Opinions of Champions RPG?
John Peralta
would be one-sided.
My local store has a used copy of the game (sans software) for $30 (not
cheap I know). Is it worth it? I've always been partial to Aberrant ( I have
the entire line) but a friend wants to try Champions. Trying to be the open
minded person I think I am I thought I'd give it a shot. What do you think?
I've heard rumblings of a new edition for over a year. Is it happening?
Thanks.
John Peralta
Jeremy Reaban
John Peralta wrote in message ...
>I thought of posting this on the supers newsgroup but I'm sure the
response
>would be one-sided.
>
>My local store has a used copy of the game (sans software) for $30
(not
>cheap I know). Is it worth it? I've always been partial to Aberrant
>the entire line) but a friend wants to try Champions. Trying to be
the open
>minded person I think I am I thought I'd give it a shot. What do you
think?
It's hideously complicated, but if you like Super-hero RPGs, it's good
for playing them.
Shawn Wilson
"John Peralta" <john...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jSSO6.26232$BN6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> My local store has a used copy of the game (sans software) for $30 (not
> cheap I know). Is it worth it? I've always been partial to Aberrant ( I
have
> the entire line) but a friend wants to try Champions. Trying to be the
open
> minded person I think I am I thought I'd give it a shot. What do you
think?
It's an excellent game, generally (but not universally) considered the best
of the Superhero RPG's. It isn't as complicated as people say it is, and
even then the complication is only in character generation (sometimes), not
in play.
That said, I wouldn't spend $30 on the BBB (as it's often called) now. Hero
5th is coming out, better to wait.
You should also check out Champions: New Millennium, which is the Fuzion
version of Champs. I say this because you can get the core Fuzion rules and
the Heroic Abilities plug in (beter than the official stuff) *free* at
www.thefuze.com.
> I've heard rumblings of a new edition for over a year. Is it happening?
It's supposed to be "real soon now".
John Kim
John Peralta <john...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>My local store has a used copy of the game (sans software) for $30 (not
>cheap I know). Is it worth it? I've always been partial to Aberrant
Well, some of _Champions_ might seem familiar, since _Aberrant_
borrowed a bunch of stuff from _Champions_. It is amusing to note
that in the _Aberrant_ book there are scattered references to things
like "Growth", "Clinging", "Life Support", and "Psychic Link" in the
text. All of these are Champions powers, but they have different
names in the _Aberrant_ power descriptions. I suspect that they
originally copied the names and then later renamed them in an effort
to look different.
However, there is a lot which is genuinely different.
_Champions_ has a different base mechanic (roll 3d6 under stat/skill),
and its power system is more complicated but also more flexible. It
is really in need of a new edition, IMO, but unfortunately that seems
to keep getting put off. The rulebook isn't very user-friendly in
terms of ease of use.
Still, I think you should be able to switch over without too
much pain -- the main selling point of the switch from _Aberrant_
would be getting the more flexible power system, giving a wider
variety of superpowers.
I have detailed reviews of both the HERO system and of Aberrant
on my site, incidentally. You can compare them at:
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/index.html
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Sidhain
best
> of the Superhero RPG's. It isn't as complicated as people say it is, and
> even then the complication is only in character generation (sometimes),
not
> in play.
>
I occasionaly write articles about it's use (positive articles) but I too
find it rather complicated for superheroic gaming. I have a love hate
relationship with it, it's a nice system which can give you a set of rules
for doing pretty much everything.
On the other hand it has a heavy wargame element (which bothers me), and
it seems to turn ---some-- of those who use it regularly it anal-retentives
when it comes to points--IE you have to pay for anything used, every single
action must be accredited cost--if your superstrong guy ties someone up with
a light post, you have to buy it as an attack--Not all HERO system users do
that, but a significant number do that ruins the fun of it all.
The wargame elements are almost the breaking point for me:
Point costs are not uniform, the more combat worthy an ability or
power the more
it costs, now in a wargame this makes sense, but in a ROLE-playing
game it
doesn't.
Superheroes fight a lot, which makes the wargame elements sometimes
useful, but
they are much slower than many other rpg's and much slower than I
am comfortable
with for representing superheroes.
The system also has problems since there are no Immunities/Invulnerabilities
either, In comics there are characters who are ABSOLUTLY immune to X--fire,
lightning etc.. The Hero system cannot accurately simulate this effect.
It has good things, a lot of them but it also has a lot of bad ones.
In the end it's often a break even game. If you want to sit down and play a
several year campaign with die hard gamers it can be rewarding. If you want
to play with occasional players or those who aren't so much into the rules
or aren't die hard gamers, try something else.
Apostol Apostolov
> for playing them.
Depends what edition you're going to buy. Champions New Millenium 1st
& 2nd and the latest Champions (I think 5th) feature the Fuzion RPS,
which is everything but not complicated. Champions is one of the best
Supers RPGs out there with incredible support, so I would recommend
it.
Bryan Maloney
<1e65e4bb.01052...@posting.google.com>:
Fuzion is crap for superhero games. You have to dig up expansions to play
superhero. There is no Champions 5th edition. There is a Hero 5th edition
that is not Fuzion. Expect to see Hero 5th edition when Satan delivers it
personally upon his snowmobile.
--
"Cape Cod Salsa--somehow that's just not right."
uplink
news:qOUO6.26582$BN6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Point costs are not uniform, the more combat worthy an ability or
> power the more
> it costs, now in a wargame this makes sense, but in a
ROLE-playing
> game it
> doesn't.
I don't get this 'point costs are not uniform' complaint. Most powers have
the same cost, 5 active points for 1d6/1 damage class of attack or 2 1/2
points of defense. Some powers are more expensive, but these are really
built-in advantages increasing the cost (Ego Attack, for example, is an
Energy Blast Based on Ego Combat Value and made Invisible to all but Mental
Awareness).
> Superheroes fight a lot, which makes the wargame elements
sometimes
> useful, but
> they are much slower than many other rpg's and much slower than I
> am comfortable
> with for representing superheroes.
I have only one thing to say. Eight heroes. Twelve villains. One
mastermind. Sixty agents. Three days. Yes, it took us 72 FULL hours to
complete the combat.
> The system also has problems since there are no
Immunities/Invulnerabilities
> either, In comics there are characters who are ABSOLUTLY immune to
X--fire,
> lightning etc.. The Hero system cannot accurately simulate this effect.
The Hero System was built around the concept that no character is absolutely
immune. Theoretically you could build a character with extra defense
against a certain attack form, or buy a power called Damage Reduction, but
it's within the game concept that no one can be completely immune.
Just like in Aberrant, where no one can be Iron Man. It's not a fault of
the system -- a power named 'Invulnerability' could easily have been
included (20 pts., immune to one specific special effect attack, no
character may have more than one, etc.) -- but a limitation of concept.
> If you want
> to play with occasional players or those who aren't so much into the rules
> or aren't die hard gamers, try something else.
BESM, or Aberrant, fit this idea.
-uplink
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 pr. mismatched leather gloves: $50
White Ford Bronco: $25,000
Johnny Cochrane's fees: $1 million
Killing your wife and her lover and getting away with it: Priceless
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else...
uplink
news:PZTO6.39377$t12.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> That said, I wouldn't spend $30 on the BBB (as it's often called) now.
Hero
> 5th is coming out, better to wait.
Yeah, they've said that before, MANY many times. I'll believe in the fabled
'5th Edition' when I hold it in my grubby little hands and it turns out not
to be another reprinting of the 4th Edition.
Trevor Barrie
Sidhain <sid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Point costs are not uniform, the more combat worthy an ability or
>power the more it costs, now in a wargame this makes sense, but in a ROLE-
>playing game it doesn't.
"Point costs are not uniform" makes for a rather bizarre complaint, but
I'll agree that in Champions abilities useful in combat tend to be
overpriced compared to non-combat abilities. This is arguably quite
appropriate for the superhero genre.
>The system also has problems since there are no Immunities/Invulnerabilities
>either, In comics there are characters who are ABSOLUTLY immune to X--fire,
>lightning etc.. The Hero system cannot accurately simulate this effect.
Absolute invulnerability is actually quite easy to do in Champions.
Ask your GM what the most damage you could ever reasonably expect to
take from an X attack in his or her campaign is, then buy enough
defenses against X to handle that, and call the special effects "Total
immunity to X". The rules explicitly allow that you don't need to
pay points for minor benefits of your special effects, so if you do
happen to run into the one-in-a-million attack which does more damage
than you technically bought defense for, a good GM will rule that you
aren't effected.
Blackberry
>
>It's hideously complicated, but if you like Super-hero RPGs, it's good
>for playing them.
And here's a dissenting opinion. :) I've never found anything complex about it.
There are less day-to-day rules than in most mainstream RPGs. Most of what
people talk about when they say Champions is complex is the character and power
construction, which is as complex as you want to make it.
You want a character with 8 dice of Energy Blast; that costs 8*5=40 points.
It's only when you want to complicate that power that it gets into mathematics.
I never play anything else for superheroics (though I've tried). It does high
fantasy passably well (I like the freeform magic).
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Bill Seurer
> "Sidhain" <sid...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qOUO6.26582$BN6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Point costs are not uniform, the more combat worthy an ability or
> > power the more
> > it costs, now in a wargame this makes sense, but in a
> ROLE-playing
> > game it
> > doesn't.
>
> I don't get this 'point costs are not uniform' complaint. Most powers have
> the same cost, 5 active points for 1d6/1 damage class of attack or 2 1/2
> points of defense. Some powers are more expensive, but these are really
> built-in advantages increasing the cost (Ego Attack, for example, is an
> Energy Blast Based on Ego Combat Value and made Invisible to all but Mental
> Awareness).
You reinforced what he said. Everything is Champions is based around
combat.
--
Bill Seurer Work: seurer AT us.ibm.com Home: Bill AT seurer.net
http://www.seurer.net/ (replace " AT " with "@" to email me)
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>I have only one thing to say. Eight heroes. Twelve villains. One
>mastermind. Sixty agents. Three days. Yes, it took us 72 FULL hours to
>complete the combat.
Wow. I've played HERO for 20 years and have *never* seen anything anywhere near
that. Granted, with players who aren't sure of the system or their powers, or
players who sit and stare at the mat for a long time trying to think of
something to do, it can drag out, but so can any game system.
Extensive, culminatory HERO combats can take quite a while, yes, but think of
how many panels are taken in an Avengers issue when they fight an entire villain
team. Wasn't their recent battle with Squadron Supreme *three issues long*?
Ross TenEyck
>uplink wrote:
>> "Sidhain" <sid...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:qOUO6.26582$BN6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> > Point costs are not uniform, the more combat worthy an ability or
>> > power the more
>> > it costs, now in a wargame this makes sense, but in a
>> ROLE-playing
>> > game it
>> > doesn't.
>>
>> I don't get this 'point costs are not uniform' complaint. Most powers have
>> the same cost, 5 active points for 1d6/1 damage class of attack or 2 1/2
>> points of defense. Some powers are more expensive, but these are really
>> built-in advantages increasing the cost (Ego Attack, for example, is an
>> Energy Blast Based on Ego Combat Value and made Invisible to all but Mental
>> Awareness).
>You reinforced what he said. Everything is Champions is based around
>combat.
It comes down to a fundamental philosophy of what "points" represent.
The two main camps are "points represent how difficult it is to do
something" and "points represent how useful it is to do something."
Hero is unequivocally in the latter camp, and it further usually
defines "useful" as "useful in combat" -- which I would argue is
actually reasonable: in most RPGs, combat is the primary application
of the rules of the game. Most of the other activity that the
characters do is rules light -- interacting with each other and
NPCs, trying to figure out what's going on, getting from place
to place, having moments of True Role-Playing, etc. Aside from
the odd skill roll, you can play an entire session filled with
these activities and never apply the game mechanics.
So, if the main application of the game mechanics is combat, then
it makes sense to define the usefulness of game-mechanic-based
abilities on combat. Sure, one of the characters can use his
heat vision to keep everyone from freezing to death when their
plane crashes in the Arctic -- but that's going to happen less
often, probably much less often, than that same character using
his heat vision to fry a bad guy; so the cost is based on its
usefulness in the frying-the-bad-guy scenario.
GURPS mostly uses points to represent how difficult something is,
although it's not completely consistent about it.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
John Kim
>>> Point costs are not uniform, the more combat worthy an ability or
>>> power the more it costs, now in a wargame this makes sense, but in a
>>> ROLE-playing game it doesn't.
>>
>
>You reinforced what he said. Everything is Champions is based around
>combat.
Well, I disagree with both Sidhain's statement and yours.
I think it makes a lot more sense to have combat balance in an RPG
than it does to have "role-playing balance" in an RPG -- because
general role-playing can't be point-balanced in the first place.
It is true that _Champions_ system point costs primarily measure
combat utility -- but that doesn't mean that everything in a
_Champions_ game is based around combat.
Non-combat activities in general cannot be balanced by
numbers. Heck, even combat balance is a rough estimate at best.
I fail to see how making non-combat abilities cost more will
*encourage* taking and using them. If you make non-combat
abilities cost a lot, you will just make the combat balance worse
and do nothing for non-combat balance or role-playing.
_Champions_ deals with this the correct way, in my opinion.
It assigns a finite but small cost to non-combat abilities -- so
powers like instant change are trivially cheap, while extreme cases
like FTL travel or universal translator are more expensive but still
affordable. It marks special non-combat powers with a "STOP" sign
icon -- which is explained that the GM should carefully consider how
or whether to let these powers into the game. I think this properly
emphasizes that number-balancing is insufficient for these sorts of
abilities.
Nils K Hammer
when the players were winning too easily I cheated against them.
If they did badly, I cheated for them. The often won by the
"skin of thier teeth", and found it very exciting.
Nils
Wayne Shaw
>although it's not completely consistent about it.
Actually, GURPS seems to use at least three paradigms for cost: how
hard it is to learn to do, how difficult it is, and how useful it is
on the whole. Oh, and just to be confusing, occasionally how "genre
appropriate it is". This has always been my beef with it; it makes
having one pool of points a bit problematic, because what things
bought with it are price based is quite different in some cases.
Peter Knutsen
Bill Seurer wrote:
> You reinforced what he said. Everything is Champions is based around
> combat.
One of the cool things about GURPS is that you can spend all your
points on stuff that's *useful* yet not the least relevant to combat.
I'm not saying GURPS is a good system, but it's a *generic* system
which means that it doesn't assume that combat will play a huge role
in every sesstion. Doesn't take combat for granted.
> Bill Seurer
--
Peter Knutsen
Eric Tolle
> There are less day-to-day rules than in most mainstream RPGs. Most of what
> people talk about when they say Champions is complex is the character and power
> construction, which is as complex as you want to make it.
Complex is not even putting it mildly, when you get into serious
Champions character designers. Champions was the first game where I
encountered a character sheet with three pages of figures for the
stats, powers and disadvantages- and we are not talking double
spaced typing, oh no- the person had tiny cribbed writing all in and
out of the nooks and crannies of the standard form. I had to keep
that
sheet around long after the game ended, as a sheer work of
incomprehensible art. I may frame it someday and hand it on the
wall.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
People tend to underestimate the impact of scientific progress.
Why just fifty years ago, only a few people had even heard of DNA,
and now everybody who is somebody uses it!
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
<jSSO6.26232$BN6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
John Peralta <john...@earthlink.net> spake:
> I thought of posting this on the supers newsgroup but I'm sure the response
> would be one-sided.
Champions is a brilliant game; it simulates superpowers extremely
well, and can handle almost anything... *IF* you don't mind learning
very complex rules and doing a lot of spreadsheet work to make
characters.
However, you can get 90% of the capability of Champs for 10% of the
effort with Big Eyes Small Mouth 2nd Ed., so with a lot of regret for
the Hero crew, I wouldn't recommend it these days.
I'm greatly saddened by this turn of events, because Hero was one of
my two systems of choice for almost a decade, but it's just not an
acceptable use of my time these days. You can do more and better gaming
with less prep time in other systems now.
> I've heard rumblings of a new edition for over a year. Is it happening?
Glaciers will advance and recede before Hero 5th Ed is out. If that's
"happening", then yes, I suppose so.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"I will tell you things that will make you laugh and uncomfortable and really
fucking angry and that no one else is telling you. What I won't do is bullshit
you. I'm here for the same thing you are. The Truth." -Transmetropolitan #39
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Blackberry wrote:
>
>> There are less day-to-day rules than in most mainstream RPGs. Most of what
>> people talk about when they say Champions is complex is the character and power
>> construction, which is as complex as you want to make it.
>
>Complex is not even putting it mildly, when you get into serious
>Champions character designers. Champions was the first game where I
>encountered a character sheet with three pages of figures for the
>stats, powers and disadvantages- and we are not talking double
>spaced typing, oh no- the person had tiny cribbed writing all in and
>out of the nooks and crannies of the standard form. I had to keep
>that
>sheet around long after the game ended, as a sheer work of
>incomprehensible art. I may frame it someday and hand it on the
>wall.
On the other hand, I've seen Champs characters that fit on a half
sheet of paper, too. It just depends on how baroque a design one has,
and how much trouble one is willing to go to to make sure all the i's
are dotted and t's are crossed.
Cygnia
My friend is a master at creating a 250pt (150 + 100 disads) character
in under 45 minutes. He's basically got it down to a science on how
to handle frameworks & skills (without munchkining out!) Me, I admit
I always have trouble with the math of character creation. Yet in
terms of playing, I like the game.
But like any game, it depends on who's running & playing it as well.
For the most part I've had good GMs in Champions. My one bad
experience was a munchkin/rule lawyer GM who took a perverse glee in
near abusive tricks on the PCs. Maybe they weren't illegal, but they
damn well were nasty.
5d6 Strength drain, coupled with Density Increase: Useable against
Others.
--Katie
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
>
> Champions is a brilliant game; it simulates superpowers
> extremely well, and can handle almost anything... *IF* you
> don't mind learning very complex rules and doing a lot of
> spreadsheet work to make characters.
