Toxxus

I wasn't especially productive on Monday either. 

An after work nap was the cure I needed.

1 hour ago, Dkap said:

 

It is a collection from Vertigo comics

There's even a reasonably good video game based on The Big Bad Wolf that I *believe* is from that comic series.

On 4/5/2019 at 7:56 PM, Pariah said:

Okay, time for a new hero(ine)!

 

She's the green-haired beauty with the electric touch. She's young, she's powerful, she's confident...or is she? Well, whatever else she might be, she is...Striker!

 

 

What program (if any) are you using to generate the pictures?

47 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

Haha.  Yeah, I think I'll just stick with condemning any parents who refuse their responsibilities.  The omniscient ability to somehow 'vet future assholishness' seems beyond me.

It's really not all that difficult.  You make sure the person is well behaved by not sleeping with them until you know that they have a good track record of good behavior.

How do they get along with their parents?

What are their friends like?

Do they want kids?

How would they raise kids?

What's your job history like?

What's your credit like?

And doesn't the female parent have the responsibility of picking a partner who will stay around?

I don't think you can consider women equal to men (which you should) and not hold them equally accountable in single-parent outcomes.

On 6/16/2019 at 9:46 AM, Duke Bushido said:

Happy Father's Day to any and all fathers out there, and to any and all mothers who were called upon to fill that role themselves.

 

And for those "Baby Daddy" types who made children and ran, never taking the responsibility for what they had done, only to turn around and do it again and again, go die in a dumpster fire.

Love the sentiment, but it takes two irresponsible people to make a single parent.  Whether single father or single mother it required (minus really rare and unfortunate widowing scenarios) one partner to not really vet the other partner.

Blaming only the asshole men who don't stay to raise their kids (and they are assholes) removes moral agency from the women who are responsible for reproducing with the kind of men that won't stay to raise the kids.

Women are neither helpless nor without accountability in these things.  Pick better.  A lot of guys are not qualified for the role of father.

Also, Happy Fathers' Day!

PS:  I received a shirt from my wife and child this year.  Proper gift giving etiquette needs to be reviewed with them - again - as only electronics, video games and mid-life crisis cars are appropriate.

I would cut back on exercise completely while combining a large intake of carbs, fat and alcohol.

Deep dish supreme pizzas and beer - several times a day - will have them buoyant in no time...

9 minutes ago, pinecone said:

Cause folks in Texas is friendly?

I think its an extension of the behavior you see at a shooting range or in a gun store.  Everyone is *extremely* polite in a gun store for obvious reasons.

On 6/13/2019 at 4:00 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

RPGs in general are no more popular than they were 10 or 20 years ago.

Not sure I would agree with this.  I'm currently running 3 tables a week and both stores that I run at have seen a dramatic increase in player base over the last 2-3 years.

I also feel like there is a life cycle contribution to the game.  The tables seem to have primarily two crowds mixed in  - Pre-family youth and post-family seniors.  It feels like the original players from the 80s-90s have raised their kids and are returning to table top gaming with their newly found free time and meeting the youth who are burning out on tables/phones and wanting some person-to-person gaming.

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

I reckon the statistics are more likely to vary widely when the population size is relatively low.  The bigger the city, the more stable the statistics are likely to be.  As with all statistics you are always better with a bigger sample size over a longer period...

I completely agree.  Trends are more reliably established with larger data sets.

Still, I'd love to see someone take a run at explaining why St. Louis has a murder rate 30-40x higher than a city of similar size in the middle of gun-nut Texas.

If a player of mine wants to do a Move Through and Grab I make it a Flying Tackle.  Success = Grab & both fall prone.  Failure = fall prone alone with the penalty that you can't use Breakfall to instantly pop-up to your feet next phase.

This makes it an exciting high-risk maneuver in a chase scene.  If you fail the fleeing party will get at least a 1/2 phase move lead as you pull yourself up and start running again.

53 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

It is not like he depends on facts and figures in any case - you can understand why UK politicians might complain about him calling London's murder rate failure...

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/16/murder-graph-shows-london-killings-compare-us-cities-9971033/

 

 

What makes all of these murder rate statistics so interesting is they prove that murder rate is a complex multivariate problem.

Also, cities with very low crime rates can blow their statistics in a single year or two by just having a small uptick.  Ex:  Plano, TX had a murder rate that was lower that a lot of Europe from 2009-2016.  Then in 2017-2018 they get a whopping 11 extra murders and they go from a per 100k rate of 1.4ish to almost 5.0.  The last two years were up 11, then down 5.  Minus that pretty nasty spike the city is looking to return to it's previous rate of about 1.4 per 100k.

Given the gun ownership rate in this part of Texas I feel this blows the whole more guns = more gun murder arguments to hell.

