Assumptions within HERO

[Dust Raven]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Yeah, I've just finished reading the 100th post in this thread! Nothing to add at this point... just catching up. I work and school full time and only have a chance to read and post between calls at work lately. This thread just keeps on going though!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Nice...

 

But it still doesn't help, since it is implied that I "want to eat the cake". (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I should have specified. Eating the cake is the SFX.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Trying to clarify (though I think Zornwil has done an excellent job)

 

A mechanic for death is usually a non-issue in a game because there is the base assumption that "death for a character is just like death for a person in real life" and that common assumption allows play groups to just "wing it" when figuing out what to do when a charcter dies.

 

Without even beginning to address the fact that this key element to almost every role playing game ever (character death) has almost always been a source of huge group dysfunction because traditional RPGs don't address directly the designed play experience of death... let's just address where Hero throws a ringer into this base assumption.

 

That takes us back to Transform. By defining this power as based on killing attacks because enough damage to kill something might as well just change it into something else... this sets into motion a whole bunch of logical questions.

 

Does this mean Transform is simply killing the character in a fancy SFX way?

 

Whoops, nope... they can heal from this, unlike healing from -Body in death.

 

So... does this mean Transform is kind of a temporary death? That is certainly heavily implied.

 

Ok... what does temporary death mean? Temporary is easy enough to figure out... so what does death mean?

 

Hmmmm... were back to that original assumption... only now it is tossed on it's ear. If we started with "real death" as a place to work with... temporary doesn't really jibe. Even if we go with that... what does it mean for the player? In this case the character isn't really dead for good... so what is the desired play state for the player of a transformed charcter. Is the character utterly out of his control? While it is transformed is it not even his character? Who gets to decide the actions and/or fate of this non-character thing in a transformed state?

 

Suddenly it is VERY important to understand what the default Hero rule for death is, because it very much has to inform how we treat transforms, a very common power.

 

But Hero doesn't define these things and suddenly we have a big @ss can of worms with no straight forward way to deal with it.

 

The more I think about it, the more I'd rate Transform as "changing one thing into something else... in such a case removing the original thing from the game entirely... just like death."

 

So... if death means that character is no longer controlled by a player and allowed to interact with other characters... transform means the same thing, only temporarily with bizarre SFX possible.

 

Ok... now we have something to work with. Transform now has a much better designed game effect. It is now much more of that "pure mechanic" many are looking for... transform is a way to temporarily remove a character from player control by transforming it into something else... and since everything else is controlled by the GM, this transformed thing is controlled by the GM until such time as it becomes a PC again"

 

That, to me, is much more of a logical progression of design intent... but I bet there are few if any people on this board that would agree that they'd interpret transform this way. I'd even say it has a number of positive down stream effects.

 

No longer does the power need all kinds of subrules like "can't transform self" and "can't add powers and abilities" as it currently has. In fact, this pure transform mechanic takes care of such possible abuses with the defacto "not in player control" aspect of the mechanic. Thus, a PC could use their transform power to turn themselves into "Super Flame Guy" in order to fight "Ice w/Fire Vulnerabilities Villain" but in doing so they have given away all control. Their character no longer exists... this new transformed character is there, and it is under GM control.

 

Voila... transform now becomes a much more concrete, objective, pure mechanic that fits the Hero system quite well... but it only works if Hero defines death and transforms links to death in a certain way.

 

This is a highly complex and nuanced issue... more so than we wish it was because it was a lot easier to just roll dice and say "dead is dead, move on." For good or bad a system like Hero regularly asks players and GMs alike to deconstruct their play in order to build a game... so the system itself is putting us in this postion to say, "What does death mean in Hero?"

 

Fact was, if somewhere Hero stated - X Stun equals player brings munchies" then I would be asking "What do we mean by bring munchies? In what quantity? How many? How often?"

[Dust Raven]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Who is responsible for providing munchies? The Game Operations Director? The Host? Rotate among players? Draw lots or roll dice?

 

If the group orders pizza, does everyone have to chip in, even if you don't like pizza? If there's leftover pizza, does the G.O.D. get to take it home? Does the host keep it? Do they split it? Or is it permissible to roll for it?

 

What about drinks? Is it everyone brings their own?

 

Is alcohol permitted? How about smoking?

 

How long should a game last? If one person has school or work the next day, does the whole group have to break up at their bed time? Should there be a rule governing breaks for meals, snacks, or just stretching your legs, in very long running games?

 

How much Out of Character chat should be tolerated? And when?

 

Should everone have their own dice? Or is it okay to show up without dice and borrow someone else's?

 

Should you look at someone else's character sheet? What if they want you to?

 

What should be done if someone cheats? If you find their character just doesn't add up in terms of points, do you just have them re-write it? Expel that player from the game? Suspend them for a time? Let them play but only with a character someone else wrote up?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if this is really making the point - after all, haven't we established that Nothing Goes Without Saying and Everything Must Be Stated Explicitly?

I think it's fair to say the rules assume the players will decide this for themselves.

 

Which of these are directly relevant to the in-game experience?

