Just Joe

Re: Pulp Hero Resources

More -

Pulp Figures Paper Miniatures

These ones are for sale as PDF from PIG

http://www.pigames.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=185

http://www.pigames.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=169\

http://www.pigames.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=180

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

Sorry I didn't shed any light...

 

 

Doc

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

But the chart doesn't deal in ratios' date=' it deals in absolutes.[/quote']The chart has implications regarding both. We tend to think more in terms of the absolutes, which is probably appropriate. But the ratios are implied by the chart just as much as the absolutes are.

 

Do you know what you want the ratios to indicate? What message you want them to send?

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

Hmm. Now the problem with the chart is that it is inflexible. It assumes hits to vulnerable places (head' date=' stomach, vitals) will cause more STUN than less vital places (thigh, foot, hand).[/quote']It might not make sense to reply to this, since it was posted before my clarification above. But if you go back to the first post of this thread, you'll see that with regard to the STUN/BOD ratio the hand, vitals, thigh, and foot are lumped together at one extreme (with the head being close), while the arm, stomach, and leg are at the other. The problem is that similar body parts don't appear to be treated simarly.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

I quoted it - "..taking your average Joe (STUN 20' date=' BODY 10) then hitting him in the arm [b']by your ratios [/b]you could do 6 BODY (and therefore 24 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to do 9 BODY to the head to get a similar result (-5 STUN)."

 

The ratios imply that result but they are wrong. In play 6 BODY to the Arm will do 12 STUN and 9 BODY to the head will do 45 STUN.

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

In the stomach versus thigh contest the opponent is more likely to KO and kill the character by aiming at the stomach, 5 BODY to the stomach KOs Joe Average and 7 BODY leaves him dying. It needs 10 BODY to kill or KO hitting the thigh.

 

Chest hits need 10 BODY to kill and 7 BODY to KO, foot hits require 20 BODY to kill or to KO.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

No. But the ratios you quote are wrong. Those things don't happen in play and thus the ratios are flawed...

Again the problem with the ratios is that they ignore the absolutes.

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

But the way you have defined your ratios probably gives you a false impression.

By halving the BODY for a hit to the arm while doubling the same number for STUN gives you a 6:1 STUN:BODY ratio for a hit to the arm and a 5:2 ratio for a hit to the head. The fact you chose 3 BODY as the damage also increases the ratio for the arm as you got the benefit of rounding down.

 

Now. From that it would appear as if you had to do less damage to the arm to KO someone than you had to do to the head..

taking your average Joe (STUN 20' date=' BODY 10) then hitting him in the arm by your ratios you could do 6 BODY (and therefore 24 STUN) and have him laid out cold (-4 STUN). You would have to do 9 BODY to the head to get a similar result (-5 STUN).[/quote']Yep.

 

However, if you look at BODY done by the attacker, then the attacker would have to dish out 12 BODY damage to get the KO by hitting the arm while the same attacker would only have to dish out 5 BODY to get the KO by hitting the head.

 

That makes more sense.

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.

 

I think that your STUN:BODY ratios tend to indicate how much likelier you are to get a KO rather than a kill by hitting a particular location than anything else.

Agreed.

 

Which means of course you are more likely to take someone out of the fight - without killing them - by shooting them in the arm or leg rather than the head.

 

Which makes pretty good sense.

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

STUN doesn't just represent pain. It also represents blood loss and shock to the nervous system.

Huh?

 

blood loss = body loss

example:

Superman getting stunned by the powerfull punch from Bizzaro but not even getting a bruise much less a nosebleed.

 

Now, I know that some GM's resort to describing bruises, cuts and scrapes in such situations without defining any actual Body loss but that is more for dramatic effect and acknowledgement to the limits of the system with regard to body damage from normal attacks during HTH combat.

Stun IS related to Body but the relationship is NOT defined by any set ratio. If it were you might as well just call it Hit Points.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of the STUN/BODY ratio.

