Doc Democracy

Re: Speed Chart dynamism

I find the answer to this is to rule againts "Well, it's the very end of Segment 2" timing. If everyone is waiting, the clock flips to segment 3 (and no "wait, just before Segment 2 ends, I want to..." actions are accepted). The character doesn't have "Detect last possible moment I can act before the segment changes" - he can only see that everyone seems to be holding back, waiting for someone else to act.

 

Similarly, I wouldn't let a character in DD's approach retroactively act "before he flips to green". You waited too long - he's recovered his bearings.

Yeah-good point, if you go round the table and everyone waits to see, then you move to the next segment. Good principle there.

Doc

Re: Putting my finger on it

Guidelines on how to use (and break, if necessary) hero system rules are a useful part of genre books - although the further you move from the core rules set, the smaller your market will be. *New* rules brings the Curse of GURPS, or the d20 Mashups we were discussing in another concurrent thread: similar, but incompatible characters.

I think that's where I sit. I would like the genre books to do some rule specific discussions on how to achieve certain 'look and feel's within a particualr genre. That would mean discussing changes such as the 1/3 cost change as a possibility and why you might want to use that in your campaign.

I'm not sure I believe in 100% portable characters but Hero is so detailed that it would rarely be a problem to convert if that was what was truly required. If there were recognised rule options for particular genres then it might even be possible that a future edition of Hero Designer would be able to do the conversion for you....

Doc

Re: Speed Chart dynamism

It's an honestly clever & innovative idea; I'll be interested in how it works out for your group. To add anything to the game, I think new procedures must not only be fundamentally useful but that the players and GM have to agree it makes the game better. Otherwise it's just more complication in an already very complicated combat system.

 

In our campaign, holding Phases or half-Actions is pretty routine. Even our SPD 4 brick has been known to Hold until a faster teammate put her opponent prone, then attacked the now-half DCV bad guy. So it's not only fast characters can take advantage of waiting.

I think what it would also add is a very quick, visual way to see how many of your teammates are ready to act at any time in the game...

Doc

Re: Putting my finger on it

I like the Icon idea' date=' although it might get a bit confusing if you put icons on powers(Extradimensional movement and Dark Champions don't necessarily go together) when we already have icons like the Stop Sign. Maybe a chart instead?[/quote']

 

I reckon it is all a matter of design.

 

Colours would work best but I think that you could easily use the power with the title

 

Extra-Dimensional Movement [sTOP]

[FH],[Ch],[sH]

 

Keep the icons separate by design so that you are looking for them in the right places.

 

Or perhaps a good designer would come up with another way. I do believe in the master list in alphabetical order but there should be some way to provide guidance, direction and distinctiveness without having to cross reference charts.

 

 

Doc

Re: Speed Chart dynamism

It is not a replacement for speed - it should be a physical representation of their state of readiness. The refresh of the red to green (or amber to green) is dictated by SPD.

I think that people get it into their head that if they have phases on 3,5,8,10 and 12 then those are the segments on which they act. I am trying to change the perception from that to those are the segments when I will be ready to act again.

Its a subtle difference but one that (I believe) could make a huge difference to game play. I am thinking of doing the same for the NPCs (after the first round of combat - to give some element of the fog of war) to allow PCs to make decisions.

Doc

Re: Putting my finger on it

I can see Sean's point here.

As a kid it is exciting mixing colours - amazing that when you mix blue and yellow that you get green. The problem with it was that the more you mixed the more you inexorably moved toward brown....

Sometimes throwing everything in together does not make things more exciting.

It used to be nice picking up Fantasy Hero and seeing just what worked differently in an FH game rather than Champions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a return to having genre specific rules in genre books (though I think there should be big rules discussion section in genre books discussing how to achieve look and feel). I like having everything in one book, I would simply highlight what rules are core [relevant to all genres] or which relate best to particular genres [Champions, FH, SH etc]. The easiest way to do this would be using colour on title bars but even icons would be useful.

