Jump to content

Doc Democracy

HERO Member
  • Posts

    6,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Doc Democracy

  1. 51 minutes ago, Shoug said:

    So questions like, "how does interrupting a power using gestures and incantations work", questions that *do have answers*, should be answered first correctly, and then with the caveat, "If this isn't how you'd like it to work, feel free to take off Gestures and/or Incantations and just RP those things as SFX. This way it will take a timely Dispel to counter a spell, and not just any held attack action." I agree with Gnome-body here, this isn't a question of how things could be, it's a question of how the rules work as written.

     

    I said I was not going to engage but I don't want to seem like I am ignoring you.  There is nothing in the rules that say a spell has to use gestures or incantations.  That is all that was said to begin with - the system as written is silent on whether spells need gestures and/or incantations (though it does provide a lot of examples with that kind of thing).

     

    It is NOT a RAW answer to tell someone that you can interrupt a spell by undertaking actions that trigger disadvantages that may be built into the spell.  It is correct to tell someone that the first thing they need to do is assure themselves (with the GM for a game) that spells in the game reliably utilise those disadvantages in spells.

     

    It is because HERO is so fluid that you cannot make assumptions on how things are done in any particular game.  I have, admittedly only run one Fantasy HERO game in all the years that I have used the system and the magic users in that game varied in the disadvantages they took on spells - there was no overarching spell system - the players made up their own spells and while the majority of them used gestures or incantations a substantial minority did not - simply because the players did not want their spells to be uninterruptible...

     

    That was NOT house-ruled magic, it was using HERO as written in the rules...

     

    Doc

  2. 25 minutes ago, Jkeown said:

    Her weird thing is Proxima;  who is her armor and ship and best friend.

     

    Have you considered Duplication?

     

    Build Koniji as a battlesuit character who has access to a cool computer AI (which can all be special effects for additional senses, +INT and levels with knowledge skills).  When duplicated you have a normal woman with a ship run by an AI...

     

    Doc

  3. On 2/21/2020 at 6:02 PM, zslane said:

    Steampunk is 99% aesthetics. At most you'd alter the sfx to describe it in steampunky terms, but that's probably it. In game terms I assume it functions identically to a contemporary shotgun, so nothing would really change except its flavor text.

     

    You are almost 100% right and that is indeed what would be the case in most stories.  There are always exceptions though...

    I was thinking of a flywheel shield, it looks like an enormous cog.  The mechanism needs wound to start it spinning, which gives no additional protection but the stored energy is good for sending to smaller cogs flying out to hit someone.  Rather than solid cogs, a more fragile disk can be used which breaks into a small cloud of brass projectiles.

     

    🙂

     

    Doc

  4. I am reasonably optimistic about deaths.  Even if we have not gotten better at avoiding the virus, we have gotten a lot better at diagnosing, triaging and treating those suffering from it .

     

    Doctors have learned that it is not all about intubation and oxygen.  All the other factors are being discovered and managed as well.

     

    We are bringing the heavy weight of scientific analysis and treatment to bear, that is what makes our civilisation so great.  Don't see the crystals and homeopathic potions making huge inroads on treatment plans.

     

    Doc

  5. 36 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

    Ideally, we need to focus on investing in Americans again on a large scale. Americans who feel powerless....like many do right now due to their economic situation...tend to find voting pointless due to the factors I mentioned above. 

     

    This is common to all of our long-standing democracies.  I think voting can feel pointless (and especially seems so) if that is all you do.  If more effort was made to get people engaged with the actual process and party dynamics, true mass membership parties, then things would change.

     

    I blame Mazlo.  For too many people, for too long our basic needs have been met and we have had no real incentive to go looking for power and wealth to flow down through society, we got lazy.

     

    If we want things to change, switching systems might help but it is getting folk to really engage that will make the difference.

     

    Wish I knew how to do that... 😞

     

    Doc

  6. 18 hours ago, FrancoScarramucci said:

    But this means that Hazard would get 2, 3 and 4+ better Luck results very routinely. How would that look in game if a character got crazy, superheroic luck happen to them and crazy, supervillainous bad luck happen to their rivals? 

