Jump to content

drunkonduty

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    1,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About drunkonduty

  • Rank
    Standard Hero
  • Birthday 01/11/1970

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Button pushin' monkey

Recent Profile Visitors

1,174 profile views
  1. Hey, there - I posted something to the Fantasy thread that I worry is gonna get overlooked. :) It relates to your FH Basics book. Would you mind sharing your thoughts there or here?

     

     

    1. drunkonduty

      drunkonduty

      Hi there. :-)

       

      Thanks for taking an interest in Fantasy HERO Basic.

       

      So to explain my little document. It was inspired by a thread started here about 2 years ago by Brian Stanfield (you'll find he's a regular and thoughtful contributor to these forums) about introducing new players to HERO. The idea was to write something that would make HERO more easily accessible to new players. And Fantasy Hero Basic is my take on that.

       

      I tried to present HERO in ways that made it easier to understand. One thing I did was to rearrange the equation for determining attacks and skills in order to make it a "roll high" equation. It's mathematically the same as the "roll under" version used in the official rules.

       

      The reason I did this is that many beginners are confused by the idea of rolling low for attacks and skills but rolling high for damage. In my personal experience, and in most of the anecdotal experiences I've read/heard about, this is a common problem for new players. By changing to "roll high" I hope to take out one thing that is a barrier to entry.

       

      I made a few other changes. Armour Piercing comes to mind. I took an idea from one of the forum threads here and applied it. It's simpler if not as flexible.

       

      One more thing: FHB is intended as a Low Fantasy rules set. Magic is not as powerful and flexible as many fantasy settings you'll have seen. 

       

      Again, thanks for taking an interest. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about it.

       

      Cheers,

      Glen.

    2. jfg17

      jfg17

      Cool. 

       

      What you recommend one start with your guide ... then  go onto FHC or onto FH 6th Ed, or a different sequence?

       

      Yeah - I pretty sure I'm going to use roll over as part of my house rules for combat. I do think the mathematical results are a little different between the  two equations, but close enough. It's just a game, not a bridge. :)

    3. drunkonduty

      drunkonduty

      My intent was to take the rules as presented in FHC and make them into something playable out of the box. So yeah, I'm recommending starting with FHB.

       

      Honestly, I think the FHC is more a set of rules about how to make a set of rules. IIRC, it has a few example spells and some example equipment, then tells you to go out and build your own. And that's fine, but it's hard work. I think that once a player has a good idea of the basics of how the game runs in play they will be able to understand the rules in FHC. You could use FHC to create mods for your game. But there's no need to use it.

       

      I haven't read FH 6e so I can't comment on it one way or another.

       

      Roll over - yeah... I keep going over it in my head and I can never be quite sure if I'm off by 1. Maths is hard. 😞 Another thought I've had since publishing is changing the base target number to 10. Partly because it's easier to add to 10. Partly because as someone said on the forums a while back "it's more fun to succeed at stuff."

