TranquiloUno

Thanks, everybody!

I'm sure this has been answered but all my various combos of "Characteristics + Continuing Charges" I've tried haven't been fruitful.

At first I was pretty sure the +X Str from a 1 Turn (continuing) Charge would still cost End to USE the Str it grants during that turn.

But after rereading 6E1 I'm less sure.

Str would be Standard and Persistent.

Char as Power says it doesn't cost End unless it normally costs End and uses Str as the example.

But does that include activation or usage?

If I have +50 Str as a power OIHID I don't pay End to "turn on" that Persistent power when I go Hero ID, right? Just if I use that Str.

Would this be the same with movement? +20" Running, 1 Turn Continuing Charge...do they pay End to Run those 20"? (They'd still pay for their own movement but what about a continuing charge?)

Anyway, I figure this has been answered but I can't find it. Can anybody else point me the right direction?

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Have yet to read The Expanse RPG and how AGE is applied to it but aside from it, my choice would be GURPS. With Space, the Spaceships series, Ultra-Tech and Bio-Tech, GURPS has fantastic support for sci-fi game. Heck, to establish the technological baseline, you could start from Interstellar Wars, Vorkosigan or Transhuman Space and exclude FTL and/or transhumanism and/or aliens and you are probably 80-90% there, complete with write-ups for ships, space combat, travel time within the solar system, character templates and, in the case of Vor and TH, the GURPS rules.

I got the '88 version of GURPS Space to compare and contrast with the 5th ed Star Hero book.

Roughly the same content IMO.

Templates and write ups might be very useful. Or not at all.

Haven't determined who the players are going to be so the entire Spaceship Combat aspect might be totally off-screen.

Hero seems pretty workable. I think the trick will be more about finding adventures for the PCs if they don't come up with a good collective identity and skill set(s).

The Expanse characters map pretty well to the Pilot (Dex guy), Engineer (Int gal), Captain (Cha guy), Security (Str guy) and even Medical (RIP Shed\"Wis" guy, I guess?) with Bobbi and Avasarala being more Str\Fighter\Combat and Cha\Int\Social types. 

That and a nice ship are a pretty good basis for a game.  But the show\books do make integrating multi-POV splitting-up-the-party type antics a lot easier.

I'm thinking about blowing up Earth the first session and seeing what they do. Maybe give them a free medium freighter with some secrets too.

Disaster movie kinda feel.

And then maybe psionics via protomolecule tech.  

Shooting for a, "One tiny ship in a huge universe".

6 hours ago, GM_Champion said:

TranquiloUno,

 

The first RPGers came out of a mostly-common background of board game and/or wargame experience, plus every actor-in-training who walked by a gaming table.

 

That's a heavy math-enabled demographic not intimidated by Subtraction, and not allowing the friction of having to use an unused skill (subtraction) stop them from having fun.

 

Today, 5th edition D&D (helped largely by Critical Role actual play YouTube channel) has pulled in so MANY new gamers from the mainstream that the gaming demographic is now much closer to the national demographic (at least in the USA).

 

With that comes people who do not use, or do not like to use, mental math as a daily task. They use it to shop and buy things because they have to, but have calculators and computers and smartphones to give them the answer.

 

Addition simply costs less mental effort than subtraction for many people for a variety of reasons.

 

Therefore, addition creates less friction to stop a mainstream person from getting into an RPG.

 

As proof, 5e D&D has sold more copies of D&D than all previous D&D editions put together, D&D has entered mainstream news without stigma, and D&D is now a "cool" activity instead of mainstream society viewing it as a minority interest unworthy of mainstream attention, or worthy of mainstream derision.

 

I find subtraction easy. Almost everyone on this forum does too, I bet, but we are not the mainstream majority, and if we want HERO to live and grow, HERO needs to become more accessible (roll-high) without giving up its strength and reason to be - ultimate customization of one's character.

 

So as not to derail this thread, please feel free to start a new thread in the Rules subforum or some other appropriate place for your quote and reply.

Uh, no thanks.

12 hours ago, GM_Champion said:

AGE system is pretty much Traveller with roll-high a la most modern d20 games, and also Mongoose Traveller, and it adds the Stunt Die.

Interesting. Traveller is one of the classics that I've never gotten around to spending any time with.

12 hours ago, GM_Champion said:

 

I approve of 3d6 roll-high.

