Surrealone

On 10/25/2019 at 11:52 PM, Usagi said:

I want to build a character with a power that essentially drains actions.  I want it to work like Flash, where you roll a die and the target loses the ability to take actions for that many phases. Specifically the idea is that the character performs a magic trick and the target stands there baffled for a few seconds.  I thought about building it as a Mental Paralysis but its really complicated and not really what I'm looking for.  Also, the hit roll is...weird.  It really shouldn't require a hit roll, since the target can't really dodge it.

 

Anyone have any ideas?

I feel that steriaca called this correctly when recommending a SPD Drain … as changing someone's SPD is technically what would be required to Drain away someone's actions. 

I voted 'cool but needs work' because I find it to be wholly mechanical -- without concrete examples of what this looks like, story-wise.  Getting up from knockback … is common sense; people know what that tends to look like, regardless of whether it's a Brick clambering to his/her feet … or a Ninja doing that thing to go from his/her back to his feet (possibly using Breakfall).  But what does helping someone recover from being stunned look like; can we get some examples … so that we can better understand why it takes time … and so that new GM's can readily understand the intent (thereby allowing them to give derivative descriptions)?

On 11/7/2019 at 1:41 AM, Skyriter1 said:

So a few friends and myself decided that we wanted to start a superhero rpg and I am to be the GM. I came across Champions Complete and felt that this would be a good game to play, and then I started reading. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding and grasping the game, I don't know where to begin with the questions. 

You've received good suggestions (all the way around) in this thread. Let us know how it's going/gone?

While I tend to prefer less House-ruled (and thus, more consistently-applicable from GM to GM) approaches, I have to admit I like that heuristic approach, Gnome.

On 11/10/2019 at 1:51 AM, Usagi said:

Whatever, I'm done talking to you.  Any further discussion is pointless, because I am 100% convinced you're just trying to start a flame war.

Hugh is about as logical and objective as they come when it comes to Hero System.  He'll dig in and defend his stance, but it's never personal.  I say this as someone who does the same … often with viewpoints that oppose Hugh's … so I've debated with him off and on through the years. (I suppose I like to be contrary a fair bit … as it makes for interesting debate?) 

I advise not writing the man off or blocking him, as you'll miss out on some interesting and worthwhile content, perspectives, and logic with respect to Hero System if you do.  It is, of course, your call...

On 11/20/2019 at 5:57 PM, TranquiloUno said:

 

I think the behavior in the LARPS is more about there mostly only being PCs\factions. I could be *very* wrong about that since I never played Mindseye Theatre\LARP VtM but my impression is since it's mostly PCs it's inherently PvPish in that....there's not really a lot of other folks to conflict with.

 

I've definitely seen that dynamic in other LARPS I've played that lacked NPCs. Nobody else to fight or conflict with? Well...it's gonna be PvP then most likely.

You're probably right...

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Depends on the edition, in 6th you don't have to.  I personally like the idea (that hit was so hard it takes you just a bit longer to get up) but players hated it, so I dropped it.

Getting up with very little END and very little STUN tends to be harsh enough, nevermind the fact that the stunning effect represents shaking off that whopper of a hit because it knocked the daylights out of you (without knocking you out).  If you actually get knocked out, well, you likely already have to take a little longer to get up just because your REC doesn't leave you with enough END to do much of anything; if your REC is low enough, you may actually risk burning STUN due to lack of END … and knocking yourself out, again).

Do/did you really need players to burn more time to recover from an effect (stunning) that they probably shouldn't feel, anyway, if they actually got KO'd?

15 minutes ago, Spence said:

I'm guessing that personal horror is the intent that wasn't actually written into the books

 

Currently I have been running horror almost exclusively. CoC, ToC, Delta Green, Nights Black Agents, Down Darker Trails and so on. 

 

My personal experience with WoD games observed is that I never saw any horror at all.  When I was in a shop with an active WoD game I was able to recruit players all the time to play horror as in CoC because they would flee the political morass and regular need for new PCs because of betrayal and backstabbing death.

