Week Ending May 30, 1998
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo prescienttech.com from ratinox@peorth.gweep.net server @londo.prescienttech.com ip 199.103.216.62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Superman (1938)
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 May 1998 00:02:48 -0400
Lines: 28
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Stainless Steel Rat writes:
> Elemental Controls give a break for a tight special effect or a single
> special effect, not good concepts. Both Batman and Iceman are good
> concepts. Batman's powers are a variety gadgets; no EC.
Well, argh for not finishing the thought.
Batman's powers are a variety of gadgets, so no EC. Iceman's powers are
all ice, so yes EC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNWeb556VRH7BJMxHAQFKbwP/SlSiYKAe9VW9zd0lWMqAt01rJiQQgxPr
LoCGtSvoS3A7Vs8KUE7r2dcAk4BM+40t0QKWakYeljoi+rLKu3qj739tZNxZrgQd
Gl2C1aHV9cTOkpIbN7NmpKGaDP5P+plwbSqeS7MDyX+EWciK6PSn1jE7hkhKPJ1t
Y01Vn8BEf/o=
=Gpbi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vespucci.advicom.net from mdmitche@advicom.net server root@199.170.120.42 ip 199.170.120.42
X-Envelope-Recipient: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Opinion Poll: Line of Sight
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:27:15 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Mike Christodoulou wrote:
>Mental powers (and a few others) operate along a "line-of-sight" basis.
>That is, you must be able to see your target. But can line-of-sight
>include things like video surveillance? Could a mentalist sit in a
>separate room watching a monitor and attack the people he sees on
>screen? How about through a mirror? Do the mental powers work that
>way, or would you have to buy Indirect?
I'd have to say none of the above, except for the mirror. Indirect means
you still have to be there, even if the attack does not travel a straight
line. But for any kind of video I would rule that to get that affect, the
character has to buy Mind Scan, limited to "only through video". Your call
on the limitation value.
Steven Mitchell
mdmitche@advicom.net
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-SMTP: helo dillinger.io.com from jeffj@io.com server jeffj@dillinger.io.com ip 199.170.88.11
X-Authentication-Warning: dillinger.io.com: jeffj owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:31:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Sakura <jeffj@io.com>
To: Champions Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On 23 May 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> Michael Surbrook writes:
> >> If these are so "ultimate", why are they limited by skill rolls?
> > Becuase they allow the one to do virtually impossible things, even with a
> > skill roll.
> The version with a skill roll sometimes does not work. The version without
> a skill roll always works.
>
> Which one is really "more ultimate"?
So your problem is a petty one with the wording instead of with the
mechanics. Fine, replace the word 'Ultimate' with the word 'Super'.
Happy now?
The 'Super Mechanic' can fix anything, even if it would normally be
impossible due to a lack of tools, lack of parts, etc - he can essentially
'jury-rig' it into working. He wants to buy this as Transform,
non-working machine to working machine, Requires Skill Roll (Mechanics).
The 'Super Stealth' guy has Invisibility to Sight & Sound, Requires
Stealth Roll.
et cetera.
> They did not remove that, they changed it. Used to be, Acrobatics could
> give a +2 DCV; now it gives +1 to +3 OCV as a type of suprise maneuver.
I think this is semantics. Whatever the cause, Acrobatics used to give a
DCV bonus. One could presumably use Acrobatics to improve one's dodge -
Spider-man and Nightcrawler are both good examples of this - therefore,
why wouldn't +2 DCV, Requires Acrobatics Roll be a logical power
construction?
> > Wrong Rat. If you have Disguise and make your Disguise roll can, quote:
> > "...make instant duplicates of specific people."
>
> I saw no reference to "Disguise roll" anywhere in the description.
Then you are reading a different copy of the HSR than everyone else on
this list. "A character with Disguise who makes his **DISGUISE ROLL** can
make instant duplicates of specific people." (HSR, p83, emphasis mine)
> Shapeshift does not allow you to look like a specific individual.
Yes, it does. You need to make a Disguise Roll to do it, however.
> You
> still need Disguise for that. And you can do it with just Disguise;
> Shapeshift is not really necessary.
You can do it with Disguise /and/ appropriate amounts of time and disguise
equipment. Disguise by itself is not sufficient, just as Shapeshift by
itself is not sufficient.
> >> "Healing" chemicals do not work as fast as AID. The mechanic is bogus
> >> from the get-go.
>
> > Whoa, since when do such things as 'real-world' limitations matter in in
> > a superhero game?
>
> Since when have "healing poultices" been a staple of a superhero game?
> That sounds more like a medieval setting or maybe a modern martial arts
> setting.
Since when has HERO been solely for superhero games?
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vespucci.advicom.net from mdmitche@advicom.net server root@199.170.120.42 ip 199.170.120.42
X-Envelope-Recipient: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Stat vs Stat
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:45:19 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Bob Greenwade wrote
> What if for Stat vs Stat checks, instead of rolling damage dice or Stat
>Rolls and comparing the results, these were just boiled down to the
>equivalent of an Attack Roll? A STR vs STR Roll, to use the most
>frequently-used instance as an example, would become (Attacker's STR/3) +
>11 - (Defender's STR/3) or less.
<other good stuff snipped>.
[tongue firmly in cheek]
You've gone and done it now, Bob. Here I was with my game running real
smooth, no changes in site for weeks except adding some new spells. Then
you have to go throw this idea out. And no, it couldn't just be some goofy
idea that I could dismiss out of hand. And I think I've used up my charges
of "GM changes the rules again" tolerance. The worst part is, I can't tell
for sure whether this way would work better with my group or not--unless I
try it. If you get any more ideas along this line, save them until
September. I should have recovered some charges by then. :-)
Steven Mitchell
mdmitche@advicom.net
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo topaz.cqu.edu.au from jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au server @topaz.cqu.EDU.AU ip 138.77.1.3
X-Sender: jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:03:37 +1000
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: happyelf <jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 11:43 PM 5/23/98 -0400, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Curtis Gibson writes:
>
>> What happens to the player who wants 'the greatest climber in the world'
>> in a campaign that doesn't allow extraordinary skill rolls.
>
>I think you have a GM that needs to rethink a campaign guidelines if he
>allows this character into the game.
>
*sheesh* and i got broadsided fer not wanting invincible pc's
for 120 pints. . .
>> The clinging construction does that wonderfully. I builds using
>> completely legal methods, using no optional rules, what the hypothetical
>> player wants, and can be campaign portable. Someone with a 23- climbing
>> wouldn't be allowed in a campiagn with 16- maxes on skill (for example).
>
>And it also does a bunch of things that go well beyond simply being "the
>greatest climber in the world".
