Markdoc

Re: Tuala Morn pronunciation guide? Until then treat it like Irish. Look at the word and then try to pronounce it so that the sound is almost - but not completely - unrelated to the letters involved. cheers, Mark

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right? Cool! It's basically an online rip of the old Penguin Atlas of the Middle ages (http://www.amazon.com/New-Penguin-Atlas-Medieval-History/dp/0140512497/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_: one of my favourite quick reference books. Not detailed or super-accurate, but a handy gazeteer, nonetheless. cheers, Mark

Re: Why horses?

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics I agree: it's why I stuck with the original two character builds. At 2:1 OR 1:1, you could build an energy protector to take down a specific STR build - you could then (at either cost) make a STR-based build to take down the original Energy projector, and so on, ad infinitum. That's a pointless exercise. The only reason I played around with build at all is because we were presented with two builds where some care had been taken to make them as equivalent as possible. It was trivial to show that the STR build was the stronger of the two. I also tackled the specific suggestion that it would impossible to build an effective competitor at a STR cost of 2:1 to show that in fact, that too could be done. However, no-one here is suggesting that a character based around STR is always undefeatable: that's simply not the case. All that was being pointed out is that characters built around a cost of 1:1 have some formidable advantages - and that there's an easy, and very playable - fix. cheers, Mark

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Most certainly not. One of the attractions of this approach is that it involves far less alteration than alternatives such as altering the relationship of primaries and secondaries.* HA does need to be adjusted, because it functions as a limited form of STR - it's the damage part of STR with the leaping, lifted and figured CHA cut out. The fact that HA's costed at 5 AP with a "limitation that isn't a limitation but is worth points anyway" tacked on is simply a tacit admission that the pricing regimen is wrong. You thus end up with: STR (full bennies) = 10 per 1d6 attack STR (no figured CHA) = 7.5 points per DC STR (no figured CHA, no leaping) = 6.5 points per DC (you get this cost just by selling back 1" of leaping) STR (no figured CHA, no leaping, no lift) = 5 points (this is HA) At this level, nothing else needs re-balancing. The +1/2 advantage for "adds STR" or "range" now falls into balance alongside HA/EB and HKA/RKA. STR keeps its special END cost because you only pay END on the attack part - the HA: it doesn't cost you end to have more STUN, for example. TK's pricing also makes sense: it's STR without figured CHA or leaping that doesn't add to STR, but is usuable at range and does include lifting capacity. Compare that to the current cost structure where you can buy: 1d6 HA for 5 active 3 real or 5 STR for 5 active and - selling off 1 REC - for 3 real (no figured CHA is a really bad deal for STR at a cost of 1:1, tho' it makes sense at 2:1). If leaping isn't a figured characteristic (and I assume it's not, since it is not listed as such) then you can sell back an inch there to reduce STR to an real cost of 2 points per d6 - and you get free STUN and PD! So for every 2 points you spend on STR, using that construct, you get a free (improved) HA, plus 3.5 points of figured CHA cheers, Mark *one thing that does need to be taken into account is that a change potentially affects every existing character, since as noted very few have an STR of exactly 10. Fortunately, however the change is extremely easy to implement. Most NPCs I simply gave extra points to, to cover the new cost, or reduced the total cost of those with reduced STR. For NPCs I had always designed more to concept than points efficiency, so they already ranged more in STR than PCs. A few I simply reduced STR on, since the definition of what was "strong" in game terms had decreased. Players were offered three choices for existing PCs. 1. Scrap the character and start again with the same number of points. None took this option 2. Alter the character slightly (reduce STR, shift some STR to HA, etc). Several took this option, since their concept didn't emphasize STR and they no longer got a significant benefit from being really strong. 3. I grandfathered the remaining characters by awarding them extra points to cover their extra cost, but then penalized them, by awarding half XP, until those extra costs had been "repaid" - at which point everyone was on an equal footing again.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics It's not a false premise, it's a matter of preference. I would prefer that "Charlene Keen, plucky student reporter" and "Max Maximum, giant prowrestler" do not have more or less identical STR. Yet in Heroic games, where NCM puts a soft cap at 20, that's often what happens. It means that the STR spread in heroic games is in reality from 15-20 or often from 18-20. In Superheroic games, it means the majority of protagonists - even highly-trained humans - are capable of lifting a light car or jumping onto the roof of a house from a standing start. In all genres, it means that STR gives you a significant combat advantage compared to any other attack form and also leads to all sorts of "extra rules" to try and compensate for the cost problem with STR, like "HA costs 5 points per d6, only it doesn't really" or "You cannot buy ranged on your STR" and "STR - and only STR - has a special END use cost". All of these extra rules exist only as a way to try and compensate for the costing of STR at 1:1. Maybe that doesn't bother you - it bothers me.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Maybe one last point. I was unusually lucky when I was introduced to Hero system: we had a very active roleplaying group with 5-6 GMs and we usually had multiple campaigns running simultaneously, so for a few years, we were playing several times a week. Even better, several of those GMs were excellent. However back in those days all we had was Champions I- II and III , so we had to literally make up and playtest the rules for non-supers games as we went. As a result we ran a lot of minicampaigns that might go 6-12 sessions, where we messed with the ground rules, and at the "Thursday night game" we usually ended around midnight, due to one player's need to get home early. 3 of the GMs (occasionally 4) would then sit around for 2-4 hours going over the week's games, noting what worked, what didn't, suggesting rules tweaks, writing up and critiquing spell, equipment, or character builds, etc (as well as discussing general GM game issues). In addition we used to run "personalized warfare": one shot, one day games where a mass of players (sometimes up to 16) would pre-build a character to firm guidelines (anything you like as long as it meets the guidelines: so we had the telepathic tunnelling slug long before it became a meme) and then after quick scrutiny, we'd set 'em down on the tabletop and let 'em go at each other. Last man/woman/thing standing wins. Basically - although we didn't realize it at the time - we had set up a group that for years stress-tested the rules to the point of destruction. What came out of it were many things that later ended up in subsequent versions of Hero system. It's given me a very clear sense of what works and what doesn't, that I don't think you could get from a single group, because in my experience campaign dynamics vary greatly from group to group and game to game. It's also given me a very firm sense "how things should be done" cheers, Mark

