The Main Man

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat? I would like to take this moment to mention that I run a Rifts (HERO) campaign. Thing is, Rifts has a built-in excuse for having so many races.

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat? I think that what players really care about is getting mechanical goodies with their flavor. A world of faux-Arabs, faux-Spartans, faux-Vikings, and faux-Chinese who each have their own distinct mechanical goodies will evoke virtually indistinguishable player reactions than a world of monocultural Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, and Halflings to the average player - I'll betcha. I don't have a problem with nonhuman races though. I have a problem with redundant races. You can't fool me by adding brown food dye to my vanilla ice cream and calling it chocolate. I have a problem with races that seem like they are little more than a different bundle of mechanics and add nothing to the world. I have a problem with new races for the sake of new book material. I have a problem with races that conflict with the original premise of the setting; ones who raise questions about the sheer cohesion of the setting. If a race is introduced that fits the setting, creates interesting new possibilities, doesn't conflict with the fundamental premise, is mechanically distinct, and stands out from previously existing races then I'm okay with it.

Re: What "Pulp" have you read lately ? As a matter of fact, I plan to crack open my collection of Solomon Kane stories for October. Help get into the Halloween spirit.

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat? For me, race bloat happens in the following ways: when the presence of a new race fundamentally changes the setting despite the logical conclusion that they always existed; when a new race fills a storytelling or setting niche already fulfilled by a previously established race (so much setting, so little planet); or when a new race only seems to exist to upstage other races or else is there only for "kewl" factor. That said, I think it also depends on the established setting as well as the tone and style of the campaign. If it leans more towards beer and pretzels, then fantasy kitchen sink doesn't hurt anyone. If it is something to take more seriously, then there should be more focus on the cohesion of the setting. There are and have been many human cultures, but they have one thing in common: they are Homo Sapiens one and all. Earlier and separate species of human (Ergaster, Erectus, Habilis, Neanderthal, etc) did in fact coexist (and some even with Sapiens), but they weren't globalized as a species - only Sapiens got to achieve this. So when a fantasy setting has dozens and dozens of outright different sentient species, it strains the imagination to think that they all manage to coexist. Maybe a few of them could manage, but dozens and dozens of different species? I think not. Again, I say this in the spirit of creating a coherent and believable setting. If one is not concerned with such details (and not every campaign needs to be), then it doesn't matter how many races there are. All that said, I have a rather flipped opinion when it comes to space operas and races. I find it very difficult to believe such settings could ever truly get bloated in terms of races so much as political powers.

Re: Something all SF gamers should have. I really should return to a "1 weapon a week" regimen. That's 52 weapons per year. It gets better with every person. I think we could use this original thread as a brainstorming thread. Ooh, now there is a weapon idea: "the Brainstormer." There are multiple routes to go with that one.

Re: Something all SF gamers should have. First, I also agree that an Armor thread would be a nice addition. Maybe not with the "1000" moniker on it though. As for variations, I don't think it would hurt. Maybe out of respect to other posters, if you are posting a weapon that is a variant relative to one already posted, you should point out that it is a variant. Alternatively, quoting such an entry and inserting an alternate build but not as an official entry could be a working alternative.

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance There is one thing about COM that I will compliment it on in hindsight: it gave the GM room to improvise; it was an outlet for GM fiat. I don't know how editions earlier than 5e were, but I sometimes wonder if HERO's rules are too clear. What most of the rules clarifications were simply presented on the HERO website as such? So much text would be excised that the core rules could probably return to being in one volume. Furthermore, it gives gaming groups more breathing space with the system; they get the chance to tube it to their tastes instead of choosing to contradict rules they dislike. On the other hand, having all those rules clarifications on the website could make the system look half-baked. I think a blurb about how such a slimmed version of the rules us about letting players define HERO's nooks and crannies as they see fit. All that said, even if a slimmed down 6e (no need to produce a 7e if it's merely slimming down) was produced, I would still prefer Striking Appearance over COM.

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance Well, while I have utterly mutated this thread I may as well ride the wave. I would like to restate that I like the idea of Talents, but their designation seems redundant to me. That said, I think there is something to be said of naming sets of powers to give them flavor: Talents, Spells, Super Powers, Psychic Powers, Mutations, Super Skills, Heroic Feats, etc. That said, again, why are Talents treated differently? I realize that they have been around since 1e, but (and here I steer the conversation back on course) like COM, they seem to be a relic. That said, there is something to be said of building a power and just listing the name. Talents do this, and I recall Fantasy HERO characters doing this with Spells. I wonder what it would be like to try that with other things like Super Skills or even Super Powers. Makes me want to play around with HERO Designer Export Formats; create one that condenses Powers down to their names with a companion format that lists the power builds. Er... back on topic back on topic...

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance Funny you should suggest that - I've been thinking that for the past couple of weeks. If Talents are just Power builds, why should they exist? They seem redundant to me now. Neat, but redundant. There is next to no practical difference between "Talents," "Super Skills," and "Heroic Feats" in the end, but one if them gets special treatment. Bah, another subject for another thread...

Re: Everyman VPPs 1. Heroic Action Points were introduced in Pulp HERO (5e) and now are in the 6e core rules. 2. I'm quite the fan of such RPG systems, actually, with Risus and Fudge at the top of my list. The way I see it, HERO is the anomaly of my favorite systems. As a toolkit though, it provides the tools necessary to express almost any ability, and I believe that Everyman VPPs are a way to tap into that flexibility while retaining the "language of HERO." It really becomes a sort of controlled madness - your hero gets a lot of flexibility here, but can't go overboard.

