RDU Neil

Fixed

This brings up a question I've been meaning to ask... didn't an old version of Hero have a simple "Give negative CV modifiers to opponent" type of thing? Negative Skill Levels of a kind? Am I just remembering a bad dream? I've always felt that Flash effects was the design standard that was never expanded upon enough. While "blind" or "deaf" or the concept of "senses" in general is rather SFX based compared to every other power in Hero... seems to me that a "Flash" like effect was exactly what we are looking for in a lot of cases like this. Roll attack, roll dice, based on roll, a certain effect is in place for X rounds. No basing it around human-o-centric "senses" or whatever, but just generic effects for temporary time. -1 OCV for next X rounds... or -X OCV for one round, based on Body rolled... could simulate a lot of things. Same with - DCV, - Other Stat, etc. Price it like Flash... good to go (assuming you defined a defense like Flash Defense for it in the same way, or something similarly common that a character could have.

The presence attack is definitely part of the character, the player likes defined choices that can be optimized during the game. He loves martial arts and combat maneuvers, because it enables his love of "mastering the rules" with creating very descriptive and cinematic fight scenes. He is the most "gamist" (self-proclaimed) of our players, so wants to apply a mastery of the rules to do well in game to feel good about playing... about making the right decisions for a situation. Where I'd be happy with simple "High presences to do cool leadership stuff in combat!" and just role play it, the more there are a series of defined maneuvers that provided mechanical effects, the more he'll have fun. We are building a Multi-power with slots that would essentially reflect a "Leadership Martial Art" in a way. Building to play style within the context of the game... one of the things I do like about Hero, even though I don't really enjoy number crunching at all. In the end, I just like to feel that "points spent are worth what happens in game" as the final judge... not some formula for the right cost.

Not nearly as much as DC... with their fridging... and what was done to Donna Troy, Jade, Spoiler, etc.

I'll be in Sydney and Melbourn the week or so before Christmas, before going to NZ to spend the holidays with my sister. I've flown over Toowoomba on the way to Cairns in the past. Love Melbourne as a city, Sydney, not so much, but the Blue Mountain area is stunning. What is Toowoomba like in that regard?

Totally agree... this is basically what I did. 3d6 healing, one of which is only applied to removing Con Stunned effect, and the other two limited only to what the downed character's REC would be (in the game level we are playing, that is usually 5 or 6). And of course, the downed character has to be back above 0 to not have to do another REC, but in scenario's where getting someone back in the fight faster can be crucial we are hoping this will play out well. If it turns out to be a dud of an ability, we'll make it something else. If you have any cool ideas for small "Squad Leader Buffs!" that fit a cinematic Bourne meets X-Files type of world, let me know. I'm working on "CHAARGE!" where, as long as the PC is blazing away as he charges a position, he gets +PRE to make the opponents take a defensive action instead of firing back immediately. Like a locked in, defined PRE attack that works in only specific scenarios. Little things like this that really enhance squad team tactics... while leader does X... teammates receive benefits Y. Character hasn't been played in game, yet, as he is being built to replace one killed off in our last big session (the massive shootout I wrote about in the Body Armor thread). The PC basically died because the other guys on the squad went off and did their own thing, and there was no team coordination and he was isolated and eventually the dice caught up with him. The whole play group realized how badly they had planned and it cost them, and the NPC leader type is re-organizing them and getting them professional tactical training to work together, bringing in a pro... the new PC. (It was actually very cool from a story telling perspective, in that the PCs were a loose group of incredibly talented, amazing ability Special types... a master martical artist, a ninja, an ex-VDV trooper with either mystical ability to talk to spirits or brain damage so that he thought that was the case, a master disguise, infiltration assassin type (disguise and acting abilities so powerful they verge on shapeshift). They'd coasted by on pure talent and being way more points than most of their opponents... but they hit a hardened target with professional, armored mercs, prepared and trained to work together, with assault rifles, etc. Only their 'specialness' kept them from being totally cut to pieces, though all were badly messed up, one dead, by the end. It was a brutal (but brilliantly fun) session, and they seemed to learn from it (metagame and in game) and are focusing on being a real team. Easier to wrangle cats than badass PCs who all think they are right. heh. We'll see.

