Doc Democracy

Re: Gravity you what (and that is despite knowing what catagenesis is...)

OK. Getting a new rulebook makes you look at stuff more closely. While I was looking at the characteristic text for STR, I see that when STR goes to zero, muscle-powered movement halves, DCV halves and a STR roll to do basic things like pulling a trigger or making gestures. Now this happens more quickly as the PC's mass increases and the effects can be overcome if STR is pushed to get STR to 1 or more. Should these effects also be triggered by increased gravity? Would this suggest that gravity manipulation is now very effectively modelled by STR suppress? Excess STR suppress delivers penalties to those STR rolls indicated above and further halvings of movement and DCV? At some point (when STR roll reduced to 3 or less?) then the character finds it impossible to breathe and begins to suffocate? Doc Was all this in 5th edition and I missed it? Have been too lazy to break open my old rulebook!

Re: And 6e print books start to arrive Well. My hardcopy books have arrived and I would like to thank Steve for providing us with such nice books - after the fuss that we saw when both fifth editions were black and white - I hope everyone appreciates how nice they are. They feel like gamebooks this time. Much nicer in paper than on pdf. I can now sit down and look at them properly!

Re: Base Line Hero When I make a game and ask for PCs I test them out against a set of straw men created for the game. These straw men have a generic attack, DEF, SPD, REC, BODY, STUN, OCV, DCV and SPD. I usually have three or four with different levels of each attribute. I run each character through a round with each straw man assuming dice rolls of 11, one with dice rolls of 8 and one with dice rolls of 14. I then look at the damage after post segment 12 recoveries. That gives me an estimate of damage given and taken over an average round, a good round and a bad round. I then compare each character against each other to see how they match up. i then make decisions on how to advise the players on whether they need to be thinking of more/less damage capability or more/less CV and more/less speed. i can point out where they stand basically on a combat scale. Obviously a real combat will vary more than this, but it will vary so much that it is not worth considering the esoterica. This works for me in making sure the heroes are fundamentally balanced against each other and the straw men provide me with an idea of which of them are the best core to work from in designing easy, average and difficult challenges for the players. What I really need is my friend to write me up a spreadsheet to do all of the analysis for me... Doc

Re: When sfx lie I told you the original poster was looking to start a fight.

Re: When sfx lie OK. You as GM say that 40 'extra' points of DCV are not enough. Depending on the game that might mean a significant overall amount of points sunk into the power. That might compare more favourably to your 60 point example. I never set a limit. I just said that if there was a limit set based on DEX then both player and GM should be able to agree about the in-play consequences - even if that was effective invulnerability. As GM I do have to be looking at relative effects and based on how many posts you make (along with the rest of us) on changing or amending the rules, I'd say six editions have not been enough to get the balance quite right yet. I am making the point that the GM can use several metrics if they want to introduce something absolute into the game. Some ARE better than others but none of them are absolutely invalid. Personally I dont like absolute effects at all - so I would not be making that agreement with a player unless the invulnerability came with some pretty interesting caveats for gameplay. As for NPCs, I dont really care about balancing points, if I dont want the NPC hurt I dont really care what the players roll or what powers they have - I care about how they approach the problem I set them. I am the only absolute in the game and if I dont use that well, then no-one will want to play in my games...that's my incentive. And that is one of the big problems with HERO that we all identify, it is incredibly difficult to play, straight out of the book. The system plays best if the GM makes the necessary decisions about his game before he lets the players loose and, that is true even when it is simply 15 years of experience telling you what you will and will not allow a player to do or have in your game. Doc

Re: Heroes TV show regeneration Or it could be the SFX of their defences. If you have really high rPD but whenever people hit you it looks as though you heal the damage really quickly! Or would that be SFX lying again? Doc

Re: Heroes TV show regeneration I dont think I would go with the negative BODY idea. I think I might look for some unluck associated with the power or perhaps a triggered NCC NND KA (1/2D6 no stun) that kicks in whenever the character is in a situation where they might possibly take damage. Side effects would handle this quite readily I think. That way you get blood on a regular basis that miraculously abates...

Re: When sfx lie

Re: When sfx lie Unless, as indicated, you model it that way simply to get a guage on how many points you intend to charge for invulnerability and then play it, in game, straight as invulnerability... Just wanted to add that to keep its profile there. After all - if you, the GM, agree with a player that what he has bought makes him invulnerable then it should, in play, make him invulnerable.

Re: When sfx lie Anything that has an absolute term in it is an invitation for a fight!

Re: When sfx lie I TOLD you that this would cause a fight...

Re: Faith, Courage and Humble Obedience There was a disconnect for me too...