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion He can certainly delay but he can't choose to "delay and then interrupt her action" So his choices are: 1) Fire as soon as he gets the chance 2) delay and let her take her action - hoping that if he's still conscious afterwards, he can shoot her at -3 DCV from move through. He could even haymaker at that point, though he's taking a risk since, he can't expect to KNB her out of half move range, is highly unlikely to stun her and if he loses the DEX-off next turn, he's toast. What he can't do is delay until the other player has committed to a course of action, then take his move and demand to go before she executes her action.

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion Interesting numbers - thanks! I do note however the traditional bulges at 30-35 the "not a brick, but getting a good boost from STR" level where many EB specialists live, though Is it possible to do a breakdown only of ranged characters? I'd be curious to see the results. cheers, Mark

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion Yep. cheers, Mark

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion No, I am focussing on the rules. At 21", he has a -6 range penalty and needs a 5 or less to hit her. Good luck with that. In the 9-16" range he has a -4. At that point he's in range for a movethrough, a grab-by or similar (at the same or better chances of success as he has). So yeah, I agree, keeping her at 21" inches would be best for him. Unfortunately, he's got a 4% chance of hitting her at that range, and if he shoots, she closes the gap by 10" even if he retreats, so he CAN'T "keep her at that range".

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion Well, I'm not sure what you mean exactly by that. We're talking about a wide range of games at both heroic and superheroic levels: Cyberpunk, cthuloid pulp, 4 colour supers, Iron Age supers, 2000 AD-inspired science fiction, Martial arts (low powered) Martial arts (High powered), High fantasy, low fantasy, fantasy where the players were demigods: in all cases STR was a characteristic which was bought up by everybody. INT, BOD, PRE on the other hand, not so much (Meaning some chracters had lots and many left it where it was or occasionally sold it back). Nor am I only looking at my own experience. Lifting books off my desk at random, lemmeesee: Dark Champions - virtually every character has elevated STR, though most of them are human. Many of the human characters have 20 and even the Master of crime, a behind the scenes noncombat style villain has 15. In contrast, the majority have 2 or more stats at 10. Tuala Morn. One character (the witch, who also has the age disadvantage) does not have elevated STR. In contrast every character has one or more primary stat at 10. Monsters minions and maruaders - well the merchant has STR 10 - but then almost all of his stats are 10. The Priest has 10, everybody else has elevated STR You could argue that DEX and CON don't, since these are almost always also elevated. CON doesn't bother me too much, since while many people buy some extra CON, it's rare to see it elevated to the extent that STR is. Dex is also pretty much always elevated, and Dex inflation has been the subject of much debate. Again, though DEX can be countered by levels, so it's not a dealbreaker (though I admit, I did consider increasing the price, the payback for doing so is smaller than that to be gained by repricing STR, so I haven't done it) I have very, very rarely seen DEX sold back (only once IIRC). Likewise, I have rarely (if ever) seen it left at 10. That's understandable, given that it's the primary combat Stat. CON is likewise rarely sold back or left alone - although it's also not that common for anyone excet brick to have more than 20 in my experience. BOD, INT, EGO, PRE and COM I have all seen left at 10 on multiple occassions or sold back - and that's reflected in published characters as well. And as for supers with any primary under 20, I'd say that's most of them. I don't have lot of supers books (not my favourite genre to GM) but rolling over to Surbrooks stuff, in the comic characters section, again we find almost no STR10 or less characters - but virtually every character has one or more primary stat.s at 10. Even Energy blasters have elevated STR. Of course, whether you see that as problem, I guess depends on your perspective: as a GM, I found it a bit tiring to have everyone in a heroic game in the upper reaches of human capacity for STR: but given the rules, it was hard to fault the player's decisions. I am I must say, much happier with STR at 2:1. It's given a bigger range, without negatively impacting the game. cheers, Mark

