RDU Neil

While not quite as tightly scripted as Homecoming, and lacking the real menace and pathos of Vulture (Keaton), Far From Home was really enjoyable, and a strong, appropriate tone change from Endgame. Two things I appreciate the most, taking the time to deal with "the blip," and the villains, once again, being the result of previous MCU events. Just like the Vulture was spawned out of "the incident" and showed how a normal guy's life is changed by super-craziness in the world... this was the same with Mysterio and crew. I knew he was going to be bad, of course, but just how they were going to do it? Oh... a whole bunch of pissed off former Stark employees and the like? Beautiful. I particularly loved Gyllenhaal's rant about his ludicrous multiple Earth's story being "just the thing" people want to believe in. A nice jab at fandom while being a legitimate critique of the MCU as a whole, AND being a spot on plot point.

Loved the chemistry between Zendaya and Holland. They made it really work.

There were enough jokes that a full third of them fell completely flat and the movie was still hilarious.

The bad part was the final cut scene. I'm so not enjoying the wacky comedy skrulls, though it did allow for why Fury would have fallen for Mysterio's scam. I am just NOT looking forward to the wacky space adventures that seem to be the  direction the MCU is heading. 

I'll need to see it again, but I'm not sure it bumps anything out of my current Top 5 MCU movies, of which Homecoming is #5. 

Oh... and Holland is already looking too old to be a high schooler. My wife was like, "Time has passed... he should at least be 17 years old by now!" and I agree. I really liked how they allowed time to pass at a real rate between movies in the MCU... but the Spider-Man ones are seeming to try and keep them immediately following one another, which doesn't work as well.

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If the character does not share, and the other characters do not know, then the players should not be read a story.

Your "read a story" implies some big long monologue or something, which is not at all what I'm implying... but what I am saying is that everything that happens (nearly) should be all done up front with the rest of the players as audience. Something happens just to one player, off screen in their personal life, it still plays out in front of the entire group, so all the players enjoy the scene and understand that PCs story. Their characters might have no idea, but the players certainly do. Only occasionally, and usually to allow the player to really prepare a certain reveal or dramatic moment, would I be ok with GM and player going off to do their own thing. 

Same thing goes for whatever the players are introducing to the SIS. If a player is thinking, "Wow... BlastMan just wouldn't be ok with this, and he is terrible at expressing himself, so he's going to storm off in a rage," great... and the player can describe that... but intent is important. What does the player intend that scene to do? How will it move the drama/story/action forward? The player should explain that. "Ok... I'm storming off here because I really feel BlastMan is raging, unreliable and going to cause problems." Other players can ask questions, "Ok... so are we looking at playing out a group conflict here, or maybe you want BlastMan going rogue while the rest of the team tries their own approach?" Maybe the original player is like, "Oh yeah... I hadn't thought of that, but cool... yeah, can we do that? BlastMan will be trying to take out Destructo his way, while you guys are going in with an actual plan, and that will be a totally messed up situation. Fun!"   Or whatever. 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

They do not need to see that he has a Complication of "In Love with the Cheerleader".

Wow... I take this VERY differently. Everybody sees every character sheet, and players will specifically do things like, "Oh... doesn't this trigger your enraged by Magic thing!" or point at their own sheet saying, "Oh yeah, this is totally a moment where I'm leaning into my "In love with the cheerleader" psych lim."   All whether or not the other characters know about it... it is about the players all having input to how things play out. It is one of the things I love about a lot of the PbtA games or Blades hacks... the PCs all have built in personality triggers and relationships and such on them... but not just in a generic way like Disads in Champs... but things that act as actual role playing compells and even like stats, where you get game effects by pulling the strings of your character. Like in a game of Cartel I just played, at the beginning every character had a relationship of some kind set with two other PCs. My PC 'had a debt' to another, which I determined because he patched her up, no questions asked, when she stumbled into his store with a bullet in her leg. Near the end of the game, my character came across his, who had been shot in the throat and was bleeding out. I was pursuing the Narco boss, but we as players both stopped at that moment, "Oh man... I owe you/you owe me!" as we both recognized this was a moment where that established relationship had to affect the game dramatically. My character totally stopped her initial pursuit, dropped everything to get this guy she really barely knew, to a hospital, and it changed the ending of the game significantly. Did that character or any of the others really know why she did that? It probably seemed like a random, out of character act to the PCs, but  the PLAYERS knew exactly why it happened and it had that very satisfying moment of "Oh yeah... this is cool drama..." that only comes from that audience/meta POV of grasping the dramatic cause and effect and thematic shifts that are happening. 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If I have to explain that "the character is not the player", something is wrong, but better to state that "as a player, I'm fine with the way things are playing out" if there is any doubt perceived at the table.