The reason the murder rate in St. Louis is 30-40x what it is in Plano while the cities are of similar size is very telling.  There is something very wrong going on in St. Louis.  Figure out what it is and fix it.

It's not the guns.  It's the willingness of people in that city to murder each other.

On 6/14/2019 at 3:53 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Perhaps a middle ground would be more suitable, and could even address the timing issue.  Track your stun damage taken since you were stunned, or since your most recent previous phase.  If you took none, you recover from being stunned (no change).  If not, and no single attack stunned you again., perhaps you get a CON roll, or an EGO roll, modified for the STUN damage taken, to recover.  So, if our Boxer is stunned, then takes a hit for 1 STUN, perhaps he needs to make an EGO roll to recover from being stunned.  Apply a -1 per extra STUN taken, or -1 per 2 or 3 STUN taken, and harder hits make it tougher to recover.

 

More rolling and more tracking, of course. 

To eliminate the rolling you might set the threshold equal to their REC score so that if the damage they take is equal to or less than their REC score they can recover from being stunned and only punishment in excess of REC extends the stunned duration.

On 6/5/2019 at 4:49 PM, Cancer said:

In a couple of hours, it will be June 6 by Universal Time: 75th Anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy.

 

Fewer and fewer of the participants are still with us as time goes by, but let us never forget any of them.

One of the old great wars where we were very clearly combating pure evil.

All of the modern ones are dubious as best and some seem completely unjustified.

1 minute ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'll admit I don't find Hero simulates sports in real life very well.  Design two boxers as normal humans in Hero terms.  Will a typical fight last for 3 minutes - a single boxing round?  I think in "real life", DCV tends to be higher than OCV and far less than 2/3 of attacks hit home.  You tell me - in a typical MMA bout, will each opponent hit the other about 10 times a minute (3 SPD x 5 turns x about 62.5% chance to hit), or are the fights a lot more defensive?  In Hero terms, those defensive fights probably mean lower DC attacks with higher OCV and/or DCV bonuses, reducing the possibility of a stunning blow.

I've seriously considered setting the base for OCV vs. DCV to 10 instead of 11 so that it starts at a 50/50 shot. 

MMA Fights are typically 3 rounds of 5 minutes each.  Landing 50 strikes a round is very high output and generally only happens with the higher skill level end of the lighter weight classes.  Most fights are substantially less as I suspect that the normal flow of events is the slower fighter always goes for block or dodge and then counters when they can.  If you pace the fight for strike-block-counter the numbers work out better.

One of the coolest eye-opening training encounters I did for my D&D converts consisted of the Witcher character and his guard captain dueling with great swords.  They blocked and countered each other 4-5x without a single blow landing until the Witcher took a stunning blow to the stomach, recovered and took a knockout blow to the helmet.  The players hadn't had advanced options like block, dodge, pinning limbs with a Grab, etc. in D&D.

Similarly one of the characters got grabbed (both arms) by a were rat who then spent each phase trying to bite their face and was screaming for help from his allies.  Great times!

I'd say in MMA you see roughly 3 levels of stunning strike:

1-  Wobbled - Fighter takes a hit that causes a brief cringe, cover or makes their legs go rubbery for just a split second.  Much like stunned - recover at lower DEX on same segment.

2-  Stunned - Fighter takes a hit that causes them to go rubbery legged or takes a body shot so bad they can do nothing but cover up and back-pedal for their lives.

3-  Rocked -  Fighter takes a hit that causes them to collapse and leaves them desperate to remain in the fight.  I would consider these shots that take them to zero-to-minus-nine STUN.  Survival rate from these shots is under 50%.

Then of course there are critical hits and these usually result in an INSTANT full-health to deeply unconscious hit.

Classic Example:  Fighter drops his arms to defend a body kick which turns out to be a head kicks - oops! - sleepy time.

Another Example:  Conor McGregor KO'ing decade long undefeated Jose Aldo in 13 seconds.  They trade right hook vs. counter-right hook and only one of them rolled a crit.

I think HERO models those pretty well (plus or minus my issue with parts of the recovering from being stunned rule).

Highly trained martial artist with 15ish STR landing martial strikes in the 5-7d6 damage range plus several levels for OCV/DCV/damage.

A critical hit from a 7d6 punch or kick is 14 BOD/42 STUN and with mortal PD being in the 5-7 range for lighter weight classes you're looking at taking 35+ STUN and possibly a major injury (beyond the concussion) such as a fractured orbital, broken ribs, ruptured liver, etc.

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Continuously being pounded when you are on the ropes is not disadvantageous?

Taking an amount of damage so low that it doesn't keep up with your recovery score is not "being pounded".  I'll admit this power construct in an absurdity made purely to point how how inconsistent and odious I find the current recover from being stunned rules.

