JMcL63

Re: Robbers on the Road It seems to me that a lot of the answers to this matter come down to the GM educating the players about what kind of game is being run. I know from personal experience how important it is for players to know this. At the very least, players should know whether or not you're running 'real death'. This might give them the idea that stupidity will result in dire consequences (although, as has many have already said, players being what they are, they might just fight on all the harder!). One way of encouraging players to consider not fighting to the last is for your NPC's to flee and/or surrender just like real people would. If this happens often enough, players might start to realise that slaughtering everyone out of hand is not the best idea, and that surrender in the face of insuperable odds isn't necessarily the worst idea, especially if they have reason to believe that their opponents aren't heartless killers themselves. This is all about consequences really, which is IMO the best way of encouraging players to play their characters as more than just killing machines. Dead robbers can have friends who would seek vengance, or they might have hostages they can use to blackmail the PC's, and so on. If all that fails, then just play the robbers sensibly. Have them attack with surprise, using Brace and Set from cover to improve their to hit chances while being hard to hit themselves. Or have them use teamwork and multiple attacker bonuses sensibly. If you're playing a 'real death' game, killing off a few PC's might start to get through to the players. Finally, in the end, don't forget to talk to your players about what you're trying to do with the game, and to talk over what happens in incidents like this.

Re: End cost on MA HERO5, p.61, 'The Nature of Talents': "Talents do not cost END to use."

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA? I've been reading my way through this thread, and I've seen that the discussion has focussed entirely on the issue of immunity to damage. I have to say that I tend to agree with those who don't like the idea of a special immunity power (howsoever it is defined), and who prefer a practical immunity that can be overcome by a sufficiently powerful attack. I mean, it's one thing to say that a dragon (to use an example common in this thread) is effectively immune to any attack you can normally expect to be thrown at it (by PC's or most NPC's too); it's another to say that this same dragon is immune to absolutely any attack of that kind. That is to say: things that are functionally immune to PC's can still be vulnerable to attacks of that kind from creatures more powerful than themselves (but, at the power levels we are talking about here, this vulnerability is unlikely even to reach the level of being liable to stunning, unless the more powerful creature is much, much more powerful- ie. approaching godlike, in which case the whole matter does indeed boil down to GM's judgement IMO). I'm also in favour of working out such powers in detail because the modifiers (ie. limitations) applied to such attacks are the basis of PC's hopes of undermining these otherwise overwhelming defensive powers. But all of that's just my take on the immunity issue. What I originally thought was most interesting about the DVLA idea was the notion of 'inverting' the AVLD advantage to apply it to defences. I'm still not sure if this is actually viable, but what I liked about the idea in the first place was the notion of finding an appropriate form- for a defensive advantage- of this offensive advantage. This is something that has not been considered in this thread so far. So that's my point here: if you were 'inverting' AVLD to become a similar advantage to apply to defences- but without using it to create an outright immunity- what would you be doing?

Re: End cost on MA IIRC, MA manoeuvres cost no END. You pay END for the STR you use to make the attack, and any bonuses due to MA manoeuvres and/or MA DC cost no END. I think the same will apply to damage-increasing talents, unless the talent description says otherwise.

Re: Analyze Enhancer?

Re: "Fantasy" withoiut Magic My own fantasy world began with the premise of a fantasy world without magic. The inspiration for this was two-fold. One was a very interesting article in the old Spacegamer magazine on this very subject. The other was my decision to start a fantasy world using a homebrew rpg without a magic system (I was going to design the magic system). As my game developed, I soon realised that what I wanted was a world in which there is divine magic (because the gods are real, manifest, and therefore undeniable- something which contradicts my own beliefs, but what the heck, it's a fantasy rpg after all!), but none of the high-powered 'whizz-bang' magic that had become de rigeur thanks to D&D. What I ended up with was a world which was essentially divine, in which magic was the fundamental laws of motion of that divine essence, and in which the magic that did exist wasn't classic sorcery. None of the players who ever visited the world ever complained about that. The homebrew system went by the board, and the game developed under the first edition of Fantasy HERO. I am currently working to revive the game using HERO 5E and the new Fantasy HERO (which make my ideas even more accessible than the original did BTW). On the basis of this experience, I can say that it is quite possible to run a fantasy rpg without magic as it is commonly understood in the genre (and by this I mean what is basically D&D combat magic). All the same, I do think that it is worth considering what is meant by 'magic' in the terms of an rpg. On the one hand there is combat sorcery; and on the other hand there is the power of the divine. Speaking for myself, I think it is easy to imagine a credible fantasy world without the former, but not without the latter. That is to say: I think that it is the undeniably manifest nature of the divine that is more classically definitive of fantasy than magic (or even of any particular kind of magic). I admit that this is my own opinion, and that this is one which might not square with conventional defintions of the genre, but it is the one I work with in my own game. One thing I think that distinguishes this perspective from others is that the world is taken to be truly divine.This means that it is subject to laws that might appear to be similar to those of our own familiar world (and, let's face it- most of reality in any fantasy game will have to conform to our everyday expectations just for the sake of a viable game, otherwise GM's would have to spend too much time simply explaining the mundane for the game to function), but which are actually essentially different. Or, to put it another way: if your magic is really just science (after the fashion of the real world) misunderstood due to some variant on historical backwardness, then what you really have is a scientific (ie. natural) world setting in which magic is a form of superstition. This is perfectly fair enough if that's the kind of game you want to play (and why not?- it's a perfectly reasonable idea); but, when I set up my own fantasy world, I wanted real gods, and the unnatural world that their manifest existence entailed. What I am getting at therefore is the idea that, if you want a fantasy world without magic, then there is no reason why you shouldn't do this. But I would suggest that you have to consider what you mean by this. Do you want a version of, say, real medieval society- in which magic was a force because people believed in it due to superstitions now superceded by science; or do you want a genuinely fantastic world without the post-D&D trappings of 'zap-pow!' combat magic? Or would you prefer something more individual even than that? Either way, there is no better system for making your own personal fantastic visions real than HERO as far as I can tell.

