RDU Neil

Re: Elminating tracking stuff in HERO - but preserving the essential ideas... Sorry... no... I was trying to sum up Zorn's original post. My bad.

Re: Secret IDs: In or Out? I've always admired those two. (I actually have no idea what you are referring to here.) Faith... to me... is what I said, intellectually corrupt. It is not just belief (which often has an experiential or rational basis) but it is belief WITHOUT BASIS... and in fact... BELIEF IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. Faith is denial of reality. It is wishful thinking taken to the extreme (as you mentioned above.) It denies our greatest trait as humans, the capacity for living an examined life and struggling to understand existence... instead to give up that struggle and just accept some idyllic imagining and using that as an excuse for behaviors that should call you to accountability. Relating this to supers... faith is what confidently allows supers to justify extreme violence as appropriate, while preaching that extreme violence by others is bad. I'm totally comfortable with the rational superbeing who realizes the possible consequences and damage of his action, but decides to do it anyway because the result is worth the price. I'm horribly uncomfortable with the classic super trope (basically the tautology) of "I'm the hero, because my actions are heroic. My actions are considered heroic because I'm a hero." THAT is the superhero tradition and expectation... of which Secret IDs as described by Balabanto is a symptom... that I find unpalatable. Also... I don't think Hero as a system does ANYTHING to support the idea of PC Superhero as iconic representations. In fact, it does just the opposite. It is a reductionist system which asks players to break super PCs down into mechanical chunks without thought to intent of use. That 10d6 EB isn't "good" or "evil" it is just a 10d6 EB... and the play interpretation/use of that EB is left wholly uncircumscribed by the rules. Bascially Hero is saying nothing about the expected use of that EB or how that use is interpreted in play. It is not helping you to build a superHERO... it is designed to facilitate building a superBEING. The imaginary actions and events and world (thus the contextual meaning of the character) are beyond the scope of the system. Hero is... by design... about superbeings... not superheroes.

Re: Secret IDs: In or Out? Or you could go the route of "putting on a mask provides a psychological freeing of responsibility for my actions" kind of idea. I'm more inclined to believe that is what allows the hard decisions. "I didn't let that woman died. Capt. Vengeance had to make that choice!" I'm inspired by "beings" with relatable foibles... (people with warts and all)... who try their best and try to do the right thing through a life of examined actions. I've never understood how anyone can be inspired by a Superman... or in real life any kind of media projection of a superstar. Example: Michael Jordan never inspired me with his amazing walking on air abilities (impressed me... yes... inspired... no.) What was more inspiring was his failed attempts to play baseball, his dealing with is father, his attempts to run the Wizards, etc. Those area where we saw someone out of their depth and working hard to make it right. Inspiration doesn't come from an ideal of perfection... it comes from watching the hard struggles. Inspiration is about making me feel "I can do that!" and I know I'll never be the single best basketball player in the world... but I could find myself taking a job where I could fail and look foolish, but I take the risk anyway. I honestly don't see how somone like Superman... an alien with "abilities far beyond those of mortal men" has ANY relation to me doing my best. It's not even apples and oranges... it's apples and... oh, I don't know... apples and dry erase boards. They aren't related at all. Don't know if that answers you question.

Re: Elminating tracking stuff in HERO - but preserving the essential ideas... I may be confused... but let me see if I'm getting your suggestion right. You apply damage as per normal rules. Subtracting applicable defenses. If any damage gets through, you compare that amount to a "percentage of normal total." Depending on how much of a percentage you took... you get a "color statement" like "That seriously hurt me!" Cumulative damage can provide a "color statement" of higher level? Basically? Is there a functional/mechanical aspect to the "color levels"? The "-1 if seriously hurt" type of thing? What I seem to see here is MORE book keeping... but for no more benefit than some assigned "color" language.

Re: Secret IDs: In or Out?

Re: Secret IDs: In or Out? While I totally agree with many of the points here (repped by the way)... I utterly despise this psychology. This is a pop culture version of the despicable concept of faith. It is saying that the "belief" in something is greater than the truth of the thing. While I agree that can be true, I despise this part of humanity... the part that requires this icon, this extra-normal force... this external object to believe in that is the basis of religion. It is not strength, but the weakest, most intellectually bankrupt aspect of humanity. I have no desire to replicate or support that concept in my role playing... any more than I wish to support faith or religion in the real world. This is why I love Hero... because it rationalizes these concepts and makes us say, "Hmmm... perhaps many of these superhero schticks really are kind of silly and unacceptable when you look at them logically." Hero is a game that by its nature, requires a rational, logical deconstruction of desired play in order to facilitate play... thus it begs the question of all the illogical genre bits in the source material. The secret ID is an ode to the mystique. I just don't think the mystique is something I'm keen on supporting.

Re: AnyBody Out There! Not really close to Detroit... but in Ypsilanti/Ann Arbor area.