 

Intellectually I fully understand that the game is probably good and not all about politics and PCs killing each other. But since 80'whatever it was to the present, on the East Coast, West Coast, between, Korea, Japan, Europe and the Middle East.  Everywhere I have ever seen it played, it was all the same game.

"Ha ha ha, Donna has to make a new character again.  Bobs Bruhaha whatsit killed her again...."

 

I love horror and have driven insane or killed many PCs.  But I have never been able to enjoy a game that, intended or not, centers on PvP kills.

That's sad to hear, as my experience with VtM runs 180 degrees from yours.  I guess it's a matter of ST's.  TBH, I'm super picky about WoD ST's … and have tended to long-running games with a handful of what I consider really good STs for whom imagery and story pertaining to one's dehumanization … trump combat, politics, maneuvering, etc.  Not once have I seen PvP kills.  Keep in mind, I only play tabletop, never LARP.   (LARPs, I hear, tend to be really backstabby and PvP-like.)

Ok, this is way off topic, so I'm done with the tangent.  It was fun while it lasted, thanks Duke, for the left turn!

8 minutes ago, Cassandra said:

 

If your into pumpkins.

LOL!

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

In the end, it didn't work (you have seen a lot of different angle when you've been in charge for a few centuries, I suppose), but it never devolved the way the villain campaigns did. 

...

Honestly, the read I took away from VTM and other WoD titles (at least the early ones, before I got sick of all the politics) was essentially (nothing may change the status quo, which is a serious downer to play under. 

VtM and other WoD titles are (at their cores) games of personal horror.  As an example: Vampires steadily edge closer to the beast as they lose Humanity/Road/Via …. or if they manage not to do so, Gehenna eventually arrives, resulting in the rise of the Antidiluvians (who then devour their childer).  i.e. Those games aren't about winning or heroics or anything else.

Using Vampires as an example, again, VtM is ultimately about dealing with derangements, loss of humanity, youngsters and elders, alike, trying to eat you, and such -- and the story that arises from such things.  Hence the game (VtM) being about personal horror. (Political machinations are just minor distractions/hobbies/entertainment one engages upon whilst whiling away the centuries. )

I kind of liken it to Call of Cthulu -- where all characters tend to end up either dead or insane.
 

11 minutes ago, Cassandra said:

 

It's a same she was made up like that because she's a lovely woman.  I loved her on Just The Ten of Us and The Demolitionist.

Oh, c'mon.  She was HAWT in that cameo!  😂😂

5 minutes ago, Cassandra said:

 

The other joke that people missed is how something is as hard to find as Heather Langenkamp in Star Trek Into Darkness.

Heh, yea, that's not a cameo I knew about until it was pointed out, afterward.

1 hour ago, Cassandra said:

 

It's still Kira.

 

 

My point was that in the case of DS9 and thinking apples-to-apples, it's actually Nerys. (Hence why the joke might have been missed.)

I play both 5er and 6e and move fairly seamlessly between the two despite their differences.  Neither of my GMs mix them; both are rules purists.  I feel both editions have their merits and flaws, and I happen to like them both for different reasons.  So, anyone thinking I was being edition-warry was sorely mistaken.  However, like Usagi, I, too, think it makes no sense to gripe about something that one sees as a problem in an earlier edition … that is fixed in a later edition … since the problem is easily and readily solved by either moving to the edition wherein the problem is solved … or playing a game that uses a blended ruleset.

I guess some people would rather just bitch than switch (with respect to problems in the ruleset they're playing … relative to fixes in a ruleset they could switch to or blend from). To this day, I don't understand the point of such edition slamming regarding an edition-specific problem… when a solution is already present.  Key to this is that, from my angle, it just sounds like un-necessary noise about an already-solved problem … as do complaints about it not being solved sooner (i.e. in earlier editions).  For me it boils down to a lack of understanding why someone would spend so much energy on the issue … when that same energy could be spent moving to an edition where it's fixed (if one wants to be a rules purist) … or blending rules from the fixed edition to the current edition (if one wants to).