>
then limit them. in champs power construction often involves
grabbing a power and chipping off everything that doesn't look like an
elephant.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.3a
>Charset: noconv
>
>iQCVAwUBNWeXRJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEvugP/R+aINSF8V56DbYyJBxn7eQqrCymxnVTh
>eOvSSe2+fa+p5d3Eb/a7ZjfKKJe5Zh7Wua5JdLZSOiXxnU42k7gFCBUYfXsLYigS
>hLkGWA/BWT6B0xnyML+mqIqD2v8K7YZlwCWTuWOylCaKTheWwjs4sKpMpRRpm9c7
>qFNJL5bIarg=
>=DIT+
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--
>Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
>PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
> \ head.
>
>
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vector.wantree.com.au from gazza@wantree.com.au server root@vector.wantree.com.au ip 203.63.10.1
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 14:43:38 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Reply-To: gazza@wantree.com.au
Organization: Only One Inc.
To: Champions Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Hey, that hero looks familiar
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
> > I've noticed from this thread that "healer" types are very common.
>
> I wouldn't say that... I've only noticed a couple of people saying
> that they found them common. I've never seen anything resembling a
> "healer" in a superhero game myself.
I agree. In the course of all my campaigns, I've had exactly
ONE healer character. It was an NPC (named Empath - so shoot me,
it's a cool name, if not particularly original), and he was one
of the first to buy it during the Great Hero Hunt (ala the
GAZZA version, since I was unable to locate the 'official' version).
OTOH, Regeneration is a particularly common power IMC. At one
time, 3 out of 10 PCs had it.
--
GAZZA (gazza@wantree.com.au; http://www.wantree.com.au/~gazza)
"To know others is wisdom. To know oneself is enlightment."
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vector.wantree.com.au from gazza@wantree.com.au server root@vector.wantree.com.au ip 203.63.10.1
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 14:51:57 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Reply-To: gazza@wantree.com.au
Organization: Only One Inc.
To: Champions Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: How Complicated Is Champions?
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
> "Cool! Look at all the options!" was my first reaction. Certainly it
> never occurred to me that it was complicated. I had played _D&D_, for
> Christs' sake (which is not as overcomplicated as AD&D, but still more
> complicated than Champions).
Do you really think so? When I decided to start up a new
fantasy campaign about 18 months ago, I used D&D because it
was (IMHO) the simplest to learn (and I had a couple of new
players to break in). Granted AD&D is complex, but I'm not
sure I'd go so far as to say it was more complicated than
Hero.
Of course, that's not to say either of them is OVERLY complex.
You want lots of options? Then you need a certain amount of
complexity.
"With great flexibility comes great complexity". Offhand, I
cannot think of ANY of the so-called "simple to learn" systems
that were really worth playing on a long term basis. The closest
games I know of that approached this were Dragon Warriors (which
you could play with just two paperbacks) and "basic" D&D. In the
former case, the system wasn't really highly adaptable to settings
other than the 'default' flavour provided (strongly medieval, IOW);
and in the latter case, even my current group of 'beginners'
would probably happily switch to AD&D if I gave the go-ahead.
To return to the topic, though - the only really complex part
of Hero is character creation. As long as the GM is prepared to
put in a lot of effort to help new players design characters
(generally, I just ask them what they want and build it for
them), this should go reasonably smoothly. Combat - while
detailed - is not particularly DIFFICULT (at least IMHO. I had
a lot more hassle explaining the concepts of 'THACO' and 'Armour
Class' to new players than I ever had with Champions CV and
DEF).
--
GAZZA (gazza@wantree.com.au; http://www.wantree.com.au/~gazza)
"To know others is wisdom. To know oneself is enlightment."
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vector.wantree.com.au from gazza@wantree.com.au server root@vector.wantree.com.au ip 203.63.10.1
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:02:40 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Reply-To: gazza@wantree.com.au
Organization: Only One Inc.
To: Champions Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Opinion Poll: Line of Sight
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
> Mental powers (and a few others) operate along a "line-of-sight"
> basis.
> That is, you must be able to see your target. But can line-of-sight
> include things like video surveillance? Could a mentalist sit in a
> separate room watching a monitor and attack the people he sees on
> screen? How about through a mirror? Do the mental powers work that
> way, or would you have to buy Indirect?
IMHO? No, they can't work via video surveillance or mirrors.
I play LOS as DIRECT LOS. That is - my primary viewing mechanism
(hereafter referred to as my 'sight') must be able to trace a
straight line to my target.
There are a couple of exceptions to this. I _DO_ allow Clairsentience
to work, as long as its inherently a power of the telepath (that is,
you can't use your bases sensors to do this trick, even if they're
built as "Clairsentience"). And Mind Scan obviously gets around this
as well.
On a related note - I _would_ allow someone with natural Telescopic
Vision to affect people further away (I rule that the target has to
be close enough to identify species, as suggested in the Ultimate
Mentalist). And I suspect I could be talked into allowing someone to
make use of N-Ray Vision in this fashion, although this might be a
hard sell (more because of potential abuse than any other reason).
It's probably worth noting that I count any inherent targetting
sense as "sight" - I've had "blind" telepaths with Spatial Awareness
IMC before. This is possibly a house rule, though.
--
GAZZA (gazza@wantree.com.au; http://www.wantree.com.au/~gazza)
"To know others is wisdom. To know oneself is enlightment."
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo news.mobis.com from easleyap@mobis.com server @news.mobis.com ip 207.201.202.4
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
To: "Champs List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: The Incredible Shrinking Hero
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:12:56 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
>>Being inside of solid matter can't be achieved by being small. Unless you
>>believe the propaganda of the liberal media about electrons, neutrons,
>>protons, and the whole atom theory mess. Allowing a 40 point power as a
>>special effect is going a little overboard, IMO.
>>
>>Alan
<snip>
>The character as originally posted paid for Desolid, using his size change
>as a SFX; you had no problem with that? He was, after all, assuming away
>over 400 active points worth of Shrinking as SFX in that instance. I don't
>recall anyone objecting to it, though; it seemed valid because he was only
>using the extreme amount of size change to get through the wall: Desolid
>represented what was being done, size change did no more than explain how.
>
>Damon
Exactly, special effects can be anything you want. In your example the
power he paid for was the effect he got. In the case of FTL you are not
supposed to use it inside of an atmosphere. Even inside of the telephone
wire you are in an atmosphere. Desolid is a, dubious, way at best to get
around this limitation and only acceptable as a house rule.
Alan
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo news.mobis.com from easleyap@mobis.com server @news.mobis.com ip 207.201.202.4
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
To: "Champs List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:22:47 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
>> The clinging construction does that wonderfully. I builds using
>> completely legal methods, using no optional rules, what the hypothetical
>> player wants, and can be campaign portable. Someone with a 23- climbing
>> wouldn't be allowed in a campiagn with 16- maxes on skill (for example).
Rat replies,
>And it also does a bunch of things that go well beyond simply being "the
>greatest climber in the world".
Here is a quote from one of your earlier posts. I think you disagree with
everyone now, including yourself. :)
Rat also states:
"No, I am saying that with the limitations (plural!) on it, the power
duplicates Climbing. At which point the Requires Skill Roll really means,
"should have been purchased as a skill"."
