Doc Democracy

14 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Never actually played 6e, I saw the 6e weapon chart and was too enraged to continue reading.

Oh my!  I KNEW I should quoted!!!  I meant, for example, Robin Hood with both HERO and Rolemaster.

😄 😀😄😀🤣🤣🤣

Anyone ever tried playing with both systems?  Any significant differences??

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Now, before you say "depends on how you define it", which is more or less true, how does the second one work?  Does it go against PD or ED?  Does it split between them?  Do you average them out?

Too late, depends on how you define it!  😁

But I mean that in narrative terms rather than game ones. 

The electrical crackling field might simply be electricity, bringing in a second effect under the same die roll, if you hit you do the physical damage and, because you brought the electrical field close enough, it also exposes the target to electricity which might mean normal damage to ED or it might mean NND.

On the other hand, the electrical field might enhance the penetration of the cutting edge either doing more damage or more effectively penetrating armour.

It might even cause other effects, rendering the target immobile (due to electric shock) or immobilising the part of the body hit.

It really does need a more detailed description before you get into the mechanics. 🙂

Doc

47 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

But you're not discussing cost fairly. Life Support for either extreme heat or costs 2 points and 4 for both. When it comes to making a character, that's a trade-off of 1 skill on average. Don't compare it to PD/ED compare it to Survival. That's really what the Life Support options are for: superhuman adaptability not superhuman toughness.

And I guess the problem arises when the system blurs the boundaries.  Environmental effects bring combat effects into adaptability questions and the NND effects discussion brigns adaptability powers into combat.  🙂  So what is the system to do.  I like the fact tha things can be drawn from various aspects fo the system to answer questions, it avoids needless duplication in the system.

There is always the thing that the GM says the life support power to withstand extreme heat does not help tyou against a Fire Bolt attack because the attack is causing extreme trauma over a short period of time rather than allowing the character to operate within an extreme environment.  I usually pre-empt such things by raising it with the player when the character is being designed: "Why can he walk through a raging conflagration but will fold when he is hit by a bolt from Johnny Storm??"  That is a management response rather than a system one (relevant in HERO as so much of it is managing the options).

Systemically, I agree with Neil, I think the system claims to be balanced and, if we recognise that claim, then 4 points spent in one area should be reasonably equivalent to 4 points spent in another.

In this very specific issue, I agree with those saying that you should be explicit in your language when designing powers.  I do think that we all recognise that we are often lax in some of our language and, when it comes to the current question, it looks like the intention of the power might not match up with what was written down.  I am inclined, always, to make rulings that are more likely to favour players.  So, if this was a villain, I would be inclined to tell the players that I will rule the NND was stopped by either heat or cold LS.  I would then point out that, next time, only having one of those LS would reduce the effectiveness of the NND rather than stop it (and would then probably build it like Hugh suggested near the start.  If it was a player then I would probably give them a reduced effectiveness (handwaved with a promise to come back and re-model after the game session was finished).

Doc

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

But how many things do you have to add to make it feel simple and clean?

 

Oh Duke, you come so close, sometimes to my fantasy HERO system, which is probably the other side of the spectrum to yours! 

I think there are a few things that could be added and a chunk of stuff taken away.  What you dislike so much is often the complexity people like putting in and the volume of chat around adding that complexity.

You like to eyeball stuff.  You grok the system so deeply that you are happy handwaving a bunch of stuff because you KNOW it will work and trust the underlying system to function in that way.

Problem is that where you see simplicity, other folk, especially new GMs see vague.

They want the detail and when you start looking close at the simulation, it has holes, and so they fill the holes with detail.

I think the biggest holes are partly due to the systems infrastructure.  Personally I see some characteristics as black boxes that skew the skills and powers of the game (others are just counters - like STUN, END, and BODY - or guages - like CV).

Now, I don't think my system would sell outside the nerd HERO ecosystem.  Designers might use it and teenage boys with endless free-time.  what would sell is clear gameable material.

It doesn't matter if DEX is there as characteristic, when I know it is essentially skill levels with all dexterity related skills.  or if STR is there as a number when I know it is skill levels with STR related skills, bonus HtH damage, a gauge of how much mass can be lifted, and bonus leaping.  People expect these numbers because we have been programmed to expect them in our games, not to be able to manipulate them at will.

So.  To the "expert" eye and to the newbie, build complexity is detrimental to play.  Some expert GMs know where things are and can confidently tell their players what to roll, how many dice that would be etc. without needing the complexity on display. The newbie player trusts that GM and the in-game results are consistent enough that the trust grows.

