Primal

Re: Moderately Large Creatures and DCV

after that he ripped open the hatch and threw some hobbit commando inside.

Off-topic, but..

That line just gave me about 8 or 10 _really_ cool ideas! ...unfortunately, I think I'll never get a chance to put them to use.. :/

ah well..

Re: Character for Review and naming

Valoria?

I got nothing...

Re: Adult themes in gaming, a rant of sorts

Amusing? No! Sick? Yes!

Heh.. well, I admit it doesn't read well cold.

I think my point is that I've GM'd for and played characters who've had all kinds of absolutely deplorable personality traits.. but when it comes to a sexually deplorable trait, or really anything sexual in gaming, I can only deal with it on certain levels. With that particular situation you are reacting to, I wouldn't have been participating at all if I thought anybody there would be getting titilation out of anything about that character. The character concept was supposed to be a sick, deplorable person-- as were all the other characters in that game. A gaming session quite full of Black Humor.

It's seems kinda inconsistant that I can much more readily accept people roleplaying atrocious behaviors such as racism/species-ism, terrible cruelty, etc. ...I can deal with characters who are assassins or vengeful folks who kill a rival's entire family line in retribution (in the course of gameplay), and it doesn't necessarily bother me (as long as I don't suspect that the players themselves would behave that way in real life too, and the characters rarely "get away with it").. but as I said before, if anything actually sexual, consensual or otherwise, were ever addressed in game.. I think it would skeeve me out.

Some sort of odd American moral background, I guess. Beat them up? Fine.. Innocent? Tough break.. Kill them? Meh.. ...but consensual sex (much less rape)? Count me out...

Odd.

Re: Adult themes in gaming, a rant of sorts

I've been in two games in my life that touched on sexual topics.

1st was a game with 4 male players, a male gm, and 2 female (and cute!) players. Very fun game.

One female's character was clean-cut, straight laced -- added all kinds of fun non-combat social/high-society dimensions to the game. The player was new to gaming, and so knew none of the typical steroetypes. This is important because one of the male players' characters was an assassin, even though the party was pretty "lawful good". The player had a back story that made it somewhat plausible for him to be a member of our party as long as our characters didn't know. It's one of those things where everybody pretty much agrees not to pull too hard on a thread that may unravel the fun.

But the trick is that this one girl was such a sincere girl and playing such a sincere character that when the player asked the male player what his character was, he just stared blankly at her, afraid to say the truth. Somebody filled in the awkward silence with, "Hey aren't you playing a locksmith?" to which he agreed, "Huh? Yeah! I'm a locksmith.. " Well there you have it, he's locked in as a locksmith, and an unspoken rule was laid down in that instant that his "punishment" for playing the assassin among the priests and knights was that the player had to keep his identity from another player (whom he somewhat liked). This made for absolute great fun.. especially seeing how his lockpicking skill was really bad.

Anyway, there was another girl in the party who was playing umm... I guess "chaotic neutral" (the system was not D&D, those terms are just being used in hopes of easy communication). She was playing a sorceress who was actually quite fearsome to our party and quite crucial to the success of our quest. The character was quite beautiful and was played quite flirtatiously (the player wasn't too far off that mark either), but when other PC's would try to flirt back, she would crush them with the "you're unworthy, go away before I make it shrivel up and fall off" stuff. As far as anybody knew, she could do it too. It was, again, a great source of mirth. The other players were genuinely afraid of this female character's powers, especially because the player was quite capricious enough to try to follow through on the threats, and the GM was likely to allow it in such a situation.

It may sound differently when read over the internet, but it was an intensely amusing situation.

In the other game, a male player in a "Sprint Campaign" (really short, quickly made up, kinda zany, with flavors of "Paranoia" group politics) I ran played a homosexual, drug pushing, posoning pedophile. He had a network of young boy informants who were his lovers and his information collection/drug distribution system. Again, this ended up working out as completely amusing, as he was, for example, forced to try make contact with one the boys while he was still in school, and was completely at a loss trying to explain to the adults at the school why this strange, scruffy looking man urgently needed to talk to a boy who was no relation to him. It sounds potentially disgusting, but so too is the idea of being an assassin, etc. And in the game, it mainly worked to provide funny binds to put the character in. (I had confidence that the player also had no wish to roleplay any sexual aspect of the character's sexuality, or else I wouldn't have allowed the character)

So, I guess in summary, I can accept sexuality to be used for a plot device to create inconvenience, or awkward situations... funny things.. mentally challenging things... etc.

I have never been in a situation in which an aspect of sexuality in a game turned into tittilation or anything that resembled sexual wish fulfillment. I guess I've just been lucky to avoid the freaks. Since I have no wish to interact sexually with gaming associates, I'm pretty sure that such a thing would completely skeeve me out. Your mileage may vary.

edit: grammar, spelling, and an extra sentence.

Re: The Wheel of Time

I'd rather not entertain that notion myself. We do have at least one more book due to come out in October. Knife of Dreams is something I have been looking forward to. When Path of Daggers came out' date=' Mr. Jordan stated that he needed three more books to finish the series. Maybe he will stretch it out long enough to finish Wot.[/quote']

I recall Jordan also saying that he intends to 'keep writing until they put him in the grave', or something like that. I think he means keep writing in the WoT series... He may "need" three more books to finish the series, but I suspect he'll probably put out 6 or 7 more and then die without finishing it..

 

Certainly a rich setting, though.. possibly a bit too rich for my gaming tastes. I would always be afraid that someone would have read (or imagined) some story or interview that they'd use to try to rules-lawyer/genre-lawyer things to death.. either that, or some players would have no clue at all about the setting, and all your clever schemes, homages, etc. fall flat because you're forgetting that they haven't read a single one of the ~10,000 pages of narrative out there.. ("Jeez Bill.. ok.. We'll let it go this week, but you better have read at least up until Rand cleanses the Taint by next week's game, or you'll be seeing flecks in front of your eyes!")

 

Congrats and my envy to those of you who can get a great game going in this setting!

Re: Fitz: Action Cards and Calling Forward an Action

Ok.. now I'm confused 9 ways from Sunday..

assuming Bob wants to use an action to Dodge on 11' date=' then yes, he'd have to burn his 8 and 3 cards -- why he'd want to do that I can't imagine, but there you go.[/quote']

However' date=' if he wanted to Call Forward a dodge he'd just have to burn his next highest card (the 8), so he wouldn't be able to use the 8 to act on, and his next possible action phase would be 5 (if he combined his 3 and 2 cards).[/quote']

So please differentiate the following terms:

(Term -- my understanding)

"abort to dodge" -- normal hero system terminology, you give up your next action in order to make a defensive reaction to what someone is trying to do to you

"use an action to dodge" -- from your first quote... seems to require the total value of the cards used up for the action to add up to the current segment's value. Can this "use an action" be any action, or just [dodge| block| dive for cover]? This method involves you getting fewer total actions in a turn.

"Call Forward a dodge" -- from your second quote.. closer to the original "abort to dodge". You still get the same number of actions in the turn... possibly requires a dex roll

 

Perhaps an explanation that went something like this would explain the idea more clearly:

Turning in Cards for Actions: To perform a normal action, you must turn a card whose face value is equal or greater to the current phase.

 

Adding Cards for Earlier Actions: More than one card can be turned in at a time, if their face values add up to equal or greater than the current phase. All cards turned in are consumed to achieve this, though, so you lose an action(s) that turn in order to jump the order a bit. This method represents a sort of desparation action, and leaves you unable to formulate a new action for a while. This action is not restricted to [dodge | block | dive for cover]. You may not turn in cards you haven't been dealt yet, so if you have just one card left for the current Turn, this option is not available to you.

 

"Adding Cards for Earlier Actions" Examples:

1) It's Phase 11, and a Speed 3 character (Bob) has drawn 2, 3, and 8 for his cards, but he really wants to take an action _right now_. That means Bob has to turn in his 8 and his 3 in order to take an action.. Because 8 + 3 = 11 which satisfies the "equal or greater" rule.. Bob still would have the 2, and could perform one more action this Turn, for a total of 2 actions.

2) If Bob had been unlucky enough to draw 2, 3, and 7, he would have to turn in all three cards in order to take his action in 11. (2+3+7=12, which satisfies the "equal or greater" rule). Bob would have no cards left, so he only have gotten a total of 1 action this Turn.

3) If Bob had been even more unlucky, and he drew a 2, 3, and 5, there would be no way he could act in phase 11 (unless Aborting, see below), since 2+3+5=10, and 10<11, which doesn't satisfy the "equal or better" rule. Bob still has all three cards, so he still can get 3 actions this Turn.

 

Aborting for Certain Defensive Actions: As with the original rules, you may abort your next action in order to [dodge | block | dive for cover]. This involves turning in the highest card you currently hold. If you are out of cards for this turn, then on the next turn, you draw your normal number of cards and then sacrifice the highest card from that draw.