 

However, in these days of "all games are 5e or PF2 at conventions" (and maybe Cyberpunk REd and Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu) finding AGE is about as rare as finding HERO.

 

That said, I hope the Expanse sells gangbusters and encourages more RPG producers to grow the science fiction pie.

My understanding was that the The Expanse setting was at least partly derived from actual tabletop games the two authors were involved with.

Interesting to look for aspects of that in the novels\show. Interesting to see a system based on a TV show\book based on an RPG (at some point).

12 hours ago, GM_Champion said:

 

(And that 7e HERO, when it comes, moves to roll-high for everything so we can get all the RPG newbies 5e D&D yanked out of the mainstream...)

You think his is a significant factor in things?

12 hours ago, Tjack said:

   No real reason, just vague curiosity.

Oh, sry, the "Why!?", was a semi-rhetorical question directed at the choice of a -2 to 4 stat range for AGE.

On 12/20/2019 at 6:13 PM, Tjack said:

   Are you thinking of using the system in their book or just using the background material and running it as Hero?  Or had you decided yet?

Having ready the actual The Expanse RPG a bit I'd say FOR SURE Hero. -2 to 4 is your stat range? Why!?!

I'll be using all their nice charts and pictures and travel times and so forth though. 

If there's an old good thread on this let me know as I didn't see it in my cursory search.

So: How do you do ship to ship combat in your Space Hero game and what do you find works\doesn't work when running it?

While I wait for my actual The Expanse RPG to arrive I wanted to ask the forums:

Are you familiar with The Expanse? TV or books?

If so do you have any thoughts on how to run that in Hero?

Anything that sticks out to you from a Hero perspective for emulating that setting?

1 hour ago, sentry0 said:

 

I think you and your Herculean strength need to find a lower PD/BODY coffee table if stubbing your toe is causing you to be stunned.  That, or invest in Nightvision, it's dirt cheap when bought through a focus.  Maybe buy up your CON too while you're at it.

Well I had to invest in a Questionite coffee table after my No Conscious Control +30 Str buy with XP and unfortunately somebody built it as a Penetrating Damage Shield so....

8 hours ago, Tywyll said:

If you are on a mount and get Stunned, what happens? Do you fall off? I had that happen to one of my players and he argued that he ought to get a ride roll and my counter arguement was that since he was stunned, he couldn't make a ride roll.

 

Is there a definitive ruling on this or do people have any strongly held opinions?

Not definitive and not even strongly held but...no, for Stunned, I would not have them fall off the horse. I wouldn't even have them roll Riding or Dex or anything.

They're just Stunned and not unconscious and a phase\round\segment is only a couple seconds. You get hit, you hunch over in pain (half DCV), you recover. All in a couple seconds.

Stunned (5e) specifies that characters "typically" (why is this only one sentence?! Surely the rules should be MUCH more explicit! ;D) don't drop anything they are holding (eg, reins) and while they are stunned they don't go limp, drop prone, or anything else along those lines. They just (IMO) spend a couple moments in the pain cave thinking about what they've done. Just like if I crack my shin on the coffee table in the dark. Am I at full CV? No! I'm in pain! But did I go limp, fall to the ground, and totally lose awareness of my surroundings? Also no.

I think even Knocked Out specifies that at -1 through -10 Stun the character isn't fully unconscious Knocked Out, just...uh...mostly KO'd?

In any case, to me, Stunned is (very) momentary pain effecting combat\other performance. Not a total loss of all ability to do anything (still have half DCV suggests to me they are at least a bit capable of duckin' and dodgin').

19 hours ago, Mr. R said:

 

 

THIS is seriously cool!

Thanks!

Another fun aspect of things is that while the priests of the various gods believe that they are tapping the power of the moon via the god. Or think they are tapping the power of the god directly they are in fact...not.

They ARE tapping the moon directly. It's just that the Gods can effect that tapping. And can commune with their followers to misdirect them.

The end result here though is that if you have a god of the amber moon, Drome, who is killed, and his lunar artifacts lost or taken by other amber gods.

However the priests of Drome can still call on (what they believe to be) his power. They can still work magic.

It's just that for whatever reason (dead, captured, etc) their god no longer directly communes with them.

So you can have "dead" gods both literally and figuratively (imprisoned, bound, sleeping, just on walkabout for a while) and you can have churches that still exist though their gods are dead (probably a bit of a theological crisis there) though of course they usually dwindle in size and influence since they no longer have an actively deity actively supporting them.