I've personally never used a spreadsheet to make a Champions
character, and I can make decently detailed characters in 30-45
minutes. Most of the rules are fairly simple, it's only when you
wan't to do arcane stuff like putting partially limited powers in
Elemental Controls that things get rough.
> However, you can get 90% of the capability of Champs for
> 10% of the effort with Big Eyes Small Mouth 2nd Ed., so
> with a lot of regret for the Hero crew, I wouldn't recommend
> it these days.
I have read the rules, and as far as character creation goes, I
have to agree. I haven't tried any combat yet, though, and I have
a feeling that it won't work quite as well as that in Champions
(I think the Stun/Body damage system in Champions is one of the
better feature of the game). Still, I'm willing to give BESM the
benefit of the doubt, it looks like a mighty fine game.
--
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius
Though strangely seem it might, the day flees the night
And, in a peculiar way, the night flees the day.
starbe...@my-deja.com
The HERO system is a -very- cool system that has suffered from weak support and
poor promotion. It's tough to even find anybody to run a game these days. That
being said I think the appeal of the system to new gamers could be greatly
improved by the following brutal modifications:
* Eliminate the STUN point tracking system entirely and just use a
randomized stun check method. (You check for STUN after taking serious
damage or if a power misfires, for example.) Tracking STUN points just
drags out the encounters far too much and doesn't add much value.
* Adding points for power advantages and subtracting points for power
limitations, rather than multiplying the power points by:
(1 + advantages)/(1 + limitations). The math would be much more transparent
for non-math-types and would work just about as well for balancing powers.
* Eliminating most of the secondary attributes. Most of them are rarely
modified much from their calculated values anyway.
Bob
They mostly come at night... mostly...
inan...@cyberspace.org
> Blackberry wrote:
>
>> There are less day-to-day rules than in most mainstream RPGs. Most of what
>> people talk about when they say Champions is complex is the character and power
>> construction, which is as complex as you want to make it.
>
> Complex is not even putting it mildly, when you get into serious
> Champions character designers. Champions was the first game where I
And this is where the craziness starts. If you have players who are
"serious Champions character designers", then you're already in trouble.
> encountered a character sheet with three pages of figures for the
> stats, powers and disadvantages- and we are not talking double
> spaced typing, oh no- the person had tiny cribbed writing all in and
> out of the nooks and crannies of the standard form. I had to keep
> that
> sheet around long after the game ended, as a sheer work of
> incomprehensible art. I may frame it someday and hand it on the
> wall.
I used to play champions with a group of fellow college students. It was
a great system for rules-lawyers and munchkins. (and or course for munchkin
rules-lawyers) My feeling on it is that your players are probably seriously
munchkining the system if they turn in 3+ pages of figures defining a
250 point character.
We played everything from superheros to low fantasy to post-nuclear-holocaust
adventure with the hero system/champions rules, and sometimes it was a lot
of fun, but by the end, most of the players still hanging around enjoyed
making up characters (squeezing as much power as possible out of the system)
more than actually roleplaying them, and it got old. To be sure, there
was a certain amount of amusement involved in watching your friend shoehorn
750+ points worth of powers into a 250 point character, but playing with
near-deities who had to wear funky amulets around their necks, drink jolt
cola every hour, and take continuous care of 3 senile uncles was not
quite utterly thrilling.
Having said all this, I'll note that the hero system gave you a framework
for simulating nearly any sort of power or ability you wanted, but it
demanded some real work on the part of the players and the GM to roleplay
and not just wargame. A fantasy game where everyone is throwing around
"energy blasts" and not fireballs/lightning bolts/whatever ends up rather
colorless. We had to really work to remember to have our characters "live"
in the world in which they were adventuring. It was all too easy to fall
back into just talking in terms of the actual power names. (5D6 armor-
piercing strength drain vs. hardened force-field armor...)
If you want to play champions, I encourage you to make your players write
out a detailed character description and then let you create the actual
character. This will demand that they think in terms of roleplaying
opportunities and let you curb some of the inevitable munchkinism.
zeke
Wayne Shaw
>> sheet of paper, too. It just depends on how baroque a design one has,
>> and how much trouble one is willing to go to to make sure all the i's
>> are dotted and t's are crossed.
>
>
>
>My friend is a master at creating a 250pt (150 + 100 disads) character
>in under 45 minutes. He's basically got it down to a science on how
>to handle frameworks & skills (without munchkining out!) Me, I admit
>I always have trouble with the math of character creation. Yet in
>terms of playing, I like the game.
Character creation is the commonest place where complexity _does_ come
in, but even there it's not inevitable; simple bricks or martial
artists are typically nothing more than addition; the only place where
there's anything more at all with them is calculating figured stats.
Once you get into Power Framework types, or powers with a lot of
Advantages and Limiters (which _can_ be desireable, even necessary for
some concepts) it _can_ get a bit baroque, but that's not an
inevitable situation.
Blackberry
>
>My 2 coppers opinion...
>
>The HERO system is a -very- cool system that has suffered from weak support and
>poor promotion. It's tough to even find anybody to run a game these days. That
>being said I think the appeal of the system to new gamers could be greatly
>improved by the following brutal modifications:
Intriguing ideas...
>* Eliminate the STUN point tracking system entirely and just use a
>randomized stun check method. (You check for STUN after taking serious
>damage or if a power misfires, for example.) Tracking STUN points just
>drags out the encounters far too much and doesn't add much value.
What would you use instead? Let's say I do 12d6 with a punch. What do I do?
Do I just roll the 12 dice and count the BODY and ignore the STUN? What about
STUN-Only attacks; what would they do?
>* Adding points for power advantages and subtracting points for power
>limitations, rather than multiplying the power points by:
>(1 + advantages)/(1 + limitations). The math would be much more transparent
>for non-math-types and would work just about as well for balancing powers.
Well... how much do you add? Say, Area Effect costs +50 points? For 1d6 Energy
Blast? 10d6 Energy Blast-Area Effect *is* 10 times more effective than 1d6
Energy Blast-Area Effect is.
>* Eliminating most of the secondary attributes. Most of them are rarely
>modified much from their calculated values anyway.
Hmm... of PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN, I can't think of a single one that I
don't usually buy up. For *some* characters, I'd leave one or two alone (or for
weak normals, all six), but that's rare.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>We played everything from superheros to low fantasy to post-nuclear-holocaust
>adventure with the hero system/champions rules, and sometimes it was a lot
>of fun, but by the end, most of the players still hanging around enjoyed
>making up characters (squeezing as much power as possible out of the system)
>more than actually roleplaying them, and it got old. To be sure, there
>was a certain amount of amusement involved in watching your friend shoehorn
>750+ points worth of powers into a 250 point character, but playing with
>near-deities who had to wear funky amulets around their necks, drink jolt
>cola every hour, and take continuous care of 3 senile uncles was not
>quite utterly thrilling.
Any system can be abused. Your GM was at fault for allowing the characters in
the first place (with, of course, the designing players sharing that fault).
I accidentally trimmed it out, but re: falling back on the same old power names
("Oh, I EB him again. 14."): I always make up actual Superhero Power Names for
my superheroes' powers and I encourage players to do the same when I run.
("Dizzying color burst, now!")
>[...]
>If you want to play champions, I encourage you to make your players write
>out a detailed character description and then let you create the actual
>character. This will demand that they think in terms of roleplaying
>opportunities and let you curb some of the inevitable munchkinism.
This is an excellent way to introduce newbies to the game.
inan...@cyberspace.org
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 00:01:00 -0000, inan...@cyberspace.org wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>making up characters (squeezing as much power as possible out of the system)
>>more than actually roleplaying them, and it got old. To be sure, there
>
> the first place (with, of course, the designing players sharing that fault).
<soapbox on>
Ok, ok, I might as well admit that I have a love-hate relationship with
the Hero system. Champions was my first exposure to roleplaying, and it's
affected the way I view all other systems. The hero system has a _lot_ of
good qualities.
(1) It's extremely flexible
(2) In many ways the rule set comprises a "complete basis" <ducks as real
mathematicians hurl rotten tomatoes at him> from which games in all
genres can be constructed, and manages to do so without quite so much
of the dreaded "rules-creep" which affects many other "generic"/
"universal" games.
(3) Is fairly consistent internally. Obscure rules interactions are (mostly)
covered in the main book. Most of the other genre-specific sourcebooks
don't introduce potential rules conflicts as they are simply examples
of building genre-specific powers/skills from the basic rule set.
(Though never, ever, let your players buy the "autofire" advantage for
their martial arts moves...)
On the other hand, the fact that the system is somewhat mechanics-heavy and
genre-independent leads to the trouble I alluded to later on in the post,
namely that more work has to be done to "cover up" the exposed mechanics of
the system. If you are running a fantasy game and one of your PCs find a
staff named "Almordel" that is endowed with the power to cast fireballs and
let the wielder fly, at some point in the game one PC is going to ask the
possessor of the staff exactly what its powers are. Very likely this is
going to happen at some point where the powers in question might be very
useful. Perhaps the party has been attacked by a group of flying chaotic
Octohippopotomai and it would be useful to start hurling fireballs at the
enemy. Or perhaps, as the foes are rather slow-moving, it would be better to
fly up above them and drop large boulders on whatever passes for their
heads. In either case, if the player possessing the staff has not thought
of its potential uses, other players are bound to ask him or her about its
exact capabilities. At this point, the player in question has a golden
opportuntity for roleplaying. He or she *should* describe the powers of
the staff in terms that make sense in game terms. Unfortunately many players
are likely to just reel off a specific power & dice-level list for the
staff. Heck, lots of them won't even remember the name of the staff.
It's been my observation that it takes an extra level of effort to
transcend the mechanics implicit in a hero system game and actually
roleplay in a convincing world. I'm not sure how much it was the fault
of the group I played in and how much was the fault of the system. Part of
the trouble may be that I am contrasting worlds created by the GM using
the Hero system with largely pre-created worlds we played in using other
systems. Realistic, enjoyable world creation can (obviously) be quite a
task, and we were always in a bit of a hurry to play, so I suspect the
stage-setting background was always a bit thinner than would have been
preferrable, and as you would suspect, the thinner the background, the more
the mechanics of the system showed through.
In a sense, though, the flexibility of the system is partly to blame for
its downfall. Yes, it's exciting to be able to define a completely new
school of magic for your character ("I am the master of Lichen Magic! Take
THAT, non-symbiotic creature!"), but it also introduces huge amounts of
completely new elements into each game you play. Because elements such
as newly designed systems of magic are in effect entirely new game
mechanics, players are forced to spend part of the game just picking up
the "vocabulary" and the conventions of the current game's "system".
If a campaign lasts long enough, they may eventually become familiar
enough that the mechanics recede into the background, but until that
point your players are still going to be distracted by trying to remember
whether or not "Lichen Magic" requires dried lichen to operate, depends
on the caster's symbiosis with the plant he wears on his head, or is
focused through the giant lichen familiar he carries around with him
on a large rock.
Most non-generic systems are structured around effects. You cast a lightning
bolt? It does 5D6 damage and ignores armor. Ok. In the hero system you
build a lightning bolt. It might be a 5D6 armor-piercing energy blast with
a 1x10 hex area affect advantage. To use it you need to know not just
what your "lightning bolt" does, but also what the defining components
mean. What is an energy blast? What does "armor-piercing" do? How does
the "area affect" advantage work? Until your players are (very) familiar
with Champions rules, they/you will be very frequently referring back to
the rule book to puzzle out the effects of some action. To be sure, all
games have learning curves, but the one required for Champions is a bit
steeper than most others.
Yes, once you understand how "energy blast" and "armor-piercing" and "area
affect" work, you can do all sorts of nifty things with them. But the
trick then becomes to effectively translate clever rules manipulations into
game-world-enhancing ideas/conventions/abilities. It's very easy to just
think in terms of body damage/stun damage and totally fail to flesh out
the unique history of and rumors surrounding the magic sword "Toe-nipper".
To me, the hero system is best thought of as a giant erector set. It's a
meta-rules-creation system. You can build just about anything with enough
parts; with a large enough set you could create your own miniature world.
At the very end, though, you will have your own world made of tiny girders,
fasteners, and wheels. (Somehow though, for me, whatever mystery surrounds
Tolkein elves is utterly lost in "Racial Package: Elves".) If you want to
take the step beyond a merely mechanistic simluation, it is up to you to cover
up the metal bones of your simulated world with realistic flesh. This is
where I feel that the hero system is weakest. I own Fantasy hero + the 2
"Companions" and I never felt that the magic systems/guilds/non-human races
detailed within really lived up to what they should have. If you want
*really* good backgrounds, you'll either have to prospect elsewhere or make
it up on your own.
<soapbox off>
Having grumbled all that, I gotta confess that I still like the internal
consistency of the hero system. A system that requires the invention
of lots of new rules for each scenario book seems somehow...untidy.
zeke
REZcat
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>
> I'm greatly saddened by this turn of events, because Hero was one of
> my two systems of choice for almost a decade, but it's just not an
> acceptable use of my time these days. You can do more and better gaming
> with less prep time in other systems now.
I felt this way well over 10 years ago. I finally sat back & took a good
long look at what I was working on, and asked myself "why the heck am I
doing this?"
The Other Shane
wrote:
>> That said, I wouldn't spend $30 on the BBB (as it's often called) now.
>Hero
>> 5th is coming out, better to wait.
>
>Yeah, they've said that before, MANY many times. I'll believe in the fabled
>'5th Edition' when I hold it in my grubby little hands and it turns out not
>to be another reprinting of the 4th Edition.
Can you say Vapor wear.
Yes, The 5th edition is long over due for release. It's beginning to
smack of GDW and their over due release of Armor 21. It was a RPG they
were working on that had it's release date pushed back, pushed back,
pushed back, and finally canceled due to bankruptcy. Hmm, I
wonder.....
James Nicoll
The Other Shane <noplace@nowhere> wrote:
>
>Yes, The 5th edition is long over due for release. It's beginning to
>smack of GDW and their over due release of Armor 21. It was a RPG they
>were working on that had it's release date pushed back, pushed back,
>pushed back, and finally canceled due to bankruptcy. Hmm, I
>wonder.....
GDW didn't go bankrupt. Their business slowed to the point where
there was no point going on but they didn't go bankrupt.
--
The Canadians were a hospitable and tolerant desert people,
living on the edge of a wilderness of snow and permafrost. Winnipeg,
Regina and Saskatoon were cities of the northern desert, Samarkands
of ice. J.G. Ballard
J B Bell
<starbe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>My 2 coppers opinion...
>
>The HERO system is a -very- cool system that has suffered from weak support and
>poor promotion. It's tough to even find anybody to run a game these days. That
>being said I think the appeal of the system to new gamers could be greatly
>improved by the following brutal modifications:
>
>
>* Adding points for power advantages and subtracting points for power
>
>* Eliminating most of the secondary attributes. Most of them are rarely
>modified much from their calculated values anyway.
[Some deletions made for brevity, but I wanted to keep the main
bullet-points for clarity]
I quite liked Champions too, especially its psychotic ability to, quite
simply model any kind of force that PC's are ever likely to want to use to
leverage things. However, its complication did make character generation
time-consuming and difficult for me, and the number-crunchers took a
little too much joy in munchkinizing it.
I forgot the name of the author already, but another poster brilliantly
diagnosed why this tends to happen, with world settings tending to take a
back seat to the mechanics. This leads to interesting speculation about
the place of "rules-lite" philosophy in gaming as being more about the
psychology of suspension of disbelief than ease of play per se, a topic
deserving of its own thread.
But that aside, have you looked at _Big Eyes, Small Mouth_? Champions
afcionados will probably want to add more combat rules, but it really is a
very elegant system with similar flexibility to Hero system, while greatly
reducing the math. I'm a huge FUDGE pusher, but I've gone with BESM 2nd
Ed. for my game that is all newbies because it has made a lot of decisions
for me that I would have had to agonize over with FUDGE. And it models
fairly high levels of power without much difficulty.
> Bob
> They mostly come at night... mostly...
--JB (not to be confused with Justin, I have the double-en-dash in front)
--
Rev. J B Bell | Eschatek | ____
cip...@eschatek.com | Tools & Technologies | \bi/
http://www.eschatek.com/~cipher | for a Doomed Planet | \/
PGP fingerprint: B8 66 BC 4A C7 EA 66 B1 6B E8 EE 10 04 E0 36 D0
--
0
Grant Enfield
<inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9h3t6...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com...
["staff named 'Almordel' example snipped]
How is this any different from playing with +1 Longswords or Wands of
Fireballs? Sometimes the mechanics names and the campaign names for things
are the same, but characters describing campaign elements in mechanics terms
doesn't seem to me to be a problem that HERO System has in particular.
> What is an energy blast? What does "armor-piercing" do? How does
> the "area affect" advantage work? Until your players are (very) familiar
> with Champions rules, they/you will be very frequently referring back to
> the rule book to puzzle out the effects of some action. To be sure, all
> games have learning curves, but the one required for Champions is a bit
> steeper than most others.
In *my* experience, new players have been able to play and enjoy HERO System
games, especially superheroic campaigns, very quickly. The combat system
provides enough options that players can simply tell the GM what they want
they're character to do, then the GM "translates" it into mechanics and
tells the player what she or he needs to roll or whatever. And then also the
mechanics are pretty transparent to the players.
grant
Blackberry
>
>Yes, The 5th edition is long over due for release. It's beginning to
>smack of GDW and their over due release of Armor 21. It was a RPG they
>were working on that had it's release date pushed back, pushed back,
>pushed back, and finally canceled due to bankruptcy. Hmm, I
>wonder.....
Yeah, but so what? I seem to be able to play very well with 4th edition rules.
Haven't had any problems yet (that I haven't had before).
John Kim
zeke <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>It's been my observation that it takes an extra level of effort to
>transcend the mechanics implicit in a hero system game and actually
>roleplay in a convincing world. I'm not sure how much it was the fault
>of the group I played in and how much was the fault of the system. Part
>of the trouble may be that I am contrasting worlds created by the GM using
>the Hero system with largely pre-created worlds we played in using other
>than would have been preferrable, and as you would suspect, the thinner
>the background, the more the mechanics of the system showed through.
