TranquiloUno

1 hour ago, Spence said:

I'm guessing that personal horror is the intent that wasn't actually written into the books

I thought this was the actual tagline?

Like so: https://www.amazon.com/Vampire-masquerade-storytelling-personal-horror/dp/B0006QV6WY

I remember this specifically because as a teen I was riding back from a LARP with a friend and his mom and remember saying re:VtM, "It's a game of personal horror!", and friends mom was all, "Well we certainly can't have him playing THAT!", which I thought was a bit odd considering we'd been a couple teens running around in the wood all weekend with strange adults. ;D

1 hour ago, Spence said:

 

Currently I have been running horror almost exclusively. CoC, ToC, Delta Green, Nights Black Agents, Down Darker Trails and so on. 

 

My personal experience with WoD games observed is that I never saw any horror at all.  When I was in a shop with an active WoD game I was able to recruit players all the time to play horror as in CoC because they would flee the political morass and regular need for new PCs because of betrayal and backstabbing death.

I don't recall any backstabbing in any of the WoD games I played in. VtM, WtA, MtA, or Hunters Hunted.

1 hour ago, Spence said:

 

Intellectually I fully understand that the game is probably good and not all about politics and PCs killing each other. But since 80'whatever it was to the present, on the East Coast, West Coast, between, Korea, Japan, Europe and the Middle East.  Everywhere I have ever seen it played, it was all the same game.

"Ha ha ha, Donna has to make a new character again.  Bobs Bruhaha whatsit killed her again...."

Conversely I've never seen this personally and have only heard of one player, an odd guy, who was routinely staking other PCs, and I think that was more the player and his character than anything to do with the game and was at least partly driven by munchkin tendencies on the part of the player. He was also part of a VtM game that ran for years and years, pre\post this player, so even in the single instance I've heard of it didn't do anything to the enjoyment\continuation of the game for the rest of folks.

1 hour ago, Spence said:

 

I love horror and have driven insane or killed many PCs.  But I have never been able to enjoy a game that, intended or not, centers on PvP kills.

 

 

 

Very strange. Never seen this in VtM or WoD generally. Certainly nothing even close to resembling "centers on PvP kills". Like...at all.

Interesting to hear your comparative experiences.

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Excellent!

 

While most of us have had very different results, it is truly refreshing to see a success story, even if it's about the bad guys.  

 

If can evaluate it objectively, how much would you say the pressure of being "on the run" helped keep the players from exploring the "all things villainy" aspects of their characters?  If you, how long do you think your players would have been happy playing the "on the run" angle?

I pitched a pretty strong origin story for them all. It was a near future setting that didn't have supers until the accident that creates the PCs (and the opposition). So, again, it wasn't a long campaign, and I think the on the run, new supers, wanted criminals stuff definitely constrained even the parts of the campaign I was wanting to get to, which was, like Gnome BODY (important!) says above, mostly Shadowrun\Ocean's 11 with powers.

I was hoping to make it past that to the point they'd start their own super-villain plots but we only got as far as them taking over most of the drug trade in Las Vegas and heisting a single experimental regeneration device (which was partly improvised due to my getting a headshot on a PC during an encounter with some SWAT folks).

I expected to keep them at the on the run stage for another session or so. They'd always be wanted criminals (probably) but they'd started to acquire resources but they'd acquired enemies\opposition to go with it (shadow government faction and the mad scientist(s) responsible for the origin story). 

Quote

 

How do you feel that the tentpole of "powers are only stable when we are together" influenced them to not become a collection of individual "me first" type bad guys?

 

 

I would guess fairly strongly. The pitch was the classic, "You're a death row\other prisoner trading time off your sentence for being a test subject" + "mad science experiment goes horribly wrong" (you saw that coming tho, I'm sure).

So while they were all convicted criminals in some way there was no requirement they be Hideously Evil or Deeply Villainous.

Also it was fairly low powered (rather than the classic attack\defense\movement setup it was more 1-2 of those and maybe 1-2 other minor features) and they all had DF of some kind. So they had less ability to blend in, less ability to solo or go solo (even apart from the Dependency on being in proximity to each other). I think they might have had a Susceptibility to attacking each other too or something just to lay it on extra thick. Don't remember now. 

AND, crucially, I had a good group of players. So that always makes things easier. 

I'd guess, based on the players and the characters they created, and without the close-proximity thing that the group would have broken up in to a couple of sub-groups based on character outlook if we'd hit the sandbox phase of things. The Magneto type (who also had super Int) was most likely to evolve in to a classic supervillain. I don't think the others were that ambitious. But they'd have made a good thug squad. 

I ran a short one. Went fine.

Had a method to keep the party together and at least semi-friendly (all their powers were from the same source and were only 'stable' when all of them were in fairly close proximity).

Didn't get deep enough in to it to get to the sandbox type stage.

