Doc Democracy

Starting to allow real world impact on superhero physics. Never ends well and you lose the little bit of flavour you are looking for amid the hugely convoluted power build... You could say fire-suppressants rather than water. You could simply require oxygen, since these things cut off the supply of that. You could simply agree a limited power with the player where half the power (or more) has limited effect in the presence of fire suppressants or absence of oxygen. You could agree with the player the kind of limitation under a variety of conditions and cut out a whole load of bureaucracy during gameplay. Beware of detailed science intruding into superhero goodness!!! :-)

Hmm. concentrated water, huh? :-) I think the volume of water per second should be the deciding factor. the glass of water will only have a phase effect before evaporating, the light rain will have a lesser effect but will have an ongoing effect. Not concentrated, more about volume... Doc PS: though for those that understand water is 55.7M concentration.

Have you considered making it a feature of manouevres? You could simply have an additional manouevre, that seeks to deliver knockback? Or you could make it a function of the to hit roll, each 2 you make your roll by increases KB by 1m? You could decrease default KB at the same time... No analysis, just thoughts over my breakfast coffee... Doc

The only tip I have is think about why you wanted to play a female character, then ensure you do, in game, what you could not achieve with a male character. Doc

In my next game I intend to try something different. I am going to allow the number of dice rolled to increase as far as a player can push it but limit damage to the maximum that could be achieved by that weapon. You will never do more than 6 BODY and 30 STUN with a 1D6 killing attack. More dice just means a greater chance of hitting that maximum. If it is a gritty campaign, then damage rolled above the maximum will damage the weapon as it has been pushed beyond design tolerances. Doc

Next to my dice box I have a small money box. Every time I play a game with my friends I put £2 into the box. Kind of like paying to play. The upshot is that I am paying myself. Given the amount we spend on food and drinks on a game night (and on travelling), and additional £2 is nothing. I play, on average, once a fortnight - or about 26 times a year. That accumulates for me £52 a year. not a fortune but it becomes guilt free game expenditure when I need/want it. Given that I went a few years without anything I really wanted it to buy, that little nest egg more than paid for sixth edition. :-) I was also one of those who unquestioningly bought the next edition of D&D....until 4th edition. It was not a game I wanted to buy and it did not feel like D&D to me. The bad thing for Wizards is that when 5th came out, I did not buy that either - the habit was broken and I did not want the game enough to spend the money...even though I had it to spend. Doc

Hmm. I am thinking (without looking at my books) Flight, only while touching surface of ground or water, independent, OAF, area effect usable by others. Another limitation would be that only 2 SPD counts toward velocity calculations. I would link that to a small level of life support (protect from elements). I think that covers it for me Doc

Surreal, are you, like NinjaBear suggests, thinking the dice are rolled each turn, rather than at the start of each combat? Chris' suggestion is the latter...

Don't think I need to check the maths. I dont think anyone disputes the probability numbers, what I am wondering is how the numbers might change player behaviour. take two players, one is speed 6 the other is speed 2. In the system there is a huge discrepancy here, one that as a GM I have sought to discourage in groups I have GM'ed as it provides one player with a LOT more spotlight time than the other. Anyway. In the current system, both players go on 12, ONE goes again on 2, again on 4, they both go on 6, then ONE goes on 8 and again on 10. In 12 seconds ONE has moved six times, OTHER has gone twice. If OTHER has a higher DEX he goes first on 12 and the ONE has three unopposed actions before OTHER can go again. That is then repeated. In Christopher.s variant. you roll the dice. If you roll 2. ONE goes on 2 and 4, then OTHER goes, then ONE goes three times unopposed. That is then repeated. If you roll 3 or 4. ONE goes on 4, then OTHER goes, then ONE goes three times unopposed. That is then repeated. If you roll 5 or 6. Both players move on 6, OTHER first, then ONE goes three times unopposed. That is then repeated. If you roll 7 or 8. ONE goes on 8 and 10, then OTHER goes, then ONE goes three times unopposed. That is then repeated. If you roll 9 or 10. ONE goes on 10, then OTHER goes, then ONE goes three times unopposed. That is then repeated. If you roll 11 or 12 then it is the same as the current situation. There is no upside for OTHER, however In 12 seconds ONE has moved six times, OTHER has gone twice just like before, The question is whether that is due to the system r the unfortunate effects of the pattern comparing those two speeds. I will repeat with the same 4 speed discrepancy using speeds 5 and 9. In the current system, both players go on 12, ONE goes again on 2, both go on 3 and ONE goes again on 4. OTHER goes on 5, ONE goes on 6 and 7 then they both go on 8. Then both go again on 10, then ONE goes on 11. In 12 seconds ONE has moved nine times, OTHER has gone five times. If OTHER has a higher DEX he goes first on 12, 3, 10 and was unopposed on 5 and ONE has four back to back actions. That is then repeated. In Christopher.s variant. you roll the dice. If you roll 2. ONE gets to go first. If you roll 3. OTHER gets to go first. If you roll 4. ONE gets to go first. If you roll 5. OTHER gets to go first. If you roll 6. ONE gets to go first. If you roll 7. ONE gets to go first. If you roll 8. OTHER gets to go first. If you roll 9. ONE gets to go first. If you roll 10. OTHER gets to go first. If you roll 11. ONE gets to go first. If you roll 12. OTHER gets to go first. So OTHER gets to go first 5 times, ONE gets to go first six times which is detrimental to OTHER (the spd 5 character) as under the normal system he would get to go first every time. However on a roll of 5 he gets to attack free before turtling which would never be possible under normal system. It is not so black and white and provides a little bit of uncertainty about potential tactics that the current system does not allow. So. If you are SPD 2 facing SPD 6 opponents then you may indeed be incentivised to invest in some SPD but not necessarily if SPD 5 facing SPD 9 opponents. If that was the case however, I would be expecting that those 40 points not spent on SPD were being used to offset the combat disadvantage you are giving up under either system. If that is true I dont see how the random start necessarily leads to the situation you describe. Doc PS: too much work doing this kind of analysis!!! :-)

Surrealalone, you are making the assertion, can you demonstrate that randomisation has the effect you claim? I don't see how it would happen.

I don't buy that low speed leads to abort, abort, abort. Characters with low speed tend not to need to abort otherwise they would be in the abort sequence regardless of starting segment.

You know, I mentioned in the Ditching the SPD chart thread that I would like to see this concept brought into the modern day - a new generation system. I think characteristics is another thing that makes HERO feel like a first generation game. In the discussion of HERO's health thread where there is a current examination of skills it was pointed out that their use can be pretty flexible but the rules are not explicit on how to implement that for your game. I think that the use of characteristics could be flexible and GMs could utilise what they needed and wanted for their game. Some characteristics would be difficult to remove - STUN and BODY in one form or another are how you keep score. OCV and DCV are necessary in one way or another. But even these I can see taking away from the right game. In a heroic game you can tell people what they can do and change everything from the baseline by designing powers and using skills to deliver those things. You could take away damage and tell folk that if someone hits them in combat they make an 15- roll to avoid falling unconscious. This drops by one or more with each hit until you fail and the lower down your roll is the longer you take to wake up. Different feel to combat but removes the need for PD, ED, STUN and BODY. I would use this in a cartoon-y style game. I could probably think of other places. It would be good for a new edition of the system to really think about the core conceit of HERO and see how that can be delivered with a more modern approach to making an RPG engine. Much of the periphery would remain but the core mechanics and the guidance on how to develop a game would be much more explicit. This would have to be a two volume beast - one with the engine and tools - another with a game made using the engine (I suggest Champions - a four colour superhero game) where the design decisions on getting there are explicit in sidebars etc. You can then release new games, multiple genres of superheroes where different design decisions are made to effect really substantial changes in gameplay. Those would involve not just decisions about powers (and how they might be used) but the skill system and what if any characteristics would be used in the gameplay. Doc PS: that turned into a much longer post than I thought it was going to be.... :-S

Without consciously doing so, I probably use a mixture of rules. There are things I dont care about - like whether I am requiring people to have the right skills to do particular things and there are rules that have changed without me realising - I have not run a 6th edition game yet - so I am probably, in my head, thinking of a mostly 5th edition game with slight bits of 4th edition in there by mistake and big patches where I am ignoring the rules of whatever edition... When it comes down to it, as long as you and the players are on the same page, nothing else matters. Doc

I could do that but I cannot guarantee everyone else will. :-)

Wonder if Aglondir got what he wanted? Or realised the interest in the topic!? I think the SPD chart is a feature of HERO but it is unchanged since first edition. I would love a real game designer to see if it might be improved and properly embedded in the system to give a real action feel.

