Jump to content

Doc Democracy

HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Doc Democracy

  1. I'm with Neil.  I reckon Champions Complete would not need the full HERO rules.  First it would need DOJ to decide what their default is.  If it is Vibora Bay, fantastic, we have a measure to scale things to.  We could decide that Vibora Bay was of a particular level and focussed more on Powers than skills and provide a very cut down list of skills and a full list of powers.  We would also give very strong build advice, advice that is absolutely context driven for a particular style of play.  We could easily put in villains and a sample adventure or two because we would know precisely the kind of heroes that would be built in this game.


    I reckon all of that is possible in a reasonably slim volume.  I would have a short annex at the back (or available for download) to say what decisions had been made to make this game using the full 6E rules and encourage those who want to to change anything or everything in the game (after they have played it as written) to do so using the full 6E rules.


    I also think that this game would then have to be called something like Vibora Bay Champions rather than Champions Complete so that there would be room for other titles, like Age of the Machine Champions.



  2. On 2/8/2020 at 8:42 PM, Duke Bushido said:



    I'm forty-two feet in the air right now, so I can't really get to my books, but I'm not certain that--by the old rules-- you traded nine (or four) shots for a +4 (or +2).  As I recall, you got a +4 in exchange for _using_ all ten (or +2 for five), but you still got the. "extra" hits for each 2 you rolled below your target number (or above it, for you roll-high heathens. ;) .)  


    Obviously I HAD to go and look.  Duke is, of course, right about this.  The big interesting thing that I dont remember using is the complexity of reduced END with Autofire.


    If you have a 50 AP power (5 END) firing 10 shots, you spend 50 END for a burst.  In those days you reduced END by half until you got 1 END and the next level made it 0 END.


    that 5 END power would need three levels of Reduced END to get to 0.  5 to 2 to 1 to 0. 


    If you autofired that attack it would not be 0 END, it would be 50 to 25 to 12 to 6 END. 


    So a power that was 0 END for a single shot would cost you 6 END for autofire, unless you bought an extra 3 levels of Reduced END.  I kind of like that....

  3. 9 hours ago, SteveZilla said:

    It doesn't have to be "stored securely", as it is a small item the character has with her - small, but very important.  Should it be removed from her (pick pocket, combat grab, whatever), she becomes virtually powerless.

    For the purposes of her other powers it is *treated* as a OAF, but it itself has no powers in it.  I was thinking of a triggered power (a spell) to retrieve a wand stolen from me, so I wouldn't be rendered helpless for the rest of the combat - or until returning to town/base.  The 'focus' can still be grabbed and broken, and just grabbing it would still prevent her from casting until she retrieved it - so still an OAF in my mind.


    I think this is the very definition of a restrainable power.  You indicate that the wand appears in your hand when you shout the retrieval word.  So, someone might remove the wand from you (restraining your use that phase) but would have to find a way of preventing you shouting the retrieval word to restrain your use for a longer period.  At any time you become able to retrieve the wand, you have access to your powers again.  I dont think you need to give yourself a summoning power that, by the sounds of it, is extraneous to your other powers, and stretch the rules of that power to make it work how you want.  Instead all you need to do is decide on how the power might be restrained and come to an agreement with your GM what that is worth.



  4. On 2/8/2020 at 7:28 PM, SteveZilla said:

    Can you designate a Fixed Location as a small object?  Not buying it as a Focus, because of Fantasy Hero game with money.  It's an object in it's own right.


    This has been an interesting thread as much because it demonstrated that I am still prone to not stripping things back to basics.


    Can I ask if I have the in game concept right?  You want an item, that is normally stored securely to be instantly available to you whenever you want?


    You don't say if it is a weapon, but if it was, would someone, after you had summoned the item, be able to prevent you using it?  Could someone interfere with your ability to use the item?


    These are the questions I would put to one of my players. 


    In essence, I would buy the power I want use.  It might be described as an item but it is not something that will ever be stolen from me or that I could be prevented from accessing or using.  Everything is simply SFX of using the power I bought.


    If I could be prevented from using it, then restrainable is an option.  If I could be prevented from drawing it to me at need then some minor limited power limitation or restrainable depending on how easy/prevalent it is to do so.


    I think you achieve everything without buying a secondary power....



  5. On 2/5/2020 at 6:12 PM, ScottishFox said:

    If I point a machine gun at you and hold the trigger down I expect my chance to hit you at least once to be higher than if I fired a single bullet.

    And that is the balance between reality and game value.


    With autofire, as is, you get the same chance to hit with at least one shot and chances to hit with multiple shots, no additional bureaucracy unless you do qualify for multiple hits. To me that is a game design decision rather than a modelling one.


    It would be a trivial amount of points to buy levels with autofire on a single target.


    You could decide to use the old rule, give up all your chances to get multiple hits by going full autofire simply for a better chance of one hit.  As GM, I never found providing +4 for loosing ten bullets (charges) unbalancing and would be fine if a player asked me for that.  +2 for five (maybe) anything for fewer shots (not at all).



  6. 4 hours ago, Tywyll said:

    It's difficult to decide, even within the same genre sometimes.


    Sometimes I want epic fantasy heroes who can solo a dragon. Other times I want gritty fantasy vietnam with hirelings dying in droves. Sometimes I want these things in the same campaign, which is a bit problematic. In leveling systems you can get it (low levels its fantasy vietnam, mid to high levels you are fantasy super heroes). Other systems not so much. 

    It is quite possible in HERO if you build it into your game.  You decide what damage works where and CV alterations based on categories of foes.


    Against "mooks", I want my heroes to wade through, against "Names" to find it tougher and be more dangerous.  You can build this into the mooks, giving them conditional CV and susceptibility against attacks by PCs.

