Doc Democracy

Your games obviously favour swords. Players rarely tend towards less efficient options. It is impossible to know what is driving the options (whether towards swords or away from magic) without lots more information on the basic parameters of your game. I would say it is opposite of most games I gave run where everyone sees advantage in being a user of magic... Are your players maybe attracted to the simplicity of running a fighter? Is your magic system complex or access to magic so restrictive it puts them off. Finally, I guess it is your vision for magic to be ubiquitous, otherwise you could play a decent low fantasy game with that mix. It us not as if all fighters need to be the same, or even nearly the same in HERO. Doc

I would say that the most common mistake a HERO GM makes in building a world is underestimating the details that he or she needs to consider if the world is to be consistent. Work put in early avoids all kinds of issues later on. Doc

I dont stat out low levels - they have a title (East side pimp) but not a name, a reason the heroes might talk to them, a weapon. I presume SPD 2 OCV 3. Unless otherwise stated on the card (I use index cards for NPCs) they go down on one hit from a PC. NPCs with names get stats too, though I have a few that are in between... Doc

The special effect is designed to seem as if it is attacking hands but it will damage the target if any part of their body is touching metal and the damage will not be influenced by which body part is touching the metal. For instance the crotch mounted cannon, or head mounted lasers will not get double damage. As such, I would expect Mark to say yes. The AoE is delivering the benefits designed in - multiple targets and reduced DCV. It is not delivering damage bonuses based on hit location.

I think we are very close now. I think I only said what ?I was saying from the start but I may have said it more clearly this time! :-) I would buy the -3 rather than -2 for consistency's sake. :-) As far as one hex accurate goes, I thought I covered that. I said the player had paid the points to get the 3 OCV and so could start from there. A bit if an inconsistency but just extrapolating from one that already exists...

I think for first characters it is best to begin with very simple archetypal characters. A strong man, a man that flies and shoots energy blasts, a dextrous man that fights using martial arts etc. Everyone can get their head round those concepts and they are easily built. Once they are content with the game and how it works then I would allow them to add-on more complex things to their characters that turn them into more rounded characters (or allow them to design something entirely new). I never tie a player to a character concept until they have played it a few times. Bring all your questions to the boards. Folk love commenting and you will get a variety of answers to most questions allowing you to choose the one you like most... Doc

I prefer to leave villains at a fixed power level, no growth as that emphasises the growth of the heroes. I like to introduce new, more powerful villains to provide challenge. If the heroes talk lovingly of an old opponent, only then might I level them up, radiation accident style. The old villain then leapfrogs the heroes and comes back for a while. Doc

I think you need to explain to us what you mean by control blood...I have no idea of what that would look like in a movie or a comic and what the haeptomancer would achieve through its use.... Doc

I feel sorry for TheDarkness. I think, and that is as far as it goes, I think that what he was hoping for was a discussion of how folk try to make the spending of experience more relevant to the ongoing storylines in the campaign and how far their recent actions should colour that expenditure. Instead there has been a bit of a dogpile telling him how much of a fascist GM he is. I am certain that is not the intention of the commentary but has noone tried to integrate spending with gameplay?? Doc

I was with you until I actually went to the rulebook... So -2 for large item in HtH. For a pistol at range -6 to -8... Doc

I am not surprised that you are confused, I have not sat down and worked something out. Let me think out loud... The sheriff has a bandit in his sight. He wants to shoot the gun out of his hand and bring the man in for trial. However, the man is a known gunslinger and he would rather hit than aim for the gun an miss completely. He does not fancy his chnaces in a straight fight! His options: - shoot the hand (-6 OCV penalty) if that roll using that penalty misses there is no effect beyond alerting bandit to his presence. - try to disarm the bandit (-6 to -8 OCV penalty) if that roll using that penalty misses there is no effect beyond alerting the bandit to his presence. - shoot the bandit (no OCV penalty) if that roll hits, roll random location hoping for decent outcome but playing it safe rather than heroic. - shoot the bandit in the head (-8 OCV penalty) if that roll using that penalty misses there is no effect beyond alerting the bandit to his presence. I think that covers it, no? I am talking about considering another option - try to shoot the gun but not at the expense of missing completely (-8 OCV penalty - -6 OCV for hand location, another -2 OCV for the playing it safe) if that roll including -8 penalty misses but would have hit with a -2 penalty then the target will take normal damage - 1x BODY and 2x or 3x STUN. The location would be the closest that would provide that damage. For the hand that would be shoulder or chest. My thoughts are that this helps players to make a heroic decision. I know my players, if they were going to risk a location shot, would consider it more heroic with current options to take the headshot. These are not the same thing mechanic-wise are they? One is using autofire, the other is using a single attack over several phases. Or one is using area effect and the other a single attack. As such, I would apply precision differently to each mechanic. I suggested slightly less precision at the cost of hitting with fewer missiles. Agreed. The mechanic hould drive what is possible and what is not. You use the relevant mechanics to build the power effects you want. Agreed again. Decision for the GM. Basic is anything that does ED or PD damage that can, reasonably, be applied to the hit location table- you can roll a location and with luck you can get damage multiples. As far as an attack with accurate built on it, the player has bought a way of removing an opponents DCV. They target the hex DCV as a basic - I think they paid the points, the GM has agreed this is a valid purchase (some may not) and so the calculation progresses - starting at DCV 3 and applying penalties as previously. i would suppose this is what you would do currently for a player with accurate wanting to take a headshot. no? You are right that I wanted to suggest that there should be some way available for GMs that wanted to reflect a more detailed kind of psychic combat where there is the risk of missing being traded for more effect if successful. the attack is not basic if it does not deliver PD or ED damage that can be related to physical hit locations. poison is indeed always an option and introduces a range of problems as every game tends to design poison differently. agreed. Everything comes down to each groups willingness and tolerance for bureaucracy to gain the level of verisimilitude that thy want to achieve. Doc

this used to be a problem in fantasy but the practice has spread to SF as well. It annoys me, I dont get a finished product for my first investment, I hae no idea of how well the author can wrap up a tale. An issue with many of the authors I have read - no idea how to finish. that problem is worse when there have been six or more books leading up to the ending..

I am concerned about the concern about edition. I think that if someone wants to post, then they should post - just be explicit about what edition you are playing and commenting on and it should not be an issue. Obviously those folk that came in with sixth edition might not be able to comment directly but I think most of us have lived through multiple editions.

Hmm. There is one point to consider here before deciding what costs etc might be. How big an element does the player want this to be. If it is something he might want to come up once in his career with major consequences, it is probably pretty low point complication, If it is something he constantly gas to deal with, ensuring low grade thugs he has done jobs with don't suss he is also Captain Whitebread, then it is possibly also low point. If he us one step ahead of PRIMUS and two vigilantes at all times then you might be getting up for it being a huge deal, both as a social co placating and a couple of linked hunteds. All in all it depends what the player wants it to represent IN GAMEPLAY, not in narrative terms. Doc

Neil wrote: "Or he can take a -2 penalty. If he hits by 8 after that penalty, he hits the hand. If he hits, but by less than 8, he gets a normal hit location roll." You miss the point, not a standard roll, you get base damage on the nearest location (if that remains important) that would deliver base damage. I do not agree that you can do the same kind of precision shooting with a gatling gun as with a sniper rifle. Not going to happen. I agree however that the gatling gun might take penalties to improve the grouping of multiple hits. If you want all high shots take a hit every three you hit by rather than every two. Or something like that. I am willing to hear suggestions for other attack types that do not have a system built into the system for bonus damage. Hit location does it for basic attack types. I think there should be ways to game for advantage. Not all ego attacks should be equal. IF you are content that the added bureaucracy increases the fun, then find a way to make that so. I don't think anything should be added value without risk but some things detract from verisimilitude which detracts from game enjoyment FOR SOME GROUPS(though possibly only in some particular types of campaign). I find the challenge good, challenge points out what might be wrong or where a suggestion might not be fully thought through. I find the undertone that a particular suggestion is bad wrong fun, and anyone who adopts it deserves all the bad things that will follow, less helpful. I am enjoying the discussion, lets keep it constructive. :-)