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion Note: The following exchange is indicative of the kind of metagaming I think is essential. FtF or online, character interactions and what the INTENT of the scene is supposed to be is often easily misunderstood. It is so dependent on how it is perceived... in that here I thought I was giving Matt/Dragon Mist a dramatic, thoughtful scene where he could find out secrets and decide the fate of his character... but he was perceiving it as a threatening "gonna get screwed here... got no options" type of thing. I learned a lot from the difficulty I had with trying to present this in the positive light I intended... because if the player doesn't get it... if they are feeling negative about what is happening... then I've failed as a GM... Post 212 From Dragon Mist: ----- From GM: See... above, I should have been more explicit in my intent. I should have said, "I really want DM to ask questions... this is his chance to find out more secrets of the sword. He is not being threatened, these people are hanging on his every word and clearly hope for his help. This is not me screwing with you... in fact this is DM's victory scene. He is the master of his fate and the fate of others. Ask some questions and let this play out so you, Matt, the player can forge a dramatic plot point in the campaign. That is what I wanted, but to this day, I don't know if Matt ever quite understood that. My bad for not being more specific in my intent as GM. ----- From Crusader: From Cowboy: From Speedball: From Dragon Mist: From Impetus: ----- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion Post 211 From Impetus: From Speedball: From Cowboy: From Crusader: From Dragon Mist: ----- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion Post 210 From Impetus: From Cowboy: From Crusader: From Dragon Mist: From Speedball: ----- From GM:

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea I do this often. It took me a while to realize that I needed to point out whether I'm responding to just the original question, or to the entirety of the posts and responses. I always think through these things... but that is a learned behavior, not instinctive on my part. I caused much confusion in my time by not being clear about what I was specifically responding. I think the internet would be a much nicer place if people put context or qualifications around their comments and oppinions. I don't think it detracts from the power and impact of a post to say, "I have not read the entire thread, I'm just giving my response to the OP, appologies if I'm repeating something already said." All we can do is try to remember to do this as much as possible, and lead by example.

Re: Negative BODY means dead, how much means obliterated?

Re: Negative BODY means dead, how much means obliterated? Essentially... the Hero system does not answer this question. Body basically is a stat that abstracts the "functional integrity" of an object... functionality equal to "life" in most cases. Take away Body, you are taking away functionality until it is "broken" or "dead." Nothing in the system speaks to the mass of the object and breaking it apart. We've had big threads on this in the past... but essentially it has to be house ruled because the system doesn't speak to it. Unfortunately the system has inconsistencies that HINT at it... i.e. Growth and Density Increase add Body to a character, implying that Body is equated with mass... but that is all. Basic rule of thumb... mass and "obliteration" fall into the environmental aspect/SFX realm... which means there is no hard fast rule and it is decided by the play group social contract and adjudicated by the GM. In short... house rule it.

Re: AsSFXiate This is an absolutely critical point. Bold highlights are mine. Repped. This is where I think the "abuse" issue begins. Here is my thought process on this: 1) A core implication of Hero (stemming from flexibility of character creation) is that the player defines all things about their characters. 2) The system assumption is that the mechanics are there (setting point and AP and DC lims included) to provide a consistent and "balanced" playing field that implies that "any characters built within these guidelines... no matter the intent of the player... will work together." The system HEAVILY implies this... though anyone playing for any length of time knows that is not to be the case. 3) What Hero... as an old school system... fails to address is that such character creation most often means characters have no context. They are piles of points that reflect ONE PERSON'S (the player's) assumptions and intent... without thought to "what do those points mean in context of the game and in conjunction with other characters?" The game explicitly stayes away from discussing this... and this is its greatest flaw. 4) The mechanics at least give a measuring stick to see if the assumptions are remotely within the same ballpark... but there are no mechanics for SFX. 5) No mechanics is actually a blessing... because it allows for design space to create a definition like I indicatd above. That kind of "design intent" statement provides guidelines for "in play decisions" without trying to micro-manage every possible situation. These design intents were implied in many earlier editions... actively avoided in 5th... but they are key to understanding what is happening in play. Essentially... the player ASSUMES control (incorrectly) over the SFX of their character because the game supports player control in almost every other aspect of character creation. Then the player assumes a certain in play functionality (again incorrectly) that is not their's to assume. One simple definition as I stated above would take care of that... a definition of "In the end, the GM and what 'makes sense' for the game decides how your PC's SFX work... not you the player." That needs to be specifically stated, IMO... though I doubt we'll ever see that.

Re: AsSFXiate

Re: AsSFXiate Totally agree with this. I'm in the SFX matter side of thing... and I define SFX in the same way I do "environmental factors." Meaning... they matter in a "makes sense" kind of way that is ruled by the social contract and adjudicated by the GM. The player can suggest uses/effects, but they have no direct CONTROL over those... because they spent no points. If the player wants to have reliable, quantifiable control over an SFX... that is what points are for. Example: Just as a GM would have to adjudicate a player saying, "I run out into the rain to try and douse the flames on my cape. (Use of environmental effect), the GM would be in charge of adjudicating in a "makes sense" way the player saying "I stand in front of Hydro-Man's blast so that the water puts out the fire." The SFX is an environmental factor just like the stated "it is raining today" is. If the player wants to always count on Hydro-Man being able to put out fires... then pay points for CE or Suppress or whatever. SFX do matter... can have significant impact on a scene or plot or character... but the impact/effect is NOT controlled by the player... but as an environmental effct... adjudicated by the GM in a "makes sense" manner.

