Doc Democracy

So. You are a GM and you decide to run a game based on HERO. Lets say you want to run Champions. What do you have to do, as GM, to make that as clear as possible to your players? What decisions do you make, what dials do you touch and how far do you just wing it from the core rulebooks (Encyclopedia Heroica) or Complete Champions? If you had more time, more guidance, more help, is there more you would like to do?? I point you to a call for players here on the boards by Diamond Spear. This is quite a detailed background but there is no indication of what that means rule-wise. If you are struggling to comment due to lack of immediate inspiration, look at this description and tell me what rule choices you would have made to deliver this campaign... Doc

you see the story of the guy who made his machine look like a facehugger? (https://www.boredpanda.com/man-alien-facehugger-mask)

Baby owlbears from my twitter feed (kudos to the artist Leesha Hannigan).

All this is making me think whether there should be additional points for some combinations of complications...a secret ID without hunteds or DNPCs is much less of a complication than with them...perhaps they should be colour coded and you get bonus complication points for sets of the same colour.

I'm reckoning that Massey is quite aware of power-gaming and I have seen him (just realised I am presuming male, apologies if misapplied!) round these parts long enough to think that he knows the tricks of the trade. Players scouring books, for me, is a great sign of engagement with the system never mind the game at hand - there are some of mine that would not really be able to spot a good weapon among the dross. I also think that amid all of the little bits and pieces of change that might cause Massey pain, he has spent enough time thinking about the version that works for him. He was not looking to game the system when comparing END with charges and END Battery just looking to find the pinch points and where the balance lay between them. I am pleased that he has put this effort in, it makes me think about aspects of the game that I tend to gloss over without thinking about too much, relying on HERO to have done a lot of the philosophising and balancing on my behalf. While I am lazy and unlikely to change too much for my group, it is good to have those balances in my head. Now, I disagree with the inability to have a good game based on HERO at heroic levels but there is obviously more work involved in getting there and applying the constraints necessary to get the game that you want as GM. The strapline of "you can build anything" can be a nightmare for the GM who often has to say "not in my game!". Even in supers there is the need to look hard - one of my players has just spent time learning the system and built his first character. It is a nightmare of efficiency tweaks and trying to cover every base, feeling the need to hit every campaign limit and push past several of them. I do not want him to feel like I am punishing him but it does mean I am going to have to get all of the characters and publicly go through the balancing process I would usually do individually so that they can see the working parts. I will be looking to strip away some of the cover all the bases and show how to explore the special role he will play in the group - extending his core talents to do the things only he will be able to do. My feel for what Massey is telling us is that the 3rd edition patchwork of games did a lot of the work upfront of restricting player choice without it feeling like a restriction - the choices offered opened things up in the places they needed to be. I think when you have the big books then there needs to be some real guidance for the players and gm on how to get the players and GM on the same page, working through one or two options of how to set up a game within HERO. There is nothing that I remember seeing in the rules that would, over couple of pages, lead the GM in setting up a game to get a very specific type of game, you know, actually using the toolkit to create a game that people could drop in and play. Personally I love the direction that HERO has taken and am probably more extreme. I think that I would have deconstructed even more of the black boxes until we had a real toolkit where every aspect was there to be used. That would have been volume 2 for me. Volume 1 would have been split into two parts - Champions (for the players) and How to create Champions (for the GM). That first section of volume 1 would have presented the players with all they needed to build a superhero, with colour powers like Force Field and Force Wall and stuff, it might even have a range of characteristics (along with figured characteristics). The second section would have shown the GM how those things were put together, from volume 2, to make the game. It would have shown how to make STR (you buy lifting/throwing, add an element of damage, give some bonus PD and STUN) and cost it so that it works for that particular style of Champions. I would then have a few online tools to help build (and print) rules for a game. One or two templates would be fantastic but there would be a place for HERO to sell more game templates for all kinds of different games, possibly extended templates that could be printed as game rules (except that the GM would know how to dial up or down the various options to make it exactly the kind of game he wanted to play with his group). That is my fantasy version of HERO....but how I got there from defending Massey I will never know. Doc

I thought that was the case but I just wanted to point it out for all the kids in the audience that might not have understood. ?

To me, this is a superhero with a Public ID, a superhero without either has no privacy issues. Does not need to protect an ID and does not need to deal with invasions of privacy. Doc

There is another reason 10” Flight, only touching surface (cost break) might out compete 10” Running, may cross water & run up walls (cost booster). ?

Gents. Let’s not get snippy eleven pages into an interesting thread...

I think the difference you are talking about here in comparing combat and social interaction is that when the PCs engage in combat you and the players are content that the characters are risking negative consequences from their actions and you have system that aids you in defining whether consequences are positive or negative and the relative extent. In social interactions you are not really content that the characters are risking negative consequences from their actions and content to work without any framework to define the relative extent of those consequences. Adventurers can go carve out a kingdom but may die in the process. Politicians can go change the policy of the kingdom but do not risk becoming part of the current regime in the process. Why is it OK for the characters to be changed physically but suffer no risk of being changed socially. In Pendragon and the new runequest, the characters can pick up passions and hatreds and loves that can influence their actions later in the campaign, they can work to remove those or change those (as part of their growth and change) but while the players set the initial conditions and know where they want to be, they do not get carte blanche to decide that. The player may want to be the most persuasive politician of his current generation, unswervingly brave and decisive in his policy but he can no more guarantee such things as he can guarantee that he is the most dashing swordsman of his current generation, never blooded in a duel. It is, however, all about the kind of game we want to play. It is all about us having fun. If my players wanted all their combats to be decided on a coin toss on whether they win with consequences or just win, I would play that game. There is nothing to be gained by trying to tell folk that their game is BadWrongFun and I am in no way suggesting anyone needs to play my way to be correct. I just think that some of this has the potential for adding a different dimension to a game, especially one set in and around a city. Doc

the biggest confusion will come when they "run" with their Flight 15" and get beaten by the guy with Running 17" who is not "so fast he can run up walls"