This is something that just popped in there and I think it is onto something so I figure I ought to share it to hopefully get a stronger overall concept out of my fellow HEROphiles. It starts with a seeming incongruity between HERO and comic book writing. In comic books, characters simply do as the writer dictates; no fuss. HERO, on the other hand, is a different breed. Since powers are built and bought with points, it tends towards itemization of a character's abilities with the common result being character sheet bloat. How does one bridge the two to bring that comic book element into HERO system? I think I have at least the beginning of an answer: Everyman VPPs. Every character has limited access to a free VPP to pull off various tricks within their defined SFX. This should be simple for many characters: Bricks get a "Brick Tricks" VPP; Speedsters get a "Speedster Tricks" VPP; and so on. Each VPP has a Pool and Control cost equal to the campaign's Active Point limit. They are base line VPPs, so characters must buy an appropriate Skill and take Full Phase actions to change out powers. I think characters can have access to No Skill Required and Powers Can Be Changed as a 0 Phase Action, but they must pay for those. This comes with one catch though: it costs 1 Heroic Action Point per use of any power in the VPP. I think it's a fair tradeoff that boosts the value of a separate mechanic. Now, all that said, here are some complications within the idea I considered, and you may think of more: 1) What becomes of classic characters like Gadgeteers or Mystics who often use VPPs in the first place? 2) On the other hand, what about SFX that don't lend themselves to versatility? Could these VPPs be sold off like Everyman Skills? 3) Similarly, what about characters who have multiple SFX? How does a flying brick with eye lasers cope? 4) How does this balance against MPs and VPPs normally bought by characters? That's it for now. I look forward to everyone's responses.

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance *reads more of thread* Oh for the love of Pete! COM either piggybacked on Presence (so just use limited PRE) or else it was pure GM fiat that costed points. It didn't stand on its own two legs as a CHAR. It was weird in its price structure; it was the only CHAR that changed SFX and costed points once it reached the negative scores. Striking Appearance is much more logical and consistent with HERO's overall governing theory. That said, there is another CHAR that could use some reworking: INT; but that's a discussion for another time.

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance *runs hand over facial battle scar, a single tear falling...* Never forget The Great COM Debate.

Re: LET'S HACK: The Turakian Age Luckily, Low Fantasy is not hard to imagine from there. Just strip away all of the nonhuman races, keep magic to an absolute minimum, and focus on Ambrethel for what is different about it from Earth. Maybe play up legends and the like, with maybe the faintest elements of the mystical. Epic Fantasy Turakian Age simply needs a goal and to be focused on that goal. Otherwise no real changes needed. Crossworlds Fantasy Turakian Age is a simple matter of time travel in the official HERO universe. Urban Fantasy would require advancing Turakian Age to a more "modern" setting. I do like the sound of this option, though it obviously requires more work than the others.

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy Hm... That should have remained IMO. I understand Turakian Age is a thick book already, but I don't think such additions would be too much extra.

Re: LET'S HACK: The Turakian Age Just had an idea: what would Turakian Age be like if certain genre elements were dialed up or down? The Ambrethel we know is the "High Fantasy version." What could be changed to make it: Sword & Sorcery? Low Fantasy? Epic Fantasy? Crossworlds Fantasy? Urban Fantasy?

Re: Why I prefer HERO System over Pathfinder/OGL/D&D for fantasy I now think it could be interesting if a single fantasy setting was created that had ways to be modified to more specific genres. Imagine if Turakian Age and Valdorian Age were nearly identical settings; TA is the "high fantasy" version while VA is the "S&S version" of the otherwise same exact setting. Hm... Off to "Let's Hack Turakian Age."

Re: Rifts HERO? If the PPE Endurance Reserve is an Everyman Power, then an Everyman Complication could join it: Susceptibility: Having Psychic Energy END Drained to less than 0 3d6 too harsh? How frequent would anyone say it happens? I imagine it would be Uncommon.

Re: Rifts HERO? Huh?

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design. What about Loaded Guns with Off-Switches? Most DC characters clearly came from that more simplistic flavor of escapism of the pulps. Marvel is mostly "the next generation" of superheroes; a little more nuanced; post-pulp if one will. I think this discussion brings to light an important way to invoke the styles of the Big Two. DC for whimsical, unexamined escapism; Marvel for a dash of realism, a dash of conflict, and a dash of humility. Now i wonder about the differences in their villains... Sounds like a different thread.

Re: How do you Hero GMs prepare for new campaigns? Conceive a basic but solid campaign concept that is subject to change. Pitch your idea to your players. Brainstorm everything about the campaign you can think of until you have a truly solid campaign that everyone generally wants to play. Once you have that, you can actually set it to a game system.

Re: LET'S HACK: Terran Empire I like the Champions Beyond book and believe it is a good starting point for doing something I am sure we've all done or thought of doing: importing CU characters into the Terran Empire setting. Naturally the more Sci-Fi characters fit in better.I think a quick master list of characters who could fit in like a glove would be an interesting endeavor. Transferring Focus-based powers into Equipment, but it's hardly insurmountable. The trickier part is rebalancing them against the setting.Part of the fun for me is speculating the idea of various villains being nonhuman races. What if The Warlord was a Thorgon? What if Menton was a Varanyi? Do I dare make Doctor Destroyer a Mandaarian?

Re: LET'S HACK: Terran Empire Speaking of all that gear, I'd like to take this time to plug the "1000 Star HERO Weapons" project (link in my sig).

Re: LET'S HACK: Terran Empire I think the main distinction is whether someone wants Star Wars (Terran Empire) or Star Trek (Galactic Federation).Of course, I want Farscape, so that means Terran Empire.