This way it would be easier to enforce the presence or absence of particular builds for entry level players and GMs and would provide a pointer to the casual user the number of genres that the game does cover.

Doc

I am in the camp that believes that the speed chart is one of the innovative things that makes Hero stand out from other games.

I have always been confused by comments that it is too restrictive and closes down options (though I can understand the ones about making it easy for players to predict and play the system rather than the game)

I have been investigating this with my own group and decided that it probably comes about because many players wait for their phase to come round and act immediately on that phase and then have to wait until their next phase to act again.

I have decided to try a system of traffic lights. All players will start with green disks (able to take any action). If they make a half move or half move equivalent action then they will replace the green disk with an amber one (able to take half move equivalent actions) and if they make a full move or take an attack action then they replace their current disk with a red one (able to make 'abort to' actions only). On the beginning of their next phase the GM will indicate that they change their current disk for a green one.

I am hoping that they will begin to work with the 'traffic lights' and what they are able to do rather than focussing on the numbers and feel a bit more at liberty to improvise and stretch their phases across all twelve segments rather than the 5 or 6 that they normally use.

Comments?

Doc

Re: What's with all the points

The iuncrease in points is there to reflect a difference in the assumptions made about character producing.

Early editions of Champions focussed on the powers and very broad brush skills and background details. You wouldn't expect to spend lots of points on contacts, knowledge skills and other background detail.

In the current version there is an expectation that the character will be fully fleshed out and detailed on the character sheet, no longer will PS: Detective 14- be enough to provide all of the necessary to get by as a PI.

And its nice not to have to compromise your design as much when looking at powers.

Doc

Re: Fantasy Rant

Very good thread....

To the initial problem - no motivation to actually write the genre desired, the usual solution is to read the genre.

As has been ably pointed out, the genre as it has existed focuses in a undesirable place (for Von D Man) and the current existence is mostly a poor pastiche of past pleasures (though there are notable exceptions).

I think part of the problem is age. When I was a child, I wrote and played as a child.... As you get older and your current existence changes the creative process takes on different tropes to use and some of those are inconsistent with the genre you 'think' you want to write about - your subconscious is telling you that you want to write about something else....

There is also the fact that you may be thinking that you want to write epic fantasy and somehow your subconscious impression of epic fantasy (all of that euro-centred stuff) is blocking the truly innovative epic fantasy you are ready to write.

I think you already have the answer "....run the games, and write the stories, that I care about and not sweat it." You should also look to the fantastic elements that you want to incorporate and possibly highlight those to players. It does not take much change of emphasis in a fantasy game for players to see a real difference in look and feel.

Glorantha in 1978 felt like a huge paradigm shift but it was a very slight change of emphasis on the role of bog standard pantheism on the magic structure of the game.

Doc

Re: Elminating tracking stuff in HERO - but preserving the essential ideas...

Doc' date=' have you done any more with this?[/quote']

 

Not yet but my group is desperate to finish the scenario I began under HeroQuest and promised to finish using this. I want to have documentation to give them so that they can understand and play the system - it shouldn't require too much - most of the work would be mine - translating their Object Oriented Programming to the Hero machine code.....

 

 

I have once again given them a promise and will relay stuff as soon as I have it - I have even prepared a website to take it all when I can sort it out - tho would run it past Hero and Issaries before publishing it....

 

 

Doc

Re: Idea on OIF/Side effect

Not to be nitpicky but you did the math wrong up there' date=' you add the 27 to the cost of the power, for a total of 47...[/quote']

 

No. I had to think it through a couple of times as well.

 

The cost saving from the 60 point power is 40 points from a non-limited No Conscious Control, thus a total cost of 60-40 = 20 points.

 

The cost saving from the 60 point power is 27 points from a limited No Conscious Control (40/1.5), thus a total cost of 60-27 = 33 points.

