RDU Neil

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Speedball: From Skinwalker: From Dr. Cairo: From Speedball: --- From GM: From MIRV: From Speedball: From Skinwalker: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From MIRV: From Skinwalker: From Dr. Cairo: From Speedball: From MIRV: From Dr. Cairo: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Skinwalker: From Dr. Cairo: From Speedball: From Dr. Cairo: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Speedball: From Skinwalker: From Dr. Cairo: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion (Just continuing on for my own edification if nothing else.) From Dr. Cairo: From Skinwalker: From Speedball: From Impetus: From MIRV: --- From GM:

Re: How do you hide a saved half?

Re: How do you hide a saved half? These two, plus more. I think it is very "role playing situational." A character who knows he is being stalked and wants to be prepared without appearing... that could be acting... or reverse Shadowing maybe. With a character in combat who wants to, say, move into position on another opponent without LOOKING like he is doing that... Stealth or even Acrobatics with modifiers. In some ways, if you want this kind of "tactical role playing" in combat... vs. "tactical ROLL play" (Example: Where the player uses their god's eye view to do things like "I disengage and half move to strike the stunned guy" even though in actual combat there is no way the character would know "that guy is stunned, it is more efficient to take him out.")... I would be flexible and support whatever works best for that character. Reward the player for such creative, in-character, type maneuvers by choosing whatever skill their character is good at that is applicable. Basically, IMO I would not expect to have this ruled as a "hard set of skills/powers building this effect" and more of a "flexible maneuver" that can play out in a number of ways based on the role playing situation. Does that make sense? YMMV of course.

Re: Converting Players to HERO Absolutely! This is what I'm talking about. Playing Hero is easy. VERY easy, because a new player can be told, "Just describe things in normal terms... we'll translate that into the appropriate Hero rule." They learn through play. I've posted time and again how I think Hero is two games... character creation and actual play. I love the game for its actual play... but the generation piece... especially with the tendency over time of layering on crazy levels of detail in the vain pursuit of a "perfectly modeled character" becomes nightmarish. Made even more so because every person has a different perspective... AND THE GAME ENCOURAGES SUCH... on what a "right build" is. Not only that... but character creation "the game" is fundamentally philosophically a different animal than actual play "the game" in most cases. It is a jarring juxtaposition of play agendas that are supposed to... somehow... create a coherent whole. It can be done... but most often because of a lot of trial and error experience by a relatively coherent play group... and in spite of the system conflict... not because the system encouraged it.

Re: Converting Players to HERO Hero has a steep "barrier to entry" and that is its greatest weakness. I agree that it pays off in the long run, but that barrier self-selects a certain kind of player... a limited demographic, IMO. I also don't think there would be half the long term players if the game hadn't started as a nice, thin, straight forward Supers game. All the complexity that has built up over the ages just exacerbates the barrier to entry. It isn't easy to see the consistent, ultra-functional core mechanics for all mud and crunch on top.

Re: Converting Players to HERO Combine Sean's post above with KAs right there... and you have the best definition of Hero. A GM can defined their game as they choose. A GM MUST define their game very clearly. The biggest issue is not that Hero can't do something... it is that it CAN do something... lots and lots of somethings, often which shouldn't be in the same game together. THAT is very intimidating for someone to come into as a GM without lots of Hero experience. As to Alice's examples above... those "play experiences" are exactly what I love about Hero and does win over players. The "generic maneuver" aspect of Hero that allows a player to state things like "I leap off my galloping horse to plow into the villain!" and have that be translatable into mechanics that are different in feel than "I slide out of the saddle and use the momentum to run up to the villain drawing my sword" is critical. The player gets to stay immersed while the GM translates. If the play group has that level of trust, Hero is great. (A good GM makes such play seem effortless because of an understanding of the underlying mechanics of the game... but a new GM, realizing how much is up to them to "judge as appropriate" vs. "read the rule" can be very intimidated.)