I just can't stand the idea of stunned = dead because you'll never get another chance to act unless the villain misses you at 1/2 DCV.  I want a chance for heroes and villain alike to rally from one bad hit and continue the fight.

Even in MMA (which I'm big fan of) the best fights have solid back and forth action.  When a guy looks ruined by a savage blow and finds his composure and is able to fight on and even win.

The first variation of the rule where you get stunned before your DEX on your Phase and fully recover on your DEX (so less than 1 second) is the way I like stunned to work.  You lose your turn.  That is bad enough.

The second variation where you hold your action - get stunned - and lose the held action and DO NOT recover from being stunned - I like this less, but I can live with it.

The third variation where you take any damage at all on a segment you have a phase in and you can't recover at all is just - and I'm reluctant to be this forceful about it - stupid.  It's dumb.

SPD 4 character example:

Segment 3 - You use your phase.

Segment 3 - You get stunned.

Segment 5 - You take another massive blow (but not quite enough to KO you).

Segment 6 - You recover from being stunned.

VS.

Segment 3 - You use your phase.

Segment 3 - You get stunned.

Segment 6 - You take a SINGLE point of stun damage.

Segment 6 - You lose your phase and DO NOT recover from being stunned.

This makes ZERO sense.  None.

56 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Generally speaking the point system tends to create balance without needing hard caps.  If you spend 30 points on speed, then you are 30 points poorer for things like levels, damage, magic, etc.  OK you have 5 speed, but 8 strength.  Its a pretty effective system in terms of checks and balances and making sacrifices.

I find it needs reinforcement to prevent 30 pt things like +10 OCV with swords = I hit them in the unarmored eyeball 90+% of the time.

Mostly I agree, but some degree of corralling is necessary.

There is just no way to sell to a player the concept that taking a SINGLE POINT of stun damage makes them lose their turn - again.

If I use that tell my players - well, that's what the rules say - I'm going to have a group of unhappy players.  Maybe they like the rest of the game enough to tolerate it, but that is in spite of the stupid rule, not because that rule is fun or supportive of heroic adventure.

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How does one "jab Tyson for 1 point of damage" rather than rolling damage and either getting STUN past defenses, or not?  How did you choose to succeed with a critical hit after your delayed action? 

The critical hit was just part of normal play - a roll of the dice.  But it shows how abusable the current stunning rules are.  Character holds phase - goes twice in a row afterwards.

Power - Stinging Jab:  1 pt HTH attack (STR does not add damage, NND, 0 END) combined with +4 OCV = 30 Active Points = Other character is stunned permanently by ONE POINT hits.  I honestly find it incomprehensible how it would be fun or cinematic to have a player pinned down permanently by an amount of damage that doesn't even keep up with their recovery score.

Crazy thing that gets overlooked with the shrinking = stronger effect that Ant Man and Wasp go through is that their now very, very tiny fists and feet would pierce thugs flesh and bones like needles.

You're much stronger and the surface area of your strike has been reduced by 128x?  Um, you punch through the guy like a bullet....

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

Need to update this with a 3rd frame that has Military Industrial Complex under the mask.

Way too many president elects get into office swearing up and down there will be no new wars and then....new wars.  Bush, Obama (2x I think), and sadly now it looks like Trump as well.

In my current Saturday campaign the players are in Book 5 of the War for the Crown series.  It's level 14ish in D&D terms.

Everyone in the party is speed 4 currently except my wife's Sorceress.  One of the things I did at the beginning of the campaign was create a Combat Effectiveness Sheet and set a cap at each tier of the adventure.

So, while my wife's character is slower than everyone else, she also has the highest damage rating and the highest OCV.

The best way to deal with the Need for Speed is to make sure that the other heroes have areas they can shine in that are equally important.

Ex:

Air Bender guy can fly and has barriers to englobe enemies while being lower OCV and lower damage than the others.

Fire Witch is slower, but has devastating damage output

Udyr (kung fu animal spirit shaman thing) - Is a high mobility bruiser with a good balance of speed, OCV, damage and defenses

Witcher has weaker magic than the others, but brutal magic swords and a suit of plate armor so powerful that the players refer to it as the mech suit.

etc.

16 minutes ago, Beast said:

Going solo invites this action and means a deathtrap for the solo or a reason for the team to regroup and come up with a new plan to engage the villain and rescue the solo

In this particular case I believe the issue is that the rule for recovering from being stunned is unnecessarily punitive and leads to some pretty anti-heroic scenarios.

I've beat this horse into a fine red puree by now, but taking damage shouldn't stop you from recovering from being stunned unless it is sufficient to stun you again.