 

My original calculation, like yours, was 47. I would be inclined to reverse the limitation values for this purpose - limiting a limitation requires a reverse. Using normal values would provide the following:

 

OAF 60 - (40/1+1) = 40 points

OIF 60 - (40/1+0.5) = 33 points

IIF 60 - (40/1+0.25) = 28 points

 

Reversed

 

IIF 60 - (40/1+1) = 40 points

OIF 60 - (40/1+0.5) = 33 points

OAF 60 - (40/1+0.25) = 28 points

 

It makes most senses that the more likely the focus is to get taken away and impose the full no conscious control, the bigger the cost break should be to the character. It needs a twist of the mind to get it but it does make sense - the less likely it is that a limitation will be imposed the smaller discount it should provide to the cost.

 

I think!

 

 

Doc

Re: Idea on OIF/Side effect

My problem would be that you are giving the Hero a focus based power that continues to work for him even when the focus is removed. Would another character then be able to use the armour to shrink themselves by putting on the armour?? You can see the potential for abuse.

I would buy the armour with a transform that provides the wearer with no conscious control shrinking. I would limit the cost saving for the NCC using OIF. So if the user wears the armour then he has shrinking that can be used as desired. If the armour is removed he still has the power but no control over it (and so the GM can keep the wearer at the size he was when the armour weas removed or change it depending on circumstances).

So, if the cost of the shrinking was 60, NCC would normally make that cost 60/1+2 = 20 points. However, as the NCC has a focus limitation the 40 point saving becomes (40/1+0.5 = 27). Total cost 33 points.

I would leave the transform of the armour to the side if this is a superhero game but stat it out as an independent power if this is to be equipment in a heroic level game.

Doc

Re: Age of Sail Alternate History idea

My thought was to allow the failed 1715 uprisings etc and James' failed attempts but allow many of the rebels to flee to the new colony and congregate there rather than disperse to other places.

This focussed group could possibly then provide a broader and more monied base for the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion and place Bonnie Prince Charlie on the British throne.

Enough available cash when the Jacobites were in Derby could have assured that certain people did not get into the right places - possibly diverted by Continental landings of other forces paid for by Carribbean gold - and allow the highlanders to achieve London.

That makes the world a different place with a potential Catholic throne in 18th century Britain....

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

I disagree' date=' there's a poster I think has gotten a little flamey. I'm not going to directly respond to it, because I just want to move on with the discussion at hand.[/quote']

 

that's the best idea, its the second flame that makes the war.

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

To those of you who think this is an unnecessary idea, please do one of the following:

 

1) Pretend it's a good idea, and join the effort in contributing towards it.

 

Or

 

2) Discontinue your involvement with this thread. You aren't being helpful.

If an idea is a good one and it is proposed in the rules threads you should have to be prepared to defend it against those who think it is unnecessary.

I don't think anyone has yet been derogatory or abusive, simply questioning the need for another mechanic in what is a mechanic heavy game to begin with.

It is useful for the basic concepts of an idea to be challenged - if there is proper engagement on both sides it usually results in a much better proposal at the end of the conversation.

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

...the only practical way to achieve that is to play it out phase by phase.

And this is the crux of the matter. You have a black and white approach to this. Either there is absolute GM edict on what happened or the players have to play it out phase by phase which (regardless of the minor nature of the opponents) take up much of the evenings gameplay.

What is proposed here is a shorthand system where what the players want is not what the GM wants to give but neither wants to spend the time playing out phase by phase.

With an agreed resolution system the GM has a guide to what he should provide to the players based on the game system. And allows the game to progress without undue delay.

It might not be your cup of tea, it might not be something that you want to use in your own game but surely you can recognise that some people and some gaming groups might find such a thing useful?

Doc

Re: When to round DOWN .5?

One example

11D6 Energy Blast, limited by Obvious Accessible Focus (-1).

Cost: 55/1+1=27.5 points rounded down to 27 points.

27 points spent is better for the character than 28 points spent.

Doc

Re: Hackable cyber-brains?

