zornwil

Re: An Open Call to Action Oh, absolutely, I don't think any member of such a group should drop individual pursuits, not at all! I want to keep working on other ideas, many of which would be zero priority to such a group. DH is a great outlet, btw, can't believe I didn't think about that. It'd be a kick to submit articles from "The HERO Society" or some-such. Please drop me a note with your address, thx.

Re: An Open Call to Action

Re: An Open Call to Action PS - actually, Ben, involvement by a DOJ member would be most welcome, in fact highly prized. I would just ask they recognize the body as independent - just as I recognize that DOJ has zero reason to take it seriously and zero obligation.

Re: An Open Call to Action Actually, from a pragmatic standpoint, I really urge people to take it with the approach Fox1 advocates in the last paragraph. I think Black Lotus is more correct in some ways than Fox1 sees it, yet I think that really we should do it for the fun of what it is, recognize as part of it is some hard work, and to the extent that we can have any influence, that's a bonus (btw, also some hard work to attempt such, though I am very much in favor of doing that). I'm not going to be negative about it...heck, that wouldn't even make sense coming from me. But I want to be realistic. I hate to say it, but it's that trite "feet on the ground, reaching for starts" thing. Especially from the outset, DOJ has absolutely no reason to listen to this group any more than any poster here (perhaps even less!). To have influence, such a group has to build credibility. To build credibility....well that takes a lot of time and effort. So if we don't do it for the fun of what we can build, we're really going to implode for lack of a solid self-satisfying part of this endeavor. In other words, if we define our expectations according to external forces, at least initially we'll be rather disappointed as any influence we can possibly have is a long-term, not a short-term thing. Heck, I think it will take considerable time for a group to agree on the real core HERO axioms that we are proceeding from and the charter under which we would explore changes. But that, in my mind, is a fun part by itself!

Re: An Open Call to Action Nice save, Ben...if that's who you really are... STEVE LONG CLONE #168!!!!!! Actually, one of the things I'd like to do is get such a group to agree to free sharing, on a serious note, to prevent just such wrangling before such a thing could begin. That'd be, to me, a fundamental starting point. On the whole, all of this, an impossible dream? Maybe. But you have to start somewhere!

Re: An Open Call to Action The difference I would like to see is a more formalized process by which we (whatever the grouping) create the firmament upon which to build and then proceed to "solve" some issue methodologically, through to thorough playtesting. I think there's different kinds of solutions...recommended house rules for situations, recommended ideas, and, finally, if we were to be lucky, formalized recommendations for rules changes. The difference/benefit would be doing so as a concerted effort with real deliverables and credibility. It's pie in the sky, but to me it seems a next step that's somehow natural, taking off from where we are here in the forum.

Re: Meta SFX Actually that last paragraph is a great point. As you say, for another thread, but it is an overlooked facet of HERO and a profound one.

Re: HERO System Vehicles I would be keen to see a new vehicle creation system. Although I do favor the school of making them akin to characters, I definitely know that doesn't work all the way around. Chris Goodwin's point is well stated.

Re: New advantage "Scour" I think that compound power is an implicit concept in HERO already, but I agree it should be made explicit. I should have said such, as Linked indicates the ability to separate out, so good point. And that was a bit of work, well done!

Re: HERO System Vehicles Interesting. If rewriting the examples is 99% of it, I don't understand what's so prohibitive then to doing so as you need them. You won't be able to run "tanks versus supers" anytime soon, but after a few campaigns, about a decade or such, you should have a reasonable arsenal of vehicles.

Re: HERO System Vehicles 5ER, Page 26, the discussion ends with "when...playing the game, use your common sense, your dramatic sense (your sense of what's "dramatically appropriate"...) and your understanding of game balance considerations to do what's best for everyone involved." Further, just because TUB breaks out many powers does not mean all are inappropriate as "tricks". In fact, the powers are provided with a Brick Tricks Roll Penalty "...or for times when the GM permits the character to use he power as an impromptu "brick trick" based on a Skill Roll.", page 50, TUB. Of course these are not recommended for being used that way ongoing, and since you want to have tanks as something your bricks regularly treat casually, you are well correct that for your peculiar campaign circumstance this is an issue. EDIT/PS - as I think you haven't read this yet I'll just edit and hope you see it before responding - actually, I agree it doesn't make for good game design, btw. But it is a valid approach, and I think that verges on fact as much as anything in life does. A suggestion was made as to ways in which this can be handled even if one kept tanks as tough as they are. The suggestion appears supported in two fashions by the rules, one requiring a specific ability (Power Skill) and the other ("common sense", which I'd hope every RPG falls back on as appropropriate) not. I didn't make any contrary claim, in fact I think I said just what you did. I'm simply unfamiliar with such a great need. And apparently your need is not quite so common, though at least Hawksmoor speaks to it more clearly where it does actually occur in what appears to be a more common issue/need. I also have pointed out that the vehicle rules are lacking for many uses. I don't like them much for sci fi. But you've not really spelt out much more than not liking a couple specific things yet paint the broad-brush "sucks". So you have a bar of evidence to meet and you will naturally get asked many questions. I still don't understand your "tanks versus super" genre or whatever it is but I'm sure it must be quite pressing. It's unfortunate you had to pass up some games, it's a shame that apparently GURPS also wasn't good enough for you. EDITED - substitute "I don't understand how anything can work for you if you're passing up entire games" for my original snide comment.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

Re: HERO System Vehicles Your refusal to acknowledge the rules inconvenient to your argument is staggering. Huh, interesting, I'm not familiar with an ongoing need to have supers regularly toss off tanks like candy. I'm not the one with the issue.

Re: The Last Word I'm suspicious of the notion of objective reality. I don't really think it exists.

Re: An Open Call to Action I manage projects and resources ongoing as my job. I'm pretty familiar with the issues. I am suggesting that the membership have a common/similar approach and de facto it will have to in order to function; I have spelt out several prejudices and thoughts on that in the initial post. Not the least of which is obeissance to a core set of HERO metarules/axioms. The group that coalesces will have to agree to such, or it cannot proceed furher. Or at least I could not proceed without such. There will have to be administrative, task, and governance leadership. The first two can and should, in my opinion, be generally individually driven. The third in my view requires some sort of democratic process on at least a substantial level (releasing a POC into playtest, certifying playtest results). For my own campaign, of course, it's a benevolent dictatorship. I have no illusion that a likely result is that some specific perceived (by the group and one hopes some number of others) improvements are made, employed generally by the group (I don't expect all group members to adopt all changes, why would we?), but ignored by DOJ. That by no means lessens the value of such changes, and also doesn't mean that over time, if good enough, such changes won't make their way into the product in some fashion. In the end, it may be no more than what many of us have done as individuals, but at least represents a more common and tested set of opinions. I think that's pretty darn worthwhile!

Re: HERO System Vehicles You're still ignoring the rules in the book, I say. They are clear on the use of SFX and dramatic license. Just because Shockwave was distinguished is a mere excuse - it was distinguished, we can only presume, from abuse and commonality of use. Your approach isn't consistency - it's a form of rules lawyering and nit-picking that is inflexible. The example of Shockwave has a lot to do with something executed against already-vulnerable open targets; the example of a tank or similar is one of characters facing something you have already indicated is over-powered and in general not an ongoing concern but rather a relatively-isolated incident. The role of GM, much like the role of a manager in the real world, is to make those exceptions, not to be a rules droid. Otherwise we don't even need GMs or managers. It's not an issue of knee-jerk false common sense "rules were made to be broken", it's a matter of "rules were made to be properly used." Not an unfair point. I just think you're not going to see a one-size-fits-all with vehicles in a system like HERO. Though you raise a fair point re GURPS. I'm not saying it can't be improved. But one must be clear as to whether the issue is examples or the base rules. I've seen a couple base rules examples, but not much in general in this thread. Then again, it may be as simple as deflating DEF across the board and/or adding some other simple scaling techniques.

Re: An Open Call to Action Oh my, Ben is watching, I see his name there, lurking! Run, hide! Uh, Ben, nothing going on here...

Re: An Open Call to Action

Re: An Open Call to Action There's strong evidence the first couple iterations of Champions were very much design by committee. And in fact the history of HERO, I believe, is very much this. Yes, it's responsible for mistakes, but also for the advancements made. I think it's no mistake that many of the early creators of HERO have been known to run very different games from each other and very different games from what we know as Champions or HERO. It's the coming together of influences that creates synergies. I run the perfect version of HERO, too, btw, so yours must be flawed, Fox1. My problem is not everyone seems to get it, so I"ll have to compromise. I don't disagree that it may have no effect on HERO as such. That's the risk. But I don't think it is so great a probability. We've already witnessed that the fanbase has contributed HEAVILY to changes over the years. So a concentrated effort may not have a great pay-off, but would have some. I do NOT suggest that this become a "v6" or "v7" committee. In fact, I propose a bit of the opposite; I propose concentrating on very specific issues, leaving it at that. Of course others may or may not want to go for this approach. But I want to avoid proposing entire new versions or sub-versions, even. Will some people get annoyed and leave? Sure, it always happens. But suggesting that's an excuse to do nothing, well then, nothing would ever get done in life, period. I've seen and been directly or indirectly a party to too many things that would have seemed to have collapsed similarly yet instead produced brilliant results. MitchellS, I think your input would be of value and interest. I see no reason for people not to contribute on a consultative or advisory basis and leave it at that. But I don't want to pressure, just state that.

Re: HERO System Vehicles It still retains the clauses on dramatic effect and SFX. Also, I didn't suggest that it not be paid for - simply apply the Indirect or NND Advantage in determining effective strength. Regardless, in the end, I simply have to say I can't relate to such a failure to adjudicate special effects and clever power use. So we have no common ground to discuss here. Shrug, seems easily fixable. (PS - to be clear, -10" KB or such, and reduce DEF)

Re: New advantage "Scour" Fair enough points. Would you suggest, then, to flesh it out a bit more, that an in-rules alternative to ANB's Scour would be a Linked Attack to Armor Directly? I think that's most directly analagous, since I believe he wanted to prevent directly linking BODY damage to armor damage, and among your suggestions this does that best.

Re: The Last Word And the fox bat, my wife loves those.

Re: Zornwil strikes again! I can only say one thing to that... He who smelt it, dealt it!

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER Delete that post immediately! Do not let Mightybec see it!

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER