Doc Democracy

Re: OCV bonus or extra roll?

Ok, lets try this instead and I realize the actual % may be off, I don't know the real odds for the rolls.

 

1 roll at 11- provides a 50% chance to hit

 

2 rolls at 9- each provides a 35% chance to hit

 

So obviously the 11- has a 50% chance of hitting

 

so what are the odds of hitting at least once with the 9-, (70%? 47%? ???)

In this case it is better to look at the probabilities of missing. In the case of the one 11- roll the chance of the attack missing is 37.5%. (there's a 62.5% chance to hit with an 11-)

In the case of the two rolls at 9- (which I'll tell you is 37.5%, so you're close enough) then the chance of both shots missing is 62.5% of 62.5% or roughly 39%. Thus the chance of one shot hitting from two 9- rolls is 61% - slightly worse than the 11- roll but obviously with a chance of hitting twice.

what are the odds of hitting with both

The chance of hitting with both is 37.5% of 37.5% or 14%

and finally what are the odds of rolling an 18 at least once causing a misfire.

Again you have to look at the chance of not rolling an eighteen at all then subtracting that from the 100%. The cance of not rolling an eighteen on 3D6 is 99.54% and so the chance of not rolling an eighteen in two rolls is 99.54% of 99.54% or roughly 99%. So the chance of rolling an eighteen in one of those rolls is roughly 1%.

I've used the +1, +2, +4 method for 20+ years and am not going to change it now, I'm just trying to refine it some what.

 

Thank you

I can see that the problem of the autofire is increasing the chance of hitting because there is so much lead flying about but not ensuring that lots of shots hit - a machine gun is inherently less accurate.

Why not decrease the chance of multiple hits as the number of shots go up? That would mean as you use more shots you are almost guaranteed to hit at least once but not necessarily more than that.

So - in your system where

3 rd burst +1 OCV

5 rd burst +2 OCV

10 rd burst +4 OCV

15 rd burst +6 OCV

20 round burst +8 OCV

You might also say that

3 rd burst +1 hit for every 2 below

5 rd burst +1 hit for every 2 below

10 rd burst +1 hit for every 3 below

15 rd burst +1 hit for every 4 below

20 round burst +1 hit for every 5 below

I haven't thought through the consequences of that but obviously given a normal 11 or less chance to hit,

with a 20 round burst then there is a guarantee of hitting once, 91% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 15 round burst then there is 99.5% chance of hitting once, 84% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 10 round burst there is 95% chance of hitting once, 74% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 5 round burst there is 84% chance of hitting once, 62.5% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 3 round burst there is 74% chance of hitting once, 50% chance of hitting twice, 26% chance of hitting three times...

Hmm - doesn't look too bad. Anyway - the percentages all change quite drastically depending on what the initial roll to hit is. If you were using autofire because you're opponent was difficult to hit then it all changes. Say you needed 5- to hit:

with a 20 round burst then there is 84% chance of hitting once, 26% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 15 round burst then there is 62.5% chance of hitting once, 16% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 10 round burst there is 37.5% chance of hitting once, 9% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 5 round burst there is 16% chance of hitting once, 4.5% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times...

with a 3 round burst there is 9% chance of hitting once, 2% chance of hitting twice, no chance of hitting three times...

You might find it useful to look at the 3D6 to percentile chart at:

http://www.sysabend.org/champions/rules/3D6Percentiles.html

Doc Democracy

Re: Stunning the target without damaging it

So how would you build a power that kept someone stunned?

 

Mind Control based on CON?

Well, the whole idea is to keep the target immobile while not causing damage so ti initially sounds like an Entangle to me. However it might be a case where you could justify an entangle based on CON - if the target makes a good CON roll then they'd break out of the entangle (recover from the stunned condition).

I guess you'd have to buy it so that others could damage the entangle - though I'd love to see the justification of teammates using _their_ CON to attack the entangle!

It would be a simple thing to make this an instant effect rather than a constant one if you were looking for the stunned effect.

IMHO obviously...

Doc

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

Thats the difference then. I am getting paid by the players. They pay me about three hours a session of enjoyment and entertainment derived from our shared fun. i pay them back in kind.