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

This would require the GM to permit using Combat Skill Levels with modifiers to be DCV only, of course.  But to build an effect, sometimes you have to break the rules.

But in 6e you can just buy DCV directly, right? And limited forms of it? So no CSLs involved in 6e. I think.

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Here are the levels of Defense Maneuver:

 

 

So if we built this as a set of limited DCV levels, they'd instead have varying costs rather than levels with set costs.

Level I seems like its simply "DCV vs surprise or rear attacks" which is pretty specific so maybe -2 (plus the extra time for -¼?? Half Phase isn't actually in the chart, for some reason so you have to guesstimate) for a total of 1.5 (1) point per DCV.  If you want to get technical you could charge 3 points per 2 DCV.

Yah, that was what I was wondering, how much is "only vs rear attack\multiple attack" worth. -2 seems reasonable. I'd go -1/2 for the Extra Time though I agree -1/4 does fit the pattern. Either which way though about the same 1-2pts per level of DCV compensation.

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Level II is a lesser limitation, since it covers multiple attacker bonuses as well, but that's still pretty specific, maybe -1¾.  After all this doesn't come up a lot and you still have every other attack in the game that this added DCV doesn't help with.  That works out to 1.6 or 2 points per DCV.  Again, I guess you could charge 5 points per 3 DCV, but it probably should just cost +1 point per DCV added to the Level I ones you bought.

Sure, totally.

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Level III is again a slightly lesser limitation, perhaps -1½, so that works out to 1.8 points per DCV or 2.  Again an additional +1 per DCV added to the previous

Level IV doesn't work out to a clean and easy cost, since each level is a different price, but its roughly 1 point at most (.8, in fact).

 

So it would look like this: buying +1 DCV at Level I would cost 1 point

Adding Level II effect would cost 2 points total, +1 each

Adding Level III effect would cost 3 points total, +1 each to the previous cost

Adding no time would cost 1 point each DCV level.

 

So +3 to DCV, only to negate attacks from the rear or from multiple attackers, which requires no extra time, would cost 12 points.  And 3 is enough for most characters to effectively negate "half DCV" since that's as low these maneuvers and attacks can reduce you.  That's roughly the same as the present Defense Maneuver, but low DCV characters need not spend so much.  If your DCV is 5, you only need 2 levels (8 points).

It seems neater too. "+3 to DCV, only to negate attacks from the rear or from multiple attackers, which requires no extra time" tells me what it does in a way Defense Maneuver III does not. Unless I'm a serious Hero dork and have it memorized. ;D ;D

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

*as a house rule I always have treated IV as an adder: that is you can pay those +2 points at ANY level of the skill and just not have to take the extra time.

Dropping a half-phase to (kinda) apply combat levels, particularly defensive combat levels, seems worth more to me than just the -1/4 the chart implies.

No! Wait!

The elegant solution for 6e is DCV bought with Extra Time and Only To Counter Rear Attack\Multiple Attack penalties and call that a -2.

That's 1pt per level. 

And then it's just like Lightning Reflexes (Dex only for going first), HA (Str only for damage), and whatever else ("Toughness" = Con only for not being stunned?).

This gets rid of the weird 3\2\3\2 point structure and the also weird levels of things you can perceive, everything, etc.

Just a nice easy 1pt per pt of penalty countering. And then back port it to 5e and say it's 1pt\level by fiat 'cause making that math work in 5e seems trickier.

That's nicer, right? Only buy what you need or want (guy that's good against mobs (eg, Fezzik) buys off the full penalty, guy that is pretty good against trash mobs (eg, Aragorn) only buys a couple points, and some folks buy none (eg, cheap Boramir joke!)) and a nice flat cost structure.

Seems much more Hero-y. To me. Not it's own weird special rule but just another limited form of a stat.

It does eliminate the 10pt version without the Extra Time on it. But, you know, at somepoint in 6e....just buy more DCV, eh? 

Or call that the 2pt\level version for master villains and Cthulu and whoever.

The moons in my world act as kinda...transformative magical dynamos. Pulling in raw solar energy\magic and transforming it in to more abstract forms\colors. 

Gods are creatures that have acquired various lunar artifacts that allow them to directly tap that lunar power.

The catch being that the more of these artifacts you can find and bond to the more your personality becomes warped by them. 

