Just Joe

Re: Pulp Hero Resources I'm very tempted to pick some of these up. Have you purchased from them before? I'm not sure I understand how it works. Apparently one can customize, up to a point (e.g., adding numbers to figs). Once you download the figs, can you number them, print, then renumber and print again? Also, what weight cardstock do you use? (I want to use them as "tent" style stand-ups). Thanks.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart Thanks for discussing the topic, in any event.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart Oh well . . . I still think the S/B ratios are significant, and that the chart as constituted does not give acceptable results, but I'm clearly not persuading anyone, so I'm just going to drop the subject.

Re: Alternate Initiative Rolls I would not want to roll routinely, but I have given some thought to a roll off in particularly dramatic situations where who acts first may be crucial. Something like: act on (Dex minus 1d6). Ties go simultaneously. So a differential of 5 Dex gives the slower character a 1/36 chance of acting at the same time as the faster. A smaller differential allows for the possibility that the slower goes first. A larger differential guarantees that the faster goes first. I would further modify for 1/2 moves and held actions. I don't recall having used this, though I may have long ago and I may do so soon. Whatever you do, I recommend allowing for the possibility of simultaneous action, as I believe that possibility is both realistic and dramatic.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart Trying to answer this precisely requires trying to define both STUN and BODY, which is something I don't want to do. I think we all have a rough common understanding of both characteristics, but trying to define them precisely is difficult. But I think the discussion thus far has given a decent approximation of the meaning of the ratio: something like likelihood of causing (or tendency to cause) unconsciousness without killing. (But this is only rough, at least in part because those probabilities depend on the size of the attack. A 1d6 KA hit to the arm has zero chance of killing outright, for example). Frankly, I'm not sure which locations should have the highest S/B ratios. My suspicion is that the head should have a high-ish ratio (hits to head are deadly, yes, but are even more noteworthy for causing unconsciousness) and the stomach a low-ish one (having heard stories of people walking around mortally wounded in this area). But I have no particular expertise on this subject. I just can't believe that, for example, the vitals, thigh, and foot should have the same S/B ratios while the leg has a ratio twice as high. The approach I'm toying with is to start with Utech's stun lotto tamer: STUN X = (3d6-3)/3, rounding off, and then to apply the BOD X modifier to both STUN and BOD (after defenses). I think this makes the average S/B ratios the same for all locations (which, I believe, is an improvement over the current chart, though perhaps further improvements are possible).

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart Sorry. I guess I'm not making myself clear. I'm talking about the actual BOD lost by the target after hit location modifiers. So the only problem with the example given is that you can't actually do an odd number of body to the head. So, let's try, "taking your slightly below average Joe (STUN 16, BOD 8) then hitting him in the arm, you could roll 10 BODY (and therefore do 5 BODY and 20 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to roll 4 BODY to the head (and therefore do 8 BODY and 20 STUN) to get the same result." I am not claiming that for a given BOD damage roll unmodified by the chart, the arm hit has a higher STUN/BOD ratio. My claim is about the ratio after modification to both characteristics by the chart. Since you seem to have been misunderstanding me, my claim is likely to seem trivial to you (especially by comparison to the radical -- and clearly false -- claim you seem to have thought I was making). But it still seems to me that we ought to want the (modified) STUN/BOD ratios implied by the chart to make sense.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart After rereading these examples, I think they support my case. An unarmored 20 STUN, 10 BOD target can't be KO'd by a KA hit to the thigh or foot without being left dying (at or below 0 BOD). Such a target can be KO'd by a hit to the stomach or chest without being left in such a state.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart I don't understand what you are saying. What things don't happen in play? If I were arguing that the ratios were the sole or even primary factor that should be considered in evaluating the chart, then this would be a good point. But that is not what I am arguing. I'm saying that there are no obvious problems with the absolutes, but the ratios implied by the charts ought to make sense too.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart I don't think I'm under a false impression, but it is certainly possible that I'm inadvertantly giving one. And, if by "do less damage" you mean "cause the target to lose less BOD", then this is an implication of the HL chart. That does make sense. I don't deny that there's plenty that makes sense about the chart. I'm focusing on one particular issue that does not seem to make sense to me. Agreed. Maybe. It depends in part on what a Hero System knockout represents. (It's certainly true that there is less risk of killing them, but whether you are more likely to KO without killing them is less obvious.) But lets assume you're right. Would you be equally willing to say, "Which means of course you are more likely to take someone out of the fight - without killing them - by shooting them in the stomach rather than the thigh" or " . . . by shooting them in the chest rather than the foot"? Because those are implications of the chart as well.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not particularly interested in precisely defining STUN. The point is that we probably all have a roughly similar idea of what it represents; and I doubt the STUN/BOD ratios for the given locations make a lot of sense for any of those ideas. I'm not clear on who this comment is directed toward. If to me, I think you've misunderstood me; please let me know and I'll explain. The higher the value, the less net BOD needs to be done to KO the target. So KA hits to the arm, stomach, or leg, can stun or KO a target with the least permanent (i.e., BOD) damage; hits to the hand, vitals, thigh, or foot have to do the twice as much net BOD to do the same amount of STUN.