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Eric/Skinwalker: From MIRV Alpha: From Dr. Cairo: From Speedball: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion The PRA discussion wound down with OOC discussions on actual legal tactics for challenging the law... but it would crop up again as the game moved forward... From Ilan/Dr. Cairo From GM: The following is one of those moments that make long campaigns really sing. Impetus' player is also the player of a majore super called Thermal... and the player uses events from that other sub-campaign to link them with this one. Providing this kind of continuity in shared story telling makes the whole thing sing sometimes. From Impetus: From Speedball: From MIRV: From Crusader: From Speedball: From Cowboy: From Crusader: From MIRV: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Impetus: From Cowboy: From Impetus: From Speedball: From Impetus: From Speedball: From Crusader: From Impetus: From Speedball: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion The next installment of Mavericks... picking up after the blue booking... From Crusader: From Impetus: From Speedball: From Crusader: From Cowboy: --- From GM:

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules ---poking head up like a prairie dog as the dust settles and Odd Hat and Tesuji return to their respective corners--- So... the question on the Homing Missile really should not be "How do I Sim this effect?" It should be, "What is the end result in Hero terms of the effect of a homing missile?" To some the end result is really "Increased chance to hit, maybe taking extra time." In that case... do we need a build or is it SFX for maneuvers that already exist. I mean, we have +1 OCV and +2 vs range for Brace and Set. You could rule that a Homing Missile is auto-using this maneuver and translate it as "Missile fires but won't have a chance to hit until the phase later with Brace and Set bonuses calc'd at that time." There you go... not perfect, but a simple interpretation of Homing Missile by interpreting from end result... not from trying to Sim a concept. This is one point where we need to remember "reason from effect." Hero can get quite convoluted and kludgy when we try to Sim concept, instead of reason from effect. (I think this can happen because reason-from-effect can make a lot of VERY different SFX look very plain and unsexy on the sheet. As a GM, I love the fact that a simple power can be described a hundred ways for the players... but players want their SHEET to reflect high differentiation from another sheet. Again, part of Hero's internal conflict (cake and eat it).

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules I was being pithy. I meant "No... it is not part of Hero. If you can create a non-Hero mechanic to emulate this... go for it... but Hero itself says "NO" to magic missiles, homing missiles (missiles in general, really), invulnerabilty, etc." Even if there is some "Bolt On" mechanic that somehow plays nice with Hero for these things... I highly doubt it would be "built from existing mechanics" as much as "an entirely new mechanic that is Hero-ish..." Even then, I doubt it is a Mechanic as much as a Game Rule... something that really only works within the established play experience of that game... not something universally applicable. If that is the case, you've essentially just "written down your hand waving" rather than really built anything new. If a build is so hyper-contextual as to really only work/make sense in a very limited play environment then I'd say that is still just hand waving... you just documented it. There needs to be some portability/multi-application to a build for it to be a House Rule or new mechanic. IMO of course.

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules To this point... that such a concept really doesn't "fit" in Hero... I totally agree as stated earlier. This raises a deeper question that I would frame as follows: 1) Being Point Based, Hero systematically strives for "balance" via relatiave point costs. (Five points for one power is assumed to be equally effective as 5 points for another.) 2) We know that equal relative point worth is a joke, because value is only determined in play... and Hero claims to be neutral about "what kind of play" should result. 3) That being said, part of this drive for "balance" is based on a very core concept of scalability. More of one thing should be countered or balanced by more of another. I think this holds in Hero for the most part. 4) Certain concepts... even if they seem to be part of accepted source material inspiration... are just SO FAR "outside the scope" of balance that Hero is throwing up countless warning signs that say, "Neat idea... but it really isn't playable." Those warning signs are high kludge, ramping OCV levels, multiple power combinations and messy SFX justifications. Primarily those concepts revolve around "absolutes"... always hits, lasts forever, invulnerable... or in this case, chases until it hits. In most cases, this is not to say the concepts are "bad" but they are "bad for Hero." By that I mean they break a paradigm that makes the concept INHERENTLY TOO POWERFUL for play with most straight forward Hero builds. Hero even has such a "no-no" vs. out of scope concepts built right into the rules. Area of Effect: Large area attacks, in concept, should not only hit more targets... but should do a LOT more damage to a single target because it hits more or all of the target than a narrower, smaller attack (Explosion vs. bullet or beam) In Hero, size and shape are inherently SFX... not to have a mechanical effect... so AoE is relegated to "hitting more, easier" than "doing more damage." It is, in fact, clearly forcing players to recognize that "more damage is just that, more damage. You want it, buy more dice, don't build a wacky kludge." Many concepts just aren't meant to be in Hero... or if they are, they are basic builds with SFX hand waving stuff like "chased around the field by a homing missile" which is how I'd rule it. So why do we keep having these conversations? Take a page from Nancy Reagan and "Just say no!"

