Robyn

Re: Need Clarification: Extra-Dimensional Movement

For "passes through intervening space" with Teleport; it would be interesting to have a character with "Special Effect: 'afterimage' between origin and destination points". Everyone would think he was a Speedster and keep on trying to stop him by putting walls and stuff in the way

Re: Need Clarification: Extra-Dimensional Movement

I ressurected this thread' date=' and asked the question of Mr. Long[/quote']

 

Okay, here we go. This looks like the right thread.

 

I originally, upon reading the question that Mr. Long responded to, sent Lucius a PM saying:

 

Pick a spot that is, say, 3 times her normal teleport distance, and teleport there, but she doesn't arrive for 3 phases.

Wouldn't it be possible to do this by Linking it to an Extradimensional Movement: Time?

 

The second could then be done through a Limitation on the Time movement "Cannot be more or less than 1 phase per (full teleport distance)."

 

I don't think it would be possible to teleport such a high distance for the lack of aging from moving through time in an unusual way would matter in the campaign. Or maybe the aging could just be called a side effect; "the extra push drains her energy", or something.

 

I then asked Lucius if I had the right idea of what he meant, and he articulated it again, thusly:

 

What I'm interested in is a teleport that does not have to "materialize" each phase. So that he can only move up to his full move in each phase' date=' but can teleport to, say, 3 times that distance by taking 3 phases, without having to "blink" in and out - just as a character with flight does not have to land at the end of each turn.[/quote']

 

This was my response:

 

There's an essential difference that I see between Flight and Teleport: with flying' date=' you pass over the area beneath you, and can see it. If you teleport to the other side of a truck, you don't "pass through the intervening space", so you don't get to see what's inside the truck. That said, it doesn't make sense to "not materialize" at each destination point, because you're not going to be doing anything about it based on what happens in the outside world; you have to choose in advance how many times you will continue to hop, because you can't react to the changes in your (normal dimension) environment. If you don't have too much Endurance and the Teleport isn't bought down to zero END, you shouldn't be able to Teleport too many times anyway without running out of energy, and you should be able to just buy several range extensions of your Teleport with the Limitation "causes proportionate move forward in Time as well".[/quote']

 

And then Lucius suggested that the idea be put in public so people could chew it over. That's where we are.

I used to think Naruto would be one, but from similar accounts I've been reading on the forums (about using TK and sometimes Clairvoyance instead of a really massive Summon), his Kagebunshin would be easily manageable.

I'm currently pondering whether it would be possible to use Duplication within a Multiform, and have one be the superpowered (normal) PC whereas the others are five inert Foci that can nonetheless perceive events happening around them . . . yes, I'm trying to stat Captain Planet

Re: How to get ideas across (GM's)

I was recently asked by one of my players to help in the construction of a hero for someone else's game. I like the player for the most part but I' date=' generally, have trouble with her when it comes down to character creation. I feel that she has very vague ideas about what she could do and I have a hard time trying to get her to nail down what the character is about.[/quote']

 

Ask her for some "moment of triumph" fiction. A writeup of what sort of situation would be, for her, the perfect gaming moment.

Re: Heat of the Moment

[continuation of previous post]

I think that, by your sigline, what I'm after could be placed in the Levels of RPG Development as "Game Rules: The specific and variable application of Mechanics that define the play of the game.", so it may help to think of this as a "game rule" instead of a "mechanic".

[/continuation of previous post]

You appear to be saying that in certain situations' date=' accuracy means players simulating behaviors and thoughts that are "random" and unchosen.[/quote']

 

Accuracy is actually quite simple. Whenever you perceive, through simulation, the behaviors and thoughts of someone you know, it may become desirable to manually control the simulation so that those behaviors and thoughts are different from what you know they "would" be. This is the mechanism by which many fantasies take place; you know that the guy from the office would never give you the time of day, but you can - for the purpose of your daydreams - entertain the simulation where he looks at you with his smoldering eyes and offers to give you a backrub. You are, however, causing the simulation (your perception of him) to differ from the original. When such differences occur, they are inaccurate.

 

But you never really "know" someone else; your perceptions do not tap directly into their minds or hearts. You just have information about them, however that information may have been acquired, and the "original" is the immutable data; every extrapolation we make from the original data takes place in our "simulations", and our success at "accuracy" can be seen by how few contradictions there are between the "original" and the "simulation".

 

(Maybe I'm wrong on that' date=' but that actually doesn't matter for this argument.)[/quote']

 

That seems to be one of the main factors preventing us from reaching an understanding.