Well, just to put in my two cents -- I have never had this
problem with the Hero system in many years of play. I have heard
about other people's Hero system games being mechanics-dominated...
but then, I have heard of mechanics-dominated games using D&D, GURPS,
and just about every other system.
I have run about a dozen or so campaigns in the Hero system,
and they have all worked quite well, with no mechanics dominance.
I think your point above is quite valid: i.e. just like any other
rules system, if you don't have a decent background the quality of
role-playing suffers. By the same token, being a rules-lawyer and
sticking only to the letter of the rules also causes problems for
role-playing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Most non-generic systems are structured around effects. You cast a
>lightning bolt? It does 5D6 damage and ignores armor. Ok. In the hero
>system you build a lightning bolt. It might be a 5D6 armor-piercing
>energy blast with a 1x10 hex area affect advantage. [...]
>Until your players are (very) familiar with Champions rules, they/you
>will be very frequently referring back to the rule book to puzzle out
>the effects of some action. To be sure, all games have learning curves,
>but the one required for Champions is a bit steeper than most others.
Hmmm. I agree that _Champions_ has a difficult learning curve,
but it depends what you compare it to. It sounds like you are comparing
a fantasy game where specialist characters have a few spells to superhero
_Champions_ where every PC has a bunch of powers that are used all the
time. If you play in a genre which doesn't have constant wierd power
use, then the Hero system gets a lot simpler.
For superheroes, I think in play it is no harder than
_GURPS Supers_ and a little harder than _Aberrant_, say. Designing
superpowers is tougher than in those systems, but that is during
character design, not in play. Once you have designed your character,
I don't think it hard at all to remember that "Armor Piercing" means
that you halve the value of armor -- certainly no harder than memorizing
what a lightning bolt does in some other system.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>If you want to take the step beyond a merely mechanistic simluation,
>it is up to you to cover up the metal bones of your simulated world
>with realistic flesh. This is where I feel that the hero system is
>weakest. I own Fantasy hero + the 2 "Companions" and I never felt
>that the magic systems/guilds/non-human races detailed within really
>lived up to what they should have.
Agreed re: FH. Personally, I find that standard _Champions_,
_Fantasy Hero_, and _Cyber Hero_ are all very two-dimensional. They
are attempts to make a middle-of-the-road clones of the genre in
question, and end up being mostly dull.
The better sourcebooks IMO are _Lands of Mystery_ (an excellent
genre book on pulp lost-world romances), _Ninja Hero_ (for the general
martial arts genre), and _Dark Champions_ (street-level superheroes a la
Batman and the Punisher). _Horror Hero_ and _Western Hero_ are also
OK, but not great. Hudson City and San Angelo are superhero settings
which are supposedly pretty good, though I haven't used them personally.
inan...@nospamcyberspace.org
>
> <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote in message
> news:slrn9h3t6...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com...
>
> ["staff named 'Almordel' example snipped]
>
> How is this any different from playing with +1 Longswords or Wands of
> Fireballs? Sometimes the mechanics names and the campaign names for things
> are the same, but characters describing campaign elements in mechanics terms
> doesn't seem to me to be a problem that HERO System has in particular.
There is an inherent extra level of abstraction in the HERO model. Consider:
(HERO System)
Object desc. -> Game-world-specific-powers -> basic-HERO-system-powers
-> effects
vs.
(Average genre-specific system)
Object desc. -> Game-world-specific-powers -> effects
In the HERO system, if you want to use genre-specific conventions, you
must define your effects in terms of the HERO system basic powers, like
the example I gave of the "lightning bolt" spell being defined in terms
of energy blast with appropriately applied modifiers. In order to cast a
lightning bolt then, the player (or perhaps the GM in the play model you
mention below) must know the definition of "lightning bolt" in terms of
the basic HERO system powers and what these basic powers allow.
In your typical genre-specific fantasy game, a spell like "lightning bolt"
is defined _directly_ in terms of its game effects.
Sure, you may argue that this layer of abstraction poses no or little
hinderance to play, and in your personal experience it may not have done
so. I can only offer my observations based on one role-playing group and
its experiences with both the HERO system vs. genre-specific games. In
my experience it was difficult to get people to stop focusing on the HERO
system rules and immerse themselves in the details of the created fantasy
world. No matter what we tried, at the end of the day, people were still
saying: "8D6 energy blast, armor piercing" rather than: "Mazundel's Hellish
Arrows".
> In *my* experience, new players have been able to play and enjoy HERO System
> games, especially superheroic campaigns, very quickly. The combat system
> provides enough options that players can simply tell the GM what they want
> they're character to do, then the GM "translates" it into mechanics and
> tells the player what she or he needs to roll or whatever. And then also the
> mechanics are pretty transparent to the players.
That is one model of gameplay. If it worked well for you and your group,
then great. It does demand a good bit more bookeeping on the part of the
GM. When we played, it was always the players' responsibility to know the
system details of how to use their powers. I can see how the method you
suggest would lead to greater immersion on the part of the players. OTOH,
I can also see how that method would make it harder for the GM to stay on
top of the story/campaign details. I'm not sure which one I prefer. I
suppose it comes down to a choice between demanding that the GM know the
system *exceptionally* well or demanding that the players know the parts of
the system that pertain to their characters reasonably well.
Of course, if the GM is assuming that level of responsibility with respect
to game mechanics, it is his or her privelege to choose the game system,
as it really shouldn't matter much to the players.
No matter the model of play, I still feel that it's distracting (and
detrimental to play) to have to deal with the additional layer of abstraction
imposed by the HERO system.
zeke
inan...@cyberspace.org
>
> zeke <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>>It's been my observation that it takes an extra level of effort to
>>transcend the mechanics implicit in a hero system game and actually
>>roleplay in a convincing world. I'm not sure how much it was the fault
>
> problem with the Hero system in many years of play. I have heard
> about other people's Hero system games being mechanics-dominated...
> but then, I have heard of mechanics-dominated games using D&D, GURPS,
> and just about every other system.
I agree that you can end up suffering from mechanics-dominated games in
any system. It's just that the HERO system is *so* well-suited for
players who naturally tend to fixate on rules. Few other systems offer
the range of possibilities in character creation and rules manipulation
that HERO does. People complain about munchkinism in games like AD&D, but they
have no clue whatsoever about the level of abuse possible in a sophisticated
rules system like HERO. Double specialized in long sword? Hah! Try a
variable power pool, or martial arts attacks bought with area affect (city
block) and autofire advantages. (Yes, I know that's a silly (and extreme)
example. (And yeah, I know that martial arts attacks are technically skills,
and not powers for which advantages can be bought, but c'mon, tell me you
haven't had a player come to you at some point with an equivalently ludicrous
but technically allowed and somehow seductive suggestion.) The point is merely
that flexiblity of use generally comes with flexibility of abuse. And yes, I
know that it's the GM's duty to ride herd on his/her players, but still...)
It's not that the HERO system actively encourages rules-lawyering and
munchkinism, it's just that doing such is so much more *fun* than it is in
most other systems. Well, that, and the fact that our players' ethics
were weak. ("Why can't I choose my right index finger as the focus for
my spells? It could be removed in a single round by an enemy. That makes
it a _vulnerable_ focus, so I should get even more points off!")
Heh. My suggestions to people who really enjoy munchkinism is to play a
roguelike game such as Angband or Nethack. After watching your character
destroy his 10,000th Ancient Multi-Hued Dragon with his Mace of Dragon
Slaying (+20, +20) (and giving yourself carpal tunnel), ensuring that the
character you play in a pen-and-paper game is over-powered seems somehow
less thrilling.
<snip>
> I think your point above is quite valid: i.e. just like any other
> rules system, if you don't have a decent background the quality of
> role-playing suffers. By the same token, being a rules-lawyer and
It's a dual dependence on richness of background and invisibility of mechanics.
I.e. - the better the background and the less obtrusive the mechanics,
the easier it is for the players to submerse themselves in a make-believe
world. Even though I like many aspects about the HERO system, I still
feel that the mechanics are more visible than in many other games, and as
a result, games with weaker backgrounds really suffer.
> Hmmm. I agree that _Champions_ has a difficult learning curve,
> but it depends what you compare it to. It sounds like you are comparing
> a fantasy game where specialist characters have a few spells to superhero
> _Champions_ where every PC has a bunch of powers that are used all the
> time. If you play in a genre which doesn't have constant wierd power
> use, then the Hero system gets a lot simpler.
I guess our fantasy HERO games were a bit weird. We never quite managed
to build to the level where the campaign world became "real". New foes &
NPCs with unprecedented new spells and abilities showed up in virtually
every gaming session, and (possibly as a result) new characters (also with
unprecedented spells & abilities) showed up every other gaming session.
Perhaps this was bad in terms of continuity and game-world plausibility,
but as our players would say: "What's the point in using HERO if you
don't get to make up whatever character you want to?" (Side note:
yes, I know the statement is very rules-lawyer-/munchkin-ish, but it reflects
prevailing attitudes that existed in our roleplay group at the time.)
Definitely agreed that using the HERO system becomes easier if you use it
in a consistent manner from game session to game session. A long term
fantasy campaign in which magic, races, and skills were all pre-defined
would only be a little more work than the equivalent game in a fantasy-specific
system. But that brings us to the issue of source material, and it sounds
as if neither of us was fond of the FH supplements.
> For superheroes, I think in play it is no harder than
> _GURPS Supers_ and a little harder than _Aberrant_, say. Designing
> superpowers is tougher than in those systems, but that is during
I have no real problem with superhero games using Champions. (Although
I still think that the vehicle-designing rules stink.) In truth, I'd
far rather use Champions that GURPS Supers, as I think that Champions
provides a more concise and elegant framework to build superheros with.
I haven't seen Aberrant so I can't comment.
> The better sourcebooks IMO are _Lands of Mystery_ (an excellent
> genre book on pulp lost-world romances), _Ninja Hero_ (for the general
<snip>
Ninja Hero was indeed fairly decent. Maybe we should have stuck to
martial arts-based cloak-and-dagger campaigns.
Before anyone accuses me of hating the HERO system, please note that I don't.
I've played HERO system games in a variety of genres, and had fun in all of
them. This doesn't preclude me from thinking that it, like all systems,
has its strengths and weaknesses.
zeke
John Kim
zeke <inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote:
>In the HERO system, if you want to use genre-specific conventions, you
>must define your effects in terms of the HERO system basic powers, like
>the example I gave of the "lightning bolt" spell being defined in terms
>of energy blast with appropriately applied modifiers.
>In your typical genre-specific fantasy game, a spell like "lightning bolt"
>is defined _directly_ in terms of its game effects.
>No matter the model of play, I still feel that it's distracting (and
>detrimental to play) to have to deal with the additional layer of
>abstraction imposed by the HERO system.
Hmmmm. I don't really agree with you here. In practice, your
typical system creates its own abstractions. I don't see that the
Hero abstractions are any more distracting than the typical fantasy
system's abstractions. For example, hopefully you agree that D&D is
a typical fantasy system. A lightning bolt in D&D is defined like
this (from the PH p222):
Lightning Bolt
Evocation [Electricity]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V,S,M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft + 10ft/level) or 50ft + 5ft/level
Area: 5ft wide to medium range; or 10ft wide to 50ft + 5ft/level
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6
points of damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature
within its area.
[...additional text description...]
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
OK, now compare this to a lightning bolt spell from Fantasy Hero,
(from the Air College, page 205):
Lightning Bolt
Power: 2 1/2 d6 RKA (Lightning)
Modifiers: Side Effects(6d6 Energy Blast or random discharge),
Gestures, Incantations, Requires Magic Skill Roll,
OAF - wand, Character must have at least 20 points
in spells from the Air college, (+1 Body outside,
-1 indoors)
END Cost: 4, Magic Roll: -4, Casting Time: 1/2 Phase
Real Cost: 10
Opposing winds summoned by the caster generate a large static
charge that is channeled through the caster at the target -- a
lightning bolt.
[...additional text description...]
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Alright, now which one is more abstracted?? Well, maybe the
Hero spell is a little more abstracted -- but the difference isn't
nearly as glaring as you make out. For example, compare the Hero
note of "Gestures, Incantations" versus D&D's "V,S,M". I think the
Hero approach in this case is clearer and less distracting.
In any case, I don't think you can reasonably argue that
the top notation from D&D makes play focussed on role-playing while
the bottom notation from Hero is mechanics-focussed. They are both
mechanical descriptions which use a specialized terms like "V,S,M"
and "Reflex half" and "RKA".
Hunter
Now cast underwater or into water. In a vaccum. What happens if the bolt
hits an object.
Also could a still winds spell or another wind control counter the lightning?
John Kim
zeke <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>I guess our fantasy HERO games were a bit weird. We never quite managed
>to build to the level where the campaign world became "real". New foes &
>NPCs with unprecedented new spells and abilities showed up in virtually
>every gaming session, and (possibly as a result) new characters (also with
>unprecedented spells & abilities) showed up every other gaming session.
>Perhaps this was bad in terms of continuity and game-world plausibility,
>but as our players would say: "What's the point in using HERO if you
>don't get to make up whatever character you want to?" (Side note:
>yes, I know the statement is very rules-lawyer-/munchkin-ish, but it
>reflects prevailing attitudes that existed in our roleplay group at
>the time.)
So you had a game using what we agree is two-dimensional
sourcebook material (_Fantasy Hero_), with a thinly-developed homebrew
background, with new PC's every other game session... and based on
this, you suggest that the base rule system that was the problem??
On the one hand, I think you are right that under those
conditions the Hero system becomes a rules-lawyer's delight. On the
other hand, under other conditions it can be a fine vehicle for
interesting role-play.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>It's just that the HERO system is *so* well-suited for players who
>naturally tend to fixate on rules. Few other systems offer the range
>of possibilities in character creation and rules manipulation that
>HERO does. People complain about munchkinism in games like AD&D,
>but they have no clue whatsoever about the level of abuse possible in
>a sophisticated rules system like HERO.
I think this is one of those "double-edged swords". You have
focussed on the problems that flexibility causes when you have a
weak background and rules-lawyerly attitudes. I think it is important
to also note that the flexibility can enhance the background by allowing
you to write up whatever concept you come up with.
My Hero system games have had a much wider range of interesting
PC's than all the other systems that I have used. I always felt this to
be an asset to role-playing. For example, in a modern-day magic campaign
I had:
* A PC who channeled social archetypes, letting him for a limited time
become the perfect Doctor, for example -- with the price that he had
to behave as fitted that archetype.
* A PC who grew up with an imaginary friend that turned out to be a
helpful ghost.
* A PC who studied occult masonic secrets, with various magic based
around building, ritual, and structure.
* A PC who was keeping in check a demon that was trying to possess him.
As you say, allowing this does have potential for abuse. But
there is definitely an advantage which you get for that disadvantage
(so to speak :-).
inan...@cyberspace.org
>
> zeke <inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote:
>>In the HERO system, if you want to use genre-specific conventions, you
>>must define your effects in terms of the HERO system basic powers, like
>>the example I gave of the "lightning bolt" spell being defined in terms
>>of energy blast with appropriately applied modifiers.
> [...]
>>In your typical genre-specific fantasy game, a spell like "lightning bolt"
>>is defined _directly_ in terms of its game effects.
> [...]
>
> typical system creates its own abstractions. I don't see that the
> Hero abstractions are any more distracting than the typical fantasy
> system's abstractions. For example, hopefully you agree that D&D is
> a typical fantasy system. A lightning bolt in D&D is defined like
> this (from the PH p222):
<chuckling> Sure. D&D is fine.
<description of lightning bolt spells in D&D vs Fantasy Hero snipped>
> Alright, now which one is more abstracted?? Well, maybe the
> Hero spell is a little more abstracted -- but the difference isn't
> nearly as glaring as you make out. For example, compare the Hero
> note of "Gestures, Incantations" versus D&D's "V,S,M". I think the
> Hero approach in this case is clearer and less distracting.
My argument is simply that, in HERO, all genre-specific mechanics (and by
"mechanics" I mean such elements as the magic spells we are discussing here)
must be are defined in terms of HERO's basic system mechanics, which are
themselves defined in terms of their effects. When you play a genre-specific
game with the HERO system (barring, perhaps, the superhero genre, for which
it seems largely designed), you *play* at the level of the genre-specific
mechanic (fireballs, lances, etc.), but you must *simulate* at the level of
the HERO system mechanic. (energy blasts, area affect; HKA, armor-piercing,
range 2). In a typical fantasy game the genre mechanic _is_ the system
mechanic. This additional level of abstraction, trivial though it may seem
to some, is what I am rumbling on about.
Vocabulary helps define world view. If the news calls a shipment of arms to
another country: "A package of unholy mass destruction" you might very
well envision something entirely different than if they call the shipment:
"goodwill gifts". Likewise, if your character is casting a "fireball", you
picture one thing. If he is casting an "area-affect energy blast", (which,
despite our best efforts is how a lot of our players would talk) the
mental image of a fiery, magical ball of flame is somewhat weakened, and
the illusion of playing in a mysterious fantastic world is cheapened.
I do not argue that all players will fall back on describing their characters
and their characters' actions in terms of basic HERO mechanics even when
doing so is innapropriate in game terms, but I have *observed* a lot of
players do exactly that. The same players consistently described their
characters' actions in game-appropriate terms using other, genre-specific
systems. (Big surprise - there were no other terms to fall back on.)
I'm _not_ saying that this is a fatal flaw of HERO, just that it can and
does happen, and that when it does it really detracts from gameplay.
Side note: Eventually our GM and several of the players got bored enough
with damage determination to program their calculators to role dice and
calculate modifiers for them. Were we the only ones who did such?
I believe that the shorter the path from game world action to experienced
result, the better. As players we want to deal with the created world in
which we are playing in the most straightforward, intuitive way possible.
Whenever a system mechanic comes into play, we as players must on some level
take a step back from our immersion-level participation in the flow of the
game to deal with the numerical level at which events in our game world are
decided. Each mental step we take away from our PC-level immersion in the
game is a blow to suspension of disbelief and a step away from viewing game
events through the eyes of our characters. The fewer and less-complicated
the steps are, the easier it is for players to deal with number-crunching
necessity and slip back into the game, story flow (relatively) uninterrupted.