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion Post 209 From Dragon Mist: ----- From GM: ----- From Impetus: From Crusader: From Cowboy: From Dragon Mist: From Speedball: ----- From GM:

Re: Distinguishing Transform from Adjustment Powers

Re: Distinguishing Transform from Adjustment Powers Actually... "You are a horse. Here... look in the bestiary," is exactly what I was thinking about here. I actually disagree with Zornwil on the "UBO flying" and all that. If you make 'em into an angel, they are an angel... everything that includes... as long as it "makes sense" It truly is out of the "defined by points" area and into the "GM makes the call within the social contract" area... as is 99% of any game. To me, this is a move away from the "define the lint in your pockets with points" mindset and instead put things back where they belong... the social contract/makes sense/just is area of the game. Control is the answer. You don't have to define everything in a headache level (as the game currently kind of asks us to do... as you noted) but instead just say, "He's a horse" and the social contract takes care of what "makes sense" for a horse. To answer Robyn, GM decision is not "whim"... it has to conform to the social contract of the play group. If the GM says, "Billy the Horse clop clops his way across the wooden floor, scuffing it badly to the horror of Mrs. Winthrop's maid!" nobody says, "How many points is Billy? How much damage did his hooves do to the floor? Did you stat out the defenses of the floor?" It is just a "makes sense" scene and we let it go. If the GM said, "Billy the horse rises up on his hind legs, pulls out some blue taffy, starts singing the theme song to Dr. Who and begins rhumbulating his trumboid east-west!" Well, ok... the social contract has been broken (except maybe in Sean's group) and players say, "What the eff are you on!?!" The point is just that once the transform happens, control of its effects are up to the GM (filtered through the social contract.) The player can't say, "Ok... Billy still has his eye beam power and blah blah..." that is out of control. Is Billy still Billy but a horse? Has Billy's mind gone bye-bye? Up the the GM in a "makes sense" mode like the rest of the game. Zorn may be thinking something else, but I'm looking for a the simplest, most straight forward description here. Change Environment = "I make a storm." GM determines what that means for the story. Transform = "I make a horse." Gm determines what that means for the story. Shape Change = "I make my shape into a horse... but the power specifically states I have all my normal faculties and powers as well." GM figures out what that means for the story, but his shape is "a horse." All of this takes things out of the impossible realms of trying to define things absolutely with Hero Mechanics, and puts the appropriate things back into the realm of "makes sense" decisions filtered through the social contract.

Re: Distinguishing Transform from Adjustment Powers Zorn, Besides Change Environment and Transform... what other powers in the book do you think pull the "Create an environmental aspect/object/element" but don't give control over the EFFECTS of that element? To me, Shapeshift is a critical one... and this interpretation provides a thematically consistent and simple explanation that avoids all the kludgy "vs. sense" constructs. Others?

Re: Distinguishing Transform from Adjustment Powers I'll have to think about this, but the general concept I completely agree with. Clearly Transform as "Create object" should work this way... but Transform as "attack on another character" should not. The game needs to be more explicit on level of control. Some powers give exact "control" to the player for the points spent. Energy Blast 50 Points, you deal 10d6 damage. A GM can have the target have defenses and such, but if the GM just simply states, "Nope... it does 3d6 drain" then either they have to invoke an "in game use of mechanics" that did this... or they are breaking the social contract over who has control. In the case of Change Environment (CE) or Transform... the power only gives enough control to "create" an environment or an object... but the EFFECT of that transform (They lose body, or can't use their senses, or whatever) is NOT in their contorl. If you want that control, buy the power that does that thing. If a player wants a transform to make a character into something else, that could work, as long as they understand the EFFECTS of what that "something else " is is up to the GM. They have no control over that. To me, this is why Transform as version of KA does work. Just like it is left up to the GM to determine what "dead" means. It is up to the GM to determine what "transformed" means... and it means whatever the GM thinks is appropriate and "Makes sense" for the story/plot/scene/situation at hand. I think this is critically important, but again not addressed appropriately by the rules.

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion Note: I remember at this point, despite being the big climax scene, we were struggling to get anything posted. Still, we played on. Post 208: Cowboy: From Dragon Mist: From Crusader: From Speedball: ----- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion Post 207 From Dragon Mist: ----- From GM: ----- From Impetus: From Crusader: From Cowboy: From Speedball: ----- From GM:

Re: Suffer, Kate! Sean Waters' new avatar scares me.

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion Post 206 From Cowboy: From Crusader: From Speedball: From Impetus: From Dragon Mist: ----- From GM: