Doc Democracy

Let me volunteer upfront. I draft/proof for a living, though not in a professional capacity. My approach to HERO is less traditional than most so I am either just the right person to be talking about adaptation or exactly the wrong one! It will follow the system in C&S, Colin's new edition? Would give me a reason to read it properly.

A lot of the grunt work you could delegate out on the boards. Am sure you would find plenty of folk happy to generate stat blocks or proof text etc. All for the kudos of being involved. 🙂

I am going to embark on thus epic. I have NO idea how you type all this on a phone.... I think that it is not going to work with a vancian style magic which, itself, is written as a technology in the dying earth books, ways of harnessing ancient power with the trappings of magic. So yes, I agree, slots and unreliability don't work. I would also say there is a lot of ground in between getting effects so defined you can throw a fireball to hit opponents in melee with your friends and not even singe their eyebrows and starting the magic with no idea of the effects you expect or hope for. Well, because technology is measurable and semi-dependable. It is something people, as you say, utilise but rarely are able to explain, nevermind maintain. Technology works, utilises measurable forces and anyone doing the right things with the right kit get the same results. If that is what you want in your game, why call it magic, it is technology and might as well be presented as such, no? This is indeed a big thing. No point in looking too hard at the literature because you xan actually find anything and everything to support stuff because, to our understanding, there is no such thing as magic. 😀 Technology is learnable and teachable. If there are, like you say, restrictions on who can learn magic then magic is not universally learnable or teachable. I think that is one of the significant differences. Only those with talent can do more than dabble (sometimes not even that) and some folk can, fir some unknown reason, become adepts. Now that might be seen as similar to maths. some folk find it hard to add up single figures, others solve quadratic equations in their head - we don't really understand how that happens either. And yet, in Fantasy literature, they rarely are. Grimoires are often the personal notes of an adept. Others trying to use them approach with care, like dealing with an unexploded bomb, trying to extract meaning and understanding to create their own grimoire. Each adept adapting the teachings to their iwn situation. I reckon that is another feature, for me, of magic. Technology is universal, it works the same way regardless of who applies it. Magic is personal and individual, and every practitioner begins with a broad understanding but needs to fine-tune the process to accommodate their particular relationship with the magical powers. I love this analogy, but you are almost arguing against your statement that you xannot teach what you do not know, possibly because these things are not binary until you get to the point where you either do it absolutely right or die. Beyond that a whole range of approaches get a number of outcomes that approximate OK, those closest to "correct" go faster/straighter/longer. I think that feels magical to me but with magic, there is no single correct way, there is probably only one way for any individual but not one that you can reliably teach. Yes! The difference though is that while the technology folk are working to a template, knowing where they are making compromises from an ideal and seeking a physical harmony, the magician is "listening to the vapours" hoping to find a place where they properly resonate to deliver the right harmony. More art than science and influenced by who is doing it. I think that it is more likely to be secret from the cgaracter than the reader. Or they both share a belief of what is true, like the motorcyclists you talked about, they think they know what is true, they believe what they are going to will result in a particular outcome. Thing is, even with technology there are the pioneers who do stuff for the first time,teaching themselves through trial and error. With technology it is better as, when you find something out, you can show someone else in the firm knowledge they will be able to do it too. With magic, none of that is a given. It is where not only finding a teacher, but the right teacher is important. I hear you but you realise you have probably now put more thought into the basics than most people who love reading about it. You are even getting close to gave written as many words on the matter as a Fantasy writer. Doc

I think a game needs a narrative structure in its magic and there needs to be a way in which players interact with that. I still claim that it does not need to be like technology. But throughout human history we have had folk "practice" magic that was neither reproducible, consistent (beyond not actually working) or reliable. People want power and they are often willing to risk inconsistency, unreliability or reproducible results if there is a chance of that power. I think it is possible to make it gameable but I get that it is not for everyone. Tell me, do you need to know what is true, or do you need to know what the wizard thinks is true? Personally, it us the latter for me, I like to know what he wants to achieve and what he wants to be true. He might be right, he might be partly right, sometimes things might happen, other times they don't. There are quite a few studies showing how animals pick up superstitions, relying on actions that seemed to work once or twice, hoping that will work again. People are animals in this. I kind of missed Vampire, the folk playing it never appealed to me and I stuck with Runequest and Champions. one of my friends though did a few Mage one-offs. My son is far more emotionally developed than me. I had to work hard at modelling that behaviour for him.