As far as the specific descriptions of the lightning bolt spell in D&D vs
the one in Fantasy Hero goes...I agree that both look pretty much equally
complicated on paper. Sure, no argument there. But I gotta confess that
our AD&D house rules pretty well filed what we felt were needless
complications off such endeavors. If a character was casting a lightning
bolt, we took it on faith that he or she could manage the gestures, the
strange mumbling, and had a bag or two of whatever it was that was needed
to cast the spell hanging around somewhere. Not everyone likes to play
that way, but it was fun for us, and in the end it didn't make a whole
lot of difference to the game. You can cut those complications out of
such a system pretty easily. In house rules, the in-game effects of
a "lightning bolt" pretty much boil down to damage and bright (possibly
blinding) light, plus a small "CRACK!" noise. You can't really get
away with that sort of thing in HERO. As simple as you try to make a
lightning bolt, it's still defined in terms of the basic HERO system
mechanics, and they're not really meant to be "filed-down".
Truthfully, I don't like the way either version of the spell is presented,
but that's as much my attitude towards how magic and other "source" (rather
than "interaction") mechanics are written up. In My Perfect World, (IMPW)
(Everyone shudder and run away!) system elements such as spells would be
described in _experiencable_ detail, given unique histories if possible,
and very concisely summarized in terms of numerical-simulation level
effects.
Cheers,
zeke
John Kim
Hunter <no_ad...@this.time.org> wrote:
>John Kim <jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>> In practice, your typical system creates its own abstractions. I
>> don't see that the Hero abstractions are any more distracting than
>> the typical fantasy system's abstractions. For example, hopefully
>> you agree that D&D is a typical fantasy system.
>>
>
>Now cast underwater or into water. In a vaccum. What happens if the
>bolt hits an object. Also could a still winds spell or another wind
>control counter the lightning?
Well, neither spell description specifies what happens in water
or vacuum, so that is up to the GM's ruling. A rules-lawyerly GM in
either system might say "Well, the spell definition doesn't say
anything about it being different underwater, so it works just like
normal." Of course, that would be stupid.
Personally, I would rule that the damage is reduced in water
but spread out over a wider area. The D&D spell I would say still
works in a vacuum, while the FH Air College spell wouldn't. In both
systems, if it hits an object, it damages the object (duh), although
if the object was a conductor it could also do secondary damage to
anyone touching it. As for "still winds" spell, it would have no
effect on the D&D spell, while in FH it would depend in part on
the other spell and how it is defined (there isn't such a spell in
standard FH).
John Kim
>> don't see that the Hero abstractions are any more distracting than
>> the typical fantasy system's abstractions. For example, hopefully
>> you agree that D&D is a typical fantasy system.
>>
>
>bolt hits an object. Also could a still winds spell or another wind
>control counter the lightning?
Eh? Well, neither spell description specifies what happens
in water or vacuum, so that is up to the GM's ruling. A rules-lawyerly
GM in either system might say "Well, the spell definition doesn't say
anything about it being different underwater, so it works just like
normal." Of course, that would be stupid.
Personally, I would rule that the damage is reduced in water
but spread out over a wider area. The D&D spell I would say still
works in a vacuum, while the FH Air College spell wouldn't. In both
systems, if it hits an object, it damages the object (duh), although
if the object was a conductor it could also do secondary damage to
anyone touching it. As for "still winds" spell, it would have no
effect on the D&D spell, while in FH it would depend in part on
the other spell and how it is defined (there isn't such a spell in
standard FH).
inan...@cyberspace.org
>
> zeke <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
<snip>
> So you had a game using what we agree is two-dimensional
> sourcebook material (_Fantasy Hero_), with a thinly-developed homebrew
> background, with new PC's every other game session... and based on
> this, you suggest that the base rule system that was the problem??
<grin>
If it wasn't completely clear by now, no, I don't think that the base rule
system was the whole problem. Obviously our group had other issues going
on. Between munchkins, rules lawyers, and combat whores, ("Can I put the
limitation 'Does not work in high magnetic fields' on the 10 points I'm
going to put into speed?" "On page XXX it states that <blahblahblah> there-
fore my character is unaffected by the dragon's fire attack. In fact, NONE
of us are." "It's been 15 minutes since we killed something. When are we
going to kill something again?") there was never a...um...dull moment.
Still, I feel, having observed the group through good sessions and bad, that
the additional effort necessary to translate from game action to effect in
the HERO system contributed to our lack of immersion. I'm not saying that
it would have been a problem if our campaigns had been better designed and/or
if members of our group had been better roleplayers, but in our situation it
definitely had an effect.
> I think this is one of those "double-edged swords". You have
> focussed on the problems that flexibility causes when you have a
> weak background and rules-lawyerly attitudes. I think it is important
> to also note that the flexibility can enhance the background by allowing
> you to write up whatever concept you come up with.
Of course. The HERO system's shining virtue lies in the fact that it gives
you a fairly well-balanced set of building blocks to use in creating your
own world. You can pour a great deal of creativity into inventing peoples,
places, cultures, creatures, etc. and rely on knowing that the basic
mechanics you are using to build your world have already been playtested,
(mostly) debugged, and have had their interactions detailed. It may take
some more initial work to write up every detail in HERO-specific terms,
but you don't really need to worry about inventing your own new rules to
deal with whatever you dream up. In almost every case, there's a suitable
mechanism already present in HERO to deal with it.
But in the end, you still gotta (just as you do with every game) convince your
players that playing the game is more fun than playing _with_ the game. I
guess HERO turned out to be an irresistably shiny object for some of the
people in our group.
> My Hero system games have had a much wider range of interesting
> PC's than all the other systems that I have used. I always felt this to
> be an asset to role-playing. For example, in a modern-day magic campaign
> I had:
>
<snip of interesting PC archetypes>
I used to think that HERO was the perfect system to write up characters in,
after which they should be translated to whatever system you actually wanted
to play in.
And for all my grumbling, it should be apparent that I like a lot of facets
of the HERO system. Early exposure to its interesting complexities is
probably why the fantasy system I am (very slowly) writing is the byzantine
monster (on its way to being a trim, *elegant* monster) it currently is.
(Try a 3-tiered stat system that can be played at either the 4-, the 12-,
or the 28-characteristic level.)
In any case, you'll get no argument from me if you state that it's possible
to play fun games with the HERO system, nor will you find me disagreeing with
you over its flexibility. I still think the greater level of abstraction
inherent in any similar generic system has its weaknesses, but as those
weaknesses are intimately bound up with its strengths, my grumbling is
mostly a matter of personal preferences.
Shall we agree to (slightly) disagree and move on?
zeke
SD Anderson
> Well, neither spell description specifies what happens in
> water or vacuum, so that is up to the GM's ruling. A
> rules-lawyerly GM in either system might say "Well, the spell
> definition doesn't say anything about it being different
> underwater, so it works just like normal." Of course, that
> would be stupid.
The rule of taxi cab rides costing points is at the heart of
this. So long as 'you have EXACTLY what you purchased with your
points' is in the rules, you can't shoot lightning bolts in Hero.
You send energy blasts that bear some resemblance to lightning.
When push comes to shove and some situation comes up where a
lightning like EB will behave differently than real lightning, the
rules call for the EB mechanics to take precedence.
OTOH, call lightning, in D&D, IS lightning.
SD Anderson
> GDW didn't go bankrupt. Their business slowed to the point
> where there was no point going on but they didn't go bankrupt.
Well, to be honest, they initially announced they were going to
file for bankruptcy. Turned out they managed to avoid actually
doing so and simply went out of business.
But that was more a case of finding out their assests situation
was slightly better than they first thought.
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
>
> [...compare D&D Lightning Bolt with Fantasy Hero
> Lightning Bolt...]
> A rules-lawyerly GM in either system might say "Well,
> the spell definition doesn't say anything about it being
> different underwater, so it works just like normal." Of
> course, that would be stupid.
Why is that stupid? A lightning bolt occurs when the difference
in electric charge between two objects (usually, earth and sky)
is strong enough to cause a spark to leap between them. This
spark will follow the path of least resistance, usually a
straight line. Since non-pure water is an excellent conductor,
there's no reason to think that a lightning bolt would act any
different underwater than it would in the air.
Dan Norder
>this. So long as 'you have EXACTLY what you purchased with your
>points' is in the rules, you can't shoot lightning bolts in Hero.
That's not a rule. Hero rules have always said that special effects based upon
the type of power give you small limited advantages and disadvantages that you
normally don't have to bother to note unless you are anally fixated into math.
Which, unfortunately, some Champs players are.
> You send energy blasts that bear some resemblance to lightning.
>
> When push comes to shove and some situation comes up where a
>lightning like EB will behave differently than real lightning, the
>rules call for the EB mechanics to take precedence.
>
> OTOH, call lightning, in D&D, IS lightning.
Hero lightning is just as real as D&D lightning (which is to say not real
lightning, duh), and, in fact, mechanically is usually more self-consitent with
other powers.
They're both RPGs. They both require using your brain to subjectively figure
things out sometimes. To state otherwise is to artificially restrain the Hero
rules in a way that is contrary to the manuals and common sense.
Dan "Namedropper" Norder
Quality Domain Names For Sale
http://members.afternic.com/namedropper?showcase
Hunter
>
>Hunter <no_ad...@this.time.org> wrote:
>>John Kim <jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>>> In practice, your typical system creates its own abstractions. I
>>> don't see that the Hero abstractions are any more distracting than
>>> the typical fantasy system's abstractions. For example, hopefully
>>> you agree that D&D is a typical fantasy system.
>>>
>[...compare D&D Lightning Bolt with Fantasy Hero Lightning Bolt...]
>>
>>Now cast underwater or into water. In a vaccum. What happens if the
>>bolt hits an object. Also could a still winds spell or another wind
>>control counter the lightning?
>
> Well, neither spell description specifies what happens in water
>or vacuum, so that is up to the GM's ruling. A rules-lawyerly GM in
>either system might say "Well, the spell definition doesn't say
>anything about it being different underwater, so it works just like
>normal." Of course, that would be stupid.
Actually the DnD rules, (at least 2nd did) do have rules for differant effects
in differant situations. LB cast underwater acts like a FB for same damage.
If it hits water it becomes a hemisphere with radius of remaining length.
> Personally, I would rule that the damage is reduced in water
>but spread out over a wider area. The D&D spell I would say still
>works in a vacuum, while the FH Air College spell wouldn't. In both
>systems, if it hits an object, it damages the object (duh), although
>if the object was a conductor it could also do secondary damage to
>anyone touching it. As for "still winds" spell, it would have no
>effect on the D&D spell, while in FH it would depend in part on
>the other spell and how it is defined (there isn't such a spell in
>standard FH).
Basicly, I was asking how much (in the rules) un-planned situations can limit or
aid a FH spell based on the special effect of the spell. In D&D, the effect is
the spell. You know the effect, you know how the spell will behave (with some
exceptions).
Grant Enfield
"SD Anderson" <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:9ere88$53g$2...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> The rule of taxi cab rides costing points is at the heart of
> this.
Errr....what?
In a campaign where taxi cabs are an everyday thing, rides in them won't
cost points. In a campaign where characters don't pay point for equipment,
cab fare will cost campaign money. In a campaign where characters do pay
points for equipment, all characters are assumed to have clothes, shelter,
and everything else--it's just abstracted.
> So long as 'you have EXACTLY what you purchased with your
> points' is in the rules, you can't shoot lightning bolts in Hero.
>
> You send energy blasts that bear some resemblance to lightning.
I'll argue that it's exactly the opposite. In HERO System, a character with
the ability to shoot lightning bolts, shoots lightning bolts (modeled by
Energy Blast or RKA with various Advantages or Limitations). The system
works from *effect* back to mechanics, not from mechanics to effect.
> When push comes to shove and some situation comes up where a
> lightning like EB will behave differently than real lightning, the
> rules call for the EB mechanics to take precedence.
I think the rules explicitly call for small, case-by-case modifications that
follow from the special effect. When those modifications come up lots,
players use the mechanics to reflect them, but when they're rare, they
aren't worth an Advantage or Limitation, so they don't have to be paid for.
This approach to HERO System is one I've never encountered before.
grant
John Kim
zeke <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>John Kim <jh...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>> So you had a game using what we agree is two-dimensional
>> sourcebook material (_Fantasy Hero_), with a thinly-developed homebrew
>> background, with new PC's every other game session... and based on
>> this, you suggest that the base rule system that was the problem??
>
><grin>
>
>If it wasn't completely clear by now, no, I don't think that the base
>rule system was the whole problem. Obviously our group had other issues
>going on.
Sorry, it was a cheap shot. I think we are actually mostly in
agreement, except for the point about abstraction (see below). Even
there you seem to agree that at base Hero isn't more abstract than other
systems -- it is a question of how house rules are applied.
-*-*-*-
>
>As far as the specific descriptions of the lightning bolt spell in D&D vs
>the one in Fantasy Hero goes...I agree that both look pretty much equally
>complicated on paper. Sure, no argument there. But I gotta confess that
>our AD&D house rules pretty well filed what we felt were needless
>complications off such endeavors. [...] In house rules, the in-game
>effects of a "lightning bolt" pretty much boil down to damage and bright
>(possibly blinding) light, plus a small "CRACK!" noise. You can't really
>get away with that sort of thing in HERO. As simple as you try to make a
>lightning bolt, it's still defined in terms of the basic HERO system
>mechanics, and they're not really meant to be "filed-down".
Um, why not? I have heard some people say things like "Hero
can't have house rules" or "Hero has to use the mechanics exactly as
written" -- which I find nonsensical. House rules by definition are
not using the mechanics as written. It works the same way in Hero as
in most other systems. i.e. The book gives fairly rigid stats and rules
at base, but also advises the GM to be loose in play. You just ignore
the secondary stats/rules and treat the spell as its description states.
There is no reason you can't have house rules in Hero.
Obviously, if you want to remove all complications, then you probably
would be better off with a simpler system in the first place (like
FUDGE or BESM) -- but the same is true of filing off complications
from genre systems like D&D, Deadlands, or whatever.
jet...@illusions.com
> "SD Anderson" <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
> news:9ere88$53g$2...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>> The rule of taxi cab rides costing points is at the heart of
>> this.
> Errr....what?
> In a campaign where taxi cabs are an everyday thing, rides in them won't
> cost points. In a campaign where characters don't pay point for equipment,
> cab fare will cost campaign money. In a campaign where characters do pay
> points for equipment, all characters are assumed to have clothes, shelter,
> and everything else--it's just abstracted.
>> So long as 'you have EXACTLY what you purchased with your
>> points' is in the rules, you can't shoot lightning bolts in Hero.
>>
>> You send energy blasts that bear some resemblance to lightning.
> I'll argue that it's exactly the opposite. In HERO System, a character with
> the ability to shoot lightning bolts, shoots lightning bolts (modeled by
> Energy Blast or RKA with various Advantages or Limitations). The system
> works from *effect* back to mechanics, not from mechanics to effect.
>> When push comes to shove and some situation comes up where a
>> lightning like EB will behave differently than real lightning, the
>> rules call for the EB mechanics to take precedence.
Page # on that?
> I think the rules explicitly call for small, case-by-case modifications that
> follow from the special effect. When those modifications come up lots,
> players use the mechanics to reflect them, but when they're rare, they
> aren't worth an Advantage or Limitation, so they don't have to be paid for.
BBB P. 52. "The GM should feel free to play up both the minor advantages
and the minor limitations that he feels a special effect provides. Of
course, once the Advangeages or Limitations of the power become
significant, they can (and should) be reflected in the cost of the power."
Followed by an example of how Howler's sonic blast might gain a d6 or two
or become an Explosion underwater, let her shatter glass without a roll
and not work in a vacuum. All from a basic energy blast.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe jet...@illusions.com Website being moved
"Inflammable means flammable?! What a country!"
-Dr. Nick Riviera
inan...@cyberspace.org
>
> zeke <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>>John Kim <jh...@fnal.gov> wrote:
<snipsnipsnip>
> Sorry, it was a cheap shot. I think we are actually mostly in
> agreement, except for the point about abstraction (see below). Even
> there you seem to agree that at base Hero isn't more abstract than other
> systems -- it is a question of how house rules are applied.
Hm. I still believe that, at its heart, HERO is a meta-rpg - a system for
defining rules systems (With the possible exception of the superhero genre,
for which it seems best-suited). Therefore I'd still argue that there lies
an extra level of abstraction between game world action and numerical
simulation effect, at least when compared to a typical genre-specific game.
But I've already rambled on about this in much greater detail within an
earlier post. See one of my previous responses to one of your responses.
Side note: (By the time we finish debating this, our arguments will probably
have exceeded the complexity of the HERO system.)
> Um, why not? I have heard some people say things like "Hero
> can't have house rules" or "Hero has to use the mechanics exactly as
> written" -- which I find nonsensical. House rules by definition are
> not using the mechanics as written. It works the same way in Hero as
> in most other systems. i.e. The book gives fairly rigid stats and rules
> at base, but also advises the GM to be loose in play. You just ignore
> the secondary stats/rules and treat the spell as its description states.
I suppose that it's possible to do so in the HERO system, but I still think
that doing what I was suggesting, "filing down" the rules set, is much easier
in a system that is not built as a coherent whole. I'm not saying it is
impossible, but it takes a lot more care, and potentially a lot more effort.
