Markdoc

Re: How much XP per 'level' Except that loss of LTE is based off how much END you are using up - if you are not using up any appreciable END, then the GM has to houserule the LTE rules, too. Sigh. Back to square 1. These are all pretty simple solutions - they've all come up over the years that this issue has been in discussion. It remains an issue, because none of them actually fit very well and because many of them (the decription of how STR works, how it actualy works, the encumbrance rules and now the third suggestion in TUB) all directly contradict each other. The problem is not with the basic rules themselves (which work fine) but with the recent attempt to "make them more realistic" at the low end, without changing the mechanics. It's what Sean would called "reasoning from special effect", I think: the idea of what STR 10 does is based on two concepts: "STR 10 is normal" and "In the real world, this is what a normal can lift". It's not a mechanistic approach ("STR 10 lets you lift 100 kg"), which is why it fails. If you tell a reasonably bright player with STR 10 (not that there are many of those! ) that 100 kg "is as much as they can barely lift and stagger a few steps with", they'll point out that actually, by pushing, they can lift 200kg, so lifting 100 kg up onto the shelf shouldn't be a problem. And of course, by the rules as written, they're right.

Re: Clinging, UAA Animal magnetism, then After having though it about it overnight, I probably wouldn't allow targetting of specific body parts. To avoid problems over interpretation, I'd prefer to agree that you are making the "target" sticky - so you could affect (for example) a focus (that's a seperate entity) - but not someone's eyelids. Anyway, thanks for the discussion - it was interesting to play around with the ideas. cheers, Mark

Re: Whats your view of PC expiry? What's your in-game mortality rate? Nope - likes 'em all warm and wiggly Short recap. The creature in question was a lamia (in my game, just one of many names for a seductive vampiric creature: they come in a variety of types/forms). Most of them have shapeshifting/illusory powers and this one was no exception. The problem is - for a vampiric creature - that the people you snack on, die after a while. Meaning you have to find a new host, deal with people finding the bodies, etc etc. This particular creature had found what it thought was a solution. It landed in a small, isolated town and instead of taking a single host, it took many (as many as it could reasonably hold enchanted at one time). That way, it was able to feed regularly, but without killing any one host. When it feeds, the victim sees wondrous dreams (mind control/mental illusions) and simpy wakes up tired, after what they think is a bout of intense dreaming. Since the creature is a shapeshifter, it has no gender as such - it fed on (and seduced) both men and women and (ahem!) satisfied other appetites with them as well. That way it not only got a host of willing victims, but victims who were prepared to arrange a secretive "tryst" where the Lamia could feed at leisure (and moreover victims who would actively obstruct any attempt to investigate exactly what they had been up to). The small kids, on the other hand were just an annoyance - so it fed on them until they died, and then dropped the bodies down an abandoned mineshaft. The players worked out pretty rapidly that something was amiss - a side effect of the Lamia's kiss and the dreams is the awakening of intense creativity (a small transform which swaps some BOD for creative skills). So they found this isolated mining town possessed a swarm of creative types who had formerly been miners, nightsoil collectors, etc, but they didn't know exactly what was going on. They actually encountered the Lamia, but via mixture of very minor illusions and some mind control, she was able to talk the players out of attacking her - and almost convince the players that maybe she wasn't an evil monster after all. At that point they didn't know about the kids, nobody (as far as the PCs knew) had died, all her apparent "victims" were voluble in her defence, they enjoyed their new creativity. She even seduced and fed on one of the PCs, who was pleased to get a new skill apparently for free (the BOD loss was totally invisible, so he didn't know that part ) Eventually, at a dead end, they went to see a witch, and one of the players made a terrible bargain with her in exchange for charms that protected them from enchantment magic (and broke the enchantment on the PC who was still enchanted). They went back looking for the lamia and in their hunt for her found the remains of the kids - at which point, they went straight to combat mode, when they found it. Unfortunately they only killed one of its charmed "lovers" instead (the Lamia switched their forms via an illusion and got out of there). The lamia hid in the town, intending to come out at night, charm one of the PCs and get him to lead the rest into a trap, but it didn't know one of the players has a magical talent that lets him find people. So the players tracked it down and the scene I mentioned first ensued. The character who got stabbed was willing to take the risk of being killed because of the murdered babies. I've skimmed over a lot but the basic idea behind that scenario is that it started off slightly whimsical, with lots of red herrings that turned out to be nothing, but with more and more clues that something was seriously wrong - but the PCs couldn't get anyone in authority to take drastic action, because none of the clues by themselves meant very much. Then the last session (the scenario ran for 4 sessions) ended with the discovery of the bodies, a search of the town and the discovery of many missing children - and a few other unsavoury details - and the reallisation that when they had last faced the creature, that they had let it go. At that point the mood had changed from "whimsical adventure" to "horror" and the players were ready to do whatever it took to send this creature to hell. cheers, Mark

