Scott Ruggels

And remember, Fantasy Heto is not D&D. 
 
I get a little depressed, every time some young player tries to cobble together a 3.5 or 5e TSR build. It never works or is never an efficient use of points. 

The older I get the more convinced that it is the players that make the game rather than the system.  Yesterday a friend of my son came over. He wanted to play D&D. I pulled out my Basic Fantasy and he rolled up a character and chose a magic user. I pulled out a small map. Long story short, he had a blast! Well throwing a dagger at the kobold shaman and getting a 4 on the damage die and I only rolled too on the hit die did help set the tone.  My brother was visiting and and he rolled a natural 20. The best part was my son twice rolled a natural 1  and in another book I picked up has Critical Hits and Failures. He was dazed on the first rolled 1 and then trip and fallen prone the second time. I allow him to attack from prone at a disadvantage to hit and damage and he still killed that kobold! The short scenario was a rousing success. I feel that there were several factors involved. Good dice throws always help. And yes D&D is limited but I’m fairly comfortable now if just making rulings on the fly. But overall it’s the players that make or break a game. Oh and my son kept saying “let’s separate the party” to jibe my brother was priceless!

My apologies, folks!  I had no intention to abandon the discussion, but I confess: after spending 40 minutes working out a reply on thia accursed touch screen, some glitch or other popped a message- "an error has occurred" then the site reloaded and poof!  It was all gone.
 
I kinda sorta rage quit and went to bed.
 
Anyway, onward!
 

 
 
 
 
 
You are quite right, Sir; you did not.  I made an assumption based on your couching of your comments.  Remembering that you were commenting about the difficulty a magic-wielding character would have as buying spells would handicap his ability to buy things that would stack him equally against other types of characters, etc--  I believe that you can see why I might have drawn that conclusion.
 
Still, mea culpa; ego paenitet in plena: tu es omnino excusari.
 
Okay, I wanted "exonerated," but I haven't practiced Latin in a few decades now. If anyone know the proper word, I will edit it in where "excused" is serving as a placeholder.
 
But, as the conversation has been fun so far, let's get back to it!
 
 
 
 
Agreed.  But if one special sort of expenditure is unusually costly, then there may be a genuine handicap: if someone designs their world so that spells are-  say ten points each, or twenty points each, or- well, as you see: the more expensive spells are- or even the more individualized and unique they are, which would require a larger number of spells....  Well, obviously, a guy swinging a garden rake is going to come out well ahead in cost and possibly even utility.
 
But if all expenditures are more or less equal, then there isn't really any handicap or disadvantage: it is no more different than choosing to spend points on CON instead of CV, or END instead of REC, of Forensics instead of Security Systems: both characters had equal access, made rhe same number of decisions, spent roughly the same amount of points, and have roughly the same amount of points left.  Nothing lopsided or unfair in that.
 
 
 
He doesn't
 
 
 
Or that
 
 
 
And sweet Deity on a Stick, does he not have to do that.
 
As before, to continue this discussion and keep it on topic, I would prefer to avoid anything related to Martial Arts; that really does require an entirely different and very involved conversation just to establish a baseline from which to start.
 
Staying to this conversation, though, every single one of these "must haves" is entirely up to the GM when he designs the world: what is absolutely necessary, etc, and not so much the law of the rules.  In fact, Skill Levels can do everything all of these "must haves" do, and even skill levels are not mandatory.  An excellent idea, to be sure, but not mandatory.  The GM decides if he will require them for whatever reasons (honestly, in heroic-level games, I have always considered a lot of "mandatory" familiarise and the like to be simple point sucks, which-  well, handicaps anyone required to buy them if there are other equally-valid character concepts who are not required to buy these things, then yeah; that guy is getting a bit shafted.
 
Or, circling back around:  agreed. 
 
 
 
 
Oops-  I jumped the gun with the previous reply.  You are correct: spend points on one thing, you sont have them to spend gain elsewhere.  That is the nature of points-buy systems: enforced uniqueness because most folks will have a favorite thing for their concept that will take points from their available total, and rather than copy identically an effective build, they spend the rest of the build compensating for whatever hit they took getting their main item or items.  But the size of the hit, again, is not a requirement laid out in the rules; it is laid out by the GM for each and every game.
 
 
 
Yes, but again: this is a function of character generation and concept.  If someone wants to build Batman, then yes; short of writer fiat, he is going to be absolutely useless in a light-speed running gun battle between Superman and I am really going to need some help coming up with a name of some Superman-level villain, but you get the point.
 
But if your game euns through a spot of skill-heavy action, Batman is _definitely_ your guy as opposed to-- well, I have no idea again.  Does Green Lantern have skills?  The movie suggested no, but I really have no idea.
 
Even then, though-  at the risk of of doing the broken record thing, this isn't a rules-created situation: rhw player decided he wanted a skills-heavy or skills-light character, the GM approves it, then ran a game inappropriate for the character.
 
There are a lot of places to lay the blame here, but the rules isnt one od them.
 
 
 
 
 
Well I still agree: of you spend points haphazardly, you get odd results.
 
But if you spend the points neesed to take your longbow damage to 6d6 RKA , and a magician has spent roughly  the same amount to create a call-down-the-lighting spell that does 6d6 RKA, what is the problem?
 
 
 
 
However, this entire thing is something of a sidetrack; I don't know that we ever visited tour original question:
 
 
 
For what it ia worth, I am okay with it.  For several years, it qas the only way we played it: we were using Champions rules- first 1e, then 2e- long before there was a Fantasy HERO; Champions was bereft any sort of money system- it didn't even hint at costs for the precioua few weapons it statted out.  We totally got the "your Killing Attack could be a sword" and 'your Force Field could be magic" aspect though, and you bought those with points, so....  
 