You act like no one ever has their own personality and ego wrapped up in the character they are playing? That even the best players get emotionally carried away by the pressure of the action or drama? There is a reason people say, "I do X" and "I say Y instead of "My character does X or says Y". It happens all the time, and in moments of conflict and heightened emotion, it is incredibly important that players take that moment to step out of character and reassure people, "Hey, I'm not really angry now, even though I just spent five minutes calling you all every name in the book!" I've had players who have known each other for decades nearly come to blows because a bad day or difference of opinion was affecting game play and character decisions that were really two players very angry at each other. I realized this because they were both getting really shitty to each other IN CHARACTER without breaking out to reassure "hey, this isn't real, this is role playing". 

In my experience, players get very emotionally invested in the success of their character, or that the story plays out in a way that they imagine... and when things go against them or the story takes a turn they aren't expecting or don't particularly like, it is much better that we are all comfortable "going meta" and discussing this instead of everyone "staying in character" and trying to show their frustration through the unexplained actions of their characters. I've been playing for 40 years now and that shit happens WAY too often.

There is ALWAYS doubt perceived at the table, IMO, when a character is going through a particularly difficult scenario or stress or complication... and unless the player steps out and smiles and says, "Oh I'm having fun here... really... my character is miserable, but not me... bring the emotional pain... this is cool..." I'll be very attuned to the fact that the PLAYER might be feeling the stress and expressing the emotions, not just the character.

2 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

but I felt compelled to pull him to the side afterwards and remind him that his character is in a group in the game, and he should think of a really good reason why he’d even be in a group, and why that group would even want him in it in the first place. A little conflict could actually be fun, but it had to make sense. If that didn’t fit his character, I suggested he save that character for another time and rethink a different character for this particular in-game group. 

 

I don't want to force my players to do things they don’t want, but I think it’s only fair that they at least have some kind of reason for playing with the group of characters. As players, they’re all cool with each other. It’s just that this particular character conception needed some tweaking. 

Oh, this is part of the social contract for sure... and usually expressed right up front, but as you note, not all players are attuned to it. A mature response from a player might be, "I really do want to play the anti-social angry loner type, but I want to figure out how that character can be part of the story and add to the fun of the play group." Then the group can meta discuss "OK, how do we make the game work with one character always on the outs with everyone else?" And the group can come up with a way to shift perspectives between the group and the outsider or whatever.  Maybe scenes where the loner has information that he needs the others to act on, and he is like the terrible arrogant Batman type, where the other characters are like, "What a douche canoe... but he has good intel, so we'll keep working with him." But the players are all smiling and laughing because the scenes are enjoyable drama.

The likely issue here is similar to what I stated above, it wasn't just about the character... the PLAYER was emotionally invested in being the brooding, anti-social loner. The player enjoyed being a douche canoe "in character" and wasn't really concerned with how it affected the game or the others. 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I'll flip that around. 

 

"My character dismisses yours because he is a brooding, moody, secretive loner who can't come out of his shell due to childhood trauma caused when his parents were gunned down by a mugger, with him left to cry over their bodies, something he never talks about with anyone." 

 

No.

 

How does my character know that?  My character can only react to your character's actions.  Personalities should come out in play.  Backgrounds could come out in play.  There may be scenarios that bring them to the forefront.  Or the characters, after working together and forging a mutual respect, friendship, etc., may choose to share some of their history. 

 

Don't read me a story about your character.  Participate in the stories that include your character, and let his story come out in play.

In what way did I even imply reading a story? Never. But if your character is acting all moody and grumpy, cool... but the player better be quite open about "Hey... understand that my character is really angry and defensive, but that is not me, the player... I'm totally cool with how this is playing out." 

And to your initial experience... "My charaxter dismisses your character becuase he is a brooding moody secrative loner..." is a legitimate response. The rest is a misplay because the player is allowing the character to know things they wouldn't. But if your character has been anti-social and unwilling to cooperate... even if we the players know why... it is actually quite acceptable for the characters to react negatively to this. That is the drama that plays out. What is important about the meta-conversation is making sure the PLAYERS are ok with is. If you are ok with your character being ostracized and dismissed because that is a likely outcome of their anti-social behavior... cool. Good drama can come out of a character being written out for a while because he's an asshole and the player is like, "Yeah... he is an asshole and kicking him out seems right." Later, a plot might arise where that character comes back, when it is dramatically interesting to force characters to work together AND THE PLAYERS ARE ALL COOL WITH THIS DRAMA BEING EXPLORED. 

What is not acceptable is the moody PC player expecting everyone to accept this and somehow allow that behavior and keep him around even though it is sucking the fun right out of everyone else's play. If BlastMan storms out of the conference room, breaking the doorframe with his casual strength, angry because the rest of the team won't just go into Destructo's HQ guns blazing... ok... that's a legit reaction. What comes next is important... if the PLAYER just sits there, says nothing, just "He storms out," without offering any meta-explanation, that's unfair to the rest of the group who aren't sure if the PLAYER is all upset, or if just BlastMan is? How is the rest of the table supposed to react? 

Now, if the player says, "Going meta for a moment, yeah, BlastMan is acting a bit unhinged. The idea that his mom might still be alive is clearly causing him to crack a bit, and I'm cool with however the team reacts. If BlastMan gets benched for the actual attack, ok, that can be some cool interpersonal drama there to explore."   Whatever... that isn't "reading a book" but it is incumbent on each player to let the other players know what they are thinking. Clarifying situations and avoiding misinterpretations. It is a group dynamic creating a shared imaginary space, so what is going into that space needs to be shared.

