Doc Democracy

Re: Creation philosophy

Since 4th edition, I've been using a damage system where the better the hit the more damage that gets done. I try and balance the system by seeing how many rolls of 10 or 11 that would knock down a standard straw man opponent (I aim for 4 hits).

Essentially the system works on the basis that 10 or 11 or less gets 3 STUN per die in the attack with an extra 1 STUN for every two below and 1 STUN less for every one above.

This way, martial artists tend to hit doing maximum damage while bricks tend to score glancing blows. I look at the damage done per turn and seek to assure that fights should take no more than two turns, one turn if it is a toe to toe full on brawl.

I get martial artists with low defences, low DC attacks and high CVs while bricks have high defence, high DC attacks and low CVs. Most characters have the same SPD though I'm happy to allow higher or lower SPDs if the other factors are tweaked to get a reasonable damage per turn. (I've had to work hard on autofire and area effect stuff and am still not sure I've got the wrinkles worked out).

But yes, the design was definitely aimed toward getting the character archetypes to look better but it had the side effect of controlling the length of combats.

Doc

Re: Background skills

To spread out the availability of skills I have often just given a set of skills based on the background. At other times I have done as RDU Neil suggested and allowed an 8- roll but allowed a +1 for every PS or KS appropriate (+2 if the KS or PS was 15 or better).

Doc

Re: Background skills

Savage Worlds has a great skills approach in terms of background skills in that you basically define your background and your INT-type ability dictates your rolls with these' date=' with a +2 for things you would have really been knowledgable about.[/quote']

 

This is the system I promised to tell you about?

 

I stillhaven't found the time....

Re: PULP HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

OK, I've read all five pages so far and these have not been mentioned.

Pulp is all about feel. There was a comment about making the book 'look' like a pulp book to give the flavour, that's not so important to me but I would like to see a character sheet that conveys a pulp feel to the players. As I'm sure I've said many times before the character sheet is the user interface of the system and Windows has proved that a GUI is much better.

I would also like to see a section explaining how to exploit the toolkit to get a pulp feel to a campaign. By that I don't mean the gadgets and superskills and stuff but how the GM can choke down certain parts of the system and bring other sections into much greater focus to get a pulp feel to the system.

As for those wanting an adventure, The Coates Shambler from one of the early Adventurer's Club was one of the best scenarios I've ever played and ran. A reprise of that would probably suffice.

I'm looking forward to this. Justice Inc has been my favourite HERO supplement of all time - could the Justice Inc be retained as a sub-heading for Pulp HERO (I understand why it isn't being released as Justice Inc).

Doc

Re: Pulp Reading

My current reading material that is making me want to run a pulp game is the current run of Hawkamn. Not a character I have followed in the past but the stories are set in Louisiana within the context of a museum and a main character who is a multiply reincarnated soul of an Egyptian prince.

Very atmospheric even though it is set in the modern day.

Doc

Re: Clarifying Core Defense Mechanic

This is interesting if only because the existence of PD/ED etc as well as FF and ARMOUR does seem to go against a basic HERO toolkit principle of having one core effect from which everything else is built.

If we were to have a true toolkit there would only be PD/ED with a slew of advantages and limitations from which everything else could be derived.

Could everyone live with that? Would take away any worries about whether the three core defence types were balanced relative to each other...

Doc

Re: What if END was "Super!"

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RDU Neil again.

Will comment more if I can come up with something worthwhile!

Re: Always use the biggest gun

Like Sean said anything that provides what he wants (an incentive to use lots of different attacks rather than just the most effective one) increases the book-keeping.

I've got an idea buzzing round my head but can't nail it down. The vague suggestion would be to have a running total for each combatant. Each time they do something different, increase the total by one. Against an opponent with a lower score you can improve damage by one for every additional point in your score. Or perhaps additional points can be spent to maximise one dice per point spent (ie change any non-6 rolled to a six)

Can't figure out how I mean to do this and it does add to the book-keeping.

Perhaps just tick the powers used offensively and use that as a score?

Dunno, but still a good idea from Sean for a genre where the combat may be brought into greater focus than your usual supers game.