Re: The Authority: Revolution #3 So far I'm enjoying the way that this series is playing out the implications of the Authority's decision to take over America. I quite like your idea of the fake time travel trip, although I do have to suggest that the Midnighter of all people would be able to see through this. But I'll certainly remember where I heard it first should this turn out to be correct.

Re: So what did the modding bunny bill actually win???? (Also, new contest news) Erm, any chance of getting HERO product as prizes? PS. This is my 666th post, so I'm hoping to have dark forces on my side on this one!

Re: Fate systems My original Champions GM introduced 'hero points' to our games. Each point could be used once only, to reset the value of any single dice to the desired value. They could be used after the dice were rolled, and you could spend as many as you wanted to get the dice roll you were after. Our characters got 1 hero point per XP. I'm reinstituting these (in the form of limited Luck) as a key new talent for my fantasy campaign, which I'm in the process of reviving.

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO? Inches.

Re: Metric HERO- simplifying measurement in the HERO system

Re: Robot mentallist Well, without an actual mind of its own, a robot could only attack the mind from without and not within, so using mental attack powers and/or the Based on ECV modifier might not be the right way to go (ie. you're actually attacking the body- the nervous system- and not the mind itself). Of the top of my head, what you're after sounds like it could be an NND with the mind attack as SFX. If you really do want a mental attack (and why not?), then you could buy EGO as a power for this special purpose, or you could give the bot a base EGO OCV of 0 and buy levels to make the attack viable. Hope this helps.

Re: If Champions didn't exist... Well, the thing I have for some time most disliked about White Wolf is their sheer pretentiousness. I mean, I quite like the basic idea of their setting, and I've nothing against their system as such (heck, I've had fun playing their games!), but the whole 'roleplaying is art' line that characterises them (the early editions of their books at least- this might've changed in recent years for all I know) is anathema to me. IMO, the very notion of 'art' is the production of culture for an audience. The very idea that roleplaying is an audience event strikes me as laughable, and, I'm sure, would soon be put in its place by asking a few simple questions of anyone who has been unfortunate enough to have to sit through other people's rolepaying sessions. Apart from its patent absurdity, one thing I find particularly irritating about this tosh is that is does roleplaying a disservice. First of all, roleplaying is a great innovation in popular culture in its own right, one whose merits have to be judged on their own terms and not by reference to extrinsic notions of cultural quality. Taking on airs and graces by arrogating to roleplaying the status of 'art' obscures this by taking conventional aesthetic benchmarks as an appropriate standard of judgement. I will happily admit that roleplaying exercises the same creative reflexes as do other narrative forms, but that doesn't get round the fact that roleplaying is essentially a private affair, for the entertainment of its participants and not for the sake of an audience. Moreover, in my experience, proponents of the notion that roleplaying is 'art' have turned out to be the worst of roleplayers. I have found them to be frustrated wannabe actors, and so on, for whom the roleplaying group is a substitute audience instead of a group of fellows engaged in mutual entertainment. I also find that this tendency typical also holds to some version of the idea that 'real roleplaying' and rules of play are mutually exclusive. This utterly contradicts my fundamental outlook that, just like in all games, the rules of rpg's are there to provide a level playing field, and an independent arbitrator to stand in between the conflicting wishes of players. I'm talking about dice here of course, and I don't think it is accidental that the first manifestion of the 'real roleplaying' curse that I encountered (way back in the early 80's) took the form of essentially diceless superheroing. It was in dealing with the implications of this as we found it back then that me and my gaming buddies came to the view that dice are essential to roleplaying, and that this is as much for the sake of drama as for the sake of, say, combat. I mean, drama is about conflict, which requires opposition. If you never fail in your tasks, you never face opposition, so you have no drama. Which is why so many of the favourite moments I can remember in the lives of my PC's have happened because the dice failed me, and I found my characters in situations that no one present would ever have contrived. Dice are also important because of what they contribute to one of the key satisfactions of roleplaying- your sense of triumph. I mean, when the villains have been defeated and the day has been saved, how do you want to feel? Would you want to know that you'd taken your licks, but with your quick wits and a measure of fortune, you overcame adversity; or would you rather nurse the guilty secret that everything had actually been pre-scripted and that your GM had rigged everything in advance to satisfy their own notion of how the story should go? And that's why I hate this real roleplaying tosh with a passion shared only by the collectible marketing format (the single greatest blight on the gaming industry today IMO). Because it's rubbish; because it obscures the real merits of roleplaying and the contributions of the various elements of an rpg (the dice especially) make to those; and because it can actively get in the way of the full enjoyment of the pleasures of roleplaying by all concerned. White Wolf are only relevant to my feelings on this matter insofar as they are a successful games company strongly identified with this cod philosophy. And that's it really.

Re: What to do... You could generate some random supervillains using the tables in Champions. That's about the all I can think of that you can do that is useful out of those without the basic rules, though I don't have all off those supplements myself. Or you could just settle down in a comfy chair and spend the festive season reading them all!

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA? I think that this is a very interesting idea. It is a logical extension of the existing structure of power modifiers, which is good. And it points towards a workable solution of a significant unresolved design issue in HERO, which is better. I'm not saying that I already believe it to be a final answer, but I think that it is a really interesting idea, and well worth pursuing even if its final form isn't quite was Fitz has in mind (but for the reasons Fitz puts forward all the same). I hope to have more to say when I've had more time to reflect. Rep to Fitz in the meantime!