Heroman

Re: Help building a Starship engine An issue which would help identify the potential powers is determining if time passes for the people in the Void. To their perception is it instantaneous? If so, TP sounds good. If not, EDM would be good. The 1 reason I would not use FTL is that I would expect FTL to be detectable (and potentially stoppable) in real space (also because you quantify The Void as a different dimension). -hm

Re: Points or $ Another approach is something a bit more half way. Have characters pay points for "non standard" type type of equipment. "Non Standard" would be whatever the average joe has (maybe the average joe adventurer). That way you can ignore trivial things like backpacks, daggers, and the like. Maybe set an active point cost as a general guideline; If an item is more than 10 active points, then it must be bought with CPs. This would allow people to buy daggers, tents, etc with money, but for more impressive stuff (like great swords, etc) they would need to spend CPs. As far as rational, when you are spending CPs for items, it requires the cooperation from the players. Their 'giving up the +2 Vorpal Bunny Slayer because no one wants to spend the points' is something they need to help with for the story.

Re: Weapon Definition Actually, the CMs used thru weapons is the thing I am looking for as to a purpose of the current CSL assigned. The current limitations still allow you to add multiple OCV together (ie 2 rapiers. It is a 5 pt after all) but I like the idea more of being able to use an offhand weapon to get a DCV bonus, kinda like a parry dagger. Also, the point of understanding the OCV bonus is not getting bogged down in the details of the weapon but to be sure of the potential uses based on how it is defined. If I was not interested in building weapons and just wanted to use stock everything, I would go and play D20 or something

Re: Weapon Definition Yup, def understand the 5 point being the min for applying lims to and no prob with that. It just seemed unusual to use a 5 point where a 1 point would do. The 1 point would effectively do everythig the 5 point would, but be a little more straight forward and cheaper. I was curious if there were any other reasons why one would build it at the 5 point level, given the smattering of limitations and capabilities (given the sfx) make it no different in affect than the single attack CSL...

Re: Weapon Definition Actually, as they are built (or at least described in the FH book), they actually would give a cumulative bonus. The bonus is not built as a 'single weapon attack' CSL. I guess the issue is that the +1 OCV is build as a CSL: H-H. Techincally, given the currently described limitations in the FH book, that means as long as you have it in your hand (Required Hands lim), you get a +1 with all H-H combat. Heck, you could technically hold it in your offhand (I assume Rapier is built with Required Hands: 1H otherwise you could not use a shield) and punch with a +1 OCV (thae rapier really helps balance you!). Holding 2 rapiers gives a +2 OCV overall (since both are just foci giving +1 HTH each). There is nothing in the limitations which force the +1 to only that weapon. If that is the intent, it is a noticable limitation from the +1 to all HTH and should be worth a limitation. At the 5 point level, you could also hold it and get a +1 DCV (I believe 5 pt is the first amount where you can use CSLs for DCV) instead of the +1 OCV.....

I was curious about an aspect of weapon definition that I saw in the FH book and wondering if some insight could be shed. For more accurate weapons, it seems that OCV levels are built "as 5-point Combat Skill Levels with the OAF, Required Hands, and Real Weapon Limitations" [FH p165] For a weapon with a a single attack, this means a +1 costs 2 CP, +2 is 4cp, +3 for 5cp, assuming you are using the 2H for Required Hands (1H weapons would be 2, 4 7 respectively). The first issue would obvoiusly be the cost of the bonus. For a single attack weapon, it is a noticable increase from +1 for 1 (CSL: with any single attack with one specific weapon), +2 for 2, +3 for 3. Since it is defined as a CSL just for that attack from that weapon, it really does not seem to need limitations anyways. OAF is redundant since it is for that weapon, Required Hands the same, since the weapon needs hands to be used, Real Weapon the same. Secondly, the limitations do not seem really as restrictive as they can be. To start, as a 5 point CSL HTH, you could technically carry 2 rapiers and then have a +2 to your OCV. Nothing about the 5 point limits it to just the attack with the weapon (not even the OAF, really). Secondly, at that level you could use the 5 point for a +1 DCV while using the weapon. While this is a cool side effect, it is not really called out in the weapon listing as a possibility so I must wonder if that was taken into account. That kind of versitility does not stand out, IMHO, to an inexperienced player and if it were indeed an intended side effect I would think it would be. It seems that the weapon OCV should have an additional limitation (Lim: Only for weapon's attacks) -1 1/4 (-3 if you intend weapons to go to +3) to equalize the cost with the intended cost of a single weapon OCV leveling, or just use single attack OCV levels and ignore adding limitation, as they are redundant.