Doc

Re: Autofire Images

I probably won't need the DCV levels' date=' but its a pretty good idea.[/quote']

 

It's classic HERO thinking.

 

The ultimate effect is that you get hit less often. The reason is that people are taking pot shots at images of you rather than you but the ultimate game effect is that youy are harder to hit. The game mechanism for that is higher DCV and thus you get levels of DCV that cost END (increase END to taste). You could have another limitation that the levels can be removed through a successful PER roll. You could modify the success of PER rolls by using negative levels against other people's PER rolls....

 

Doesn't look as evocative on a standard character sheet but a power description would look very similar if not identical.

 

Doc

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

This is an intersting conversation but I think you (Fox1) are being a bit too limited in what you are willing to call incapacitated. HERO as far as I know it uses 0 STUN to represent someone who is unconcious and -10 BODY for someone who is dead. The closest in the core rules to incapacitated is STUNNED but that only lasts a phase and doesn't lead to knockdown.

My first thought was that the EGO roll was the best representation. A failed roll would result in incapacitation etc. Now it is obvious that you don't want another roll - not a bad thing when combat takes as long as it does but why not use the EGO roll in another fahion. The average human has an EGO Roll of 11 or less which they would make 50% of the time. That chance decreases rapidly as you go to 10, 9 and 8 or less due to modifiers due to damage done.

Assume a 1D6 Killing Attack. A result of 3 BODY would means the average human would take 3 BODY and need a roll of 8 or less to remain active in the fight (1 in 4).

That means that only 25% of average people would remain in a fight after an 'average' (didn't want to use 3.5) damage roll from a 1D6 pistol - but you have to use the roll.

You could introduce an Incapacitation number (EGO/5). If the BODY done in a single attack exceeds the Incapacitation number then the victim is incapacitated. You would have to decide what incapacitation meant and how long that state lasted but you would then take 2 in 3 average humans out of a fight with one hit from a pistol.

This is something new but it is only noting a number and comparing it during combat - and is based on an existing mechanic. I think this would allow you to do what you want. It is also easy to modulate depending on what you want - you want incapacitation to happen less often? Use a different divider or make it 1+(EGO/5).

Doc

Re: Using the toolkit to build a different game!

Have you thought what the character sheet will look like?

I think that some of the game mechanic design could become clearer if you knew how it would look to the players. Sketch it out on a piece of paper and you'll see the things that the players need to know and what they don't need to know.

Think about the things you want to allow players to change - then everything else (from the HERO palette) can be fixed values.

It is important right from the start to have a clear idea of where there needs to be detail and where there doesn't.

Doc

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

Now we can choose to either keep Stunning Power as "Stunning Power: EB, 5 pts/1d6, +1 Adv, -2 Lim" (simply put) or "Stunning Power: 3 pts/1d6", following the 2 methods above. Obviously, the latter is slightly less expensive when extended (first way = 1d6=3 CP/10 AP;2d6=7 CP/20 AP; 3d6=10 CP/30 AP; second way = 1d6=3 CP/3 AP;2d6 = 6 CP/6 AP;3d6=9 CP/9 AP). However, here's the cost when we apply BOECV to each:

 

version 1 - (EB, +1 Adv, -2 Lim) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 5 CP/15 AP; 2d6 = 10 CP/30 AP; 3d6 = 15 CP/45 AP; etc.

version 2 - (Stunning Power, 3 pts/1d6) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 6 CP/6 AP; 2d6 = 12 CP/ 12AP; 3d6 = 18 CP/18 AP; etc.

It is the cost variation that makes me leary of using version 2. The costs in the game have been heavily play tested and while we argue about specifics we generally agree that the costs are roughly right. This would make every game have to go through the same testing of all the 'new' powers created.

I would not have a problem with GMs providing ready-made powers for players - stunning attack - 3pts/D6

If they wanted a variant then I think I'd go back to first principles.

Doc

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

I'm with you most of the way, but where you run into silly territory is when the character says 'well, I'll do the EB AoE, but not come back to where I started', or 'I'll do the automatic pick up and drop on a team mate, just not drop him'.