 

I understand your point, but I see no relevance as death is something that is central to action-adventure games as an in-game experience.

 

And as discussed, HERO assigns control as a big part of the game.

 

I think they are all relevant to the in-game experience. Such activities are exclusive to the Hero System or any RPG, but they are relevant. It's just assumed [by the rules] that the players take care of all that; in much the same way it's assumed the players will decide for themselves if they'll use HD or pencils and paper or some other method for filling out a character sheet.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

No' date=' actually, I'm [i']not[/i]. "A rose by any other name..."

 

You can call them Punch and Judy, or Mutt and Jeft, or Abbot and Costello, for all I care. What I'm focused on is the fact that one is a game mechanic model of one thing, and that the other is a game mechanic model of a different thing, and that using one for the other is using the wrong model.

 

In this discussion, I'm using model in the scientific / engineering sense...an abstraction used to represent and understand something far more complex in reality. (Example: hurricane models used to predict their future behavior.)

 

 

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't presume to tell me what I'm focusing on, especially when I go to great lengths to explain what I actually am focusing on in my post.

 

While I'm aware I'm butting in and this has all been said before, I do have a Psych Limit: Must state own beliefs when opposed (well, more like obsessive rules monkey, but close enough).

 

The models you speak of are the results of an undefined action, not the actions themselves. In the case of mechanic A, the result is the character is harder to hit by having a higher DCV. In the case of mechanic B, the character is harder to hit by actively acting against an incoming attack. For either mechanic, the SFX involved can be anything that accomplishes what the mechanic does for the character, which includes and is not limited to dodging, ducking, blocking, turning desolid, teleporting out of the path of the attack, etc (some SFX being dependent upon character concept and other powers).

[Kristopher]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

While I'm aware I'm butting in and this has all been said before, I do have a Psych Limit: Must state own beliefs when opposed (well, more like obsessive rules monkey, but close enough).

 

The models you speak of are the results of an undefined action, not the actions themselves. In the case of mechanic A, the result is the character is harder to hit by having a higher DCV. In the case of mechanic B, the character is harder to hit by actively acting against an incoming attack. For either mechanic, the SFX involved can be anything that accomplishes what the mechanic does for the character, which includes and is not limited to dodging, ducking, blocking, turning desolid, teleporting out of the path of the attack, etc (some SFX being dependent upon character concept and other powers).

 

The problem is, I've seen plenty of people claim that any build is OK, that there is no linkage between SFX and mechanics, and that's just not the case, and never can be the case. Going back to my example, I've seen people claim that it's not just OK, but a good thing, to use the block mechanic to build a power or skill for evading an attack, or to use the dodge mechanic to build a power or skill for intercepting an incoming attack.

 

Models aren't results.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I'll start by admitting I'm totally in agreement with Kristopher's side on this one.

 

That said, this argument points out another issue with Hero Assumptions.

 

Hero is frustratingly inconsistent on when words mean what they mean.

 

Death? C'mon... it's death. Just... death. What else do you need to know?

 

Energy Blast? C'mon... Energy Blast doesn't actually mean a blast of energy! What are you, stupid? Reason from effect!

 

Block? Dodge? Meaningless!

 

 

AAAAARRRRRGGHHHHH!!!!

 

 

RPGs are social engagements based on language. Like all communication, much of it happens on a unconscious, assumed level of understanding. "We share an existential understanding of death, so I don't need to explain death when I use the term."

 

Well, I have an existential understanding of block and dodge, but you tell me they don't really mean that.

 

When words reflect ideas that are not so clear, they need to be exact. To say that the labels mean nothing is such a fallacy. It is denial in the desire for that myth of pure, SFX free mechanics which simply can't exist.

 

In RPGs where words and abstract mechanics ARE INTENDED TO MODEL ACTUAL REAL ACTIONS AND THINGS* the choice of words is even more critical.

 

Initial game designers didn't create stats and rules that said, "A character has X Flug. When Flug is reduced to -10, the character is fordnarwhooo!"

 

No, they called it stun and unconsciousness, not flug and fornarwhooo, because those game mechanics/rules were intended to directly model (imperfectly of course) a real world thing and event.

 

Energy Blast, Block, Dodge... the same thing. They were built to reflect specific "real world" phenomena. If you say you can use block to be a dodge and vice versa just because "each one keeps me from being hit"... then taking that logic one step further... "My tactic is to render the oponent fordnarwhoo before they can attack me... keeping me from being hit... so I'll call my Enegy Blast a "block."

 

The result (in this case, not being hit) doesn't stand on its own. The method in which you obtained the state of not being hit is as, if not more, critical to a complete model. Blocking, based on OCV and redirecting an attack is asignificantly different model than Dodge, based on DCV, which is getting out of the way of an attack. Yes, both result in "I'm not hit" but they achieve that result through different methods and model different in game reality.