I get the point but it is probably more useful to look at absolute figures rather than stun ratios when working out how much it hurts getting a smack in any particular body part. OK a arm hit hurts more proportional to Body damage' date=' but a lot less in absolute terms than a punch (or bullet) to the stomach.[/quote']I mean to be suggesting that both values should make sense. But the absolute values are fairly obvious and well-understood. The STUN/BOD ratios represent a more subtle issue, but one that I think should make sense nonetheless.

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

There is an easier (IMO) way to do this. Instead of doing all the math, just count the dice multiple times (e.g. if the dice roll 3, 6, 1 and the Damage/Effect Roll calls for 7d6, simply count this as a roll of 3, 6, 1, 3, 6, 1, 3). If the attack is smaller than the fixed number of dice you choose to roll, you do have to make a decision: take an average or roll fewer dice in this situation? It also calls for some method of distinguishing dice, but that's usually not a problem for a gamer ( ), especially if the number of distinguishable dice doesn't have to be large.

 

Note that even the die to roll for the Stun Multiple can just be treated as another die to add to the series, as can half dice (you just repeat natural die rolls rather than the interpreted results); so in the above example, we could have also take a Stun Multiple from a roll of 6 (the next roll in the repeated progression), resulting in 23 Body and 23x5=115 Stun.

 

I created a thread with the details quite a while back. Maybe I'll try to find it and provide a link.

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

Did you mean 'multiply by 10' instead of 'divide by 10'?

One thing I've flirted with (although it can substantially change the dynamics of a game) is integrating the roll to hit and damage rolls' date=' like this: [chart snipped']

 

Then the roll to hit determines the damage done - you need to roll as high as you can but still hit for maximum damage, so you will tend to do less damage to characters who are hard to hit than characters who are easy to hit, which makes sense.

 

Probably.

Re: Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks

A simpler way to do this would be to roll 3d6 and then apply a multiplier' date=' which equals (# of d6 you want)/3, to do the scaling. You suffer more granularity as you scale to larger numbers of dice, but it has the properties you specify. (If your fiducial distribution is, e.g., 4d6 instead of 3d6, swap in "4"'s for "3"'s.)[/quote']Good point. I think the calculations would be easier with my method, but the difference might be small enough to be trivial. Your and others' responses made me realize that with a computer or good programmable calculator handy, you could choose the curve you want and still allow for any possible result within the given range.

Re: Equalizing Probability Distributions of Different Attacks

It could speed up damage resolution.

I'm not sure what kind of effect the proposed system would have on statistical deviation in damage rolls. My gut feeling is that this would increase randomness' date=' and I don't think that would be an enterely desiderable effect.[/quote']When I proposed it, I thought it would have the same statistical deviation as a normal 4d6 attack. In that case, it would reduce the deviation of smaller-dice attacks (e.g., 2d6 KA) and increase the deviation of larger-dice attacks (e.g., 12d6 eb). But now it occurs to me that subtracting 4 and converting to a % increases the deviation. For example, consider a roll of 13 on a 4d6 punch. Using official rules, that is 1 below average, which is 1/14 or about 7% below average. Using my proposal, you would get a result 10% below average. (OK, to complicate matters more, once you round, you're back to 1 below average -- if you use 3.5/die as your base; but I think the deviation will be increased anyway, as the rounding up and rounding down should tend to balance out over a large number of rolls).

 

It would also allow for a possible disconnect such as large damage rolls netting zero damage (before defenses). Maybe a 50% to 150% (2d6+3 times 10%) spread instead of a 0% to 200% would suffice.

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

Maybe steph has Universal Translator...

Re: What is HERO about?

This continues to be a very interesting thread.

1: What is "playing true Hero?" . . . at what point have you modded so much it isn't Hero any more? Everyone has a different POV on that.

2: Does EVERYONE really expect to alter games to their liking? . . . I think it is a continuum... from Rewrite It All to By-The-Book.

3: Who is part of the shared vision?

4: Building from that' date=' is it correct to assume that game player's SHOULD expect to alter/change the game? . . . The point you sound like you are making (and I could be misinterpreting) is that you think the designer should go out of their way to support player alterations. I can't really agree with that. . . . (Or another way to look at it... should the novelist expect that a reader can tear the pages out and reorder them... and still expect to get a get a coherent experience of the text? Is it really expected that a game designer should design with the expectation that their "text" be played out in ways they never imagined or intended?).[/quote']I wouldn't say that players should expect to alter a game, but I do think they should feel entitled to do so. I wouldn't say that a designer is obligated to go out of the way to support player alterations, but if s/he sees ways of doing so, I think it's a good thing to do. (I don't think the novel analogy is apt.)

 

5. Finally... it begs the question of whether Hero is an "institutionalized Heartbreaker" at this point. A Heartbreaker being those games we've probably all likely been a part of' date=' where a GM or group takes an existing system (like D&D) and overhauls it, changes it, adds to it, detracts from it... to such an extent that it might as well be a new game... all in order to get a play experience they want (often unconsciously) but that the system as written doesn't really support. Hero institutionalizes this concept by claiming to be a toolkit, while still claiming to be a game. If you don't like it, change it... but as the name suggests, the process and often result of trying to make Hero something it is not is heartbreaking. Has Hero set itself up to inevitable failure by advertising itself as "you can do anything?".[/quote']I'm not sure I get your point here. As for the final question of #5, I'd say one should not quite expect literally anything, but HERO can cover such a monumentally large range that it's a fair slogan. As for the rest of #5, I think I'm missing something . . .

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?

. . . I would just point out that while you might well play Dogs' setting with HERO, you'd play an extremely different game unless you completely modified HERO's mechanics. The reason is that the conflict resolution system in DitV is for a rather different effect, and its processes revolve around the axis of moral quandaries and judgements. And it is geared towards a very specific play experience, one which requires such a heavy modification to HERO's deliberate open-endedness that I think you'd end up with a game different from HERO - but very likely not too much like Dogs, either.

 

Now playing an action-adventure game in the Dogs setting with HERO, sure, that makes a lot of sense.

Re: What is HERO about?

Heroic fiction is about problems that can ultimately be solved by hitting somebody and/or blowing something up.

Re: What is HERO about?

True' date=' however the medium [u']does[/u] influence the message; movies are different from TV shows, which are different from books, which are different from magazine articles.

Re: What is HERO about?

To those who see it as purely (so to speak' date=' I don't mean to overstate so don't take that quite literally) mechanical tooklit, a question: do you believe the toolkit has: a) some inherent prejudices; if so, does it therefore fits more with certain play experiences than others (I think we can say, for instance, it's less applicable to certain genra such as a pure political game or to do a game like Dogs in the Vineyard in HERO, for example, would be, I think, a bit difficult though I'm not suggesting it's impossible), and c) - IF so - wouldn't this constitute some form of theme or the like, even though I can well grant it's rather vague?[/quote'] My initial reaction to you original question was to give a "toolkit" type reply, much like the one RDU Neil first gave and others echoed -- and I would stick to this as my answer to the unqualified question, "What is HERO about?" Nevertheless, I think you are getting at an important question that cannot be answered in this way, and I'm not particularly concerned with semantic quibbles about the most precise way to articulate that question. Furthermore, I think your answer to your own question is a plausible one.

 

Yet I don't think that what HERO is "about" in your sense limits what it is good for as much as you suggest. For example, I don't know much about Dogs in the Vineyard, but from what I've heard, I might really enjoy a game using its setting and themes (though God or the Devil is in the details). But if I played such a game, I would want to do it using HERO. My reaction to what I've heard of the mechanics of DitV is similar to my reaction to human consumption of arthropods; that is, I do not claim that it is objectively inferior to what I do, but I have no desire to have anything to do with it.

 

On another note, your analysis of what HERO is "about" helps me understand some of the ways my values are out of sync with the game. For example, as a GM I am very stingy with experience points. Though thre are probably multiple reasons for this, I think it is partially because I don't (at least not fully) buy into the boot-strapping self-realization thing.