 

Obvious answer is 'you can't - that's not how the power works', but if you've let the players define that it IS how the power works then, whilst preventing it being used in this way is logical in terms of the game system it is really jarring in terms of in-game consistency and tends to cut through the string suspending my disbelief.

 

So that's why I don't like it. Not that it's wrong, I can just see it causing more problems than it solves.

I think it depends on how much you handwave stuff.

Personally I've never been that hot on keeping track of locations etc except on fairly relative terms (HtH, close, apart, far apart, distant) and would be willing to handwave some of the movement stuff - though I'd expect the player to allow me to use the movement against them as often as they use it to their advantage.

Doc

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

I guess you could pay for it if you wanted to' date=' or buy some HA to increase it or something, but this just sounds like a way of doing a Move Through or Move By to me.[/quote']

 

 

You could buy a move through or move by in the same way - it just takes away all of the working out and complexity of the attack to give you what you want - a 16D6 attack with some limitations. As the Gm I don't have to worry about whether he can accelerate to that speed or anything - he paid the points - of course he can - it's a 16D6 attack.

 

Did he get him high enough? Did he grab him? Of course he did - he paid the points - its a 16D6 attack.

 

Doc "Anything to make my life easier" Democracy

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

If a player was being a pain about using it then I think I might gently suggest it as something I would insist on if he insisted on being a pain! Perhaps as in a multipower with his flight.

It would necessarily cost too much but it would make my life as a GM easier - if he wants the attack then let me sort it out so that I don't have to deal with the detail. That's a good use of the toolbox and a nod to the HERO ethos of the game details and the special effects being virtually divorced.

Doc

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

Actually I see a good reason for paying points for falling damage.

If one of Stuka's 'signature' attacks was to grab someone and dive them into the pavement then I want to be able to do that regularly without all the palavar of grabbing etc etc.

If I buy 16D6 EB (physical) only if 30' of headroom available, -1D6 per " of opponents flight, full phase.

If I throw this attack then the special effects are that I fly by, grabbing an ankle before divingbombing the ground with my captive. Takes a phase to throw and always works if I make the to hit roll.

I have paid the points, I expect to do the damage. So yes, I think there can be a case made....

Doc

Re: Please Suggest Names for a Hulk Tribute Character

Childlike mentality and boundless strength- Tantrum.

Goddam sir. I just repped you and now I'll have to wait to do so again!

Re: [Newbie] Is desolidification truly unbalancing ?

If, as a GM, you are concerned that a player will not be effective because it is either invulnerable or completely vulnerable then you should be guiding the player in how to be effective in your game.

One way is to make agreements with the player - write them down if you want. I had an agreement with a player that they would only use their desolidification in specific ways and at specific times as seemed appropriate by genre. When he pointed out times that he would normally have used the power but didn't then I gave him a dice bonus (he could, at any time in the adventure, change a dice roll by 2). I allowed him to stack up to three of these for one roll. I also promised that is he used it in genre then I would ignore him 'in genre' too when he became solid but he had to return dice bonuses for that.

Another way is to suggest that the player puts the desolid in a multipower with some kind of defence (armour/force field etc) that kicked in when he wasn't desolid - reflecting a lesser use of desolid in avoiding the bulk of damage and allowing it to affect the normal world while not being able to walk through walls etc.

There are all kinds of ways to use the system to get what you want if you talk about it beforehand with the player.

Doc

Re: Herogames: The Sportscar Product

But name me a single superhero game that IS a substantial rule system that ISN'T universal? HERO is MADE for Champions! It is the best system for running supers' date=' bar none.[/quote']

 

I agree with RDU (surprise surprise huh?)

 

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen would be a superhero game but the toolkit doesn't give any guidance on what should be allowed or disallowed in such a game.

 

A good gateway product would guide the players and the GM in providing a structure for the creation of characters that are not only balanced but firmly within the genre strictures of the game.

 

I think that HERO might be challenged in some aspects by Savage Worlds and in many others by Questworlds.