 

Take, for example, the "approach from reality" concept I've been trying to explain to you. You basically admit that you don't see how it is at all relevant, so you're going to ignore it. I, on the other hand, am saying that I include it precisely because it is relevant. Now, let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it is relevant. If you accepted this, and listened to what I was saying, there might not be any argument, you see what I'm sayin'?

 

It's basically impossible to introduce any new data to a discussion if one side refuses to consider its relevance. Nor can you even make a proper rebuttal to the idea of it being relevant until you've followed the idea through to the conclusions I've based upon it, and it saddens me that you're not even trying to behave as if I might have something new to offer you from this discussion.

 

If the above is true' date=' and you and I both state we like "accuracy" they your expectation is that I will comply with your concept of random, unchosen behavior out of player control. But what if that doesn't fit my idea of accuracy? What if I think that is the biggest load of hogwash, and doesn't mirror reality at all? In fact, it is inaccurate as hell![/quote']

 

We'll never get anywhere with this if you don't accept the approach from reality as a valid avenue of exploration. I can say, for instance, that player control is an unprovable argument here (akin to the existence of God) because we cannot investigate the degree of correlation between our own thoughts/feelings and the perceptions of such by some extradimensional entities that are our "players". But you won't be able to perceive, understand, or agree with the comparison until you start looking at the parallels between my "approach from reality" and your "traditional roleplaying". Until that happens, you will continue to think that I am describing some concept of "players" that can only be related to "roleplaying" as you understand it, in the context of "gaming", and therefore impossible to exist in reality because we have no "players".

Re: Heat of the Moment

This is standard play procedure right now (as far as I can tell) without any special mechanics or anything. Player is reminded, "Hey... you have a Code vs. Killing" and responds with "Ok, you are right... " or "Nope... not today... this has gone too far..." and there is discussion. In some cases the player can truly see either one being the option, so then the dice are rolled. The player is willingly giving up control for dice because either decision is "accurate" and plausible and everyone is willing to play out how the dice dictate.

 

SOP as far as I'm concerned... so why the need for some new mechanic at all?

I'm not a HERO system expert here - that's why I'm asking for help. In the old system (the one I'd be using if my players would stop moving out of town), it would be a new mechanic. I'm looking at converting to the HERO system, though. So now I need to be asking "How do we do this in HERO?".

If we can already do it, great. I just want to make sure that the elements of the campaign which are, to me, the most important, can be replicated in HERO before I go ahead with a full conversion.

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

I got it now. These were the parts that were confusing me:

It's an on/off switch. Even 1 point of RD will allow ALL of your PD to be used to resist stun.

In other words, RD and PD are different things - presumably, Resistant (Physical) Defense and Physical (normal) Defense.

If you have rPD' date=' you may use your PD to help stop the STUN of a Killing Attack. If you have no rPD than all STUN and BODY Damage from a Killing Attack effects you.[/quote']

 

The first sentence describes only Stun, but the second implies that not only Stun but Body damage does not fully affect you if you do have any rPD. There was no sentence specifically for Body damage with no rPD, so it still looked confusing.

Re: Making things too complicated

In my experience' date=' players feel much more effective if they get to roll dice for an effect. Thus, if a player with a cleric wants to turn undead, I'm going to come up with an effect that allows him to roll dice for it.[/quote']

 

Once you get to the point of a player rolling dice for it, doesn't that become a mechanic?

 

Or is it that you already have several mechanics that could do the job, and you're looking for the SFX to describe it?

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

Actually what I'm saying is that the rules' date=' the mechanics of the Hero System, state that PD doesn't count unless you have some form of resistant defense. Ghost-Angel's post following your's is 100% correct.[/quote']

 

So, then, if I have 1 point of resistant Physical Defense, and 15 points of normal Physical Defense, and someone hits me with a Killing Attack doing 20 points of Body, will I take only 4 Body?

Re: Heat of the Moment

The wheels on the Palindromedary go 'round and 'round... hi Lucius.

It has wheels?

I've checked Lucius' public profile for links, and gone back as far as the forum Search will let me looking for his earliest posts, but I still can't figure out what the Palindromedary is.

Also' date=' on being die-rolled into shooting civilians. I could reasonably create a gun-bunny who's been chasing Mr. Mean over the last 17 sessions, and finally spot Mr. Mean in a crowded street. Because he came looking for me. We RP. He bails. I reflexively pull my pistol... and hold my fire.[/quote']

 

This is the point at which the GM, and the other players, might start protesting. But, in the end, they're just giving advice and feedback; the ultimate decision is up to you. If, however, their advice sounds good to you but doesn't thoroughly persuade you against such a course of action, you then aren't convinced one way or another. At that stage the mechanic becomes an option, because your character is in a conflicted situation where multiple factors are pushing and/or pulling her in more than one direction.