Systems like AD&D resemble nothing so much as a giant, generations-old, eagles'
nest. Sure, it works as a game, but there's not much of an overall plan to
the thing, except perhaps: "There's a situation? Here's a rule". You can go
around knocking off bits here and there without really changing the structural
integrity of the assembly in any significant way. The HERO system looks more
like a carefully engineered modern building. Sure, you can knock off pieces
here and there, but doing so significantly changes how the system works. If
you determine that using magic does not require the caster to care about
components, foci, or incantations, then are those rules reflected in the
costs involved in character creation? Do you disallow the use of foci as a
limitation, or do you still allow it but never really enforce the limitation
itself? If you disallow it, does that mean that all magical powers must be
bought with other limitations to keep their costs down, or do you accept the
result that your magic users will not be able to cast as powerful a set of
spells due to the increased cost of magic?
cheers,
zeke
Ross TenEyck
>It's not that the HERO system actively encourages rules-lawyering and
>munchkinism, it's just that doing such is so much more *fun* than it is in
>most other systems. Well, that, and the fact that our players' ethics
>were weak. ("Why can't I choose my right index finger as the focus for
>my spells? It could be removed in a single round by an enemy. That makes
>it a _vulnerable_ focus, so I should get even more points off!")
I recall a Champions group that planned out specific Munchkin
sessions -- where you could bring your most ridiculously abusive
characters and wallow in rules lawyering to your hearts content.
The rest of the time, you were expected to behave yourself.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Ross TenEyck
>"SD Anderson" <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
>news:9ere88$53g$2...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>> The rule of taxi cab rides costing points is at the heart of
>> this.
>Errr....what?
>In a campaign where taxi cabs are an everyday thing, rides in them won't
>cost points. In a campaign where characters don't pay point for equipment,
>cab fare will cost campaign money. In a campaign where characters do pay
>points for equipment, all characters are assumed to have clothes, shelter,
>and everything else--it's just abstracted.
One of the metagames you can play with the Hero rules is working
out the point cost for everyday "powers" -- some friends of mine
once calculated the cost of a comb (it was a small Aid to APP,
but, fortunately, I no longer remember the details.)
A sufficiently anal GM could demand that everything that CAN
be simulated with Hero powers, MUST be so simulated, and points
paid appropriately. This is clearly contradictory to the spirit
of the rules, and probably the letter as well, but your true
anal GM won't care.
So, since you could, if you cared to, define the "power" to
summon a taxi in Hero terms (Teleportation, extra time,
gestures [waving your arm], incantation ["4th and Main"],
etc., etc...), some campaigns would make you pay for it or
not be able to do it.
The extreme case should clearly be avoided. But there is kind
of a fuzzy line; in the Hero book, it says that characters
should be encouraged to make creative use of their powers'
special effects (e.g, shooting an EB defined as a lightning
bolt into a metal framework to shock someone on the other
side)... but they note that if a player starts *consistently*
exploiting a particular aspect of his special effect, he
should probably have to pay the points for it.
Obviously, this requires a judgement call on the part of the
GM; apparently, some GMs err on the side of "paying the points
for it."
John Kim
zeke <inan...@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> I have heard some people say things like "Hero can't have house rules"
>> or "Hero has to use the mechanics exactly as written" -- which I find
>> nonsensical. House rules by definition are not using the mechanics
>> as written. It works the same way in Hero as in most other systems.
>> i.e. The book gives fairly rigid stats and rules at base, but also
>> advises the GM to be loose in play. You just ignore the secondary
>> stats/rules and treat the spell as its description states.
>
>I suppose that it's possible to do so in the HERO system, but I still
>think that doing what I was suggesting, "filing down" the rules set, is
>much easier in a system that is not built as a coherent whole.
I know for a fact that it is possible, since I did it all the
time in my Hero campaigns. I also didn't notice anything that made it
more difficult than other systems. You just say "OK, this is how it
works" and bam! -- now it works that way.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
[Re: Systems like AD&D]
>You can go around knocking off bits here and there without really changing
>the structural integrity of the assembly in any significant way. The
>HERO system looks more like a carefully engineered modern building.
>Sure, you can knock off pieces here and there, but doing so significantly
>changes how the system works. If you determine that using magic does
>not require the caster to care about components, foci, or incantations,
>then are those rules reflected in the costs involved in character creation?
I don't get this. Obviously house rules will change how the
system works -- that's the point of house rules. But ignoring
incantations, gestures, and foci in a Fantasy Hero game will have
more-or-less exactly the same effects as ignoring V, S, and M
spell components in D&D.
In both cases, you can worry "Oh, will this change make wizards
too powerful?" and try to modify character creation to re-balance things.
But also in both cases you can just do it and not worry about game
balance. From my point of view the Hero system makes this easier --
because you still have the choice to ignore the rules and play it by
ear, but if you decide you want to re-balance things it has rules
for how to do so.
Grant Enfield
<inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9h68m...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com...
> There is an inherent extra level of abstraction in the HERO model.
Consider:
[Diagram snipped.]
I don't understand the diagram. What's the difference between
"Game-world-specific-powers" and "basic-HERO-system-powers"?
> In the HERO system, if you want to use genre-specific conventions, you
> must define your effects in terms of the HERO system basic powers, like
> the example I gave of the "lightning bolt" spell being defined in terms
> of energy blast with appropriately applied modifiers. In order to cast a
> lightning bolt then, the player (or perhaps the GM in the play model you
> mention below) must know the definition of "lightning bolt" in terms of
> the basic HERO system powers and what these basic powers allow.
>
> In your typical genre-specific fantasy game, a spell like "lightning bolt"
> is defined _directly_ in terms of its game effects.
Isn't this the same for *all* systems? In order to play the game, players
must know how the "game-world" translates into mechanics. That's true for
any system.
> No matter what we tried, at the end of the day, people were still
> saying: "8D6 energy blast, armor piercing" rather than: "Mazundel's
Hellish
> Arrows".
While I don't disbelieve your anecdotes, they seem to me to be unusual
rather usual experiences.
I've never played in a campaign (HERO System or otherwise) where a player
was likely to say, "I hit the NPC with my +1 1d6 HKA," rather than "I'll
swing my sword at the guy."
D&D, for example, was (the last time I played it) rife with +1 this and +2
thats, 11th Level Rangers and 4th Level Clerics, and any number of
mechanics-specific terms. HERO System actually removes a layer of
abstraction in this regard by moving directly to the mechanics. If you don't
call a sword a "sword" in play, then you're left with saying what it does
mechanically: "1d6 HKA." Calling a character a "Ranger" doesn't tell players
anything about the mechanics of the thing, but it still requires that
players know what "Ranger" means in mechanics terms.
> That is one model of gameplay. If it worked well for you and your group,
> then great. It does demand a good bit more bookeeping on the part of the
> GM. When we played, it was always the players' responsibility to know the
> system details of how to use their powers. I can see how the method you
> suggest would lead to greater immersion on the part of the players. OTOH,
> I can also see how that method would make it harder for the GM to stay on
> top of the story/campaign details.
Why?
The player says, "I want to hit that orc over there with my sword."
The GM (or another friendly and experienced player) points out the
character's half-move on the character sheet, and the player moves her
character (that part's just like playing SORRY!). If the character's
half-move takes the character to the orc, the GM says, "Roll 3d6." If the
character's half-move doesn't take the character to the orc, the GM says,
"You know you can make it closer to the orc, but you know you won't be able
to hit it or duck if it tries to hit you before it has a chance to react. Do
you want to move in on the orc, wait to see what it does, or do something
else instead?" And it goes from there. That's how I learned to play, and
that's how I've taught others to play.
In my experience, it helps keep the game closer to the "game world" since
that's the language the new players understand best. Play goes a little
slower, but that's the cost of bringing in new players. And it's well worth
it to me. :)
> Of course, if the GM is assuming that level of responsibility with respect
> to game mechanics, it is his or her privelege to choose the game system,
> as it really shouldn't matter much to the players.
Sure, the system matters. In my experience, HERO System allows players many
more options than things like D&D did, so what the new player wants to do
maps closer to what the character can do in game mechanics. Of course, I
remember D&D fights being nothing more than "I hit the orc again"--"Okay,
roll to hit, roll damage" kinds of exchagnes. Maybe it's changed since then,
but HERO System offers a wide range of tactical options, and that lets new
players do things with their characters.
> No matter the model of play, I still feel that it's distracting (and
> detrimental to play) to have to deal with the additional layer of
abstraction
> imposed by the HERO system.
I can't help thinking that HERO System's "additional layer of abstraction"
is some sort of particular difficulty this gaming group had at a particular
time and in particular circumstances. And that suggests to me that it's not
something that has to do with the system.
grant
Bryant Berggren
>My friend is a master at creating a 250pt (150 + 100 disads) character
>in under 45 minutes. He's basically got it down to a science on how
>to handle frameworks & skills (without munchkining out!) Me, I admit
>I always have trouble with the math of character creation. Yet in
>terms of playing, I like the game.
45 minutes??? I hope that's a generous maximum.
In my experience, the hardest part of creating a Champions character
is the part that has nothing to do with Champions -- thinking of what
the heck I *want* to play. (THAT can take days ...) With a concept in
mind, 10-20 minutes for 90-95% of my ideas.
On the other hand, I've had to reverse-engineer GURPS Supers STs.
Champions math has no power over me. :)
>For the most part I've had good GMs in Champions. My one bad
>experience was a munchkin/rule lawyer GM who took a perverse glee in
>near abusive tricks on the PCs. Maybe they weren't illegal, but they
>damn well were nasty.
>
>5d6 Strength drain, coupled with Density Increase: Useable against
>Others.
Yeah, powergamer player horror stories are epidemic in Champions, but
the nastiest (and often shakiest rules-wise) constructions always came
from smugly Legalist* GMs looking for ways to 'put the fear of Me' in
their players. The worst one (IMO) being NNDs with the defense being
"*Not* having N power" (usually resistant defenses).
* As in the Chinese philosophy, not "rules lawyering".
Bryant Berggren
>* Adding points for power advantages and subtracting points for power
>limitations, rather than multiplying the power points by:
>(1 + advantages)/(1 + limitations). The math would be much more transparent
>for non-math-types and would work just about as well for balancing powers.
No, it wouldn't. Multi/div is in HERO for a *reason*. Power modifiers
are intended to be *proportional* -- if a base power is made twice as
strong as before, a benefit applied to it becomes twice as valuable.
This is The Right Thing in terms of functionality, even if it does
cause problems for the innumerate. (And frankly, any math you can do
on even the cheapo calculators they give away in desk pencil sets is
not something worth complaining about).
>* Eliminating most of the secondary attributes. Most of them are rarely
>modified much from their calculated values anyway.
In your tiny corner of the world. My mileage varies.
BRB
inan...@nospamcyberspace.org
>
> <inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote in message
>> There is an inherent extra level of abstraction in the HERO model.
> Consider:
>
> [Diagram snipped.]
>
> I don't understand the diagram. What's the difference between
> "Game-world-specific-powers" and "basic-HERO-system-powers"?
Ok. Concretely:
While playing a fantasy genre game using the HERO system, a player might
decide to have his character cast a spell. In game world terms there are
a number of possible powers that the spell might express. Perhaps in this
game world it is possible for a character who has a great understanding of
the "elements" (fire, water, earth, air...) to cast spells which evoke pure
manifestations of the elements. Suppose the character can cause a "ball of
fire" to explode into being wherever he wants to. The game-world-specific-
power is the ability to evoke fire. It is a power that makes sense in
context of the world in which the group is playing. The HERO system power
in which this fireball is defined is (most likely) "energy blast". This
term has no inherent meaning in the game world, but a very specific definition
in the HERO system. Moreover, the HERO system power is the level at which
the game world "effects" are defined. (i.e. - in our case, the ability to
cause damage)
So the connecting chain from game world action to game world effect runs
(in our case) as:
(1) Cast fireball spell.
(2) Note that the fireball spell is defined (in our GAME WORLD TERMS) as
the evocation of one of the fundamental elements, fire. This element
is defined to have certain properties. (fiery consumption of materials,
physical damage, heat, purification of the impure, etc.) This is how
our PCs should see the event; they view actions in the context of their
game world.
(3) Now we need to consider the fireball spell's definition in HERO SYSTEM
TERMS. It is an area-affect energy blast. (etc.) At this point we
are completely out of character. Our PCs have no inkling of anything to
do with "energy blasts".
(4) Finally, we consider the EFFECTS of the invoked HERO system powers.
We look at the description of the energy blast power and the area affect
advantage in the HERO system rulebook and figure out the effects they
have on the characters within the range of the spell.
In most systems, step (3) doesn't exist. In these games, the definition of
the fireball spell gives the actual game world effects directly.
>> In your typical genre-specific fantasy game, a spell like "lightning bolt"
>> is defined _directly_ in terms of its game effects.
>
> Isn't this the same for *all* systems? In order to play the game, players
> must know how the "game-world" translates into mechanics. That's true for
> any system.
You're missing the point, which is that there is usually an additional layer
of abstraction between "game-world" and mechanics in the HERO system. See
the above clarification of my argument.
> While I don't disbelieve your anecdotes, they seem to me to be unusual
> rather usual experiences.
I can only relate what I experienced. I'm not disputing the reality of
your experiences either, just noting what I saw during gameplay.
> I've never played in a campaign (HERO System or otherwise) where a player
> was likely to say, "I hit the NPC with my +1 1d6 HKA," rather than "I'll
> swing my sword at the guy."
Well, I have.
> D&D, for example, was (the last time I played it) rife with +1 this and +2
> thats, 11th Level Rangers and 4th Level Clerics, and any number of
> mechanics-specific terms. HERO System actually removes a layer of
> abstraction in this regard by moving directly to the mechanics. If you don't
I like HERO in a lot of ways. I keep getting the impression that readers
see my posts as a wholesale attack on the system, which wasn't my intention
at all.
>> That is one model of gameplay. If it worked well for you and your group,
>> then great. It does demand a good bit more bookeeping on the part of the
>> GM. When we played, it was always the players' responsibility to know the
>> system details of how to use their powers. I can see how the method you
>> suggest would lead to greater immersion on the part of the players. OTOH,
>> I can also see how that method would make it harder for the GM to stay on
>> top of the story/campaign details.
>
> Why?
The more mechanics-level details the GM has to keep track of, the less time
he has to think about the "story" or to put himself in the minds of the NPCs,
or to make up interesting and detailed descriptiosn of what the world around
the PCs, or to think up interesting campaign tangent possibilities that arise
as a result of the actions of the PCs. I'm not saying that it's a crucially
destructive effect, just that it exists. Obviously the more familiar your
GM is with the system, the smaller the effect. The same rule of thumb should
hold true if your players are mostly responsible for keeping track of the
mechanics of their own actions.
> The player says, "I want to hit that orc over there with my sword."
>
> The GM (or another friendly and experienced player) points out the
> character's half-move on the character sheet, and the player moves her
> character (that part's just like playing SORRY!). If the character's
> half-move takes the character to the orc, the GM says, "Roll 3d6." If the
> character's half-move doesn't take the character to the orc, the GM says,
> "You know you can make it closer to the orc, but you know you won't be able
> to hit it or duck if it tries to hit you before it has a chance to react. Do
> you want to move in on the orc, wait to see what it does, or do something
> else instead?" And it goes from there. That's how I learned to play, and
> that's how I've taught others to play.
Heh. Sounds nice. In the groups I've played in, as soon as you started to
(hesitantly) act out your first move, someone would bonk you over the head
with the rulebook, say: "RTFM", and assume from that point on that you
either knew all the rammifications and details of the action you were about
to take or were going to look it up quickly enough not to annoy anyone else
with the delay.
> In my experience, it helps keep the game closer to the "game world" since
> that's the language the new players understand best. Play goes a little
> slower, but that's the cost of bringing in new players. And it's well worth
> it to me. :)
Like I said, it sounds nice. We just never played that way.
> Sure, the system matters. In my experience, HERO System allows players many
> more options than things like D&D did, so what the new player wants to do
> maps closer to what the character can do in game mechanics. Of course, I
> remember D&D fights being nothing more than "I hit the orc again"--"Okay,
> roll to hit, roll damage" kinds of exchagnes. Maybe it's changed since then,
> but HERO System offers a wide range of tactical options, and that lets new
> players do things with their characters.
What I was trying to say was that if the GM was taking care of virtually all
the bookkeeping in the game, then he had the privelege of choosing what
system to do it in. Sure, D&D can be played at the level of "I hit the orc".
So can games using the HERO system. A decent GM experienced in the system
of his choice can allow for pretty much any action his players wish to take.
Sure, it may mean that he has to think on his feet and come up with a new
house rule for the situation, but it can still be done. And surely, surely,
you can't tell me that the HERO system accounts for _every_ possible action.
> I can't help thinking that HERO System's "additional layer of abstraction"
> is some sort of particular difficulty this gaming group had at a particular
> time and in particular circumstances. And that suggests to me that it's not
> something that has to do with the system.
Not really. See the above argument. The additional abstraction is real.
You can dispute the potential amount of effect it has, but disputing its
existence is silly.
zeke
inan...@cyberspace.org
> I recall a Champions group that planned out specific Munchkin
> sessions -- where you could bring your most ridiculously abusive
> characters and wallow in rules lawyering to your hearts content.
> The rest of the time, you were expected to behave yourself.
At the very end of our group's life cycle, gameplay had devolved to
semi-regular "arena fights" between PCs. I was pretty much too bored by
that point to attend.
zeke
The Other Shane
wrote:
>>smack of GDW and their over due release of Armor 21. It was a RPG they
>>were working on that had it's release date pushed back, pushed back,
>>pushed back, and finally canceled due to bankruptcy. Hmm, I
>>wonder.....
>
>Yeah, but so what? I seem to be able to play very well with 4th edition rules.
>Haven't had any problems yet (that I haven't had before).
Good for you.
Problem for everybody else till recently (go to the hero web site) was
that 4th edition was out of print based on the "soon to be" release of
5th edition. Now you can get it in e-book form even though they still
insist in the same paragraph that the "5th WILL be coming out
soon,..."
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
>
> Yeah, powergamer player horror stories are epidemic in Champions,
> but the nastiest (and often shakiest rules-wise) constructions
> always came from smugly Legalist* GMs looking for ways to 'put the
> fear of Me' in their players. The worst one (IMO) being NNDs with
> the defense being "*Not* having N power" (usually resistant
> defenses).
You know, my GM in the Silent Mobius game I played in had a much
simpler approach to inducing pants-wetting terror -- he just jacked
the point totals of his villains way, way up. Efficiency is not a
concern when you are the GM.