Still in the "on the run" and dealing with various other factors (hunted due to escape from prison, other 'villain' group, FedGov stuff).

I liked running it and would run one again.

A little late to this thread.

Mine is here: https://sites.google.com/view/amagicsystemforherodescribed/home

Or at least a version of it, No Magic System survives contact with the Players, right? ;D

Pretty basic. RSR with Side Effects.

One of the more interesting bits is that magical conduits (channelers\magic users\casters) are required to take a DF: Magic Conduit which is NOT Concealable from Magesight (which conduits also have to take).

So magic users can almost always detect other magic users on sight.

20 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

As have I.  

 

It's funny; until you mentioned it, I never really gave it much thought, but looking back, I realize more and more that the biggest two reasons I did not move into third edition were the art  (the cover art was fine: I have a deep love of William's work, but the _colors_?  Ugh!  A nightmare in pastel!  And that horrific pink for the back cover add?!  Gag!) and the new layout.  I just didn't like the "headers in bubbles" and the new fonts, etc.  It had too much of an "I want to be a text book" look, and it was too different in layout from both the previous two iterations and other games on the market at the time.  It wasn't the small changes to the game that bothered me; it was the changes to the _look_ of the game that actively turned me off to it.   

 

When Vampire hit the shelves, my brother David and I jumped in quickly.  Why?  The _look_ of the game.  That was all it took for us to pick up the book (one copy each, same trip to the FLGS) and read it.  The inside was pretty sweet too, as it was, at that time, my first "politics is the point" game.  (I will tell you up front:  That crap wears off some kind of fast).

I've been thinking about that too recently while rereading the classics. VtM had, obvs, terrible cover art, but was still striking in it's way. But the interiors were really a sweet and stylistic departure from the TSR style that seemed standard before WoD\WW showed up.

Ars Magica is another one where the look, the art, and the system are all nicely congruent.

20 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

 

While I agree with you in spirit, I feel that there are likely some people out there who are swayed by cover arts, blurbs, intro pages-- sometimes the style just _catches_.  I've read more than one crappy book because the first couple of pages were tasty, tasty bait.... 

Yes, that's a bit strong to say that any pile of words can be a worthwhile game system. And for sure *if the cover can get you to pick up the book* then I think cover blurbs and intros and all the rest (interior art!) can have a chance to go to work on a potential buyer.

But I do think the nice cover art matters in getting folks to take a closer look.

20 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

 

Agreed on both counts!  

 

 

Didn't / don't like either character, but that cover was _glorious_!  Undoubtably the high-water mark of HERO covers!

Ha! Same. I mean I like Dr. D's appearance and design (not so for Seeker) but I don't particularly care for either character. But they did make me want to buy the book.

Same for the Hero System #500 cover from the ICE days.

20 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Ditto.  Never even _read_ Battletech.  In fact, I gave it to a friend about twelve years ago who had lost his (someone cut his saddlebags and made off with them, not realizing they had nothing but his work jacket and some gaming stuff in them).  Even then, as well-thumbed as it was, I had never read it.

 

 

 

I really enjoyed my time playing Talislanta.  And thanks to our resident Lore Master, Lord Liaden, I have discovered that a lot of the old stuff is available for free, legally, from the ... author?  Publisher?  I don't remember now...  But it's out there, for free, if you're into PDF.

 

Author made Tal available directly. Great stuff! I've downloaded copies on to multiple computers in fact.

Also Skyrealms of Jorune, Underground, Mekton, CP2020 (true, I was going to buy all the cyberpunk things regardless but those Chromebooks sure made it easier), some of the GURPS supps.

Heh. As fans we should just Kickstarter a collection of money to reprint FHC\CC or another slim Hero product but with loads of art dripping off every page. ;D

5 hours ago, Deadman said:

I get that people don't buy an RPG for the art but it does get interest going.

I'm not sure that's true....

Certainly people don't buy an RPG *just* for the art but I have also certainly bought any number of RPGs over the years sheerly based on cover and interior art. 

I think any pile of words can be a functional game system. I don't think people buy RPGs because of the words.

I think the book has to spark something in the person. Blue and yellow don't spark nuthin' for me.

Dr. D vs Seeker made me want to play that game without ever reading it.

I remember loads of Classic Enemies based on their art.

I remember buying Champions in 3d based almost solely on the cover art.

Since we're a bunch of Hero nerds here I know we all love our system of choice but I don't really think a system has ever sold a game.

I think art sells games.

Art invokes creativity.

Art informs potential buyers\players about all kinds of things about the game without them having to read a proverbial thousand words.

Art actually gets potential players to read those thousand or more words of the rules to actually play the game.

Shadowrun? Battletech? Bought 'em for the art.

Warhammer\40k? Art. In fact Warhammer and it's family are probably the best case for art being the only thing that really matters. IMO.

All those terrible Palladium games I used to play? It was the art that did it for sure.