     

    I think this, in itself, tells you that the  luck mechanic, RAW, should not be allowed as a major 60 point power.

     

    You can use it as a starting point for a luck based character or as a supplement to a variety of other mechanics with luck as SFX.

     

    I think luck is a difficult SFX to roleplay and if it is consistent, then it is not luck as we know it, it is probability enhancement.

     

    Doc

     

  7. 2 hours ago, Badger said:

    Don't be fooled. No matter who wins, America loses.

     

    Nothing is going to get better till at least 2024.

     

    That is a counsel of despair Badger, and not likely to get something better in 2024.  If folk don't like either option and wait for something better, nothing is likely to turn up.  If people counsel despair, nothing is likely to change.

     

    Democracy, like a vegetable garden, takes work to make it flourish.  Voting at every election is like seeding the plot and ignoring it until harvest time.  It is unlikely you will go back and find any tomatoes, potatoes or carrots, just a bunch of nettles and weeds.

     

    We have gotten lazy, expecting the system to throw up good, principled candidates when experience is telling them that is not the way to get elected.

     

    What is needed is not new systems or rules but a deeper engagement by the electorate.  of course, it might take a new system to garner that engagement.

     

    We get the politicians we deserve.

     

    Doc

  8. 43 minutes ago, massey said:

    You can't really tax that money without forcing him to sell his ownership of the company he built.

     

    They used to say that you could not tax income.  Until the Government needed money and income was the best way to raise that.

     

    With enough incentive the Government can find a way to tax things - even if that means that a proportion of the stock accrues to the Treasury until such a time as it is sold and becomes part of the public purse (very simplistic, I know, but when capital accrues and when folk hide their wealth in stocks and shares a government will at some point come after it).

  9. 6 minutes ago, Starlord said:

    Wasn't HIV treatment free in some African countries due to the Aids epidemic there?

     

    The companies were almost forced in to that because those countries were turning a blind eye to people producing generics out of copyright.  It is possible the same will happen here and Gilead (I think I might change my name if I were them) are simply cashing in before the inevitable forced charity occurs...

  10. 1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

    I wonder what the cost would be if the drug company removed its profit margin.

     

    I think the article gives an idea of that

     

    Quote

    Gilead has been criticised in recent days for its decision to charge $2,340 (£1,990) for a typical remdesivir treatment course for people covered by government health programmes in the US and other developed countries.

    In 127 poor or middle-income countries, the company is allowing generic makers to supply the drug; two countries are doing that for around $600 per treatment course.

     

    I reckon the cost, with the company waiving any profit (but covering costs such as scientists wages), might be somewhere between $600 and $700....

  11. 4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

    Well, 798,000 people work for Amazon full or part time so I'd say a LOT of money of those employees is going to other businesses.

     

    An issue in the UK is that some big businesses, Amazon among them, pay workers so poorly that the Government supplements their wages through social welfare.  As such, the Government is subsidising Amazon (not to mention the convoluted tax arrangements that mean the company pays MUCH less than they probably should).  That kind of thing needs to stop.  I can understand a Government subsidising small businesses and even some larger ones as these are important to keeping the wheels moving but larger companies should be able to pay their workers a living wage.   Do not know if that is true in the US.

     

    However, regardless of how many employees Amazon has, it is the disparity between the owner and top executives compared with those 800k workers that is the real issue - the US was an economic powerhouse in the 50s and 60s when the wage differential was not anywhere near as stark.  Also, if Amazon did not exist, there would be probably more people employed (across a number of other companies) providing people with the goods and services that they want.  All those companies like Toys R Us that were driven out of business and whose employees are not spending those wages offset Amazon in this respect.  Obviously I am not saying that we should save ToysRUs over Amazon, just saying that the efficiency gains by switching to Amazon should not disproportionately benefit the Amazon bosses and disadvantage the workers that have to switch from one big corporation to another, probably with more work and fewer benefits (coz, efficiency).

     

    Doc

     

    PS: just realised this was a bit political and not on the politics thread - will not take this any further here.  🙂

     

  12. I once toyed in having active defences, so instead of just an attack roll during combat there is also a defence roll (was planning a Fantasy Hero game).

     

    As such, the attacker would roll 3D6 and add OCV, the defender would roll 3D6 and add DCV.  Attacker's total would need to exceed defender's to succeed.

     

    It had the advantage of making combat more dynamic, the disadvantages of making it take longer!  I did not do it, meaning I was quite content for all defender's to "take 11" on their defence roll.

     It did make me consider removing the need to roll at all.  If you OCV is higher than the defender's DCV then you hit.  Your combat options would then be about seeking advantages or trying manoeuvres that enhanced OCV rather than simply hoping to roll low enough. 

     

    That crashed and burned because my players are HIGHLY committed to having dice in their hands, even when they routinely roll poorly.  🙂

     

    Doc

  13. 8 hours ago, jfg17 said:

    Try as I might, I just can't "get" the roll-under approach to combat. However I look at the math, I can't see a story; I can't explain how the math relates to "real" life. Human beings have an innate sense for math, patterns and want information to make sense. The HERO-standard equation just doesn't make sense to this human being (i.e., me).

     

    Have you played Runequest, Call of Cthulhu etc?  In those games you have a skill percentage - e.g., Rapier 76%.  If you roll under the number then you hit, if you roll over it, you miss.  This is a roll under approach which is actually quite similar to HERO (except using 3D6 rather than 1D100).

     

    So.  In HERO, the base chance in combat is 11 or less.  Using 3D6 that equates to 62.5% chance of success.  Everything else is modifiers to that.  You add benefits to the target number (which makes it easier to roll under) and you subtract things that make it harder to hit.

     

    Your percentage chance to hit improves using your OCV. 

     

    Your percentage chance to hit gets worse as your opponents uses their DCV.

     

    If you think of 11 as the base target number for success and everything else as a modifier to that target number then you are simply rolling 3D6 to roll under the number.

     

    It is essentially the same as a skill roll which you seem to have no problem with.  Skills tend to be 9+(CHA/5).  As most characteristics default to 10, most skills default to 11 or less.  You then add levels bought for the skill - either directly or through additional characteristics (equivalent to OCV) - and subtract difficulty factors (equivalent to an opponents DCV) and you have a number to roll under.  🙂

     

    Does that make sense?  There IS a core mechanic beneath it all.

     

    Doc

     

     

     

  14. 36 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

    Do you have a single iota of evidence that such is the case in OP's game, given their explicit mention of "gestures or incantations" as a trigger for an attack?

     

    No more evidence than you have that any such game reliably utilises interruptable magic. 

     

    Not going to engage further, you might be only the second person I block in a couple of decades on the boards. 

     

  15. I really hate the way you throw downvotes around...  😞  It makes me want to retaliate and that does not lead to a discursive evironment.

     

    Anyway - just because the OP might assume a player holds an action and uses the gestures and incantations as a trigger does not mean it would work in any given game.  If he does so he would be unable to interrupt my wizard in his spellcasting.  If that is what he spent his points on, and our GM allowed that too, he might have questions for that GM.

     

    D&D is designed such that spells are interruptable, it is the base condition in that game.  HERO is not designed such that spells are interruptable, it is not the base condition.  HERO might allow for that to be the base condition in a game but noone should build their character without checking with the GM how the magic system works and whether any assumptions made are correct.

     

    Doc

     

     

  16. 6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

    I’m going to disagree here with yah Duke. Yes the game has optional rules and it has house rules (what game doesn’t?). However unless those are stated in the question, the assumption is that we’re looking at RAW. 

     

    So I have built myself a Fantasy Hero character and, with permission from the GM, have an instinctive magician, small VPP that allows me to hurry spells, dispense with gestures, with concentration or any other element as desired.

     

    What would Gandalph's character do to interrupt my spellcasting?  Anything guaranteed to work RAW? 

     

    All Duke has said is that it might be different in every game and there may be some games in which you cannot interrupt spellcasting.

     

    Doc

  17. 8 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

    then restraining or even I terdwrring with them will be enough.

     

    Dunno about anyone else but I am fascinated to hear what I terdwrring actually involves....

     

    Otherwise, Duke is right.  When you create your magic system you get to decide what would interfere with casting.  It all depends on the disadvantages built into the spells.

     

    Doc

×
×
  • Create New...