 

To take the step to say "Eh, the labels don't mean anything" is saying that none of the words in the system mean anything. It means OCV and DCV have no separate meaning... so why bother with them at all? Worse... if added DCV levels with Dodge are interpreted as "blocking an attack" in play... what does that mean to the next time DCV levels are implied and have to be interpreted in play? Inconsistent and whimsical use of language... in Hero that defined mechanics can be "whatever" in play... makes play dysfunctional at best... utterly meaningless in the end.

 

So... another frustrating assumption Hero makes is that you know what it means... except when it doesn't mean that, and then you need to know what else it means.

 

(Our calls for design intent would be addressing this issue directly. It would ask for "Block is meant to model X." This, in no way, would limit a play group from interpreting it a different way... they would just understand that adding some valuable functionality means moving away from the design intent of the mechanic and could cause issues in play. Example: I use dodge to represent a block in a game. My character vs. Electro-Zap. He swings, I say,"I slap the blow aside and you miss." E-Z's player says, "I have a Damage Shield... when you block my arm you take damage." You say, "Well, my block is really a dodge... I didn't REALLY slap aside the blow, you just missed me!" E-Z's player "F*ck you, munchkin boy! You said slap aside and that is a block so you take damage!" Dysfunctional play because of incongruous and inexact language and rule interpretation. Which is going to win... the mechanic or the interpretation of a mechanic in play that is incongruous? Trying to have it both ways... I get to have a block, without the SFX results of a block I don't want. Bleh. Don't call it a block if it isn't a block.)

[yamamura]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Trying to clarify (though I think Zornwil has done an excellent job)

 

A mechanic for death is usually a non-issue in a game because there is the base assumption that "death for a character is just like death for a person in real life" and that common assumption allows play groups to just "wing it" when figuing out what to do when a charcter dies.

 

Without even beginning to address the fact that this key element to almost every role playing game ever (character death) has almost always been a source of huge group dysfunction because traditional RPGs don't address directly the designed play experience of death... let's just address where Hero throws a ringer into this base assumption.

 

That takes us back to Transform. By defining this power as based on killing attacks because enough damage to kill something might as well just change it into something else... this sets into motion a whole bunch of logical questions.

 

Does this mean Transform is simply killing the character in a fancy SFX way?

 

Whoops, nope... they can heal from this, unlike healing from -Body in death.

 

So... does this mean Transform is kind of a temporary death? That is certainly heavily implied.

 

Ok... what does temporary death mean? Temporary is easy enough to figure out... so what does death mean?

 

Hmmmm... were back to that original assumption... only now it is tossed on it's ear. If we started with "real death" as a place to work with... temporary doesn't really jibe. Even if we go with that... what does it mean for the player? In this case the character isn't really dead for good... so what is the desired play state for the player of a transformed charcter. Is the character utterly out of his control? While it is transformed is it not even his character? Who gets to decide the actions and/or fate of this non-character thing in a transformed state?

 

Suddenly it is VERY important to understand what the default Hero rule for death is, because it very much has to inform how we treat transforms, a very common power.

 

But Hero doesn't define these things and suddenly we have a big @ss can of worms with no straight forward way to deal with it.

 

The more I think about it, the more I'd rate Transform as "changing one thing into something else... in such a case removing the original thing from the game entirely... just like death."

 

So... if death means that character is no longer controlled by a player and allowed to interact with other characters... transform means the same thing, only temporarily with bizarre SFX possible.

 

Ok... now we have something to work with. Transform now has a much better designed game effect. It is now much more of that "pure mechanic" many are looking for... transform is a way to temporarily remove a character from player control by transforming it into something else... and since everything else is controlled by the GM, this transformed thing is controlled by the GM until such time as it becomes a PC again"

 

That, to me, is much more of a logical progression of design intent... but I bet there are few if any people on this board that would agree that they'd interpret transform this way. I'd even say it has a number of positive down stream effects.

 

No longer does the power need all kinds of subrules like "can't transform self" and "can't add powers and abilities" as it currently has. In fact, this pure transform mechanic takes care of such possible abuses with the defacto "not in player control" aspect of the mechanic. Thus, a PC could use their transform power to turn themselves into "Super Flame Guy" in order to fight "Ice w/Fire Vulnerabilities Villain" but in doing so they have given away all control. Their character no longer exists... this new transformed character is there, and it is under GM control.

 

Voila... transform now becomes a much more concrete, objective, pure mechanic that fits the Hero system quite well... but it only works if Hero defines death and transforms links to death in a certain way.

 

This is a highly complex and nuanced issue... more so than we wish it was because it was a lot easier to just roll dice and say "dead is dead, move on." For good or bad a system like Hero regularly asks players and GMs alike to deconstruct their play in order to build a game... so the system itself is putting us in this postion to say, "What does death mean in Hero?"

 

Fact was, if somewhere Hero stated - X Stun equals player brings munchies" then I would be asking "What do we mean by bring munchies? In what quantity? How many? How often?"

 

Interesting idea there RDU Neil and hit on some of the problem that I see with transform. The only thing I would ask is how would you do basically cosmetic or very minor changes. For Example, to sneak into a heavily guarded camp, the wizard transform two of the party to look like a couple of the parameter guards they had just taken out. No powers added and no reason for the GM to take control of the players.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I sort of understand where you are coming from.