Re: FYI: why more people aren't playing HERO (rpg.net) Actually, there is no comparision between PHB and a FH thing. While the base D&D does not offer a campaign, it establishes rules. A wizards does THIS. Has THESE spells. A druid is THIS. It generates the important formalized structure for the players which is lacking from FH. Why? Because FH is so hugely fluid and open ended....too open IMHO for players who would like something a little more solid to work from. New players need to have something they can put their hands on, not something completely fluid. As they become comfortable with the system, then would they venture into different options and the need (and possibly desire) to start custom designing. I can see it being a bit challenging for GMs too. Like the players, they are used to having a framework to start from. There is a much larger laundry list of possibilities as they decide on how the core things are (since this has not been done for them yet), and now have the dual task of preparing something for the players to establisht he FH rules in play AND the actual game world. Twice the work a D&D GM needed to do (if not more). At least in the old days, they had the PHB which targeted the character formation, rules, and such and the settings book which was the rest of the world. Hero does not; they actually skip in between all those, mostly. There is the core book (rules, but more fluid than the PHB), the genre books (rules, less definitiive than the D&D settings books; much closer to the DMG), then the source books (hopefull close to the PHB+settings book). Hero + Fantasy Hero book != D&D. It is still much closer to a toolkit to making a fantasy world, but still more abstract than the base D&D system. A Hero GM needs to use these 2 and publish their own 3rd book to build a set fantasy system, irregardless of the world. This is a strength of D&D in that a structure is established from which both the GM and players can operate, hence the huge number of modules which can be published. You don't need to worry how the magic system is done, etc; it is established for you. In the end, I think that a player likes rules and things to follow. Yes, eventually they will (hopefully) desire more once the comfort sets in, but we lack that first step (something which I am guessing SK helps fill in a bit) Instead of a Fantasy SK book, I would like to see a "Jobs!" FH book. Something which goes into great detail on a huge number of potential professions, (The Ultimate Fantasy Jobs?), including how they rank their order, spells used, etc. Since there is a sourcebook out there, focus on how stuff is constructed for that, allowing GMs who want different styles of play (diff magic systems, etc) to handle the conversion. In the end, after this rambling, I think the sourcebooks are off mark a bit. To me, the players never should need to see the genre book. It contains the details and information which is important to help build the source book, but the important stuff should be reiterated in the source book because a) there is no reason for a player to leaf thru looking at stuff which does not apply, and I really should not have to pay $40 (BBB) + $30 (SH) + $25 (TE) to think about playing TE. If you plan to play 3 different sci-fi games with entirely different implementation of the SH rules, then yes, this breakout (and money investment) makes sense. Otherwise, not so much... The SK is a incredible move in the right direction, but I think the genre book needs to get dropped from the new player's checklist and the TE book augmented properly to support that move (just from the TE perspective).

Re: 'Optimal' Travel Time Glad you like! The start of the 'days' section I believe leads with 1AU. Since I also wanted to deal with sub-AU (for items such as 10dd from a gravity well, moon trips, etc) I based all my stuff on kms. Using AUs could be cool if you ran a pure no-ftl campaign where you could afford to thrust for a very long time, though. I'll have to look in OO to see if it does that formatting; would be much easier for the time values.