The primary way they warp personalities is to drive them to acquire more power and lunar artifacts and control and to project their lunar influence on the world. And to make them more than a little paranoid (reasonably expecting that all other gods are in fact plotting against them).  

I'd specifically wanted fairly weak gods in contrast to typical (ie, D&D) fantasy RPGs. I think of the tougher ones as being kinda on the level of JLA members (Bryne era Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, etc). Or maybe like The Dominator from The Black Company novels.

So they are driven to gain power and influence the world. But while\if they are on the planet they are vulnerable. Super tough, but vulnerable. 

But while they on on their moons they are unable to directly effect events. 

Priests can then channel through their connection to a lunar deity. In return for doing the gods will and abiding by the psycho-spiritual nature of the moon in question. 

So the end result is gods that are both "weak" and active. They tend to have specific kingdoms\realms they have a patron relationship with and can directly channel lunar power to their chosen priests (provided their moon is in LOS to said priest) if they choose. Potentially burning the priests out in an excitingly literal way.

They then drive these kingdoms\heroes\etc to do their will. And also secretly hunt down more lunar artifacts. Both to bond them (if of their own moon) or to hide them from the other gods of the other moons. 

The Great Northern Church of Hexor is fighting Ostermark for control of The Labyrinth because both Hexor (the god) and Illisius (patron god of Ostermark) know there are lunar artifacts (and other nasty magics their mortal followers can use on each other) there. 

The Grey Elves had Boccob (god of the purple moon) as their patron and were able to create the Sathen Empire because of that patronage (and to serve his purposes). 

That kinda thing.

But they can die, is the point. And be replaced. And are magically warped to crave power and influence.

And while they've got loads of resources and mortal orgs and immortal secret knowledge of the world secrets and hidden treasures and magical caches on the planet they are personally only 350-500pt supers (5th) in a world of 225pt (max-ish) mortal types. 

I'd kinda modeled them off of aspects of The Star Rider from The Dread Empire books, the JLA, the aforementioned The Dominator, and the idea that gods could be statted out...and killed. There's nothing special or extra-rules-y about them. 

20 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I don't have my book available right now but I think you can in 6th.

p71: The GM may restrict which types of CSLs can have Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations.

However per p70 2pt CSLs can ONLY increase OCV and not DCV.

3pt CSLs can only be used for DCV against the same types of attacks as they grant OCV.

But it specifies under 5pt CSLs that "Large Group" means more than "Small Group" but less than "all HtH Combat or all Range Combat".

Not sure how that interacts with Defense Maneuver which would provide it's bonuses\nega-penalties regardless, right?

Still seems like 5pt level would be right.

But since it's 6th....now you're just buying DCV for 3pts per point. So even if you get things down to 2pts per level it might almost be cheaper in 6th to just buy more DCV in some cases?

And since Grailknight asked a couple times, I think I'd do it like a limited form of DCV.

For the 3pt version:

So 5pt CSLs with Extra Time (-1 maybe since CSLs are normally 0 phase? Or -1/2 because that actually seems more in line with other examples), Only for rear attacks (-1). Call it -2.

Rather than slap a "only to counter up to half DCV penalties for rear attacks" I'd just have the PC buy it at a level matching their CV\Dex.

So the Dex 12 Fighter that uses heavy weapons only has to pay for 2 levels of it but the Dex 30 Speedster would need to pay his 5 levels. (insert equivalent 6th edition examples...here: < > )

About 2pts per level. So 4-8pts for most Heroic games, probably. 8-12+pts for most Superheroic games, depending on how folks like their Dex\Spd set up.

The 5\8\10pt versions also work out about the same.

DCV (only to counter DCV penalties, only versus rear or multi attack) is probably -1/2, eh? Maybe a -1?

So 2-3pts per level of anticipated penalty based on character Dex. Rather than a flat rate.

Seems much more Hero-y that way, no? Price based on anticipated utility matched to character capability?

Or maybe not since Stealth is always 3pts even if you're Dex 2600?

And unaging immortality is 5pts rather than an escalating cost based on buying off the anticipated disad costs of old age from the Age table?

Definitely makes the flat 3pt cost seem like a good deal.

3 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

The only people I've seen asking for this are those who are making a big issue of this "rules cheese" They should be the ones who ultimately fix their problem with the rules. I've proposed 3  no point cost solutions.

