Doc Democracy

Re: Meta SFX

Perhaps I have been stating things a bit strongly. I like the vast separation between mechanics and SFX. A little bit of mixing of the two I find decent and helpful. More starts to deteriorate the possibilities for creative and original game authoring. If we still want Hero to be able to' date=' "handle anything," then I believe the degree to which the mechanics interfere with the SFX cannot increase beyond the state of the current system.[/quote']

 

Oh come now Presdigitator! How are we supposed to argue when you behave so reasonably!

 

 

Doc

Re: Another Suggestion for Dropping Figured Characteristics

Then you misunderstand what I want from the system. I want to remove the complexity and steep learning curve. I also want to smooth out some of the "issues" most people seem to have with the system [strength being too cheap' date= for example]. I have no desire to change it beyond that.

Obviously you will know what you want better than me. I thought that removing one of the major subsystems of Hero would remove complexity and aid in levelling the learning curve.

This may also provide an opportunity to cut the Gordian Knot of STR cost by removing STR as a concept.

You are, like the rest of us, conservative at hearth though. Too much change frightens us - would we still be playing the same system? I think so, others would not.

Anyway - I'm not advocating this as a change just indicating that if I was going to go to all the trouble of adjusting the characteristics to remove figured then I think I'd go the extra mile to think about what the system would look like without all of those black box powers that we call characteristics.

Doc

Re: Another Suggestion for Dropping Figured Characteristics

Yeah, that's a little radical.

 

My reasons for dropping figured characteristics is to primarily deal with the strength bonus bricks get, but also to bring everyone back to the same level playing field. It also allows you to have more interesting character combinations without needing to buy-back characteristics. So you want the strong but unhealthy brick? No problem. Just don't buy him as much Con, End, Rec, and Stun. That way you don't need to deal with the "only allowed to sell back one figured characteristic rule" as well.

I'd have thought you'd be interested in a change like this as it would possibly lead to a lesser required upfront investment in learning the system - don't worry about characteristics - just learn the power and skills systems.

I was thinking of you when I wrote it!

Doc

Re: Another Suggestion for Dropping Figured Characteristics

Most of the comments here simply indicate how interlinked much of the system (inevitably?) is.

You can't change the characteristics without considering those powers (like drains etc) that were designed to predate upon them. This is an ecology and you have to consider all the aspects of changes imposed on that ecology.

Re: Another Suggestion for Dropping Figured Characteristics

The only thing I have against dropping figured characteristics is that it seems like fiddling around the edges. If I was going to rework characteristics then I think I'd get rid of characteristics completely.

That would streamline the system as it would remove another way of getting package deals. Characteristics are a throwback to first generation rpgs.

I would give each character the basic abilities that the current starting characteristics give - 2d6 normal damage, CV3, 10 BODY etc etc just like the 6" running that everyone gets.

Anything more that you wanted, you would buy as a power.

I realise that this is a radical departure from current 5ER but if you want to change things then go the whole way and do it 'properly'

Doc

Re: Lets cut the crap...

I think ease of learning is way too limited a basis for evaluation' date=' too singular. By that method, as others have said MSH would be a superb system. I'd argue d20 "sucks" because I don't think that's easy to learn, either, anymore. Both Champions and AD&D (at least early AD&D) were reasonable to learn, though neither scored high marks for overall ease in my book, with Champions having a major edge due to its high consistency.[/quote']

 

Personally I think that ease of learning (at least enough to play) is definitely up there as one of the two or three important features of a game.

 

Sidekick was an attempt to get people playing quickly and lead them into the full game.

 

RDU Neil's sportscar analogy is along this line as well.

 

People simply do not tend to spend time learning a game - they want to dive in and play it befoer they have to learn it.

 

Doc

Re: Meta SFX

One example I like to use is this: what if a magical spell is defined as temporarily summoning a sword into being' date=' and that sword is used against a foe who has some kind of, "magic resistance" (i.e. some defense or other Power that is, "Only vs. Magic," whether through a Limitation or inherent restriction such as that found in Adjustment Powers). Now, is the attack magical merely because it is defined as a spell, or is it simply an attack by a sword just like one that was not, "summoned?" Should it be determined based on whether the spell is an HKA or a Summon? I don't think so; that is a matter of mechanics, not SFX, and the two are supposed to be independent. It really has to be a judgement call, IMO.[/quote']

 

I understand where you are coming from but the problem a lot of people find with the system is the number of judgement calls that are necessary from the GM.