Re: 'Optimal' Travel Time Planet positions should be moderately trivial for a computer in an advanced age to know, IMHO. What will become critical is if you change from your plotted path and time since you could risk missing the target completely. This makes it very important to plan rest breaks ahead of time, especially if your course makes you plot a intercepting 'chase' course (again mainly for planets where you are not following it's orbit, but cutting across to intercept) Earth is 150,000,000km from the sun, mars is 225,000,000km ( so travel is between 75,000,000km and 375,000,000km (assuming you can fly thru the sun Assuming you time the planets just right, that is still a pretty large amount of time. I do not add in any rest times (I for one, would not want to be under 3 gs for a full day. More importantly, the chart does not take into account any final angular velocity you need in order to match the speed of your target (ie: mars) or at least a minimal matched veloticy so you can get pulled into it's gravity well for a stable orbit. Mars, I think, has a velocity of something like 24km/s, so you would need to make sure your final net velocity is a close match to that. That depends all on if you are chasing the planet (travelling in the same direction as the orbit), approaching the planet (travelling in the opposite direction), or require a huge path which puts you at a steeper angle. Example: earth has a velocity of 29.82km/s, mars 24.2km/s. If you were 'chasing' mars, you will have a end velocity of 4.4 km/s. Not too harse to make up. If you were 'approacing' it , you would end with a relative velocity of 54km/s!!! Time to do some more breaking...I believe 5 hours at a constant 3G (that means the players should shoot short and then accel in the direction of the mars orbit for 5 hours, allowing mars to hit them in the ass. All of this overly simplifies stuff like the angular component of the velocity and other things which make it a tad bit easier or harder, so that is why I added the disclaimer of it being straight line physics. During this contemplation, I did see a interesting site that talked about this a bit (mainly earth/mars mission paths) at : http://www.stanford.edu/~klynn/mars_paper.htm. The big thing, in the end, is to remember that the actual distance they need to travel can be tiny or huge, depending on how sadistic the GM is about where the relative planets are and what they want the players to do to match speed. -hm

