Jump to content

Robyn

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    2,750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Robyn

  1. Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... You can probably get the files there more quickly from The House Of Games; when you get bored with that, you can all play against each other over the internet with one of the sequels
  2. Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... Reversing your perspective on things so you can see matters from two sides? __________________ Or perhaps you harbor a "secret" desire to go both ways . . . ?
  3. Re: Cthulhu-esque suggestions?
  4. Re: Big Blue in control: WWYD It doesn't concern Kaja at any point during all this, unless he receives orders to the contrary. He'll probably go along with whatever the team wants.
  5. Re: Nitro Injection System For Motorcycles Can't rely on it to consistently deliver an exact level of speed? If not for that I'd think Boostable charges.
  6. Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... It may become clear when a few more Digital HERO articles are published.
  7. Re: Am I being an abhorrent munchkin? Extra skill levels, Limited to only apply to the Knowledge and Language skills from Ancient Greece?
  8. Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... Deja vu . . . I knew I'd seen this before: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1004206#post1004206
  9. Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group...
  10. Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... I didn't read about any agreement. If the GM assumed that everyone would obey, but didn't follow up on it, IMO he deserves to have his secret be known.
  11. Re: Indirect discussion Those who were already part of the group, would not have to re-justify their position. It is the independents, loners, and freelance agents who, looking to join a group, would pick one of their own power level (or, failing that, the group might decide to reject new applicants, based on not wanting to be overshadowed by their new sidekicks). Of course, if the other players are comfortable with the idea, and their characters are too, the GM can consider whether this satisfies any other elements in their personal meta-system. This isn't about characters, actually; as I said, part is to characters. But part is to players. The players were involved with the game; their (character's) rewards, and consequences, are justified. True, and as I said, HERO could use more flexibility in that respect.
  12. Re: Point-Counterpoint Glad we could entertain! I suspect that I'm the one with a sense of humor, unless Hugh has been slyly interjecting wry comments into the exchange all along and I merely missed them, in which case I'm the one with no sense of humor
  13. Re: Indirect discussion Do not misunderstand; the "later date" referred to in my latest post was not at all having to do with this idea; the proposal we have spent most of this thread discussing was only an offshoot, a tangent, a spinoff, a side thought, related to the idea that has been under development for a much longer time. For a few posts I thought this idea was going to let me introduce that one, but the posts merely touched on some related reasoning for a while before drifting away again. Not to worry, I can still post a new thread for it as originally planned. One might criticize the current system for this. But the example of gravity (another effect which does apply globally but is not paid for by each person its effects apply to, though many individuals are affected to a greater or lesser degree than the average), has already highlighted these contradictions enough. Fair enough. I have addressed the realism above. Is there any need to commit yourself to a statement that I believe the game can be "improved under my care"? It indicates a compulsion to believe the worst of others, whereas a question would be more more peaceful and indicative merely of an uncertainty. It does bring up the Limitation's value as -1/4 in the context of "a campaign involving frequent adventures in outer space".
  14. Re: Indirect discussion Provided they can satisfy SFX prerequisites (i.e., more than just "I want to have this power."), this is possible. I should point out here that, under the system I propose, Player A might not have been permitted to take such a Limitation, precisely because that effect could already have been enforced by the external power. But, if it were taken as a Limitation, is the Modifier worth a different value because the extreme magnetic field is more common, or is the CE power more expensive because its beneficial effects stand to be greater than the points being paid for it? The same question arises in the current system.