Talislanta? Barely remember the system. Loooooove the art and the world and still wanna play that game solely based on the art.

Rules are bullshit (to an extent)\no plan survives contact with the enemy.

But pretty pictures are always pretty.

Art sells product.

IMO at least.

Gets pricey tho!

Four THOUSAND points!??!?!

Four *THOUSAND*?!?!

Damn...

Build a guy on 400, max, maybe try 300, and use the standard superheroic guidelines to do so.

Basically what massey is saying.

Four *THOUSAND*!?!??!

On 7/27/2019 at 11:53 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I've seen a number of people talking about tactics on these forums.  About properly timing haymakers, when to abort (and to what), where to move to, which enemy to attack, etc. 

But the last tactics thread seemed to just be a dumping ground for abusive power constructs or abusive power combinations.  Which was a shame, since my current group's tactics are basically "move to closest enemy and use attack power" and I was really hoping to see examples of how canny play can get an edge. 

So I want to know, how does a better player go about getting better results during play?  Not during chargen, not during VPP reassignment, but when the pencils are down and your team is facing their evil superclones. 

Thanks for posting! The last one got sidetracked but I didn't want to complain too much that builds != tactics.

I mostly agree with Christopher R Taylor that tactics depend on specifics and so making generalized tactics, particularly for a system as flexible as Hero, is hard to do.

I think there might be meta-game considerations as well.

Like in-game focusing fire on one enemy at a time seems questionable. Wouldn't you fight the guy you square up with like in every superhero fight in the comics?

But meta-game focus fire one one enemy at a time seems quite legit and useful.

Do PCs in-game know about Teamwork attacks and if they are totally plinking off the guys armor? Or is that meta-game awareness?

Do PCs in-game know about the Speed Chart and how saving phases works? Even to the extent of, "He's faster than us, we'll have to wait and strike at the same time...."?

Definitely combo attacks to reduce DCV followed by Haymaker\Extra Time\whatever the thing is are valid particularly in combo with saved phases.

Guy1 = entangle, Guy2 = haymaker the 1/2DCV guy before his breakout.

I also agree with Christopher R Taylor that a lot of the tactical complexity is probably going to come from the scenario itself.

If there are no civilians to rescue or falling Heli-carrier rotors to fix then...no need for tactics to address that. Just smash the enemy.

If there's nothing on the battlefield to interact with, or no reason to interact with it, same kinda thing, no need for tactics besides ganging up and picking the right attack\defense.

And then of course figuring out the abilities of your enemies in combat (because their abilities will influence your tactics to counter them, right) is a potentially valid tactic, but only if you gain actionable intel from it. If you scan them with your scanners but they don't have any Vulnerabilities or Susceptibilities or anything like that...not much to evolve a tactic to counter.

And then the last thing I think is that...tactics might be too successful in some cases and create a GM need\want to nerf them.

The Entangle Guy and the Drain vs Strength Guy or whatever.

In the last thread this is why I had been asking for specific examples from specific players in specific games rather than generalized Hero tactics.

What have players and GMs actually done that is "tactical" exactly?

I played in a game where the bad guys often had teleport-back-to-base belts\items. So then countering that by disabling them, breaking them, grabbing them of their belt was a valid tactic.

But it wouldn't be universal.

Those are some example from play though:

Targeting enemies escape route\devices.

Focus fire on one target at a time.

Getting somebody to half DCV (throw, Flash, Entangle) so the others can hit them with bigger attacks more easily. Particularly if you've got a cheap 1 Hex AoE to go against Speedsters\Martial Artists.

18 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

One older (pre-Fourth Edition) book was very useful to me in providing specific examples of tactics superheroes might use: Strike Force by the late great Aaron Allston, detailing his extensive personal campaign. They were inspiration for developing special maneuvers and code words for teams in my own campaigns. The team would practice strategies and maneuvers for particular situations or to maximize their collective strengths. Let me just transcribe the examples Allston gave in his book (occasionally paraphrased for clarity):

 

Air-Lift: Emergency evacuation. Fliers, teleporters, speedsters, grab everyone you can and get out of here!

Blind Swing: A brick not engaged with a villain begins a Pushed Haymaker. A teleporter sneaks up on the villain and teleports him right into the path of the swinging fist at the precise moment the Haymaker is supposed to land.

Blue Dot: Warning you're about to use a Flash attack.

Delta Vee: A teleporter or flier with Martial Arts waits until a fast-moving villain is passing near a hard surface. The hero moves into his path and Martial Throws him into the surface.

Express Train: For exceptionally tough non-flying villains. A teleporter and a flier grab an enemy. The teleporter 'ports as high up as possible. The flyer then dives straight down at maximum velocity with the other two. Just before impact the teleporter 'ports himself and the flyer back up where the flyer will have space to decelerate.

High Guard: Take an aerial position for reconnaissance or sniping.

Jackhammer: At a signal from the team leader, everyone (who can afford to) ignores his current opponent and uses a ranged attack on the opponent selected by the leader.

Mustard: Warning you're about to use a gas attack, or gas is being used against us.

Napalm: Use an explosive attack.

Nuke Him: The kid gloves are off -- use your nastiest attack.

Peeping Tom: Scan the target with all your sensors.

Pigeon: The opponent is a weakling -- restrain yourself.

Pop-Tart: Evacuate civilians from the area.

Ripoff: Steal Accessible Foci.

Sandwich: Two bricks with fast movement converge on the same target from opposite sides to perform a Move-Through.

Shield: Someone with high Defenses, stand in front of the designated person.

Tangler: Used on high-DCV targets. At a signal, everyone who can Holds their Action. A hero with an Area Of Effect Entangle throws it on a target, who is momentarily at 0 DCV even if he could normally shrug out of the Entangle. The other heroes then blast the target.

 

Some other tactical examples appear in other Champions books, which I'll post here as I have time.

These don't really seem like "tactics" to me. They are code words for certain generalized moves. Which could be used tactically.

But most of them can just be called what they are. Like, "They are using a gas attack!", or, conversely, "I'm going to use my gas attack now, you guys!".

Might be useful (and I think Allston did this) if your GM is very cagey about in-game dialog or something.

Like if I'm saying, "Hey, Speedster! Ripoff! RIPOFF!!!", and pointing madly at an enemy with a focus...can't I just say, "Hey, Speedster, get that gadget!"?

Is the target likely to be surprised by the first one, "Sure, they were pointing at me and saying "Ripoff!" but how was I to know he meant grab the thingie and runwith it"???

I'd say, "Having a speedster\teleporter grab a focus and then run\port away with it so they can't get it back during the battle", is a valid tactic.

But having a bunch of code words is not, to me, "tactics".

I was noticing this too. It *seems* to me like Aid would be the way do it. But only because doing it as Char UBO is so cheap!

Mental Defense seems pretty straight forward but I usually have trouble even rationalizing wtf "Power Defense" is doing in a broad and general sense such that I can justify a character having it or not.

I agree with Gnome BODY (important!) that it's highly GM\game dependent.

I can't really estimate commonality in a universal sense but I would guess   Flash > Mental > Power with the Life Supports more relegated to character concept than being defensive abilities.

But that's a guess. Flash Def is pretty easy to rationalize and some concepts even kinda encourage it (if you've got special goggles...maybe throw some Flash Def on it?) and Mental attacks are common enough in Supers games and easy enough to rationalize ("My guy has great strength of will!\Is half-alien\Can focus his chi\really almost anything") that it'll pop up.

Drain\Transfer\Transform effects seem least common, generally, so the defense are less common as well.

That's my speculation!

2 minutes ago, dmjalund said:

dodge is just bonus DCV, it can be countered by bonus OCV (conditional) 

+4 OCV (only when opponent is dodging) ;D

2 hours ago, Trencher said:

I was thinking of making a ranged attack power that is difficult to dodge. Giving the opposing character -1 or more to his or hers dodge roll. 

What is the best way of going about that? I can not just wing it because this is a power for a player.  

There's a Dodge roll?

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

I don't mind interesting match ups and I understand that some extreme characters (like The Flash) have to toss realism and consistency out the window in order for there to be a threat by non-speedsters, but it still has to feel consistent.

 

If Spiderman is facing a completely normal 3 year old boy and gets KO'd by an angry swat on the knee - nobody is going to enjoy that story.

 

So, creepy circus themed freaks just need a moment of backstory enhancement to justify supernatural or superhuman ability.  They have to have a reason they can hit a bullet-dodging Spiderman.

 

I recall an equally jarring episode of Spiderman where he was facing the Punisher that had a mix of clever and stupid writing.  At one point the punisher punches himself in the chest which confuses Spiderman even though his danger sense is going off.  The sleep gas explodes from his chest compartment and it's a great surprise move.

 

Later and this next part was unforgivably !@#$ writing by Marvel Comics - Punisher is blasting ineffectually at the agile Spiderman and somehow as Spiderman flips through the air the Punisher shoots both of his webshooters off his wrists.

 

Spiderman complains he's been caught mid-leap and can't do anything to dodge.  Oh, I don't know, you could move your wrists one !@#$ing inch to the side??!! 

 

So. Bad.

Ugh. Terrible. This is why (among other reasons) Punisher should live in Marvel MAX and everybody else should...not.

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

I just want some narrative consistency.  It doesn't have to be perfect nor especially scientific, but sometimes the writers are painfully lazy and just a single tenuous excuse on how character X can now (temporarily perhaps) face character Y would go a long way.

Sure and I can totally understand that but also as even a casual comic reader you gotta know that's never gonna happen.