 

However, the current powers that be made a choice to stay with the established names in the system like "Energy Blast" and "Block" to preserve linkage to previous editions of the game and to re-build the fan base. They did NOT create the names themselves and I seriously doubt they would choose to keep all the same labels if and when a 6th edition is written.

 

Funny coincidence that even before your post I was also thinking about the Damage Shield vs. Block argument as well.

 

I don't have my book handy at the moment but I seem to recall that the rules for Damage Shield require an additional advantage to be used offensively (that is, to affect a target who is NOT grabbing the character with the DS power). If a character (player or NPC) is introduced into a game with this ability it is the GM's responsibility to determine the interaction results of this power with any martial arts based characters Block styles. If a player wants to define his Block as not touching the attack, that's fine. That just means he can't defend anyone else or apply the bonus to Missle Deflection.

 

Moving on to a different scenario...

What happens when a character is outnumbered and surrounded (say 3-4 attackers) in HTH combat? Assuming that the character does not have any level of Defense Manuever what are his defensive action options?

 

Let's start with a Block. He gets a -2 OCV penalty after the first attempt (if successful) and no DCV bonus (unless he has a Martial Block). At least one of the attackers is going to get a shot at a lower DCV (normal DCV including any levels allocated/2) by attacking the character from behind (remember, no Defensive Manuever). If the character has levels that can be used towards Blocking or Dodging which is the better choice? Let's further clarify that the character is a martial artist and the attackers are all outclassed if facing him 1 on 1 (he has a higher DEX). If his art is defined as one of the soft styles it seems perfectly reasonable to allow the player to define what looks like a block to the attackers (very impressive) as a HERO Dodge (if for no other reason than to reduce the number of rolls). Interestingly, the character would now be subject to the HTH attack capable Damage Shield discussed earlier.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

To take the step to say "Eh' date=' the labels don't mean anything" is saying that none of the words in the system mean anything. It means OCV and DCV have no separate meaning... so why bother with them at all?[/quote']

 

I agree with most of your posts on this thread, but I have to point out that OCV and DCV do have a separate meaning if you look only at their interactions with other mechanics until various effects are brought about. If we were to not bother with them at all, nothing would happen and nothing could happen in the game. If, on a similar point, we were to cease distinguishing between them, even while there was some difference in effects, why stop at collapsing OCV and DCV into CV? Why not go all the way and just use a single value for everything?

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

For Example' date=' to sneak into a heavily guarded camp, the wizard transform two of the party to look like a couple of the parameter guards they had just taken out. No powers added and no reason for the GM to take control of the players.[/quote']

 

This could also be done with Shapeshift, though. No need to involve Transform.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

This could also be done with Shapeshift' date=' though. No need to involve Transform.[/quote']

 

I'm pretty sure there was a thread or 2 on this subject a while back.

 

As stated, Shapeshift would work if bought Usable on Other.

Images is another valid approach that lacks the absoluteness of Shapshift (This also applies when used as an alternative form of Invisibility too).

 

However, Transform is an Attack-like power (This is backed up by its cost structure which is based on Killing Attacks) and is not intended to be used as a replacement for Shapeshifting with no ill effects.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

For Example' date=' to sneak into a heavily guarded camp, the wizard transform two of the party to look like a couple of the parameter guards they had just taken out. No powers added and no reason for the GM to take control of the players.[/quote']

 

This could also be done with Shapeshift, though. No need to involve Transform.

 

On the other hand, if the wizard had Transform and wanted to use it for a lesser effect, this situation could arise. I would almost recommend a VPP "only for changing things" to simulate Transform, then.

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Of course you can. Of course you should. Zornwill' date=' I hate to break this to you, but that’s not a rule. That’s a joke masquerading as a rule. The response is to go “hey guys, listen to this!” and read it aloud and have everyone smile or roll their eyes, and then you go on as if it wasn’t there.[/quote']

 

What, then, of the Super Munchkin rulebook? It clearly states:

 

Rules Contradictions or Disputes

When the cards disagree with the rules, follow the cards. Any other disputes should be settled by loud arguments among the players, with the owner of the game having the last word.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I agree with most of your posts on this thread' date=' but I have to point out that OCV and DCV [i']do[/i] have a separate meaning if you look only at their interactions with other mechanics until various effects are brought about. If we were to not bother with them at all, nothing would happen and nothing could happen in the game. If, on a similar point, we were to cease distinguishing between them, even while there was some difference in effects, why stop at collapsing OCV and DCV into CV? Why not go all the way and just use a single value for everything?

 

Actually I was hoping to make the point that labels DO mean something by using the OCV/DCV example. OCV and DCV do have clear meanings, but if we utterly dismiss labels like Block and Dodge, when those two labels are clearly defined by the mechanics of OCV and DCV... then we are by default dismissing OCV and DCV as having no meaning.

 

I'm not advocating getting rid of OCV/DCV... instead I'm using them as an example of a hard rule/mechanic that still has clear SFX/context implications (Offensive means something real as does Defensive in the context of the SIS created by Hero based on real meanings.)