Now, if GhostGirl's player says, "Do we have any idea why he's half-cocked like this? Do we have any clue about this mother stuff, because if not, GhostGirl would probably read him the riot act?"  And BlastMan's player can say, "Oh no, she wouldn't know... that could be cool... let's play that out," and bam, you are back into the role-playing and having a good time as characters scream and yell at each other, but the players are having fun. 

Without a very short meta discussion instead the whole thing degenerates, as players fail to communicate because their characters fail to communicate. No way no how is that good for play.

So, very much yes... your many descriptions of "character development" being "the way the character changes over the course of play"... I totally agree with that.

I think that character development starts in character creation... but I'd argue often too much is done there. Often, like Cancer's comment about having such a top-down simulationist leaving no room for PCs and play... the same can be said of too much character development during creation. The player with the three novel set of background for their character, who brings them fully formed and fulfilled and just wants to "be" their idealized character...

I agree that development in play is what we usually want, and I still think that can happen in a single game session.

The game and the system play into that, but even something as much as "Cocky hard-ass cop in big shoot-out scenario, has a moment where he can be the kick ass dude but instead chooses to protect the bystanders and get them out of the building. Both the character and the player realizing in that moment that this is who this guy really is... wants to be... " etc.  Straightforward, but to me that moment is what makes the shoot-out scenario resonate and come alive. 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

or he might throw himself at a zombie to save the cheerleader, dying for his unexpressed love, with the rest of the characters and players never knowing why he sacrificed himself.

Responding directly to this... I also think that it is important to realize that RPGs are a unique experience. Where seeing a movie or reading a book or playing a video game is consumption, and filming a movie and writing a book and coding a video game are production... RPGs are both, at the same time. The players (including the GM) are creating the game/experience/story, but they are also the audience of the game/experience/story. 

While the characters may never know why he did it, the PLAYERS absolutely should. If you as the player are so wrapped up in your own head and motivations, etc., but fail to bring the rest of the audience (play group) along with you... you have failed, hands down. That kind of thing is solipsistic and detrimental to group dynamics. My character Jimmy may be utterly stunned and confused at Kyle's sudden sacrifice, but Neil the player and audience member should be emotionally on that journey with Kyle just as much as Kyle's player. Character development is that journey.

This is also why I tend to be down on "role play" (acting) because it is often solipsistic... the player so focused on inhabiting the PC that they fail to involve the audience and be the creator of a entertaining experience. It also tends to allow for the asshole player with the asshole Wolverine clone to be a complete asshole in play, and excuse it with, "It's what my character would do!" Completely unacceptable to a workable social contract at the table. 

For character development, it not just my job to allow for it during play, but to push for it in such a way as the moments where these changes comes up and are demonstrated in play are dramatic and entertaining and interesting for the player audience. Character development, to me, serves this very meta requirement of good play.

18 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

The acting nerds were as much into acting out their actions as they were the combat.

 

I recall one got mind controlled to attack his ally - dropped him with a sneak attack and with his off-hand strike (D&D 5th ed) acted out cutting his throat for a double-death-save failure.  Even the guy getting his throat cut was into it.

Now this... THIS is "role playing" and something I am very much NOT into at all. I don't mind a bit of it, but being at the mercy of the theater majors putting on a play is not really enjoyable to me. I'm a story teller... I think like the written word... theater of the mind evoked by words kind of thing. I'm the very opposite of the method actor. Living "in the skin" of the character is not what I'm about... but positioning that character with a cold, dispassionate eye of a writer who needs that character to be and do a certain thing, in order to evoke a certain pathos or drive a thematic arc.

I guess that could be called role playing in a generic way... fulfilling a role, rather than playing a role... but I still see them as very different things.

22 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

You called it Character Development and the gave a paragraph describing Role Play.

Which are two distinctly different parts of the game. 

 

We'll just have to disagree 😜

Interesting, because yeah, I'd totally disagree. The "Protect the Queen" scenario had ZERO "role" for me to play. Just a blank slate, and I "developed" the entire existence of the character, their arc, their raison d'etre, the motivation and symbolism, throughout the game. I did not speak once "in character."

Role play would be, "Here... you are the moody loner secretly in love with the cheerleader and looking for a way to fit in" now bring that to life... play a role. Talk "in character" and play out every excruciating moment of that awkward first date with the cheerleader... because that is what they character would do.

What I described was nothing like that.

Character development is the "why."   Why is the character moody? Why do they love the cheerleader? Why does it matter to them that they fit in?"  "Why is any of this dramatically relevant?" 

Role play is the "how"... how they act, how they speak, how they make decisions.

I'm much, much, MUCH more interested in the Why than the How.

7 hours ago, assault said:

 

"When in doubt have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand."