  15. Re: Indirect discussion What, it may undergo collapse and become a black hole? Hrm . . . so, if enough is done by you (and thus was your fault), a black hole opens up nearby and swallows you in? Automatic punishment for an excess of sins. I like it
  16. Re: Indirect discussion Agreed. Some has already been sacrificed; you, and others, are comfortable with that amount. I seek to provide an alternative, for we who are not as comfortable with it. The more play styles HERO supports, the better claim it can lay to being a "toolkit". Genre is one area of flexibility, but play style is another. HERO is flexible to genre, but not so much for style of play, and could use some improvements in that area; You may recall the lack of a "What is roleplaying?" section in the core books, as if presuming that HERO players will only be those who are moving into the system with prior experience from other games. This may restrict the attractiveness to new players, in that - how many will want to look for a new system if they have already become accustomed to, and are satisfied with, the first system they encountered? HERO can be more customizable. Here the consultation is again of "common sense"; what is the character's background? Did they train with laser weapons because these were the best weapons available, or because their beloved father (whose death they are training to avenge) passed it on as a legacy weapon, and they want to kill their father's murderer with it? During character creation, the former can be handwaved (just change the word "laser" to "Radon" on the character sheet). If this change (advance in technology) occurs after character generation, however, it is one of the aforementioned "impacts on the world". Many other characters will be affected by the change, having trained with lasers as well, and a few hardcore Radon hold-outs will be rejoicing at the new advances in technology which turned the tables and made them (their skill) more valuable to employers. Yes, that's the one. Trust me . . . you really don't want to know I'm not sure you understand here. I wasn't referring to an approach that would be made by players; I was referring to a deeper truth about anyone designing a game system that models reality. Reality is, by nature, "not fair". Therefore, to the extent that the baseline is "realistic", it is not balanced (and, I would argue, cannot be balanced). I don't understand what you mean by "depart" here. Of course, my own vocabulary so far has been less than elegant
  17. Re: I'm being punished for using too many smileys! A few more thoughts; 1) There is a HUGE problem with campaign crossover. But campaign crossovers suffer from a host of other problems, enough to populate several threads, so I won't even open that can of worms here. 2) I could make IPE vastly more complicated than it is right now. Obviously, this is not what I was looking for 3) I stated earlier my insight that modelling reality inherently creates a biased model; life isn't fair. Thus, my speculation that balance was an attempt to correct some of the imbalance inherent to the system, by trying to line up point balance correctional measures with those changes which would bring the game more in line with the ideal reality while further away from the baseline. Apparently, core HERO has not statted out every effect of the physical laws covered in its default baseline. Theory: this is for game balance. Only the effects which were completely balanced, were made automatic. Hypothesis: the "automatic" abilities were those which HERO valued at less than +0.25/-0.25? Flaw: valuation might not have occurred until after a baseline was established. Perhaps the measurement was what those designers felt comfortable with handwaving? So, base group: a pool of various SFX where the effects they have are deemed to be balanced at one or more levels among the range (+1/2, -3/4, etcetera). Universality can be just as important as drawbacks; sometimes, the ability for an effect to be used against the heroes is just as balancing as an effect that directly works against them. This leaves us with three factors in the formula; frequency, effectiveness, and applicability. Pick a level; every SFX with effects that are balanced at that level may (must?) become part of the new baseline. All the others, do not. (The level chosen may be seen as reflective of what level of "handwaving" the GM is comfortable with.) When modelling a new setting that has major differences in how "common" various SFX are, those SFX may enter or leave the baseline. (A caution against doing this for settings that vary within the same campaign; place this under the frequency variable for the entire campaign unless the GM has no control over which setting the PC's will be in at any time.) No comment is made on the balance of such migration at this time, only a note made that SFX can wander across the border based on their frequency per setting. If point-bought powers are recalculated to maintain their expected functionality, this should not happen partway through the migration process - this is so that the total points "lost" and "gained" can be compared to each other before any partial tallies (or balancing decisions based upon them) are made. The entire concept may be better received if it is promoted primarily as a genre tool. Game balance should not take priority over the group's ability to enjoy the game. The first question should not be "Were the PC's balanced?" but "Did anyone care?". If one of them is a powergamer, and another is keyes_bill's barbeque chef, but they all manage to have fun because these power levels are appropriate for their character concepts, is the game really going to be improved by forcing some 3rd-party idea of "game balance" upon them? If point totals vary wildly, but everyone has a single area in which their skills and/or abilities are needed (but not possessed by anyone else in) the party, each has their "moment to shine"; for purposes of that one unique function which only they can perform, they are the best. The purpose of the game should be taken into account. If the purpose of the game is to have an advanced wargame with game balance, then points are vital. If the purpose is to enjoy roleplaying in a genre setting, the "ideal reality" being modelled should reflect these values rather than the typical realism. Heroic genres can offer conditional bonuses that reward heroic actions; worlds where this sort of thing occurs (regularly) can be generated by realities where this sort of thing is assisted. Maybe even where this sort of thing is encouraged - what are XP points but a way to gradually change even one's own power? They're like a Transform, Set Effect (1 point's worth of change, anything may be added/improved). Roleplaying bonuses (in-game or XP), "entertain the other players" bonuses, "acting in genre" bonuses; any and all of these can be modelled with the system I have proposed. Using this group instead of "physics" (or perhaps "rubber physics" instead of "physics"), characters can move from genre to genre (campaign-wise) without worrying about whether their capabilities will be unsuitable for their new home!