 

"AH!" Says the Matrix. "You hold your fire THIS TIME' date=' but before I've seen you fire into a crowd. And this guy brutally murdered your boyfriend." We'll have a homosexual gun-bunny for variety. "I want you to roll to see if you can, in fact, keep from taking shots at your fleeing adversary. Failure means you do fire into the crowd."[/quote']

 

Think of the mechanic like food. Unless your character has Life Support, they need to eat every once in a while, preferably something like two or three times a day, but less frequently will also keep him alive. If he goes too long without eating, his stomach might unexpectedly growl at him, but it's not going to force him to suddenly leap upon the surrounding civilians and tear chunks of raw flesh from their bodies, cramming them into his mouth. (Unless that's how he feeds. Which might explain why he was forcing himself to go hungry for so long. But, if he had less esoteric dietary requirements, he should still be eating occasionally.)

 

(Or if he was a disfigured mutant who couldn't go out in public to get a job, and had a terrifically strong Code Against Stealing, food or money with which to buy it, then he might be starving to death, too. But that's less likely to end up in attacking innocent civilians, and in most cases, it works, so I'm going to stop coming up with exceptions to my own example . . . well, at least, I'll stop typing them )

 

My point is, the dice are only consulted when the player elects to take that option. In other words, the player chooses to roll the dice; the dice don't roll themselves (whenever they feel like it) and tell the player what to do, the player rolls the dice and listens to them.

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

But since STUN is usually inflicted at a rate of about 3 times BOD' date=' that doesn't help much.[/quote']

 

To clarify Lucius' answer, which implies that (Body x3 = Stun) "usually", this is actually an "average"; for normal attacks, each 1d6 has 6 possible results:

 

1 - doing 0 Body and 1 Stun

2 - doing 1 Body and 2 Stun

3 - doing 1 Body and 3 Stun

4 - doing 1 Body and 4 Stun

5 - doing 1 Body and 5 Stun

6 - doing 2 Body and 6 Stun

 

The killing attacks will do the Body rolled on the dice; a second d6 is then rolled for the total of the killing attack, and this total is multiplied by (dieroll minus 1, minimum 1) to calculate the Stun.

 

So, over the long run or with a lot of dice, your attacks will be doing 3.5 or 3 points of Stun per point of Body, and between both types of attack, this approaches closer to 3.25, or just 3.

 

Duplicating Palindromedary

 

Does this mean we'll get extra commentary at the end?

 

__________________

Robyn notices that the 1 on normal attacks contradicts ghost-angel's

"All Damage does STUN and BODY (unless it has Limitations that state otherwise)."

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group...

This is actually a very very old quote, but I'm putting it here because I want to change my sigline now.

[new GM]: " . . . and your character is unconscious, so he can't do anything but try to wake up. It's post-phase 12, what's your REC?"

[new player]: "Fifty."

*stunned silence from around the table*

[old GM]: "He's harder to kill than a damned cockroach."

Re: WWYCD: Flipside

I thought that might be the case in many (most?) situations ' date=' but it still doesn't change the fact that, after Flipside is dead, your character is walking around with his/her pscyh lims reversed. [/quote']

 

Wait. Is this permanent or just a recovery time moved down several slots on the Time Chart?

Re: Heat of the Moment

Woah! Did I blink? It's like I nodded off and woke up in a Kevin Smith film...

I keep on telling people that Kevin Smith is dead, but then they get all mad and yell at me

Okay' date=' I've only skimmed everything past post 45 or so, is it worth catching up at this point or whould I move along to another thread?[/quote']

 

There have been a few misunderstandings along the way but we've got most of those cleared up now. If you're trying to understand what's going on then Thia's posts express the disagreement with such a mechanic well, while Zeropoint's are a concise reformulation of the idea behind it. (Well, one of the more influential ideas behind it, anyway.) If you were hoping to figure out where the debate stands at this point, the only misunderstandings still not resolved are between me and RDU Neil, to my knowledge; I may not stand with everyone else when it comes to whether or not to use such a mechanic, but we agree that our choices are a matter of personal taste.

 

To clear something else up (that may not have been apparent), I can and have played without such a mechanic. It's just that, when designing my own settings, I have the chance to give it everything that meshes with my vision of the ideal game, even to adding mechanics that complement the theme of the campaign. The players I've garnered interest from are fascinated by the weird things I've added, so far, and want to see how they turn out, and I'm inclined to give them as much of it as I can. I'm just not going to stop coming up with more ideas because the play group might have to drop a rule or two we can't all agree on before playing. If that needs to happen it will, but in the meantime I'll make sure there are so many odd ideas that they can all have plenty of fun. If the type of player that Thia described in "Mike", being of the inclination towards lengthy philosophical musings, can have "fun" in the traditional sense.

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

Ok' date=' so it takes some form of armor to make your PD work against stun damage done by lethal damage.[/quote']

 

I think what gojira is saying is that a single point of Armor is enough to distribute the shock of an impact across your entire body (Armor is an outside layer, PD is your natural layer, Resistant PD is Steelskin).

 

Now' date=' if the boxer's resistance to stun was based on physical training and conditioning, resulting in a higher BOD, would that effect his chance of being stunned by lethal damage?[/quote']

 

The nice thing about HERO is that it doesn't have twenty different powers for every effect. It just cares about the underlying game effect, and you can put whatever "SFX" (or "Special Effects") on that power to explain why you have it.

 

The not-so-nice thing about HERO is that it doesn't have twenty different powers for every effect. If you want to create an effect that is slightly different in the game, the SFX will not point you to the proper combination of factors, you have to pick your own levels of extra Body, Stun, PD, etcetera, and it is entirely possible that your "Combat Reflexes" will end being stronger than another character's "Toughened Body" but weaker than a third character's "Toughened Body". In other words, different people can take the same SFX on their powers, but might have vastly different levels of strength, and in some cases, even choose entirely different powers to reflect the Special Effect.

 

And, yes, I fumbled my Spelling roll too.

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

Now' date=' as to what I've gleaned from my example and the replies to it, I see it as like this:[/quote']

 

I think you've got it.

 

:forbears the usual self-disparaging comments about fumbling a Methematics rolls:

Re: Size Powers Question

Well' date=' if you just buy them with the limitation like: "Really Big" or "Really Small" the question doesn't arise in the first place. As for the spell, it's just a specific counterspell.[/quote']

 

I think the question is what the "background story justification" was supposed to be on such a spell. I mean, that's a very limited scope; can you think of why some wizard would research such a specific spell? What would it be used for, or against? Unless, of course, the "more restrictions make the spell cost less to use" mechanic is known in-character, in which case the wizard wants to make it as narrow in application as possible.

Re: WWYCD: Flipside

I think he would be a very frustrated monk.

Running around the cities (not countryside), aggressively beating the crap out of civilians, but unable to kill them - and trying his darnedest to ruin the reputation of his God by telling people who he was working for, but not exactly endearing himself in the process

Of course, said Deity would not be pleased with him, either.

Re: WWYCD: Flipside

This goes under the assumption you aren't going to flip the table over when the GM pulls this

I think that this is a very cool power idea. Repped when it regenerates. I'll use my character from this thread in the roleplaying forum.

Suddenly your character entire personality foundation is inverted. And it may be that way for a while... WWYCD? What would his or her new priorities be? Assuming they still like who they liked before' date=' and hated who they hated before, what might they do now that they were 'freed' from past restraint ? (Keep it non graphic if need be) How would you roleplay it out?[/quote']

 

So, instead of being a pacifist monk of a God of Death, trying to make converts where possible and peacefully escort their souls to his Deity's realm, hanging out with a "group" of adventurers that appear to have contagious bad luck (with players that kill off their own PC's so quickly they roll up a minimum of 3 new characters each session and try for more) so he can do the most good, he would be . . . ?

 

Oy

Re: Heat of the Moment

I don't see how that's possible.

Brittney Spears is a civilian, right?

If it was your character's first encounter with Brittney, though, and you the player actually felt it was appropriate to have some sort of response, but there was nothing in the already established patterns of the character to give a clue one way or another - this mechanic wouldn't be used. It's only for those situations where the character has conflicting patterns, the player isn't sure what to do, and the player chooses to use dice to resolve the question.

Now, if, on the other hand, your character had just been subjected to a Presence Attack by Brittney Spears, and was caught halfway between an urge to kiss her and an urge to puke all over her shoes for how overdone her prettiness was, the mechanic would become available as an option.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Whiskey Tango? You want the players to roll dice to decide significant aspects of their characters' attitudes/actions?

Note the modifier. I would accept any application where the detail was marginally significant. If it doesn't even manage that, the player is rolling for a detail that has nothing to do with the game, and is basically just rolling dice to get out of using the mechanic. That's cheating; if they don't want to use the mechanic, they should state this openly, and we can work something out (which might result in, basically, them not wanting to play the game as is; in which case, some level of cheating is understandable, but still not acceptable, on the grounds that they could have anticipated the results of being honest about it, and not wanted to stop playing).

I might roll on my character's Psych Lims without prompting in a situation where they apply' date=' but I'm not going to roll a die to see whether I pet a strange dog or kick it.[/quote']

 

Noone is saying you have to.

 

If you don't want to do that, don't choose to do it, it really is that simple.

 

If you can't bring yourself to do it at all, in an entire session, then we've got problems. Let's use an example of this mechanic in play, though (from before its conversion to the HERO system).

 

I stay in the booth and finish my drink before following them out of the club. On my way out, I - hmm, would he be aroused by the dancer's fluid movements, swiftly changing in direction, or repulsed by the jerky, erratic twitching of their limbs? I can see it going both ways, but the question is nonessential at this time, though it could matter later, so my matrix numbers are 3 and 7.

 

(The matrix is a 10x10 grid of numbers between 1 and 10, the player has one axis and the GM the other, each intersection is one roll on percentile dice. This lets a single matrix be used for a long time without having to worry about players learning its contents or manipulating the mechanic's outcome.)

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

Oh, sorry Robyn. Basic HERO math goes like this:

 

POWER COST * (All Advantages +1) = Active Points.

ACTIVE POINTS / (All Disadvantages +1) = Real Cost.

Yeah, I forgot about that +1

Re: Heat of the Moment

But there's no such thing as random. So nyah. Still' date=' this seems like a fantastic amount of work to do something that should be player driven.[/quote']

 

We can't get random, true. But we can go a step above and beyond what we've got already, which will have to do.

 

You sound like my friend Mike' date=' who gets into these extremely wound up inherently complex arguments about causality and wonders why I stare at him and say "Dude, just eat the damn cake."[/quote']

 

Sounds like my kind of person.

 

:looks:

 

Unfortunately, you're in Virginia, which probably means I can't meet him to see if he would be interested in the game

Re: Heat of the Moment

Repped when it regenerates . . . what, does this thing give you 2 every 48 hours or something when you're still new?

Robyn's mechanic (which my understanding of is changing' date=' but hey) is saying (IIUC) that you could be locked into a course of action, or you COULD make a roll to get out of it, or that roll COULD force you back into it... or you might do what you want, or you might not.[/quote']

 

Yep, you got it : . . .

 

I would do this because my character - my choices in how he/she is portrayed and the decisions he/she makes - are sacrasanct. You cannot now' date=' or ever, make me 'roll a die' as a means of making decisions.[/quote']

 

. . . I would, however, put it a little less strongly on the "making players roll the die" side. No player should be made to roll a die at any particular time, but they would be asked to please utilize the mechanic once or twice per game session.

 

Also, the ice cream session wouldn't happen like that. If the question of what ice cream the PC likes isn't even marginally significant to that character, the mechanic wouldn't apply to that; the details that haven't come into play yet are in a state of abeyance, they are left alone until the player (or GM) needs them.

 

Interestingly, this gives the player plenty of room to "adjust" the character's "established" details; if it hasn't affected the game yet, we still treat it as an "unknown", whereas in other games this might be considered a "retroactive change" to the character.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Well' date=' it's definitely more of a sticking point when it's a major issue.[/quote']

 

I ask that we set that example aside, then. My intent was to create a writeup where the uncertainty of the character's future was highlighted, not to make the question about major issues.

 

I guess I just have that dramatic flair

 

It's worth noting, too, that by the metaphysics of the campaign "Free Will" is generated by the constant push and pull of a trillion tiny little patterns that, in the end, leaves causualty to just throw up its hands and give up, saying "You can do whatever you want."

 

On the other hand' date=' at what point is it appropriate for the GM to state, "Your character's attitude/desire is ______" without the player's consent? Is it really any different to do it by die roll?[/quote']

 

If some form of Mind Control were being used, this would be appropriate. But, since this sort of thing only takes place sans die roll "as plot device", I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

I don't think that randomly rolling for the character's attitudes is necessary for this.

 

I think that "true" randomness (inasmuch as dice can be random), or at least a step above and beyond what we can get from trying to decide whether our normal choice or a reverse psychology or double-reverse would be appropriate to generate "random" outcomes, must therefore evade the input of the players' (and GM's) knowledge of the character. To truly be outside their prior experiences with the character, they need to avoid letting their preconceptions affect the process of determination. (Of course, since we still have to design any tables that would be rolled upon, we're still not escaping the dilemma, but I've tried out a system where low rolls are "most likely" and high rolls are "least likely", with the exact details being improvised each time.)

 

Pretty much every new character I create develops a lot of new detail in the first few sessions of play' date=' and not all of it is what I would have expected.[/quote']

 

Like any relationship, it's nice to keep things "fresh"