I always paraphrased this as "When in doubt, kick open the door and spray the room," but yeah! One of the things I really like about PbtA in particular and games like it (Blades, etc.) is that it is hard crafted into the game "Make your characters lives interesting" and the whole idea of "hard moves" by the GM... initiated because of how a player rolled/failed a roll... is just great. The GM doesn't have to be a master paragon of directorial timing and imagination... the dice provide the impetus... "oh... rolled a 4 on your Infiltraion move? ok then... as you are hiding behind the desk, you hear a flurry of running feet, an "In here!" and the office door flies open and two of Bronski' men start spraying the room with sub-machine guns!"

13 hours ago, Spence said:

What a four hour con slot is not for is developing a long term personality for a character.  

I actually disagree with this. I can tell a novel worth of character development in a short gaming session, while combat and guns are blazing. The problem is, people think "character development" is some drawn out thing that "happens over time" like just trying to live inside the skin in some simulated way. Character development is really about demonstrating some core, fascinating aspects of a character within a narrative arch, and can be done in ten sentences spread out across a game. Hell... in ten minutes of a demo of Protect the Queen, I created a character out of thing air who went from "some guy accompanying the queen" to "the tragically fated hunchback gardner who died for the queen after years of psychological torture, knowing only the love of her cold touch" and had people going "oh my god!" in his final scene... and that was like six sentences in four quick scenes in ten minutes (with three other people doing their thing as well in that time.)

Character development is critical, or it is all pointless.

13 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

How would a samurai stand against a Medieval knight? Let's set it up! James Bond vs. Jason Bourne? Do it!

This kind of thing is not at all what I'm talking about. This is about arguing stat blocks and such, and if you want this, you need to do systems programming to actually create such a simulation.

What I did with my Harvey Storm Shoot-out... had three PCs and two NPCs, and by the end, everyone, including the dead ones, had stories and personalities and moments of pathos... even though 95% of the evening was rolling dice and shooting and stabbing stuff. When one PC got his hand nearly chopped off and had to hold it together with duct tape while gutting it out and trying to cover his friends... when another got shot through the kidney and was bleeding out, and the third had to make a desperate play to finish off the badguy before he died, it was tense and felt emotionally immediate.

I had not desire for "simulation" as an objective program... I want to know who that samurai is and why he is fighting the knight, and what will it cost him to win or lose... AND at the same time, the clash of swords is detailed and unique and intense... because when one of those blades bites deep, everyone at the table cares what happens.

Without that... without pathos... none of it matters.

On 6/28/2019 at 6:59 PM, Brian Stanfield said:

I've toyed with the idea of getting my simulations fix by running single-session, single-scene simulations, such as a single gun battle, with pre-gen characters. No story needed, just set the scene with "shoot the bad guys," and then go. You could do something different every time, and you get your simulationist fix without having to worry about all the other requirements for a more narrative game.

I actually did that for one session of my ongoing Secret Worlds game (action conspiracy game using HERO). I gave the players three generic Deputry U.S. Marshall's (allowed them to spend a few points to make them individual) that were part of an elite operations squad. I ran an adventure where they had tracked three escaped Bosnian gangsters to a bad neighborhood in Houston on Aug 25th of 2017... the day Harvey made landfall. They were cut off from support and had to hit the house as the storm came beating down, while running into more than they bargained for.

It honestly was a brilliant rain-lashed, storm battered shoot out, with a bloody fight with a juiced up psychopath, bullets ripping through walls and doors, blood and death and bodies everywhere. Too much fun. 

I'm not so sure I'd have the same luck at a convention doing something so generic, but if the players were in the right kind of groove...

34 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

Mostly my players struggle with the OCV/DCV modifiers on individual maneuvers and forgetting to assign their skill levels.

Heck... this happens to all of us some times, even after decades of playing. I find that just reminding people, "Are you using maneuvers to hit better or harder or to be more defensive?" and let them make that decision, while they understand that they give up something in one area to gain in another. That keeps the game flowing more quickly, rather than getting bogged down in exactly how many levels go where, etc. Some people can make that decisions really quickly. Many people can't. Either way, I also try to avoid punishing people for a decision, as it was "You chose the wrong maneuver! Now you are going to pay for it!" Try to assume they make the best decision, and whatever it is, make the result dramatic and interesting. 

THAT is something I blame D&D for, big time. The fact of players being conditioned to have made "wrong" decisions in character construction or playmat combat positioning or whatever. That kind of gamist play, where it really boils down to certain players trying to show off that they are "better" and have more mastery or know the lore better or whatever... I find it utter bullshit. I do realize that it fits a certain player profile, but I've long since moved away from playing with those people. 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

No: I'm not quitinh; I'm having phone issues.  Sorry about that, Chris. 

 

To the question:

 

Let me preface this with this:

 

This is a serious question, based on my own experience.  I don't want anyone to think I'm being funny here.  That said:

 

Are you folks out there really running in to people who can't wrap their heads around the to-hit mechanic?   I admit that three of my groups have been play g for years (though I don't recall any of them having had any questions about it), but my newest group- the youth group--are essentially _children_ what with the eldest two being fourteen, but none of them have so much as batted an eye at "OCV minus DCV.  Add eleven, and roll that or less.  It's like any other skill check, except the targets have individual personal modifiers." 