I guess I see my work as GM as work. I get a certain amount of satisfaction out of the work I do when the rest of the group aren't there and during the session I get as much fun as anyone else.

For me the kick-back is that other people GM to allow me to play. It's kind of like a social contract - I do my work so that _we_ can enjoy ourselves and then someone else does their work so that _we_ can enjoy ourselves.

If I was doing all of the work then I'd feel a bit more justified in doing what I wanted to do with the proviso that if someone else really wanted to play _any_ other system then I'd be delighted to be a player in their game.

Doc

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

I reckon that I'm with the folks that think that the GM should decide the system he's willing to run.

I think that the GM should run that system in the style that suits the players though. For example, if I'm going to run superheroes then Champions is the system that I want to run. My particular favourite genre of supers is 4 colour Golden Age but none of my players like Golden Age and few of them are four colour fans.

Thus we play a more street level champions than I'd like but we don't play another system because using Champions makes my life as GM easier.

Doc

Re: Help me build a force field please.

The best I can think of is to modify Fireg0lem's idea:

 

Laser Shield: FF +30 ED One Continuing Fuel Charge lasting 1 Hour (+0), Only Versus Lasers (-1), Any Laser Hit Reduces Fuel Charge By 3 Minutes (-1/2), OIF (-1/2)

 

[snip]

 

As a note, this does not make the warer "invulnerable" to laser fire. He'll still take STUN damage from lasers; the Shield only protects againt the BODY and some of the STUN. Of course, the above only costs 10 points, so for 20 you can have one that providea +60 ED versus lasers and probably be covered.

Would it be better to replace the FF with a Force Wall? Thus unless the field is overloaded (ie hit with more body than it can take) it would give effective invulnerability to laser fire.

Doc

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

Oh' date=' and make pretty character sheets that hide the number crunching on the "traditional" character sheets.[/quote']

 

I think that presentation could be key. I've done JI for D20 adicts with great success. I made up the sheets to look as D20 as I could and presented the system mechanic as needing to roll a modified 11 or better on 3D6.

 

Modifications arise from player characteristics and skills, positive when they are acting negatively when defending.

 

I have attached a file that should hopefully give an example of one of the characters from the game (I did it in Powerpoint originally and have had to save it as a gif to post it here).

 

 

Doc

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept?

I've been following this with some interest. As I've said before, I run a group in my local church hall every Thursday and the issue of racism has come up more than once.

Teenage boys seem at times almost inherently racist and I've been using the system to reflect their attitudes back at them. They, as the system almost encourages, choose demi-humans (I'm including half-orcs in that) as characters coz of all teh cool stuff that they get. I tell them as they choose it that the region dislikes and discriminates against demi-humans. Which they choose to ignore due to the cool stuff.

I then reflect their language about other people back at them in game replacing real world terminology with in-game stuff bad mouthing orcs, dwarves and elves. They get really annoyed but I've noticed they are far more thoughtful in their language use real-world than they were before. Hasn't improved their instinctive terminologies though!!

Don't know if that is a for or against point...

Doc

Re: Implications of single-aspect magic on game worlds

I'm wondering how the gates would affect population distribution. Let's assume you have to get somewhere the traditional way first' date=' and then create a gate there. So you can't just pop around to anywhere on the planet. Also, creating gates is expensive and difficult. So only large guilds or city govts. or kingdoms can afford to finance them. This would probably mean that the great majority of gates would be erected in population centers (ie cities, towns, castles). What would that leave in between? It's already been mentioned that roads would fall into disrepair. Would this also retard the incentive for people to build in undeveloped areas? Would this allow for a greater proportion of wilderness areas between pop. centers?[/quote']

 

I think the main effect would be in the main highways. You would have a more parochial transport system - something needs to be there for the transport of basics such as food and materials from where they are produced to where they become manufactured goods. Those manufactured goods would possibly be high value enough to warrant gate travel. Corn would probably not.

 

Kingdoms might deliberately ban the construction of main highways, after all they would be the main thoroughfare for an invading army. If you can deny such an army easy travel into the heartlands then you have a tactical advantage and require expensive gate travel to be used instead...