Below is a chart of what should be the optimal travel times for ships. This uses the old Traveller basis of accelerating 1/2 the distance and the decelerating the other half. This is 'straight line' physics and does not take into account having to angle for a moving planet.The formula used is SQRT( 4d/a ). I believe it is based on d = (1/2) * at^22d/a=t^2SQRT(2d/a)=tWhy then SQRT(4d/a)? There was a reason, but I cannot remember why :PI am guessing something to to with halving the '1/2' (which then becomes 4 after switching its side) but not sure. The above formula jives with a table from GURPS space though so I am happy.The initial time is in minutes, then once that gets large it is listed in hours, then once that gets large is listed in days. The table shows when it changes.Spreadsheet formula (row 'a' is Gs, column '1' is distance in km):=SQRT(4*$A2*1000/(B$1*9.86))/60Use 60 for minutes, (60*60) for hours, (60*60*24) for days, etc.Again, table is listed a wee bit down the page... Distance (km) 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 1.06 0.75 0.61 0.53 0.47 0.43 100 3.36 2.37 1.94 1.68 1.5 1.37 500 7.51 5.31 4.33 3.75 3.36 3.06 1,000 10.62 7.51 6.13 5.31 4.75 4.33 2,000 15.01 10.62 8.67 7.51 6.71 6.13 5,000 23.74 16.78 13.7 11.87 10.62 9.69 10,000 33.57 23.74 19.38 16.78 15.01 13.7 20,000 47.47 33.57 27.41 23.74 21.23 19.38 50,000 75.06 53.08 43.34 37.53 33.57 30.64 Time now hours 100,000 1.77 1.25 1.02 0.88 0.79 0.72 200,000 2.5 1.77 1.44 1.25 1.12 1.02 230,000 2.68 1.9 1.55 1.34 1.2 1.1 490,000 3.92 2.77 2.26 1.96 1.75 1.6 680,000 4.61 3.26 2.66 2.31 2.06 1.88 1,220,000 6.18 4.37 3.57 3.09 2.76 2.52 1,275,200 6.32 4.47 3.65 3.16 2.83 2.58 Time now days 150,000,000 2.86 2.02 1.65 1.43 1.28 1.17 4,990,000 0.52 0.37 0.3 0.26 0.23 0.21 5,630,000 0.55 0.39 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.23 12,030,000 0.81 0.57 0.47 0.4 0.36 0.33 14,080,000 0.87 0.62 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.36 42,000,000 1.51 1.07 0.87 0.76 0.68 0.62 49,500,000 1.64 1.16 0.95 0.82 0.73 0.67 58,500,000 1.78 1.26 1.03 0.89 0.8 0.73 58,500,000 1.78 1.26 1.03 0.89 0.8 0.73 75,000,000 2.02 1.43 1.17 1.01 0.9 0.82 108,000,000 2.42 1.71 1.4 1.21 1.08 0.99 108,000,000 2.42 1.71 1.4 1.21 1.08 0.99 150,000,000 2.86 2.02 1.65 1.43 1.28 1.17 195,000,000 3.26 2.3 1.88 1.63 1.46 1.33 225,000,000 3.5 2.47 2.02 1.75 1.56 1.43 360,000,000 4.42 3.13 2.55 2.21 1.98 1.81 420,000,000 4.78 3.38 2.76 2.39 2.14 1.95 645,000,000 5.92 4.19 3.42 2.96 2.65 2.42 780,000,000 6.51 4.6 3.76 3.26 2.91 2.66 1,350,000,000 8.57 6.06 4.95 4.28 3.83 3.5 1,425,000,000 8.8 6.22 5.08 4.4 3.94 3.59 1,425,000,000 8.8 6.22 5.08 4.4 3.94 3.59 1,650,000,000 9.47 6.7 5.47 4.73 4.23 3.87 2,850,000,000 12.45 8.8 7.19 6.22 5.57 5.08 4,500,000,000 15.64 11.06 9.03 7.82 6.99 6.38 5,850,000,000 17.83 12.61 10.29 8.92 7.97 7.28 13,650,000,000 27.24 19.26 15.72 13.62 12.18 11.12 19,500,000,000 32.55 23.02 18.79 16.28 14.56 13.29

Hi all. I have worked up a table I would like to share with all you space travellers out there. This is a table of travelled distance based on constant acceleration. Useful for determining time to 100d, etc.It should be relateively accurate (I hope! I will repost with any inaccuracies fixed), though I only used a simple 9.86 for 1G instead of plugging in a bigger number. The distances are in kilometers. The formula is the basic d=1/2 at^2. with v=at and d=vt. d becomes at^2. What this means is that after accelerating the time/g combo, you will travel twice that distance over the next period of time with no acceleration. Example: Going 2g for 1 hour yields 127,786km. If you now coast an hour, you will go another 127,786*2km. If you want to make your own in a spreadsheet, where row '1' has the Gs listed horizontally and Column 'A' has the times listed (in hours), your formula you put in B2 and copy to every cell is:=0.5*(B$1*9.86)*($A2*3600*$A2*3600)/10009.86 is of course Gs. 3600 is # seconds in an hour (since the column is listed in hours), 1000 is to convert m to km.Chart is below (but in preview stuck it waaay down for some reason).I also have a 'optimal travel' chart which is the basic "accellerate 1/2 way, decellerate the other half" Time Constant Acceleration (g) 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 segments 0.18 0.37 0.55 0.74 0.92 1.11 Full turn 0.71 1.42 2.13 2.84 3.55 4.26 1 minute 4 9 13 18 22 27 5 minutes 18 35 53 71 89 106 15 minutes 444 887 1,331 1,775 2,219 2,662 0.25 Hours 3,993 7,987 11,980 15,973 19,967 23,960 0.5 Hours 15,973 31,946 47,920 63,893 79,866 95,839 0.5 Hours 15,973 31,946 47,920 63,893 79,866 95,839 0.75 Hours 35,940 71,879 107,819 143,759 179,699 215,638 1 Hour 63,893 127,786 191,678 255,571 319,464 383,357 1.5 Hours 143,759 287,518 431,276 575,035 718,794 862,553 2 Hours 255,571 511,142 766,714 1,022,285 1,277,856 1,533,427 2.5 Hours 399,330 798,660 1,197,990 1,597,320 1,996,650 2,395,980 3 Hours 575,035 1,150,070 1,725,106 2,300,141 2,875,176 3,450,211 3.5 Hours 782,687 1,565,374 2,348,060 3,130,747 3,913,434 4,696,121 4 Hours 1,022,285 2,044,570 3,066,854 4,089,139 5,111,424 6,133,709 4.5 Hours 1,293,829 2,587,658 3,881,488 5,175,317 6,469,146 7,762,975 5 Hours 1,597,320 3,194,640 4,791,960 6,389,280 7,986,600 9,583,920 5.5 Hours 1,932,757 3,865,514 5,798,272 7,731,029 9,663,786 11,596,543 6 Hours 2,300,141 4,600,282 6,900,422 9,200,563 11,500,704 13,800,845 6.5 Houts 2,699,471 5,398,942 8,098,412 10,797,883 13,497,354 16,196,825 7 Hours 3,130,747 6,261,494 9,392,242 12,522,989 15,653,736 18,784,483