[Kristopher]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I'll start by admitting I'm totally in agreement with Kristopher's side on this one.

 

That said, this argument points out another issue with Hero Assumptions.

 

Hero is frustratingly inconsistent on when words mean what they mean.

 

Death? C'mon... it's death. Just... death. What else do you need to know?

 

Energy Blast? C'mon... Energy Blast doesn't actually mean a blast of energy! What are you, stupid? Reason from effect!

 

Block? Dodge? Meaningless!

 

 

AAAAARRRRRGGHHHHH!!!!

 

 

RPGs are social engagements based on language. Like all communication, much of it happens on a unconscious, assumed level of understanding. "We share an existential understanding of death, so I don't need to explain death when I use the term."

 

Well, I have an existential understanding of block and dodge, but you tell me they don't really mean that.

 

When words reflect ideas that are not so clear, they need to be exact. To say that the labels mean nothing is such a fallacy. It is denial in the desire for that myth of pure, SFX free mechanics which simply can't exist.

 

In RPGs where words and abstract mechanics ARE INTENDED TO MODEL ACTUAL REAL ACTIONS AND THINGS* the choice of words is even more critical.

 

Initial game designers didn't create stats and rules that said, "A character has X Flug. When Flug is reduced to -10, the character is fordnarwhooo!"

 

No, they called it stun and unconsciousness, not flug and fornarwhooo, because those game mechanics/rules were intended to directly model (imperfectly of course) a real world thing and event.

 

Energy Blast, Block, Dodge... the same thing. They were built to reflect specific "real world" phenomena. If you say you can use block to be a dodge and vice versa just because "each one keeps me from being hit"... then taking that logic one step further... "My tactic is to render the oponent fordnarwhoo before they can attack me... keeping me from being hit... so I'll call my Enegy Blast a "block."

 

The result (in this case, not being hit) doesn't stand on its own. The method in which you obtained the state of not being hit is as, if not more, critical to a complete model. Blocking, based on OCV and redirecting an attack is asignificantly different model than Dodge, based on DCV, which is getting out of the way of an attack. Yes, both result in "I'm not hit" but they achieve that result through different methods and model different in game reality.

 

To take the step to say "Eh, the labels don't mean anything" is saying that none of the words in the system mean anything. It means OCV and DCV have no separate meaning... so why bother with them at all? Worse... if added DCV levels with Dodge are interpreted as "blocking an attack" in play... what does that mean to the next time DCV levels are implied and have to be interpreted in play? Inconsistent and whimsical use of language... in Hero that defined mechanics can be "whatever" in play... makes play dysfunctional at best... utterly meaningless in the end.

 

So... another frustrating assumption Hero makes is that you know what it means... except when it doesn't mean that, and then you need to know what else it means.

 

(Our calls for design intent would be addressing this issue directly. It would ask for "Block is meant to model X." This, in no way, would limit a play group from interpreting it a different way... they would just understand that adding some valuable functionality means moving away from the design intent of the mechanic and could cause issues in play. Example: I use dodge to represent a block in a game. My character vs. Electro-Zap. He swings, I say,"I slap the blow aside and you miss." E-Z's player says, "I have a Damage Shield... when you block my arm you take damage." You say, "Well, my block is really a dodge... I didn't REALLY slap aside the blow, you just missed me!" E-Z's player "F*ck you, munchkin boy! You said slap aside and that is a block so you take damage!" Dysfunctional play because of incongruous and inexact language and rule interpretation. Which is going to win... the mechanic or the interpretation of a mechanic in play that is incongruous? Trying to have it both ways... I get to have a block, without the SFX results of a block I don't want. Bleh. Don't call it a block if it isn't a block.)

 

Good example of how using the wrong mechanic to model something can result in real problems in the game.

 

Your post reminds me of another issue I have with the claim that mechanics are completely disconnected from SFX -- a claim which directly contradicts part of my core gaming philosophy. That disconnected approach can so easily drag the system into a largely metagaming realm, into one of roll-playing instead of roleplaying, back to the primative days when they were playing the system, not playing the characters. The rules should be there adjudicate the action, not dominate the game. They need to reflect and accurately model what's going on, as smoothly and transparently as possible, so that conflicts can be resolved objectively and the Roleplaying Game can continue on, and so that the story being collectively told can continue on.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Interesting idea there RDU Neil and hit on some of the problem that I see with transform. The only thing I would ask is how would you do basically cosmetic or very minor changes. For Example' date=' to sneak into a heavily guarded camp, the wizard transform two of the party to look like a couple of the parameter guards they had just taken out. No powers added and no reason for the GM to take control of the players.[/quote']

 

I haven't really thought out every permutation on this. It truly just occured to me as I was writing.

 

Still... with a solid basis in Transform means turning a thing into something else, which has the game effect of removing player control if that thing was as PC...

 

Then cosmetic changes could be "PLayer maintains control of all normal stats of the PC, but the in-game effect of the cosmetic change is up to the GM. Ex: Is the cosmetic change to "look like guards" effective at fooling other guards to let you pass... up to the GM.