 

As an experienced HERO player, I'm sure that you are able to do this kind of thing very easily. I know that I am comfortable, in game, in allowing one person's RKA to affect a target and not anothers based simply on SFX.

 

However you are, in effect, running things from an SFX perspective as is being discussed. You are, in principle, with the people that want to see some role for SFX in the mechanical effects of the game. You simply don't want to produce a broad categorisation of SFX.

 

I think that this would be very useful to people coming new to the game. It would make the powers more accessible and less open to results against the common sense of the game being played. Like any other part of the game I think that a confident GM could scrap it and use a wider and more fluid interpretation (as you appear to do).

 

 

Doc

Re: An Open Call to Action

I can't believe Hero players are arguing about whether they would want to be involved in this. Surely Hero is the ultimate tinkerers system and played by the ultimate tinkerers. And surely this is the ultimate tinker!

Course I'm interested. Course I want to discuss it - that's why I come to these boards - I see this as a Mega-thread rather than some subversive group out to change Hero from under the feet of loyal fans.

DOJ and any other rpg producer has a problem in that they need to keep selling books but rpgs allow you to continue playing a game with just imagination and the first core books they ever printed.

I can see (with electronic publishing becoming more and more viable) companies having many versions of their rules that would be 'in print' at the same time allowing people to play the version they want to play. If you love 3rd edition they'd have third edition available for your group to purchase. If it was 5th then you could go for that.

Just as obviously supplements would be designed with a particular edition in mind and there might possibly be conversion notes available.

I would hope that DOJ read this with the same interest they read everything else. If the group had good ideas that they shared opely and DOJ used them in a future edition - then that'd be cool. If they never did then that'd be fine too - I'd have had a blast discussing one of my favourite systems with a number of other people equally as interested. I might even learn some stuff.

As I've pointed out in the past I think that an ultimate book with a range of 'house rule' options would be a must buy for me. Things that changed basic concepts and explained the effects that these changes would have on game play would be the core content of such a book. This project would be a good source of material for such a book. How could I not be interested - how could any Hero fan not be interested in discussing the basics of the system and looking at the effects of changing those basics?

Doc

Doc

Re: Meta SFX

Well, if you have the SFX types for your own campaign tucked away in memory, it should be a snap to fit them all under Meta categories.

 

Lessee, Poison is biological, Acid... I guess it counts as environmental. I dunno, I think Environmental may be too much of a catch-all, you may need to subdivide it to decrease its breadth of SFX. Perhaps "Phenomenon" (Light, Fire, Plasma, anything that is not a solid, liquid or gas) and "Physical" (Acid, Magma, etcetera).

In the earlier discussion we were thinking that if you had a list of special effects that you'd want to keep it down to 20 maximum. When you create your adjustment power you would choose one SFX that would have full value against the attack and possibly one or two that had half value.

So the poison adjustment that you were talking about could be biological but chemical and mutant might give half protection...

Doc

Re: Meta SFX

I'm up for this kind of thing. It was discussed earlier this year in this thread.

Doc

Re: Set Distribution by Rolling 3d6 (or 1d6, 2d6, 4d6, etc.) for All Damage/Effect Rolls

I've always had the problem that if I was rolling 12D6 that my damage rarely varied less than 35 or greater than 49. I wanted access to the 12 to 72 range.

I've toyed with a few systems of tying in damage to dice rolls so that if you hit well below the required number you do more damage and if you hit close to the required roll you do less. That has an advantage in character design as a fast agile martial artist doesn't need scads of dice to damage a slow moving brick - he'll be doing maximum damage each time while the brick, if he lands a punch will likely only be doing glancing damage. The archetypes are truer.

On the negative side you stop rolling scads of dice which is always nice as you charge up your fist with the 24D6 pushed haymaker that you've manouevered your opponent into having to take on the chin....

Doc

Re: How would you simulate this?

Am I wrong or are we getting caught up in trying to describe the special effects rather than the mechanics?

Could a homing round not simply provide a lot of OCV and take a couple of segments to reach its target?

My reasoning is that if I make a to hit roll but the target does not take damage immediately and indeed may have even a slight chance of getting something in the way, then that is a limitation on my attack (I should get to do the damage immediately).