Re: Size Matters Actually, it is a bit surprising that such a larger form does not have a few CHARs which are bigger than the human form, namely STR, CON, and BODY. This is either a pretty weak dragon or a scarey strong human If there are skills that differ between forms, a character sheet can look as ugly with all the Lims, Linked, etc to exclude powers between forms as it would using 2 sheets, though using lists in HD can help keep it a bit clear. When you start linking a ton of items for 1 shape vs another, it really is time to look at MF. If they are close and you want to use a IOHID (-1/4), I would probably also use a Not IHID also as a -1/4 if it is relatively simple to shift. Better, just call it Limitation: Only In Human Form (-1/4) and Limitation: Only In Dragon Form (-1/4). I would not go much higher than -1/4, but that really depends on how easy it is to shift. For some things (like maybe OCV levels which cannot take a limitation), it will be just a rational understanfing that such an ability cannot be used in 1 form or another (ie: human form has +3 OCV with a long sword). One thing to also remember about Shape Shift; it can be pretty darn expensive if it is a convincing fascimily. If you use HD, I found the best way to represent 'carry over' skills (things common to both forms) is to plug them into a list. When you add common stuff, update the list on the main form and Copy/Paste it into the human. Easy. Overall, I would tend to go MF, though. Point spending is pretty trivial for MF. If you expect both forms to have the same effective experience value, simply tell the player that. The main form is the one which gets all the XP. Every point in the main form will give 5 in the secondary, so to keep pace, they should only use 1 out of 5 points of XP to raise the human form for equal point cost chars. The nice thing is that if over time the human form is effectively weaker than the dragon, MF is perfectly suited to represent that by simply not putting more points into the human form. MF also works well if there are different Disads between characters (succ, vun, psych, etc). As far as complexity of character sheets in game...a non issue. If the person will spend long stints in 1 form, it is moving 1 sheet to the top. My Fantasy character has 4 MF shapes in total, and it really is that simple. Character update is a very small part of the sheet

Hello, I had a question about senses and sense modifiers, namely involving modifiers coming from several areas. If I build an Enhanced Sense: Infrared, Telescopic +4 Is there any reason why I cannot also have, on the same character, a Telescopic to Sight Group +6 (thus making normal sight +6 and Infrared +10)?