I also don't understand why someone would house rule something away when one could actually use the situation to generate good storyline/storytelling. Key to this is that regardless of the edition being used, shared storytelling is what the ruleset ultimately enables, right?

 

On 11/16/2019 at 1:44 AM, Lucius said:

As far as "realism" goes, people with more experience of violence than I have, have praised Hero mechanics for simulating the way a mortally wounded person can keep on acting and moving, right up to point they fall over dead.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says in other words, it's not just "cinematic" reality...

Spot-on - as there's a huge delta between what one sees in the movies ... and reality.  In the movies we see people go flying backward after a single shot from a bullet -- and, often, they don't get up.  In reality, as long as blood is pumping to the brain that gives orders to the rest of a body hit with 2-3 bullets … and the body isn't too impaired to carry out those orders … a mortally wounded person remains up, mobile, and an active threat thanks to a flood of adrenaline and cortisol delivered as part of the fight/flight response.

Bleed-out (which deprives the brain of oxygen … and, thus, its ability to do its job) can take 30-90 seconds, depending on the tool used to deliver the wound(s), type of wound(s) (bullet? puncture? laceration? blunt-force trauma? etc.), number of wounds, location of wound(s) , and damage to internals incurred based on the previous criteria.

20 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

It was a Deep Space Nine joke.

 

No one gets my humor.

People probably didn't get it because Kira was the first name of the character in Xanadu … while it was the last name of Nana Visitor's character in DS9?

Not once did I intentionally target anything rude or insulting at you or your group.  And yes, I absolutely gave as good as I felt I got with downvotes.  As previously noted, if those who initiated the downvotes will retract them, I will, as well.  (I didn't start the downvoting … so I also won't start the retractions.  I like to be consistent.)

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

In 5er, the penalties and effects of "attacked from behind, in combat" and "surprised, in combat" are identical to one another, as are "attacked from behind, out of combat" and "surprised, out of combat".  It looks to me that for 6th edition they were combined, and the bit above I quoted from 6e2 is the result. 

 

Having said that, the easiest way to stop the munchkin maneuver of moving behind your opponent in order to get the "attacked from behind" modifier, is common sense.  I'd recommend not allowing one combatant moving behind the other, in combat, to get the "from behind" bonus.  A third combatant, coming up from their 6 o'clock, might get that bonus.  

 

(When I did boffer fighting, many years ago -- and I know this is not real fighting -- we found that in a one on one combat, it was hard if not impossible for one combatant to get behind the other.  However, it was extremely easy for one of the combatants' teammates to come up behind their opponent unaware and tag them in the back, but it tended to have to be from directly behind, and you had to catch them completely unaware.  If the one you're coming up behind has any awareness at all that you're there (makes his PER Roll), he'll either move out from between the two, or parry the attacks that are coming from behind him.  I remember doing it and having had it done to me, both.  Like I said, for me this was play fighting; if anyone with real fighting experience has anything to say, listen to them over me.)  

 

Incidentally, I'm not a moderator, but I think the thread is starting to get a little edition-warry and a little personal.  I'd like to ask that people step back, take a few breaths, and chill.  (Crossposted with Doc Democracy above.)

I highly suspected you might counter with the argument that the penalties are the same … and almost pre-empted it.  But then I thought, 'No, surely people won't think the two should be treated as if they are the same in 5er just because their penalties are the same, as that just doesn't make sense when it comes to other penalties that are the same in 5er ... such as the -2 penalty for 'Fighting in a cluttered or cramped area' and the -2 penalty for 'Underwater'.  Surely no one will advocate that these latter two are the same in 5er just because their penalties are … and therefore, surely no one will do so with 'Attacked from behind' vs. 'Surprised' in 5er."

I guess I should have pre-empted?   That aside, I tend to agree that 5er is the outlier.  Yet one more reason to move to 6e, since it addresses issues like this … among others.