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo relia.net from mhoram@relia.net server @clients.relia.net ip 207.173.156.9
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 07:01:43 -0600
From: Curtis Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> Curtis Gibson writes:
>
> > What happens to the player who wants 'the greatest climber in the world'
> > in a campaign that doesn't allow extraordinary skill rolls.
>
> I think you have a GM that needs to rethink a campaign guidelines if he
> allows this character into the game.
There is also all of the other things that allowing over 18 on skill
rolls brings along with it _besides_ the optional extraordinary skill
rolls. Be that as it may...
You sidestepped the main point of my post, so I will re-iterate it as a
yes or no question for you to answer (Yes or no)....
Are you advocating using an _optional_ rule over a legal power
construct?
Please anwer yes or no, Rat.
The tone of all your posts seem to be 'go for the non-optional, most
legal', which in this case is the limited clinging... because the
extra-ordinary skill role rule is _optional_.
-Mhoram
--
Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages,
it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and
goes through their pockets. -- Eddy Peters
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo relia.net from mhoram@relia.net server @clients.relia.net ip 207.173.156.9
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 07:06:12 -0600
From: Curtis Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Opinion Poll: Line of Sight
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
GAZZA wrote:
>
> > Mental powers (and a few others) operate along a "line-of-sight"
> > basis.
> > That is, you must be able to see your target. But can line-of-sight
> > include things like video surveillance? Could a mentalist sit in a
> > separate room watching a monitor and attack the people he sees on
> > screen? How about through a mirror? Do the mental powers work that
> > way, or would you have to buy Indirect?
>
> IMHO? No, they can't work via video surveillance or mirrors.
>
> I play LOS as DIRECT LOS. That is - my primary viewing mechanism
> (hereafter referred to as my 'sight') must be able to trace a
> straight line to my target.
I's allow through a mirror, but probably at slight OECV penalty. Just as
I'd allow a trick shooting energy projector to fire at someone behind
him by looking in a mirror.
The rest are right out though- although I have seen a couple of
instancesstory where someone used a mental power (in both case
telekenisis) 'through' a video monitor.
-Mhoram
--
Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages,
it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and
goes through their pockets. -- Eddy Peters
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo relia.net from mhoram@relia.net server @clients.relia.net ip 207.173.156.9
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 07:19:47 -0600
From: Curtis Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Stat vs Stat
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
> Here's an idea that I just now came up with.
An interesting one
> What if for Stat vs Stat checks, instead of rolling damage dice or Stat
> Rolls and comparing the results, these were just boiled down to the
> equivalent of an Attack Roll? A STR vs STR Roll, to use the most
> frequently-used instance as an example, would become (Attacker's STR/3) +
> 11 - (Defender's STR/3) or less.
Doing the skill roll approach would be cause for a greater range of
results. If a Martial artist with a 60 STR Grab is holding on to the
mini-brick with a 50 STR, it's going to take a good roll but not
unspectacular for the defender to break it, but with the skill vs skill
the chance of holding on would be 14- which would result in the Grabber
holding on more often. (I think, I'm not really that great with figuring
odds.)
There is also the shallowing of the bell curve the more dice are
involved. Switching to a 3d6 reslution would make much more varied
results. If that is part of what you are after... well then.
> For that matter, Skill vs Skill can be done the same way, with any
> appropriate Skill Levels (including plain old plusses to the Skill Roll)
> being used as a modifer in favor of the character who has them. Thus,
> Perception vs Stealth would become (Perceiver's INT/3) + (Perceiver's
> Enhanced Perception and Levels) + 11 - (Stealthist's DEX/3) - (Stealthist's
> Levels). (Or, the Stealthist and Perceiver could be reversed, depending on
> how the GM wants to consider things.)
This also does one other thing... the system as it currently stands is
how well the perciever sees against how well the stelther stealths (ie
how well he made his skill roll) rather than how well he _can_ stealth
(raw skill number as in your example)
> I don't know if this is something to put in Hero5 (in place of the
> current Stat vs Stat and Skill vs Skill methods, or at least as an option
> for that), but it's something I thought I'd put out for people to consider.
I like the idea of it, with just those two concerns. I may try it in a
limited run campaign to see how it works.
-Mhoram
--
Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages,
it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and
goes through their pockets. -- Eddy Peters
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo hotline.klock.com from bob.greenwade@klock.com server @hotline.klock.com ip 198.68.19.64
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 07:06:03 -0700
To: GoldRushG <GoldRushG@aol.com>
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Good/bad cops
Cc: champ-l@sysabend.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 07:43 PM 5/23/1998 EDT, GoldRushG wrote:
><< And please don't be too offended when I ignore this request. In any
modern
>campaign, police attitudes and such can be very important. I'm not going to
>tread lightly just because you happen to work in the profession. If someone
>wanted to talk about the bad points of all English Majors, I'd debate on it,
>but I wouldn't ask for the discussion to be squelched. >>
[snip]
> I find the thread insulting and offensive. You are entitled to your
opinion.
>I was of the impression that this list was for the sharing of ideas about the
>Hero System, not about bashing cops and the LE profession. If the latter
is to
>be permitted, and if people are desirous of continuing such a discussion
>despite the fact that a fellow list member finds it offensive, then so be it.
>Have your discussion. I will leave the list.
>
> I work too hard at my job and have seen too many courageous comrades buried
>serving the public to want to stay on such a list.
Don't bother leaving, Mark. The discussion's dead already.
Besides, Tim's just being a typical English-major college student. He
knows only his firsthand experience and doesn't think things through to
look at the broad picture. (You know, kinda like Mike Stivic on "All In
the Family" -- a lot of ideas and thoughts, but no connection with the real
world. Good brain, but doesn't bother to use it that much.)
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROs member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo hotline.klock.com from bob.greenwade@klock.com server @hotline.klock.com ip 198.68.19.64
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 07:21:03 -0700
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Stat vs Stat
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 07:19 AM 5/24/1998 -0600, Curtis Gibson wrote:
>There is also the shallowing of the bell curve the more dice are
>involved. Switching to a 3d6 reslution would make much more varied
>results. If that is part of what you are after... well then.
As long as there's a bell curve (minimum of 3 dice), you still have
enough variance for play (IMO). More than that, unless you need a really
wide range, adds more to counting than you get as a benefit for that variance.
>> For that matter, Skill vs Skill can be done the same way, with any
>> appropriate Skill Levels (including plain old plusses to the Skill Roll)
>> being used as a modifer in favor of the character who has them. Thus,
>> Perception vs Stealth would become (Perceiver's INT/3) + (Perceiver's
>> Enhanced Perception and Levels) + 11 - (Stealthist's DEX/3) - (Stealthist's
>> Levels). (Or, the Stealthist and Perceiver could be reversed, depending on
>> how the GM wants to consider things.)