In the same vein as collecting together cybernetics, I wanted to start a thread with links, examples, HD files, etc for the different Sensor powers people use in their campaigns for starships. Since some use VPPs, other use MPs, others straight powers, I was interested in just the actual power construct (so sans framework) and a short description of what it is supposed to detect to build up a robust suite for all of us. Let's start sensing!!!

Is there a table for modifiers to sensor lock? I was wondering about engine burn, distant battling, etc and how those may affect acquiring a lock.

Re: New Campaign could use some feedback A question about the lasers; is there a design feature about them which causes them to use Charges as opposed to just running off of the ship's power? Also, along the missle defense ideas posted, while I like the idea of a missle vehicle, it does start to get ugly on paper and adds to complexity. It is kinda nice from a perspective that you could make it modules to adjust the payload (if there were a wide variety of payloads), but could be overly complex. Missle Deflection vs the missle powers would be great; since they are generally very hard to hit (using rough values from the velocity based dcv design), maybe you could have the point defense lasers (built off of missle deflection) also have an Activation Roll to reflect the inherant inaccuracy against fast targets.

Re: Something Star Hero needs, but hasn't. Actually, Dauntless, I like it that the Hero System is a "Descriptive System". Given that it is a core book it needs to me IMHO as to not perform any constraints other than relative power (xd6 dmg cost this much, x PD costs this much). By not tying itself down, it acts fluidily in any environment. As far as the example of a guy wanting WS: Heavy Weapons, it is not the Hero System's place to prevent him. It is not even Star Hero's place. It is the responsibility of Terrain Empire, Star Wars, Star Trek, or whatever actual campaign book to lay out those constraints. It is only at that level where you would map the apsects of that 'reality' to the game system, defining the allowances and limitations. The Hero System is the descriptive approach, your conceptual game setting is the procedural approach and the campaign book (well I guess Sourcebook since that is what it says TE is) describes how the two meet. From this approach, I believe the big issue is the degree to which the merging of these is performed, that it is at too vauge a level. TE as it stands It is pretty much made for only using pre-packaged ships or alot of ad hoc GM decision making due to the loose joining instead of rules based on reality (is that gun to big for the ship? How much fuel can I lose if someone hits a fuel tank, how much room is taken up by the fuel, etc, how encumbering is my armor?). In addition the loose connection can lead to errors for the super reality focused (such as not being able to carry enough fuel to provide the burn identified by the ship specs), but that is a price paid for getting a book out on a schedule. They had to choose a level of coupling and they chose a rather loose level, indeed treating vehicles and such more as props. The level taken, to me, is inadequate given the genre compared even to their other books. TE is Heroic, plain and simple, but they lack things as simple as DEF and Mass for even personal equipment, things present even in the Fantasy Hero genre book (I do not have any FH campaign books to know if they have it there too). Being a heroic level, stuff like that is important. There definately seems to be a bit of a disjoint even between genre books. I do not understand why so much work was put into universe generation in the main SH book (as compared terse information on town generation for FH) then a total lack of detail about stuff PCs actually interact with in the TE book. Really, there are a fair number of universe generating designs out there already which are not coupled to any game system, as opposed to the ommited details and deck plans which are tightly tied to TE. I would rather have seen a general ship construction section in SH or a TE specific one in TE; that would have been of much greater value. Now from the TE perspective, I do believe lack of deckplans is a fault, moreso than the lack of other heroic-level friendly stuff. I use Traveller plans, alot of activity being on ship or station (why play a SciFi game just to go dungeoning?) mainly since I began my game before 5th and SH due to their availability but guess what; I am not running TE. I can't since my ships don't match up well and ships are a major component for me. This is not like swapping out hand weapons or personal equipment; I see SH being about starships and bases and such. It is TE's responsibility to define those for it's campaign but it pretty well fails to do so except at the most generic level. It definately should for a few key ships, along with bases (at least common sections) even if the size of objects is not 100% accurate (since there is no measure of size for ship components). A sourcebook is not just about the rules; it is the setting. -hm

