Doc Democracy

Re: Re-vitalising the speed chart

Re: Re-vitalising the speed chart Ooh! Just had a thought. The same thing might be effected and the current numbers retained by indicating that "an action must be taken by segment..." rather than "an action may be taken as of segment..." This will be how I run things until I make it better! :-) I think this might take away some of the problems people have with the SPD chart. A SPD 4 character has phases on 3, 6, 9 and 12. That means that when the turn starts on segment 1 a SPD 4 character must take an action by segment 3, by segment 6 etc or else they would not get all four actions in a turn. It can be amazing how a different emphasis can make a huge difference in approach. Doc

I'm a fan of the speed chart. I think it is something that makes the system stand out from a lot of the others - a method of regulating actions and delivering initiative all rolled up into one package. What surprises me is that so many people dislike it and the answer is more often than not to accept it grudginly or replace it completely. Has no-one ever thought of using it differently? My thoughts have drifted this way because I am in the process of developing a Glorantha HERO game. RQII uses a 12 click turn and actions take place within that turn based on how long they take to occur. For example, if it takes 2 clicks to fire an arrow then the archer fires an arrow on 2 (+5 for generic readying time, +2 for another arrow) then 9 and there is not enough clicks left for a third arrow. If it only took 1 click then the archer would fire on 1 and 7. Movement was click based. A human had a move of 8 (each move represented 3m) and each 3m moved added 1 to the time the arrow fired. So in the example of the 2 click archer if he moved 6m inbetween firing the second arrow then the arrow would have flown on 2 and 11. Now this doesn't fit exactly into the Hero way but its made me think that perhaps I could present the spd chart differently. In most fantasy games SDPs are going to be 2,3 and 4. Given the way that most players react to the SPD chart that means that actions will be taken on segments 3,4,5,6,8,9 and 12. In a few games I've run I told players that a round was split into two parts in which each person would get one action (SPD 2), some characters would get a bonus action in the second part of the round (SPD 3) and some characters would get bonus actions in both parts (SPD 4). I realise that I've changed the chart a bit here but the players took to it better than when they knew I was using the SPD chart. It also felt fairer. For example, Captain Quick of the City Guard (SPD 4) is fighting Slow Joe (SPD 2). Using the chart the captain attacks on 3 and 6 before Joe gets to retaliate and then again on 9 and 12 before Joe retaliates. In my rough example then the captain would attack then Joe then the captain twice and then Joe before a final attack by the captain. I was wondering if it was worth reversing the actions so that everyone went on 1 rather than 12 and combats could, more intuitively begin on segment 1 rather than segment 12. SPD 2 would then go on 1 and 7, SPD 4 on 1,4,7 and 10 (even as I type it the numbers feel wrong but the prinicple feels right). This would give the same pattern as I used in my two actions plus bonuses. In the Glorantha HERO I was thinking of making everyone a default SPD 1 and then building weapons that would add SPD. So a bow, for example, might add2 SPD while a broadsword added 1 and a great axe added nothing. Thus everyone would attack on 1, the archer would fire his second arrow on 5, the broadsword would swing again on 7 and the archer would fire his third on 9. A final point is that when using the spd chart I almost always see players go immediately that the first segment of their phase comes up. I think I need to emphasise that for a SPD 4 character, the advent of segment 3 doesn't mean he has to act then, it simply means he is now able to act and may do so in that segment or either of the following two segments before he loses that action. Long post - not sure if I was coherent but I am looking for people that have used or have considered using the SPD chart in a different way from that presented in the book rather than simply deciding to ditch it. Doc

Re: Dumb question

Re: Dumb question It is actually quite simple if you can draw it out in front of you. The centre hex of the explosion gets the full 7D6. Each hex surrounding the centre gets one less DC (6.5D6) Each hex surrounding those hexes gets one less die (6D6+1) etc etc So you get a series of concentric circles each getting less damage. Someone in the fourth circle would get 6D6 damage, someone in the 5th would get 5.5D6. In your case the person is 4" from the centre hex (or the fifth circle) and so would take 5.5D6 damage. Doc [edit - too slow in typing obviously! I think I disagreed about the distance - I can see two interpretations and mine is probably wrong]