 

Minor changes would be the same, but at a more complex level. Essentially, Transforms come down to player saying, "This is what I'm trying to do, and the result I'm hoping for" (Intent statement, very critical but rarely addressed in old school games... different from design intent) and the GM rules on the effectiveness in game of the attempt. This is actually not far from how Transform is adjudicated in many games, I'd think... the only change is that the play group recognizes from stated rules that whatever they create with the transform falls under GM jurisdiction. Transform then becomes very clear. Use it to stop a thing in a game (character, object, whatever) from being what it is, by turning it into something else. What happens to that "something else" is part of the GM's role. Ex: A PC with transform can "turn Thor into a frog" (a very BIG transform) but the result of whether Thor becomes a mundane frog or Thunder-frog is up to the GM. The GM then does what all good GMs do, make a call that fits the social contract of the game.

 

I actually like this a lot because it could do two things... 1) create interesting areas for declaring intent and stakes setting between GM and player (another thread entirely)... and 2) it gives clear cut reasons why Images is different from Shapeshift is different from Cosmetic/Minor Transform.

 

Images and Shapeshift (another power that suffers greatly from poorly defined assumptions/lack of design intent) are powers with a specific effect defined by the player spending points. Therefore the player has stated control over how the Images work... "I spend x points, so there is -y to their attempts to see through it." Very clearly points equalling player control... and a reason to use those powers and not transform.

 

Hmmmm... I like this better and better.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

Good example of how using the wrong mechanic to model something can result in real problems in the game.

 

Your post reminds me of another issue I have with the claim that mechanics are completely disconnected from SFX -- a claim which directly contradicts part of my core gaming philosophy. That disconnected approach can so easily drag the system into a largely metagaming realm, into one of roll-playing instead of roleplaying, back to the primative days when they were playing the system, not playing the characters. The rules should be there adjudicate the action, not dominate the game. They need to reflect and accurately model what's going on, as smoothly and transparently as possible, so that conflicts can be resolved objectively and the Roleplaying Game can continue on, and so that the story being collectively told can continue on.

 

 

I think... and this is purely speculation on this... that depending on preference, most Hero gamers would fall into two camps.

 

Ones that look at the mechanic first and say, "What are the different ways I can use that to model stuff in game play"...

 

...and...

 

Ones who look at the desired game play first and ask, "What is the best mechanic to model the result I want?"

 

I think we all do both at times, but generally I'd say some people do one more than another. You and I probably tend toward the latter. The former may seem to us like munchkin thinking... playing the system... whatever. It is just a different approach to how the game is intended to be played (quite influenced by written material going back to "Goodman says... !").

 

Such difference in approach can be quite jarring in a play group and cause dysfunction. The same person approaching various pieces of their character from both ways can create a conflicted concept. I've seen that within myself and my own players. We start out thinking "Best way to model what I want..." and quickly realize that we can never fit that into 300 points... so then "Best way to use the system to work around things and get it cheap" comes into play and we take the other approach.

 

Like I said, everyone does both... just some people start from one perspective (and feel more connected to that approach) more than another. Most of the threads where people seem to be talking past each other on the same topic result from the two different approaches/preferences being used, but neither seeing that in the other's points.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

The problem is' date=' I've seen plenty of people claim that [i']any[/i] build is OK, that there is no linkage between SFX and mechanics, and that's just not the case, and never can be the case. Going back to my example, I've seen people claim that it's not just OK, but a good thing, to use the block mechanic to build a power or skill for evading an attack, or to use the dodge mechanic to build a power or skill for intercepting an incoming attack.

 

Models aren't results.

 

It's close enough to assume it's the case, and that exceptions are exactly that: exceptions. Certainly most people aren't going to define their Dodge mechanic for increasing DCV for the remainder of their Phase as whipping out an M16 and shooting people in a way that disgourages them from attacking. Some might, and technically, it's a valid SFX for the maneuver (assuming a campaign where things like ammo never run out). I had one character that had the special ability to deflect incoming attacks, ranged and HTH, of any type, be it armed, unarmed, bullets, thrown rocks, lasers, etc... and build the ability as +10 with Dodge. While I'm sure you could find alternate methods of building this ability in the Hero System (it wouldn't be the Hero System if you couldn't), I hope you at least agree that the method I've described is equally valid.

 

On the specific subject of divorcing SFX from mechanics, I agree there are areas of the rules where it is impossible to do so (an attack versus PD probably shouldn't be a laser for example). I also believe, as I've said above, these are exceptions and should not be accepted as the standard, or as any kind of basis that the name of any given mechanic implies, encourages, requires or forbids any given SFX.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I'll start by admitting I'm totally in agreement with Kristopher's side on this one.

 

That said, this argument points out another issue with Hero Assumptions.

 

Hero is frustratingly inconsistent on when words mean what they mean.

 

Death? C'mon... it's death. Just... death. What else do you need to know?

 

Energy Blast? C'mon... Energy Blast doesn't actually mean a blast of energy! What are you, stupid? Reason from effect!