Re: Implications of single-aspect magic on game worlds

For another angle' date=' perhaps the gate mages are formed into a secret society, and jealously guard their secret from all but a chosen few. This would put them in the role of kingmakers and power brokers, conspiring to control the direction of history. [/quote']

 

Almost like the Catholic Church in medieval times. No legitimacy without their support...or a whacking great army!!

Re: Implications of single-aspect magic on game worlds

There would be no great age of exploration by sail' date=' since there is no sail, and no real motivation to find a 'shorter' way to the orient. One could even end up with a society in the old world that is in most ways modern, but that has never discovered the new world![/quote']

 

But the premium on discovering new places for gatemakers would be immense. If they were the only person that 'knew' a place then they would have an effective monopoly for a while. So a different age of exploration and a different pattern of contact and colonisation.

 

I was also wondering whether the gatemakers would be able to interact. As has been pointed out, warships were developed to prevent the use of trade lanes by competitors. What would be possible in disrupting the formation of gates - or diverting them - or even bushwhacking those travelling by gate.

 

A lot of possibilities - probably all developed during a campaign as 'new' things are precisely what PCs were made for in the first place.

 

 

Doc

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept?

Sorry - completely off topic - please ignore but I was interested...

Microbes are classified as species too. But since they (mostly) reproduce by splitting in two' date=' that puts them outside the definition of species.[/quote']

 

Hmmm. Now I'm with you about the species thing. It is a classification thing to make things easier to comprehend and to allow useful generic statements to be made. There is something to be said for it though as many groupings are unable to sexually reproduce across groupings.

 

However, I don't htink that asexual reproduction puts a species outside of the definition of species. I know of lots of bacteria and other microbes that have both genus and species names suggesting that they do in fact belong to species categories...

 

 

Doc

Re: Bringing new players to HERO System.

And build a character sheet that has the points off of it. It is amazing how small most character sheets get when you take the accounting off the page. Set up nice little boxes for Characteristics' date=' Movement, Senses, Defenses, Attacks, and Skills and enjoy.[/quote']

 

I think this is key.

 

If you can emphasise the coolness and hide anything not absolutely necessary for the players to see then it is guaranteed to go much better.

 

 

Doc

Re: New Guy Name

Can't believe no-one suggested Soul Man!

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

Have you ever read the rules for FUDGE? (http://www.fudgerpg.com/fudge/) It sounds to me like you are talking about some kind of melding of Hero and FUDGE. Specifically' date=' the powers from Hero on top of the character creation of FUDGE.[/quote']

 

The system that's currently influencing me is Heroquest. It is that system where you only note down those qualities that mark you out as special and different from the mass of NPC normality.

 

It has a flexibility that Hero does not in that you might decide to defend against someone's attack by using physical defences, or by trying to talk them out of it or in the classic comic book cliche of clashing energy beams cancelling each other in incandescent displays of destruction.

 

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bferrie/resources/supers.htm

 

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

How about getting rid of skills as well?

Oh! He saw my characteristics and raised skills. Do I see, call or fold?

You could just set some basic general costs for 'abilities'' date=' and give a bunch of examples. In short, the players describe anything that they want their character to be able to do. They then pay some points for their chosen abilities based on how useful the ability is in the campaign, and how good they are at it. No need to be fancy, just some rough levels like "good, excellent, human max, superhuman, godlike being". [/quote']

 

Now this is where FREd comes into his own - if a GM wants to do the work. You have a toolkit to make the game you want and can present this kind of thing to players - as a harrassed, time-poor working person I would, as I said, love this to be in a Hero supplement for alternative front ends to the game.

 

All the crunchiness can exist in the background where the GM can access it at need and just present the cool stuff upfront. I think Hero fails to catch the people that want cool stuff like The Horror describes below.

 

Say if Joe wants to be able to run fast, and to lift up heavy things. He might buy Running as per the power, and buy Lift as an ability. The GM would look at the generic table provided with the abilities section, and decide that Lift is of moderate use in the campaign. This sets the base amount of points Lift will cost. Then the player decides how well he wants to be able to Lift (ie. good, excellent, human max, etc...).and applies the cost modifier for the rough level he wants the ability at.

 

If a character who doesn't have Lift tries to lift something, he only does as well as a normal person might.