Other GMs expertise gets expressed in them explicitly nailing down the system for their players, either because they need to "see" the detail to judge it or because their players ask so many questions it needs to be upfront.  This is most likely the position in groups where there has not been a guru style person running games, demonstrating the game play rather than the system detail.

My experience is that HERO has heard much more from the second group, not least because it is the one that needs more help with the system.  it has catered to that group by providing the intelligence (system detail) asked for rather than the wisdom (how to run good games with HERO advice) that was needed.

I actually think the ICE books (like Robin Hood and Mythic Greece) were what the system needed, and still needs.  Delivering gameable experiences out the box with an underlying unified system that guru GMs could tweak, if desired.

Doc (channelling Duke style diatribes early in the morning)

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

There is no right answer, it depends on your game and your group.

 

You can play Steampunk as 'slightly above average normals' with special equipment or as fully fledged superheroes, depending on what you want. 

 

What I'd do is reverse engineer it.  Think up a character concept, build the character work out how much it costs, round to the nearest 50 or 25 and give everyone the same points.

 

It also depends on what threats you want them to face.  If they are going to be facing a cunning criminal gang robbing a bank using a clockwork mole, I'd probably go for 50 or 100 points plus free equipment, whereas if I wanted them to face the menace of the city-smashing Steam Titan I'd probably make them steampunk themed superheroes and give them 400 points.

Nice to see you Sean but I reckon, in the past 11 years, the OP has probably made their decisions.  😁

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

What is it?  Well, the monster gets three attacks.

 

HERO can't do that. 

Well, I was thinking of a three attack autofire, with a boost to one of them (the bite).  🙂

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Poison doesnt just kill,  it does damage, which has to be applied, and within parameters determined by how the poison was built.

D&D poison has all kinds of effects beyond killing.  I might be inclined, for save versus death, to give certain SFX death effects, and for everyman to have a physical complication, make a CON roll or die when subjected to that SFX.

Even for instant death stuff, giving vulnerabilities etc can really dial up the lethality for PCs.

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I cast level nine fireball!

 

I cast Ranged Killing Attack!

 

Hiw many dice?

It is easy to build spells that are all or nothing and to limit the flexibility of mages.

I am thinking of mages with very flexible cantrip level magic and fixed spells as they progress through the wizardly "levels".

It will not be D&D, don't want to play that, but it should feel like Greyhawk.

Would not need 6E to do that, but I think 6E is a better tool than 1E.

Doc

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

The fact That those first two were for the same game, and the fact that the first western I ever played in used Traveller as the base, suggests that a background and mechanics aren't tied together too terribly tightly.    factorinf in the thousands of home brewed settings across the hobby, and it's a lead pipe cinch that replacing the setting is far more about want-to than it is about can-do.

 

One might go so far as to say that the setting is almost exteranneous, especially when one considers how many of our early favorites had no setting at all.

OK.  You can use any system to play any setting.  Often using the system you all know is better than any other system for ease of gameplay.

However, a well-thought-through system drives and rewards actions that enhance the setting and deters actions that go against the setting mores.

Often it comes down to how much effort you want, and need, given your group, to drive the game you want to run.

7 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

No.  6e brings needless complexity.  Just stick with FH 1e and the Bestiary and you8 should be fine.

I disagree, not about the complexity, but about needless. 

1E and 6E are performing entirely different tasks.  1E is giving you a very specific game experience, 6E is giving you the tools to create multiple game experiences. 

Now, if you are content with the granted experience 6E is not needed.  If you want to create both Newhon and Greyhawk and Glorantha experiences, then 6E is a better toolbox than 1E.

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Try this:

 

Major Transform: from normal,but to guy who's location shows up on certain detection devices.

You are too late Duke, I got there in 2015, scroll up!

34 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

The biggest difference you will find is figured characterisitics and a lack of "package deals," if you are only looking at the mechanics.

 

The biggest difference you will find if you are looking at the overall products is that the first edition of Fantasy HERO is a complete and ready-to-play game.  

 

There is so much focus on the system that HERO Games no longer actually makes games.  That pqrt is on you.

 

 

Hmm. I do believe Duke just said what I said but added detail and did so in fewer words!  Surely that is a first and possibly worth celebrating?!?

2 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Everything is compatible enough from the beginning until now that you could pick up a character sheet from an arbitrary edition, and almost as is play it in any other arbitrary edition. 

I endorse this perspective of edition comparisons...

If you enjoyed Fantasy HERO in first edition, you can continue to play it.  HERO has been on a journey, going from a bunch of related games (Champions, Fantasy HERO, Justice Inc, Danger International) to a generic underlying system HERO System.