 

Block? Dodge? Meaningless!

 

[snip]

You so deserve rep for this, RDU, and I've give it to you if I hadn't already repped you recently (for a post in this thread even). Of course, I still completely disagree with your possition.

 

What I do agree with is your assessment of how language defines thought. When I say the word "dodge" you immediatly think of people moving out of the way of danger. When I say "block" you immediately think of intercepting or knocking asside an attack. When I say "Dodge", refering to the game mechanic, you can't help but thing of the same things you think of when anyone says "dodge", even though Dodge could mean anything you'd assodiate with your thoghts of both dodge and block (among others).

 

The problem here isn't that the maneuvers really mean what our minds naturally associate with the terms used to name them, and can only mean those things. The rules clearly state the opposite. The problem is the confusion some players have because of those names being used. Perhaps it would be more appropriate/accurate to lable these maneuvers something else. Maybe Dodge could be called "DCV Increase" and Block would be called "Stop Attack". These certainly match, exactly, the game mechanics involved.

 

Those terms aren't dynamic though. They don't inspire thoughts of heroic action. They are boring, dull, unexiting, undescriptive, unimaginative meaningless terms. It's much more exciting to call these maneuver something dynamic and implies action. Dodge and Block accmplish this and the sacrifice of a little confusion.

 

At least that's my take on it.

 

Note: Damage Shield vs Block. Per the rules, a Blocked attack does not does not trigger a Damage Shield on either combatant. The requirement is that an attack hits the defender.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I think... and this is purely speculation on this... that depending on preference, most Hero gamers would fall into two camps.

 

Ones that look at the mechanic first and say, "What are the different ways I can use that to model stuff in game play"...

 

...and...

 

Ones who look at the desired game play first and ask, "What is the best mechanic to model the result I want?"

For the record. I fall into both camps. When I'm reading the rules, I think similar to the former. When I'm reading a book, watching TV/a movie, etc. I think similar to the latter. When I'm creating a character, I do both roughly equally.

[Kristopher]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

It's close enough to assume it's the case, and that exceptions are exactly that: exceptions. Certainly most people aren't going to define their Dodge mechanic for increasing DCV for the remainder of their Phase as whipping out an M16 and shooting people in a way that disgourages them from attacking. Some might, and technically, it's a valid SFX for the maneuver (assuming a campaign where things like ammo never run out). I had one character that had the special ability to deflect incoming attacks, ranged and HTH, of any type, be it armed, unarmed, bullets, thrown rocks, lasers, etc... and build the ability as +10 with Dodge. While I'm sure you could find alternate methods of building this ability in the Hero System (it wouldn't be the Hero System if you couldn't), I hope you at least agree that the method I've described is equally valid.

 

On the specific subject of divorcing SFX from mechanics, I agree there are areas of the rules where it is impossible to do so (an attack versus PD probably shouldn't be a laser for example). I also believe, as I've said above, these are exceptions and should not be accepted as the standard, or as any kind of basis that the name of any given mechanic implies, encourages, requires or forbids any given SFX.

 

I think it's quite certain, however, that the mechanics of a certain power or skill or talent can imply, encourage, or forbid a given SFX.

 

I also think that there certain builds that are OK until taken too far. Combat Luck, for example, is acceptable at 1 or 2 levels, because it represents something in a workable way -- the ability to partially avoid attacks through luck or skill or agility. I prefer something built around DCV levels, or maybe Damage Reduction, because those are better models for what you're trying to simulate*, but I'm OK with Combat Luck to the point that I even use a level on some characters.

 

However, once it reaches a number of levels where it routinely or even occasionally stops all the damage of attacks, it becomes a broken model, because HERO already has a mechanic for being harder to hit -- DCV -- and a mechanic for taking partial damage -- Damage Reduction.

 

 

* I hesitate to use the word because I'm not certain I fall into the "simulationist" camp as the term is used on these forums.

[Lucius]

Assumptions within HEROES

 

Why did you ignore the rest of the message? Do you have a systemic answer for who has control over the revival of the dead character?

 

Well, as a matter of fact, yes.

 

Just look in the rules under Healing. I believe there's an adder called Resurrection. Is that what you're looking for?

 

 

How is player vs GM control an orphan mechanic in a points-based system (or in most any system)?

 

I'm saying that a rule that tells the PLAYER what to do is an orphan mechanic (to say the least) in a system where rules are all about the game - about the character and what the character can and can't do and about how events play out in the imaginary world of the game. To insert into that context a rule that tries to legislate player behavior is a pretty jarring inconsistency, and in my opinion, such a rule doesn't belong in Hero in any way, shape, or form.

 

Now, if you want to talk about actual game rules - rules about characters and what happens to them and what happens or can happen or can't happen in the game by all means, let's go ahead.

 

PS - you also grossly misread, because I pointed out myself why that probably was a bad rule (I don't know why you phrase it as "you have suggested as a rule for Hero" - no, I suggested it as an example, and later on went on to cite the issue of control being the central part of this) - but that wasn't even the point. So I don't know if you really were getting it.