And yes, there's a lot of downvoting going on, here. I didn't start it, but I noted several someones were downvoting me any/every time I said something with which they disagreed, so I responded in kind.  I agree this is not normal, here, and I don't like it, either.  In fact, I don't remember EVER using the downvote option until today ... and I've been here a while. However, if that's how those people want things to be between us, I can give as good as I get … and have. If those people want to undo it, I'll retract mine, as well -- but as far as I'm concerned, the ones who started it … also need to initiate the retraction(s).

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

And I'd just like to point out the following text from 5er p. 543 (also 6e2 p. 266), under "Eight Principles For Interpreting and Applying the HERO System Rules": 

 

You're allowed to use common sense, and it doesn't have to be GM fiat.  

Spot-on!

18 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

 

This example is completely wrong. Fighter A uses 3" of movement and now is completely behind his opponent, at which point he stabs the guy. He has zero reason to hold his action. B is frozen from his previous action last round. After he's stabbed in the back and survives, he then repeats the process on A who's facing is held by his attack, learing his back exposed.

 

Tell me in what world is this gameplay desirable?  What genre of action or real life fighting encounter does it emulate? This is not what Defensive Maneuver was created for, I don't believe, it was created for fending off multiple attackers and surprise attacks. 

Taking a Half Phase Action (be it moving or something else) and holding the remainder of one's action … until near the end of the Segment immediately prior to one's next Phase … is a common tactic in Hero System play.  This tactic is designed to allow maximum reaction without losing one's own action … and use of it is why Knife Fighter B would not be 'frozen' from his previous action.  (Also, this system uses Segments/Phases, not 'rounds'.)  Now, if Knife Fighter B was stupid enough to leave an opening by taking a Full Phase Action instead of using Half Phases, well, then s/he gets what s/he deserves.  That's actually spot-on for a knife fight, by the way, as each knife fighter tends to be circling looking for precisely that sort of opening.

When simulating combat second-by-second (a la Segments/Phases) … rather than minute-by-minute (a la 'rounds') … you have to address movement/facing in more granular fashion than other minute-by-minute systems do.  HERO System does that fairly well, but it's by no means perfect.  The 'fix' to what you are describing is to have characters (i.e. not just vehicles) use segmented movement -- something I and another have actually toyed with.  It works well enough, but it's incredibly cumbersome in that it slows everything down (in combats that are already quite slow compared to other systems)  … because pretty much every character is moving every Segment in much of a given Turn.

As for consistency -- I've been quite consistent.  GM common sense should always apply -- and GM fiat is absolutely not required for it to do so, in this case.  As previously noted, there are ways to deal with what you're concerned with … that don't entail the use of GM fiat. You just keep waving those things away for some reason...

As far as higher speed characters having an edge over lower speed ones in terms of openings, you're absolutely correct: they do. That's part of the game design and why Speed is so expensive.  This is also why GMs are supposed to set campaign limits prior to character creation -- such that a high Speed character isn't also a high damage AND/OR high defense character.  i.e. A speedster relying on back attacks probably hits very reliably, but also hits like a proverbial 'girl' (no disrespect intended to female heroines) … if a GM has done his/her job setting campaign limits properly.  (Again, we're back to GM common sense...)

As far as hexes are concerned, that, too is addressed in 6e, as hexes are 1m, not 2m in 6e -- meaning characters are pretty much always in different hexes unless on top of/under one another, desolid, or some other similar scenario.

20 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Except you don't currently need those things.  6e2 p. 50:

 

One of the most common ways for a character to be Surprised is to be attacked from behind. However, that’s not to say that all attacks from behind qualify for the Surprised bonus. As always, the GM should apply common sense and dramatic sense — remember, combat is a dynamic situation where the rules reflect many variables. For example, if an opponent a character doesn’t know about attacks him from behind, that usually means the character is Surprised (though not necessarily, as discussed above). But if the character knows about or can see an opponent, that opponent can’t get a Surprised bonus just by making a Half Move behind the character before attacking. The opponent might get the bonus if the character is distracted (for example, if he’s already fighting one foe who’s in front of him), but moving behind a character before attacking does not per se earn an attacker a Surprised bonus.