My first author thought was Frank Herbert, and now I need to go look at my bookshelf and see if I have mixed up my Herberts and Heinleins. 🙂

I come here for conversation and discussion, not for approval or sycophancy. 🙂 I can always rely on you for the first two and to decry the latter. I would, in that spirit and as a scientist, challenge the statement that all observation is science! There is much more to it (and you allude to that when you talk about reproducability) and I understand the desire for system when playing a game. I have been on a journey on literary magic (I love reading good fantasy) and for a long time wanted (probably needed) to know how the magic worked and where it came from and how effects came to be. The ultimate for me was Lyndon Hardy's novels starting with Master of the Five Magics. I deprecated authors who did not provide me with this structure. Then I realised I was reading science fiction with a fantasy wrapping (probably while I was reading Iain Banks' stuff). I began to desire mystery and no reproducability with magic. Fine for there to be superstition, if you spit over your left shoulder when someone coughs, you will not contract the disease possessing them. If you bring beer and tobacco to the right place you will be able to persuade the dead to speak with you. All of this probably came with me reading more of Tim Powers' stuff. Now I struggle to appreciate magic that is predictable. That is technology. Like I said though, if you want magic in a game, then you probably want/need structure and system and if there is structure and system then you want it to be consistent (the game side of RPG, plyers dont like unfair systems). I would say that they are almost opposite to each other - Ars Magica really draws into that alchemy/science aspect of magic. Mage is much more subjective in its application and I like that. The narrative systems probably support this kind of thing much more and I have dabbled in those with mixed results. Doc Not sure what point you are making Chris. It feels like what I said turns you off Glorantha? That a fantasy setting choosing not to have a scientific basis for things would be a detriment to your enjoyment?

Why not just move forward and have technology alongside the other trappings of fantasy? It just feels wrong for fantasy magic to be "science". In Glorantha, there is no germ theory, disease is caused by disease spirits. I have increasingly refused to allow magic to be used in scientific ways, or for scientific principles to reliably reproduce results. 🙂

I think the problem with magic is that it does not usually feel magical - it is like technology/science that has arbitrary rules. Now that is because it is a game rather than a real-world thing but if magic was capricious, mysterious and challenging, then it might be much more fun. Nightmare to game with though.

@Gauntlet you have hit the Godwin's Law of HERO boards, when you suggest Transform, you lose the argument! 🙂 I reckon, in this case there are too many mechanical berriers for it to work properly. Another hoary old fallback is Mind Control - only to tell victim they cannot see anything.... Doc

What I am not seeing is the "reasonably common and obvious set of defenses that cancels out the attack" required by any power bought as usable as an attack. The player should be rolling you directly how you bypass the effect. Doc

I will have a go. I think the key issue, like Hugh says, is that it demands a generic campaign setting with a lot of dials set to begin with. I might see if I could mock up what the default would look like, the "everyHERO" baseline. Then provide a finalised version. The more I think about it, the more I think we would need several starting points - Brick, Mentalist, Martial Artist, Energy Projector etc. I would need to sit down and deliver possibly 250 point "everyHERO" templates. I need to find the time. Wish I was retired!

Before I start, I should apologise, this is likely to be long and rambling. I am visiting my wife's mother, so I often lie in bed in the morning, delaying getting up and thinking. Today my thinking is about HERO (recently it has all been about Baldurs Gate!). HERO is a detail game and we build characters to have game effect. It is seen as a difficult game because there is so much detail and new folk find it difficult to make effective characters. I have been wondering whether that is because we start with everyman stuff and begin adding to it. What if we started with a Hero? If the focus was on game effect, then your standard hero would go, for example, five times a round, hit 60% of the time doing, on average, 15 STUN through defences and moves 20m. You define your schtick, your attacks are because you are Strong, or because you have eye beams etc etc You could then add "upgrades". The first half dozen are "free", you could hit more people at once, move faster, have more actions, improve your defences, extend your attacks (versus different defences, more effective versus heavy armour, etc). You could add movement, add senses, add various things. If you want more upgrades, you make compromises. These can either be limiting the effectiveness of existing powers or taking on complications. I wonder, perversely, if this focus on effectiveness would bring more attention to the powers rather than the mechanics. It would mean the players would have a big signpost to a standard that they deviate from rather than a base level they need to build from. It would lend itself to big books of upgrades! 🙂 I can imagine the Ultimate Speedster book having lists of upgrades and compromises. Obviously, those upgrades and compromises would all be coated and built (for the GM) rather than being black boxes like other games. That's it. An idea for a new way to play the build a character. No other changes. And focussed on new players not existing experts... Doc

