Doc Democracy

Now that is a simpler concept. 🙂 It all comes down to how things happen in-game. If the character spent most of its time in robot form, then I would be content for him to jump into the ship and "be" the ship. I would consider the ship to be his body and destruction of the ship would kill the character. Special abilities that he could use, while the ship, could be bought "only while in ship form", possibly 1/2 limitation. Obviously those abilities would not be available to other players flying the ship when he was in robot form. If it was 50/50 robot and ship, then I might consider also allowing those characteristics only used while in robot form to be bought down to zero, then repurchased as powers with a 1/2 limitation "only while in robot form". That avoids all the messiness of multiform. he is always the same personality, so this, to me, works better. Doc

Preach! 😁

I think a big problem with gaming in the transition is that it is about minimising loss and suffering rather than stopping it. Getting players feeling happy that they only lost 45% of those they were protecting, rather than all of them, is a tough gig. It would be a campaign filled with loss and suffering, you would need to work hard to avoid it being grim and depressing. I think that is why post-apocalypse is more popular, there is hope and progress to chase after.

Actually, I had not focused on the other element. You want a character with possession abilities, that has been a long-standing issue that has been "solved" multiple ways. The official one, in one of the APGs I think, uses desolid as core of the build. I would suggest following that possession build and including computers as part of that. Doc

Have you considered using attuned (or innate) items in attending a new item. So you might have a+1 sword and a +2 dagger. You want attune thus +4 plate armour with some additional abilities. It is just out of reach but by using these items, attunement is attainable but those items are drained of magic whether or not the roll is successful... That might help explain why there are not mountains of minor items, they have all been cannibalised to attune more powerful items.

I am wondering how this works in play. If I come across an ancient blade, can I pick it up and use it? If I kill the current owner, can I pick it up and use it? Will you require players to pay to keep such items? How will you take items away from them? I might be inclined to allow them to attune an item for possibly 1/10 of the cost to buy it (which would be forfeit if the item is lost/broken) and to make it theirs by paying full price (lost/broken items find their way back to the character, or points are restored). If points are not paid, they might expect someone else to claim ownership, steal the item, or for it to draw unwanted attention from "powers". Doc I think threads more than six months old become vacant, and open to new users! 🙂

To my understanding IP is valuable when it draws an existing customer base to a new product. If a development house wanted to put out a superhero CRPG, it could create its own background world and characters, it could draw on existing comic book worlds or existing superhero RPG worlds. Obviously the big, well-known comic book universes cost a LOT but have the potential of drawing from a much bigger marketplace. The question would be, how much of that market cross over into buying computer games. That is the attraction of existing RPG universes, that customer base is likely to more heavily overlap. There are a couple of other IPs that currently draw bigger customer bases as far as RPG sales go. Champions probably has decent brand recognition among the right demographic (older, wealthier and looking to relive the glories of the past, especially if they have lost touch with their gaming friends). I know I would pick up such a game almost immediately, would even kickstarter it. What I don't see is a current, popular campaign using Champions IP that a development house might pick up and use to drive sales in a CRPG. I don't see an actual play podcast, ideally focused around a current, popular campaign, picking up an audience that would also be potential customers. It would be then that developers would begin to see dollar signs wherever they saw the HERO branding.

If all magical items are bought with points, the innate is a real limitation. If magical items can be stolen or found, then point cost is simply a balance thing for the GM.

I would be getting rid of STR, EGO and CON. I haven't looked too closely at the mental powers (this is not a detailed game design, just a wild fancy that will never happen) but EGO is pretty much just mental defence with an increased chance of making EGO rolls, no? I have never suggested ditching BODY, that is just a game mechanical counter. Of course you pay for them, currently, when you increase your characteristic. I see little difference in skill rolls and characteristic rolls (except characteristic rolls are everyman skills). Now, to counter the claims there is no value, I would be reducing the number of characteristics, reducing the immediate complexity of the game that people constantly talk to me about.

You never ask for a STR roll, or a DEX roll or an INT roll? I know I often do. I need to think about cost, because +1 to all DEX rolls comes for 10 points. If half of that is skill based then you get +1 to all DEX rolls for 5 points right now, price it at that.

I like the idea of attunement. I like the idea of being arcane. I like the idea of your base caste profile improving due to order bonuses, giving a magical life path to a character which has in-game effects. Hugh is right though, there is an incentive to maximise your arcane profile, so perhaps there should be a flat cost for 11 across the board, allowing the player to adjust levels, moving one up at the cost of moving another down. Another flat cost to get 14 across the board with no adjustment possible (this should be high, to reflect the scarcity of potential arch-mages). I can understand some artifacts only being available to those with compatible castes. If I understand, items with innate magic can be used by anyone without attunement? Does that mean they are lower powered or more rare than those whose magic is not innate? Do innate items interfere with each other if they are not magically compatible? I also have questions about the attunement roll. There is nothing about failing a roll, consequences, or cost to making a roll. So what is to stop a player rolling again and again until they attune? Can they get bonuses by going to magically appropriate places, and taking additional time? I noticed a typo on page 7, under the Determining Order Bonuses, the first three words look to be rogue... Getting on to the rest of it now. Doc

It is probably equivalent to net-running. A different dimension where rules are different. You would need some kind of power to give you an awareness of the real world. Doc

That is not what I said. I would group skills into those that were strength related, dexterity related etc. You should be able to buy +1 with those groups, that would represent your prowess with that kind of skill. I reckon there is no increase in costs really. I kind of like the idea of not linking things necessarily to a particular prowess. Quite often you might say a certain climb required agility rather than strength.

Good question. 🙂 Not least because I need to go refresh myself on how grabs are currently done! I think about what is important - their prowess ability or raw power. Their prowess would be levels bought with strength skills and raw power would be dice of Hand Attack. So, you need to make a successful attack roll. If successful the grabbed character can immediately compare their hand attack versus their opponents hand attack (plus 1D6 for each +1 in strength skills). I considered using half HA but as I was giving a bonus due to prowess, I thought I would leave it as full HA. In subsequent rounds, both characters would compare using both power and prowess. Is there more I need? It is essentially the same as current but I kind of like the distinction between prowess and power. For example, martial grab would provide prowess not power. Doc

To me, HERO is abstract. We buy game effects and slap SFX and labels on them. The skill system is essentially the same. You get 11 or less for your 3 points. If you want you can group skills so that you can buy +1 with related skills, those groups might be "strength" related or "dexterity" related and that would all be in the skills description. Progression is identical and success is determined identically. Combat is entirely unaffected, I did not suggest losing any of the mechanical statistics. Hadn't considered whether I would have the various CVs in with powers or skills but they looks more like skills. Which could be different from what we currently have, perhaps having lifting power accumulate faster or slower than damage, leaping etc.

Ah but it takes away the problems STR creates. I would also be removing DEX, CON, INT, EGO and PRE. So I would not have other physical characteristics. They are all little black boxes. I understand why they were there in 1982 but not today. I really don't understand what purpose they serve in the system beyond being something that existed in other games. Of course I used strength as a descriptor, I think there would be some value in grouping skills in those traditional groups (though I could be persuaded otherwise). Losing the characteristics I mention would mean that the game had powers and skills. You would not have those hybrid things that were part power part skill. I mentioned STR because it has been a constant source of trouble in the system but the others did the same thing in different ways. Decoupling figured from primary characteristics was, to my view, just the first step. The biggest consideration for me in doing this would be mental powers. I have not worked out the connotations for that. Doc

And that is why my proposal is not to muck about with it,it is simply to remove it. Everyone starts the game with 2D6 hand attack, the ability to lift 100kg and an 11 or less chance to accomplish strength related skill tasks. If you want more hand attack, buy it. If you want better lifting, or leaping, or more ability with strength related risks, buy them. No more black Bix with obscure discounting.

It was when I realised that characteristics were simply black box bundles of powers and skills that I began thinking about the abolition of the non-game-mechanical characteristics. There have been so many fixes to address the imbalance STR causes in the system, the actual fix is obviously to get rid of STR and give players the chance to adjust lifting power... 🙂 #relentless

Interesting, spreading works so much better. With average rolls, over 2 turns, Shrinker can expect to generate 135 STUN damage using an 18D6 attack; 168 STUN using 17D6; 190 STUN using 16D6; 210 STUN using 15D6; 217 STUN using 14D6; 224 STUN using 13D6; 216 STUN using 12D6, 210 STUN using 11D6. So, against Green Dragon, for pure damage output using 5D6 to spread is most efficient. The problem for Green Dragon is that EVERY attack Shrinker throws, even down to 11D6 would likely STUN him. Using only 3 dice to spread there is 41% chance to take Green Dragon to 0 STUN and a 99.9% chance of stunning him. Even if GD martial dodges on 2 and 4, hoping to attack on 6, Shrinker still has a 40%+ chance of hitting and being stunned...

I have not sought to take this into consideration with the straw man system because, to me, it is part of the tactics of the game. My system is about what would happen in a closed room, toe to toe, ignores the effects of knock back. The system is so complex. I am however going to do a bit of a play with Shrinker and Green Dragon to see if she has an optimal point.

I have just flicked through this @GoldenAge and I think it looks thoroughly professional. Would not be disappointed if I paid for this. If the content is half as good it will be worth reading.

Read the Golden Age Champions sourcebook. It's entire purpose is to help you create a golden age campaign.

You are in my headspace! That is indeed the question I am asking myself. I set up the campaign for specific things. If they want a toe to toe fight, I want it over in a turn or thereabouts. Simply working down stats is not interesting. If they go for a more interesting, rolling fight, then that can be fun over a few combat turns as they seek a situation to achieve a KO blow. I do it three times to reflect offensive versus offensive, offensive versus defensive and defensive versus defensive. I reckon I know enough to sort out a spreadsheet but it would be even more useful to be able to upload an hdc file and test it three ways at the click of a button. 😁😇

Then I guess complexity of the rules might not be the key issue!

I don't consider any movement power, and leaping is one of those to be a characteristic. The mixing of abilities and skills and game mechanics, this represents drives my proposal to get rid of the non game mechanical stats. Surely buying STR was not the only way you bought Leaping ability? Surely you checked whether you had enough? Surely that's no less complex than buying enough. The permeability rule, I can understand but I can also understand how TK was widely abused by players and cost should follow utility.