That is one way to look at it Neil. My take on the scene is that the sheriff can risk it all, going all out for the hand shot with the relevant penalties invoked. If he misses, then he misses completely. That is the current system. What is proposed is that the player tells the GM that he us taking a shot. He would like to hit the hand but is not going to sacrifice actually hitting to guarantee the hand shot. Then he rolls the dice. He might hit but if he rolls well then he may actually hit the hand (though the penalty, IMO, should be at least two higher than if he had gone for the head shot straight off.... Doc

Mallet is right. If I can shoot the gun right out of your hand, then that might be the better combat result. I have a scared information source rather than a dead opponent. :-) The better result opens up options other than just killing someone... Doc

damage negation is the way I would be inclined to use. So, if it is an area effect you cast it on an area of ground but it affects everyone who enters the area? I guess that seems OK, If it requires an attack roll, that the negation ends when targets leave the area of effect and is either time limited or use limited...

So everyone should be looking to uppercut martial artists, knock back straight into the air to reduce their DCV for teammates to take advantage of? :-)

Ah! And we are onto real analysis. Thanks Lucius, thanks Hugh. :-) There are indeed ripples and as Neil pointed out, there is a need to decide what constitutes a near miss or glancing blow. Is that an exact hit, a miss by one, or what? When is damage equal to 12D6 as on the sheet. I went through this a long time ago with Zornwil I think. Didn't come to a decent conclusion then either. :-) Area effect is also an issue, one I would have been inclined to ignore and always deliver normal damage. Doc

My only problem with this build is that it requires an attack roll on the falling person. I can accept that as judging where you need the cushion to be, based on their trajectory but it does mean it is easier to save a normal human than a martial artist, no? I was thinking there needs to be some kind of area effect, always on TK, only to counter velocity damage. Or twisting damage negation. Or providing PD, only to prevent damage from velocity damage. I change from falling to velocity damage as the same power should be able to be used to save someone from taking knock back damage. Doc

It is something I have struggled with playing HERO since almost the beginning. It is GREAT fun throwing 13D6 for damage but the truth of that is that the more dice you throw the bigger the trend to average results. The tyranny of probability. It matters not if you hit by fifteen or one, the 13D6 will probably, more often than not be between 42 and 48 STUN and 13 BODY. Obviously that may vary another three on either side often enough but you will almost never get 30 STUN or 60 STUN in a game session and those are not even extreme results. There is often a wish in players that a good to hit roll gets some recognition by the system. Hit locations are a decent way to do this, better hits can either hit vulnerable locations to increase damage or useful locations that hinder the opponents ability to fight on (though may do less damage). HERO does not accommodate a good shot giving you extra unless you gamble missing with what would normally be a hit. That may constitute a graduated critical hit system and may be more bureaucracy than you (or your group) want to countenance but it is not fundamentally Bad Wrong Fun.

Etherio's proposal is a good one Hyper-Man, no one has criticised it at all. I am not sure it covers all the wants of the OP, we are riffing round the same idea. Personally, like I said, I prefer the ability to choose after the shot, if I roll good enough, to pick various sites that roll could hit (regardless of contiguity).

You take away a second roll with results that are often contrary to how well you think you might have done. I like the idea of having a choice of hit location based on how well the roll was made, rather than on the basis of a random roll. Shooting a gun out of someone's hand should be more difficult than hitting someone in the head. Being able to choose makes a lot more sense and provides players with some continuity between to hit roll and location. I would make aiming at a location a bit easier than choosing one after the roll... Doc

The whole topic shows our in-built assumptions and the things we have agreed are OK because they fit in with the way we play. AoE Accurate is one of those. We accept that paying an advantage on our energy blast allows us to negate someone's DCV . That is cool but it is an absolute solution to a graded problem. Should the same advantage have the same effect on DCV 7 as it does on DCV 30? This becomes more edged when that solution might be used to double damage using hit locations. You are raising problems that this kind of change might cause but I would say the change only highlights some of the issues inherent in the current system as you move from the generalist approach of hit, roll damage to the more specific of hit, determine random location, generate and modify damage, or target location, hit or miss, generate modified damage. Any tweak we make to assumptions will guarantee that you need to look at all the ramifications, including whether the shortcuts we have previously accepted continue to be acceptable compromises. In some cases the answer to that is going to be no. Doc