I prefer to take the tact of asking the player "What are you intending by taking Money as a perk/being rich, etc. How do you want it to affect the game?" Everything is intent. So, once you understand what the player is hoping for, you can figure out whether that makes sense for play, and if Money is the right way to do it. As with everything in RPGs, group consensus at every step of the way, beginning with campaign direction and character creation, really answers most of the "problems" by getting in front of disagreements, etc. No one person decides what Money means for the game... the play group agrees on how to make Money cool in play.

It is as if the only way to demonstrate intelligence is arrogance, or crazy, or autistic. Quiet competence doesn't film well? At least not in action films/shows.

I think Byrne's FF run is the ultimate trajectory of his art, from its peak (which I personally felt was Uncanny X-Men 108 - 142, but paralleled that time period) to his initial decline by the end of that run, lines becoming sketchy, sloppy layouts, etc. Byrne always needed Austin as his inker to excel, but I do think he had similar impact to comic art and design as Steranko did in his short but seminal Nick Fury issues.

And on another subject of elected officials (or ones trying to be such)... this is a trend I heartily support. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-future-democratic-party

True... could be said of any Skill... some meta-ability that grants it... Lockpicking from some organo-metallic morphous alien... they can shape their appendages to fit spaces, like a key slot, etc. Doesn't telepathy bypass Language barriers, so you can technically 'speak' any language? Stealth... natural padded feet and light absorbing fur... etc. And again, I don't mind the concept of Talents either... but just commenting on the lack of consistency. Should every skill have a corresponding talent version? I dunno... seems excessive, but it would be more consistent from a game mechanics perspective. "Here is the skill, representing learned ability which requires a roll... and the Talent version, which represents innate ability, has no roll, but is more expensive and more specifically/situationally defined." I'm not advocating that, really... just that again, inconsistency in design beggars the question.

So I was thinking about skills and their use in game play, the way they've changed over the years and editions... realizing one of the things that bugged me about the trend to micro-deconstruction of every skill (Not enough to have PS: Lawyer... now you have to have 47 sub-skills to represent all the things a lawyer knows). I realized what bugs me, is that the game is now inconsistent. Some skills are broad and general and supposed to cover a variety of situational applications... others are really constrained. It came from looking at the Talent "Environmental Movement" which is a Talent for no apparent reason. Isn't the ability to move through certain impeded environments something you can learn... i.e. a skill? Whatever on that, it is the design difference between it and Stealth that jumped out at me. First... Stealth is 3 points, and is used by almost every character, every game, multiple times. And if the character concept doesn't call for stealth, the lack of it is just as meaningful to the game. Stealth is vastly under costed for its utility in action/adventure (i.e. every Hero game) scenarios... especially as it covers "being sneaky" in any and all situations. Want to sneak past the guard in the dark? Stealth. Want to move through a crowded party without being noticed? Stealth. Want to move across an old attic floor without causing loud squeak? Stealth. Give some situational modifiers (really creaky floor or plentiful blindspots or lots of stuff you have to climb over) and you are good to go. Quick and easy. But then you look at Environmental Movement. Not general, but highly specific, in that you have to buy it separately for every environment. And each environment is nearly as expensive or more than the all-powerful Stealth. 4 Points for Crawlspace Ace. Really? Four points for the once in a decade of gaming where a character has to move through a cramped space quickly? Really? Talk about overpriced for utility, even if there is no skill roll, that is four points that is almost never going to come into play, and when it does, the action could have been easily covered by a Dex roll with minuses. It is also inconsistent design. While tentatively "realistic" in saying "Knowing how to move through cramped spaces doesn't also allow you to move through underbrush, or over rocky terrain, etc." the question then comes up... if that is the design philosophy, why isn't it applied to Stealth? Moving quietly in the dark is different than moving surreptitiously in a party is different from knowing how to move in an old house without creaking... but you don't have to buy 3 kinds of Stealth. I'd much prefer to see a single skill Environmental Movement 3 pts. "YOur character knows how to move across difficult terrain, through crowded and cramped spaces, etc. Make a roll... " Boom... GM throws in situational modifiers like any other roll... "This is cold and icy and slippery and you haven't really done this before, so -3 to your roll!" and we are good... quick and easy. Costs aside... Talent or Skill aside... it is the inconsistency in the design that really bugs me. While I personally prefer skill lists that are broadly comprehensive vs. narrowly defined... at least be consistent. It is the fact that similar aspects of the game have fundamentally different design concepts behind them. --- On a completely different note... what skills encompass "Hot wiring a car" Sure you could say mechanics, but plenty of people who fix cars have no idea or couldn't effectively hot wire a car, and plenty of car thieves would have no idea how to fix a car... so mechanics seems wrong. I was just scratching my head that such a common action/adventure skill isn't clearly covered anywhere. I PDF searched "hot wire" "Hotwire" "Hotwiring" in 6th ed and came up with nothing