>
>This also does one other thing... the system as it currently stands is
>how well the perciever sees against how well the stelther stealths (ie
>how well he made his skill roll) rather than how well he _can_ stealth
>(raw skill number as in your example)
Try considering the roll to be not just how the perceiver perceives, but
how the perception and the stealth compare. If (using the existing method)
the perceiver makes his roll by 3 and the stealthist by 2, then the result
is the same as if the perceiver makes his roll by 1 and the stealthist
makes his exactly. This Roll just determines how the two compare with a
single Roll, rather than having to make separate Rolls and doing the math.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROs member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-SMTP: helo dillinger.io.com from jeffj@io.com server jeffj@dillinger.io.com ip 199.170.88.11
X-Authentication-Warning: dillinger.io.com: jeffj owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 09:45:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Sakura <jeffj@io.com>
To: Champions Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Based on Con for Entangle
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998, qts wrote:
> Hmm... In typing the above I accidentally mistyped 'Con' as 'Com'. I
> wonder what the SFX of a Com based/defended Entangle would be?
Hmm...the only ones that come to mind would be /harder/ to shake off with
high COM:
* Narcissus Mirror - you see your reflection and are captivated.
* Horde of Screaming Teenage Girls - the 'Pre-Teen' version of this attack
also works well on people who have bought their COM down in such a way
that they look like members of 'Hanson'.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo mars.superlink.net from why@superlink.net server root@mars.superlink.net ip 204.97.220.9
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 10:59:52 -0400
To: Hero Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: Stat vs Stat
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 02:28 PM 5/23/98 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> Here's an idea that I just now came up with.
Assuming a lot of latitude here:
> What if for Stat vs Stat checks, instead of rolling damage dice or Stat
>Rolls and comparing the results, these were just boiled down to the
>equivalent of an Attack Roll? A STR vs STR Roll, to use the most
>frequently-used instance as an example, would become (Attacker's STR/3) +
>11 - (Defender's STR/3) or less.
This makes the seemingly impossible, actually impossible. A STR vs STR
roll with 50 vs 25 becomes an 11 + 17 - 8 or 20-. But in reality, if 3 of
the 10 dice are 1s with no 6s and 3 of the 5 dice are 6s with no 1s, the 25
STR breaks out. Not good odds, but not impossible either. If you change
it so that 3 always succeeds and 18 always fails, you skew the chances the
other way.
> For that matter, Skill vs Skill can be done the same way, with any
>appropriate Skill Levels (including plain old plusses to the Skill Roll)
>being used as a modifer in favor of the character who has them. Thus,
>Perception vs Stealth would become (Perceiver's INT/3) + (Perceiver's
>Enhanced Perception and Levels) + 11 - (Stealthist's DEX/3) - (Stealthist's
>Levels). (Or, the Stealthist and Perceiver could be reversed, depending on
>how the GM wants to consider things.)
A question: I assume you mean a stealth vs perception roll. Let's
Character S has a DEX of 14 and spends 5 points on stealth. Normally that
would give him a Stealth of 14-. Now above you say DEX/3. Did you mean
DEX/3 + 1 because I spent an extra 2 points on stealth? Or, Stealth/3? I
assume you are talking about a SkillCV. So skill level would be 9 + stat/5
+ 1/2CP and SCV would be skill level/3? My first problem is all of this it
adds a lot of math to what use to be a comparison. Also, all skills have
to have two numbers associated with them on the character sheet.
> This would result in somewhat less die-rolling in a game, simpler
>resolution for certain tasks, and a better reason to buy stats at a value
>other than those ending with 0, 3, 5, 8.
How would concealment work? There is only one concealment roll per any
number of search rolls. I wouldn't want to see both set of rules included
in the game system as that would be confusing.
> I don't know if this is something to put in Hero5 (in place of the
>current Stat vs Stat and Skill vs Skill methods, or at least as an option
>for that), but it's something I thought I'd put out for people to consider.
I don't think it's a good idea, Bob. The success rate would go all to
hell. If Char S above is sneaking past a guard (Int 10). Normally he
would have 14- roll vs the guard's 11- roll. His chance of succeeding by 1
or more is far greater than the guard's. Your way would just be a 13-
success roll (I think). I don't think the percentages work out correctly.
(I may be wrong, and I don't have the time now to actually calculate them.)
And why would you consider putting into Hero5 if you haven't tried it on an
ongoing basis? Try this in one of your campaigns and let us know how it
goes, but I think the percentages are skewed too much.
Joe
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo mars.superlink.net from why@superlink.net server root@mars.superlink.net ip 204.97.220.9
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:18:43 -0400
To: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com&> champ-l@sysabend.org
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: Stat vs Stat
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 07:21 AM 5/24/98 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> Try considering the roll to be not just how the perceiver perceives, but
>how the perception and the stealth compare. If (using the existing method)
>the perceiver makes his roll by 3 and the stealthist by 2, then the result
>is the same as if the perceiver makes his roll by 1 and the stealthist
>makes his exactly. This Roll just determines how the two compare with a
>single Roll, rather than having to make separate Rolls and doing the math.
But this does not work at the extremes. Try an 8- versus an 11-. The
chance of getting a 7 is very low, but a 10 is not so bad. However, 11 +
11/3 - 8/3 is a 12-. This does not accurately reflect the chance when
using the two die rolls. If you reverse it, it's even worse: the guy with
the 8- in the skill only needs a 10- to succeed!
I worked on this for a GURPS project (everything is skill vs skill in
GURPS) and nothing that works with low skill values also works with high
skill levels, and vice versa.
Based on my experience, if you don't care about the low end of the scale
your method will work fine in SuperHero games.
Joe
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo saturn.nildram.co.uk from qts@nildram.co.uk server @saturn.nildram.co.uk ip 195.112.4.22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
To: "rossrannells@worldnet.att.net" <rossrannells@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "champ-l@sysabend.org" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Sun, 24 May 98 15:20:24
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Based on Con for Entangle
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:12:22 -0500, Ross Rannells wrote:
>
>
>qts wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 1998 12:10:49 -0500, Ross Rannells wrote:
>>
>> >I don't know if this has been discussed before (if it has I'd appreciate
>> >
>> >directions to a FAQ about it) but I've run into a diagreement with some
>> >players over a special advantage I allow in my campaign. The
>> >advantage being "Based on Con", it's a one half advantage and requires
>> >a lot of scrutiney to be allowed. My justification for this is that you
>> >could
>> >but the power apply a Based on Ego advantage and then a Based on
>> >Con disadvantage and get the same effect at a cheaper cost. One
>> >area where this advantage is becoming common is as an Entagle
>> >advantage to simulate paralyzying weapons (taser, wide dispersion
>> >phasers. etc.). Low Con characters are really starting to complain
>> >because the 3D6 Entangle, based on Con (standard Taser in the
>> >campaign) is taking them out right and left.They want the attack dropped
>> >
>> >or a defence for it. My responce so far has been buy up your Con. A
>> >regular entangle's only defense is a high Str and an Entangle based on
>> >Ego's only defence is a high Ego, so what's the problem with the high
>> >Con for based on Con advantage?
>>
>> BOECV is +1, n'est-ce pas? Ego costs 2/1 So does Con, so BoC should
>> also be +1.