So when the dispatcher warned us that a class six breakthrough had
happened near the Pru, we knew that meant a ~600 point demon had
manifested.
Neel
Grant Enfield
"Bryant Berggren" <vo...@theramp.net> wrote in message
news:3b11f7d7....@news.theramp.net...
> Yeah, powergamer player horror stories are epidemic in Champions, but
> the nastiest (and often shakiest rules-wise) constructions always came
> from smugly Legalist* GMs looking for ways to 'put the fear of Me' in
> their players. The worst one (IMO) being NNDs with the defense being
> "*Not* having N power" (usually resistant defenses).
NND is a Magnifying Glass Power, isn't it? If it is, that means the system
itself acknowledges its potential for abuse.
I'd just like to point out that this sort of "backwards" thinking (the
defense is *not* something rather than something) allows for all sorts of
interesting and appropriate powers, but it can--like almost everything
else--be abused. I suggest that NND defenses be special effects and not game
mechanics. (Similarly, I think Adjustment Powers should always target
special effects and never mechanics either.) So, an energy feedback device
might be an NND with the defense being not having a force field or similar
energy shield; not having an energy shield or force field is reasonably
common, and I don't see a problem with it. Sure it can be abused, but just
having two NND or AVLD powers is abusive. GMs need to be careful, but that's
nothing new.
grant
Grant Enfield
<inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9h99p...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com...
> (3) Now we need to consider the fireball spell's definition in HERO
SYSTEM
> TERMS. It is an area-affect energy blast. (etc.) At this point we
> are completely out of character. Our PCs have no inkling of anything
to
> do with "energy blasts".
>
> (4) Finally, we consider the EFFECTS of the invoked HERO system powers.
> We look at the description of the energy blast power and the area
affect
> advantage in the HERO system rulebook and figure out the effects they
> have on the characters within the range of the spell.
>
>
> In most systems, step (3) doesn't exist. In these games, the definition
of
> the fireball spell gives the actual game world effects directly.
In every game I know of, the "game world" effects of an action are
abstracted in "game system mechanics." For example, in both HERO System and
D&D, a fireball spell will have a written description of how the spell works
in the "game world": the caster channels elemental forces by chanting and
waving his arms, and after a few seconds of this, a magical ball of
elemental fire erupts at or near a chosen point on the ground (or wherever),
which can be up to so far away from the caster. In both systems, the spell
will also have "system mechanics" that describe its play-world effects: in
HERO System this will be a power (2d6 RKA with Explosion Advantage and
Gestures, Incantations, Extra Time [Full Phase], and Requires a Magic Skill
Roll Limitations); in D&D this is the V,S components plus ranges, area
effected, and something like 1d4 damage per level of the caster. Both
systems describe the spell in its "game-world" and "play-world" terms.
(Maybe "campaign world" and "game world" are better terms. I dunno.)
So what extra layer of abstraction does the HERO System have?
Is it that in HERO System the area that the spell effects is determined by
an Advantage instead of just arbitrarily like in D&D? If so, in my
experience, that part all goes away once the spell is built. In play,
players pay attention to how large the area is in the game world, and rely
on the written (non-mechanics) description of the spell rather than its
actual mechanical write-up. That's no different from any other game that I
know of. (The only exception I can think of is if players have characters
with Variable Power Pools. In those cases, the system mechanics become part
of the game world, and that can be intrusive. We've solved this by generally
restricting VPP powers to a prewritten list.)
> > I've never played in a campaign (HERO System or otherwise) where a
player
> > was likely to say, "I hit the NPC with my +1 1d6 HKA," rather than "I'll
> > swing my sword at the guy."
>
> Well, I have.
How bizarre. Again, I'll suggest that this is unusual, not usual, and
doesn't show nearly as much about the system as it does about the players
using the system.
> I like HERO in a lot of ways. I keep getting the impression that readers
> see my posts as a wholesale attack on the system, which wasn't my
intention
> at all.
I don't see this as an attack on the system at all. I do think your
experiences with the system are unusual or anomalous and that they certainly
aren't representative of usual experiences with the system. I just don't
think it's the system that's the problem here--it looks to me like it's the
players.
> Not really. See the above argument. The additional abstraction is real.
> You can dispute the potential amount of effect it has, but disputing its
> existence is silly.
It's still not clear to me what the "extra" layer is. I think John Kim
already pointed out that all systems describe things in both campaign and
game-system terms. How does HERO System do something more?
You've said that superheroic genres don't have this extra layer (or that
it's less intrusive for those genres), but my experience has been the
opposite there. It's in superhero games that players have been much more
likely to describe their character's lightning bolt as a "4d6 RKA" or "2
1/2d6 Armor Piercing RKA" than in heroic games. (And I think that stems from
the character having a "lightning bolt" Multipower with slots that reflect
different things the character can do with the lightning bolt and that it's
often difficult to give these slots names that don't sound mechanics-y:
"tightly focused lightning bolt" doesn't sound meaningfully different from
"supercharged bolt." But that's true also of "Mystic Bolts of Azkam" and
"Gary's Powerful Blast.")
grant
Grant Enfield
<inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9h99p...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com...
These are my responses to issues "inanimat" raised that I thought were
side-tracks from the main issue of HERO System's "extra layer of
abstraction," so I've put them in a separate post.
> > I've never played in a campaign (HERO System or otherwise) where a
player
> > was likely to say, "I hit the NPC with my +1 1d6 HKA," rather than "I'll
> > swing my sword at the guy."
>
> Well, I have.
How bizarre. Again, I'll suggest that this is unusual, not usual, and
doesn't show nearly as much about the system as it does about the players
using the system.
> Heh. Sounds nice. In the groups I've played in, as soon as you started
to
> (hesitantly) act out your first move, someone would bonk you over the head
> with the rulebook, say: "RTFM", and assume from that point on that you
> either knew all the rammifications and details of the action you were
about
> to take or were going to look it up quickly enough not to annoy anyone
else
> with the delay.
Um, what's "RTFM" mean? "Read the fucking manual?" How fun. :|
> What I was trying to say was that if the GM was taking care of virtually
all
> the bookkeeping in the game, then he had the privelege of choosing what
> system to do it in. Sure, D&D can be played at the level of "I hit the
orc".
> So can games using the HERO system. A decent GM experienced in the system
> of his choice can allow for pretty much any action his players wish to
take.
> Sure, it may mean that he has to think on his feet and come up with a new
> house rule for the situation, but it can still be done.
How is coming up with a house rule on the spot less distracting for the GM
than translating a new player's description of his character's game-world
actions into the mechanics that already exist?
And D&D's simpler "roll initiative, roll to-hit, roll damage" approach to
combat fits "I hit the orc (again)" styles of play better than the HERO
System with its wider array of tactical options. But I'm just arguing little
points now, and I'll stop.
> And surely, surely,
> you can't tell me that the HERO system accounts for _every_ possible
action.
I actually can't think of anything off the top of my head that characters
can't do. I know things have come up from time to time, but we worked them
out pretty quickly.
grant
inan...@nospamcyberspace.org
>
> <inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote in message
> news:slrn9h99p...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com...
>
> These are my responses to issues "inanimat" raised that I thought were
> side-tracks from the main issue of HERO System's "extra layer of
> abstraction," so I've put them in a separate post.
> How is coming up with a house rule on the spot less distracting for the GM
> than translating a new player's description of his character's game-world
> actions into the mechanics that already exist?
I didn't make a judgement call one way or another on _that_ subject; I was
just noting that it's possible to roleplay pretty much any situation in any
system, given enough ingenuity and quick-thinking on the part of the GM.
> And D&D's simpler "roll initiative, roll to-hit, roll damage" approach to
> combat fits "I hit the orc (again)" styles of play better than the HERO
> System with its wider array of tactical options. But I'm just arguing little
> points now, and I'll stop.
Again, in the specific situation cited, I'm not arguing whether one system
or the other is better suited to a particular style of play, rather I'm
pointing out that choice of play style is not completely determined by the
system in use.
zeke
ro...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com
>
> In every game I know of, the "game world" effects of an action are
> abstracted in "game system mechanics." For example, in both HERO System and
> D&D, a fireball spell will have a written description of how the spell works
> in the "game world": the caster channels elemental forces by chanting and
> waving his arms, and after a few seconds of this, a magical ball of
> elemental fire erupts at or near a chosen point on the ground (or wherever),
> which can be up to so far away from the caster. In both systems, the spell
> will also have "system mechanics" that describe its play-world effects: in
> HERO System this will be a power (2d6 RKA with Explosion Advantage and
> Gestures, Incantations, Extra Time [Full Phase], and Requires a Magic Skill
> Roll Limitations); in D&D this is the V,S components plus ranges, area
> effected, and something like 1d4 damage per level of the caster. Both
> systems describe the spell in its "game-world" and "play-world" terms.
> (Maybe "campaign world" and "game world" are better terms. I dunno.)
>
> So what extra layer of abstraction does the HERO System have?
I really think that I've been clear enough so far, but I'll take another
stab at this.
If you examine the D&D spell you will notice that the entire description is
made up of:
(1) Game world effects & limitations. (damage, ranges, area affected)
(2) Game-world-specific descriptive elements. (V,S,M; etc.)
If you examine the HERO system spell, you should notice that the analogous
spell is defined by _HERO system powers_. (i.e. - energy blast)
These system powers are NOT game world effects. They are *defined* in terms
of game world effects. Energy blast is defined in terms of damage and type
of damage.
To get from the game world action to the game world effect in the HERO system
you must travel through this path:
action -> game world definition -> HERO system definition -> effect
In pretty much all non-generic systems, you take the shorter path:
action -> game world definition -> effect
Read any genre-specific game rulebook, and you can easily see that spells/
powers/abilities are described in terms of their effects upon the game world
and not in terms of some abstract framework. (ala HERO)
If the above argument seems specious to you, take a look at Fantasy Hero.
It contains definitions of spells. The definitions of these spells contain
terms like "energy blast". In order to make any sense of the spell, you
must refer back to the basic HERO system manual and read the definition of
"energy blast". _This is the difference I am talking about_!
If this still doesn't make sense, then...<shrug>...It's not that important
for me to convince you.
> You've said that superheroic genres don't have this extra layer (or that
> it's less intrusive for those genres), but my experience has been the
> opposite there. It's in superhero games that players have been much more
It's possible I just have a higher level of tolerance in the Superhero genre
because it so often is a mishmash of silly, inconsistent game world powers.
Plus which, saying: "I hit him with my Energy Blast." sounds much more like
something you could have heard on Saturday morning cartoons than something
you might have read in LotR and other fantasy novel, which points out the
reality that it's generally harder to violate genre in a Superhero game than
it is in something like fantasy or "hard" sci-fi. (At least in Superhero
games where no consistent mechanism is postulated at the source for all
superhuman powers.)
zeke
Grant Enfield
<ro...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9hama...@nightgaunt.dsl.azstarnet.com...
> If you examine the D&D spell you will notice that the entire description
is
> made up of:
>
> (1) Game world effects & limitations. (damage, ranges, area affected)
>
> (2) Game-world-specific descriptive elements. (V,S,M; etc.)
>
> If you examine the HERO system spell, you should notice that the analogous
> spell is defined by _HERO system powers_. (i.e. - energy blast)
>
> These system powers are NOT game world effects. They are *defined* in
terms
> of game world effects. Energy blast is defined in terms of damage and
type
> of damage.
I see what I haven't been understanding so far, but as I see it, "Energy
Blast" isn't "*defined* in terms of damage and type of damage" (emphasis
mine), Energy Blast *is* damage and type of damage. The HERO System Power
"Energy Blast" is the ability to do Normal damage to targets at range; in
that respect, I see no difference between HERO System's EB and D&D's dice of
damage: the HERO System description of a fireball spell says it does 6d6
normal damage--that's not really any more abstract than a D&D fireball spell
that does 1d4 per level of the caster. While HERO System mechanics may apply
across campaigns or genres and D&D mechanics may apply less so, there's no
"translation" that occurs. To follow your model, the HERO System mechanical
description (in Powers, Advantages, and Limitations) *is* the effect of game
world action--there's no real distinction in HERO System between the third
and fourth "steps" in your model.
I'll also point out that D&D's spell components (V,S, or M) aren't
"game-world-specific"--they'll apply to any game world because they're
*system-specific* components. It's the actual incantation, gestures, or
materials that are "game-world-specific," and that's no different from HERO
System either.
In an earlier post you suggested that it was "silly" not to acknowledge the
"extra layer of abstraction" you see in the HERO System, but I think it's
equally silly to see an "extra layer" where none really exists.
> Plus which, saying: "I hit him with my Energy Blast." sounds much more
like
> something you could have heard on Saturday morning cartoons than something
> you might have read in LotR and other fantasy novel, which points out the
> reality that it's generally harder to violate genre in a Superhero game
than
> it is in something like fantasy or "hard" sci-fi.
But to say "I cast my Fireball spell at 7th Level; that's going to do (1d4)
X 7 Hit Points damage" is also not like anything readers might find in a
fantasy movie or novel either.
It sounds to me like you're just more comfortable with the "translation" in
systems other than HERO System is all. But I think that's probably a matter
of taste, not something intrinsic in the system.
grant
inan...@nospamcyberspace.org
>
> I see what I haven't been understanding so far, but as I see it, "Energy
> Blast" isn't "*defined* in terms of damage and type of damage" (emphasis
> mine), Energy Blast *is* damage and type of damage. The HERO System Power
Then you disagree with me over semantics. However....
> "Energy Blast" is the ability to do Normal damage to targets at range; in
> that respect, I see no difference between HERO System's EB and D&D's dice of
I see this statement as contradicting your preceding one.
If we are to consider "damage" as the final game world effect, and if Energy
Blast is "the ability to do Normal damage..." then I consider it perfectly
reasonable to state that: "Energy blast is a mechanism for invoking the game
system effect damage." This once again brings me back to my claim that the
typical "fireball" spell is a game world mechanic for invoking Energy blast,
and I return to my original position.
To add fuel to the fire, please note that I'm considering "game world effects"
to be alterations in the numbers describing the game world (e.g. - hit points),
or in non-numerical but clearly observable changes such as the behaviors and
attitudes of game world characters. HERO system powers such as "energy blast"
are defined by their ability to cause such game world effects. Genre specific
powers such as "cast fireball" are modeled in terms of the HERO system powers,
at least if you're using the HERO system. If you're using a genre-specific
system, game world powers are generally given directly in term of game-world
effects.
The layer of abstraction is there. How much actual effect it can/does have
on gameplay is arguable, but I hope that by now you can at least see where
I'm coming from.
> damage: the HERO System description of a fireball spell says it does 6d6
Not quite. The HERO System description says that the fireball spell is a
6d6 energy blast. It's when you read the definition of energy blast and apply
it to the definition of the fireball spell that you discover that the fireball
spell causes 6d6 normal damage.
> "translation" that occurs. To follow your model, the HERO System mechanical
> description (in Powers, Advantages, and Limitations) *is* the effect of game
> world action--there's no real distinction in HERO System between the third
> and fourth "steps" in your model.
I strongly disagree. The Hero system powers are defined in terms of game
world effects. They are not themselves effects. Think about it, and see
my arguments above.
> I'll also point out that D&D's spell components (V,S, or M) aren't
> "game-world-specific"--they'll apply to any game world because they're
> *system-specific* components. It's the actual incantation, gestures, or
> materials that are "game-world-specific," and that's no different from HERO
> System either.
I haven't been arguing about "V,S,M".
> In an earlier post you suggested that it was "silly" not to acknowledge the
> "extra layer of abstraction" you see in the HERO System, but I think it's
> equally silly to see an "extra layer" where none really exists.
We disagree. <shrug> That's fine. I may not be convincing you of my
position, and so far you definitely haven't presented any arguments that
would incline me to change mine. Live and let live.
> But to say "I cast my Fireball spell at 7th Level; that's going to do (1d4)
> X 7 Hit Points damage" is also not like anything readers might find in a
> fantasy movie or novel either.
<sigh> No, but to say: "Elrith raises his hands, mumbles incomprehendably,
crushes a dried pepper between his fingers, and casts a fireball spell at
Grognir," which creates the appropriate image for your fellow players and
GM, and then to go on and state: "The fireball is a 5th level spell and causes
5d4 damage to all creatures within 2 meters of Grognir." is perfectly
acceptable.
I was simply noting that terms such as "energy blast" don't seem quite as
anachronistic in a superhero game as they might in most other genres.
> It sounds to me like you're just more comfortable with the "translation" in
> systems other than HERO System is all. But I think that's probably a matter
> of taste, not something intrinsic in the system.
Please don't take this wrong, but I really, really, think you're completely
missing the point of what I've been saying. Most of the counter arguments
that you've proposed have been counter to original arguments I never made,
or inapplicable to the (in many cases) extremely specific and narrow point I
was arguing.
I, personally, have no problem dealing with the level of abstraction posed
by the HERO system. I *played* with a group of people who tended to fall
back on using HERO-system jargon to describe genre-specific actions, and
it irked me, because it was detrimental to the sense of immersion offered
by the game. When 3/4 of a game is spent listening to people mumble about
"RKA" or "Energy Blast" or "Damage Reduction" or "Speed Drain" or "Racial
Maximum" it tends to drain the life out of the activity. I saw this behavior
over and over again. Since this high level of mechanics-fixation predominantly
occurred while we were playing HERO system games, it made me wonder if there
might be some sort of connection between the HERO system itself and this
behavior. Thinking about how the HERO system was organized made me realize
that it imposes an additional layer of abstraction between game world actions
and game world effect. (And no argument that has been advanced so far has in
any way damaged that observation, at least as I see the matter.) So I
started to wonder if it was possible that this additional abstraction
had in some way contributed to the behavior of my fellow players. I don't
know for sure; this was obviously not a scientific study, merely the result
of a series of observations. OTOH, the behavior patterns I observed were
pretty consistent, and the type that occurred when we played HERO system
games (inappropriately describing character actions in terms of genre-incom-
patible system mechanics terms) did not occur when we played games such as
AD&D. (In truth, it's not possible for the players to exhibit this sort of
behavior under AD&D because the necessary layer of abstraction simply isn't
there to abuse.)