Re: waiting for a good roll

Re: waiting for a good roll Dagnabbit Sean - why do you always ruin the answers I was going to type. Talk about precognition! I think that Sean has nailed the necessary. All those people saying that precognition is necessary - you are wrong on two counts in my opinion. The power precognition as written in the book is not necessary, the SFX of precognition would only be necessary if the ability to hit was being defined. This is simply getting an idea of whether enough damage potential is being generated before firing the shot. If the character wants to abort the attack (ie not actually fire the shot) before he rolls the to hit dice but is willing to accept the manouevre modifiers for getting into a position to shoot then what's the big deal. There is no player benefit from that at all, the action is still burnt, even the END is spent. The way I see it working is the player rolls the damage dice - sees how much damage the attack will generate and then decides whether to roll the to hit dice. Slightly different in how it normally works but, as Sean pointed out, unless there is a desire to nullify manouevre benefits and disads the only power that is required is Energy Blast. All IMO obviously. Doc

Re: Shrinking as an attack power? I once used Shrinking (invisible power effects) to model a desolid character that could hit you because his fists weer still solid. The reduced DCV modelled the fact that you had to hit his hands to actually do him any damage... Doc

Re: Determining Gravitic Pull Hmmm. Perhaps I was hasty! The r in the equation would measure from the 'centre' of one mass to the 'centre' of the other. As Force will increase inversely with the square of that distance then you get the Force quadrupling as the distance of r halves (correct?). It wouldn't matter whether the shape of the substance was a sphere or a square or humanoid. Just the distance from the 'centre' of the mass. Composition therefore matters while shape does not - the more dense the material is then the smaller it is with regard to similar masses and thus the smaller the distance of r and thus the much greater increase in F. I think that puts us on the same page a la neutronium Keith, yes? Doc

Re: Determining Gravitic Pull Oooh gravity. Well, the simple part I'll jump in and answer first. Gravity is a question of mass and thus shape and composition do not affect this. Given sensitive enough equipment then any mass will have a noticeable effect on any other mass - the earth pulls you toward it and we pull the earth towards us - its reciprocal but the earth wins out on a massive scale! We have no real handle on gravity and how it works (haven't discovered gravitons or anything like that yet) so all our stuff is based on measurements which are all distorted by the presence of other gravity inducing masses around the experiment. The equation used to describe the attraction between two bodies of matter is F = G(Mm/r^2) Where F is the force of attraction [measured in Newtons (N)], the mass of one body is M and the other is m, the distance between them is r and the gravitational constant is G [6.67 x 10^-11 N(m^2/kg^2)]. That's the equation. I'm not sure what force we begin to sense with our skin but I'd suspect that in a gravity well it may have to be within orders of magnitude of the gravity well (tenth or a hundredth at least). Doc

Re: Stop Power I thought about desolidification but it was difficult to define what he was desolid against and then everything else he used would have to have an advantage to affect the solid world. If I was going to handwave that then I thought that I should simply handwave a talent/perk or whatever I was going to call it... My first thought was that it was a form of clinging - though there was no solid surface on which to cling. I suppose that it could simply be an advantaged clinging and use the rules for that. Doc

Re: Stop Power

Re: Power Build: "Portal" power Well said Ghost-Angel. The protals are essentially common SFX round which the player should base a whole series of powers. Clairsentience would be a good one as he peeks through a portal, missile deflection would be another as he ports the missile behind him (reflection would mean the portal switched the attack around). All kinds of options without any need to describe the portal itself - just the game effects you want to be able to achieve with it. Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs Pretty much, in my head it was whether that making two players pay different amounts of points for the same ability (e.g. 25 STR). In Hero that would seemingly be anathema - the concept should explain the ability not influence the cost. I think in a superhero context that I'd be with Hugh but in Fantasy where points aren't the be all and end all I'm more relaxed about point tallies. Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs As I said earlier in the thread (I think), I can see the gamist viewpoint (a pure Hero System viewpoint) that every player should be able to buy the same abilities for the same number of points. There is an inherent feeling of fairness in that approach. When I create a campaign, however, I often have a very strong idea of the way things wor in that campaign and the inds of things that I want to see. Now, if my worldview is that superstrong humans are exceedingly rare but I am willing to allow players to play other races as long as they accept the hardwired disads that come with those races then I think the Hero System supports me in enforcing that - I change NCMs to reflect what races I want to be strong and what races can be super dextrous. Obviously the players have the option of following my vision of the the world or contradicting it. If they contradict it then it costs them points. A human that is superstrong - extra point cost. A troll that does not suffer from social consequences - extra points. Not 'fair' as far as point counting goes, but fair as far as my vision of the world goes. Surely the point of the toolbox in the first place. Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