Re: Panspermia, anyone? I admit freely to not being an expert here - so maybe the controversy has been resolved, or has become a fringe debate (that's why I mentioned both options). Last I read though, the research papers were still being flung back and forth between groups who were saying "Yes! Early microfossils!" and those who were saying "No! Abiogenic ultramafics!" http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul102002/15.pdf As of last month, the debate still seems to be going on. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2006.0098 cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' Yep, that's pretty much my interpretation too. That's why someone (Greg Lloyd? I don't actually remember any more, it was so long ago...) suggested that normals should have a STR stat of 5, with 10 being "cinematic action hero". I can see why that idea flopped - the sytem was built around the idea of a 10 point base line and altering that alters a whole raft of mechanistic assumptions. For my own FH game, I flirted with the idea of stating that STR 10 gave you 50 kg lifting capacity instead of 100 and that you needed to push, if you wanted to lift more. That brings you to the "barely lift off the floor, stagger a step or two, and drop" level at 100kg/225 lbs and allows you to use END use to define how far and fast you can carry a heavy object. It's also relatively realistic and gives the GM a basemark to work LTE loss off if people want to do this for a long time. In the end, though, I didn't bother: I was happy enough to houserule what could and could not be reasonably carried and the players trust me enough to accept those rulings. In general, I don't care to make houserules unless there's a real game issue at hand. As it stands though, my players still have the idea fixed somewhere in their heads that 10 STR means you can pick up ad move 100 kg without too many problems cheers, Mark

Re: Clinging, UAA Glue on the floor is the traditional one, though in the recent Battle Angel Alita comic "manipulation of Van der Waals forces" was used by one opponent from Guntroll to stick to things, which sounds better . Bobby from the X-men used to use sprays of ice at floor level. Molecular bonding? Localised generation of a gravity field? I guess with a few minutes thought we could come up with other alternatives. Technically speaking, yeah I see no reason you couldn't target specific body parts (if you are using hit locations) at an appropriate minus or target foci (again, at the appropriate minus, which for an eyelid, is going to be about -16 OCV). One could, after all presumably use TK to grab an opponent's hands, or their gun or even squeeze their head to prevent them opening their mouth (again, assuming fine manipulation and a to hit at minuses). And just like TK, if you're attacking the head, obviously you are not sticking your target to anything. You couldn't however use it to suffocate, harm or reduce the OCV/DCV of the target. For that, you want an attack like TK, which has a built-in damage/grab component. Not really - clinging UAA doesn't stop you teleporting away or tearing yourself off a surface (after all, many surfaces won't take much to tear up: you don't have to break the Clinging, if the surface is weaker). It doesn't prevent you using your foci, or attacking, it doesn't reduce your OCV or your DCV, it offers no protection from attacks, it stops as soon as the attacker moves out of range, or is stunned, or stops paying END. At the same time entangle automatically entangles the target - it doesn't stick them to anything. So it is, in fact, functionally, pretty much as unlike Entangle as it is possible to be, while still possibly sharing a special effect and goal. And in the vast majority of cases, Entangle since it does do all those things, will be far more effective. Same with TK - as you note above, you can build TK to perform a similar task, but mechanistically (by which I means it's in-game effects) all three of these things are very, very, different indeed. You could add a fourth power if you want for sticking people in place - Drain (running) - although again, the actual effects in-game are somewhat different from the other three. As comented up-thread, there's more than one way to skin a cat. As long as it doesn't involve an obvious exploit: and from the examples given so far, it doesn't look like anyone has come up with one - I don't have a problem with that. cheers, Mark

Re: Clinging, UAA That's true - but it's only relevant if you use AP caps and "holding in place" is your major criteria. Otherwise, you get that extra "stickiness" at the cost of greatly reduced utility: the TK remains a far more effective attack (because it allows you to "grab") even though the STR that can be bought to bear is less. If the interation with AP caps is the only remaining argument against, then I suppose you have a sort of point, but my response at that point is basically "meh". Mechanistically and game-balance wise, I'm still not seeing a problem. On the up side, as a GM, if the player wanted a "Glue gun attack" that stuck someone to the ground/wall/whatever, this discussion has convinced me that clinging UAA is one way to go. If they wanted a "gravity attack" that crushed the target against a surface, then it looks like TK would be the way to go. The two are so mechanistically different and have such different "flavour" that I don't see them treading on each other's toes. cheers, Mark

Re: Panspermia, anyone?

