Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PhilFleischmann last won the day on February 2 2005

PhilFleischmann had the most liked content!

About PhilFleischmann

  • Rank
    Mad Scientist
  • Birthday 07/30/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Biography
    I was born at a very young age.

Recent Profile Visitors

448 profile views
  1. How 'bout something like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd edition Champions box? One thin rulebook, one thin booklet of an adventure or two, maybe one thin booklet of additional enemies and NPCs and plot seeds, and maybe some blank character sheets, maybe a (two-sided) location map, with a street corner scene in Campaign City on one side, and a large park in Campaign City on the other side. Include everything that was in the 1st Edition, except for the parts that no longer exist in 6e (such as Elemental Control), change whatever point costs and rules need to be changed to conform to 6e (such as no longer having figured characteristics), and include whatever newer game elements are most likely to be needed and there is room to fit. Include a few sample PCs, showing how they are built. Include a few sample enemies, and a run through of a sample combat. The setting is based on the real,modern-day world, with superheroes added. That's all you need to start playing. Leave out Background Skills and Perks (unless there's room for them). Leave out the more complicated powers like Duplication and Multiform. Leave out VPPs. Leave out any complicated Advantages and Limitations. Include a line somewhere that if they want to build more complicated characters with more options and other kinds of powers, buy the two-volume 6e rulebook.
  2. It comes from the quote of yours that I quoted. The Flail Maneuver, as described in the rules, takes a -1 OCV in exchange for ignoring the opponent's shield. If you're always doing the Flail Maneuver when you use a flail, as you propose, then if your opponent isn't using a shield, you suffer the -1 OCV penalty for no benefit. You use the flail in a different fashion if the opponent is using a shield from the fashion you would use if he isn't using a shield.
  3. I wouldn't know. Just like I wouldn't know how a Martial Strike with a sword looks different from a regular Strike with a sword.
  4. Which means you get a -1 to OCV if the target isn't using a shield. If you're using a two-sided weapon, like an axe-hammer (featured in a recent movie I think we've all seen), you can choose whether to hit with the axe side or the hammer side. Likewise, if you're using a flail, you can choose to do a regular strike, or you can choose to use the flail maneuver. It's most beneficial to use the flail maneuver only when the target is using a shield. And if it's only a small shield (one that provides only +1 DCV), then it doesn't matter which you use. Just like any other weapon - you choose what maneuver you want to do with it. Strike, Block, Disarm, etc. In this particular case, Ninja-Bear is proposing a Martial version of the Flail Maneuver, just like there are Martial versions of Strike, Block, Disarm, etc.
  5. This was something I was also going to suggest. You beat me to it. It might be worth emphasizing even more: that there aren't whole sets of separate rules for fire-powers and for lightning-powers, and for ice-powers. And it was a complete game. With just that one thin book, you could play. And people did. I did. Why not do that again? I know this overlaps with the other thread, but why not make a Champions booklet, the size of of one of the 1-3 edition booklets? All we'd have to do is update the rules to be 6e compatible - so no figured characteristics, and the prices of things change in places. But you don't have to include all the complicated powers and other options that didn't exist in 3rd edition. So (IIRC), no Duplication, no Multiform, maybe don't bother with Background Skills, or Perks. And maybe with the stuff that can be left out (Elemental Controls), there might even be room to add in some of the "newer" stuff.
  6. In my experience, this is what players often do when presented with a person or place name that's too long or too hard to pronounce. And readers of fiction do this too, in their minds when reading. There's a character named "Frolistheckdilowpiriasnemquod", and because you just want to continue reading the book and get on with the story - and not ruin your immersion - you just move on. You vaguely remember the sequence of letters for when the character makes his next appearance, but in your mind, he's just "F-man" or "Fred". And even within the work of fiction itself, other characters may call him by shorter, easier names, like "Froli". Long names are no problem at all, as long as you understand the language they're in. This is why I often like to use real words or phrases for names - because that is indeed where real names come from. I have characters in various games named Cobweb, Winecork, Sun and Mars, Moonstaff, et al. And I have place names in my fantasy world called Bear Head Keep, Pepperrose, Middlemarch, Lion's Port, Madman's Watch, et al. Ask your doctor if Whandurashaneshir is right for you.
  7. YES!!!! OMG! One of the most annoying things you see in *some* fantasy sources - and almost always RPGs, rather than novels or movies. (My Rep Wand is out of charges for the day.) Yes, I know elves have very long lifespans so they have plenty of time to learn and say each other's names, rather than getting anything useful done. Maybe elves have an inclination to procrastination even more than humans. They say each others' full names when they're avoiding doing work. But it still doesn't make much sense, since they still have to interact with the real world in real time. An animal you're hunting won't run slower to accommodate your slower action. The sun is going to set at the same time, regardless of how much work you got done today. etc. Two things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYMRjnM6j6w Are you familiar with the "Bulwer-Lytton" contest? "It was a dark and stormy night." If not, go look it up now, I'll wait. Back? Good. On another website, they held their own version of the Bulwer-Lytton contest, but specifically for fantasy and similar genres. This is my entry, which won the contest: The night was as black as the scales on a rock dragon of the mountains of Thrûng’gahhrnix, but not one of the albino ones, born with an eerie lack of pigment and bizarre psionic powers, but one of the regular black ones, from the mountains, not the ones from further west, near the shores of the Zwěill’k’bołian Sea, which is still part of the kingdom of Thrûng’gahhrnix, but not the mountainous part, because the rock dragons there tend to be more of a dark gray, rather than true black; and of course, not one of the red ones either, because those come all the way from the haunted steppes of Bŗœđ’ĵæȥ-Ƙųźŵűƀ, five hundred leagues away, which look very different, even though the venerated sage, Gølåȶ of the Free City of Sęôţ’ǧäħ, says that they’re really the same species. No, it's not from Tolkien. Tolkien's names were excellent. Even the longer ones were pretty easy to pronounce. Although it's possible that this practice was started by someone who was trying to imitate Tolkien without really understanding Tolkien's methods. I'm not saying you need to invent six languages to come up with good fantasy names, like Tolkien did. But it wouldn't hurt to put a little thought into what the names mean in their own languages, After all, names mean something. Names are not just made out of random letters and phonemes - they start out as words, with meanings. I remember seeing a shallow attempt at this recently, but I don't remember where. It might have actually been in The Turakian Age (or maybe The Valdorian Age). A character with a name something like "Lifo-Mok", and the text explained that his name means "brave explorer of the northern sea and slayer of mighty serpents" or something like that. Really? So how do you say "brave explorer of the western sea and tamer of mighty serpents" in the same language? Ans speaking of The Turakian Age, does anyone pronounce "Thûn" any differently from "Thoon" or "Thune"? Diacritical marks are added to make your fantasy setting look more like an 80's heavy metal band.
  8. I would suggest rephrasing the "you get what you pay for" part to emphasize fairness. Something like, "While two different players buy two completely different power sets, they are balanced with each other, having spent equal points." Obviously, that's not the best way to phrase it either, but something along the lines of "two players build on equal points are equally powerful despite their vast differences in abilities." That second one is better. Maybe "even with" instead of "despite their". Maybe say, "No one ability or set of abilities dominates all the others." "A character can be very different from the usual archetypes, and still be competitive."
  9. Fair enough. Then the main concern is what zslane brings up: Are they indeed gradually learning the game system? If so, then I guess all is well. Maybe it's my own vestigial remnant of the D&D "box" that I still want my character to get better, more skilled, more powerful, over time. I want those experience points! And I want to spend them sooner or later, to gradually improve my abilities, or maybe to buy new ones. OTOH, I think that's also part of my desire to play a hero - something very much not in the D&D box. I want to be one of the good guys - not just to say it and be recognized for it, but to actually do as much good and heroic work in the fictitious world I'm playing in. And the more powerful I am, the more good I can do. I want to rid the world of evil and create my own line of hair care potions. I want to eventually defeat Kal-Turak/Doctor Destroyer/etc. And I can't do that as a starting-level character. I don't just want to be, as some here have put it, a "murder hobo".
  10. That sounds a lot like what I said before: They don't really want to play. I would say the same thing about any game, or indeed any hobby. If you're not willing to learn the rules and strategy of chess, then you don't really want to play chess. If you don't want to learn how to play golf, then you don't really want to play golf. If you don't want to learn to play piano, then you don't really want to play piano. There's no instantaneous, magical way to get the knowledge into your head without making the effort to learn it. Pick any hobby or any human activity. If you don't have sufficient motivation to go to medical school, then you don't have sufficient motivation to be a doctor. Anything in life worth doing is going to require work. Fortunately, learning the Hero System is much easier than medical school.