The big books like 6E Fantasy HERO do not give you a playable game but instead guidance on how to build a variety of fantasy games with different flavours.  One of which might indeed be first edition Fantasy HERO!

Unless you are desperate to build the game you want to play (or have an interest in reading round the tropes of various fantasy genres) stick to the books you own.  You will quickly be gaming.

I found the Fantasy HERO book useful as I tried to decide how I will package the HERO System for my players to play in Greyhawk.

Doc

3 hours ago, Alcamtar said:

If you like 6E, then yes. Personally I have almost fully abandoned it and have been thinking of running a 1e campaign as-is, because the flavor and tone and even the rules are quite different. I liked FH 4e a lot too.

I quoted just the beginning.  OMG, what a huge post!  🙂

@Duke Bushidohas a post size rival!  😁😇

THAT, is a lot of work.  Very generous to share.

21 minutes ago, Steve said:

If you want a more Swords & Sorcery feel for magic weapons, there is always the Stormbringer RPG approach, binding spirits (demons) into them as the means of enchanting them.

Am a huge fan of Runequest and a lot of my inspiration for more bespoke magic has come from running games in Glorantha.  Binding spirits into items is almost the default in Glorantha!

7 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Were they? Did they?

 

Of the three editions I played, 3rd seemed to go into the most detail about making magic items. You needed the appropriate feat (-- Craft Magic Arms and Armor -- and one or more spells that defined the capabilities of the item. For weapons the spell was, of course, magic weapon, which appeared on both cleric and sorcerer/wizard spell lists. For armor, well, magic armor was 1st level on the sor/wiz list; clerics had magic vestment: though it was a 3rd level spell, characters couldn't acquire the feat until 5th level, the spell level made no difference for who was better able to make magic armor. Beyond that, I suppose you could go through the list of magic weapons, armor and shields and tot up which classes had access to more of the prerequisite spells, but I'm not going to. The rules for magic item creation consistently refer to the generic "spellcaster." IIRC the flavor text mentioned how divine spellcasters would spend the necessary gold on holy relics and elaborate priestly paraphernalia for rites of consecration. So that edition, at least, made pretty clear that religion didn't need wizards to make magic items.

 

Dean Shomshak

All good points, I could (but wont) go into the differences between setting and system.

I was commenting on Mr R's question about what about the various gods asking for items to be made for their members.  This was going to the question of the numbers of wizzards etc.  I think that when anyone thinks of a magical item being made, they often envisage an artificer type wizard rather than a cleric.  I am all for popping that particular balloon.

Your comments however reinforce my concerns about magic items being made via the clerical route having a different feel in-game to those made through wizardry.  D&D made no real distinction which I think is a bit detrimental to the setting (and one I intend to rectify).  Obviously there will be items that may require oth arcane and clerical input - I am immediately looking at you +5 Holy Avenger longsword....  🙂

Doc

8 hours ago, Mr. R said:

 

I didn't word it properly, sorry.  So you want a magic item made.  OK pay the Exp Pts, and then you can have it made.  But in the last expedition to the dungeon you found a pair of +1 swords.  So we will DISenchant them so we can farm their magic to make your own Special Weapon.  Basically the lower powered weapons are ingredients in the new weapon.  

That is indeed another use for those low level magic items.  Again, I would be making the distinction - the PC could pay gold and have this better item artificed for them (and almost certainly lose at some point in the future) or, for a better story, spend XP, do it themself and have an item that they will only ever lose temporarily (or when an even better story opportunity arises).

Doc

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I dont know, Man....

 

If we are recreating old school D and D and Greyhawk, ask me if I would rather have a sword plus three, or one with a finely-honed sense of comedic timing and trust issues....

Trust issues or thrust issues??

I think Greyhawk was a setting with a sense of humour, it was pre-continuity, pre-grimdark and almost certainly breached the fourth wall on multiple occasions.

I reckon you can have it all.  Sometimes a +3 sword is just a +3 sword, on others it becomes your annoying sidekick.

Doc

3 hours ago, Mr. R said:

Also lets not forget that the various gods will be asking for items to be made for their members.

What I never understood was why weapons were almost uniquely arcane in nature.  If gods want magic weapons then why not provide them to their followers?

I have an idea of holy weapons, they are blessed by priests and gain their bonuses via the power of prayer, possibly coming with a small bonus to hit and damage but which have additional benefits that require the "power of prayer". 

So essentially the weapons have charges or END reserves that can only be re-charged by seeking out a relevant congregation, led by a priest, which draw the deities power back into the weapon.  I would even consider only giving the basic benefits to hit and damage as long as a single charge or point of END remains.