Re: Clinging, UAA I think this is the nub of the disagreement. I see clinging allowing TWO things. One, as you noted is to facilitate your movement. Two, it allows you to resist being moved (either off the surface or - quite explicitly - along the same surface). Under this view, you can modify your sentence above to: Clinging: You are able to use your surface based movement without penalty on surfaces other than flat ground. You are able to resist being pulled off or moved across whatever surface you are currently attached to. Clinging UAA: You make someone resist being pulled off or moved across whatever surface they are currently attached to...whether they want to or not. You could of course always allow them to move normally, if you wanted to. I don't see any reason to rule the power out of court - but it's also simply not that big a deal to me - in a quarter century of Hero system gaming, I've seen it used precisely once. In most cases, limited flight or TK would be a more useful/appropriate build. Edit: and as already noted: any movement power with UAA is pretty broken. Flight UAA is grim enough: Tunnelling UAA (tunnel closes behind) is worse - and I've seen that build more frequently in Hero games than clinging UAA! Twice, IIRC cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' So you think that players should be able to carry heavy loads, without getting tired? Or that I as a GM should just decide by fiat when they get tired? GM: "You are too tired to go any further and look for a place to sleep, but you are not too tired to climb up to the old ruins" Players: "That's a very specific kind of tired" Ah, but if you read the encumbrance rules, you'll find they directly contradict the description of how much you can carry, given in the STR description (as do the rules posted from TUB, incidentally). If you use the encumbrance rules as written, carrying your casual STR allows actually significantly encumbers you. That's not actually unrealistic - but it highlights some of the issues we've dealt with. So yeah, There Are Rules For This, and those rules contradict each other and don't play well with the actual mechanics: which pretty much brings us back to the starting point of the discussion - as a GM, you have to make the call. I'm sorry you think I'm trolling. I'm not, in fact. Indeed, I'm not the only one to have noticed this. The discussion about the disconnect between what ordinary people in game can potentially lift/carry and reality has been around for a long time - I first came across it on the original hero discussion boards back on AOL, 15 or 16 years ago. IIRC, the text added in 5th came about as a result of one of those discussions. The STR/carrying capacity issue even generated a Murphy's Rules cartoon, many years ago. The issue could be solved at a stroke by saying ordinary modern adults are STR5, and can lift heavier weights by pushing their STR, but that's a step too drastic to take, IMO. It's not a big deal: as I said, I simply handwave it as a GM, and if players insist on carrying heavy loads for long, I penalise them with LTE loss. But I recognize that that's my house rule - albeit a sensible one. cheers, Mark

Re: What rule don't people know? Added in 5th (presumably on the grounds that you would otherwise need continous on your STR). We houseruled that one out of existence as it makes no sense and the penalties for grabbing someone do not make it a killer tactic (in fact, grabs are not used that frequently in most games I've played in though as a GM, I make fairly frequent use of them) cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' No, I'm not trolling. I do however, ignore the "rule", which isn't terribly useful. I use quotation marks because it isn't a rule - it's a mechanics-free description - the difference between saying "A ordinary door can be broken in by hitting it violently" and "An ordinary door has DEF 2, BOD 2" I actually noticed the the disconect between the description and how the rules actually work initially, because it has in fact come up multiple times in games. When I as a GM I say "You can't carry X all the way back to the village. It's too heavy" It has often been met with : "Whaddaya mean, too heavy? I'm not even burning any END carrying it!" (meaning it's light enough that they are not getting "tired" - that's what END simulates, no?) Likewise when running away carrying heavy loot, an attempt to say - "You have to drop the sacks, otherwise he'll catch you" has been met with "OK, I'll drop one sack - how fast can I move now?" So tell me then, where can I find the official rules for the in-game effects of carrying your full or partial STR load on DCV, DEX rolls, movement speed and similar functions? And if your full STR is what you can pick up and stagger with, and casual STR is what you easily carry, how much can you lift over your head? How much can you run with, albeit with difficulty? Can you indicate where the rules for this are? Oh, that's right, there aren't any. We're back to the optional encumbrance rules - which are rather punitive - or handwavium: which is what I use. To be fair, from what you two write it does sound like these issues might be covered in the Ultimate Brick, but I've never seen a copy of that. There's certainly nothing equivalent in the core rules. Let's see: Lift how far off the ground? Stagger how far? At what movement speed? What's your DCV when doing this? Can you then pick it up and move it exactly the same way next phase and keep this up for hours? The description suggests not, but there's no mechanism to decide lhow long you can keep this up - the description also sounds like this should be tiring, but mechanics-wise it doesn't seem to actually tire you out. If a fight started after 6 hours of lift-stagger-drop does the player start with the same END as if they had just arisen from a refereshing night of sleep? In short, the STR/weight thing is a relic of the early days of Champions, when the baseline for everyone was 100 Kg in weight and 2 metres in height and had 10 for all Stat.s - and could in fact lift 100 kg and run off with it. The description came much later as an attempt to rationalise the rules as they already stood. It's not a big deal: the GM can always handwave it, and in fact, I do. But the original statement that the description doesn't match the game mechanics, still stands, as far as I can see. I wrote and that still seems to be true. Now I appreciate having the sentence in the book, since it gives me something to show tetchy players who want to cart the giant gilded idol out of the temple, but the decision on what and and how fast they can move things is the same as before that descriptor was added - it remains a GM call, based on common sense. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: Trial of Redmark and his men. Depends on the setting. I approve of the whole trial idea - very few societies operate entirely on the basis of "I killed him, what you gonna do about it" and establishing the idea that there is an operative legal system goes along way to bringing the players onto the side of the good guys. Trust me, that'll be good in the long term for the campaign. I've already had one legal case in my current game where the players got an opponent outlawed and a bounty put on his head - they liked that, especially because they've met several tough bounty-hunters, but it also subtly made the point that if they behave like he did, the same could happen to them.... Some options to consider are: Decide what the people running the trial think - as you note, the mercenaries got decimated and the town suffered no real harm. They are unlikely to be out for blood unless they really hate mercenaries. At the same time, they probably realise that it could have gone badly - they are unlikely to want these guys around. One option is to just to string them up as a warning, but there's not much rolepaying in that. If you have trial by combat or ordeal the captain might demand it, if he thinks he might otherwise be in deep doodoo. Trial by combat is always good for roleplaying - but if you introduce it, be prepared for the players to try to cliam it at some point. If the mercs can make a case that they only did what they were paid to, they might even be let off. This is likely to piss the players off, so if you choose this option make sure sure you sweeten the pot by the same court awarding them some honours and making it plain that a) they did the right thing capturing the mercs rather than killingthem out of hand and levey some sort of penalty, even if it's a promise of service, an oath never to return, or some sort of reckoning with whoever hired them. Another suitable penalty is a big weregild for the people they did kill (at the first village) with a pledge to return at a certain date with the cash, if they don't have enough. That means the players will have to return on that same date to collect. cheers, Mark