Re: The voice in my head Well, it could be a big pain for the GM (and I, as GM would probably reject it as too much trouble), but you might be looking for a (psionic) Variable Power Pool with No Conscious Control. VPP, to represent a wide range of possible ways of messing with people's minds (powers already suggested by others, but possibly mental tansform, ego attack, and others). NCC because you mentioned she "loses control", and seem to be suggesting that she doesn't decide what bad things happen to others.

I've always been a fan of the hit location chart, especially for killing attacks in heroic level games. But recently, I've started to have my doubts. My main doubts come through most clearly when considering hits on an unarmored target (which is not rare, IME). Consider the ratio of STUN to BOD (counting BOD X) for KA's on various locations: Hand, vitals, thigh, or foot: 2 Head: 2.5 Shoulder or chest: 3 Arm, stomach, or leg: 4 Note: attacks on 1/2 BOD X locations may have higher ratios, due to rounding. In an extreme case, for example, if 3 BOD is rolled (before BOD X) to the arm, 6 STUN is done, but only 1 BOD, so the ratio is 6. Now I am not claiming that a higher number makes for a more effective attack. Clearly, a head hit is more effective than an arm hit. But still, the STUN to BOD ratio should represent how painful (or how likely to cause unconsciousness) it is to be be shot or stabbed in a location relative to the lasting damage done. And from that perspective, the numbers strike me as rather odd. What do you think?

Re: Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks Neat idea. More elegant than mine, and easier to apply, at least for attacks that normally roll more than 3 dice. I would be a bit concerned about the importance of the first die, particularly for 4d6 and 7d6 attacks. I also would not want to have to distinguish dice; it's easy in principle, but can be a hassle if, for example, one player has a red, a white and a blue die while another has a black, a yellow, and a green. Here's how I would tweak your idea. When you divide the # of dice by three, you'll get a remainder of 0, 1, or 2. If 0, then you use each die an equal # of times -- no problem. If one, then use the middle die an extra time. If two, then use the lowest and the highest each an extra time. However, I don't really like using one of these three dice for STUN X, and I'm not particularly fond of it for normal BODY. I don't think your method makes the STUN of KA's or the BODY of normal attacks distribute nearly as nicely as it does the BODY of large KA's and the STUN of normal attacks. So unless and until you (or someone else) show(s) me a way to generalize the method further, I wouldn't be tempted to try it. BTW, this idea seems vaguely familiar to me. I wonder if I read that earlier thread you mentioned way back when . . .

Re: Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks Well' date=' I [i']shouldn't[/i] have said to interpret the result as a %. I should have just made it a damage multiplier between 0 and 2. But given that I did say to interpret the result as a %, yes you should multiply by 10. I like the positive correlation between probability of hitting a damage done, but I don't like the correlation being so strong.

Re: Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks

Re: Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks I was actually worried that it might slow things down. But you might be right, especially for larger attacks (after one becomes comfortable with the system). I actually like the miniscule chance of zero damage before defenses (the glancing blow, or the laser cutting off a few eyebrows). And a 4d6 punch can already come close to this (4 STUN and 0 BODY). Still, all things considered, I think we can make it better. 2d6+3 is an interesting suggestion. It does not give as wide a range of possible results as most attacks in the official rules (or as 4d6-4), but has a lot of deviation. I'll be back later with the three variations of a 3d6 version I came up with overnight, but I really ought to be doing some work right now.