I was thinking that a character with low EGO but high PRE who is being Mind Controlled, especially if the special effect is, for example fear based, might think the mentalist should have to gain multiples of his PRE rather than his EGO. Seems fair do to me... Doc

Never understood why it was fine to defend against presence attacks with EGO but no mention of using multiples of PRE rather than EGO or INT. Or have I missed something for years?

Ha! Could not find using the search function on the site but Google is indeed your friend in such situations. There are several conversations you might want to look at but I am highlighting this purely because I started it over five years ago!! http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/34338-re-vitalising-the-speed-chart/ Another talks about removing it completely http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/19397-removing-the-speed-chart/ Another option to look at http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/73785-replacing-the-speed-chart-with-a-shot-system/ Doc

As far as items like smartphones are concerned, or weapons etc, my rule for the players was: Anything you want that can be bought, legally, for money you can have. Anything you want that can be acquired, illegally, you can roleplay for. Any of these things, unless they are bought through points, I can take away from you narratively at any point in the adventure if I do not want you to have them. The idea is that smartphones are great until they are fried by an EMP or dunked in water. Guns are great if you have the ammo and they are not taken away from you at some point, or gunked up in river mud, etc. All equipment that would make story sense for characters to have they should be able to acquire and should be able to lose in the same way. If they have paid points then, as GM, you have a responsibility to give them access to whatever was paid for, even if that means NPCs behaving stupidly. Yes the OAF pistol (with or without special modifiers but paid for in character points) was taken away but when they escape from the prison cell the guard they knock out happens to have that very pistol stuck in his waistband. Or it was left in a drawer or hung up within reach of someone else or something. Deprived for a short time but not forever. A pistol bought for dollars may never be regained. To me, that is the big difference. Doc

There are many reasons for a feint. To improve your chance of hitting the person, to reduce their chance of hitting you, to improve your chance of a hit doing damage, or of hitting a particular location. The proposed system, however, does not really add a lot - if the attacker has enough of an advantage to gain +5OCV he does not need to feint to improve the chance to hit, it does not reduce the chance of the opponent to hit and is likely to be able to hit most locations anyway. My question is whether it would stack. I can see the benefits of gaining position - I win the round gaining a +1, then a +2, then another +1 etc. When I have gained enough position I use it for a strike to the head or vitals, having manouevred my opponent to the point that I can virtually choose a location. Position should be fragile though and possibly lost at twice the rate it is gained. By accumulating position I can improve the potential for doing damage and specifying locations. It may also add colour to a fight. I think that the combat system could do with a real look. It is very simple and very old fashioned. It is too easy for a fight to be a war of attrition, gambling round the SPD and CV combos to see who gets to zero first. The problem with a balanced system is that, if done 'properly', things are so balanced that it is almost predictable. :-) (this is probably more a feature of supers than other genres) Doc

Our reason is keeping alive a system we are invested in, hopefully until such time it becomes vibrant again. It is an activity based on love and hope, not economic sense or rationality. :-) Doc

There are electronic sheets in the downloads section but I don't think any of them are html. Anyone know differently? Doc

And that is perhaps a market for HERO in itself. Build your own system, powered by HERO. If you showed those folk how to utilise the toolkit, how to adapt the underlying system, they could save long hours of play testing because that has been built into the toolkit. They could instead focus on the skin that wraps around the framework... Doc

I think if you are bog standard you ain't gonna make it. You need some kind of odd! :-)

Christopher makes a good point and that only hits the financial side. Capitalism is often about exploiting others for your own gain, part of the system right there. Everywhere in the system are people producing for less financial gain than others. However in many cases you see that the gains of those producers are not strictly financial. Kudos and reputation and skill building are all decent returns. Many gamers are frustrated authors, designers, artists etc. This is a great opportunity to write, design and draw for an established brand and system. For the odd person it might be the first steps on a writing career like Steve's. This could be viewed as an opportunity rather than potential exploitation. Even if you have no pretensions to a game design career then there is grand tradition of fan based material produced for the benefit of the whole community. I think it is potentially mean-spirited to dissuade people to participate unless they see hard cash (especially when that hard cash is increasingly scarce). Doc PS: and never has my sig been so relevant to the theme of a discussion on the boards!