 

Yeah - I can see something like that but it would take a major re-write of the rules or a lot of work from the GM.

 

Surely you could do the same thing with all the skills' date=' and with the attributes as well. Keep PD, ED, REC, and END as powers. All the rest can be purchased as some sort of generic ability system. The ability to stun someone can be decided based on the amount of damage dealt compared to body/toughness/machismo ability level of the character (with a default number allocated if they don't buy the ability). [/quote']

 

I think it is possible. It is an extreme extension of the decision to include characteristics in the powers section of the game. I suppose that you could include skills in the mix as well if you wanted to make the system run on one mechanic rather than the two or three that currently exist.

 

I would like to make sure that the system retained its detail - even if it was only for the GM to look at and for the GM to tinker with in a game.

 

If you want an ability done at greater levels than the 5-6 levels provided, maybe a Megascaling or some sort... Oh yes, I can almost feel the power of looking cool at Megascale.

 

And that is the kind of hook that people looking at Hero don't feel.

 

They think superheroes and want to think about the cool powers that they'd have. Instead they are presented with screeds and screeds of detail like

 

3D6 RKA AP, no range, 0 END etc etc

 

Takes the romance out of using a Plasma blowtorch in a ruck in space...

 

 

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

I think Hugh is right. It's one of the things that's always bothered me when designing characters and something I've always tried to address when playing Champions.

Despite the examples given' date=' I will suggest that having no resistant defenses is far more common in the comics than in the game. And buying a ton of Stun and BIOD doesn't exactly match those characters either, does it?[/quote']

 

It depends on how you want to look at the 'interpretation' of the characters rather than the written down stuff on the character sheet.

 

If that was written down as 'uncanny ability to survive' then it wouldn't matter whether the mechanics you used were a ton of STUN and BODY or resistant defences. Both would give the effect. But the very action of writing them down creates a picture in the head of both players and referees.

 

The GM needs to know the mechanics to run the game but what's written on the sheet slants how it is described in game.

 

 

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

This isn't to say every player abuses defenses' date=' but I've seen it at least as much as characteristic abuse.[/quote']

 

I don't think I was talking about characteristic abuse.

 

I think that quite a few of my players see a characteristic list that is mostly 10's as boring and spend points on them to make them more interesting. I think the vary fact that they appear on the character sheet makes the players more likely to buy them as they see the characteristics as one of teh major ways they differentiate each other.

 

Personally I'm very focussed on the powers but I do see some stats raised to make the character more 'interesting'. I'd rather the points were spent on cool stuff that made the character more interesting than stats that made the sheet more interesting.

 

Obviosuly nothing that I've made a real study of - but something that is true among my players.

 

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

2) Characteristics vary widely from character to character' date=' or should. If everybody, PC or otherwise, almost always has the same STR value, then there needn't be a stat for it. I suppose that's why some games, like D&D, don't have a SPD/Actions stat. Everybody of a particular level/class [i']always[/i] has the same actions unless some outside source or special training alters this.

My concern is that people add things to characteristics because they are there rather than for any other reason - they don't want to miss out.

Would the system be more streamlined if people only bought stuff as the character demanded? Not sure if that's as clear written down as it is in my head! It is crystal in there....

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

Great post' date=' Doc Democracy.[/quote']

 

Well - you are at least partly to blame - I enjoyed reading the frameworks posts and have been looking at alternative ways to use the system ever since...

 

I have thought something similar on occasion. I think as Killer Shrike points out there's a pragmatic problem but setting that aside...

 

I think there is still some room for characteristics. They represent powers "everybody" has.

 

As I said before though, if everyone has them to the same, or similar enough fashion, do they have to be on the character sheet?

 

My aim in life is to have a character sheet that someone new to the game could pick up and use effectively without an integral knowledge of the game.

 

I suppose it doesn't require no characteristics but I was thinking that removing another set of things to think about it makes the system as a whole easier to digest.

 

If I ever come up with such a character sheet then I shall be sure to post it!

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

A system without Characteristics wouldn't work IMO. Characteristics are the "everyman powers" of any system. Every character has at least some level of capability with them' date=' and any construct that doesn't really isn't a character).[/quote']

 

I only really started thinking this because I've been playing HeroQuest - the Glorantha version rather than the GW boardgame - and none of the characters have what you would traditionally call characteristics. No-one has Strength written on the character sheet for example unless it is spectacularly different from the norm in some way.