>>
>> qts
>>
>> Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
>
>One difference BOECV uses ECV for to hit rolls whiles BoC use standard OCV
>and DCV. Since BoC attack have some physical or energy component they can be
>Missile Deflected. In short BoC is not as advantageous as BoECV, so why
>should they cost the same?
The above description gave no hint of that. But to rebut the specific
point, BOECV attacks can be Deflected, given appropriate SFX.
Perhaps you'd care to post your full rules for BoC?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo saturn.nildram.co.uk from qts@nildram.co.uk server @saturn.nildram.co.uk ip 195.112.4.22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
To: "Bob Greenwade" <bob.greenwade@klock.com&>
"champ-l@sysabend.org" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Sun, 24 May 98 15:28:29
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Based on Con for Entangle
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sat, 23 May 1998 15:16:02 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>At 06:24 PM 5/23/1998, qts wrote:
>>BOECV is +1, n'est-ce pas? Ego costs 2/1 So does Con, so BoC should
>>also be +1.
>
> BOECV has other advantages as well -- the advantage given in its name,
>for instance (Based On Ego Combat Value), and the fact that Range Mods are
>done away with for the attack.
Granted, but IMO it more reflects the fact that few characters have a
high EGO. Part of the problem is that the original query was not
sufficiently detailed. Anyway, I would suggest that it's largely
irrelevant here as we're interested in the *resistance* to the
Entangle. Normal Entangles are resisted by Str which costs 1/1. an Ego
based Entangle is resisted by Ego which costs 2/1, at a cost of a +1
Advantage. Thus an Entangle resisted by Con which also costs 2/1,
should have a like Advantage, ie +1.
Hmm... In typing the above I accidentally mistyped 'Con' as 'Com'. I
wonder what the SFX of a Com based/defended Entangle would be?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-SMTP: helo dillinger.io.com from jeffj@io.com server jeffj@dillinger.io.com ip 199.170.88.11
X-Authentication-Warning: dillinger.io.com: jeffj owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 10:35:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Sakura <jeffj@io.com>
To: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
cc: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com&> champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Stat vs Stat
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
> At 07:21 AM 5/24/98 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
<bob's method snipped>
> But this does not work at the extremes. Try an 8- versus an 11-. The
> chance of getting a 7 is very low, but a 10 is not so bad.
Well, remember that in HERO (or GURPS, for that matter), a +1 to skill is
not a set percentage, because of the bell curve. In, say, Interlock (or
the Interlock method of Fuzion rolling), +1 to skill /is/ a set percentage
because you're only rolling 1 die.
Basically, what I'm saying is that an 11- is a /lot/ better than an 8-, so
I don't have a problem with Bob's 'roll both and see who did better'
mechanic.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
From: ghoyle1@mail.airmail.net
X-SMTP: helo mail.airmail.net from ghoyle1@mail.airmail.net server @mail.airmail.net ip 206.66.12.40
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 10:37:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Rat, if you don't want Climbing to be the skill that Clinging w/RSR is associated
with, what about defining a separate Clinging SKILL, which the "skilled Clinger"
must purchase separately? This skill wouldn't have any other use besides
limiting the Clinging power, so it doesn't technically overlap Climbing.
Guy
----------------------------------
Guy Hoyle (guyhoyle@iname.com)
http://web2.airmail.net/ghoyle1/
Visit The Gamemaster's Bookshelf
and the PANGAEA Project!
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo saturn.nildram.co.uk from qts@nildram.co.uk server @saturn.nildram.co.uk ip 195.112.4.22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org&>
"Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
Date: Sun, 24 May 98 15:42:49
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Opinion Poll: Line of Sight
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:27:15 -0500, Melinda and Steven Mitchell wrote:
>Mike Christodoulou wrote:
>>Mental powers (and a few others) operate along a "line-of-sight" basis.
>>That is, you must be able to see your target. But can line-of-sight
>>include things like video surveillance? Could a mentalist sit in a
>>separate room watching a monitor and attack the people he sees on
>>screen? How about through a mirror? Do the mental powers work that
>>way, or would you have to buy Indirect?
More generally, IMC it has to be a Targetting Sense. TV does not
qualify, though it might give a bonus to your Mind Scan if it were live
TV.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vespucci.advicom.net from mdmitche@advicom.net server root@199.170.120.42 ip 199.170.120.42
X-Envelope-Recipient: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: How Complicated Is Champions?
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 10:53:07 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
GAZZA writes:
>"With great flexibility comes great complexity". Offhand, I
>cannot think of ANY of the so-called "simple to learn" systems
>that were really worth playing on a long term basis ... snip
Flexibility does carry a certain minimum amount of complexity, but I think
most of the complexity from Hero is just a from a great system that hasn't
reached its full potential yet. Specifically, Hero could be made a lost
less complex--for both designing things and running them--if it supported
more of a component architecture. (Please excuse me if I lapse too far
into computer terms here, but I want to keep this short.)
This is the way I think Hero should be structured:
Meta Hero (M) - why; design philosphy, guidelines
Rules (R) - how; powers, skills, etc.
Components (C) - what; typical effects: claws, weapons, fireballs, etc.
Source (S) - full-fledged examples; characters, creatures, vehicles, etc.,
but don't repeat all the mechanics, just list the components.
Right now, Hero just has R and S, with a little of M thrown in scattered
through the rules. C does not exist in any structured form. I.e, there
isn't a list of different ways and kinds of claws already built that I can
just plug on a monster. Instead, I've got to look at various S examples to
see how other characters have done it (which are not consistent), pick the
way I want, then copy it. In short, reuse is much harder than it has to
be.
With some serious work out of several people, I think Hero could be made
playable strictly from the C and S levels. M and R are there for people
who like to tinker with the rules (everyone on this list :-). All most
RGPers want is the ability to plug and play bits of creatures, spells,
superhero effects, ects.
We have two GMs in our group, out of 8 players. I'm convinced that half of
the rest could easily GM if Hero were structured this way. How about the
rest of you.
Steven Mitchell
mdmitche@advicom.net
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo mars.superlink.net from why@superlink.net server root@mars.superlink.net ip 204.97.220.9
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:53:29 -0400
To: Sakura <jeffj@io.com>
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: Stat vs Stat
Cc: champ-l@sysabend.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 10:35 AM 5/24/98 -0500, Sakura wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
>> At 07:21 AM 5/24/98 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
><bob's method snipped>
>
>> But this does not work at the extremes. Try an 8- versus an 11-. The
>> chance of getting a 7 is very low, but a 10 is not so bad.
>
>Well, remember that in HERO (or GURPS, for that matter), a +1 to skill is
>not a set percentage, because of the bell curve. In, say, Interlock (or
>the Interlock method of Fuzion rolling), +1 to skill /is/ a set percentage
>because you're only rolling 1 die.
I know +1 is not a set percentage. I'm saying that the chance of Char X's
and Char Y's interaction will be different with Bob's method as compared to
the HSR method.