 
 
 
Compare Defenses to Defenses; Offenses to Offenses; survivability (story type; not combat type).  Civilian effectiveness, etc.
 
Not the points spent on them; not the the active points, but the numbers that matter in the game: damage done; damage resisted; ability to actually thrive in the game world, and appropriateness for any long-term plans laid out for the campaign.
 
Those are the metrics I use  when I evaluate characters for approval.
 
 

I would not put it that far. The launch was clean. The Hot staging worked. The problem with the booster is the stresses of the flip and burn caused the booster to fail, and the Loss of Telemetry, either through ground stations, or Starlink made the termination system remove ship 25 from existence, lest it go uncontrolled and land on a city in Africa or something.  If you remember the Falcon development they lost a number of them before they were able to get controlled landings and were able to reuse the part.  THis is a much more complex rocket than the Falcon, so I am expecting five failed launches until they can get a a good, reuseable rocket.

Life it too short for a bad game. Admit to being anti-social or better, admit to being an introvert. Tell your husband that the GM creeps you out, and that it's fine if he wants to play, but you don't like 5e, and you definitely don't like being railroaded. This game feels  bad, and remind him of the Wednesday game.

Failing that, have the character become reckless, and try the impossible. If the character dies, Immediately pick up your things, tell your husband that you will pick him up at the end of the game and leave quickly.

If the GM Bends the rules to keep you alive, then you have evidence of railroading, and you have a reason to leave, as well. 
 
In any case you are going to have to be firm. Loving, but firm.

Starship ILT2 launch window is set for Saturday morning from 0700-0720 CST.  Early, but at least there won't be an endless wait to see if they're gonna launch or not.

If they paid character points for the item, then they get either a replacement, or a point equivalent piece of equipment.

if the item is paid for the GM should have it so the character can find it when they escape
 

Different take on the above. If a player pays points, then the item paid in points for, will return to the character. They cannot lose it permenantly. Items paid for in money can be lost, stolen, or damaged,permanently. This was discussed 6-9 months ago already. 

Different take on the above. If a player pays points, then the item paid in points for, will return to the character. They cannot lose it permenantly. Items paid for in money can be lost, stolen, or damaged,permanently. This was discussed 6-9 months ago already. 

And, if tradition holds, will be discussed in 6-9 months hence.
 
 

 
 
My standard answer is "it depends _entirely_ on the feel I am going for at the time."
 
  

Different take on the above. If a player pays points, then the item paid in points for, will return to the character. They cannot lose it permenantly. Items paid for in money can be lost, stolen, or damaged,permanently. This was discussed 6-9 months ago already. 

Going back to Robert E. Howard's precedents, he was fond of what  I like to call "pseudo-gods." These were non-human supernatural creatures out of some "hell" dimension, or the "outer darkness" ouside the world, or whatever other Lovecraftian locale you prefer. Typically malevolent or at least hostile, they usually wielded magic beyond what mortals could attain, and attracted cultists who worshiped them; but in clothing their spirits in the substance of Earth they were vulnerable to injury and even death by enough force, or some weakness the protagonist could discover.

Launch on Friday!
 

Because with Figured Characteristics, you got a baseline to work with. Without that being the intention of the writer's, the rules still hinted that a Brick with STR 65 CON 33 BODY 15 should have REC 20 END 66 STUN 65 at a minimum. Character creation had some built-in paradigms, flawed though they were.
 
6th Edition took those away and gave minimal guidance on what values were common to certain character types. No Characteristic could be assumed adequate at its staring value. I agree that you should have been doing so in the earlier editions also, but it was possible to leave characters like my example with the minimums derived. You can't do that now and have a viable character. It's a small extra step but it is extra.
 
Many of us older players who've been doing this since First Edition do this as second nature. I've got 40+ years of Hero to draw on and I think you have similar experience. I can do Hero without a book. But it doesn't come naturally to newer players, it has to be learned.

While pawsplay can speak for himself, there was a simplicity in picking a character's Dex, Con and Sod, taking the resulting figureds and then moving on to powers (including Str and defenses) that was lost. Int, Pre and Com would be handled at the same time as skills. A simple three part process giving a playable first draft 
 
Anything else was fine tuning.
 
Plus Disads/Complications obviously.

While I understand some of the advantages of getting rid of Derived Characteristics, it drastically increased the mental load needed to make a simple character.

Oh, it's not the system that is complicated, because it's the math, that gets complicated. But once character creation is done, Hero just flows, in combat.

Agreed.  Legend of the Galactic Heroes (First version), and Lensman, (books)  the preferred melee weapons were single handed axes. Spear, the preferred weapon of infantry in the open would be a liability in tight hallways inside spacegraft, and without gravity, you don't have the base of leverage to take advantage of a spear.  If you aren't expecting armored space suits, rock hammers would be a good melee weapo, with the spiked end making nice holes in Vacc suits. (Took Geology in College so we all got Rock hammers and collection bags.)
 

The CU's first volume of collected supervillains, Conquerors, Killers, And Crooks, included a number of "quotations" from various characters about themselves or other supervillains. I was struck by one attributed to Ironclad of the Champions, regarding the pyromaniac villain Blowtorch: "The media often describes villains such as Takofanes, the Slug, or Dark Seraph as “the most evil being who ever lived,” or something like that. But if that’s true, what can you say about a man like Blowtorch, who sets children on fire for fun?"

D20, when you absolutely, positively want to look unskilled at your specialty, accept no substitute. 

Looks accurate. 

Oh, it's not the system that is complicated, because it's the math, that gets complicated. But once character creation is done, Hero just flows, in combat.

There is also Destined, a superhero roleplaying game based on Mythras (aka RuneQuest 6e) published in 2022.