 

Given the amount of discussion this subject has been given (how hard it is to grasp this mechanic) versus my own experience with teaching it, I really am wondering if I've been the luckiest man alive or if we're just refusing to give D&D players credit for basic comprehension abilities. 

 

So seriously: has teaching this mechanic proven to exceptionally difficult for you guys, or are we discussing potentials? 

 

Thanks for any answers to my curiosity. 

 

 

 

Duke

This has been a serious enough issue with a significant enough sub-section of player, so yes, this is real in my experience. Watching eyes glaze over as you start to say "Add this and then subtract this" is a thing. As ghost-angel noted, many are just fine with the concept "low to hit, high for damage" and just will say, "I rolled X" and look to the GM or table to explain if that was "low enough" but they don't care about why, nor do they want to do any calculations. Now, if the players are the type to want to learn rules because they tend to seek system mastery and want to make "good decisions" because they understand the rules... then really, I've never seen any of those people have a problem with it. The issue is that many I game with do not think like this. They would likely prefer a very rules light session of storytelling... they are more into the story, not the game... in fact some actively dislike the "game" aspect of it, but are intuitively really, really GOOD at role playing. (My wife is one of these.) 

In some ways, I really like gaming with these types. They make decisions based on the story and their characters personality and the situation, not based on what abilities or damage classes they can deal, or what maneuvers are optimized for the situation, or whatever. Some players like this can even be really solid tacticians, just good at making quick, intelligent interpretations of the scenario and having cool, logical ideas to address the situation... but not based on game mechanics at all. 

Mostly I've just learned to quickly interpret their descriptions into the most advantageous HERO terms, and say something like, "Ok, that sounds like an acrobatic roll to setup a better shot at their back... roll X... then roll Y... cool... here's what happens" and go with it.

10 hours ago, Cancer said:

 

Yeah, that last points to an unacknowledged issue in tabletop RPG design and industry: individuals have different experiences that are most rewarding to them, but usually the system creator overlooks this and assumes that his/her/their goals as a player are universal.  This leads off to Gamist-Simulationist-Narrativist considerations, and Robin Laws's taxonomy of Butt-Kicker/Power Gamer/Tactician/Storyteller/etc. for RPG players and their proclivities.

 

As a GM, I am an appalling Simulationist... my game-worlds have to hang together logically and flow clearly from first principles and cause-effect relations.  (The players in general never see those; it's that I have an overwhelming preference for top-down universe creation.)  As I learned twenty years ago, you can easily end up with a world in which there's no place for player characters that way.

 

As a player, I'm a Tactician; I try to exploit the opposition's weaknesses, and arrive as quickly as possible at the situation where I and my cohort not only can't lose, we can't even take losses.  I need a rigorous rule system, I want to master it and exploit the pinch points, and use them to manipulate the enemy into a position where they are quite vigorously doing ineffective things and my side's victory is entirely inevitable. As it turns out, this can frustrate the crap out of my fellow players; the Butt-kicker absolutely must get out in front and kick butts, and the Power Gamer absolutely must get out there and do his White Lotus Secret Decapitation Strike With +3 Vorpal No-dachi to whichever bad guys he chooses, and my suggestion that now that we have the enemy boxed in we just wait here and lob fire blasts and thunderbolts into them for an hour until they're all dead makes my buddies go into open revolt.

 

But ... I also have a strong latent Narrativist streak, in that as a player I really want to feel like there's an overarching plot and that we can, ultimately, end the evil we have to contend against.  Unlike my Butt-Kicker and Power Gamer buddies, to me a game world which is just a cornucopia of beatable bad guys with loot ... looks a lot like a humdrum miserable Hell whose underlying nature is in the global sense, nothing you do actually matters.

 

Creating a game and game system that scratches everyone's itches is really hard.  Especially if you don't know those often unarticulated basal desires your players/market have.

You are hitting on all the big time issue of game design and actual play. Your admission of "... end up with a world in which there's no place for player charaters..." is so very true and probably a very hard lesson to learn. I know I have a strong, similar streak, and often struggle to go along with events in play that seemingly don't make a lot of sense to my very analystical brain, in the context of the SIS as defined. 

Your last point is where I tend to enjoy a lot of the indie games and let myself explore the experience, realizing that some/many of them may not be for me, but that's ok. The trend of more specific game designed with clear, focused intent of a certain kind of play experience... not that others are bad, but this game in particular is what the designer wants it to be... if you don't like it, cool... many other games to choose from you don't have to play. Gone are the days where being a "gamer" means you play everything and everything is for you. Many experiences are simply not what certain players want... and that's ok. Those games aren't for them, and no reason they should be. 
 

To me it is about maturing as a "gamer" and being willing to being open to different experiences, get out of our ruts. Some will be better than others from our very personal preferences, but hey... the idea that every game must be exactly what you expect and the best experience ever is a horrible level of expectation to try and live with. I mean, I gave a D&D 5th Edition game six or seven sessions, and ultimately chose to step out. I wasn't angry or calling it stupid... but the play experience that others seemed to be really into, I simply found tedious and pointless. Not for me. Cool... I'll find something else.
 