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules Huh... if Homing is as described... then it doesn't belong in Hero. Nothing is "always" in Hero... at least when it comes to "hitting."

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules I'm with Lord Mhoram on this... Personal Focus is the rule to cover "restricted" The SFX (worthiness... that's my ring you can't use it) is the interpretation in play. As for "roll again" my Luck Chit rules cover that. It is one of the basic uses of chits... throw a chit to reroll a roll you control. It turn out to be used more when a damage roll is for crap... as it least in my experience players are less bugged by "missing" than they are by "I hit and didn't do anything." Even when the re-roll is for crap, there seems to be more acceptance of "Well... I had two chances... I guess I'm hosed" than being grumpy about it. For the full list of my Luck Chit rules... do a search under House Rules... you'll find lots of references.

Re: Swallowing a Man Whole And Keith said everything I said in a much more short and concise way. Thank you, Keith!

Re: Swallowing a Man Whole I will go against the grain of most Herophiles and say, "You don't have to model such a creature with the rules. Just say it is so." Or more specifically... model the creature as normal... make it big with growth or size standards or whatever... and the "swallowing hole" is simply an "environmental effect" of the creature. It is SFX, essentially. Think of it this way... you don't model every ramification of a character... you model the basic mechanical effects, and the rest happens in a "makes sense" manner. If a strong character is fighting in a shipping yard and starts picking up and slamming empty containers down over his opponents, trapping them inside... you don't make him pay for this as a power, do you? It is an environmental effect of combat. If a large character with growth bends over to shield his teammates from a falling building... it just happens as SFX of the power... you don't say "You can't do that unless you have PD/ED usable by others!" (Or at least I hope you don't.) Same thing here. This is a grab, with the unique SFX being "you are inside the beast" rather than "It has you in its hand or tentacle or talon!" It just is. Fitz actually is saying the same thing. It is basically just a hold and squeeze... and the target fights back in a basic STR vs. STR battle. If this is a large beast vs. a normal level character... likely the STR is overwhelming and the poor PC is dead meat. If this is a situation of Jonah in the whale... small human actually has room to survive and isn't being actively crushed right away... then again it is environmental. You don't stat out a locked room without light and running out of air... you just say "You wake in a dark room with no lights and the air is rank and thin." Do the same here. "After the Purple Worm grabbed you, it lifted up and let you slide down its throat. You wake up in a foul and wet chamber with no light and nauseating smells." Then... just a like a character in a room might try to hack down a wall with his ax... a character in a stomach will do the same... rule accordingly. The point being you do NOT have to pre-stat out every detail. Environmental effects "Just are" and should be ruled accordingly. Falling into the gullet of a purple worm should require no more "statting" out than falling into a jungle cave. They are both just environmental effects... and role play it out the same way.