The rules aren't even consistent with themselves:

1-  If you have a lower DEX than your attacker then you can recover from being stunned in the same segment despite having taking sufficient damage to stun you in the same segment.

2-  If you hold your action - You lose it and cannot recover from being stunned.  Now you're effectively stunned for 2 phases (current phase & next phase to recover - maybe).

3-  If you have a higher DEX than your attacker then you can recover from being stunned ONLY if you don't take any damage at all in the next segment you have a Phase in until your DEX arrives.  Any damage at all stun-locks you - indefinitely.

Situation 1 makes sense to me.

Situation 2 I don't like as much.

Situation 3 I have to house rule so I can continue to have players and not have my boss monsters stun-locked by a single critical hit.

23 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Practically, am I going to spend a phase (rather than use a carefully crafted, only triggered when a target is stunned, cheesy construct) to use a 1 pip NND, or would I and my team use that moment of half DCV to lay on enough attacks to put the baddie down for the count?

Smashing on a stunned target is tactically very sound and against powerful opponents is a desperate window of opportunity for the heroes to exploit (in a good way).  It's a very common tactic and completely logical.

The idea that an enemy could be stunned for infinity - while recovering to full STUN from post-segment-12 recoveries - due to taking 1pt of STUN damage each phase is silly beyond reckoning to me.

Anti-cinematic Example:

Hero:  After delaying my phase I crit a body punch to the liver.  Tyson is crushed.

Hero:  I jab Tyson for 1pt of STUN damage.

Hero:  I jab Tyson for 1pt of STUN damage.

--------  5 Turns and 20 Phases Later --------

Michael Buffer:  Tyson has fully recovered.  He's breathing easy and looks as fresh as ever!

Hero:  I jab Tyson for 1pt of STUN damage and I mock him - each - and - every - phase.

Hero:  I inform Tyson they should deliver his mail to this corner of the ring because this is where he lives now and I jab him for 1pt of STUN.

 BARF!  There's nothing dramatic, heroic or cinematic about being permanently locked down by 1pt of STUN damage.  Does not compute.

18 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Sure - but the problem is not the STUN rules.  A more common defense which is book-legal makes the same construct even more devastating. 

 

I would classify " not being stunned" in the same category as "a lack of anything", so not a legit NND defense, but that's neither here nor there - any common NND or AVAD defense will affect the vast majority of the population, and you can just tack on "only works on Stunned targets" for whatever limitation value is considered appropriate.

Ah, gotcha.

So in addition to "not being stunned" we add Legion of Evil member pins and any type of force field as a defense.

But the idea that a steady ticking 1pt of STUN damage per phase stops someone from being able to recover from being stunned - forever - feels ridiculously exploitable.

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If the defense is a force field, resistant ED or mental defense (each of which are common NND defenses), and the power's user has a SPD of 5, then most of the planet will quickly fall.  They are taking 5 STUN per phase and only getting 4 back on PS12, so they must use phases to recover or gradually fall unconscious.  Make it 1/2d6 (average 10/turn), and a 2 SPD, 4 REC character character can do  nothing but take recoveries or they will be KOd.  I don't believe the problem here is the Stunning rules.

The defense is "not currently being stunned".  That way nobody takes any damage at all.  But once they're stunned - it's all over.  Stun Lock coma time for everyone.  The damage is probably right at or just below the REC of everyone so healthy types stay conscious, but Stun Locked by the crazy (imo) rule that taking any damage prevents you from recovering from being stunned.  The less healthy will gradually fall into a coma from which they never recover.

The power effects almost nobody.  But eventually every NFL player that takes a hard hit.  Every MMA fighter or boxer that takes a stunning blow succumbs to a permanent stun lock.

Sports are completely abandoned.  Culture is destroyed by the Legion of Evil! 

I went to ponder the meaning of life and recovering from being stunned and re-read the current edition rules and something occurred to me that seems odd.

This part of the rules:

"A character can recover from
being Stunned in the Segment in which he was
Stunned if he had a Phase in that Segment and
his Phase has not yet occurred"

Doesn't seem logically consistent with this part of the rules:

A character may be hit by an attack in the
Phase in which he’ll recover from being Stunned
before getting to do so (i.e., by another character
whose DEX is higher than his). ...If the character
takes no damage from the attack after applying
his defenses, he may still recover from being
Stunned as normal. However, if the character takes
any STUN or BODY damage from the attack, he
cannot recover from being Stunned that Phase.

So... Your character can get stunned on a segment in which he has a Phase and hasn't gone yet - despite taking damage that segment - he gets to Recover.

But, if you get hit in a segment in which you have a Phase and take damage while stunned ... you do NOT get to Recover.

Both involve being stunned and taking damage on the same segment, but have very different outcomes.