It is the odd (well I find it odd) expectation where people seem personally angry and affronted because a particular game or session or system didn't work for them... as if it was wrong or bad... not just "not their thing." 

And as I've stated in other threads, I personally know that my role playing preferences can be at odds with each other. I prefer more and more Nar style, system light experiences... while at the same time, desiring the intricate, simulationist crunch of a HERO martial arts fight or gun battle. These two things do not line up very well, but I want them both. I've just learned not to get frustrated (usually) if it doesn't work out all the time.

On 6/19/2019 at 12:59 PM, ghost-angel said:

 

Oh this whole thing is good, this is fantastic. Please let me know if you how this all works in play.

Ok... so we used "The Plan" mechanic (process?) in actual play again tonight. It was mostly successful, but still a bit awkward in implementation.

The good:

1) It felt really correct and natural to begin when the game naturally entered a stage of "Ok, so we want to do a, b & c and find out..." from the players (the determined they wanted to implement a physical hack of a cartel's server farm to determine routing and transactions of finances and who they were working with)... and I was able to say, "Ok, this is clearly time for "the Plan" so let's structure this discussion.

2) The structure of determining "What are you trying to achieve" and "what is your general strategy" worked out, though, as noted below, the goal they were trying to achieve kept shifting throughout the plan. The general strategy, "We want to find their information infrastructure and get a hard line hack into it without them noticing" was enough to get to "Ok, so what kind of prep do you need, and what actions do characters take to make this possible?" and this didn't take long at all.

3) The actual prep dice rolls and then "The Plan" roll worked well, and enable me as the GM to provide key information that they learn along the way, so the players and PCs are clear about what they are up against.

4) The "We planned for this" chits were used in a different way that was just as effective. The Plan roll earned them two such chits. They chose to spend one to say, "We create a distraction that pulls the majority of the guards away from the server farm so there is a window to infiltrate." By spending a chit, this was a given, the distraction works, and we could start the moment by moment actual play with the professional thief at the door and picking the lock.

5) the player with the thief character who was primary driver of this plan, really felt it was a chance to "show his stuff" and have the professional thief in his environment and really shine. (The op went nearly flawlessly, with the one major monkey wrench overcome with a 3 on a perception check and a 4 on the stealth roll to avoid discovery by a seriously bad guy.)

6) It was a good combination of "prep rolls" and "plan rolls" that are more meta... and traditional task resolution skill rolls like "Lockpicking" and "Stealth" etc. and they felt different enough, even though both used skill rolls to resolve. 

THe not so good:

1) Again, it was difficult for the players at first, to get to the idea of "What are you trying to achieve." They tend to think in term of tasks, "Pick this lock" or "Sneak by X guys" or whatever... the specific actions, and they needed to be prompted to really focus on "Why? What are you hoping to achieve with these actions? What is your desired outcome"  It was up to me as the GM to say "Hey, back to what we are trying to achieve. No need to get bogged down with all the actions you could take, until we understand what all these actions are supposed to accomplish. 

2) Once established, the goal kept changing. This isn't inherently bad... the planning is fluid and the goal can change as the talk about it, but I needed to explicitly call out "Hey, it sounds like originally you wanted to shut down this server farm and really hurt the cartel, but now you want to install a hack and leave it running so you can siphon information over time? Am I understanding this? And we have to start over on the tactics, because you now have a different strategy."

3) The players can struggle a bit with prep rolls and ideas, as they aren't used to simply getting to state director stance "X is true and that means Y" as traditional games the players state a task resolution and look to the GM to tell them anything meaningful. Here the players say, "If I succeed, a, b and c are true and I know about thej, etc." The philosophy of "Yes... and ..." isn't intuitive at first.

4) Not all the PCs had a clear way to contribute to the plan, or the players felt that way, but that was ok as it just limited which PCs could contribute a possible plus to "The Plan" roll.

5) The more strategically minded/also GM type of players dominated the conversation, as other players can really prefer to react to specific threats a GM throws at them. This process asks for pro-active imaginations by the players.

6) GM needs to be able to give clear guidance on the minuses and such that indicate the difficulty of the task in general. It was a struggle at times to provide clear guidance on "Ok, this is what you'll get with a successful "The Plan" roll vs. what will happen if you fail it. 

7) It generally had some awkward moments as it can feel odd for some to "go meta" with the discussion which this demands.

Ultimately it worked really well, and a potentially quite complex and time consuming planning session fit right into our regular four hour play session, and the scenario was resolved by evenings end. It definitely helps structure and speed up "op planning."

All in all in worked

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

11 will always be a friend of mine...

Good good eleven

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...

1 minute ago, Brian Stanfield said:

The problem I ran into at Origins was that people didn’t really understand what they were rolling for. It’s  hard to explain, but if you say “Roll under 15 and you hit,” they get it. If you say “Roll the dice and you may or may not hit this or that character depending on his DCV,” confusion sets in. The roll appears to be an arbitrary modifier to your Offensive value rather than a probability randomizer. This was the hardest part to explain, at least in the game I was playing. 