>Basically, what I'm saying is that an 11- is a /lot/ better than an 8-, so
>I don't have a problem with Bob's 'roll both and see who did better'
>mechanic.
Yes, 11- is a lot better than 8-. But Bob's system would make that a
"simple" 12- roll (you snipped that part of my example). A 12- is only
somewhat better than an 11- minus. In a normal 11- vs 8- roll, the chance
of the 11- rolling better than the 8- minus is probably 85-90% which is
equivalent to a 14-, not a 12-.
I'm arguing against the change in the shape of the bell curve. If you
don't care that the curve will be different (in some case extremely
different) than the normal HSR curves, give it a try. I think it changes a
fundamental (currently unquantifiable) balance in the rules. YMMV.
Joe
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo prescienttech.com from ratinox@peorth.gweep.net server @londo.prescienttech.com ip 199.103.216.62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 May 1998 12:28:51 -0400
Lines: 24
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Remnant writes:
> Here is a quote from one of your earlier posts. I think you disagree with
> everyone now, including yourself. :)
Thank you for quoting me out of context.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNWhKwp6VRH7BJMxHAQFC7wP9HIPYL2kwDAlMQAsXrZppZeu2UbeP1pUA
MOck2sd9Os2/TWBERwc1JJFLzjIY7UAjm1+ix3CF7xHGOVc6Cf9yfYJyQtWZTEZY
5FxweH+pGcCORmwtjVRBFytiy14dQcRZ5SKiLnDUzTLeqX+rPnCPlurSx5cyyaBp
TrzT8LFzq68=
=R6io
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo prescienttech.com from ratinox@peorth.gweep.net server @londo.prescienttech.com ip 199.103.216.62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 May 1998 12:32:40 -0400
Lines: 25
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Curtis Gibson writes:
> Are you advocating using an _optional_ rule over a legal power
> construct?
I am advocating the use of a game mechanic that mirrors the desired effect
over a by-the-book technically accurate power construct that does not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNWhLp56VRH7BJMxHAQET6wP+Ku2nv47yltxlbZHKdYBZU1Z/ZWeltfzW
oY5elG85Kn3plhst1A3POFWttkJYgRNln+8PRiJ7wqTreYVpJr3dMAKYU9jIcUFq
Iy0guLGGPemiaAD0HWa3WSTXJ6AK6TAIPsp5yF/hq+PlphcuxvMVHE58gWWgZlY/
KLdteqy5RLo=
=EZH8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo prescienttech.com from ratinox@peorth.gweep.net server @londo.prescienttech.com ip 199.103.216.62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 May 1998 12:33:16 -0400
Lines: 24
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
ghoyle1 writes:
> Rat, if you don't want Climbing to be the skill that Clinging w/RSR is
> associated with,
I want a mechanic that simulates the desired effect!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNWhLy56VRH7BJMxHAQGV8wP/aKjTFU5Ki9xqSOPp9fADaEVZ4DvTEtg8
pz6j3cilS24QAnpVnR/JwioF5wORhcnMoCSxtlqIsPPVWS2OZWfT2QpOJ5piuwuq
jtRGS9oq2WjvjIq5m+btZgek84/aMdwdLp/bdYHlRiGAeurOkJEgKTvgudSgRU/0
QqeT9Km3HAY=
=xJfM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo mars.superlink.net from why@superlink.net server root@mars.superlink.net ip 204.97.220.9
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:38:10 -0400
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: How Complicated Is Champions?
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 10:53 AM 5/24/98 -0500, Melinda and Steven Mitchell wrote:
>This is the way I think Hero should be structured:
> Meta Hero (M) - why; design philosphy, guidelines
> Rules (R) - how; powers, skills, etc.
> Components (C) - what; typical effects: claws, weapons, fireballs, etc.
> Source (S) - full-fledged examples; characters, creatures, vehicles, etc.,
> but don't repeat all the mechanics, just list the components.
>
>Right now, Hero just has R and S, with a little of M thrown in scattered
>through the rules. C does not exist in any structured form. I.e, there
>isn't a list of different ways and kinds of claws already built that I can
>just plug on a monster. Instead, I've got to look at various S examples to
>see how other characters have done it (which are not consistent), pick the
>way I want, then copy it. In short, reuse is much harder than it has to
>be.
Bullseye! I was recently introduced to GURPS and I love the Magic system
in it. Why? Because it contains references to itself. Wouldn't it be
cool if the FH spells had limitations like (-1/4) must already know Spell
X? I've been toying with doing this for my own game. Does anyone use the
current spell colleges?
While GURPS itself has its own problems, I think HERO could benefit from a
The Ultimate Special Effect book. It would be impossible to write all at
once but it could be done.
I was looking at the Source book part of Champions and noticed some of this
work. It just needs some fleshing out. Fire, radiation, corrosives, etc
are detailed, but what does cold do? There LS: Vacuum, but what damage
does Hard Vacuum do? How about low air pressure?
>With some serious work out of several people, I think Hero could be made
>playable strictly from the C and S levels. M and R are there for people
>who like to tinker with the rules (everyone on this list :-). All most
>RGPers want is the ability to plug and play bits of creatures, spells,
>superhero effects, ects.
Well, you would need rules (R) or even Meta for balance purposes. I
thought you were looking for a Ultimate Superpower book. But you want a
Superpowers Grimore. A whole section on claws, fire, invisibility, etc.
That would be huge, cf. Hero Templates from back in February on this list.
(Anyone still working on that?)
Joe
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo saturn.nildram.co.uk from qts@nildram.co.uk server @saturn.nildram.co.uk ip 195.112.4.22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
To: "Champions Mailing List" <champ-l@sysabend.org&> "Sakura" <jeffj@io.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 98 16:49:04
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Based on Con for Entangle
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998 09:45:04 -0500 (CDT), Sakura wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998, qts wrote:
>
>> Hmm... In typing the above I accidentally mistyped 'Con' as 'Com'. I
>> wonder what the SFX of a Com based/defended Entangle would be?
>
>Hmm...the only ones that come to mind would be /harder/ to shake off with
>high COM:
>
>* Narcissus Mirror - you see your reflection and are captivated.
That's Mind Control OAF Mirror. Good for those who are vain.
>* Horde of Screaming Teenage Girls - the 'Pre-Teen' version of this attack
YES! :}
> also works well on people who have bought their COM down in such a way
> that they look like members of 'Hanson'.
Who? I don't have a TV and am in the UK.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo mars.superlink.net from why@superlink.net server root@mars.superlink.net ip 204.97.220.9
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:53:25 -0400
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 12:32 PM 5/24/98 -0400, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>Curtis Gibson writes:
>> Are you advocating using an _optional_ rule over a legal power
>> construct?
>
>I am advocating the use of a game mechanic that mirrors the desired effect
>over a by-the-book technically accurate power construct that does not.
They others are looking for a power where you can hang on to an overhang
and occasionally fall. So they took Clinging with RSR. The skill they
choose was Climbing because the Special Effect is superhuman expertise with
climbing.