Duke. I think you just made my point. The rules were there, they delivered for the character even when the player could not. If the player had delivered a stirring peroration, it would have made no difference except to the enjoyment at the table. A mechanic was used and game effect was accomplished. Now imagine if there was no PRE attack rules and the player has proposed trying to force the bad guys to surrender through the force of his personality. One guy just says that, the other delivers the peroration. For whom is the GM more likely to allow the thing to work? The second guy has roleplayed, the first did not. Doc

Good man! ? I agree. It is not necessary for a game to have a social combat mechanic but I think it is necessary for a toolkit to have it for any game that might be built from the toolkit... ? ? ? Doc

You have moved a long way from I hate using a dice because it feels flat to, actually, forget about feeling flat I still prefer not to use a dice. ? I like the fact that the character attribute has an impact on what the character can achieve regardless of the player's social skills. Those social skills should make the interaction more enjoyable and this might only be achieved if no one but the GM knows the result. I like to play my character (good or bad) rather than ignore its social shortcomings simply because the system will not punish me for that the way it would for lacking a decent CV. Doc

One of the ways we have dealt with this (the best way as far as I am concerned) is for the player to roll the dice so that only the GM can see them (use a cup and the GM gets a peak). The player then roleplays the interaction and the GM dials his responses in relation to the result of the roll. Only the GM knows the result and so can decide how and where to take the conversation based on the dice result... Doc

As has been said before, I have little issue with random but when you begin to discriminate between targets then you are potentially getting a detect sense for free. Is it possible that discrimination might not work? You are potentially creating exploits left right and centre...

It is one of the things that most often triggers players. The game telling them that, this time, it is their character that is deciding what to do and not them. I can understand it but playing Pendragon was an epiphany for me, the first time my knight failed a bravery roll and I had to play the role of a knight that had just failed to be brave (which is not the action I had in mind). I had to quickly think what my knight would say if he could not work up the bravery to charge the castle gate...what would he do? I actually got to know my character better, I think I was better at playing the role and it meant that I had to really think about what Sir Shane of Craigneuk would do in future when faced with similar options. Doc

You are right and I hope that I supported you if I noticed the conversation...as a beneficiary I am all for a solution....

I am all up for respectful disagreement. ? When my character tries to respectfully disagree but has no etiquette skills, is it possible he might offend the wrong person? Does the GM get to decide that? Does the player? Or should there be a role for the system to adjudicate?? I am playing in a game and I want to go and talk to a range of petty officials to persuade the Minister to propose abolishing a policy of taxing adventurers (as I happen to know the Minister is not minded to do this). How do I know I have spoken to the right people? How do I know I have persuaded them to take up my cause? How do I do this at the table?? I am a pretty loquacious guy. I love to play face type characters but sometimes I dont. I do inevitably play all my characters as if they had more charisma or conversation skills than they actually do. I roleplay interactions with the GM and get in game benefits that some of my friends, whose characters have more skills than mine fail to achieve. That is not right... Doc

The problem with this is that some people in a group are naturally better speakers and schemers than others. If it comes down purely to roleplay they will 'win' every time. The players who are the best at fighting in a group do not win every combat, the system mechanics sorts that out. If the important conflicts in a game are resolved by combat, the system needs a good combat mechanic. If the important conflicts are resolved by talking and intrigue, the system needs a good social resolution/influence mechanic. It needs to ensure that it is character skills rather than player skills that are important.

For a political intrigue game there has to be a way to measure who is winning and of determining what winning means. I think that intrigue points as per Shelley's scheme is a good start but you need a whole raft of other stuff and a way of bringing some of the components already out there into a coherent system. We have reputation, we have contacts and favours. We have DNPCs and Hunteds. All of that would come into play in a much more fluid framework as these things ebbed and flowed based on the actions of the characters.

Well, in my suggestion, a guarded space would require a bravery roll to pass through and would prevent the guard from doing anything other than guarding the space....

There are two questions here, not one. I am of the opinion that if I had a multipower and, when I wanted to use it, it fired off a random power that this would be a limitation rather than an advantage. I am losing utility. Now, when you add area effect or autofire to the multipower reserve then you hit multiple targets and each advantage here has differing costs based on how difficult it is to hit each target after the first. The effect on each target being random, to me, still smacks of being a limitation. I would also question, if you used area effect or autofire whether each target would get a different effect (though I would be inclined to count the randomisation being +0 in either way). You might decide to implement a fancy trigger - if the multipower is used then it triggers an attack versus every opponent in a set area. That allows multiple attacks, with the relevant END being spent, and the randomisation is already built in. Doc

Seconded.

I'm Scottish, we didn't vote to leave the EU either....