  11. I like it! (My Rep-stick is out of charges for the day.) +2 OCV for any circumstances would only cost 2 points. And based on the rules, a third +1 to OCV would probably normally cost another 2 points (as does the third +1 of DCV). So +3 would normally cost 4 points, but in this case, it only applies to the negation of a shield bonus, so it's worth less. In fact, it seems that 3 points might be a bit high. But then again, 2 points might be too low, so you're stuck with 3 points. Because of the (IMO, slightly high) 3-point cost of ignoring a shield, I might allow it to ignore an even higher DCV bonus - on those very rare occasions when a shield somehow provides more than a +3 DCV. Like maybe a giant, using a giant-sized shield. Or a group of soldiers fighting in formation so that they share each others' shield bonuses (at least partially), by forming a shield wall, gaining more than +3 each. But your breakdown looks really good to me. So you could design a whole flail-based martial art, with custom maneuvers, some of which are based on the standard flail maneuver. I've never really liked flails, but now I want to build a Flail-Fu Martial Art!
  12. I certainly did not intend to be dismissive of real-world time constraints - I have them, too. But it seems to me most people interested in role-playing games, who are actively involved in an RPG campaign would at least take the time to read *some* of the rules of the system they're playing in - even if only the specific parts relevant to their character. They don't have to buy the book - the GM can lend it to them. And likewise, I would assume that players interested in the game have some goals for their character. And they would get at least a little bit excited about gaining a few XP to spend, and put at least a little thought into what they might buy with them, or what they're saving up for. If they were interested in the previous game session, it seems to me that at some point they would think, "Boy, it sure would have been handy to have Skill X in that last adventure, maybe I should buy it with my new XP," or "My X Skill roll was not quite up to the challenge last time, maybe I should buy it up," or "This X-limitation on my power was annoying, maybe I should buy that off," etc. It seems to me that not being interested in XP is like not knowing to unwrap your Christmas present.
  13. IIRC, it also prevents you from doing Multiple Power Attacks with it. That is, you can't cast multiple spells at the same time.
  14. Fine. It wasn't obvious from your post. I could see it being fun if that was the kind of game the players wanted. And even if it wasn't what they wanted, I could still see it being fun for a session or two. It can "suck majorly" for a few reasons: * Repetition. * No role-playing, no character development * Humiliation - you are slaves for the gladiator arena, and you'll never be anything else. * No world to explore And probably others. But depending on the GM and the players, it may be that not all of these are problems. Some players (not me) might enjoy the tectical puzzle of "how do we defeat this particular enemy with this particular power set? (presumably different from the last enemy's power set)" And they might not care about role-playing or world-exploring. The kind of game Shoug mentioned above could be quite good, even though it starts with the same premise: You're gladiatorial slaves, but eventually (and presumably fairly soon), you're going to escape and be free, and explore the world or do whatever you want.
  15. I think we're getting rather far afield here. Has anyone actually had their suspension of disbelief spoiled because they didn't have to spend game time replacing a horseshoe? Horse poop has been mentioned, but what about human poop? I assume elves and dwarves and orcs and giants and dragons also poop. Did it spoil your fantasy immersion to not have to deal with these things? Yes, all this stuff would happen, but that doesn't mean it has to happen "on screen". It doesn't need to be dealt with in the game session. Why not? Because it isn't interesting. It isn't fun. Just like all the monetary accounting that old Deendee used to require wasn't interesting or fun - which is part of the reason why I don't play B&D anymore. And I don't include all those monetary details in my fantasy games, either. Slaying dragons is fun. Solving mysteries is fun. Rescuing fair maidens is fun. Keeping track of every copper coin I found in the pockets of every orc I've killed is not fun. Figuring out exactly how many flasks of oil I can buy with the coins I've accumulated is not fun. Do any of you find all these little "realistic" details necessary to deal with in-game? Does it spoil the immersion if you don't? Does it ruin the fun if you don't? Is it OK with you if these things happen "off screen"? Was it fun? Did the players enjoy it? Was "immersion" a factor?
  • Create New...