Jump to content

PhilFleischmann

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    3,144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

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
    http://www.bigempire.com

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

541 profile views
  1. I never expected that defending the Hero System on the Hero System Forums would be so controversial.
  2. Well, you could try reading the posts. I promise it won't take "a year of solid study". There's a simple solution to that: Stop deliberately trying to be obtuse. Brian's exact words were: "..who is going to invest a year of solid study to get the system mastery that it would take to even begin to design a game that others may want to play?" Do you really think it takes a year of solid study to gain sufficient mastery of the Hero System to begin to design a game that others may want to play? Yes or no? What exactly do you think is the differ
  3. Yes, that's exactly my point. What game system do you propose that is better than Hero? What are your arguments and sales pitches as to why it's better than Hero? I have, in fact, eagerly invested time and effort into other systems - by no means all of them. And no, I am not qualified to say it was worth it, because I don't believe it was worth it. I *do* believe it is worth it for Hero. In case it wasn't clear: I believe that the Hero System is indeed better than the D&D/d20 system, and as I understand it, so does everyone here. We've discussed the reasons
  4. So you think it *does* take a year of study to learn the Hero System? Granted the 6e books take longer to read than the 1e book. But you don't have to read it cover to cover to start playing, or even to start GMing. And also granted, if you devote one hour of study every other week, due to the schedule of your life, then it might take you a year to learn the system, but that's not a year of study, that's 26 hours of study. And granted again, that the 6e books (or 5e, or even 4e) might not be organized in the most efficient way to get people to quickly acquire enough mastery of the system t
  5. I made no ad hominem attack. I did not attack you. I attacked the thing you said. Your exact words were: "...who is going to invest a year of solid study to get the system mastery that it would take to even begin to design a game that others may want to play?" "System Mastery" is not the same as "the system mastery to begin to design a game that others may want to play". If someone wants to invest a year of solid study into the system before they begin to design a game, let alone play, they certainly can. But I doubt anyone has ever done this. As I said
  6. I think a good rule of thumb is that the darkness field remains attached to whatever you put it on, so long as the thing is larger than the darkness field. If the Darkness field is larger than the whole ship, then it doesn't move with the ship, but stays in one area of the sea. Just like if you cause Darkness in one area of the surface of a planet, it moves along with the planet's rotation and revolution.
  7. Which is why I suggested making an 80-page Champions book for 6th edition. No, you're not. You've already put in the work to learn the Hero System, and you come here and discuss it and contribute to it. That's the opposite of lazy and whining. That's not really a rephrasing at all. The first part rephrases my first part - Can we do something to make learning and preparing a game less work? But my second part was about selling people on the idea that the work they'll have to do is indeed worth it. And no one has said otherwise. Wel
  8. So do the players of all the other games that are selling well have more hours in the day than Hero players? Nothing I said is an attack on anyone here. We've al already done the work to learn the Hero system - which by the way, you only really need to learn once - you don't have to re-learn the system every time you play. Once you've learned it, you can play it for the rest of your life. I don't know why anything I said is particularly controversial. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I thought we were talking about marketing, and increasing the ma
  9. Nope. I didn't mean that at all. A lot of gamers who play D&D and Pathfinder and all the other games that are selling well also have jobs and mortgages and parents and kids. Likewise with everyone else that takes the time for any other hobby, golfing, fishing, music-playing, woodworking. People find time for their hobbies, regardless of all the other stuff they have to do,. EDIT: Don't take it personally. I'm not talking about anyone here. We here have all put in the work to learn the Hero system. We have all taken the plunge and tried something new, whether we came fro
  10. I know it's in FH 5th as well, but IDHMBIFOM. And I'm sure it must be in 6th as well, but I don't own that book. Yes, there are many credible reasons to believe that historically, the flail is not a very good weapon. But if you're a peasant farmer, and you have this tool for threshing grain, and you suddenly need to defend yourself, it works better than bare hands. And if you think you might need to defend yourself in the near future, then your threshing flail can be easily modified to make it more effective as a weapon. As a farmer, you know how to construct a flail, but not a
  11. I think a lot of the problem is whining and laziness - on the part of gamers and potential gamers. As reflected in some of the posts above. "I don't want to have to spend a year studying the system in order to begin playing." Back in pre-4th days, when my regular D&D group decided to try Champions (and we never went back), it took us at most a week or two to learn the system, create our characters, and set up a "module" to begin playing. Don't give me this "year of study" crap. "I don't want to have to get a Ph.D. in Hero to play." It's not brain surgery, folks. You learned to drive
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
×
×
  • Create New...