If the limitation is something like (missile travels 10" per segment, follows target unerringly once 'locked on' -1/4) then someone could get themselves behind a closed door that would take the hit (if they could travel faster than the 10"/segment to the door), otherwise they'd get hit a few segments after I fired the round. My 'to hit' roll would simulate the lock on. If I failed the attack roll then I wouldn't have managed to lock on to the target at all and the missile would miss.

My suggestion is to buy an EB with the limitation as above - the round you are talking about isn't better than a regular shot it is worse.

Doc

Re: Possession - Desolid + Mental Powers

The construct I've been toying with for possession is a combo of transform and duplication...

Essentially what I'm thinking is that the possessing character buys duplication. When he wants to possess someone then he uses the transform to transform the target into the merged character of which he is part.

The merged character would have the INT and EGO of the possesser and everything else from the possessed character.

My thoughts are that there a limit on how big (points wise) a character could possibly be possessed through the point limits in the duplication construction.

It seems a bit twisted at first but it does use an existing construction to combine two characters into one. I haven't done any number crunching or anything but I think it would be a reasonable way to make Jericho for example...

Doc

Re: How to...take all powers away.

I am creating a character for a Champions campaign. This character will have the ability, in a limited form, to take away another persons powers. All of them at once. He could not take away techological based powers, he could not take away magic, and he could not take away superskill. However, any mutants, radiation accidents, etc would loose all thier abilities.

 

Drain, Suppress, transform?

I think that transform was created for this kind of thing.

The original argument in Champions III (if I remember correctly) was that if you could do enough damage to kill someone then you should be able to do other things to them instead - such as strip them of all their powers...

Re: Weapons as Perks

When I first saw the title I thought that you were going to require characters to buy perks to be allowed to use particular weapons - such as only a knight could carry a sword and only a yeoman would be allowed access to a long bow. Obviously not.

I was interested in the idea of people looting dead bodies for weapons though. If you wanted to charge for points and avoid the looting problem then maybe you want to make the campaign work against looting. My friend and I came up with an anti-cliche campaign where we tried to put in ground rules that would reverse any of the standard fantasy genre stuff.

We wanted to stop the looting of bodies etc and so came up with the idea that the possessions of someone who died, unless they were replaced with something of equal value would carry a geas. The person who stole an item would be bound to complete an unfinished task of the dead person. This geas would be more powerful with the value or power of the item.

Obviously this would not stop looting but it would make people think more than twice and would potentially lead to interesting campaign twists as well.

Doc

Re: The DEATH of the HERO System!!!

Isn't dinner a mid-afternoon meal' date=' and supper an evening one? Or is that just a farm thing? [/quote']

 

A meal in the mid-afternoon is most likely to be High Tea...

 

 

There are any number of names given to meals over here. When I was at school we had dinner time at midday and tea time in the early evening. When I moved to England Dinner became lunch and tea became dinner.

 

When I began to move in better class circles I also became aware of Brunch, High Tea and Supper as distinct meal times (for those people that could afford five or six meals a day!)

Re: The DEATH of the HERO System!!!

Is dinner over there supper or lunch? Regional differences in terms is a recent obsession of mine...

It depends where in the country you are.

In the north then dinner will be lunch and in the south it is more likely to mean supper...

It can casue confusion.

Re: The DEATH of the HERO System!!!

I'd just like to add that I was impressed at the supply of damaged books to the UK, when shipping is taken into account DOJ were almost paying me to take books.

When you're next over here Steve (or any of the other DOJ staffers) then dinner is on me.

Doc

Re: Lethality in Star Wars

I am busily converting old WEG Star Wars material to Hero and having a problem with the lethality. No one wears personal armor(except Stormies). And, without allowing truly silly amounts on Combat Luck, I can't think of a way to keep characters for getting killed easily.

 

Any suggestions, or should I give in and use Feng Shui instead.

 

John

It does seem to be a genre issue.

The mechanics thing to do is, like people have suggested, make blaster damage against NPCs killing and against PCs normal. That simple change does increase the longevity of PCs compared to everyone else - it also avoids many other changes. If you also standardise damage from the stormtroopers weapons (3 STUN/1 BODY per dice) it also means that only you have to be aware of the differences on a minute by minute basis (I'd tell the players of their special advantage so that they feel more free to swashbuckle while others are falling around them).