Interesting... usually I just point to their DCV stat... a six or eight or whatever... and say "So they have a stat like that... and if you hit that stat or higher, you hit them"... and it seems to work. I get it, though. It can be confusing.

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 1:29 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

I can't speak for Brian, but in my experience with new players it's that Skills have their target number written down, and bonuses or penalties are unlikely to change by more than one or two points, while the target number for combat is a lot more fluid.  OCV, DCV, range, combat maneuvers on the part of both the attacker and defender, et cetera, and all of those can change from phase to phase even against the same opponent. 

This... a hundred times this. I love that fluidity in HERO combat, but it is complex and difficult at the beginning.

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 2:59 PM, Brian Stanfield said:

11 + OCV - your dice roll = the DCV you can hit, or less, is exactly the same formula but I’ve found it’s almost impossible to explain to someone new to the system. You roll the dice to. . . do what? Take away from my OCV? Why do I want to do that? What is my target number I’m trying to hit?

Funny... this is how I explain it and it seems eminently grokkable. Roll... subtract that from your offense... that is the defense you hit. Done. Very quickly they realize why rolling low is good. The important thing is to have your Offensive Number (OCV + 11) clearly written down. If I had my druthers, that would be part of the Stat... your OCV is 11+X and you pay five for 1 for x. That would simplify things a lot, IMO.

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 8:43 AM, Doc Democracy said:

OK.  To use Neil's example.  The players want heavier weapons. 

 

One of them suggests that the Plan should have included getting a cache of just such hardware on top of the lift. 

 

I say that this is eminently possible and for them to be there, they need to roll the Dice Pool (for this example presume there are 4 dice in that pool). 

 

The players decide if they want to use the Pool. There is no chance of the cache not being there. By rolling the dice they know there will be a cache.

 

What the players do not know is whether this will leave them with dice in the pool or not.  It is very unlikely (but not unfeasible) that they would roll 4 sixes. 

 

If they go ahead and roll the dice they might roll 6, 5, 3, 3.  That means the Pool is now 3 dice.  Next time they want to use the Pool to implement the Plan, they only roll 3 dice.  They can keep using the Pool until there are no dice left to use.

 

If they had wanted an EMP device above the lift then I might have said, yes, but only if you lose a dice from the pool if you roll 6s or 5s.  In the above example, that would leave them with only 2 dice.

 

I have only used it a couple of times myself and on both occasions it has added an element of tension to the table about decisions, without actually impacting the decision being made - even if they had rolled 4 sixes, the cache would have been there but they would have no Pool for the rest of the adventure...

Very cool... and I'll consider it. We're so used to the Chit system, that seeing the chits being used is the drama. Someone has an idea, but someone else is like, "Is it worth spending a Chit on that?" kind of thing. Adds to the drama, albeit in a different way. Dice pool is a fun idea though.

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 7:38 AM, Doc Democracy said:

I think it is a half-way house.  The plan is hashed out by the players in a really sketchy way rather than sitting down coming up with a million details that might never be relevant.  There are some broad rolls that deliver a number of chits.  Those chits can be used to fill in details that become necessary during play (such as "we need heavier weapons, good job I stashed a cache on top of the lift").  Or at least that is the cool aspect that I think I will be stealing from this! 🙂

Yes... exactly.  Like, don't debate the million of pointless details or worry about your load-out... you choose to say "I have that" at the point where it would be useful to have it, or "we did that" at the point it is useful to the drama and flow of the action.

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 5:45 PM, zslane said:

So this "plan" is not really an explicit plan per se (i.e., nobody actually comes up with a strategic plan of attack), but rather an abstract thing that is just used to rationalize giving out bonuses or Luck dice or whatever?

It is explicit... a goal/intended outcome and a basic strategy and ex-fil idea... but it doesn't dwell on the details. No spending hours sweating exact timings, load outs, etc. It is more focused on "in what general way does each PC contribute via their abilities/skills"  i.e. We infiltrate the club and apartment building, using the club/party to cover our infiltration and if possible, find the hostage, hit quick and quiet and get out without sounding the alarm... vs. "We want to use a helicopter to repel down on the penthouse and go in guns blazing" or whatever. Say, fifteen minutes of discussion, not four hours.

Once the basic plan is agreed upon, then each player says, "Ok, to reach that goal, my character would prep/contribute by..." and that is the individual character rolling a key skill roll.

Then once each PC has rolled... the final "The Plan" roll to say "Ok, you did all your prep... overall, how well did it work out"

One way to think about it... the first Mission: Impossible movie starts with all the characters in place. Estevez is hacked in and sitting on the elevator, the others are either 'in the van' or infiltrated the crowd... they have their gear and positions and actions... and the dramatic action just starts. You didn't have a tedious six hour movie of them all arguing about how they were going to do the op... you get right to the op. That is the point. Show the prep in a montage, and get to the point of 'contact with the enemy' or whatever and do the actual play.