Using the weapon delivers a relationship with the deity and the wielder would be watched by the God, ensuring it was used "properly".

I don't think religions should need to rely on wizards for magic.

3 hours ago, Mr. R said:

Finally if you are using Hero, then Items are Independent and PCs must pay points for them, UNLESS they can get some certain items that can be used in their place, like some low level magic items that can be harvested for their magic.  

While I am all for taking foci from people, inconveniencing and frustrating players depending on the discounts they sought when building their characters, I was never in favour of them losing experience points.

Items should come and go, unless points are paid for them.  If XP has been used then SOMEHOW that item finds its way back into their hands.   The reason that some weapons are part of the character sheet and others exist purely in the equipment list.

1 hour ago, DShomshak said:

It also explains why some magic items are sentient, and possibly strong-willed. The circumstance of the item's empowerment also imprinted the bearer's personality -- or maybe it holds the actual soul. And as ghosts are often portrayed, that soul may be obsessive or vindictive. Like, Ardra's Shield pushes its bearer to seek out fights with orcs. Because Ardra gave his life killing orcs and isn't going to stop now... or ever.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

I am inclined to think of it more like a shard of his life-force, something more single-minded and not a full-fledged personality.

However, sometimes the whole personality is there and perhaps, for a while, submerged until something provokes it into revealing itself.  Or the shard has grown over time gecoming more rounded.

🙂

So many better ways than just giving a +3 on a weapon.

40 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I practiced writing adventures by doing D&D module conversions, I did a dozen or so (and even some Warhammer Quest modules) to get used to the patterns, the format, the mechanics of changing over etc.  It was a lot of fun, and gave me content to run in my Fantasy Hero campaign, although some are too familiar to be useful for a game.

I am intending to make good use of the legacy stuff I have.  I reckon I am going to start with "Fate of Istus" before seguing into "Five shall be one" and "Howl from the north".

I think that will be enough to get started.

2 hours ago, assault said:

Maybe that's what you need to do. Not overthink.

If I didnt know you had been about for as long as I have, I would think you had never met a HERO GM.  Don't overthink?!!  You might as well tell me to play D&D!!  😄

5 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Claw -Claw -Bite

 

 

It will be the ability of monsters to do lots of damage upfront that will make them scarier than almost anything else.  Three killing attacks each phase...

43 minutes ago, Opal said:

Fortunately you're not going for that.

I hope not!  😄

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Grayhawk feels pretty generic faux-European to me, and being a D&D setting makes it feel even more generic.  I don't mean that as a criticism, my world in part is pretty generic faux-European as well.  Its just hard to make that kind of setting feel distinct or to capture its feel.

Almost like saying Lord of the Rings is a bit of a generic quest against Big Evil.  Just happened to be the one everything else copied or kicked off from/against.  🙂

This thread is relatively meta, but it does ask the question of what are the tropes that make that faux-European setting.  What was Gygax reaching for while being limited in how that was expressed by his game system? What is it about D&D that makes it feel like a D&D setting?  WotC got it wrong in 4th Edition.  While it may have been been a decent system, people did not feel D&D when playing it.

I want to incentivise folk to hug the D&D feels while being liberated to escape the limitations, so am exploring what that means for creating the game.

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Alternatively, magic items are always magic.  Even a wand with Charges, if left alone for a couple if decades, will return to full charge.  Those that are broken or destroyed will reappear in a century or two.  Factor in a world age of ten thousand years or so, and you could litter the place with magical items.

I like to think the magic items found in wilderness and dungeons were mundane items imbued with the spirit of the person wearing/using it when they died under heroic circumstances.  That +3 Shield was held by Ardra who held back a horde of orcs while his comrades escaped.  It wasn't magical when he was using it but part of his departing life-force remained in that object, helping defend others even after his death.

47 minutes ago, Grow-Arm-Hair Lad said:

Anyway, the idea of playing D&D modules and using Hero to build the characters, I think it's a great idea. 

I do too.  I want a better system but if I let the players go wild I don't think I will get the Greyhawk feel that I want/need. 🙂

I am not going to stick to the limitations if D&D, and so some of the mix and match you are talking about is indeed what I am aiming for, I just need it to make sense in the setting.

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I like mundane names that sound innocuous but, if you know, it really isn't.  I have been racking my brain for something topical and the best I can manage is the Street Sweepers.  🙂  I went through all kinds of combinations but too many of them ended up sounding a bit too local government-y (and not in a good way).

oh! oh! the Road Crew