 

Doc

Re: Herogames: The Sportscar Product

OK' date=' before we start getting out the torches and pitchforks, let me say I'm sorry if my comment offended anyone. I got the impression that Toolkit wasn't well liked. Apparently, I was wrong. Secondly, I'm not against the idea of gateway product. I think we're just quibbling over implementation.[/quote']

 

:)

 

But we LIKE getting the pitchforks out....it gives us something to do other than making sportscars with toolkits.

Re: Name this NPC.

I've been trying to find somewhere to offload this name

Ulysses Hope

It was on a spam - I think that was the greatest use of the 100+ spams I used to get in my work inbox every day - some of the names were amazing.

Doc

Re: Herogames: The Sportscar Product

I know RDU Neil and those that agree with him don't "like" the Toolkit

I'd just like to repeat the don't put words into my mouth. I am a HERO freak. I LOVE the system and I love the complexity but I am painfully aware that I'm in a minority among most of the gamers I know.

I want them to understand what HERO has to offer but they don't see beyond the multitude of numbers and speed charts to the underlying beauty of it all. I want to be able to show them a beautiful game that they'd want to play and hopefully bring them into the inner circle once they've decided that they want to go beyond the limits presented in the game.

Like Storn said - its a getway product - the sugar coated pill that helps you swallow the difficult parts of the system.

Doc

Re: Herogames: The Sportscar Product

Which means that if a prospective gamer were to buy "Necessary Evil' date=' The Horror that ate Sheboygan, and "Minnesota Cooper vs the Legion of the Damned", they would get the same sets of rules 3X over, which if the books were 256 pages or there-bouts would be roughly 1/3 of each book.[/quote']

 

Actually this wouldn't be the case. In the three products they would get three carefully crafted versions of the rules and the background in how the designers went about making those rules.

 

Rather than getting basic HERO three times, they'd get how to do a dark supers game with the necessary evil trim, how to do a horror game with some monster rules, and how to do an over the top horror game where the heroes are uber-good.

 

The rules might be 1/3 of each book but they'd also be guides on how to use the toolkit which would be the same kind of use on building game settings that villains books provide with regard to character creation.

 

There is also the idea that each book would appeal to people outside of the HERO gaming community and inevitably draw some proportion into buying into the whole HERO ethos and thus into buying more HERO product.

 

I know that if the genre books were well written that I'd have no problem in picking them up when looking for something to buy - it would be an advantage in my eyes to have a game that I could tweak with the toolkit.

 

 

Doc

Re: Herogames: The Sportscar Product

Fantasy--will appeal to a many gamers' date=' but will run head to head vs the monolithic D20[/quote']

 

I'm not sure that this holds water.

 

Look at the thread in general gaming listing people's last 10 RPG purchases. Gamers are not faithful, they go and buy lots of stuff from all kinds of systems and many of those purchases are bought because the concept seems cool.

 

Gamers will buy games to read even if they never have any intention of playing them. Gamers want cool stuff to buy. I have often gone into my local store with money burning a hole in my pocket and not been driven to pick something up.

 

HERO doesn't inspire random gamers to pick it up but I bought Deadlands coz it looked cool and I picked up more than one Castle Falkenstein book for the same reason.

 

D&D geeks will pick up a fantasy game that looks cool even if its not WotC. They might even be tempted to play it. They'll almost never pick up Fantasy Hero and construct their own game.

 

As such I think they are a reasonable market to target.

 

 

Doc

Re: Herogames: The Sportscar Product

As I said earlier' date=' I came to Hero because it had LESS limits than other systems. There were fewer constraints and we could make the characters we wished to make and add to the setting. [/quote']

 

I think you are approaching this with a typical new HERO player mentality. You have seen the light, you appreciate the complexity as an advantage rather than a hindrance and you can't understand why anyone would appreciate hiding all of that crunchy goodness.

 

The main advantage of a HERO 'game' (to use RDU Neil's terminology) is that behind the screen it is still all HERO. If someone likes the game enough to decide that there're bits they want to change or modify, then they'll have the option of getting the Toolkit and fiddling under the bonnet of the sportscar to make it what they want.

 

With the toolkit the options of the players increase as if they'd simply been playing vanilla HERO all along but they have the cool concept of the game to guide them.

 

Doc