Well, I'd like to add my vote to Sean's suggestion of a physical disad for anyone who has a cyberbrain.

The mental powers route would be suitable for designing someone who has the skills to hack into computers and cyberbrains etc but if this is an inherent part of cyberbrains then it is the flaw that has to be built and anyone with the relevant technical skills can do it rather than requiring someone with all of the relevant skills to also purchase mental powers (telepathy for communication, mind control for making them do things and mental illusions for altering perceptions).

It is the mental powers route that tend to give newcomers the heebie jeebies and enable them to point out percieved flaws in the game - most often because they are not being allowed to do things that common sense would say that they can.

Thus if you have a cyberbrain someone can hack into your brain and cause effects as if they had mental powers. My only problem is how good are they? I would tend to suggest that their skill roll should indicate level of effect, possibly an increase in level of effect for every +3 that they make the roll by? Not worked it out but on a level roll you get basic effect on 11-, and can improve that by rolling 8- or 5-. to get the fourth level of effect you really need to be significantly better than the brain you are hacking....

Doc

Re: Fear of the dark

Doesn't seem like most forms of Knockback Resistance would be relevant against this. How'd you get around that?

An easy give would be to allow PRE Def to work against the KB the way KB resistance normally would....

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

Just my take on it' date=' but this seems like movement from a tactical RPG towards a preset outcomes - roll to see your result boardgame. [/quote']

 

Less preset than if the GM simply narrates it surely...

 

Using your gate example' date=' I think a lot of the time you save in playing it out gets lost in figuring out the various modifiers, adjusting for player plans and defining or changing their victory conditions (eg. perhaps they're willing to use certain resources the GM didn't anticipate, or perhaps they're prepared to sacrifice the gate to make a guerrilla strike and capture an enemy leader). [/quote']

 

If I was to use this system I would have the dice for every PC worked out. The time would be taken up in deciding the objective of the group and the opposing objective of the NPCs. No modifiers, no player plans, no changing of victory conditions. Define the objective of the group, roll the dice, get voctory result and then (preferably with the co-operation of the players) decide what that level of victory (or defeat) would mean.

 

To me' date=' there are situations that don't merit playing out because the outcome is preordained, and there are situations that merit playing out because their outcomes can vary, will matter and there is a possibility for the PC's to influence the results significantly.[/quote']

 

It is a matter of style I think. I routinely see combat in my games that I'd rather skim through but would like the PCs to have some influence in deciding. This would allow me to give them a roll of the dice and a bit of discussion about the result.

 

[Plus' date= I still dislike the idea that, when the GM starts counting phases, the players immediately know this particular "defend the gate" scenario is not routine, so they're alert for what's about to change the ground rules.]

 

No argument will change that. I dont mind the metagame aspect, others will hate it. I like the fact that the players get a heads up, it is like in Feng Shui when an NPC has a name!

 

 

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

One of the things that I loved about Champions when I first played it was the huge number of dice that I got to roll.

Why not a system where you choose a few things that are combat critical and add dice. Biggest number wins. I'd be inclined to count BODY rather than normal but whatever rocks your boat.

So

+1D6 per 2CV

+1D6 per 5DEF

+1D6 per 2D6 in largest attack

+1D6 per SPD over 4

-1d6 per SPD under 4

+1D6 per doubling of attackers/defenders (+1D6 for 2, 2D6 for 4, 3D6 for 8 etc)

Pick up all the dice and roll them. I haven't decided on levels of victory yet.

I think that I would count BODY - starting with 6s. At some point one side would run out of dice (meaning they lose). Every two dice (that are not 1s) after that raise the victory level

marginal

minor

Major

Complete

A marginal victory could mean that you accomplish your core goals (defend the gate) but have not accomplished the subsidiary ones (teach the attackers a lesson, take some lives(though only mooks, not named NPCs, husband your resources).