Would you object if:
...they bought it as Clinging, Activation?
...how about Clinging, RSR (Eastern wall friction meditation)?
Are you saying that limitations on Clinging cannot be used to simulate
supernatural climbing skill wherein the person can still make a mistake and
fall off of the surface? If so, does that mean that Clinging has some
hidden special effect that the HSR does not tell us about?
Climbing is not very well defined in the rulebook. In fact, failure of a
roll does not necessarily mean the character falls unless the roll was
"spectacularly bad" (BBB 22). I don't understand what your problem with
this construct is. It costs more than straight Climbing because it
requires the Climbing skill as well as the Clinging power.
Joe
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo mars.superlink.net from why@superlink.net server root@mars.superlink.net ip 204.97.220.9
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:32:10 -0400
To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk&> "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: How Complicated Is Champions?
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
At 06:14 PM 5/24/98, qts wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:38:10 -0400, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
>>Bullseye! I was recently introduced to GURPS and I love the Magic system
>>in it. Why? Because it contains references to itself. Wouldn't it be
>>cool if the FH spells had limitations like (-1/4) must already know Spell
>>X? I've been toying with doing this for my own game. Does anyone use the
>>current spell colleges?
>
>More or less. Instead of 'Must have X points in College', I use an
>Expertise system 'Must have X points in KS: Particular College'. I also
>use VPPs as players like to be able to change spells, and it better
>models wizards of literature.
You see but that's a no. I want to use VPPs but it looks far more
expensive than the normal system. While most spells have low real costs,
the active costs are pretty high sometimes. Do you vary X by spell?
>If you're interested, I'll email it to you.
I'd be interested in what limitations you put on the VPP control cost.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo relia.net from mhoram@relia.net server @clients.relia.net ip 207.173.156.9
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:58:52 -0600
From: Curtis Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> Curtis Gibson writes:
>
> > Are you advocating using an _optional_ rule over a legal power
> > construct?
>
> I am advocating the use of a game mechanic that mirrors the desired effect
> over a by-the-book technically accurate power construct that does not.
>
When what I wrote was...
>>You sidestepped the main point of my post, so I will re-iterate it as a
>>yes or no question for you to answer (Yes or no)....
>>Are you advocating using an _optional_ rule over a legal power
>>construct?
>>Please anwer yes or no, Rat.
Rat apparently could not answer a question yes or no. But I think his
answer is close to a yes: Optional rules can be better than by the book
rules.
And as Rat could not answer the question put to him in the manner
presented, I'm outta this argument.
--
Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages,
it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and
goes through their pockets. -- Eddy Peters
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo saturn.nildram.co.uk from qts@nildram.co.uk server @saturn.nildram.co.uk ip 195.112.4.22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org&>
"Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 98 18:10:52
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Opinion Poll: Line of Sight
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:08:23 -0700, Robert A. West wrote:
>qts wrote:
>>
>>
>> More generally, IMC it has to be a Targetting Sense. TV does not
>> qualify, though it might give a bonus to your Mind Scan if it were live
>> TV.
>
>Seeing a person on TV, transmitting live from a known location, is going
>to allow the mentalist to strongly limit the area for the Mind Scan.
>That is enough of a bonus, IMHO.
Agreed, but I'm making the distinction between Clairsentience, which is
Targetting, and TV, which isn't, because the PC isn't controlling it.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo saturn.nildram.co.uk from qts@nildram.co.uk server @saturn.nildram.co.uk ip 195.112.4.22
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org&>
"Joe Mucchiello" <why@superlink.net>
Date: Sun, 24 May 98 18:14:10
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: How Complicated Is Champions?
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:38:10 -0400, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
>At 10:53 AM 5/24/98 -0500, Melinda and Steven Mitchell wrote:
>>This is the way I think Hero should be structured:
>> Meta Hero (M) - why; design philosphy, guidelines
>> Rules (R) - how; powers, skills, etc.
>> Components (C) - what; typical effects: claws, weapons, fireballs, etc.
>> Source (S) - full-fledged examples; characters, creatures, vehicles, etc.,
>> but don't repeat all the mechanics, just list the components.
>>
>>Right now, Hero just has R and S, with a little of M thrown in scattered
>>through the rules. C does not exist in any structured form. I.e, there
>>isn't a list of different ways and kinds of claws already built that I can
>>just plug on a monster. Instead, I've got to look at various S examples to
>>see how other characters have done it (which are not consistent), pick the
>>way I want, then copy it. In short, reuse is much harder than it has to
>>be.
>
>Bullseye! I was recently introduced to GURPS and I love the Magic system
>in it. Why? Because it contains references to itself. Wouldn't it be
>cool if the FH spells had limitations like (-1/4) must already know Spell
>X? I've been toying with doing this for my own game. Does anyone use the
>current spell colleges?
More or less. Instead of 'Must have X points in College', I use an
Expertise system 'Must have X points in KS: Particular College'. I also
use VPPs as players like to be able to change spells, and it better
models wizards of literature.
If you're interested, I'll email it to you.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo news.mobis.com from easleyap@mobis.com server @news.mobis.com ip 207.201.202.4
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
To: "Champs List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:23:39 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Rat writes:
>Thank you for quoting me out of context.
You're welcome. I am sorry that you didn't choose to explain your
contradiction and instead decided to imply that I took your quote out of
context to make it appear to be a contradiction.
You originally argued that Clinging RSR: Climbing with a couple of other
limitations duplicated Climbing alone and therefore was an invalid
construct. Now you argue that Clinging RSR: Climbing with a couple of
other limitations makes someone much more than simply the greatest climber
in the world.
If you can't or won't explain this apparent contradiction them I am going to
have to believe that you simply can't admit when you are wrong.
Alan
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out5.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out5.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.245
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:30:32 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: Hero Mail List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: How Complicated Is Champions?
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Melinda and Steven Mitchell wrote:
> This is the way I think Hero should be structured:
> Meta Hero (M) - why; design philosphy, guidelines
> Rules (R) - how; powers, skills, etc.
> Components (C) - what; typical effects: claws, weapons, fireballs,
> etc.
> Source (S) - full-fledged examples; characters, creatures, vehicles,
> etc., but don't repeat all the mechanics, just list the
> components.
The distinction between "R" and "C" is what I meant when I suggested a few
messgaes back that they have "Advanced" and "Beginning" Character Creation
rules. I definitely think it's a good idea.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo smtp3.erols.com from robtwest@erols.com server @smtp3.erols.com ip 207.172.3.236
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:31:51 -0700
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
To: Champions Listserver <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Poll: Champions Dialogues #1
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
There are a few disputes current in the group in which I both play and
GM. I would appreciate the opinion of the list on each. I will be
happy to receive private replies and summarize.
Just to frustrate everyone, I will try to hide whether I am GM, player or
bystander, and will try to present the arguments put forth by each side
objectively. I have eliminated invective and arguments that the maker
later retracted as silly. I have also combined repetitive arguments,
eliminated uninformative repetition of the same point, and so on. I have
also eliminated a final resolution, if any.