Re: Bye all What's a Scotsh person??

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs I hope not, it does explore an area that I often simply ignore because I don't see the deal side. It is true that the change in NCM only affects those people who choose to exceed the figure and that an increased NCM only benefits those that want to exceed the normal NCM. I was responding to a comment that changing NCMs would be abused as only those players wanting a higher DEX would choose an elf. Well, if there is some benefit that players want to purchase then they should be allowed to purchase that. If you want an increased NCM perhaps you should be thinking of playing an elf rather than an abnormally dextrous human. I have no problem with making being an elf cost more than being a human for that. If a GM is worried that something will get overused then they make it cost more. I see the other side - a purist Hero perspective would say that the elf/human/dwarf labels come after the mechanics - possibly as a way of justifying breaching NCM limits and thus everyone pays the same for their characteristics. Personally - I like encouraging certain things and if I want the majority of dextrous sentients to be of a certain race then I change the rules to encourage players wanting to be dextrous to choose that race - along with any disadvantages and limitations that being a member of that race might entail. Hero is good at allowing things like racial discrimination to be written right onto the character sheet and gives the GM an obligation to ensure that the disadvantage disadvantages the player. Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs My response to that would be the opposite of "if something does not limit the character then it is not worth any points". If I was to have a normal NCM of 20 for all the stats and was then to have someone buy NCM that changed stuff and believed those changes would advantage the player picking them then I think I should charge for that. I would have the package deal contain some things that players might not want to deal with as part of their racial package deal. Or I'd call it something other than a package deal. Doc

Re: Mental combat using combat mechanics I have been thinking something similar. You might want to look at this thread where there were a few good points made. Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs That's not a bad idea either. You are simply making new NCM templates for the different races. My problem with this in Hero is that the characteristics aren't differentiated enough as it is - tying people down to 15 makes things even worse. If I was going to do this then I think that I'd change the valuation of the skill system so that each point counts - something like CHA - 2. That would mean that Tightrope Walking would start at 8- (26% success rate) with DEX 10 and maxing out at 13- for DEX 15 (84% success rate). Every point of the characteristic then has some value in the skills - which are far more important in a Heroic game. Doc

Re: XP idea I always give bonus experience as directed experience - improving someone's ability or skill or contacts or reputation etc. I have been designing my own version of Gloranthan Hero and have recently been pondering about experience. In RQ people got ticks and could roll for improvements - they got harder as the skill improved and they could spend money and time to train other skills. I've decided to take this on - I like seeing improvements to characters (other than superheroes - I like them being constant for some strange reason). I've decided to give people rolls against skills that they successfully used and to be able to buy training up to a certain point. With the training I intend to require a roll and with both training and experience rolls I intend to improve the skill/talent etc with a successful roll or a relevant KS with a failed roll. Then I can afford to be stingy with experience points where players can freeform improve their characters. Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs Yeah, my 1/2 orcs got 3 STR for 2 points - I wasn't so stupid to reduce the cost to 0! I also tried to find funky stuff to put in the package deals, it's amazing what players will do when they get odd knowledge skills and disadvantages through a package deal. One 1/2 Orc got Reputation: Attends Drum Parties - that gave him the fantasy reputation of being a raver and implied drug use and knowledge while his KS: Tattoo recognition was used extensively in game. Players are most creative when you least expect it! Doc