Warp9

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement There is a difference between automating the intelligence behind the NPCs and automating things such as breaking down doors. and since you mentioned them, here is a little side rant about MMOs And on the topic of MMOs I believe that many of them are coded poorly in terms on being open ended simulations. It should be possible to build a world which would be more interactive (characters being able to alter the landscapce and that sort of thing), if that were a design priority. But I think that the basic problem is that intelligence behind the NPCs is just not there yet. Systems may have to advance a bit before we have that level of AI. A system actually represts the expertise of a person (who built the system) in a hard coded form. Even humans don't (as far as I know) reach their decisions through magic powers. The methods they use are not totally alien to the game systems that we are discussing here. There are many complexities which would need to be addressed by such a system. But if it could handle the complexity then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Again, there is a difference between using judgement in terms of figuring out what an NPC will do, and having to over-rule the mechanics in an area which they cover. If we are dealing which issues which a system can handle, then in many ways, having a predefined system already in place will do that even better. If I just blindly follow the game mechanics to find out what happend when a PC applies his weapon to a door, there is no need for any discussion at all. It is all black and white and pre-defined.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Hey, you changed your user name. Anyway, in regard to Harnmaster---is that the same system as RoleMaster? If so, I would say that the issue there is that the rules were bad. They used charts rather than formula's which IMO is not the way to go. I believe that even many rules lite games provide a basic framework, and basic guide lines, which give the GM a good place to base his judgements. In terms of the cases where things could go either way, the GM doesn't have to keep the decision totally on his own shoulders. I'm not all that familiar with the rules lite games. But it is my understanding that they are not quite the same as "diceless" games. A GM can still have the Player throw the dice, even in a rules lite system. As I said in the opening post, there is a difference between having the GM provide input in areas not covered by the game mechanics, and having the GM contradict the mechanics. There are no specific mechanics for what Duke Aroton will do when one of the PCs accidentally spills his drink on the Duke. But there are specific mechanics for breaking things. It is not really that there needs to be a rule for EVERYTHING. It's just that I'd like to trust the system in the places which the game mechanics do cover.

This thread is actually a spin off from the discussion over in the special effects poll thread. The issue here is the relationship between game systems and GM judgement. Added on Edit: This is also an issue about the difference between a game like Hero (which has a bit more rules than some other games), and games which might be described as "rules-lite." I personally like to have predefined game mechanics and actually use them to resolve combat, rather than relying on the GM. But if one feels that it would be better to work from a GM's judgement, then why not opt to move in a more "rules lite" direction? And to pick up from the other thread. . . . But there is a difference between situations which which go beyond the game mechanics, and situations where the GM contradicts the game mechanics. It is not like there is no GM input when I'm running a game, I just tend to stay out of areas which are already covered by the game mechanics. It doesn't seem to be that much of a problem for those who use such systems. If they can handle such a system, I'm sure that most Hero GMs could handle it too. If you don't agree on every issue, and you start overriding the game mechanics with your own personal judgement calls, it seems to me that you'd lose some of your common framework.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics That's an idea which I could get behind.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics That would also be true if you had a very strong character with no legs. But "no legs" and/or "bolted to the ground" are physical disads which would preclude the normal use of some abilities anyway. So I don't see your point here.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics You might be able to squeeze effectively with hydraulics-based muscles, but I think you'd find that punching would not get any extra benefit. And it would probably take you weeks (or months) to lift an air craft carrier using hydraulics-based muscles. I think that hydraulics-based muscles would have to be STR with some major limitations applied. IMO it is not a good example of any sort of standard STR.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

Re: Another kind of balance

Re: Another kind of balance

Re: Another kind of balance Like you say, it depends on some basic assumptions behind the game. If I want to get together with some friends and tell a cool story, and if everybody is willing to cooperate, then I don't really need points. If everybody is willing to work together with a mutual vision, then we don't really need all that many rules either---we can just sort of "wing it." Or if I am interested in simulating some sort of specific game reality, then the points may also get in the way. For example, it may be that in my game, a Jedi simply will not balance with the other characters in terms of points (although I'm not saying that it has to be that way in everybody's games). However, if we assume that the game is not always going to be a cooperative venture, suddenly points become very useful. In that case, points become some objective measure of whether or not a character is allowable. This may not mean that a character is of equal power to the other characters, but at least it is a way of saying whether a character is "legal" in the game.

Re: Why divide by 5?

Re: Why divide by 5? I'd go with the no divisions, "every point counts" approach.

Re: Why divide by 5? Actually I need to revise that wound system concept I mentioned above. As written it would allow a character with 2 STR to do a deadly wound to a character with 2 BODY, and that is not a good thing. Anyway, as above, compare Attack Power to BODY rating. Attack - BODY Result -1 or lower = No damage 0 = superficial wound 1 = light wound 2 = moderate wound 3 = seroius wound 4 = deadly wound 5 = destroyed 6+ = totally annihilated

Re: Why divide by 5? I'll have to hunt up the old rules to be sure, but, if memory serves, a 39 AP power might not do any damage at all to a 40 BODY character. What they actually did treated BODY as defense (which simulated the exponential part to some extent), and then, after that, did a linear totaling of damage. So BODY acts as a defense an as a measure of how much linear result damage a character could take. Obviously that method was not accurate from an exponential point of view. For a strictly accurate method, I'd still go with what I suggested above: 1 hit from an L 10 Attack does 10 points of damage 2 hits from an L 10 Attack does 11 points of damage 4 hits from an L 10 Attack does 12 points of damage 1024 hits from an L 10 Attack does 20 points of damage Total up the damage and compare that to the characters BODY total. Or you could do a wound system: Compare Attack Power to BODY rating. Attack - BODY Result -6 or lower = No damage -5 = superficial wound -4 = light wound -3 = moderate wound -1 = seroius wound 0 = deadly wound 1 = destroyed 2+ = totally annihilated

Re: Why divide by 5? I believe that the DC Heroes rules made it pretty clear that you were not actually reducing the character's ability to absorb damage, instead you were accumulating damage against that character. IMO a better way to look at exponential damage would be as follows: 1 hit with a level 10 attack does 10 points of damage. 2 hits with a level 10 attack does 11 points of damage. 4 hits with a level 10 attack does 12 points of damage. 8 hits with a level 10 attack does 13 points of damage. 16 hits with a level 10 attack does 14 points of damage. 1024 hits with a level 10 attack does 20 points of damage. You then compare the damage done so far to the character's total BODY. For example, if my character has a 40 BODY and takes 1024 hits with a level 10 attack, he has taken 20 points of BODY so far, but is still going strong. In such a system, he probably would not have to worry until his damage total got up to around BODY-5, or in this case something like 35 points of damage. Although what DC Heroes actually did was slightly different. BODY itself acted as a sort of defense (and that value is based your total max BODY regardless of damage you may have currently suffered). Even if the character had no other defenses, a 10 point attack against a 40 BODY would simply do nothing.

Re: Why divide by 5? I kind of like the GURPS 3rd edition method. GURPS runs stats about like Hero (base 10, human max 20), but characteristic rolls in GURPS are not CHA/5, they are just straight-up based on the stat. A DEX of 8 has a DEX roll of 8 or less, a DEX of 12 has a DEX roll of 12 or less. Skills are also directly based on the stats, and there is a much greater range of skill rolls. A 23 or less LockPicking skill would not be unheard of, nor would a -8 penalty for a difficult lock.

Re: Metarule 6 -- Does anyone use this rule? I've always thought that Metarule 6 is interesting in that it seems to contradict concept of Mega-Scale. Even before Mega-Scale, you could buy NCM's to increase your max speed, you could increase your area effect size, and you could increase the range of your powers. Mega-scale just makes it cheaper to do those things.

Re: Rolling mechanic question I would say it depends upon the specific game. Although you are no doubt correct that there is not a great deal of overall time spent on the math stuff. Still, many people do not like doing math. And if they could choose between an extra minute of doing subtraction, and going to get another Mt. Dew, IMO think that it would be a pretty clear choice.

Re: Flexible Active Point Limits: What Do You Think?

Re: Rolling mechanic question Actually the information from "The American Journal of Psychology" article would tend to indicate that there are some big differences. . . . http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0#PPA3,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0#PPA23,M1 You'll note that, in some of the subjects, the average time per digit in subtraction was more than double that taken in addition, it ranged from 202%, to 148% per digit. I'd say that amounts to a significant time difference. And as much as this kind of thing gets done during the game, that time could really add up.

Re: Rolling mechanic question

Re: Rolling mechanic question Here is something from "The American Journal of Psychology" which clearly states that subtraction is harder than addition. http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0 In this study, times of subjects doing subtraction (page 23) were contrasted to the same subjects doing addition (on page 3).

Re: Rolling mechanic question First off, it is not really a matter that people can not subtract; it is a matter of what is easier and faster during the game. Which brings us to the other part of your post: Maybe this information will help you out. . . . From "Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math" http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62275.html And another perspective: http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/mmathsubtract.htm

Re: Hero Mod: Iron Age Hero I really like the LTS concept. Many of the results of damage seem to be very well described under this concept. IMO normal Stun comes back too fast to really simulate the results of getting beaten up. The same thing with LTE, if I've been put in a situation where I've gotten really worn out, it stays with me for a while. I agree with nexus, these are ideas which would work well in any gritty game.

Re: Rolling mechanic question