Context matters.  I point this out because Tywyll is apparently using 5th edition (per the initial post of this thread) … and your quoted text is 6e.  (5er may have an equivalent statement within it?  I don't know … I didn't look.)

Also, worth mentioning is your quoted text deals with "surprise", which is NOT the same as the "attacked from behind" DCV modifier.  i.e. Surprise and attacked from behind bonuses are distinct/separate per RAW.  To support this assertion I cite the fact that they appear distinctly/separately within the DCV MODIFIERS TABLE on p373 of 5er (aka FRED).  Thus, the above merely states that the Surprised bonus may not apply … while saying nothing about the 'attacked from behind' bonus not applying.   [I'm being this technical/literal because that appears to be the mindset of Tywyll and his gaming group, and I'm trying to think as they are when responding, since facing was apparently a big deal in their prior system.]

Now, that said, GM common sense should always apply, which is what seems to be lacking in most of Tywyll's complaints about endless circling of opponents in munchkinized fashion to try to game a bonus. The problem is easy enough to put an end to without resorting to GM fiat, but it appears that a GM who has endless points to spend on baddies is concerned about 3pts on mooks … or doesn't want to engage in interesting gameplay by having characters fight back-to-back or from 'gunfighter' positions (i.e. with back to a wall).  So be it.  Some people would rather bitch than switch, I guess...

I still don't see merit to Tywyll's concerns about endless circling; I've only seen it happen a few times when munchkins were at play, and the GMs had the mooks learn the predictability of their opposition and then shut that crap down quickly. It made for good story!

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

 

I think you are still missing the point though. People move in fights. They turn to face someone threatening them. They don't freeze after moving, allowing an attacker to run behind them and hit them.

 

Everything you've mentioned doesn't deal with the issue that characters can move behind each other on their phase to get a bonus in a way that is ridiculous and impossible in real life. Sure, put your back to a wall when facing multiple attackers., or rely on defensive maneuver. You shouldn't need either of those things when it is one on one, but currently you do, and that is insane. 

I've not dealt with it because it's already handled by RAW.  Chistopher Taylor even cited it for you earlier in the thread.

Per 6e2 p26:

"changing facing while Running, Leaping, Swimming, Swinging, or Tunneling is a Zero Phase Action in most circumstances. That means a character can’t do it after performing a Full Phase Action, but the GM can rule otherwise based on the situation, the abilities involved, common and dramatic sense, and other relevant factors. Changing facing with Flight or Teleportation depends on Turn Modes and/or the the use of the Position Shift Adder."

Thus, Knife Fighter A half-moves (circling to rear/flank -- hoping to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds …. and then his/her opponent Knife Fighter B does the same (circling to shank his/her opponent from rear/flank) and holds. Since a Full Phase Action hasn't been used, Knife Fighter A should be able to turn to face Knife Fighter A as a Zero Phase Action unless the GM rules otherwise.  This assumes they're on the ground and not flying, of course, as Flight gets more complicated due to Turn Mode unless Position Shift is in play.

That's a key benefit of half-moving and then holding … it allows someone to react, attack, etc.

Now since you're using 5er, it doesn't have an equivalent statement/rule within it, as far as I know.  I suppose that's one of the drawbacks of using the older, less polished rule set.  Perhaps you should move to 6e?

16 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

You shouldn't have to pay 10 real or 3 real and an HPA every turn to not be subject to inane rules abuse. 

You appear to have ignored something from my earlier post when rendering this response, so I'll remind you of it: having your characters or NPCs put their backs to walls or fight back-to-back costs zero real points.  (As a reminder, I explicitly posted, "...positioning oneself with one's back to an ally or a wall, judicious use of cover with maneuvers like Snapshot, and the like all prevent this."  Note that these are all things that can be done in the course of one's normal movement on the field of battle, too -- so there's no special expenditure of a HPA to do them.  Instead, one simply has to be thoughtful about the half-moves and/or full moves that one makes (relative to the battlefield environment, one's allies, and one's opponents.)