 

Actions per Phase and per Turn: No matter how many cards you turn in in a phase, you still can only get one action for that phase. Any actions/cards left in your hand at the end of the turn are forfeit-- you can not carry over cards from one turn to the next.

 

Optional rule for Aborting for Actions: At GM's discretion, aborting for actions may not be automatic. With this optional rule, a dex role is required to see if you were able to [dodge | block | dive for cover] in time. For every point you make your dex roll by, add one point to the card you are turning in. If the total of Card Value + Number of Points Dex Roll Is Made By is equal to or greater than the current phase, you succeeded to block or dodge in time. If not, then you begin your [dodge | block | dive for cover] just after the attack/action occurs (if you are still able to) and are considered to be dodging/blocking/etc. until the next phase in which you act.

Please correct what I've got wrong.. I'm just extrapolating from what I understand of your system.

 

How much have you used the card system? Any insights? Faster? More Tactical? People get the hang of it quickly?

 

I also really like your magic system as well, by the way...

 

Thanks..

edit: hmm.. had to switch from "code" tags to "quote" tags for readability on my hypothetical rules explanation...

I'm intriqued by your speed chart house rules mentioned here: http://mojobob.com/roleplay/hero/fantasy/house_phases.html

...but I am a little confused about the "Calling Forward An Action" part.

Calling Forward An Action

This works slightly differently than the official rules. To successfully Call Forward an action, the player must use Action Cards to equal or better the number of the Phase in which the attack occurs. Once Dodging (or whatever), the character is deemed to be Dodging until his or her next Phase, as usual, but because they have to use up their Action Cards to act faster than they otherwise could, they will get fewer actions that Turn.

Ok.. so it's segment 11, and a speed 3 character (Bob) has drawn 2, 3, and 8 for his cards, but he wants to dodge right now. As I read it, that means Bob has to turn in his 8 and his 3 in order to dodge, correct? Because 8 + 3 = 11 which satisfies the "equal or better" rule..

If Bob had been unlucky enough to draw 2, 3, and 7, he would have to turn in all three cards in order to dodge in 11. (2+3+7=12, which satisfies the "equal or better" rule)

If Bob had been even more unlucky, and he drew a 2, 3, and 5, there would be no way he could dodge in phase 11 at all, since 2+3+5=10, and 10<11, which doesn't satisfy the "equal or better" rule...

Do I have that right? The fact that Bob absolutely can't dodge in 11 isn't necessarily known because nobody but Bob necessarily knows what cards he has, right?

If Bob tends to draw cards in an unlucky fashion, though, he may decide to always dodge on his last card of the turn, no? Perhaps a rule of: "Equal or Better" or "Your Two Highest Cards"-- your choice. That may help keep Bob's frustration levels down if he has to dive for cover from the mega-death bomb in segment 11 when he drew the 2+3+7 or similar hand..

In practice, do you find the final phases of a turn to be jam-packed with delayed actions, or does it usually work smoothly?

Thanks! (if this has already been discussed before, please point me to thread!)

Originally posted by Squid

The alternative is what we had in 4th edition. 10 points for FTL travel, about 100 points to go supersonic. Made no sense.

 

Megascale's great. Very in-genre.

Hmm.. makes me wonder how people would like Megascale as an adder (when applied to movement)? Surely that has already been discussed in another thread.. anybody know off hand a good thread title to search for regarding this?

heh.. I have been playing Hero since third edition..

to clarify my position, I was reacting to comments along these lines-

The rules FAQ is full of hundreds of new additions and clarifications. Why should published books be any different?

if there can be rules restrictions added in books that don't make it into a freely available errata, i have a problem.. you are now saying its absence from the FAQ/errata is temporary oversite and not policy, so i have no problem with that, once it is rectified..

i may dislike "affects porous", and may house rule it away, but I can know it is official policy from FREd + errata.. I don't have to have run across it in some obscure (to me) book..

My bad tesuji.. I thought you were saying the price of Megascale was fine, but it didn't do enough.. edit: not sure why I thought that, you said right off it was ridiculously cheap.. -> myself

I think we are kinda in the same camp, then.. in some ways.. If large scale movement is anything more than a plot device, I'm not sure how much I like the megascale mechanics for movement..

Honestly, I haven't been able to get enough games in with it..

also edit: I personally kinda like the "plot mechanic" movement being real cheap.. the problem happens when it moves from being plot mechanic to being a central point of the story.. it seems like it fails under the closer scrutiny..

Originally posted by Monolith

There are far too many real problems with the system we could be working on.

Good to know this now before I buy any more of the books I had been interested in! Actually, it would be best to hear from Steve if this is his true policy.