In any case, the whole of my argument with you seems to boil down to
whether or not there is an additional layer of abstraction present in the
translation of game-world-specific actions to game-world effects under the
HERO system when compared to the same translation under a typical genre-
specific system. I maintain there is; you seem to think that I'm splitting
hairs. So be it.
cheers,
zeke
Hunter
>
>In any case, the whole of my argument with you seems to boil down to
>whether or not there is an additional layer of abstraction present in the
>translation of game-world-specific actions to game-world effects under the
>HERO system when compared to the same translation under a typical genre-
>specific system. I maintain there is; you seem to think that I'm splitting
>hairs. So be it.
The trouble is that he knows the rules too well. It's like comparing a well
written bubble sort to a poorly written shell sort on a small data set.
For him to see the effect he would need to run a game of FH with a set of Hero
system newbies.
Eric Tolle
>
> > Complex is not even putting it mildly, when you get into serious
> > Champions character designers. Champions was the first game where I
>
> And this is where the craziness starts. If you have players who are
> "serious Champions character designers", then you're already in trouble.
Yep. Even if someone has the process down to about 30-45 minutes,
if you multiply that by 4-5 players, we're talking about some serious
time.
In my case, as I became more pressed for time, I found myself using
shorthand more and more for NPCs-even important ones. When I found
myself simply jotting down their capabilities without using any of
the math, I decided it was time for a new game. In large part, that
was because I was finding myself jealous of the ease in which I was
making those NPCs. ;'/
> I used to play champions with a group of fellow college students. It was
> a great system for rules-lawyers and munchkins. (and or course for munchkin
> rules-lawyers) My feeling on it is that your players are probably seriously
> munchkining the system if they turn in 3+ pages of figures defining a
> 250 point character.
The thing was, he wasn't even a munchkin- he was a mechanic and
tinkered, like I used to be. He simply felt he needed the massive
tossed salad of advantages, limitation, power frameworks etc., in
order to properly describe his alien blobby shapechanger. But then I
wasn't so difficult, I had characters where I needed a massive amount
of description in order to match the character concept.
> was a certain amount of amusement involved in watching your friend shoehorn
> 750+ points worth of powers into a 250 point character, but playing with
That's nothing. _real_ fun was when a player announced he had five
experience points to spend, and we experimented to see just how many
active points we could wring out of them- we managed to get up to a
pretty hefty total, and ended up with a nearly useless power. ;'/
> Having said all this, I'll note that the hero system gave you a framework
> for simulating nearly any sort of power or ability you wanted, but it
> demanded some real work on the part of the players and the GM to roleplay
> and not just wargame. A fantasy game where everyone is throwing around
Granted. However, that's a facet of nearly any generic system-
possibly only the spreadsheet nature of Champions makes it a bit
more prone to "generic" effects.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
People tend to underestimate the impact of scientific progress.
Why just fifty years ago, only a few people had even heard of DNA,
and now everybody who is somebody uses it!
Trevor Barrie
SD Anderson <10225...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> When push comes to shove and some situation comes up where a
>lightning like EB will behave differently than real lightning, the
>rules call for the EB mechanics to take precedence.
You are completely wrong. The rules explicitly call for the opposite
to occur.
Bryant Berggren
I agree with you on "NND v. SFX, not mechanics". "Doesn't have rPD" is
not (IMO) a fair NND effect. "Doesn't have rigid armor" is.
The problem I've seen is that GMs being careful *is* something new in
a lot of circles. The attitude tends to run that anything a GM does is
by definition not an abuse, usually stemming from the Legalism
viewpoint that anything the players do (other than perhaps beg for
mercy) *is* to be considered "abuse" until absolutely proven
otherwise.
The NND example I raised sticks in my mind because it always came up
in the hands of GMs pushing it as a clever way to "get" players they
felt were overly secure. Much like re: Grand High Poobah Sadist John
Tweet's advice on crocking Luck dice a la D&D wishes, I get really
uneasy at essentially punishing PCs for having *spent* points on
something. (Whereas SFX-targeted attacks are more of a
luck-of-the-draw situation, and thus something I'm more comfortable
with).
BRB
John Kim
compared to abstraction in other systems like D&D.
zeke <inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote:
>HERO system powers such as "energy blast" are defined by their ability
>to cause such game world effects. Genre specific powers such as "cast
>fireball" are modeled in terms of the HERO system powers, at least if
>you're using the HERO system. If you're using a genre-specific system,
>game world powers are generally given directly in term of game-world
>effects.
I don't see how you can say this. I posted *exactly* what the
text was for lightning bolt in both Fantasy Hero and D&D. I think any
reading of them makes it obvious that the genre-specific system *does*
have abstractions which are just as visible. True, the Fantasy Hero
version says things like "RKA" and "OAF". But the D&D spell says
things like "Components: V,S" and "Saving Throw: Reflex halves",
and so forth. We can compare some points of the description:
1) The D&D spell says "Components: V,S" while the Hero spell says
"Limitations: Gestures, Incantations". These two are exactly the
same: the player has to know or look up what "Component V" means,
just like he has to look up "Incantations" in Hero. If anything,
I think that the Hero terminology in this case is clearer and less
distracting.
2) The D&D spells says "1d6 damage per level" while the Hero spell
says "2.5d6 RKA". Here the Hero description is less clear, since
the player has to learn that "2.5d6 RKA" means that the attack
does 2.5d6 killing damage. However, to determine damage done the
D&D spell also has the abstraction of "Saving Throw: Reflex halves".
That is an abstract reference to the general saving throw rules.
The player has to learn that means a successful saving throw against
difficulty 10 + spell level + caster's ability bonus will halve the
damage done.
Overall, I think you could claim that Hero has more specialized
terminology than D&D (here I am using D&D3). However, it is not a simple
one-sided comparison that you say. Hero is a somewhat more complicated
game in general, while D&D has a lot of special ability and character
state rules that it refers to. Both of them make a lot of use of
abstractions in defining their spells.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I *played* with a group of people who tended to fall back on using
>HERO-system jargon to describe genre-specific actions, and it irked me,
>because it was detrimental to the sense of immersion offered by the
>game. When 3/4 of a game is spent listening to people mumble about
>"RKA" or "Energy Blast" or "Damage Reduction" or "Speed Drain" or "Racial
>Maximum" it tends to drain the life out of the activity. I saw this
>behavior over and over again. Since this high level of mechanics-fixation
>predominantly occurred while we were playing HERO system games, it made
>me wonder if there might be some sort of connection between the HERO
>system itself and this behavior.
My problem here is that you yourself admitted that your group
had a lot of issues during your _Fantasy Hero_ games. Several other
Hero players have posted on this thread and stated that their Hero games
did not have this sort of game-speak. Meanwhile, you admitted that
compared to your other games, your Fantasy Hero games had weak backgrounds
and constant turnover of PC's and NPC's to try out new powers.
I am perfectly willing to believe that your group becomes
mechanics-fixated when using the Hero system. I would also agree that
in general the Hero system backgrounds are weak, and the Hero system
rulebook (from 1989) does a lot less to emphasize role-playing than
many other systems.
However, I do not conclude that the Hero system mechanics by
their very structure encourage mechanics-fixation. Indeed, there is
a simple procedural change which can fix this. Have a separate
character worksheet which has all the point costs and advantage/
limitation math, while the in-play character sheet just has the
powers by their in-game name and description of their effects.
That is, the in-play character sheet has no point costs and just
refers to the effects (i.e. "Fireball: 6d6 normal damage from fire,
range 30, radius 4").
In my games, I would often do this for Hero system newbies.
Really, though, I saw it as just a way of helping with the learning
curve. I didn't notice that it had any effect on role-playing or use
of game-speak. The more experienced Hero players were on average just
as good about avoiding game-speak.
inan...@nospamcyberspace.org
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 00:12:39 -0000, inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org wrote:
>>
>>In any case, the whole of my argument with you seems to boil down to
>>whether or not there is an additional layer of abstraction present in the
>>translation of game-world-specific actions to game-world effects under the
>>HERO system when compared to the same translation under a typical genre-
>>specific system. I maintain there is; you seem to think that I'm splitting
>>hairs. So be it.
>
> The trouble is that he knows the rules too well. It's like comparing a well
> written bubble sort to a poorly written shell sort on a small data set.
You could be right; if you know the HERO system rules so well that your mind
automatically substitutes in appropriate game-system effects whenever a
power is invoked (somewhat like macro substitution, if you want to continue
on with programming analogies), then it's entirely possible that the you
wouldn't notice the abstraction on first consideration.
zeke
inan...@nospamcyberspace.org
> Another reply to zeke about abstraction in the HERO system
> compared to abstraction in other systems like D&D.
>
>
> zeke <inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote:
>>HERO system powers such as "energy blast" are defined by their ability
>>to cause such game world effects. Genre specific powers such as "cast
>>fireball" are modeled in terms of the HERO system powers, at least if
>>you're using the HERO system. If you're using a genre-specific system,
>>game world powers are generally given directly in term of game-world
>>effects.
> I don't see how you can say this. I posted *exactly* what the
At this moment I am arguing one, and only one precise point.
I am only arguing that, when playing by HERO system rules, you must define
genre-specific actions in terms of HERO system powers, which you might
think of as "rules primitives" if you like the terminology. These
rules primitives are defined in terms of game world effects. This results
in there being (2) steps between action and effect in a typical genre-
specific HERO system game.
I am not debating whether or not genre-specific game systems do or do
not possess additional sets of rules which may be referred to when con-
structing a game world action. (e.g. - saving throw) I am arguing that
it is not possible to define a game world action (such as casting a spell)
in the HERO system directly in terms of game world effects (as I previously
defined them) without circumventing the system.
Furthermore I am claiming that this differentiates the HERO system from
a typical genre system in that it is, in general, perfectly acceptable
to construct a game world action in a genre system without resorting to
any sorts of "rules primitives". You say: "Magic missile causes 8 points
of damage." or "The drug causes the victim to fall asleep."
> text was for lightning bolt in both Fantasy Hero and D&D. I think any
> reading of them makes it obvious that the genre-specific system *does*
> have abstractions which are just as visible. True, the Fantasy Hero
Once again, I am not debating whether or not genre-specific systems
employ visible abstractions. I am, however, asserting that doing anything
with the HERO system _demands_ that you deal with a generic set of
abstractions which may or may not have direct counterparts in your game
world.
> 1) The D&D spell says "Components: V,S" while the Hero spell says
Like I said previously, I am _not_ debating whether or not descriptive
spell elements such as "Components: V,S" are more or less abstract and/or
confusing in D&D when compared to their counterparts in HERO.
> 2) The D&D spells says "1d6 damage per level" while the Hero spell
> says "2.5d6 RKA". Here the Hero description is less clear, since
> the player has to learn that "2.5d6 RKA" means that the attack
> does 2.5d6 killing damage. However, to determine damage done the
And this is all I am arguing about. And it looks like you agree with me.
> D&D spell also has the abstraction of "Saving Throw: Reflex halves".
> That is an abstract reference to the general saving throw rules.
> The player has to learn that means a successful saving throw against
> difficulty 10 + spell level + caster's ability bonus will halve the
> damage done.
Sure. But
(1) It was not absolutely necessary to consider saving throws in the
description of the spell. It's perfectly acceptable to construct
spells without reference to the saving throw mechanic. It's not
acceptable to construct a HERO system spell without reference to
the basic set of HERO powers.
(2) "Saving throws" do not themselves constitute a part of a "basis"
out of which spells must be constructed. They are modifiers.
Moreover, they are modifiers which act at the level of the system
effect. Whether modifiers in the HERO system act at the system effect
level or whether they act at the HERO system power level is open to
debate, although I am not interested in debating such.
(3) The "basis" which I am talking about is simply the set of HERO system
powers. Defining spells in terms of HERO system powers is how spells
are created in the HERO system. Hero System powers are themselves
defined in terms of game world effects. In a genre-specific system,
spells are defined directly in terms of game world effects.
If you agree with point (3) then we are essentially in accord on the matter.
>>I *played* with a group of people who tended to fall back on using
>>HERO-system jargon to describe genre-specific actions, and it irked me,
>>because it was detrimental to the sense of immersion offered by the
>>game. When 3/4 of a game is spent listening to people mumble about
>>"RKA" or "Energy Blast" or "Damage Reduction" or "Speed Drain" or "Racial
>>Maximum" it tends to drain the life out of the activity. I saw this
>>behavior over and over again. Since this high level of mechanics-fixation
>>predominantly occurred while we were playing HERO system games, it made
>>me wonder if there might be some sort of connection between the HERO
>>system itself and this behavior.
>
> My problem here is that you yourself admitted that your group
> had a lot of issues during your _Fantasy Hero_ games. Several other
> Hero players have posted on this thread and stated that their Hero games
> did not have this sort of game-speak. Meanwhile, you admitted that
> compared to your other games, your Fantasy Hero games had weak backgrounds
> and constant turnover of PC's and NPC's to try out new powers.
You are either misreading me or being silly. The brief synopsis you are
referring to is not intended as an analytic diatribe against the HERO system
nor is it meant to provide anything more (at the most) than circumstantial
evidence supporting my views. It was simply intended to outline and
clarify how I came to consider the topics we've been discussing. I fully
acknowledge that my gaming group may not have been typical. That does not
mean that my understanding of the HERO system and its characteristics is
completely without basis, just that I should take my experiences with a
grain of salt, which I do. But to take my brief description of the path
that brought me to this set of opinions as a dogmatic enumeration of
supporting points is ludicrous.
In short, I can see that my group's experience was unusual. That does not
by itself mean that there is no truth to my observations about the HERO
system.
> However, I do not conclude that the Hero system mechanics by
> their very structure encourage mechanics-fixation. Indeed, there is
> a simple procedural change which can fix this. Have a separate
> character worksheet which has all the point costs and advantage/
> limitation math, while the in-play character sheet just has the
> powers by their in-game name and description of their effects.
> That is, the in-play character sheet has no point costs and just
> refers to the effects (i.e. "Fireball: 6d6 normal damage from fire,
> range 30, radius 4").
Sounds like you were working on erasing the systems-level abstraction from
the game.
zeke
Trevor Barrie
Grant Enfield <enf...@NOSPAM.asu.edu> wrote:
>Is it that in HERO System the area that the spell effects is determined by
>an Advantage instead of just arbitrarily like in D&D? If so, in my
>experience, that part all goes away once the spell is built. In play,
>players pay attention to how large the area is in the game world, and rely
>on the written (non-mechanics) description of the spell rather than its
>actual mechanical write-up. That's no different from any other game that I
>know of. (The only exception I can think of is if players have characters
>with Variable Power Pools. In those cases, the system mechanics become part
>of the game world, and that can be intrusive. We've solved this by generally
>restricting VPP powers to a prewritten list.)
Another time system mechanics become obtrusive is if you have adjustment
powers which affect a certain Power instead of a certain special effect.
(And unfortunately, the former is presented as the default.)
Trevor Barrie
<inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote:
>(3) The "basis" which I am talking about is simply the set of HERO system
> powers. Defining spells in terms of HERO system powers is how spells
> are created in the HERO system. Hero System powers are themselves
> defined in terms of game world effects. In a genre-specific system,
> spells are defined directly in terms of game world effects.
>
>If you agree with point (3) then we are essentially in accord on the matter.
Except the point you actually seem to be arguing is "In a genre-specific
system, spells are defined directly in terms of game world effects,
except for all of the parts that aren't.". Ie, you seem to just brush
aside as irrelevant John Kim's points about all the parts of a D&D spell
definition which are made in terms of other rules abstractions.
Also note that in D&D, spells are often described in terms of other spells.
This makes it quite often harder to get from a spell name to the game
effects in D&D than it is in Hero.
Justin Bacon
In D&D there is something like this:
1. What the effect is in the game world.
2. How that effect is modelled in the game.
And that's the end of the line. In HERO, on the other hand, you have something
like this:
1. What the effect is in the game world.
2. How that effect is modelled in the game.
3. The Hero power structure whcih is used to create the model.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Bill Seurer
> 45 minutes??? I hope that's a generous maximum.
>
> In my experience, the hardest part of creating a Champions character
> is the part that has nothing to do with Champions -- thinking of what
> the heck I *want* to play. (THAT can take days ...) With a concept in
> mind, 10-20 minutes for 90-95% of my ideas.
The hardest part is trying to do a character when there isn't an
existing power to match them. You get bizarre things like "Flight
limited to touching a surface only" to try to duplicate someone who can
run realllllllllllllllly fast like the Flash. The Flash's ability has
nothing to do with flying.
--
Bill Seurer Work: seurer AT us.ibm.com Home: Bill AT seurer.net
http://www.seurer.net/ (replace " AT " with "@" to email me)
Bill Seurer
> Alright, now which one is more abstracted?? Well, maybe the
> Hero spell is a little more abstracted
The Hero one is a LOT more abstracted and eventually the fact that it is
a lightning bolt will be mostly forgotten by the players and it'll just
be another generic energy attack. Or an RKA using your example (which
is weird BTW).
Bill Seurer
> So what extra layer of abstraction does the HERO System have?
Well, everything in Hero comes out feeling like superheroes with fewer
points for one thing. Spells don't seem like magic; they're just little
super powers. Weapons aren't weapons; they're little super powers. And
on and on.
We played Champions for a long, long time and it was a load of fun.
Eventually though the numbers game spoiled it. We tried Fantasy Hero,
too, and found it to be as I described above.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>I am only arguing that, when playing by HERO system rules, you must define
>genre-specific actions in terms of HERO system powers, which you might
>
>I am not debating whether or not genre-specific game systems do or do
>not possess additional sets of rules which may be referred to when con-
>
>Like I said previously, I am _not_ debating whether or not descriptive
>spell elements such as "Components: V,S" are more or less abstract and/or
>confusing in D&D when compared to their counterparts in HERO.