  18. Re: I'm being punished for using too many smileys! Agreed, in all respects. This is crucial to achieving balance with my proposal: the effect is a part of the universe, not a part of either character, thus it automatically applies to every character. Relative, not absolute. No contradictions here Assuming that we're speaking about the change that I proposed; if I'm the GM, no, but were I one of the players, yes. Already done. I have a habit of handwaving (i.e., raising no objections) to my character's own detriment when I think it will make for better roleplaying, so no offense meant to McCoy Next three sections: left in for posterity, but I just realized what you were saying. Please read the edited text immediately following those three sections. You're counting powers, though. Their SFX are part of those powers. Their SFX aren't what causes the freebie. The freebie is granted by an interaction with a 3rd power.
  19. Re: I'm being punished for using too many smileys! Agreed, and there would have to be at least some sort of understanding (even if not exactly the one used when designing HERO) of the underlying mechanics before work on those rules could be anything more than theoretical.
  20. I'm being punished for using too many smileys! Hrm . . . true. It is a distinction that should be made. There are different "definitions" (I would call them "items") within "common sense", and agreeing on most of them would not be the same as agreeing on all of them. Could go with majority vote, and established precedence. Players can (theoretically) team up for game advantage and outvote the GM, but the rule still requires that the risks be just as great either way. This gets into an area I haven't addressed yet: whether a rare but deadly drawback is equivalent to a common but minor advantage. In other words, is the formula frequency alone, or frequency multiplied by effectiveness? We'll probably go back after this to saying that it isn't, but I'm not sure that's absolutely necessary; see immediately below: Necessary. The word "you" can be either singular or plural; given sections like my suspicion is that you still do not understand the meaning I intended to convey: Read that again. Carefully. Do you see me calling my insights "fabulous"? When you tell me to "go ahead and playtest it", you seem to be missing the part where other people playtest as well. No single group's insights can be fabulous, in context of the larger number of groups testing it. That's one of the best reasons why developers, when working on a game, ask other people to playtest it: because they don't want something that works just for them. I did not say "disagreeable" - I said "arbitrary". You obviously have no problem with accepting HERO's default baseline. You are advocating one position on principle while failing to uphold it in practice. Some of your disciples follow faithfully in your footsteps while others try to honor your teachings by "improving" on them None of which makes it any less arbitrary Understand that this example: was only meant to show how one could readily identify whether their group had "common sense" or not. I did not suggest that this example justified the granting of free Armor Piercing, or any other Advantage (indeed it has nothing to do with cost: it is only about common sense). This avoids, rather than addresses, the question. . . . question? I replied to: I'm not seeing the question in that The two are not mutually exclusive, however. (Your approach might exclude mine - but mine does not exclude yours ) I saw that thread. Interestingly, several of my examples were drawn directly from memories of the responses by . . . oh, wait. Never mind. That was you I have a thread bookmarked somewhere that, some day, I plan to go back to and Rep every single post of ghost-angel's and Killer Shrike's in, just for conceding points they had opposed when those points were raised in theory. It's interesting how people will often oppose some ideas on principle, but implement them without batting an eye when it's in the course of their usual activities. Someday. Provided the two of them can stop doing other things that I must Rep About that thread, though - it doesn't really seem to be focusing on play style. It's about game balance. The only way (and this is a very minor way, IMO) it relates to play style is "how do we treat game balance in our respective campaigns". It's interesting that you conflate these two, in light of your previous interpretation of "game rules" when I asked you to stop bringing "play style" assumptions into this. Play style, to my mind, exists independently of system: it's about issues like "how much the players will know before they join the game", which neither requires nor even implies "game balance", and "whether the players will focus on roleplaying or combat efficiency" (not to mention whether they have any sort of "right" to be provided with everything that might help them design their character for maximum combat efficiency). Thus, if we are to know the manner in which they were constructed, we must either A) ask, or figure it out for ourselves. This is true for HERO's default baseline, and any other. Comparing them on an unequal basis can only be properly (fairly) assessed by the factors that existed prior to playtesting.
×
×
  • Create New...