Jump to content

Lee

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lee

  • Rank
    Skilled Normal
  • Birthday 03/18/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, United States
  • Interests
    Gaming, Art, Writing, Theoretical Physics, Cosmology, Advanced Mathematics (Group Theory mainly), Science in general, Software Engineering
  • Biography
    I have been interested in Role Playing Games since I was first introduced to them in 1977 at the ripe old age of twelve. I started with the original boxed set of D&D + Chainmail and Traveller. In the early eighties (1981 I think) the gaming group I was in discovered Champions. I continued to play until the late eighties or early nineties. Then, real life reared its ugly head. As my friends and I grew older and up, we no longer had as much time to devote to gaming and all of the friends that I gamed with eventually moved away. So, I dropped out of role playing for many years. My interest was renewed when I discovered MMORPGs and specifically Star Wars: The Old Republic. I thought it would make a great setting and wanted to use Champions. I rediscovered Champions, or actually the HERO System, and along with my interest in writing, my love for RPG's (HERO System especially) was rekindled.
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

391 profile views
  1. So, it's the locus of local locusts?
  2. Nope. They just explode once they reach a certain age.
  3. It seems to me that, since canon is already established "fact" in the universe, as long as Luke Skywalker still destroys the Death Star 1 and Pickard is still the arbiter of succession for Gowron, that Wookies are not featherless, flightless birds on the plains planet Goobldorf and Vulcans aren't short, little blue elephants that get angry at the drop of a hat, canon hasn't been broken. However, that's as far as it goes. Because, once the game begins, by definition, cannon will always be changing because the actions of the players and the story the GM is trying to tell are going to be different from any canonical source. The only other case I see is that the GM is running a scenario that _is_ a canonical story and the players are doing _exactly_ the same things the characters did in the original source material. If that's the case, they might as well be reading a book. So, I think that anytime players and GM's try to play in an established universe, such as Star Wars or Star Trek, they will necessarily be breaking canon. Perhaps not what has already occurred, but certainly what is and what will be. If someone doesn't want to do that, they shouldn't play in an established universe. Just my $0.00 (it's not even worth $0.02) Lee
  4. This. But as an additional alternative, how about making all the mundane documents free (as already stated) but offering a complication (a small one) for those who don't? You can save points by not taking the "freebies" but you are likely to "pay" for it during your adventures.
  5. Agreed, LL. Given that it takes a 2/3 majority to convict (which is never going to happen) the only hope I have is for just a handful of Republicans to vote to convict so that just more than half of the Senate votes to convict. It won't remove him from office but it will send a message that a majority of people think he's guilty.
  6. Wait, what? 0.o I believe massey is referring to the APG 1 p 83 "Change Environment: Stunning". But note that it is a "stop sign" power.
  7. As is the argument for roll high when the system is designed roll low.
  8. In Fantasy Hero 6e (not FH Complete, though), on page 148 under "Fantasy Hero Powers": Maybe that's what you're thinking of (or maybe it will help anyway)?
  9. I'm like Duke in that I've never seen what the problem is. There seems to be angst about something that is simply a matter of perspective. To me, what it boils down to is this: Which is more important: what you roll or what you need to roll? If it is what you roll, then a roll high system makes sense. However if it is what you need to roll, then roll low is what you want. They are simply two sides of the same coin. In my opinion (which is worth exactly what you paid for it, nothing), roll low makes more sense. For one, I view what I need to roll (even though it may be calculated on the fly) to be a characteristic of my character. High STR is better than low STR; High DEX is better than low DEX; High OCV is better than low OCV; High to hit roll is better than a low to hit roll. The dice are simply a random number generator and its results are strictly to be used to interpret the roll needed to hit. Nothing more. Additionally, it meshes better for me from a probability stand point. If I have a 73 percent chance of success and am rolling percentile dice it is more intuitive to me to think "I need to roll a 73 or less" than to think "I need to roll greater than 27". But, that again comes back to an emphasis on what is needed to be rolled rather than what was rolled. Your mileage will most certainly vary. Lee P.S. I really like the golf analogy. I don't play golf, so I would never have thought of using it. But, a lot of people do play it and could help them see things from the proper perspective in a roll low game. Thanks for the idea!
  10. I feel like I'm wading through a field of strawmen. Actually, since it was a chocolate factory they are less likely to be strawmen than oompa-loompas.
  11. Agreed. In a FH context, I'd make weapons that did more damage heavier (or more unwieldy), requiring more STR to wield without a penalty and not allow STR to add to the HKA damage at all. So the "advantage" of a high strength is being able to use weapons that do more damage rather than adding to damage.
  12. My take on it is, if you look at the Talent builds in 6E1, specifically for Danger Sense, you'll see a limitation "Only if Character Makes Half Roll (-1)". So, I'd use the same value. Lee
  13. You're singing to the choir, my friend. I don't think it does, either. I don't think it _can_, and for the most part, I don't think it _should_! I agree with Duke and dsatow here. The quotes are for emphasis. Anytime you are creating a simulation (or model if you prefer), you must make some simplifying assumptions. If you could recreate reality without making some simplifying assumptions, you wouldn't be creating a simulation/model--you'd be creating...well...reality. The trick is to find out what you can simplify (or take out) and still create an accurate enough simulation. It reminds me of the old physics joke where a farmer goes to his physicist friend and asks them if they can find a solution so that his cows give more milk. The physicist goes away for a couple of days and comes back saying that they have a solution, but it only works for spherical cows in a vacuum. While the gist of the joke is that cows aren't spherical or live in a vacuum, the reality (pardon the pun) is that, if the shape of the cow and its respiration isn't important to how much milk it gives, then the model could be valid. (I realize a cow that can't breathe, like one in a vacuum, isn't likely to give milk, but if the breathing doesn't contribute to how much milk it produces (only keeping it alive), breathing can be removed from the model and being in a vacuum doesn't matter (in this case).) So, it seems to me that the crux of the problem is what simplifying assumptions you can or need to make regarding darkness and light and whether or not the model it produces is good enough for what you're trying to model. It's not likely we will ever find the perfect solution--just one that's good enough for an individual GM or their table. Lee
×
×
  • Create New...