OMG - so many attacks just before the weekend! I may have to retire to my country estate to recover from the trauma... 😄

It was only after I did the last post that I spotted what the problem might have been - the error message though asks me to remove the "highlighted words" and the whole thing is highlighted....! Huge hit to my self-esteem that the system thought all my prose was offensive!!!

Tried to edit to make this more comprehensive and the system objected to the whole thing. 🙂

I would allow it, with each one removing a +1 and if it goes down to +0, then you manage to end the homing.

It does not actually have an increased OCV, it has an increased chance to hit because you are considering three hits in one roll. If you shoot at something three times you have a better chance of recording one hit than if you shoot at it just once. That is simple statistics. Personally I would give someone the chance to block the attacks using the "core OCV" as the measure of success and each successful block would knock one off the "effective OCV" to roll to hit. The special effects are that it is buzzing about taking time to attack again and again. I think that the final question is part of why the additional OCV is limited - the target has an opportunity to dive for cover and potentially reach some kind of protective place where the attack cannot hit. If the target plans to run to cover but would only get there by the time of the third attack, then the attackers roll needs to get a result that hits before the target gets to cover. It makes things slightly more bureaucratic but potentially more exciting too.

I reckon we should avoid a discussion of social justice here, the moderators might object.

I like the idea of this but, due to the bell curve, I was concerned that the maths would change drastically depending on the starting point. If you hit on an 8 or less your chance to hit is 25%, your chance of hitting once in four efforts would be just shy of 70%. 12 or less is about 74%. If you hit on a 5 or less, your chance to hit is 5%. Your chance of hitting once in four efforts is 19%. 9 or less is 37%. So it does skew chances as you get to the extremes but it probably works well enough to be playable and has the HUGE advantage of being ridiculously simple. Doc

I think the trigger is essential to this. The power is set to go off, it needs not be close to when they are about to die and could be years in advance, and sits there waiting for the right circumstance. I think the definition of dead is important. As Duke mentioned, the games are fantastical enough that many undead, mechanical and other non-traditional living beings exist. If -10 is dead, then the trigger is when the being is taken to -10 BODY (that is my working memory too). Doc

Hear me out on this one. What if your Ghul has duplication. The body and the soul. Build the body how you want folk to fight it, build the soul to be invisible and invulnerable but capable of nothing, just lots of BODY. The duplication is no conscious control, when a downed Ghul body is hit that second time it triggers the recombination. That triggers a healing. When fully healed, the duplication kicks in again to split body and soul. Need to read a bit about death of a duplicate, if necessary buy the additional BODY indicated by Sean, the Ghul is dead for all intents and purposes, except to be able to recombine. Doc

I think the only thing you can do is rely on Big Data, utilising overwhelming computer power to put together small incidents. You look for people that have had similar incidents at similar times in similar locations, you begin to trace the nodes and see if you can determine the general direction, in the meantime, go back to the nodes and discover what was going on to see if you can find out what was happening and to help you predict what might happen next. The Key may have an agenda, working towards something, it may be more like Quantum Leap, appearing where it is "needed" or it may be more random, like Kwai Chang Caine wandering and dealing with what comes up before it. It could cme down to educated guesses putting the heroes in the right place at the right time. Doc

My favourite player on my favourite team is a Swede. Hendrix Larsson is a god. Sweden is the last country I would find fault with....

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Less hate for a dessert you probably have never tried. There are a lot of scandi-snacks that I might point at that are, health-wise, as questionable as the modern classic you are trying to denigrate. 😄

I tend to ignore BODY once the current adventure is over. Start of next adventure, everyone is hale and hearty. BODY damage, as you intimated, should raise the stakes during the adventure and players should be adapting their tactics to ensure their injured comrades are not unduly exposed to further BODY damage. Doc