Put another way, you flat-out DO NOT have to pay ANY real points to avoid being subject to the aforementioned munchkinism.  But one can certainly pay real points if one doesn't want to bother using cover and/or the environment effectively.  (That is, after all, one of the benefits of point expenditures -- you buy the means to deal with issues you might not otherwise be able to deal with … as well as the means to be lazy about issues you might not otherwise be able to be lazy about.  Example: the Hulk's defenses are so high he can be lazy about multiple attackers, cover, rear attacs, etc.  Welcome to Hero System!)

And you shouldn't need the GM fiat hammer when you have other ways to disincent certain munchkin behaviours...

8 hours ago, Usagi said:

Well, it does only cost 3 points for the basic ability.  You don't have to buy it at the 10 point value.

Spot-on.  So rather than create some ad-hoc, un-needed house rule, I'm baffled as to why these GMs don't simply slap 3 points on their skilled mooks and NPCs (a la Defense Maneuver) and then make sure their PCs encounter such NPCs enough that the light bulb finally goes on for them. This is really what I was getting at when I suggested the use of Defense Maneuver or the purchase of powers that result in not caring if one is hit (in Hulk-like fashion, for example) … or using position (back-to-back with an ally … or back to a wall) to prevent munchkin-ized circling just to game a mechanic.

Again, plainly put -- point expenditures and/or good character play by discerning players are all that's required. As a reminder, the GM is a player, too (s/he plays all the mooks/NPCs). I really prefer it when GMs take that type of approach, rather than just shutting down a mechanic for no reason other than what I consider GM laziness.  And as a GM, I know I'd get a lot more of a chuckle out of people munchkin-izing the rear attack mechanic only to find a) it didn't work, b) they wasted movement doing it, and c) they whined due to a) and b)...  

Note that I'm not saying shut the PCs down at every turn … but the more abusive the group or player tended to be with the mechanic, the more prepared I'd be as a GM to curtail it.  It's also easily explainable within the storyline, as mooks and their tougher NPC brethren tend to learn when a character or group repeatedly uses the same tactic(s) ... ad nauseum … and they usually tend to devise a counter to it.  Some of the baddies may see it first hand. Others may see it on camera recordings of events (like, oh, the news … or police footage … or a livestream of footage at the mook base, etc.). Still others might hear of the repeatedly-used tactic by word of mouth, since just like heroes talk among themselves, so do those with villainous intent. If your baddies aren't learning from repeated use of the same tactics by players/groups such that they come up with counters that present new and interesting challenges, then something's probably missing from your game, anyway … right?

With some decent GM'ing and judicious use of points combined with good storytelling, you just don't need a house rule to end the munchkin behavior; it'll resolve itself if you simply use story and NPC learning to dis-incent it. Or be heavy-handed and slam down the GM fiat gavel.  Your choice. You certainly get a more immediate return, but you miss out on a fun storytelling opportunity … not to mention listening to munchkins whine.

6 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

 

No, those prevent the repercussions of back attacks...what I'm asking is how do you stop the clearly unrealistic spinning fight effect that seems to result if just played straight. I attack you from behind, okay now I swing around behind you and attack you from behind, etc, etc. That's not how fights happen in the real world because trying to pull that off would get you killed. 

Is it so unrealistic?  Speedsters use the tactic regularly in the comics. Normal knife fighters circle each other, too.  Those are two examples off the top of my head without putting any effort into considering it...

As for preventing the repercussions of back attacks being different from stopping people from using them -- if the outcome is the same (no r little advantage/effect), what difference does it actually make? For me, it doesn't make enough difference to matter -- and only amounts to differences in how the story is told (i.e. how the combat actually unfolds if one was to write it up as a set of comic book panels or as part of a chapter in a book.)