 

 

Maybe I'm not.

 

In fact, I'm probably not.

 

So if we're not talking about some perceived need for rules about what players, as people not as their characters, get to do or have to do, are we back to people somehow responding to "your character is dead" by trying to have the character do something other than "lie down, shut up, and stop moving?" Because I'm not sure that makes any more sense then the other.

 

 

 

This is a highly complex and nuanced issue... more so than we wish it was because it was a lot easier to just roll dice and say "dead is dead, move on."

 

I’m sorry, I just don’t see it. Although I’m reminded of Mike Royko’s comment that a lawyer can find deep and complex constitutional issues in a parking ticket.

 

First of all, to address your suggestion that a Major Transform means that the new, Transformed thing is, or should be, no longer under the player’s control:

 

Uh, no.

 

If your character is turned into a log, it does not become a Non-Player Character Log. It does not become a loyal Log Follower of the character with the Transform power - UNLESS he specifically defined his power that way, and the Game Operations Director permitted the power to be bought that way. Even then, I would say you’re still playing the log, you just have a log with Psych Lim: Loyal to Logan the Logmaking Lumberjack.

 

It’s your log, all yours. You can do absolutely anything a log can do. All the wondrous options of logdom are yours.

 

In other words, you can lie there like – well, like a log.

 

(See below for my thoughts on playing, say, a frog or dog instead of a log.)

 

Death is the same way. Your character is now a corpse. You, and only you, are in control of your character. You can do anything a corpse can do. Given time, for example, you can putrefy. Of course, you have to do everything a corpse must do, so you probably don’t even have much choice about putrefaction either. It’s more something that happens than something you do.

 

Basically, IF – and it is a big if – I understand what you and Zornwill are talking about, there is really no difference, to the question of “who controls the character?” between a living character and a dead one. It’s just that your options playing a dead character are usually pretty limited.

 

A character stops being your character one of two ways.

 

You can decide it, and it’s so. You can say “I don’t want to play this character” or even “I don’t want to play in this game” and walk away. I doubt anyone will put a gun to your head and try to force you to keep playing a character.

 

Or the person running the game can take the character away. Again, no one can force you to run a game for any player, or any character, you don’t choose to. Or at least, no one should try to force you.

 

Dead or alive doesn’t enter into it – except that I think there’s something wrong with you if you WANT to play a corpse. Or a log, if being a log is going to be a long term condition.

 

You can come into a game any given session with a new character and say “I want to play this one!” and if the Game Operations Director agrees, you’re no longer playing your old character, you’re playing your new one. This is exactly the same whether the old character is alive or dead, except of course that if it’s dead it’s probably very much in the interest of enjoyable gaming for everyone if you get to play a different (as in, living) character.

 

Heck, if everyone’s agreeable, you can play both characters, or even more. Only playing one character at a time is customary, but what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own games is not my business. It’s not DOJ’s business either.

 

 

Now, as for turning Thor into a frog. I can’t remember now who said exactly what and in glancing back over the thread I’m not finding it, but I wanted to say that the kind of confusion people are talking about is a classic example of a poorly thought-out and poorly defined power. There’s a reason Transform is a Stopsign power, and it’s NOT just because it’s powerful and NOT just because it’s “abusable.” It’s because every time such a power is introduced in the game, the person running that game must see it, THINK about it, and decide what its effects are really going to be, probably in negotiation with the player. The only time I can think of when such decisions should be made “on the fly” is if someone pulls a Transform out of a Variable Power Pool spontaneously.

 

There are already three solid pages of rules for Transform – and they include statements like

 

“Transforming a superhero into a frog deprives him of his powers”

 

and

 

“The GM should regulate this aspect of Transform carefully, and approve any…Transform which takes away or grants Skills or Powers.”

 

Not to mention the whole Physical/Mental/Spiritual schtick, which clearly implies that, for example, your frog, or log, or whatever, still has a mind and soul unless there was a linked Transform to change that too. (Since a log has no senses, I would say that sure, you still have a self-aware mind, but all you’re aware of is probably the knowledge that SOMETHING radical just happened to you, and a vague sense that time is passing – but you won’t know how much time until you change back.)

 

Like I said, three solid pages, and probably more in the Revised Edition – it’s not the system’s fault if people don’t READ them or if they do and just ignore them. And if that’s the problem, you sure won’t solve it by adding MORE words to the book.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Minor Transform: Palindromedary to Palinbactrian!

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HERO

 

I had one character that had the special ability to deflect incoming attacks' date=' ranged and HTH, of any type, be it armed, unarmed, bullets, thrown rocks, lasers, etc... and build the ability as +10 with Dodge. While I'm sure you could find alternate methods of building this ability in the Hero System (it wouldn't be the Hero System if you couldn't),[/quote']

 

Missile Deflection: "I can shoot them bullets right out of the air, partner."

[Robyn]

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

 

(See below for my thoughts on playing' date=' say, a frog or dog instead of a log.)[/quote']

 

Where's your thoughts on playing a dog?

 

And while we're at it, what happens if your character gets Transformed into Nanny Ogg?