Re: Faith, Courage and Humble Obedience I dont think that either EGO or PRE really map to faith. EGO measures the strength of mind to impose and to resist others imposition. PRE measures the strength of spirit to impose and to resist others spirit. For courage, I would use PRE rather than EGO for other things I'd use EGO. Why not suggest a compromise, base it on (EGO + PRE)/2? Doc

Just looking at PamelaIsley's thread and it made me think about my first HERO character and that of my friends. It was way back in 1980 - box set Champions, poorly typeset and black and white throughout. My first character was a growth based brick called Titan, as GM he was the villain in our first game. Pure simple growth and not a huge amount more. The heroes? Black Ninja, Night Stalker and Jack of Hearts. It was a simple bank robbery scenario but it sold us on HERO. Titan kicked Black Ninja through three walls but despite the horror of the player at the result of being kicked the hero was able to stand up and rejoin the battle. Pure superherodom. Jack of Hearts was built with susceptability to his own powers and no real thought put to END use. He flew into the air, fired an energy bolt and knocked himself out! Night Stalker was a simple martial arts build and used his skills to disable the bad guy. None of the characters were well balanced. None of them were maximised but everyone had a great time. Do you remember your first HERO build? What was it about it that made you want to come back to it?? Doc

Re: When sfx lie I'm sure you (Sean) understand that I don't actually think that using DCV to model invulnerability is a good thing. What I am saying is that if I as GM decide that the expenditure of sufficient points confers invulnerability then that is what it confers. I always hate it when people say "then you aren't playing HERO". Course I am - it says so on the books and character sheets I'm using. I'm not saying that +5DCV is the level I'd use but am arguing the concept of the idea rather than the details. I have used the DCV as a baseline to indicate with this number of points I can effectively avoid being hit, thus I can effectively avoid taking damage. In the game there needs to be trust between players and the GM. If the GM tells you not to bother rolling damage dice then he is speaking out of game. He should, if you want the in story explanation, also give you clues to effective ways to proceed such as "you've given it your best shot and he doesn't even blink. It looks as though your blows are having no effect at all, like he was invulnerable" (the last clause is there for the irredeemably dense! ) or "You threw everything into that and while it simply blew the dust off his costume you felt as if there was some give. If only there was a way to get more effect into your blows, there is the chance you might be able to hurt him". That is how you should be helping the players. not by looking at the rulebook and saying, "well, its based on DCV, if you entangle him then you should be able to paste him a good one..." Doc

Re: A way to fend off attackers You only get away with that coz you're in Bournemouth!

Re: When sfx lie I think I am more fundamental about the building blocks of HERO than you. What I want are mechanics that allow me to play a game and provide the means to get some numbers that make the players feel that things are fair. I want to be able to layer SFX over that that allow us to tell a story that we enjoy. As such, if, in my game, I think that a certain level of DCV means that you will effectively never be hit (leaving aside the problems of area effect) and want to define that as never being hurt (never being hit by an attack does equate with never being hurt by an attack) then that is for me to decide. If I tell the player that this is fine (those points will get him effective invulnerability to physical attacks) then I should abide by this, even when literal application of the rules over-rides it. That IS internal consistency. Allowing a build and allowing a description that does not stand up in game play? That is bad. I think this is a player/GM trust thing, each trustung the other to do what is right in the game and agreeing costs for those things. If the decisions made allow us to game consistently and enjoy it then the rules are doing their job of guiding us through the process.... Doc

Re: A way to fend off attackers Isn't that what I said Waters!?!!

Re: When sfx lie God you really do try to pick fights dont you? I think the first set is fine if the GM sets a limit and agrees that that defines indestrucible in his campaign - the effects and SFX should then be treated as the same... Problems occur when GMs approve builds as modelling certain SFX then strictly apply the rules that contradict the agreed SFX. Doc

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression Hmmm. What I loved about Runequest when I first looked at it in the late 70s early 80s was the way it walked me through the building of a character. I could see the desicions being considered and made and how I might do things differently. I think that we need a guide so that GMs and Players can see the process by which a HERO game is made using the rules - they can see what the considerations are and how that affec ts the game they are likely to play. It should also point out the things they need to think about. For GMs it is a guide to how to go about it, for players it is insight into why their GM may disallow stuff that is in the rulebook. Doc

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression Hmm. I think that there is some mileage in that. A cut down generic system is by definition incomplete. A subset of the rules presented as a way to run a particular game is more complete. Would there be a place for something like a short game built by HERO - Champions or Justice Inc that would give a subset of the rules that would allow you to play in a particular genre that comes with a starter adventure. A taster for people to get them playing something before they see the value in being able to do other things with the full ruleset. HERO will never provide you with a campaign out of the box - you can buy the campaign stuff but the rules themselves need work by the GM - that is part of the system design...

Re: A way to fend off attackers What about a naked advantage to add autofire (only for suppression around the attacker)?

Re: Too Transform

Re: Too Transform Actually blaming myself for leaving such an obvious hole in the playability of the adventure. Imagine! Expecting the players to realise they are outgunned and thinking round the problem rather than punching through it.