First page of the thread: "But... you bring up a good point: why does Defense Maneuver cost so much if its application is so uncommon and often indistinct in nature?  Yes 10 points isn't much... at the superheroic level, but its a fair amount at the heroic level where its almost exclusively going to be used."

Poster in question doesn't seem to have a big issue with the rules cheese.

First page of the thread (converse): "Defense Maneuver really doesn't cost that much.  If you rule as I do, and allow easy mob tactics against untrained warriors, then the 3 point version of Defense Maneuver is about the best three points you'll ever spend.  If you're a Fighting Man with a 6 DCV and are fighting 2 uncoordinating Goblins with 3 OCV, then that 3 points is basically granting you 15 points worth of DCV by preventing you from taking a 1/2 DCV penalty."

Poster in question doesn't seem to have a big issue with the rules cheese. But does seem to agree with my posited position that 3pts is probably a great price for the utility.

Second page of thread: "You shouldn't have to pay 10 real or 3 real and an HPA every turn to not be subject to inane rules abuse." 

Poster in question doesn't seem to have a big issue with the rules cheese...in that they wouldn't allow it to occur (just as most of us wouldn't).

So...I don't think anybody was actually "asking for this"...except me.

You say 3pts seems good. Cool!

3 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

1-Actually using this "rules cheese" in a couple of sessions with every character's every action and seeing how that plays.

 

2- GM fiat

 

3- Using Surprise Attack as the basis for this and adjudicating it from there.

 

That's my limit. Life is too short to try to please everyone.

 

Ok. Those more address the rules abuses than the building of Defense Maneuver itself. Which is a fine solution to that part of things.

Thank you for contributing (<- not sarcasm, since tone is hard on the 1nt3rw3bz).

11 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

All of those threads are about things that are not priced out. Apparently the silent majority either doesn't care about or agrees with the pricing as is. Propose your better option so we can use it as the basis for this debate you want so much.

 

Oh and I would price it just as it is in the book. it is useful but doesn't come up in the source material of all genres

Ha! I just thought it might be a more useful and interesting direction to take the thread given the proclivities of Hero fans to build stuff. I wouldn't say I want it "so much", but just...if you build it using CSLs, limited Stats, or however...how does it work out? Clarifying? Useful? Interesting? Maybe. Maybe not.

Similarly I'm not sure where "better option" enters in to things. It might be a more expensive option. Which would be less better.

But others in the thread have posted that folks shouldn't have to pay 3pts (and a HPA) or 10pts for a marginally useful\useless ability only to prevent (a potential and interpretable) rules cheese.

ETA: "It is useful but doesn't come up in the source material of all games". True! But would you change the price depending on the game? Like a Kung Fu game where you'll be fighting a LOT of ninjas all at once all the time...still only 3\5\8\10pts?

Just now, Christopher R Taylor said:

Levels with a single maneuver are 2 points each.  Extra time cuts that price down considerably.  

Is general DCV (in limited circumstances) a single maneuver?

+X DCV - only for rear attacks = single maneuver?

Extra Time should only be -1/2 or -1/4, right?

2 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

But it is a skill in the book. Why does it need to be repriced when it's already broken into 4 categories? If you disagree with the pricing, that a thing,. So propose your fix.

 

You might also want to consider that guy who persist on circling to the back, as attempting a Surprise Attack and give bonuses or penalties accordingly.

The Hero Way is to construct stuff from other rules, right? Like if there happened to be a skill called, "F*ck it! Fine! You just win then! F*ckin' PCs!", for 10pts surely we'd have issues with it, right?

6th really seemed to take that towards its logical conclusion.

So...the intent in my question is: IF the skill was NOT in the book...how would you price this construct using the rules as written (or intended, or just how you'd do it at your table).

I, personally, DNGAF about the pricing. I just think it's funny to see Hero folks that looooove throwing together 20pt spoons and 15pt cell phones and whatever else (flashlights, right? Wasn't that a recent thread? Or was it a very very old thread I was reading recently? Who knows!!?!?) saying something is too pricey but...without pricing it.

Surely we can price it out, yes?

5 CSLs, only for DCV (25pts in 5th, right), only versus rear attacks (-1 given the discussion in the thread about them being rare? More?), extra time (half phase) let's call that -1/2, only up to have of base DCV (-1/4? or call it -1/2 to make the math easy? Let's do that!). Is 25 Active and so...8 real? Is that right?

