX and 1 point per + 1 Agility. All these things would give you + 1 OCV and + 1 DCV (with a combat) and some other stuff as well, for 6 points.

Re: All stats are 2/+1 Hmm. Good question. Currently, it would cost 9 points to get +1 OCV & DCV with all combat though buying DEX, and you'd get other stuff as like initiative, Dex Skills, and SPD. An 8 point Combat Level would allow for +1 OCV or + 1 DCV, or increase damage (half a DC, you'd need 2 CSL's to be useful here). An 8 point Combat Level could also be used in Mental Combat, which gives it an extra edge over the DEX. The extra benifit of the 10 point Overall level would depend on the Campaign, it would obviously have all the benefits of an 8 point CSL. And, if combat is only a small part of the game, then the overall level could be worth a great deal more.

Re: All stats are 2/+1 Or, with 6 points, you could increase both Dex and Agility by 3 each, thus getting +1 OCV and + 1 DCV (at the same time) will all combat.

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules I can't argue with that

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules Well, yes, anything is OK, if the GM allows it. Under Clairsentience it says: "Clairsentience, even if a Targeting Sense, cannot establish LOS (unless the GM allows this)." I'd say that it is pretty clear that the default rules are that you cannot establish LOS with Clairsentience. But I'd grant that it is an "optional rule" rather than a "house rule." I don't really see that much need for the optional rule. You can accomplish the same effect with out the need for Clairsentience. Mindscan will work, and there is also N-ray vision.

Re: All stats are 2/+1 Those are some interesting suggestions. Many people think that STR is too cheap. So the 2/1 thing might be welcome there. I have problems with your suggestions relating to DEX. Having a link between DEX and SPD is somewhat useful. A high DEX char should be more likely to have a high SPD, at least that is my thinking on the matter. I think EGO should stay. I do believe that it is a good idea to have a stat for Will Power (which EGO is). And EGO does have more application in the game than purely mental power stuff. I wouldn't mind seeing COM replaced with various advantages/disadvantages related to appearance (like in GURPS): Ugly, Attractive, Hideous, Godlike, etc. . . . That way if a character is just average looking then no space is taken up on the sheet, you also have a better description rather than trying to figure about how good looking a COM of 14 is. And it would be one less stat for new gamers to worry about (you could about how good looking your character is after you have a bit more experience with the rules).

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules Nope. ghost-angel is correct, that is a house rule. Look at the Mental Powers area (right at the beginning of the Powers section) page 79 in my book, right at the end of the area where it talks about "Line of Sight" the Main Rule Book says the following: "Characters cannot establish LOS thourgh Clairsentience, television, and the like." I'm not sure that this would work the way you want it to either. If you read in the book under Mental Awareness, it says: "The character can perceive the use of mental powers within his Line of Sight." It might be possible to rule that, as long as the target was within line of sight, then the user could be perceived no matter where he was. But that is not how I would call it. IMO if the power is limited to LOS, then it should not be picking up a user who might be on the other side of the planet.

Re: Polishing The HERO System That is what I had in mind. I agree with what you have said here. There are probably no perfect answers, every curve is going to have advantages and disadvantages. I don't really feel all that strongly about the changes I'm proposing, I'm just exploring some alternatives to the current scale. It seems that the current scale is designed for a comic book style game, and IMO a universal system should not focus too much on a single genre. So I thought that a 10 points per doubling scale might be a better compromise between a supers style and a more "realistic" style.

Re: Polishing The HERO System That is a good point. There are ways in which a 30 STR can be made to feel as though it is far greater than a 10 STR.

Re: Polishing The HERO System Did I say that I wanted a GURPS style progression? I don't think that you are really reading what I've said. There are other options besides Hero or GURPS. If we used a system where 10 points double rather than 5 points, a character who can lift 16X as much as a 10 STR would have a 50 STR. And 10d6 damage would still not be enough to kill a normal (it would be an average of 8 BODY after subtracting 2 PD). edit: OK it might kill a guy with a BODY of 8. As has already been discussed, buying extra STR that way would screw with the pattern. If damage happens at +1DC per doubling, then a character who can lift 16X as much should only do an extra 4DCs. In order to be consistent these changes must be made consistently across the board. If +10 STR doubles then it should be +2DCs per doubling. And everything should be changed along those same lines. As I've already stated, a .44 Mag would then do 3d6+1 RKA, and a .50 cal HMG would do 5d6+1 RKA

Re: Polishing The HERO System That is really the core issue here. There are no right or wrong curves. There is just a trade off between working to differentiate various power levels and making things playable at a wide range of power levels.

Re: Polishing The HERO System I agree that there are other ways to make more differentation between values. Lifting has always been based from point to point. Because STR is based on the following formula: Lift = 25kg X 2^(STR/5) Thus 13 STR = 25kg X 2^(2.6) You probably need a calculator to figure that one, but the formula is there for anybody who wants it. I get what you are saying here. Those are good ideas, and your statements would be very much to the point, if I had been saying that the problem was that STR 12 seems too much like STR 10. But I do not believe that it deals with the specific issue I raised. My point was that STR 30 does not always seem like it is 16X as strong as STR 10. Does any of that stuff you suggested really make 30 STR seem stronger? Sure, it gives smoother progression between 10 and 30, every point actually means something, and STR 11 is slightly different than STR 13. Now we traverse the distance between 10 STR and 30 STR in twenty 1 point steps, rather than four 5 point steps. But it is still a difference of 20 points.