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing We have actually played a couple of games like this. The first was using a rule set called "Dark Age" or something like that (it was back in the 80's - I forget) a so-called "realistic" game with no magic. We played thanes in the age of the saxon invasions, but it only went a few sessions. We played a much longer campaign using the C&S rules where all the players were crusaders on the first crusade, fighting and intriguing our way through Lebanon to the capture of Jerusalem and then afterwards setting up little fiefs in Transjordan, dealing with hostile arab neighbors and barely less hostile crusader "allies". Frankly, I trusted the emir of Damascus more than most of my allies. He might have been an enemy, but at least he was honest. That was a truly, truly excellent game: the GM was a trained medieval historian and for a while, member of the MHS (professional medieval re-enactors in the UK). Alas, after a while the game ended, in part because we were too historical: the GM confided one night that as a christian, it distressed him that his "crusaders" were basically a bunch of bloodstained thugs who would lie, cheat and kill to enlarge their fiefs: all the more so because in real life that seemed to be what they actually did. He ran another historical game for us later - and this time took his revenge - we were all franciscan monks in Spain, which rather cut down on the fighting On our wanderings, we came to a monastery that was plagued with murders and became involved in a Name of the Rose style murder mystery. That was also only a short game, going 3-4 sessions: Sir Ofeelya (also on these boards) was also in that game IIRC: playing a sicilian brother with a bad attitude cheers, Mark

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion Sure, at which he point he has a better chance of hitting - doing, on average a small amount of KNB and 5 Stun. So next turn, she's on him, unless he can suddenly pull 15 inches of KNB out of 10d6 EB. I'm not sure why the math is so hard on this one: if he starts at long range, his chances of hitting are tiny. If he waits until his chances of hitting are better than 9 or less, she's on him next phase. That's just how it is, given the character design. If she was slower than he was, or her DCV was lower or his attack was much larger, then maybe. As it stands, he's not going to be able to knockback his way out of this. But of course: that's why I wrote that her chance of hitting him is nearly 80% even taking the modifiers for her velocity into account. If he haymakers her beyond 20" he has a less than 25% chance to hit and a tiny chance to Stun her. If he waits until she's within 20" and she moves through on him while he's haymakering, she has a 74.6% chance (to be precise) of hitting him (before he gets to attack) and a 50% chance of stunning him. Anyway you slice it, those are bad odds for him: I'm still not grasping why the math is so hard here. Repeat away: flying characters have no need to "stand up". So it's half move and grab, regardless. Maybe this is the root of the problem - you're not doing the math, but simply assuming that hits are important. In truth, if he hits her, the chances of getting a Stunned result are tiny, even with a haymaker. For these characters you need to go to 16-17 DC for a decent chance at stunning. A haymaker is not going to take her down. Unless he can somehow pull 20" of KNB out o a 15d6 attack, the worst that can happen is that he hits, she takes some stun and now she is within one phase's move of him. Forget about blowing her out of the air before she closes to hand to hand: as the characters are built, that's not going to happen, barring miracle dice. You are welcome to run your game the way you feel inclined, but a grab automatically immobilizes two limbs of the attacker's choice. So no roll is required. Likewise, a squeeze - according to the rules, can automatically follow a grab. You may feel it is overpowered, but that's how the rules are written. Now admittedly, I didn't assume he would be unable to attack in my initial analysis - whether he can, or can't, it actually doesn't make that much difference. The penalties are not meaningless - anyone else shooting at her can take advantage of them: it's merely that immobilised Energyman can't get any benefit from them: they are irrelevant for him. So that's a non-issue. Not that it matters, because, quoting directly from the FAQ: Also - again from the FAQ: using a haymaker at all to try to break free from a grab is a GM's permission thing (personally I would allow it, but that's because Grab can be pretty nasty).