  7. 7 hours ago, Tech said:


    Or maybe the idea of decoupling Str damage from Str isn't the best idea.


    I think if HERO was being designed today, no history, no legacy issues, there would be no characteristics like STR, CON, INT, EGO, PRE, DEX.  They are a hangover from how it was done.  They are black boxes that skew costs in powers and skills.


    It would be easy to have a table that showed a relationship between lifting power and combat damage and jumping for guiding players on what to buy without making those abilities inherently linked.



  8. I can see what stimulated this poll though.  We talk about tone and genre and verisimilitude.  When we argue about rules there is often a drive for a "realistic" output.


    I think it is why we have a toolkit rather than a ruleset.  There is an expectation that the GM will pick the tools to be used in a game.  As such our rules should be capable of achieving "realistic" outcomes but their primary purpose should be providing our gamer souls with a "fair" outcome.


    As such, like a few folk above, my response to the poll is all of the above.  Our toolkit therefore needs to facilitate games where falling off a high building results in nothing more than comedy inconvenience to games where you can die from a single knife wound bleeding you out.


    Let's take that insight to our rule conversations....





  9. 1 hour ago, dmjalund said:

    how do you determine how many people are looking in a mirror in a particular area at any given time?


    Well, you make a decision like Duke talked about above on how common mirrors are (including mirrored surfaces).  The GM is being invited to make a call here.  You might decide that a -1 limitation on your power means maybe an 11 or less chance someone you are interested in is looking at a mirror at that moment.  Each 1 you fail by steps up the time you would have to wait for a definitive answer.


    Those numbers are off the top of my head but they provide a mechanic for a GM.  Works best with a secret roll, the user of the power gets a no response but would not know how long the wait might be.  At -1 it is likely, under normal circumstances, that someone will look in a mirrored surface pretty often.



  10. Hmmm.  Mr Johnson sought to exclude certain press outlets from a media briefing and the rest of the journalists left the room...perhaps there is hope for the British media...




    Better link to the story - the one above will contain different stories as time goes on...


  11. For Boris, losing Scotland taints his legacy "the PM that saw the breakup of the nation". 


    Labour voters have tended to vote for Union.  Boris needs to keep them voting for Union.  If Scottish Labour comes to the conclusion that independence is the best way to get rid of the Tories in Westminster, then the independence arithmetic swings hard to leave.


    It might suit electoral arithmetic for the Tories to lose Scotland but it looks bad for the PM that causes/allows it to happen.



  12. 4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

    A question for our UK Herophiles: in your estimation, is Boris Johnson arrogant or stupid enough to think Scotland wouldn't be a political problem for him post-Brexit? Does he just not care about Scotland, or Northern Ireland, as long as he gets to run England? Or is he playing a clever game that some of us on this side of the pond haven't perceived?


    when it comes down to it, I dont think that Boris is either arrogant or stupid.  I think he considered Scotland a political problem that would exist regardless of his actions, he is not loved there and the bumbling Englishman act does not play as well for that audience.  I do not think that he wants to be the Prime Minister that presides over the break-up of the UK but I do think he underestimates the strength of opinion that is growing in Scotland and the way his NI solution will drive the nationalist agenda over there.  He had a Brexit tiger by the tail and he could see a majority in Westminster waiting as long as he kept hold (with all of the collateral damage that might entail).


    I think Boris' decisions as far as Scotland and NI go, have been made with an eye to that Brexit base (which does not care about either).  I think he believes he can hold things together until he is not as dependent on that constituency and then resolve some of the issues.  The problem is that, to me, the independence momentum in Scotland is looking very much like the Brexit momentum where rational arguments about meta-level trade decisions and how much it might cost are becoming less and less relevant. 


    Boris will use the once in a generation vote for as long as he can.  It will be interesting to see whether the momentum for independence builds up to a level it cannot be ignored or Boris manages to break it down.  He is fighting against the Scottish Labour Party (unionist instincts) deciding that independence, regardless of the cost, would not only get rid of the Tories in Westminster but also shoot the SNP fox (what do they stand for when Scotland is independent, what is their raison d'etre?).


    That is my perspective (not just as UK, not just as a very interested observer in the House of Commons, but also as a Scot).





  13. 40 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

    So basically you're wasting several shots (typically 5-7 of them) to have an average chance of getting 3+ shots into your opponent.


    To be clearer you are spending END or charges to have an average chance of getting 3+ shot into your opponent, it does not waste actions (unless of course you have no charges or END left!!)  🙂



  14. Let's look at a three shot autofire.  With a 11 or less chance to hit.


    In the current system you have a 62.5% chance to hit once, 37.5% of hitting twice and 16.2% chance to hit three times.


    With yours, you have a 37.5% chance to hit with each of your shots.  That means, if my dodgy high school probability works right you have a 43.5% chance to hit once with your three shots, a 27% chance to hit twice and a 5% chance to hit three times.


    I prefer the current system! 🙂



  15. Ah Jack, you mistake need and want. 😄


    I think with just the default sounds it will make little difference.  If someone wants lots of sounds then the size will not matter to them...


    Personally, since I asked for it, I think I will have fun using it. 


    I feel greedy, but if Sentry is looking for further advancement, I would love a way of sharing the rolls made, so being able to set up a small group, the five of us round the table using the app and when a roll is made, it shares the result to everyone in the group...


    I think an app like this removes some of the drudgery (though plenty of my players love rolling dice, many of them hate counting them up!).


    I think it should also provide the potential of engaging more senses in the game - sounds can be really evocative and superheroes, to me, are about flash and colour.  That is what attracted me to comics when I was a kid and it is what keeps drawing me back to superheroes in my gaming.




  • Create New...