Worf Effect, different writers, etc, etc.

Not sure why Batroc got to give Captain America such a hard time in Winter Soldier. He's just a normal.

And yet....it was a nice little fight. And I'm pretty sure it goes about the same in the comics.

I figure, again, No-Prize style, that if a GM, er, I mean a writer, is going to throw a threat at a PC, or other fictional character, that the threat will be...you know, a threat.

I don't think there's a strong need to preface that with a lot of exposition about how\why it's possible.

But, all that said, I totally understand your complaints both regarding martial arts giving you superpowers (I wish!) and also inconsistency between writers, eras, and so on.

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

It was pretty bad in the 70s and 80s.  I recall one episode of The Hulk where an elderly woman fought the Hulk to a stand still using Aikido.

 

See, it doesn't matter that the Hulk is a 1000 pound monster that moves with terrifying speed and violence.  You just have to sidestep and use his own energy against him....

 

I took a year of Aikido at the University of Hawaii and I promise you - this is fiction of the worst sort.

 

A well executed Judo or Aikido move will let you do something to an opponent with a fraction of the strength to do it without technique.  But this fraction is on the order of 1/2 or 1/4.

 

It is not the 1/50,000 you would need to do something to the Hulk.

I certainly agree with you from a realism perspective. But I also suspect this perspective is based on and biased by actually knowing some martial arts.

Something like the gunkata from Equilibrium seems...kinda dumb given what I know of shooting.

Same for martial arts.

Comic book martial arts aren't really supposed to be IRL martial arts IMO. They're just another Special Effect.

Just like I don't think there is a real martial art that'll let me turn my hands "like unto a thing of iron" but it's ok that Iron Fist can do that.

To me at least. If an Aikido Granny gets to manhandle The Hulk with aikido well...yes that sounds dumb, and if it was a RPG I'd give the GM some serious stinkeye for this railroady bullshit, but since it's a comic book...totally fine.

6 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

Only because of wildly bad writing and power level inconsistency.

 

The same spider man who can lift 5-10 tons and is fast enough to dodge bullets.  In one write-up part of spiderman's bullet dodging prowess was attributed to the fact he was so quick that he could actually see the bullets coming.

 

Some normal judoka is going to give him any trouble at all?  Complete BS.  I have a brown belt in judo and a black belt in TKD and some other training and someone with spiderman's strength and speed would have me mutilated by the end of the first Segment 12.

 

Rope tricks?  Against someone who can dodge bullets?  Not sure if anyone has compared the muzzle velocity of a lasso recently, but I'm betting it's 50-100x slower than a bullet.

 

I HATED those comics.

Meh.

A hero who can't be threatened would be dull AF. A hero that can only be threatened by "realistic" threats (in a comic book?!) would be dull AF too.

Shifting *comic book* hero abilities and capabilities are extremely par for the course IMO.

I mean...Captain American can probably beat up Spidey and he doesn't even have a brown belt in Judo.  ;D

And Spidey can't dodge a heavy spinning disc?! 

Unrealistic! Spidey should just auto-win because one time somebody said he was fast enough to see bullets coming!

Part of the point of comic book martial arts is...the comic book thing. Ways to give folks extraordinary abilities that might not "make sense" here in reality but work just fine as a "Special Effect Based" rules system.

The special effect is just the "It's JUDO!" parts. Same as "proportional strength and speed of a spider" = Dex 36\Str 40 or where ever you like to set it.

Not that I thought you were being Super Serious Business or anything, but...c'mon.

Karate Kid, Shang-Chi, Iron Fist, Judomaster, Batman, Deathstroke (dude can hit The Flash), Captain America, and so on.

Plenty of examples of just "normal" martial artists throwing down with supers in the source material.

Even if it's not "realistic".

You know what I find unrealistic though is all those armored supers like Iron Man that never get splattered all over the insides of their fancy suits during high-speed impacts. I know, I know, "initial dampeners". Unrealistic! Armor suit guys should all be forced to take Susceptibility to Sudden Stops and such!

I'm more in the Marvel No-Prize camp:

Spidey (particularly in The Enforcers days) wasn't a very experienced combatant and definitely wasn't trained. I think he gets bonus points for "The White Belt" effect (where the white belt does something so...weird that black belts get caught by it) because he's effectively untrained but using his speed and strength and flexibility to do stuff that shouldn't work at all.

That said I've seen smaller martial arts guys beat larger, stronger, faster, younger folks by virtue of being better than them.

I think that's partly what we're wanting to model here.

Judo and such can work quite well against larger\stronger untrained folks because of all that usual stuff (leverage, timing, the other person not knowing wtf is happening).

So Fancy Dan can indeed fight Spidey (back in the 250pt days) by using his superior training against a talented but untrained and inexperienced teenager. Particularly when you factor in the multi-attacker\team-up bonuses and potential entangles from the lasso and all of that with his friends around.