Re: Something Star Hero needs, but hasn't-PT2 It is an understandable stance for the detail level of maps and physical characteristics of ships to not be spelled out. As unliked as it is, it comes down to being a company decision, time vs chargable price I would rekon. It has been a while, but I do not think Star Wars or other systems provided detailed design and floorplans for all their ships; many of us are spoiled by the abundance of Traveller material which has bee around a wee bit longer than SH. Don't get me wrong; I think that TE should have a planned book on Starships which provides this level of detail (much like Gurps: Starships or the myrid of Traveller ship design supplements) but perhaps if there is no plan for HG to publish such a book, it would be in the interest of those interested to do it ourselves. For us ship geeks, there are many other books which can help understand what exactly needs to be quantified and made into formulas for TE starships. Some fancy playing with apps like CC2 Cosmo then could be planned, and we could generate our own complete TE: Starships book. I personally have geared my game around a Traveller type environment because a) I started way before SH and TE and the abundance and detail of ships in Traveller. Most all the invested work, if done right, could be used for other people's campaigns which are not TE oriented, I believe. I think such a thing could help bolster the support of TE in general, and as long as there are no realistic plans for HG to make such a book, really no conflict of interests. -Heroman

I was wondering, how would one build a low berth/medical cryo type tube? I was thinking either a very large LS: Usable Against Others (since you could do it to unwilling people in a non-helpful manner), or a Major transform (Life Form to Popcicle)...

Well, more of a 'official stance for writer's guideline' than anything.... I have tried asking this a couple of times on the HD2 forum without any luck other than the understanding that HD2 will comply with what the writer's guideline says, so right ot the source! What is the offical stance on the Size characteristics Notes when Size level are purchased as powers? Should the "Notes" reflect the total size (like every other characterist seems to do) or only give info on the base value? The issue I have seen is that in HD2 when I create a vehicle with Size levels purchased as powers, added to primary, the final value is indicated properly however the notes associated with the Size only reflect the amount purchased on the characteristic screen (so sans the additional levels puchased as a power). The result is display, on screen and preview, which have notes that do not even match the total value listed. This is unlike any other Characteristic which has notes updated to accurately reflect characteristics bought as powers. From the discussion tried on the HD2 forum, by belief is this appears to not be considered a bug as much as ambiguity In the Writer's Guidelines, the main reference to notes in the characteristics block says merely '“Notes†lists useful information related to certain Characteristics'. Should the notes here reflect the totals for the characteristic, especially if the power was told to add to the primary value? -Heroman

Re: Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence I have seen the movie twice now Lucky timing with me having to go to the DC area. The genre has a great potential for gaming, though the GM best be prepared to make a strong psychological set of plots to keep the atmosphere (plus the PCs ready to roleplay such things) or else it is basically just a futuristic CSI... -Heroman

Re: On SIZE and blueprints Overall I would assume that the SIZE's # hexes is the area within the vehicle, regardless of era. The campaign concept, however, may dictate that the components of the vehicle take up interior space, the exact amount of which is probably all determined by the campaign and how micronized components are. That is the only way I could see things like Tech level handled. It is unfortunant that, being generic rules, they are so vauge, though. I guess that the average size of components and how much space general infrastructure of a ship takes up should be more covered in campaign books. -Heroman

Re: On SIZE and blueprints Traveller always had kickass deck plans (even if they are the wrong scale). I would love to add any help to that. Time to dig out the books!!! -Heroman

Re: On SIZE and blueprints I was thinking it would be the overall size. I was hoping to make something like how Traveller handles ship construction and assign a space usage for each item (some things scaling depending on ship size). I was curious because the only floorplan tied to a Hero designed seemed smaller than the required SIZE...

I was wondering, how closely do people adhere to the SIZE's area and actual layout of a ship? My two interestes were when trying to lay out designs for ships posted and also for when trying to convert existing maps (like Traveller) into Hero rules. -Heroman