Re: Perception as in "do I see it" versus Perception as in "do I appreciate the meani God I need to be in bed... but anyway... I've tried to add Conflict Resolution to Hero, with varying success. One... upon entering a scene GM or player can declare "stakes" and the other can respond... the conflict resolution being "Here's what I'm willing to try, in general... and the outcome I'm looking for..." and the other side says, "Ok... but if you fail, then most like this other thing will happen." Then we go into standard task resolution/vanilla Nar role playing. Example: Cowboy and Shih Ghost make their way into the clock tower lair where the vampires who rule the city roost... and discover a secret... the sire to all the vampires locked up. They state... "Ok... the sire... if we win we destroy him... and it destroys all the other vampires..." as their stake. I, as GM, reply... "Ok... works for me, but if you lose... not only do the resistance fighters get wiped out and your character will be "turned" and you will become a villain and essentially be out of your control... character over." They might agree and say... "We reserve the right to try and cut and run if we are losing..." and I say, "Yes, as long as I hold the option for villain escape if losing as well..." Then we agree and move into classic task resolution combat for the scene. (This is actual play... and was the first time we ever tried this. It was awkward, but somewhat successful.) Basically the Conflict Resolution part puts all the cards on the table... so players and GMs are fully aware of the most likely outcomes one way or another, and no one feels boned or shafted if things go against them. A more effective use of Conflict Resolution is a different use of stakes & intent... and helps to address some of the issues you have about INT and Perception. Example: Character wants to do research about the ancient carving found in the cave. Normally they say, "I make my arcane knowledge roll..." and just look expectantly at the GM. With stakes and intent, the player drives the story more by saying, "I make my arcane knowledge roll... and if successful, I find out exactly why Dr. Destroyer's agents are after this thing." I say, "Ok... but if you make it exactly, you find out, but trigger a curse. If you fail the roll you don't have a clue and your character doesn't know about the curse." This kind of thing takes practice (and without a regular group now, that isn't happening) but it works pretty well. We just have to remember, 'cause often it isn't necessary as I'm pretty good as a GM of deducing what the player is after and satisfying that. This came into play more when we seemed to be not clicking on the plot elements and their meaning. It is an effective language for the player and GM to essentially agree that both like the story/plot and are comfortable with the possibilities. Have you tried anything like this? I would recommend it.

Re: If Hero was linear The part you quoted was me reflecting on theme and symbolism... not really mechanics. The part about Superman deflecting a pistol shot shows his vast powers was more addressed in the second part of my post. Basically... how you define guns (for example... STR chart, other things also have this effect) has deep repercussions for defining Warp's World (which is beginning to sound life fun... mind you. ) You are definining a "physics" in many ways... and you are saying that all characters... no matter their original concept... must comply with this "physics" (or maybe meta-reality is a better term?) Thus you have to say, "Maybe Warp's World just can't have a true Superman clone, because that level of vast power is so out of scope. I can have an approximate of a flying tough guy who can bounce small arms... but no, he isn't going to be tying chains to the moon and hauling it around to play fetch with his super dog!" That kind of vast power is just off the scale and not feasible in the meta-reality you define. To your other point about feeling "shoehorned" by other GMs to fit their world... well all world builders all do this to some extent. Would a player who wants to play a super in Warp's World be allowed to play a super who regularly flies backward around the world to turn back time and save his girlfriend? Maybe your theme is a Sim kind of world of directly comparable power levels... so a really strong guy is possible, but only up to a certain point... and some concepts just don't work. Are you forcing them into your theme... or is it the responsibility of players to conform to the basic concepts of the world created by the GM? There is a lot going on in that issue... probably more than this thread.

Re: Perception as in "do I see it" versus Perception as in "do I appreciate the meani I think this is referred to as "Conflict Resolution" (as you stated) vs. "Task Resolution" which is the typical RPG effect. Essentially (as I understand it) Conflict Resolution is not only "I succeed" but "I then get to state what the story results of my success are!" This is the big development. Old school games like Hero have the "Do I make my Oratory roll? Yes!" but the player has no real say in what the result is. The GM is supposed to then interpret all of that. The big development in Nar gaming is the ability for the player to drive the story... essentially take director control from the traditional GM... and I do like this. I just feel that there is room for BOTH task resolution (I personally love the Sim elements of combat... especially Hero crunchy combat with lots of maneuevers and such) as well as conflict resolution (stakes and intent) which add a ton to players feeling involved in the story that unfolds. I think Hero can encapsulate both... though the published rules have nothing about conflict resolution.