Of course it's more likely that comics written in the 60s weren't exactly making any attempt at all in anyway to model a "reality" that would be self-consistent and remain consistent for 20-30+ years in to the future, eh?

Anyway, like I said, I don't think you were super serious but...within the fictional world of comic books this all makes perfect sense to me from both a dramatic sense and a play-balance sense.

And more so than the comics being able to portray this consistently (nothing is consistent in comics) I'd think our beloved Hero system is the thing that is burdened with having to be consistent.

And I feel certain any of us can build a 200pt Very, Very Skilled Normal that can at least challenge a 250-300pt Spidey. Particularly if he's got his other 200pt Very, Very Skilled Normals along for the ride.

Bunch of Speed 3s can still mess up a Speed 6s day. Viper Agents. Agents in general. Fancy Dan and Ox and Montana.

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

I'm sure this is a terrible idea, but just playing with it. (I think it avoids the whole weirdness of subtracting the roll, which feels wrong, as Brian pointed out.)

 

Make combat an opposed roll. Player just takes 11+OCV +/- any modifiers... roll and figure out "How much you made the roll by?"  Example: 7 OCV + 11 = 18 or less (just like a skill roll)... roll 3d6... get a 12... made it by 6. If they are doing an Offensive Strike it is 11+7-2 for 16 or less... roll a 12, made it by 4. Basically, all they have to do is "I made it by X"

 

GM rolls 11+DCV and mods... how much did they make it by? "5 DCV so 16 or less on my defense roll... I rolled a 13, made it by 3"  

 

So, "Attack made it by 6" beats "Defense Made it by 3"... you hit.

 

Or target dodges... so 5 DCV + 11 + 5 for dodge... rolled a 13, made it by 8... you miss"

 

I know there are arguments against the extra roll... but there are arguments for it in terms of everyone "leaning in" to see how the rolls compare. And then the roll feels just like a skill roll "How much did you make your stealth by?" and "How much did you make your attack roll by?" become the same question.

 

This does work, right? Or is my limited math brain on the fritz.  (It does remove the slight advantage for the attacker (11 over 10.5 in the traditional calculation), but I dunno if that matters. It does allow players and PCs to feel like they are actively involved (by rolling their Defense roll) when being attacked, rather than just passively taking it.

 

I dunno... I kinda like it. hmm...

So....GURPS, then? 🤣  /I kid, I kid.....

16 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 

 This is convinces me even more why HERO needs to put out superior art with its publications, because it really does affect the way we remember the books and how we engage them aesthetically.

It's my opinion that rulebook\sourcebook art is the secret sauce\silver bullet of RPGs.

To the point I think they might matter more than the rules.

6 hours ago, Tech said:

How would you build a defense for someone who cannot become dizzy? (Gas can't cause damage defined as dizzines, Drain can't drain Dex defined as dizzy, etc). It feels like the Damage Reduction vs special effect somewhat.

How many dizzying effects are there going to be in the game?

I'd think the cost would be proportional to the value in game.

Unless there are going to be specific dizzy-creating effects in the game I'd think it would be cheap.

But if the Keystone Kops all use Dizzy Blasters and are going to show often then it might be more.

I'd use Detect: Balance - Sense (5pts) or Environmental Movement (Absolute Balance is 4pts) or even just +X (Only to counter dizziness penalties) which would probably be...4-6pts, eh? Or Safe Environment - Dizzyness for 4-6pts.

Using Damage Negation seems problematic because to become immune to dizziness you'd need to apply the Absolute Effect Rule (right?) and then decide how much Damage Negation would be needed to counter any and all dizziness causing powers.

Just seems more complicated. But surely it would depend on expected occurrence of dizziness in the game.

53 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Yup, it's part of what got me thinking, and the other thread on what can be borrowed from other games. 

 

So the point buy system is what originally sold me on Champions, and then Fantasy HERO when it came out. It was the first time I'd ever seen anything like it. It may be old-school now, but I still have an affection for it. It still is a novel idea for my friends who only play D&D, which, with it's renaissance has brought a lot of new gamers into the fold who have never heard of something like HERO System. It's crunchy, as you say, but it's also what attracted me to it in the first place, so I won't cut that out. But I do give my new players pre-gens so they don't have to figure it all out right away. They'll be anxious to make their own characters soon enough.

 

This seems like the biggest dichotomy between "new" and "old" gamers. We like crunch and wanted to learn it. System mastery and rules exploits were more like points of pride. And the sheer joy of not being tied to a class\level or a clan or an OCC or whatever the heck else they liked to call them was huge.

New folks seem to be more of a, "rules get in the way", sort of bent, in addition to the narrative focus.

I feel more like Scott Ruggels, I think, the rules exist to give the various tactical (and other) scenarios structure and you're engaging (as players and as characters) with the scenario.