3 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

I’m out of “likes” for the day, so I guess I’m forced to feel “meh” about your post . . . 

Liked for you. (i mean, I like it too, but... there you go.)

25 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Part of me wants to encourage them to just tell the story and roll dice when I tell them to, but part of me also wants them to learn when and why to make their rolls. I suppose this is the real art of GMing that we all need to figure out for ourselves and our groups. I want them to have fun, but also to learn. For now, I think the most important part is to get them invested in their characters and the story. Hopefully they’ll want to learn the rules once we get going. 

Do this, and be transparent about it. Tell them exactly this... you want them to invest in their characters the story and wanting to play... and if that inspires them to want to learn the crunch, great, but no need to worry about it. If you want PC actions to feel intuitively correct for the scenario/action rather than driven by mechanical efficiency or expediency, I'd recommend this. It should work, assuming you don't (and I don't think you'd do this) fall into the trap of punishing them for "wrong" decisions. A lot of the drive to rule mastery is an aspect of being punished for 'bad decisions' because you didn't know the rules well enough. Assuming you avoid that (and I assume you will) then it should work fine. Let the individual player let you know if they want to know more about the crunch.

8 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said:

think the essence of the HS is the SPD chart, the 3d6 bell curve for resolution, a pool of D6 for effect, separate STUN and BODY stats, maneuvers have CV modifiers built into them,  sandboxy point buy vs class / level / tree. More limited things cost less than less limited things. Mechanically similar things use the same rules vs being arbitrarily redefined. 

We cross posted on this, and I see we agree on much and disagree on some. Your "pool of d6 for effect" sounds very similar to what I was saying about Active Points in 5 for 1d6 ratio. Obviously we differ on the SPD chart... I'm still wondering about the "sandboxy point buy" aspect. While this is truly what defined HERO back in the '80s, and was a huge advancement in game design at the time, it is something of a relic now as decades of play have disproven "points = balance" which begs the question why bother with points at all. I feel you could still have a very HERO like play experience if you removed the detailed crunch of pre-defining point spends for characters in such detail, and went more general... each character having a pool of points that they define narratively in character concept, resolving interactions with some general rules of AP in attack vs. defense, etc. A bit a of pipe dream of mine, but it basically is the ultimate expression of your final bit "mechanically similar use the same rules" mantra, which I 100% agree with.

As you noted, this has been discussed many times before in many different ways. I certainly have strong opinions on this. There are certain old school RPG expectations built into HERO that do not work with most modern gaming expectations.  That said, keeping this to strictly "Actual play" examples:

1. Got rid of the Speed Chart and went to an initiative system... works amazingly well and I'd never go back. It removes a lot of the 'turn based war gaming' aspect, removes a level of high SPD character abuse, and generally works to keep all players "leaning in" to the game instead of tuning out when it isn't their phase.
2. Got rid of END. Flat out, just ignored it and removed the old school, resource management through bookkeeping nightmare. It wasn't missed at all, until we wanted to play around with pushing rules and found a new use for it, but this was an advanced modification, and not something needed for basic play.
3. Implemented a bennie system, called "Luck Chits" that changed Luck as written to be a "director stance resource" that players bought on the characters that would provide narrative control and ability to re-roll, take defensive actions, do power stunts, etc. in the hands of players. Fundamentally transformed the game and probably the most important development in making "actual play' more dramatic, fun, thematically consistent, narratively whole and just avoid the 'ugh' moments that random dice can generate.
4. Implemented structured play group dynamics around character creation. No more individual players bringing their pet creation and trying to shoe-horn it into a game, let alone then trying to make any kind of team out of those characters. Now, every character from concept through build is vetted by the play group, and built with a shared history... often using a shared story telling session to build that shared history... before the actual play begins, or as part of the very first actual play session.

I'd say those four are the big ones in terms of changes, though there are a lot of details in the subsequent downstream effects of these.

Also, these changes were made in the context of actually keeping the core HERO functionality... using Stats and Powers and Costs as listed... just sometimes re-interpreting them. 

Core things that I feel really do define HERO in actual play...

1. Paying attention to Active Points being used in any particular action, in increments of 5 for 1d6. So many quick rulings can be made if you just keep this in mind.
2. The 3d6 Bell Curve for task resolution (simply the best mechanic ever) and the "rolling under" for success. This provides such a stable and flexible way to resolve just about anything, and to reflect levels of expertise a PC may have.
3. OCV vs. DCV and all the combat maneuvers that drive the most unique, visceral, fun and interesting combats.
4. Killing vs. Normal damage and resistant vs. normal defenses. (EDIT: Oh... and Stun vs. Body of course) Combat can become very nuanced with slight shifts on these axis. 

What I do realize, and this frustrates me, is that #3 and 4 are both crunchy, and counter to my general desire to simplify character build and speed up play. I was joking with my old friends at Origins that I'm 75% in the camp of "give me Nar mechanics that just help guide shared story telling!" but this conflicts with the 25% of me that wants the complex interplay of a great HERO martial arts fight that no other game can do.

This conflict drives me!