  2. I'd like to say I'm surprised that there are people who think that making a game more inclusive and less offensive to people is bad in some way. I'm not, but I wish I was. There are people who think that Political Correctness is some evil thing, akin to the removal of their basic human rights. It's not. It's what my Nanna would have called Good Manners. So the next time you see something that makes you think "Argh! No! Polical Correctness!" maybe instead try to think "Good Manners." After all, they cost nothing. So any way, here's links to Parts 1 & 2 of a very well written article about the issue of inherently evil races in games and how the language used to describe them in gaming parallels the language used by real world racism. https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/6/30/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-ii-theyre-not-human I am sure that those who need to read them the most will not bother to, but I can hope.
  3. Rival thieves guild. Someone starts hitting the PC's operations and henchfolk. International Diplomacy. They must prevent a war. Or start one. Maybe arrange a marriage. Or arrange a trade treaty. Obviously by itself this is kinda dull. So enter the rivals who wish to assassinate, frame , and just generally derail the PC's efforts.
  4. Lol. Yes, I did miss that. Nicely done.
  5. Looking forward to seeing this LL.
  6. A lot of the write ups of fear effects, as created by different NPCs, are PRE Drains. Hence the Power Defence.
  7. Immune to Fear depends on how the campaign builds fear as an attack. Mind Control is a common way to build a fear attack. (Mind Control, Only to cause fear.) So a character could buy: Mental Defence, Only vs. Fear based attacks. But this won't work against PRE attacks to cause fear, unless you house rule it. PRE attacks target EGO or PRE, whichever is higher. So you can buy EGO, Only vs. Fear. This will work against both Mind Control and PRE attacks. This then begs the question what is Only vs. Fear worth as a limitation? I'd give it a blanket -1 but it is actually campaign dependent. Specifically, it's dependent on how often other types of mental attacks/telepathy occur. If you want to avoid the mucking about with complicated power builds and just have a simple power that does a thing then you will have to guess at it's cost. To get a sense for the correct cost compare it to other things that the players could buy for that many points. If you price Immune to Fear at 10 points, what else could the player get for 10 points? Are these other things as useful as Immune to Fear?
  8. Step 1: Move up to the target Step 2: do the Grab-by manoeuvre Step 3: finish the rest of your movement Step 4: Running throw. (Distance thrown is, I think, halved for being straight up. Or is that movement is halved for being straight up? Or is it both?)
  9. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
  10. Other: a villain team. It allows for a bit of variety in characterisation and power sets. More fun for me as the GM. But I'd go with a Magneto type as my second choice.
  11. 1) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where Player Characters are captured. Yeah most players I've ever had have had issues with it. I, as a player, have had issues with it. But sometimes it's a legitimate trope to use. It can be a way to force the players to follow a plot; and that gets old fast. But it can also be used an an alternative to death. The PCs wake up in chains. Possibly they will be forced to fight in gladiatorial combat or be thrown into some sort of Hunger Games for the amusement of their captors. (The classic DnD Module A4: In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords is a good one.) Maybe it's an excuse for the players to play The B Team and mount a rescue. Use sparingly. Maybe also ask your players if they're okay with this sort of plot. 2) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where enemies and villains return after the players thought they were dead. & 3) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where captured villains escape or get released from prison. I think that in a Supers game recurring villains are pretty much mandatory. I wouldn't want to use the same villain every session, it rapidly turns into Inspector Gadget if you do that. But if the players like a villain (love to hate would be the best way to say it) then finding a good way to bring them back is worth it. The trick is doing it right. eg: Kingpin goes to jail then the heroes learn that he's still running his crime syndicate from inside, good. Joker walks out through Arkham's revolving doors yet again, bad. In fantasy games this is a much rarer trope. At least in my experience. I've had it happen twice, and both times by accident. The first case was years ago - the villain was meant to recur once. Had been a petty villain, went to prison then came back as a major villain pulling off amazing heists. When the heroes finally caught up with her I expected her to die. And she ever so nearly did. But one player grudgingly said "I check to see if she's alive. She is a citizen after all and she has a right to a trial." She was alive. She went to prison and then, because she had stolen so much loot, started manipulating the powers that be from her prison cell. The campaign fizzled out shortly after that. But the players genuinely enjoyed it while it lasted. Second time is a game I am currently running. There's a wizard who had kicked off the campaign by betraying the good guy army and let the undead hordes in the back door of the fort. A few sessions later the heroes have him cornered in a tavern in an abandoned city but are so damn incompetent the guy got away. So I had him join the main bad guy team. The heroes have just met him again, this time at a a party. The party was being held in a neutral kingdom so no fighting allowed. I had so much fun watching the players gnashing their teeth fighting to restrain themselves. The players may have enjoyed that too. They certainly love to hate him and when they finally get him I don't doubt they will be shouting with excitement. 4) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where the villain will threaten innocents with death or dismemberment to force the PC to allow them to escape or capture the PC’s. I'm with everyone else who says this is standard villain behaviour. Violence and disregard for innocents is a classic villain trope. I've only once had a player who hated this and walked. Not someone I played with much and I don't miss having him in my games. He was very much of the "an RPG is a game to win"" player. That's fine, but it doesn't gel with my sort of game. Like all tropes, use it sparingly. But some days the players are just going to have to come up with better plans or wait to fight the villain again at another time. 5) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where an NPC friend/subordinate will turn out to be a betrayer or enemy. Now this one I've been wary of for a long time. The earliest days of DnD* seemed to be filled with untrustworthy NPCs bent on shooting the PCs in the back. So the players reaction that every NPC was out to get them was fair enough. I don't want that sort of game so I avoid this trope. I honestly can't remember how much I might have used it 35 years ago. Not much, I hope. But nowadays I want a game where the PCs actually interact with the game world, so this is a trope I am very reluctant to use. I did do something similar just recently. A game I run has the three PCs being half brothers. Somewhere out there was their dead beat dad. For a long time now, maybe 4 years in the real world, there's been a recurring NPC; a charming rogue who has been on several adventures with the heroes. Just last session I dropped the bomb shell that he was the dead beat dad. And I had a great reaction. It worked as well as it did, I believe, because the game has a huge list of recurring NPCs so no-one thought this character's recurrence was in any way suspicious. I can have a huge list of NPCs because I studiously avoid the "all NPCs are out to get you" trope. * I say DnD did this. And it did. But Shadowrun is the friggin' poster child of this trope. Very few tropes are so bad they can never be used. It always depends on how, and how often, you use them.
  12. It's not JUST the existence of MPs (again, LoneWolf, apologies if I'm getting this wrong) it's "MPs only for spells" that LoneWolf is worried leads to unfairness. I share his concern. If we were to go with something like Panpiper's theoretical Wuxia game, where you have MPs for all sorts of wild and wacky high fantasy shenanigans, I suspect LoneWolf would have no problem with the inherent balance implicit in the campaign guidelines. I know I wouldn't. As you point out, there's many other ways to unfair builds. They need policing too.
  13. Yeah, that's fair. It comes down to the type of game you're after. My current mood, after some years of running high level Pathfinder, is for oh so low fantasy. So low... "You want what? METAL weapons? OUT!" But I admit I might be having a bit of a (over)reaction. :-P
  14. Folks, I don't think LoneWolf (and apologies, LoneWolf, if I'm getting this wrong) is suggesting abusive powers be allowed. They are simply using extreme examples to help illustrate a point - to whit that an MP gives great flexibility. With said flexibility one can have powers that target every conceivable weak point. AND that doing so only for spell casters gives spell casters an inherent advantage. As for me, I'd like to point out that this is HERO; we don't have to have distinct "wizards" and "fighters." There's no reason a barbarian can't learn some animal summoning spells (Conan did in... I want to say Beyond the Black River) or a graduate of Hogwarts can't learn to use an uzi. Now I wonder if spell MPs would facilitate easier mixing of fighter & wizard traits or inhibit it?
  15. I think it all comes own to what feel are you hoping for in your game. If you want low fantasy multipowers may not work. Although if you limit the size of the pool they would probably still be ok. Another thing that might make them acceptable, to the the GM at least, is for the GM to actually write up all the spells. Which is a lot of bloody work.
×
×
  • Create New...