Sure... he has all the money in the world... and trying to bribe the agents works sometimes... and as noted above, sometimes it doesn't. And when the news gets ahold of the fact that his companies are employing known criminals and murderers (the villains let them know) and some take his money and stab him in the back, etc. Also... infinite wealth does not mean, buy anything he wants without repercussions. Also... this is role playing. Doing it once in a while is dramatic. Min-maxing is not, so it doesn't happen. If players don't know how to control themselves for the betterment of the drama, you shouldn't be playing with them. Edit: Or, if he wants to abuse wealth as a power, hit him with a custom power Drain: Infinite Wealth, and suddenly he's broke!

Personally that is awesome! Doesn't mean it would work every time, or even once, but very cool role playing. Does he have persuasion? Is the mook motivated by money or the chance to stick it to the rich guy? I mean... this is a great character moment that, if dramatically appropriate, totally works. If not dramatically appropriate, totally doesn't. 15 points is 15 points, and in that scene, it might have been the right power. (Wealth is the real world super power, anyway.)

Ok... cool. You are saying that IF a player has invested points in Wealth, you'll be happy to make sure he gets play value for those points. Totally cool. I do know a certain branch of gaming/GMing where a session/scene/plot/scenario is created in a vacuum by the GM, and the players bring characters and if they didn't have the right things on their sheet, the scenario wins and they lose. Old school simulationist type of thing. The adventure and world exist separately from the players who have to create characters to cope with that world. ugh. What you are saying is more understandable. You look at the characters being presented, and the play scenario grows organically out of "who are they?" and thus the rich guy will get to do rich guy things, etc. That makes sense.

But would you really say, "Huh... none of you bought wealth, so you don't have money for tickets... so I guess we don't play this game because it is happening in Italy." Really? Getting to Italy is just the scene setting up front at the start of the evening's play session... then you go from there. Are you really making your players role play out how they scrounge together enough money for airfare? If the story is about the investigation, then the characters are just in Italy... set the scene with cool images of Rome or wherever and go! If the adventure is something far away and it would be out of the dramatic storyline to have the PCs involved... then it isn't the adventure. You do a different story. I will admit I really don't get where you are coming from on this.

Ok wait... I found this... "(a) the STUN lost to the attack is completely restored by Healing, and (b) one additional die of Healing STUN (or Simplified Healing) is applied to “eliminate being Stunned,” Healing can remove the need to recover from being Stunned." This is a good place to start... though this is too severe for what I want. The teammate shouldn't have to be fully healed from that blow to also not be Stunned. I guess I can start with this and just fudge it, as I don't think it will be overpowered. One person using an action to get another person an action (assuming they are conscious and able to act) seems pretty fair. Ok then... never mind!

