Warp9

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

I need to be more clear: I'm talking about a general social trend, but then commenting on the approach to it that occurs on these boards. The rules intensity (light or heavy) isn't at the heart of the trend. I'm talking about something that manifests itself in different ways depending on whether the rules are light or heavy.

 

In rules light games it manifests itself in a number of ways that we don't need to go into here as they have nothing to do with hero. Suffice it to say many meta-gaming and meta-narrative principles aren't there to facilitate good role-play or simulate a particuliar genre as much as they are to serve the individual ego and not the group as a whole.

 

In rules heavy games it manifests itself in a desire to mechanize everything so that the gamemaster's judgement can be done away with - because God forbid we should have to trust another human being, or exercise the gray cells God gave us. Frankly, if I wanted a totally automated system I'd be playing MMOs.

There is a difference between automating the intelligence behind the NPCs and automating things such as breaking down doors.

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.

I guess there are people who would like complex computer systems to automate the criminal justice system as well - because then it really would be impartial. No silly judges exercising... judgement. But then, there would be no justice because at the heart of the experience is humanity and a system of rules has no judgement and no sense of justice of its own.

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.

So too the rules for games: in of itself the rules serve to create a structured, orderly play experience, and resolve potential conflicts, but in of themselves, they aren't much fun without human beings exercising good judgement as they play them together. And, most groups need a leader, even if that leader changes every few sessions, to drive the narrative and make things happen.

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.

I've been in business meetings where consensus was the hot and bothered principle of the day. Utter and complete disaster. At microsoft (back in the day), the teams I worked on that were consensus driven were prone to petty bickering, ineffeciency, and disgusting meeting bloat. I got paid to foot-dangle in meetings where time crept on like a slow worm on a straight razor more than I got paid to work. Those teams also tended to miss deadlines, go over budget, and have unhappy managers who took the heat and failed to get promoted.

 

The teams that succeeded, and the managers who got promoted, were the one's with a manager who - while hearing the employees out - made the final decision themselves. I'm not saying a role-playing group is a business group, but the principle of having a mover driving things along has applied to most of the gaming groups I've played with. They tend to stagnate, or devolve into bickering, unless you have someone who steps forward to drive the story and resolve disputes using plain, old, fair-minded common sense.

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

Played Harnmaster, much?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

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.

Serious answer: A good game exists at a point of dynamic tension between mechanics and talented game-mastering. Hero, with its unique balance of mechanics and special effects hits the sweet spot in terms of when the mechanics come into play, and when good judgement comes into play. I don't want a totally amorphous system because those are actually harder to run - and because their are times when a mechanical function result is required. Its just a question of when those times are.

 

While hero is crunchy, I don't regard it as rules heavy. I regard it as well defined. And that's important. Good judgement doesn't exist in a vaccum. The character definition hero provides - and that's the thing I really love about hero - is a remarkable tool for "eye-balling" what a character or item can and can't accomplish in a given situation. And those mechanics include effects based definition. And the mechanics it does provide are robust enough to handle the traditional role-playing game "arbitrary" rolls.

 

And that's the key: I keep saying good judgment, not arbitrary judgement. This is a medium that does need mechanics. The mechanics provide impartial resolution for what I term "arbitrary rolls." These are decisions that could go either way in most situations: skill rolls, to hit rolls, damage rolls. The gamemaster shouldn't have to decide everything by fiat. That puts an unfair burden on his shoulders and that does often turn out badly. Trust doesn't always mean universal agreement. Instead, the system needs to provide a solid structure and common frame of reference from which good judgement flows.

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.

I know it sounds like those are contradictory principles, but they aren't. Most people are uncomfortable striking a balance in every aspect of life. They either want no rules, or rules for everthing. They go all the way one direction or all the way the other. That's not healthy. Gaming, like most things in life, requires you to walk the golden path, and that's what the balance between mechanics and special effects in hero is vested in. Its the mixture of the two, not one or the other, that makes a good system.

 

I keep playing hero because I think hero is one of the few games that hits the sweet spot.

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. . . .

Probably because it takes the combination of both rules and GM input to make a complete system.

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.

A rules lite system puts much more of the burden on the GM.

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.

In our campaign, it's because we have 5 GMs and since we don't all agree 100% on every issue we need a game system with enough detail to provide a common framework to build the campaign on. Hero fills that niche admirably.

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

I think the ultimate answer may be to eliminate characteristics entirely and replacing them with other powers/skills/perks/talents, as follows:

That's an idea which I could get behind.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

If your character concept is that of a very strong car assembly plant robot, bolted to the ground, then leaping would not be a natural consequence of that robot having a high STR.

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

Well, it doesn't, if you assume a specific SFX.

"I have mechanical servos running through my body" -- certainly the added Leaping makes sense!

"I have hydraulics-based muscles" -- why the extra Leaping? My strength isn't applied any faster than normal...

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

See' date=' it's not "biological being". It's a specific sort of biological being. In the case of STR, it's "more massive musculature, gained from extensive training which includes more than just strength training". STUN and REC don't naturally follow strength training. Neither does Leaping, for some (probably most, certainly for upper-body strength training) types of training.[/quote']

 

On the "upper-body strength training" thing, IMO that is when you put on a limitation to the STR "upper-body only."

 

Or are you suggesting that STR should only cover upper body strength by default? Would that mean that all the martial kick manuvers would just have a default value for damage rather than using STR for damage?

Re: Another kind of balance

Points are a useful way to balance characters against each other' date=' but that makes some assumptions: that all powers are going to have th esame relative value in all games,[/quote']

I wanted to specifically come back to this idea about relative point value.

 

IMO one of the BIG problems that Hero, as a "Universal" game system has, is in regard assigning standard point values to abilities.

 

The point value of being able to "see into the past" is going to be much different in a detective game than in totally combat oriented game.

 

For the point system to really work, you either need to change the point costs based upon each style of game, or keep in mind what style of game you are going to play based upon the costs of the abilities (of course, that is not going to be a "universal" system).

Re: Another kind of balance

I think it might be closer to say that point limits are the limiting factor. I have played in games where the GM gave us limits on damage classes' date=' combat values, max skill levels, and defenses as well as a base for disadvantages and let us build whatever character, on however many points, we wanted as long as we were willing to pay for the disadvantages. It worked out suprisignly well.[/quote']

Of course limits on CVs and DCs still sort of moves away from the idea that "you have X points to spend as you wish."

 

It seems to me that, ideally anyway, you shouldn't need to limit where the Players can spend points for their characters. The reason why you can't have more DCs in your EB should be because you've already spent the points else where and you don't have any more left, not because there is an arbitrary MAX limit of XX DCs

Re: Another kind of balance

Points, points points.

 

Sometimes we forget that they are just a tool, or at least assume that the tool can do a lot more than it was ever designed to.

 

Points are, of course, at the heart of Hero character design and so at the heart of Hero, but, to be honest, I'm wondering if they should be.

 

Points are a useful way to balance characters against each other, but that makes some assumptions: that all powers are going to have th esame relative value in all games, that all characters are built as efficiently as all the others, that the players themselves are equally familiar with the rules and game tactics...

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?

Well, according to the Old Testament, pi = 3.

That is correct' date=' for a calulation with one significant figure.[/quote']

 

On a much more important note, what does the Old Testament say about pie?

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 don't believe DCH required a total of 549,755,813,889 (2 to the 39th power, plus 1) to take out a character with 40 BOD.

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.

But a 41 point atack would so 1 BOD, reducing him to 39. If 40 is twice the BOD of 39, the next attack which inflicts 41, getting 1 past the defensive value of 39, should eliminate all the character's remaining BOD.

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 remember reading DC Heroes and thinking that there was something familiar about a structure where every point doubles the ability, and baseline normals had stats of 2. hmmm...if we multiply that by 5, we get a system where base normals have stats of 10 and every 5 points doubles the ability.

 

The mechanics in DC Heroes were somewhat different, however. That daid, I don't thinkl a blast that inficted 1 damage to Superman on one hit removed all the rest of his damage absorbing capacity on the next hit.

 

Mechanically, if the first hit reduced his capacity to absorb damage by 1, it must have reduced it by 50%. Logivcally, the next hit should take out the other 50%, leaving nothing. However, I don't see a system where any two hits that inflict appreciable damage = character down is going to be very playable.

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?

So, I was thinking, we do this slightly odd thing: combat values are based on CHA/3 and skill values on CHA/5. Why?

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

Over an 8 hour play session we might be talking about a whole 60 or 70 extra seconds spent doing math. During that extra minute someone might have been able to go get another Mt. Dew...

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?

(We don't have a drunk emoticon, but if we did, I 'd use it.....)

Re: Rolling mechanic question

Note that just because something is more difficult that something else, it doesn't mean that it's notably more difficult.

 

Just like something that costs $1,000.01 is more expensive than something that costs $1,000.00, just not notably so, substracting might be more difficult than adding, just not notably so. Just because you score the same in two tests, one involving only addition, the other involving just substraction, it doesn't mean one wasn't easier than the other. Might mean it wasn't notably so, or maybe it meant you took longer to do one.

 

I think people confuse "more difficult" with "substantially more difficult", and, to risk being ridiculed again, "less intuitive" with "nonsensical" or "requiring great stretches of the imagination".

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

(from page 3)

 

The digits 1-9 inclusive, twenty of each, evenly distributed

in ten packs, differently arranged at each sitting, were

added five times over in five different sittings by each subject.

Kn., K., L., J., T., and B. served as subjects in this series.

 

(also from page 3)

 

The average times per digit added were as follows:

Kn, 1.09 sec.; K, 1.67; L, 1.28; J, 1.00; T, 1.03; B, 1.02.

 

 

 

 

(from page 23)

 

Subtraction is harder than addition. Introspective evidence

for this was general and the average time per digit subtracted

was longer:

Kn, 2.2; K, 2.6; L, 1.9; J, 1.5 (p. 3).

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

I take back my statement about people.

 

That's so very very very sad.

Re: Rolling mechanic question

Interesting. I suppose a more objective test (more objective than people just saying, "I don't find subtraction any more difficult than addition") would be to actually tes people. Give some people a test of, say, 100 addition problems, and a separate test of 100 subtraction problems, all to be worked out by hand. See which is completed faster, and which has fewer errors.

 

I suspect that the subtraction test will show more errors and take longer.

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

I refuse to believe people are that stupid and can't subtract.

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:

I'm still trying to figure out why Addition is somehow inherently easier than Subtraction.

Maybe this information will help you out. . . .

From "Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math"

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62275.html

People generally find subtraction harder (and easier to make mistakes in) than addition, so we most often use addition to check subtraction

And another perspective:

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/mmathsubtract.htm

Since the human brain is much more adept at going forward than backward (notice that counting forward is easier than counting backwards, and adding is quicker than subtracting), it follows that any calculation that can use "forward" patterns would be easier. Adding is also much more accurate.

Re: Hero Mod: Iron Age Hero

Damage and the effects of damage

 

 

Another thing about Iron Age is that even heroes are less ‘heroic’: they get tired, they get banged up, and they do die, occasionally.

 

Hero has two extremes of damage, Body, which heals very slowly, and END/STUN which heal very quickly.

 

I’m going to suggest we use Long term Stun and END (LTS and LTE). We already have LTE, but this is a little different.

 

LTE is taken in the same way normal END is taken, but recovers much slower: REC per hour. If you are not resting and in optimal conditions, then the GM may rule that LTE recovers more slowly or not at all..

 

You take LTE when:

• You push: all END used for a push is LTE.
  
• You burn STUN for END: all END gained by burning Stun is LTE
  
• You are in combat: each turn in combat, so long as you take significant action, one of the END you have used should be considered LTE.
  
• You use more than your REC in END in a single Turn: one (or one for each REC multiple) of the END used should be considered LTE.
  
• The GM rules that extended action burns LTE. This might include any situation when you have to make a CON or EGO roll to keep going.
  
• At the GM’s discretion you make take LTE from other sources, including exhaustion and disease. The GM might rule for example, that you take 1 LTE for each hour of sleep you miss.

LTS represents cuts and bruises of a non-life threatening nature, that nonetheless are not trivial: they recover at REC/day, or longer in sub-optimal conditions at the GMs discretion.

 

You take LTS when:

• You take Body damage: each point of Body damage ‘includes’ 2 points of LTS, from the stun you will have taken (or, if you somehow avoided taking 2x Body in Stun from an attack, you take that much anyway, in LTS).
  
• Each 10 points of STUN you take from a single attack includes 1 LTS, even if you take no Body (in a Heroic game you might want to make this 5 Stun = 1 LTS).
  
• At the GM’s discretion you can take LTS from other sources: including disease, exhaustion, or maybe a point every time you push (it is a strain).

Body – well you know when you take Body. Body recovers at REC/month.

 

Now I’d suggest that, to slightly tone down the mortality rate, the first point of any Body damage does 2 Long Term Stun ONLY, or that one point of Body per wound recovers with medical attention immediately (although the LTS has to be healed normally.

 

Making the Lethality divider 2 makes killing attacks generally more dangerous, making it 4 makes them generally less dangerous.

 

The Environment

 

 

This method makes damaging objects far more likely. I’d suggest that you double the DEF of objects, entangles and Force Walls. You might make that all resistant, or part normal defence, to better model a particular material. For simplicity make it all resistant.

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

Maybe you're right. Maybe its so automatic I mentally skip a step. I just don't see the skipage. You're just pinning down one number and loading the calculations onto the die roll instead of the target number it seems to me. If you guys find it easier go for it. I've tried about half a dozen of new rolling mechanics suggested here on the boards because I got so convinced and always went back. I don't either of us will convince the other but that's OK. HERO's all about choices and flexibility at long as no one's brain boggled alternate methods are good' date=' gives more options . Maybe its me just being old and unadaptable. Truth is I can run HERO combat faster than most any other system unless you get to reaaly simple stuff with very few options ( and whats the fun in that?) so I'm good.[/quote']

I guess it comes down to what works for you.