6 CSLs, only for DCV, only versus multiple attackers (-1? -2?), only up to max number of attackers (-1/2?), extra time? Or do we just take the initial 5-6 CSLs and limit them less? Should still be another 7-15 points probably.

And so on?

Defense Maneuver seems cheap to me for the points based on that kind of a breakdown.

As for the circling back attack portion of events I think Lucius has it right. They just turn to face.

Just like Scottish Fox is saying about UFC. Or like Chris, Tywyll, and myself (and Surrealone?) are saying about boffer combats and martial arts generally.

Unless it's a chaotic enough melee and large enough melee that folks are losing track of other folks then...they just turn to face. If it's a 2-on-1 engagement THEN maybe we have a potential Attack from Behind (much like 5e D&D with the adjacent ally thing). Though for myself in LARP we found it best to bracket the guy at more like 90 degree angles. Trying to get to 180 degrees just gives them a way to escape, rushing past and out from between. IME at least.

Since GM fiat and common and stylistic genre sensibilities apply (per the *rules*!) then surely if somebody tries to run behind you in a melee..logically, common sensically, genre...sensically?, and  in most other respects you turn to face them. Unless something prevents you, or there are multiple opponents, or you can't perceive them\lost track of them, right?

Hmm. I was mostly here for the downvotes and slapfighting but since it looks like we're passed that...

Are we really doing this "The HERO Way"?

3pts to negate a -1/2 DCV penalty for rear attacks? Isn't that just skill levels with "Extra Time" added in? Seems crazy cheap! If I'm a Dex 30 martial artist I can get 5 levels of CSLs for only 3pts? That'd be 25pts in DCV CSLs alone!

2pts to eliminate multiple attacker bonuses from all attackers. Uh...that seems crazy cheap, right? +x CSLs (Only Versus Multiple Attackers, Only up to max value of attackers bonuses) with that same Extra Time (half phase)? Not sure "only versus characters the recipient can perceive" is worth much but surely a potentially unlimited number of CSLs to counter an equally silly and unrealistic unlimited number of Multi Attack Bonus seems pricier than 2pts, no?

3pts to apply those CSLs against all attackers all the time seems like we've moved in to maybe limited forms of Dex\DCV (for 6th) except for the Extra Time feature.

2pts to eliminate the Extra Time limitation seems pretty cheap too if bought as a Naked Advantage for a potentially unlimited number of CSLs, right?

Shouldn't this ability be much MORE expensive?

Or, put another way:

Let's say you're the GM.

You have a player who wants his character to be unsurprisable from behind and able to fight many attackers at once without defensive penalties.

How do you build that for them and how much does it cost in real points (and how many active points does it turn out to be)?

Assuming something semi-reasonable like capping potential benefit at 6 CSLs (one attacker per hex on a totally surrounded character) or whatever.

I think it's gonna be more than 3pts or 10pts, right?

Where's the Palindromedary?

The 6th Ed HERO Way is clearly: Anything you can do in the rules you can atomize\decompose in to smaller and more atomic rules structures.

Like Transfer or Armor\FF\Resistant Defense, right?

So...even tho 5th isn't *quite* that decomposable, for the sake of argument, how would you price Defense Maneuver 1 thought Defense Maneuver 4 using 5th and\or 6th edition if it wasn't a skill in the book?

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

That's sad to hear, as my experience with VtM runs 180 degrees from yours.  I guess it's a matter of ST's.  TBH, I'm super picky about WoD ST's … and have tended to long-running games with a handful of what I consider really good STs for whom imagery and story pertaining to one's dehumanization … trump combat, politics, maneuvering, etc.  Not once have I seen PvP kills.  Keep in mind, I only play tabletop, never LARP.   (LARPs, I hear, tend to be really backstabby and PvP-like.)

Ok, this is way off topic, so I'm done with the tangent.  It was fun while it lasted, thanks Duke, for the left turn!

I think the behavior in the LARPS is more about there mostly only being PCs\factions. I could be *very* wrong about that since I never played Mindseye Theatre\LARP VtM but my impression is since it's mostly PCs it's inherently PvPish in that....there's not really a lot of other folks to conflict with.

I've definitely seen that dynamic in other LARPS I've played that lacked NPCs. Nobody else to fight or conflict with? Well...it's gonna be PvP then most likely.

48 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

"STs?" 

StoryTellers? The GMs\Refs of the World of DAAARRRKNESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!