Well, I think what people are arguing is the implied value judgement in your
proposition -- that you seek to establish this fact about the HERO system so
that it can be targeted for ridicule on that basis. You have not specifically
put any value judgement on the proposition yet.
Also, if you're going to make this point about the HERO system, and almost all
other systems do exactly the same thing, then it seems like you're singling out
the HERO system to make some other point (like the value judgement above). Was
there another, further point that you had?
Allegory:
You: "Cadillacs require gasoline."
Them: "So? Fords require gasoline too."
Why bring it up with regard to Cadillacs when all cars require gasoline?
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
John Kim
Bill Seurer <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> Alright, now which one is more abstracted?? Well, maybe the
>> Hero spell is a little more abstracted
>
>The Hero one is a LOT more abstracted and eventually the fact that it is
>a lightning bolt will be mostly forgotten by the players and it'll just
>be another generic energy attack.
Why?? Because it says "2.5d6 RKA" to describe the damage
instead of saying "1d6 damage per level (max 10d6)"? I admit that
the former is a little more abstract, but I can't see that this little
bit of nomenclature is really all the extreme. Do you really think
that re-writing the description so that it said "2.5d6 killing damage"
would make all that much difference?
As for it being "another generic energy attack" -- while I
admit that this can happen, it is also quite possible for D&D players
to consider Lightning Bolt to be "just another damage spell". That
would be because either the GM or the players are ignoring the
details that make a lightning bolt different than a flame strike
or other damage spell. According to the rules, these differences
are there -- but it takes an active GM to bring them into play.
starbe...@my-deja.com
>
>On Fri, 25 May 2001 21:26:25 GMT, starbe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>* Adding points for power advantages and subtracting points for power
>>limitations, rather than multiplying the power points by:
>>(1 + advantages)/(1 + limitations). The math would be much more transparent
>>for non-math-types and would work just about as well for balancing powers.
>
>No, it wouldn't. Multi/div is in HERO for a *reason*. Power modifiers
>are intended to be *proportional* -- if a base power is made twice as
>strong as before, a benefit applied to it becomes twice as valuable.
>This is The Right Thing in terms of functionality, even if it does
>cause problems for the innumerate. (And frankly, any math you can do
>on even the cheapo calculators they give away in desk pencil sets is
>not something worth complaining about).
Well I almost wrote this reply off as being in the 'well duh' category. But I'll
take a shot at a reply. The answer is to convert the entire powers system over
to logarithms. Advantages/limitations now add and subtract, rather than multiply
and divide. Ero, much simpler math.
>>* Eliminating most of the secondary attributes. Most of them are rarely
>>modified much from their calculated values anyway.
>
>In your tiny corner of the world. My mileage varies.
My 'tiny' corner? Hmm, I don't see HERO/Champions breaking any records for sales
lately. The system remains a tiny niche product and will remain so until the
owners make the system more broadly appealing. I suggested three such methods
for doing so, but I'm sure there are many more and no doubt better ones. If the
idea of making major adjustments to the system blows your mind then allow me to
help clean up. :-P
Bob
John Kim
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
As I have said, your assumptions about genre games is false.
There may be some hypothetical "pure" genre game which doesn't have a
layer of abstractions -- but in practice games like D&D use abstractions
in the same way that HERO does. This is what I showed by posting the
actual spell descriptions for Lightning Bolt in D&D and HERO.
When you look at the actual spells, this hypothetical argument
breaks down. Let me try a few more examples...
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Let's take the case of invisibility. If you have an
invisibility spell in the HERO system, then you use the rules under
the "Invisibility" power. OK, so here is an extra layer of abstraction.
Let's compare this to D&D. OK, you have an Invisibility spell... Does
it define for itself all its effects? Well, no it doesn't. The
invisibility spell refers you to the D&D invisibility rules on page
132 of the PH, while page 78 of the DMG has additional rules for how
to handle it.
By the same token, an illusion spell in HERO uses the "Images"
power. That has its rules on how real-seeming the illusion is and
how the target can sense the deception. And in D&D? The illusion
rules are on page 158 of the PH, where it explains what the effect of
a saving throw vs illusion does and how it works.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Possible arguments against this:
1) OK, the pre-written D&D spells tend to use these abstractions,
but I can write up a new D&D spell which doesn't use them.
You can do the same thing in HERO. Nothing is stopping you
from writing up your own spell effect in HERO if you aren't satisfied
with the existing meta-mechanics. Sure, doing this goes outside
the rules -- but no moreso than writing up a new spell in D&D. The
better HERO supplements do this for new genres, such as _Ninja Hero_
which introduced new rules for martial arts maneuvers, or _Horror Hero_
with new rules for spirits, and so forth.
2) In D&D, I can use house rules or loosely interpret the spell
descriptions rather than rigidly using the abstraction rules.
Again, you can do the same thing in HERO. The procedure is
exactly the same: you have a mechanical description of the spell
effects, but you use GM judgement to alter the literal rules to
fit the situation.
Bill Seurer
> Why?? Because it says "2.5d6 RKA" to describe the damage
> instead of saying "1d6 damage per level (max 10d6)"?
Well, <old fart voice> I've been GMing RPGs for 25 years </old fart
voice> and it does appear to make a difference because it did make a
difference. Some games just fall into the numbers metagame more often
and/or more quickly than others. Hero is the A#1 game for that. I
think it may be because the character creation aspect is so number
crunching heavy that some players never can crawl back out of that
hole. The same players in other games don't do that. Or at least not
as quickly.
BTW, I gave up on AD&D many (many) years ago when my players started
describing things in terms of the numbers ("They've only got 3 hit dice,
THAC0 of 17, AC 5 and do, what, d10 damage, right?") instead of what it
was (Ogres).
John Kim
zeke <inan...@NOSPAMcyberspace.org> wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> Another reply to zeke about abstraction in the HERO system
>> compared to abstraction in other systems like D&D.
>
>genre-specific actions in terms of HERO system powers, which you might
>think of as "rules primitives" if you like the terminology.
>Furthermore I am claiming that this differentiates the HERO system from
>a typical genre system in that it is, in general, perfectly acceptable
>to construct a game world action in a genre system without resorting to
>any sorts of "rules primitives". You say: "Magic missile causes 8 points
>of damage." or "The drug causes the victim to fall asleep."
And what I am saying is that the typical genre system defines
its own rules primitives. There might be some hypothetical abstract
genre system which doesn't have rules primitives, but in practice
any genre system of similar complexity to HERO also has similar rules
primitives. For example, you claimed that a lightning bolt in D&D
had no rules primitives -- but I pointed out that it used the component
primitives, the area primitives, the saving throw primitives, and the
spell resistance primitive.
I am not interested in how HERO compares with hypothetical
fantasy systems that don't exist. I am concerned with how it compares
to actual fantasy systems.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Once again, I am not debating whether or not genre-specific systems
>employ visible abstractions. I am, however, asserting that doing anything
>with the HERO system _demands_ that you deal with a generic set of
>abstractions which may or may not have direct counterparts in your
>game world.
Sure -- but the same thing is true of D&D. D&D is genre-specific
to fantasy, but it isn't game-world specific. If I use D&D for a
fantasy game in a particular world, I can end up with a lot of
abstractions which fail to fit my particular world. The illusion
rules might not apply to how illusions work in my world, say. Or my
undead might be different than how D&D defines undead.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>
>> There is a simple procedural change which can fix this. Have a
>> separate character worksheet which has all the point costs and
>> advantage/limitation math, while the in-play character sheet just
>> has the powers by their in-game name and description of their effects.
>> That is, the in-play character sheet has no point costs and just
>> refers to the effects (i.e. "Fireball: 6d6 normal damage from fire,
>> range 30, radius 4").
>
>Sounds like you were working on erasing the systems-level abstraction
>from the game.
But this doesn't involve any change whatsoever to the rules.
It is purely a change in how character sheets are written. For example,
I freely mixed newbie players with such character sheets and veteran
HERO players with the more complex character sheets (who knew what
things like "EB" and "RKA" meant).
If you insist that this is a rules change -- well, OK. It is
a rules change. However, it is a trivial rules change that anyone
can do. And the variant of HERO which has this trivial rules change
does not have the problem that you speak of. Fair enough?
Grant Enfield
"Bill Seurer" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:3B13B390...@seurer.net...
> The hardest part is trying to do a character when there isn't an
> existing power to match them. You get bizarre things like "Flight
> limited to touching a surface only" to try to duplicate someone who can
> run realllllllllllllllly fast like the Flash. The Flash's ability has
> nothing to do with flying.
There's nothing bizarre about Flight limited to "Along surfaces only," and
since an existing Power (and a real common one too) with a Limitation models
what the character should do, how is that an example of HERO System *not*
having an existing Power to match what the character should do? That
confuses me.
Something that's important to note in the HERO System is that the names of
Powers are shorthand, and though they're often based on the comic-book
powers they often simulate, they don't really have anything to do with those
comic-book powers. One prominent example is Energy Blast, which is neither
energy nor a blast; Energy Blast is the ability to do Normal damage to a
target at range that applies against the player's choice of Physical or
Energy Defense. Flight is similar--it's just the ability to move, and it
comes with a Turn Mode. (In my opinion, the Movement Powers would be the
easiest ones to collapse into a single "Move" Power and build running,
flying, gliding, and swinging from that base Move Power with Advantages and
Limitations.) So Flash's ability may not have anything to do with "flying,"
but the HERO System Power Flight doesn't necessarily have anything to do
with flying either.
grant
SD Anderson
> The hardest part is trying to do a character when there isn't an
> existing power to match them. You get bizarre things like
> "Flight limited to touching a surface only" to try to duplicate
> someone who can run realllllllllllllllly fast like the Flash.
> The Flash's ability has nothing to do with flying.
Indeed, I've seen flightless RUNNINGless versions of the Flash
done as teleportation, this lets him get through solid objects etc
as well. What a conception is can be stated in words like a new
power description, or it can be hammered and sawed to fit existing
powers. In theory the power structure gets hammered and sawed,
but often it's too much trouble to fit concept to the modified
powers and for the sake of ease of play, the concept takes a few
hits.
SD Anderson
> that your mind automatically substitutes in appropriate
> game-system effects whenever a power is invoked (somewhat like
> macro substitution, if you want to continue on with programming
> analogies), then it's entirely possible that the you wouldn't
> notice the abstraction on first consideration.
Not that unique to hero though. ANYONE who learns a game
system thoroughly comes to accept some of the things and and
assumptions made by the game as the way it's done. Look at the
guys who try to rationalize body part hits as D&D type hit point
attrition as another example of this.
Sea Wasp
>
> "Bill Seurer" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
> news:3B13B390...@seurer.net..
>
> > existing power to match them. You get bizarre things like "Flight
> > limited to touching a surface only" to try to duplicate someone who can
> > run realllllllllllllllly fast like the Flash. The Flash's ability has
> > nothing to do with flying.
>
> There's nothing bizarre about Flight limited to "Along surfaces only," and
> since an existing Power (and a real common one too) with a Limitation models
> what the character should do, how is that an example of HERO System *not*
> having an existing Power to match what the character should do?
BECAUSE RUNNING IS NOT FLIGHT. Simple and to the point.
Make a power that is explicitly "Running". I.e., moving your legs
very fast.
"Flight along surfaces only" basically models those anime and
videogame characters like Magus (Chrono Trigger) and Psycho Master
(Threads of Fate) who glide along without moving their legs at all at
an elevation of .1 inches from the floor.
Completely different power, completely different way of it working in
the game world, completely different logical consequences of the
power.
One prominent example is Energy Blast, which is neither
> energy nor a blast; Energy Blast is the ability to do Normal damage to a
> target at range that applies against the player's choice of Physical or
> Energy Defense.
Then it shouldn't be named Energy Blast, should it?
Flight is similar--it's just the ability to move, and it
> comes with a Turn Mode. (In my opinion, the Movement Powers would be the
> easiest ones to collapse into a single "Move" Power and build running,
> flying, gliding, and swinging from that base Move Power with Advantages and
> Limitations.) So Flash's ability may not have anything to do with "flying,"
> but the HERO System Power Flight doesn't necessarily have anything to do
> with flying either.
Then, surprise surprise, it shouldn't be named "Flight". Flight has a
very nice definition which virtually everyone knows. That's the
definition people will be thinking of when they see the word. One
should remember this. People in highly technical specialties sometimes
redefine a common word to mean something other than the common
definition, but they wouldn't expect people outside that specialty,
coming across it in a generally casual setting, to interpret the word
THEIR way. Since we're not talking mathematics or physics here but
just a GAME, the words you use that are common ones shouldn't be using
some wierd arcane definitions that are contrary to those of the people
likely to pick up the book.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
jet...@illusions.com
> Bryant Berggren wrote:
>> 45 minutes??? I hope that's a generous maximum.
>>
>> In my experience, the hardest part of creating a Champions character
>> is the part that has nothing to do with Champions -- thinking of what
>> the heck I *want* to play. (THAT can take days ...) With a concept in
>> mind, 10-20 minutes for 90-95% of my ideas.
> The hardest part is trying to do a character when there isn't an
> existing power to match them. You get bizarre things like "Flight
> limited to touching a surface only" to try to duplicate someone who can
> run realllllllllllllllly fast like the Flash. The Flash's ability has
> nothing to do with flying.
It doesn't have a whole lot to do with real life running either, since he
can run straight up walls and over water.
In any case, that is a 3rd edition example you cite. For forth edition,
all movement powers have the same access to non-combat multipliers, so you
can make a character who runs as fast as one who flies.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe jet...@illusions.com Website being moved
"Inflammable means flammable?! What a country!"
-Dr. Nick Riviera
Wayne Shaw
>existing power to match them. You get bizarre things like "Flight
>limited to touching a surface only" to try to duplicate someone who can
>run realllllllllllllllly fast like the Flash. The Flash's ability has
>nothing to do with flying.
Neither does the Flight power per se. It's a name hung on a
particular set of effects (movement, potential high rate of speed,
lack of dependence on surface). Since two of those properties were
desireable for the Flash type, that was what it was used for.
People never get over the fact that in a sense Hero doesn't have
"powers" the way you're using it; it has effects. Often those effects
overlap 1:1 with a particular power, but a real power is an effect
modified to produce that power. That's the system's strength; you
don't _need_ every individual power described in the rules. But for
people who want to just plug and go, it's not a virtue.
[Oh, as an aside...even by the time of 4th Edition you didn't need to
do the Flash that way; Running and Flight no longer have the
distinction in accelleration they once did].
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> Alright, now which one is more abstracted?? Well, maybe the
>> Hero spell is a little more abstracted
>
>The Hero one is a LOT more abstracted and eventually the fact that it is
>a lightning bolt will be mostly forgotten by the players and it'll just
>be another generic energy attack. Or an RKA using your example (which
>is weird BTW).
And I've seen people who treated D&D fireballs and lightning bolts as
not that much less abstract. Their nature was relevant only in that
some things took more or less damage from them.
John Kim
Bill Seurer <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> Why?? Because it says "2.5d6 RKA" to describe the damage
>> instead of saying "1d6 damage per level (max 10d6)"?
>
>Well, <old fart voice> I've been GMing RPGs for 25 years </old fart
>voice> and it does appear to make a difference because it did make a
>difference. Some games just fall into the numbers metagame more often
>and/or more quickly than others.
>BTW, I gave up on AD&D many (many) years ago when my players started
>describing things in terms of the numbers ("They've only got 3 hit dice,
>THAC0 of 17, AC 5 and do, what, d10 damage, right?") instead of what it
>was (Ogres).
OK. I think I was unfairly associating your argument with
zeke's argument that typical genre-specific games like D&D were
somehow different from HERO. I would agree that a more numbers-crunchy
game like HERO and D&D are more prone to fall into numbers game-speak
than more freeform games like _Amber_ or FUDGE, say.
The typical system on the market is fairly numbers-crunchy,
so I think I jumped to conclusions that you were singling out the HERO
system when really you have the same problem with D&D and probably
with lots of other systems.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
[Re: HERO]
>
>I think it may be because the character creation aspect is so number
>crunching heavy that some players never can crawl back out of that hole.
>The same players in other games don't do that. Or at least not
>as quickly.
Well, this depends a lot on whether you have player-designed
powers, like in superhero _Champions_. It is very complex to design
powers in HERO, but for more normal genres like _Western Hero_ or
standard _Fantasy Hero_ the chargen isn't nearly as complicated.
It's still somewhat number-crunchy, but it's pretty middle-of-the-road
crunchiness.
Ben Brown
Shawn Wilson <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"John Peralta" <john...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:jSSO6.26232$BN6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>> My local store has a used copy of the game (sans software) for $30 (not
>> cheap I know). Is it worth it? I've always been partial to Aberrant ( I
>have
>> the entire line) but a friend wants to try Champions. Trying to be the
>open
>> minded person I think I am I thought I'd give it a shot. What do you
>think?
>
>
>It's an excellent game, generally (but not universally) considered the best
>of the Superhero RPG's. It isn't as complicated as people say it is, and
>even then the complication is only in character generation (sometimes), not
>in play.
>
>That said, I wouldn't spend $30 on the BBB (as it's often called) now. Hero
>5th is coming out, better to wait.
>
It'll be along as soon as Satan finishes judging that ice-sculpture contest.
-Ben
John Kim
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>Grant Enfield wrote:
>> One prominent example is Energy Blast, which is neither energy nor
>> a blast; Energy Blast is the ability to do Normal damage to a target
>> at range that applies against the player's choice of Physical or
>> Energy Defense.
>
>Then it shouldn't be named Energy Blast, should it?
Agreed. There are definitely holdovers of nomenclature in
Hero 4th. "Energy Blast" should really be called "Ranged Attack" to
match with the other three damage powers "Hand-to-Hand Attack",
"Hand-to-Hand Killing Attack", and "Ranged Killing Attack".
There are a few other holdovers of nomenclature and several
places where actual mechanics are problematic.
The HERO system definitely has problems. However, one should
note that 3 out of the 4 damage powers do have generic names. Other
powers like "Aid", "Change Environment", "Images", and so forth are
also more-or-less appropriately named.