 

It works very well there and obviously that just set me to thinking and when I read the thread about using EGO instead of STR it all coalesced into a question. It would obviously have been nicer if it had coalesced into a coherent proposal!!

 

I didn't include HTH Damage because not every possible character has that capacity (a baby's body' date=' even if controlled by an adult mind, can't do much more than pull hair).[/quote']

 

I think a problem that I share with lots of other Hero gamers is that I want to write things down on the character sheet to prove that I have them! I think it stems from the 'If you want to use it then buy it!' maxim.

 

However - if you only put on the character sheet the things that were significantly different then it would be easier to talk about a character that was 'hard to kill' as you would define that like any other power.

 

Like I say, I haven't thought it through but I might try it as a presentational exercise next time I play a game of Champions or Justice Inc.

 

How many things do you guys want to list on your character sheet?

 

Personally?? Only the interesting things...

 

 

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

I wouldn't. I would hate to have to translate with other gamers based on a host of house rules they chose compared to the ones I chose.

I guess I have never migrated characters from one GM to another. I've never been in the position to as I've always run the games and so such considerations are not important to me. Seems to me though that most groups have house rules that they use and it'd be no more difficult negotiating published house rules than it would home-grown ones.

Doc

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

i doubt such a change would be palatable to many this late in the system's life. neither the substantial hero 4 rewrite nor hero5 tackled any char changes at all' date=' i have no reason to imagine there ever will be... beyond house rules of course.[/quote']

 

I do think that the best supplement that Hero could publish now would be the Ultimate House Rules Supplement. This would be a selection of ideas that people could adopt as house rules that have been brought up in the forums or elsewhere demonstrating what you might use the system to do with tweaks away from the 'core' system.

 

I think it'd be a good seller. I'd buy it...

 

 

Doc

I was just reading the thread by Acid Crash on using EGO instead of STR to calculate REC and was taken by the title of the thread.

We are all aware that the basic construction of powers often throws people new to Hero as powers are based on effect rather than on the name of the power.

If the effect of the power is to damage something then you want to look at energy blast or killing attack regardless of the special effects. If the effect is to restrict someone's movement then you use entangle. This is one of the base 'rules' of the system.

Looking at the characteristic system I'm not sure that this is more of a hangover from old systems (starting with D&D) than a true representation of the Hero System at work.

Strength - what is it. Well often the first clause in any argument of what strength would contribute to is "someone who is strong is often..." Complete opposite to the way that anything else is designed in the system.

So I thought about it. In all the characteristics the system looks at the characteristic and what is does before assigning game effects.

I think that a true representation of the system would be to make all the effects of characteristics into powers and to get rid of the characteristics. Easier said than done though! The presence of characteristics is something that causes huge arguments and probably contributes more to skew in the system than anything else.

As you can probably tell by now - I haven't got some system all thought out in my head - I'm writing as I think - but getting rid of characteristics would be a fantastic opportunity to streamline the system. There could be a generic contest formula - regardless of whether you were using skills or combat that could be influenced by the proper powers. There would be no more concerns about whether strength should be 1 point per point or more than that or what characteristics influenced others.

Maybe I should go and think more about this?

Doc (brainstorming after his first coffee)

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

Hmmm. Interesting as the discussion has been to read I'm not sure you are arguing about a wide application power (that was once a skill) that is not conducive to detailed applications - kind of like affect desolid.

Perhaps you want to allow people to buy find weakness only if they define the special effects in advance (and also buy lack of weakness only with a special effect).

Personally I don't like to use them together except when I change the rules of the Find Weakness. When I use Find Weakness with hit locations I rule that each successful application of Find Weakness allows the attacker to modify the to hit roll be 1. To me that means that the Find Weakness allows the attacker to better apply the effects of any hits that he scores - vitals rather than leg etc etc.

Doc

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept?

Thanks for clearing that one up. I guess a few philosophers and theologians are going to have to look for new jobs tomorrow.

Now if I _knew_ you were going to read what I wrote I might have cleared up a few more of those 'tricky' problems...