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion As I have already pointed out, I made no such assumption: if they start out 20" away, Energyman has a significantly less than even chance of hitting her - if they start out further away, that falls even further. And she has a 20" move so if they start 20" apart, she will cover that in one phase if he misses. Again, the odds are on her side. Now I agree, haymakering from the beginning is actually his best strategy, but with the OCV penalties for a Haymaker on top of range, his chance of hitting - even at close range - falls to much less than parity, and the combination of the delay in his attack, and the DCV penalty makes that a highly risky strategy for him once his target closes. If he tries to haymaker from 20" away, odds are good (nearly 80%, even including the penalty for velocity) he'll be wearing a movethrough, with a 50/50 chance that he will end up stunned (losing his haymaker, his next phase his forcefield and the fight). Given that his odds of hitting her with a haymakered EB are much less, and his odds of stunning her are tiny (he needs to roll 15% up on 15 dice: not good), plus the fact that it takes him an extra segment (giving her a clean shot) those are not good numbers for him In such an approach, the math strongly favors Powerwoman - even if it's still his best strategy - because at least it gives him a chance (albeit a very small one) of a lucky shot. Plus, as I've mentioned, I took knockback into account. With 10d6, his chances of doing over 10" in knockback (her half move) are negligible, even when flying. So the best he can hope for is to reduce her move to a little more than half his halfmove. In other words, the best he realistically can hope for is to slow her down: not open any space. Yeah, if he gets lucky, he can maybe hold her off for a couple, maybe even 3 extra phases: during which time he does a largely insignificant amount of stun. Summing all that up, means that start 'em 100" or 1" apart, it does not alter the dynamics significantly, since at anything over close range, his chances of hitting drop so much and even a successful hit has only a minor effect: and with an 8xNCM, even large distances will be covered quickly. Which means they are almost certainly going to end up in HTH, and without much damage being likely by that point. I stated as much a few posts up. That's my assumption and the math underlying it appears to be solid. I have, obviously already thought about these issues and I am honestly not trying to slant the fight in Powerwoman's favour - a Kderensky pointed out, I didn't bother with the fact that a Grab should under most circumstances, neutralise his EB. In large part, because it's not that relevant and also also because if she grabs him she can haymaker her squeeze while keeping his EB pointed away - that's makes an easy win for her, since the extra phase and DCV penalty become meaningless: but it's not like she needs further advantages. I also suggested that the GM might allow him to use his flight to ameliorate Powerwoman's ability to carry him round like a lil' puppy (although that's technically illegal: by the rules, once he's grabbed, he has no movement until he can break free). I tried, wherever possible, to take a fairly balanced approach. The reason it doesn't look good for him is, well, because Powerwoman's stronger. Now if you take Caris' approach and have the fight in an environment where there is no ground, no water, no buildings, and no vehicles or other environmental obstacles, then yes, they become more evenly matched - though the odds are still in her favour because of his non-persistent defence. But all honesty, how often does that happen? Alternatively - which is why I wrote that powerwoman nearly always wins, Energyman could conceivably win if he is lucky and smart by using the environment - lure her over a fuel tanker and blow that up, shoot down powerlines on her if she has a susceptibility to electricity and so on - but all that assumes much more luck than assuming the characters are in a setting where there is "a building" or "the ground" - those are pretty generic. All the counterarguments so far seem to be focussing on "how Energyman can possibly survive/escape" - to me, that's pretty convincing evidence of who's stronger. Caris is also right in that I place a fair amount of weight on my experience. But I've played in/run many different games and can also compare characters from those to published characters: have a look and see how many supers have a STR under 20. Not very damn many. That suggests to me that my experience is actually pretty typical. cheers, Mark

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

Re: The value of your health You know, that's actually not a bad idea.... cheers, Mark