Re: Polishing The HERO System Do you really dispute the concept that the exponential nature of the Hero System can sometimes hide the actual difference between various power levels? Does a 20 STR always seem like it is 4X as strong as STR 10? Does a 30 STR always seem to you as though it is 16X as strong as a STR 10? And as far as the whole "pretending that there is tremendous variation" thing goes--there is nothing to pretend. I am not asking for an Olymipic Weight Lifter to seem more than 4X as strong as a STR 10 character. And I'm not asking for the 30 STR Ogre King to seem more than 16 X as strong as a STR 10 character. Finally, I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting a linear game, but maybe a curve that is a little less steep. The Ogre King does not need a 160 STR (which is a literal translation to a linear scale), but maybe something a bit higher than 30 would be nice.

Re: Polishing The HERO System Having Hurricanes makes life interesting (I should know, I've just done with 2, and a 3rd is on its way ). I know that it may seem like we've gotten a little bit off topic, but we are really just talking about smoothing out Hero's exponential curve a little bit. This type of change would make a bigger point spread in areas where characters have stats which are currently rated as being very close. Human average and Human Char Max, for example, are currently fairly close together. Note: "close" in this case is just a matter of perspective. Doubling every 10 or even 15 points would make an Olympic type character seem much more impressive relative to a normal person (which might be welcome in many types of games). The problem is that this change would create a much bigger separation between different types of Super-biengs, and would make it much harder to run a game where Superman and Batman fight on the same battlefield. Rene has suggested that the default rules should reflect a "supers" reality where the differences between redically different power levels is minimized. And then suggested that one could apply house rules to reach a more "realistic" style game. I have concerns about the rules being focused on one genre, or elements of one genre (in this case, specifically using a comic book style power curve). And that is (from my view point) what we have been talking about, and how it applies to "polishing the Hero system." I don't really think that changes are needed in this area, but it is interesting to explore these ideas.

Re: Polishing The HERO System Sorry for the delay, but my power just came back on after being hit by hurricane Frances. Anyway, enough about me, on to the responses: There wouldn’t be a problem with consistency in your example, as long as each separate area was consistent within itself. Drinking rules don’t have to have anything to do with combat, so they can be different than the combat rules. However, you need consistency within the combat rules. If a normal axe does 1d6 damage, a normal short sword should not do 2d100 damage. Those two damage amounts would be inconsistent, and thus tend to destroy the realism of the game. Which is exactly what I’m talking about with the firearm rules, if firearm add +1DC per doubling, then STR should work the same way. Yes, I’m talking about the Energy possessed by various types of bullets when fired from specific guns. No, there isn’t anything specific about matching KE to bullet damage. But, if you look at the damage pattern you will see that it is based on +1 DC per 2 X KE. Also, if you look at the optional velocity damage chart on FREd page 293, you’ll see that it is also based on +1 DC per 2 X KE. Depending on which specific weapons, there could even be a bigger difference in energy. For example, a Beretta Model 81 (9mm pistol) fires a bullet at 213 Joules (energy). And a Smith & Wesson Model 29 (.44 Mag pistol) with a long barrel, fires a bullet at 1759 Joules (energy). A difference factor of more than 8 times. The problem here is that you are IMO coloring this situation with your own mind set. Your statement: “he basically can do anything the GM wants him to do†may or may not be true, depending on who is telling the story. If I’m telling the story (or running the game), Q will have some definition and limitation; his powers WILL be defined, and pinned down. Then it sounds like we can agree on this one.

Re: Polishing The HERO System The most obvious definition of realism would be for the game world to be consistent with our own world, unfortunately this definition would not work all that well with many of the worlds we see in Hero, so but I use an expanded definition of realism. For me, the definition of “realism†in rpgs is the following: the game world seems like a real place that could actually exist somewhere. A sci-fi world could be very realistic, even if it is very different than our own world in many ways. In order to achieve the illusion of reality, the world should be consistent with itself. In order to have a world with internal consistency, one needs a consistent set of rules. Therefore I would say the consistency is a necessary prerequisite for realism. The current scale for both STR and firearms is +1DC per each doubling of power. Writing rules which Simulate how specific weapons work in the real world sounds nice. The problem is that we are often trying to simulate events for which there is no exact parallel in the real world. For example, one might want to simulate sci-fi weapons in a more-or-less realistic manner. If we have no concrete example, we will have to make an educated guess about a given hypothetical situation. Will our educated guess be perfect? No, probably not. But hopefully it will be close. This situation is where it becomes important to have a solid, logical and consistent game system to work with. Having one consistent system allows one to make projections along a curve, and is much better than having a bunch of different rule systems each covering a special situation. I can’t really speak for the people who make Star Trek in this matter, I can only speak for similar examples of my own work. Even though I don’t do comic book type stories, I do often have beings with vastly super-human abilities (just like Star Trek has Q). In my games (and stories), each character is an individual that I try to make as real as possible. No major character would be a mere label (such as “enemyâ€) or mere “plot device.†When I include an important character in an rpg, I try to carefully define that character’s personality, history, and abilities. Thus my non-comic book games require at least as great a scope of power as most comic book worlds. I have no problem with versatility, but there is more than simple versatility to the super hero genre. A universal system should IMO avoid getting tied to those other elements. In other words, there is a huge difference between seeing the super-hero genre as an example of versatility, and confusing the super-hero genre with versatility itself.

Re: Polishing The HERO System You are most welcome. I'm Glad to have been of help.