So, we are building a character who has a variety of "leadership" abilities that can have mechanical effect in the game. This is my semi-realistic, heroic level, guns and martial arts, spec ops and private eyes and such. Any "special abilities" by the PCs have to fall within the "could be explained away." In this case, a new character is going to be the best squad leader ever. Building abilities that buff the other players, assuming certain actions... like "+2 DCV for all teammates while performing Cover Fire maneuver vs. enemies, etc" We'll figure them out as we go. The one in particular here is the "On Your Feet, Soldier!" maneuver, where the PC can spend a turn on a teammate who is stunned or unconscious, and get them back into the fight. The Stun part is easy... a heal, limited to Recover rate or something... but what I want to get past is the Con Stunned part. I want the PC to be able to remove Con Stun from another PC, so they are back on their feet and don't lose an action automatically. I'm thinking I'll just fudge this for the effect we want... but I'm wondering if there is something already in the mechanics of healing or whatever, where Con Stunned can be negated by some power/ability? Anyone know? I'm not finding anything as I go through 6th. Thanks!

Uhm... didn't you just describe the entire origin of Vision? Created to be evil by Ultron... and simply goes from evil to good... and we have to buy into his motivation?

Not you... the posts before yours. I clicked "Submit" like one second after your post "plunked!" in... so sorry about that. Your post was not dismissive at all.

As Ron is saying in his Champions Now... none of that is worthy of points spend. It is important as part of the character concept, go for whatever you want, but it isn't part of point spend to define their power set. I personally fall much more in line with that... even with "money" in a heroic level, it is still a GM call whether certain equipment is available. If a play group agrees that certain resources are "generally" available, but drama drives when more or less is used... it is the same thing without trying to codify it all. Money and resources are elements of the drama, not of the mechanics of the system. YMMV and probably does, but I find it the path of least resistance.

Wolverine/Punisher/bad-ass is just the logical extreme of the whole super-hero concept. "I am stronger, better, than everyone else, and I enact violence to make things right, and I'm the judge of what is right, because I'm the hero." Super-heroes are a classic tautology, "I do the right thing because I'm the Hero. I'm the Hero, so what I do is right." And if you love the whole Superman/Cap ethos of "I will not abuse my power!" then getting all down on the "sparkly vampires" is hypocritical, because the whole point to the Cullin clan in Twilight was exactly that... vampires with great power making the decision to live a moral life, do good, not abuse their power, etc. Sure the books were terribly written, but so are most comic books. I'd think folks here would be praising them for their appropriate morals and upstanding ethos.

Well, if you go back to the '70s and so, yeah, those type of characters were less common. They are a staple of comics, these days. Back then, martial arts was still weird and exotic, so it was enough for Shang-Chi to be different. Punisher using guns and killing badguys was unusual for comics, so he was a fan favorite until he became a cliché. Wolverine the same thing. Just seems like it is the old argument of "I prefer my silver age/bronze age comic book stereotypes to the iron age platinum age comic book stereotypes" My issue with Morbius is that he never made much sense. Is he a vampire... a guy who had a weird problem that made him LIKE a vampire... magical or scientific? Curse or disease? Serum did what again? I think he was supposed to be a "sympathetic villain" originally... fighting Spider-man, right... but in the end, a nice guy trying to do the right thing, but cursed with disease that made him do bad vampire stuff? Unique at the time... horribly over done ever since.

Wow... dismissive much? Seriously... how is "naturally evil" any different from "berserker rage" in Wolverine or anything like that. A physiological limitation "Must drink blood" that can be fought, but with a cost, and worry that if suppressed will be even worse later... seems legit to me. (Now, calling that innately "evil" is different than calling it natural compulsion... so if you are getting into judging "what does evil mean?" then I'm even more down for that drama in play.)* So many people on this board are into "But that is what a superhero does... stand up for right and the little guy" etc. And talk about a cliché that is overdone. How is Superman's struggle or Batman's any less cliché? Or Tony Stark's alcoholism? Sure, Vampires are over done, but so is every single superhero cliché, so what is the big deal. Personal preference is all. *Actually... this makes me think you can use vampirism as a metaphor for addiction. Is Stark "evil" because he gives into his alcoholic nature and puts people in danger and fails his responsibilities? Is a vampire evil for giving into his bloodlust? I think this is actually very telling and an exploration of the players attitude toward addiction and will power, etc.

I like what they tried to do with her and the Blue Marvel in the Ultimates and Ultimates 2 books recently. The ones with the Good Galactus. Those were actually quite smart and entertaining cosmic stories, but there wasn't a lot of focus on individual characters.