This was inspired in part by the "Killing Attacks, Again" thread, but it's application is broader. Suppose you don't want the size of an attack (in terms of active points, or in terms of the number of dice normally rolled) to effect its probability distribution. You might want a 9d6 normal attack to be as likely to do its maximum (or minimum) damage as a 3d6 normal or 3d6 killing attack are to do their respective maxima or minima. Consider the following approach: 1. Determine the standard effect damage of the attack (alternatively, choose 3.5 / die or 4 / die; each has benefits and limitations). 2. Roll 4d6, then subtract 4. The result is a number between 0 and 20. Divide by ten and interpret as a %. 3. Multiply the value in part 1 by the value in part 2. That is the damage done. It's somewhere between 0 and 2x the average, with a 4d6 curve regardless of the actual size of the attack. Suppose you want to count STUN and BODY separately. You probably want the two positively correlated, but don't want the correlation to be perfect (i.e., 1). No problem. Take the dice for the STUN calculation above. Subtract one (10%) for every even rolled, add one for every odd rolled. Again, you get somewhere between 0% and 200% of the average/standard damage*. Stun and BODY are positively correlated (though admittedly I don't know what the numerical value of the correlation is). Obviously, I do not recommend this as an official change to Hero System rules, but I do think there's a lot going for it, and I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about it. * On this proposal, whatever you set the standard as becomes the average, whether 3, 3.5, or even 4.

Re: movement . . . Only Usable on Hero Games Discussion Boards (-2)

Re: What is HERO about? This continues to be a very interesting thread. My POV is that this is an unanswerable question. And I'm not even sure it's one of those unanswerable questions that's worth discussing anyway. I have a friend who's a strict All to By-The-Book-er. As a player, he would begrudgingly accept GM tinkering, but he did not approve. Admitedly, he has since dropped role-playing (at least for a while) for wargaming, and he was always a wargamerish roleplayer, but he has played in dozens if not hundreds of HERO game sessions in the past. I have nothing to add at this time.

Re: What is HERO about? After what you (Zorwil & RDU Neil) have written, I am somewhat intrigued about "Dogs", and if I had ten times as much time to game as I do now, I'd probably give it a try (thus my arthropods analogy breaks down, as I would have to be starving before I'd eat centipedes or shrimp). But overall, it doesn't sound like the thing for me. It sounds like players are granted a level of authority that I, as a player, wouldn't want and that I, as a GM, wouldn't want to cede. This certainly has something to do with gaming philosophy, but the traditional GM-player relationship that HERO and I employ is shared by a large number of games. And though I think other models might have their uses, I don't see how the fact that a game accepts this relationship limits what the game is "about". I'm not sure whether or not this constitutes a disagreement with you.

Re: What is HERO about? The fact that the DitV setting and gameplay focus on moral quandries and judgements is the main thing that strikes me as interesting about the game. However, I don't see any particular advantage to having a system that revolves around these things. Now I admit that I would want a certain amount of sneaking and at least the potential for violence in most adventures in such a setting, but even if I didn't want these things, I'd probably use HERO. I don't claim that HERO is ideal for such a game, but I think it would work perfectly fine, and I would have no incentive to try a new system for it.

Re: What is HERO about? Though of course the best heroic fiction doesn't fit this mold exactly. As a GM, I strive (not always sucessfully) to present problems that can't be solved so simply. Alas, most Hollywood writers (and/or producers) appear to have no such qualms.

Re: What is HERO about? Which is what irks me about DOJ's (IMO) excessive emphasis on modelling cinematic action and many HEROphile's similarly (IMO) excessive emphasis on modelling particular source material. RPG's are their own kind of medium (of which HERO is one particular medium) and deserve their own approaches. By analogy, it can be legitimate to use a stage whisper in an original film, and there is nothing wrong with making a movie of Hamlet, but film-makers would be making a terrible mistake if they thought that all film-making had to proceed along these lines.

Re: What is HERO about?