A minor victory builds on that. You did more damage to the attackers, used less of your own resources etc

A major victory goes further. You drove them off, took little or no damage, used minor or replaceable resources and probably did significant damage to your opponents and made them use significant resources.

Complete victory could mean that not only did you defend the gate, you made it impossible for the attackers to contemplate another attack (either because you did them so much damage or possibly even captured the enemy leader or something).

Defeats are similarly staged, from having the gate breached but being able to drive them off to being driven from the gate and (depending on the context of the defence of the gate being captured, allowing the castle to be captured or even your leader being captured or under threat).

There is a place for this kind of thing in many games but it does require the clear establishment of goals and how those goals interrelate. Sometimes a contest might have to have two stages but if it gets more complex than that it probably requires being completely played out.

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

What range of possibilities are you looking for? I think watching 3 6's come up and knowing that means "You lose - total party kill" would not make for a great long-term game.

If something would result in a total party kill then you wouldn't run it as a one-roll option.

In HeroQuest it would be like a character taking a shortcut down an alley and someone trying to mug him. Whether they succeed or fail would have little effect on the plot in hand and the GM might not want to simply narrate him losing his gold or running through his assailant but instead provides a roll to the player.

What it does is allow those small actions that provide some flavour and possibly long term complications to the plot to be introduced without having to take the time to play it out.

The big consensus is to simply narrate it. This provides a random element - the players roll decides which narration the GM provides - often gives players the feeling that they could influence the plot advancement where a straight narration does not.

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

I'm not much for Obligatory Mook Fights that do nothing to advance the plot. But OTOH I have had players get into fights for no good reason (at least from a plot standpoint).

This is my experience. The PCs get into a fight that has no real consequences on the plot. I don't care if they win or lose and equally have no desire to fight it out. Combat eats up too much of any game session to warrant major attention on minor scuffles.

I would rather declare the fight inconsequential and have a simple contest roll.

- Even in a fairly minimal combat, there is the chance of injury in many genres. That swordsman might take a BOD or 2 in combat.

 

- If it's a "one roll" combat, I guess I don't use up any limited resources, like charges, right?

 

- Do the results depend on our objectives? Did we want to wipe out the opposition, take a prisoner, drive them off, scare them, etc.?

 

- "Oh, you're counting phases instead of doing a one-roll - I guess this fight must be more important than we thought. Maybe I better rethink my tactics."

[/Quote]

 

Many of the initial questions are what I would include in the victory levels. A major victory is easy - no damage, no use of limited resources and yes - your stated objectives indicate the narrative result based on victory levels.

 

As for the metagame aspect of knowing a fight is important or not is fine for my group. I prefer players to be aware that a fight is important and that they should pay more attention to what I am saying and what they are doing.

 

 

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

Equal roll = draw

win by 1-2 = minor victory (win but other side escape OR reduce STUN and END to 10% of maximum

win by 2-3 = normal victory (win and reduce stun and end to half normal)

win by 4 or more = major victory (win, no penalty)

The roll seems good enough for rough work (which this would be - small skirmish that doesn't really affect the narrative in a substantial fashion - like a skill roll really)

I would change the name of the vistory levels to

Standoff

Marginal Victory

Minor Victory

Major Victory

When approaching a combat in a narrative fashion like this it is important to establish what goals each side were looking to achieve.

Doc

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

Nothing I am aware of, and whilst I could come up with something the problem is that sometimes that roll will give the result 'PCs lose', which would be real aggravating.

 

I'd just set it up so that non-essential fights don't take long: reduce all the villain's CONs by 5 or assume any solid hit KOs them.

If the fight is non-essential (I'm assuming narrative-wise) then either it doesn't amtter if it doesn't happen or it doesn't really matter if the PCs lose.

This is something that happens in HeroQuest where the contest resoltion provides results from Major Victory to Major Defeat in seven steps for such rolls and the GM would have to narrate the results of that roll.

I haven't seen a HERO way to do it but I do think it would be a useful mechanic.

Doc