A core rule book that has all the core rules. An errata for printing errors & accidental omissions.

With the other things vying for my time and money, rules changes outside of those two sources (not including supplemental rules that _expand_ existing rules)--- I just don't want to deal with a game that has that policy.

Am I unworthy for not wanting to buy every thing put forth for the Hero system? ... eh ... if that is what the system is trying to require, then the system is not worthy (IMO).

Re: Extra Adders

Originally posted by bryanb

Having said that is this not what you get when you buy TSR/WoTC products. I can only speak for 2nd Ed but all the character handbooks added extra rules for characters - can't DOJ do the same?

 

Daz

Here, here! I think all of us use Hero because we are completely happy with the way D&D does things..

1 Core book +1 errata.

I too fall into the crowd that holds that rules _changes_ in supplements (not additions) blows big chunks and causes me serious concern about Hero as a point of principle..

I like Hero because I like the principles behind it (or at least what I perceive as the principles)...

If I don't have those principles to cling to, why not just shrug my shoulders and join the masses playing D&D? I'm 100% positive that with a good GM, I can have fun with D&D..

bleh.. melodrama..

Originally posted by tesuji

The whole "we need to make megascale inaccurate in order to balance its price" is to me a very extremely noticeable case of making the genre fit the system... trying to shoehorn in a "counter-problem" to help those who see it as too cheap for its points in the game. Its very HERO but not very superhero, IMO.

 

YMMV

Nothing in the system says Flash can't run up to the specific spot from the other side of the country. The idea is just that he can't get the whole way with just the megascale.. he would have scads of normal scale running too..

The very extremely noticable situation occurs when someone tries to go cheap.

but, as you said, YMMV..

Haven't posted in a long time, but I'm curious and wanted to see what people's opinions/experiences are regarding playing real-time online..

some plusses:

*Superheroes can have bunches of dice or complex roles.. macros and scripts (OpenRPG or mIRC) can calculate them easily and quickly..

*no travel time required: you don't have to drive anywhere.. (important when you're out of college and remaining gamers you know are spread to the 4 winds)

*If you're bad at imitating a required accent, no problem..

some minuses:

*people tend to be less reliable online..

*no face to face socializing..

*mild typing/computer skills required..

of course the real rub (for me) is finding people for a good game.. a viscious cycle..

I've been out of Champions/Hero since the first of the year, and I'm starting to think about it again, but my only viable option is online..

Of those who don't play online, what would make you consider it? Of those of you who do, what's your best advice for finding/having a good game?

my apologies if you feel this topic is out of place

Not quite useful for what it sounds like you want, but one idea I've used in my fantasy world is a bit of the "Glass Ceiling" effect.. There is basically a group of mages who have achieved a power well beyond the rest. They have earth-shattering, continent-spanning capabilities. Yet they have are not visibly leaders in any land. They are behind the scenes players who are limited by their intense rivalry with each other. They spend too much time researching magic and spying on their fellows to bother trying to rule anything. They dare not take too active a role in the world lest they attract the attention of too many unfriendly peers at one time. No mage can safely ascend to the ranks of these uber-elite without one of them as his patron, because someone would eliminate him if he started to become a threat on his own.

The basic feel is the Superpowers' Cold War thing, except much more behind the scenes and multilateral. The mages act through proxies and must play Cold War politics, and devote most of their time to R&D and spying.

edit: spelling

Originally posted by CourtFool

I would still be against this system because with my luck I will draw a bunch of high cards and the SPD 3 grunts would get all the low cards.

I take it you use all your powers with the "standard effect" rule?

Markdoc's viewpoint resonates a lot more strongly with me than with than Keneton's. I'm a little curious as to where "The Speed Chart was shown to be clearly superior. " comes from.

Anyway, what I'd really like is for someone to come up with a more fine-grained speed system.

from Derek:

it's due to people using player knowledge vs. character knowledge, and not roleplaying their characters faithfully.

Heheh.. that sort of reminds me of those IBM commercials for Magic Pixie Dust.. sprinkle it on your players and they will roleplay faithfully! I love those commercials!

Anyway, I think it's more dramatic to not know that you can get away with maneuvers like Markdoc mentioned. I think it's more heroic for people to try to execute those maneuvers in the face of that uncertainty.

As for NPCs holding actions to introduce some unpredictability, I tend to have my hands full enough as GM. If I can pick a system that doesn't require extra work on my part (tracking which of the 15 goblins, 8 Worgs, and 3 Orcs have held actions), but still keeps the players from knowing exactly how long until the enemy can make a strike, I like it.