It's not that fighting\combat was the point of the game but more so that it wasn't looked at as a distraction from the "real" game (ie, the story).

That's my probably my bias talking though.

Back on topic: Pregens are the main thing for teaching. I think. Just a nice clean and balanced example for folks to look at and start to decipher.

With the hope being that once they realize you can adjust, like, ALLLLLL of those bits on your sheet they'll get the Hero bug and want to dive right in.

53 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:



 

The 3d6, roll under mechanic has always seemed a bit odd to me. We're all used to rolling high to succeed. Nat 20 is deep in the psyche of D&D players. But what I learned to love about the roll under mechanic is that higher target numbers are good, and modifiers are added to the target numbers, not the dice roll, so it is easy to understand what the target is, and what you need to roll under. I hate games that modify the die roll because it gets confusing (and maybe that's just something left over from the '80s; maybe nobody modifies the die roll anymore, but it at least used to be a thing, a very confusing thing). Anyway, once you get used to it, it makes a lot of sense. It's not uniquely HERO, but HERO was one of the innovators of the mechanic, so that stays too (at least for me).

It certainly seems fine to me. Every game needs a core mechanic (probably) and 3d roll low is one, so...good enough.

53 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 



 

HERO System Basic Rulebook for 6e gives a stripped down list of combat maneuvers, so it's simpler while still maintaining a lot of options to make it seem open-ended enough for new players to identify what they want to do. I'll introduce new maneuvers in eventually (Yes, @Duke Bushido, even martial arts maneuvers because my players are martial artists and it makes them feel like they're doing something cool [even if it's only an illusion: the maneuvers aren't really all that different from each other, but it makes them feel cool and let's face it, that's what really counts!]). 

 

I can see why you'd say that the character creation is a bit of a red herring, if I understand your meaning. In reality, I spent a lot of time making characters for my players so they didn't have to figure stuff out just yet, but most of what I put on their sheets won't come into play very often. I love the idea of building anything you can imagine, but in game play this often doesn't look as varied as you'd think it would. They're all basically choosing from the same handful of maneuvers in a heroic campaign, so whether it's a knife, a bow, a sword, a gun, or a fist, it really all kinda resolves about the same. With no armor in a Pulp HERO campaign there's even less to figure out in terms of damage and hit locations. However, the character creation is where the players can really invest in their characters, and the process of building them, even if it's a bit over-emphasized in HERO, is still fun for them. 

Yes, mostly I feel the unlimited flexibility\build your own stuff gets presented up front as being good and valuable. And...it is.

But I think it's a distraction from learning the game part of the game and until you learn the game part of the game the character building stuff kinda exists in a vacuum.

What's Power Defense? Do I want it? Do I need it? Should I have it for this game?

Is this attack "good"? Is it "too powerful"?

All of that stuff is, I think, hard to grok for new folks because it's...well, Hero.

Good\bad\powerful are all relative.

But you can't really teach folks by saying, "it could be" and "it depends on the game\setting\scenario" over and over.

Pregens that are working balanced examples get around most of that. Which is why I suspect essentially every single thread I've seen about introducing folks to Hero suggests that, eh?

Mostly I just mean I think players have a certain limited amount of attention span to give stuff and if most of that attention span is taken up by looking at an insanely overwhelming character creation\powers section until they give up then it'll be hard to get them to reenage on the system aspects.

Of course this is all generally speaking and IMO and all of that. Gamers are still gamers and do still like learning games and rules and playing them.

It's just funny to me that chargen (the point-build system mechanics) is the heart of Hero but when teaching folks the system I think it should be strongly deemphasized to prevent brainlock.

Pregens.

3d roll under.

Many default tactical options that aren't just the player trying to connive the GM in to giving them a situational bonus

Probably Stun\Bod and Normal\Killing.

I'd say I'm in the Speed Chart = Hero camp as well.

Those all seem core Hero to me and are the elements that can be well separated from the chargen stuff.

And I think ghost-angel's point about Special Effects and Mechanics being separate is also true but I don't think it's....particularly playable as an aspect of the system. Like it's very central to Hero but also not really something you can teach as part of the system without getting a bit lost.

Maybe he's got examples and I'm missing something there tho.

2 minutes ago, dekrass said:

It seems that I have stumbled into another, much larger, debate here. Having barely been aware of HERO until a few months ago I don't have much context for a lot of this.

 

Do Dexterity rolls and skills and such come up more than other types in most games?

I would say it's about the same (obviously it'll depend on the system and the group and the game) and that they come up fairly frequently. As happens in other games as well.

This is mostly due (IMO of course) to the "action" skills being mostly Dex based.

Since PCs tend to spend a fair amount of time: Sneaking, Hiding, Acrobatically leaping about, avoiding falling in to pits, fast drawing, picking locks, and so on those skills tend to have an outsized effect in the game because they come up more and because they usually involve PC danger\death.