The CV differences are also important. I wouldn't make stormtrooper armour valueless - they did simply seem to walk through the rebels when it came to close combat. I would discourage the wearing of stormtrooper armour by players (except for camouflage purposes) by telling them that when they are wearing it they will take killing damage like everyone else...

These help enforce genre conventions and would all be a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Doc

Re: Building Political Intrege

I think that the advice has been good so far.

Keep it simple and keep the PCs involved.

I would have some broad relationships on a grid (for a few major factions e.g. four noble houses, Mayor, thieves guild, adventurers guild etc). These would inform specific relationships for particular NPCs (who would only have to be detailed if the PCs were to meet them and find this out).

PCs might be expected to know the broad outlines but only you would have to know the detailed ones. In fact, intrigue becomes real when the relationship depends on who is telling you about it (it takes a lot of work to find out who is really on who's side).

Doc

Re: The Force--Need Help!

I would have some distinction between light and dark side stuff.

We all know that the dark side is quicker, easier, more seductive...

I would allow players to buy powers whenever they want them with the proviso that they know that powers bought when xp aren't immediately available are likely to come through the dark side - I'd give physical and psychological disads to the cost of the power used.

I'd also allow players to push powers beyond their normal strengths - again at the cost of accumulating Phys and Psych disads (always something bad).

That would give the feel that the Dark Side is easier to use but leads to the inevitable decline of the person. I might even allow the amount that a power can be pushed to increase based on the points of dark side related disads already present on the character sheet....

Doc

Re: Demo Game

The Metamorph

The problem with the cursed guy is that besides Mr. Hyde and shapeshifters, I don't know of many others that have similar powers.

Well, there's always the old Wolfman standby - weres are rife through mythology and there were always stories of nobles and others that could change into animals....

Re: Deathstroke

Hmm. Interesting stuff.

I made a Deathstroke clone for my 4th edition game that was essentially some pretty average stats beefed up with SPD 12 and a stack of combat levels.

The 12 SPD meant that he had plenty of opportunity to either pour on the pain or recover himself.

The reasoning worked well - for the first time the group worked like a team (after they got their butts handed to them in the first fight) delaying so that someone was attacking on every single segment - thus reducing his chance to recover or switch to attack mode, ignoring DCV in a segment where no hero could attack to maximise damage etc.

They won the second encounter with relative ease (at least they made him run away).

Doc

Re: Finally figured out what I hate about Star Wars in RPGs

I disagree. Anything that does a massive enough amount of damage will have those effects--that which you hit will be destroyed (which would give the result that you mention). Still, in theory, somebody like Superman could probably resist such a weapon.

 

And lets look at your contention: Lightsabers have one of 3 possible effects against a human sized foe. Death. Limb removal (which comes without any actual damage, since the limbs are removed cleanly and bloodless every time). Miss.

 

Please explain a scene from the movies. . . . Near the end of Attack of the Clones, when Anakin, and Obi-wan face Dooku (right before Yoda comes in), Dooku fights Obi-wan with his lightsaber. He hits him in the arm and leg (if memory serves).

 

Are you saying:

(a) that Dooku actually missed Obi-wan?

( That Dooku removed Obi-wan's limbs?

or © that Dooku killed Obi-wan?

 

It must have been one of those, because there can only be 3 outcomes--right?

All of the examples where none of these three took place were against Jedi. I'd say that Jedi 'magic' is in play here. It could be power defence of some kind and it could be some other instant heal or equivalent that means there is a lesser effect.

I'm not saying that I completely agree with the original proposal but I don't think that showing effects on Jedi are a ggod way to go about disproving it.

Personally I'm inclined to give light sabres damage for non-jedi using them but they would essentially be just a focus for jedi powers for any Jedi user - they wouldn't utilise the damage that the weapon provides but focus their force use through it...

Doc

Re: Help on character requested.

Personally, I'd build the duplicates with one power each.

You can build your main character with a multipower but build each duplicate to have only one power. Limit each slot in the multipower with not when being used by a duplicate (-1/2).

At any one time you'll have the main character with an increasingly limited multipower as the duplicates come out until you have four duplicates with one power each and the main character who would only be able to use one power in the multipower.

Doc