Doc Democracy

23 minutes ago, Barwickian said:

Yes, and I'd be very happy for any assistance - a number of people here know Hero far better than I.

One of the things I'd like to do is establish working patterns for sorcery and miracles/prayers for the medieval fantasy theme: distinguishing low magic (which tends to emphasise talismans and raw power words) and high magic (which is a more systemic, intellectual system such as the astral image magic of the grimoire Picatrix and its Arabic original).

Buit the priority is on getting the setting finished, maps done and in all in the publisher's hands before I start thinking of extras.

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!

28 minutes ago, Barwickian said:

Yes, and I'd be very happy for any assistance - a number of people here know Hero far better than I.

One of the things I'd like to do is establish working patterns for sorcery and miracles/prayers for the medieval fantasy theme: distinguishing low magic (which tends to emphasise talismans and raw power words) and high magic (which is a more systemic, intellectual system such as the astral image magic of the grimoire Picatrix and its Arabic original).

Buit the priority is on getting the setting finished, maps done and in all in the publisher's hands before I start thinking of extras.

It will follow the system in C&S, Colin's new edition?  Would give me a reason to read it properly.

2 hours ago, Barwickian said:

but as an old Hero fan I'd like to do a free PDF appendix with Hero stats (note that 'like' is not the same as 'definitely will').

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.  🙂

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

In DnD, why would I waste a spell slot on something that, when cast, does whatever the heck it wants without regard to what I need?

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.

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I certainly do not see how making magic measurable and semi-dependable makes it technology.  Realistically, I don't see how it can exist in a non-measurable, non-quantifiable state.

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?

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Technology is learnable and teachable.  I have never encountered any genre source of magic that was not the same, though typically magic has score and score of restrictions on who can learn it, to include teachers who, out of genre convention if nothing else, are incredibly rare and usuallly unwilling.

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.

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If you accept the existence of grimoires or teachers or magic items, then both can be mass produced.  There are restrictions on who can learn to do what, and some people take to it better than others. 

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.

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Teaching and learning motorcycle riding.  Most people have no idea that the _vast_ majority of motorcycle riders in North America do not actually  know how to ride a motorcycle.  They know how to _operate_ one.  They know how to work the controls, how to to start it and get where they want to go, but when a truly bad thing comes along, they will make the worst decisions because they actually have no idea how the motorcycle works.  Why?  They were taught by people who really didn't know, either.

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.

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

At some point,between those two people, we have crossed into magic.  Ritualistic magic using materials gathered from the countryside and the blood of the dead beast, its organs,revitalized and life restored

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.

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I postulate that, whether or not it is secret,from,the reader, rhe characters in a book,must have learned their magic controlling abikities similarly, else how could they have them?  Even beinf "born with the power to summon magic and bend,it to his will" is insufficient: at some point, he has to digure out what makes,it appear, and what he must do or think,or want to make,it work.

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.

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

That is different enough, and wondrous enough, and also why I really,don't like it.

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

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

We _know_-  or at least, out of defference to those who really do not want to see it for flavor reasons, let's say that the argument can be made that a game _must_ have a sort of science in its magic:

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.

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

other than him, though, no one will want this because, as funny as it might be in less-tess scenarios, no one wants magic they cannot estimate-  magic without a science-like reproduceable, consistent reliability.

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.

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

But I _do_ want to know which is which.  It is probably quite opposite of your own take, but it helps me enjoy the story if I understand the story, or at least what it is actually story lore and setting, etc.

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.

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If That is "Mage: the Ascension," I will defer to your knowledge.  I kind if got White Wolf burnout in the 90s, about the time I was reading my twenty-somethingth Vampire book.  I still havent been abke to make myself look back.  😕

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.

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

though for what it is worth, since this discovery, Hammerhead has not gone a single day without hearing it from me

My son is far more emotionally developed than me.  I had to work hard at modelling that behaviour for him.

On 2/16/2024 at 6:00 AM, Scott Ruggels said:

There was a Robert A. Heinlein book that might be worth raiding for ideas. similar premise.

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. 🙂

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

(I hope that came across as courteously as I intended.  I _like_ Doc D, and don't want anyine thinking I am being flippant here.)

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).

14 hours ago, Steve said:

The only magic systems that I’ve ever seen approach this would be Ars Magica and Mage: The Ascension.

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

14 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I was unaware of this about Glorantha... and, while I haven't had a whole lot of interest in it over the years it's been around, now I have zero. 

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?

54 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

when I include "magic" in my fantasy, I want it to follow structured principles, like any other science.

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. 🙂

On 2/15/2024 at 12:53 AM, Duke Bushido said:

Not really sure why I prefer the not-magic guys.  To be completely hinest with myself,I think it is because, in general, I dont like magic. 

 

 

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

58 minutes ago, Jujitsuguy said:

Let me give you the power(s) and you tell me if my guess is wrong and what would you implement to bypass it:

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!!!

5 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

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

 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.

20 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

What if the target decides to middle deflect, is the missile's OCV based on the phase it is attacking on, if that is so then why would it have an increased OCV just because it is attacking a second or third time? Also, what happens if for some reason the target is no longer able to be hit after the initial attack?

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.

On 1/27/2024 at 7:07 AM, Chris Goodwin said:

With the +4 to hit: if you hit exactly or by 1, it hits on the third pass, at +2 Segments, if you hit by 2 or 3 it's the second pass, at +1 Segment, and if you hit by 4 or more it's the first pass, on the Segment it's fired. 

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

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Scotland and Sweden... FIGHT!

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....

On 1/17/2024 at 5:42 AM, L. Marcus said:

Deep-fried Mars bars aside, the Scots are alright.

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