Re: Whats your view of PC expiry? What's your in-game mortality rate? It happens rarely in my games, but there's no resurrection, so when it happens, that's it. We did have a near one several sessions ago, which illustrates how it can happen, though: the PCs are hunting a shapeshifting monster that has ensorcelled half the men in the town, seduced half the women and eaten a fair number of children. They finally corner it in a basement, but it manages to surprise them anyway and get behind one player with a sword pointed at his back. It then demands it be allowed to escape or it'll run him through (he has armour, but the tip of the blade is resting on an unarmoured bit). The player shouts "Kill her anyway" and tries to jump away - even though warned by me that it has him covered - and takes a sword in the neck. I roll the dice out in the open for everyone to see, to make it plain that this one is serious. As it happened, the player goes down squirting blood everywhere but with the help of the healers he survives. But it could easily have been a heroic death. So ... I try to avoid PC death, but not to the point where death loses its sting. cheers, Mark

Re: Clinging, UAA

Re: Clinging, UAA I'd agree that both of these are valid builds and I'd agree that the TK is actually cheaper in this case (though perhaps slightly less useful since as built you can't stick people to anything except surfaces, which makes it fair enough). I can't see either one as abusive, so .... ahhhh .... is there a problem here? 'Cause I'm still not seeing it. I'd certainly give the hairy eyeball to any UAA power that appeared to duplicate an existing power more cheaply. However, if someone wants to duplicate an existing power more expensively, well, as long as they do so in an informed fashion, that's OK with me. Unless I misunderstand you, you've just done an end-run around your own argument cheers, Mark

Re: Clinging, UAA

Re: Clinging, UAA

Re: Reconciling Manga & Batman You don't even need qi training - just a certain phlegmatism and practice: I've seen (oh god - for some memory bleach) men lift very heavy weights on a hook driven through their penis and then swing them around. They weren't martial arts masters, they were just S&M freaks. It wasn't even anywhere exotic - Castro district in San Francisco at Halloween a few years back. I suspect however, that we're getting a wee bit off topic cheers, Mark

Re: Clinging, UAA

Re: Reconciling Manga & Batman

Re: Stun/knock outs, overwhelming the combats

Re: World's biggest natural disaster? I'd be a bit sceptical about this part: the velocipede was invented in 1860, long after the year without a summer. The writer is probably confusing it with the Draisienne, the first steerable semi-bicycle: but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it had anything to do with horses or oats. It was a toy, as far as we can tell, designed for amusement by a German Nobleman and based on the much older Celerifere semi-bicycles used for the same purpose (they were steered with the feet and by leaning, like a sled) and precede the eruption by a generation. The article cited by the wiki suggests the Draisienne was controversial because people didn't know how to balance before 1817 despite the existence of two wheeled vehicles prior to the Draisienne and the existence before the wheeled Draisienne of the ice Draisienne - basically an upright sled used on frozen rivers and canals similar to the ski-sleds used today. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level'