Again, obviously this varies from game to game, player to player, system to system, and blah blah blah. But that's my general observation of RPGs over time. Sneaking is common and almost always "Dex"-based (whatever they call the stat) and usually\often hitting is Dex based as well.

Certainly in GURPS, WW, Palladium (not point buy, but...), D&D some others it's a powerful stat.

2 minutes ago, dekrass said:

 

Is initiative really a major deciding factor in a lot of combats?

Hard to say generally but it's about the only remaining usage for Dex in 6th that isn't Dex rolls.

Generally going first (or at least having the option to) is good in most games though.

Depending on what kind of Hero you are playing it could matter more or less.

If you're playing a higher lethality\lower armor type game (WW2, 'Nam, etc) then going first and hitting first, to provoke Stuns, can be very valuable.

In a mixed archetype classical Superhero game it might matter less.

3 hours ago, ghost-angel said:

 

This is the sticking point I have; because I don't really see it that way (or want to I should say). While Hero definitely has a very detailed combat system, I don't see the system overall as leaning in that direction. It has a very well plotted out skill system as well, a decent social interaction system, and a lot of non-combat elements to it.

 

But, by placing DEX at a higher cost, the system has made sure that your statement is a correct default assumption.

I mean...Character Creation (without Powers) is about 60 pages (5th revised). Skills as a part of that are about 7. Powers and Advantages\Limitation\Frameworks is 200ish. And Combat is just under 100 pages.

Not saying the skill system isn't well plotted, or that social interaction mechanics suck, or any of that stuff but...that's a LOT of pages spent on combat versus everything except powers.

Detect: Balance - Sense, 5pts!

Probably more like 3 though since Perfect Pitch, Absolute Time Sense, Bump of Direction, and so on are 3pts.

4 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Guys, this isn't a discussion about which edition is best. That's a different thread. Please go argue on that one.

 

My question is edition-neutral. It doesn't matter which edition you're using, my question is still the same: how much can you simplify the rules (primarily for teaching purposes) without losing the game itself? This is also not a discussion about what can be borrowed and inserted into HERO games from other systems. If you go back an look at the original post, I'm only using a rules-lite game as an instructive tool, not as the end goal of this discussion.

 

So let me restate: if I can learn another roleplaying game in one evening, or learn and play it in one 4 hour game session at a convention, what can I take from that experience in order to simplify HERO enough to teach to beginners?

It's an interesting question and kinda what I was wondering about in the Sell me on Hero thread.

Because how much we need (and still keeping it Hero) is kinda about that, right?

Defining characteristics of Hero for me would be things like: Endless point-buy options based on the various Powers and....maybe hex-based combats with a lot of standard combat options?

3d roll low doesn't seem super Hero-y to me. Or particularly important to the system (I know other folks do not agree with this).

Point-based builds don't seem super Hero-y to me. In that there are plenty of other systems doing that.

Flexible character creation often seems like a red herring to me. In theory it's infinitely flexible but in practice, in actual games, it generally isn't, and often isn't relevant even then.

If we're playing Fantasy Hero and I wanna play a guy with a sword\Aragorn\generic warrior dude then I'm probs just gonna buy some very standard stuff and not try to talk the GM in to letting me have a Cosmic VPP (Only for Sword Tricks) and creating my own specialized intricate martial maneuvers or whatever.

So, particularly in terms of just teaching the mechanics of task and combat resolution, it would come down to Core Mechanic (3d roll low, not unique to Hero but the basis of learning the game and doing stuff in it) and probably all the default combat options (except I don't think those are particularly worth teaching right off the bat because new folks won't have a frame to relate the OCV\DCV stuff to).

Stun\Bod and Normal\Killing are pretty distinctly Hero as well. And often quite confusing for new folks. Probably worth time spending time on during teaching sessions but considering you can do away with Stun in Fantasy Hero maybe it's not the most Hero of Hero bits to include right off.

I mean why does damage need to be so crunchy, right? Can't we just PLAY already?

I dunno, it's hard to answer because for me the crunch is a part of the appeal but also the crunch is what makes it hard and intimidating to new folks. The more crunch gets peeled off the more it's Hero Lite or something.

On 6/18/2019 at 10:28 AM, zslane said:

Palladium is the system with C.G.T.A.O. (Cryptic Game Term Abbreviation Overload)

What aspects of Transient Maneuvering Factor are cryptic to you?  ;D

On 6/11/2019 at 10:31 PM, clnicholsusa said:

I never understood this. Multiform also gives you double the number of forms for a five point adder, so why would you need to put it in a multipower?

I mean "need" seems like a strong term but the general reason is: Cost efficiency (in some cases).

Like Cassandra's example.

I have a player in my game with a MF in a MP currently for exactly those reasons.

He has other powers besides MF and can't use them while he's using MF so....MF in an MP.