Dispute #1: The facts.
A GM has decided that ED/rED "Only vs Fire or Heat-based attacks" is a
valid -1/2 Limitation in his campaign, based on frequency. Ignis, a
fire-based character with EC: Command of Fire, wants to buy a large
amount of ED/rED with that Limitation and place it in the EC. The GM has
ruled that defenses limited to the element of an EC belong in the EC.
Ignis also has the Distinctive Feature that he is always aflame in Hero
ID, and has an Always-On Damage Shield.
The Dispute:
Player: I think that Ignis is entitled to a much larger Limitation, since
Fire is less likely to be used against him, seeing that he obviously
flames.
GM: That is absurd. The fact that you are obviously immune to fire does
not make your defense less valuable; it makes it more valuable.
Player: That is ridiculous. The book states that I should get an
additional limitation. Look at the case of the Werewolf and Silver:
silver isn't all that common, but *everyone* knows that silver harms
werewolves.
GM: You are misapplying the rule. If a villain could tune his laser or
alter his flame blasts to avoid your defense, I would agree, but he
can't. A flame-based villain or an agent with a flamethrower may shoot
at you just because he has no other reasonable action. Then, you will be
very glad that you don't have the extra defense.
Player: That is going to be rare -- there will generally be some other
party member to shoot at, and the guy with the water cannon is going to
be shooting at me and my vulnerability.
GM: You already got extra points for that vulnerability because it is so
glaringly obvious. You have an extra, un-paid-for benefit of your other
fire-based powers that you *look* invulnerable to fire. And, because of
those two things, you now want an extra Limitation? That is abusive.
Player: Look. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. My normal
defenses are well within campaign limits for a Projector. What I want,
and should have, is immunity to any fire that I am likely to come up
against in the campaign. I don't want to be able to stand on the Sun,
but I want to be able to walk through a blast-furnace or a volcano.
GM: Much of that is covered by Life Support.
Player: But, the book suggests pointing up intense fires as attacks that
are not stopped by Life Support.
GM: True. I am willing to waive campaign limits to allow you to buy as
much limited ED as you want, but you still have to pay for it.
Player: But, it is less useful to me. In practice, I could get most of
the effect without buying the extra defense and spend the points on
something that you would find far more obnoxious.
GM: Actually, it would be within reasonable GM discretion to mandate a
high defense to flame for a character with a fire EC.
Player: Only if the extra limitation that I am talking about were
granted.
GM: That is part of the price break for the EC. I can see taking Visible
Power Effects on your Armor in the EC for +1/4, but that is all.
Player: What about Visible Power Effects on my Armor at least?
GM: The Armor is already Only in Hero ID. You also have a visible Damage
Shield, Always on, that is Only in Hero ID. Putting Visible Power
Effects on anything else in the EC strikes me as a Limitation that does
not limit the character.
======================================================================
--
<------------------------------------------------------->
Robert A. West /// "Censorship is tyranny."
Phone W:(215)466-3628; H:(215)348-9113
http://www.erols.com/robtwest
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out2.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out2.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.229
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:39:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: Hero Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Stat vs Stat
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
> At 02:28 PM 5/23/98 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> > What if for Stat vs Stat checks, instead of rolling damage dice or Stat
> >Rolls and comparing the results, these were just boiled down to the
> >equivalent of an Attack Roll? A STR vs STR Roll, to use the most
> >frequently-used instance as an example, would become (Attacker's STR/3) +
> >11 - (Defender's STR/3) or less.
Unless you have some really rigorous way of deciding who the "attacker" or
"defender" is in any situation, it would be a good idea to change that 11
to a 10. That way symmetry is maintained, and a contest between two people
of equal capabilities becomes 50-50.
> This makes the seemingly impossible, actually impossible. A STR vs STR
> roll with 50 vs 25 becomes an 11 + 17 - 8 or 20-. But in reality, if 3 of
> the 10 dice are 1s with no 6s and 3 of the 5 dice are 6s with no 1s, the 25
> STR breaks out. Not good odds, but not impossible either.
Err... by "in reality", I assume you mean "under the current system", yes?
At any rate, I don't have a huge problem with a system which makes it
impossible to win a test of strength against somebody ~30 times as strong
as you (+24 STR).
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out1.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out1.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.252
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:41:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Superman (1938)
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On 23 May 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> > And EC's existence has been criticized enough, I think. Just to summarize:
> > _every_ character should have a good concept, so what's the point of a
> > construct which is supposedly there to give point-breaks for good concepts?
>
> Elemental Controls give a break for a tight special effect or a single
> special effect, not good concepts.
Yes, but I think the implicit assumption is that the two are connected.
Why would one want to reward having a single SFX, unless it was felt that
this indicates a good concept?
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out4.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out4.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.239
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:44:21 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On 23 May 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> >> I am twitchy about this, considering that Acrobatics already can affect
> >> CV.
>
> > Not in Fourth Edition, it can't. The best it can do is provide a
> > justification for a Surprise Maneuver bonus.
>
> Which part of "Acrobatics already can affect CV" does this contradict?
The letter "V".
Acrobatics can't _directly_ affect CV. Use of the skill can set up a
circumstance where one (or more) of the standard combat modifiers comes
into play, but then, lots of Skills can do that.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out2.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out2.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.229
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:45:14 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: HSR <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Powers lists
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Chad Riley wrote:
> > > I kinda like DCH, V&V/LL, and MSH for some of their more absolute
> > > nature...Mostly I've found that Hero could use some sort of 'creation'
> > > power. Like the Energy solidification/Solid Illusions powers that are
> > > rather common....
> >
> > Transform does this. Alternately, if you're just creating simple geometric
> > shapes, use Force Wall or Entangle.
>
> Actually, I also had thought that Summon would be good for the Energy Golems
> or Giant Green Power Ring Spawned Manga Robots......
Definitely. I was thinking of creating inanimate objects, though.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo smtp3.erols.com from robtwest@erols.com server @smtp3.erols.com ip 207.172.3.236
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:08:23 -0700
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
To: Hero Mail List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Opinion Poll: Line of Sight
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
qts wrote:
>
>
> More generally, IMC it has to be a Targetting Sense. TV does not
> qualify, though it might give a bonus to your Mind Scan if it were live
> TV.
Seeing a person on TV, transmitting live from a known location, is going
to allow the mentalist to strongly limit the area for the Mind Scan.
That is enough of a bonus, IMHO.
I have allowed a PC mentalist to attack via a magical Clairsentience
bought UBO. I have had an NPC villain use it via his own Clairsentience.
It would strike me as odd to allow it for N-Ray vision (per HSR, p. 55)
and not to allow it for Clairsentience in the same location.
I would allow it for a high-resolution TV set up in a base that has been
specifically registered on known points and where the mentalist has
practiced extensively with the system: possibly paying a WF for the
skill.
--
<------------------------------------------------------->
Robert A. West /// "Censorship is tyranny."
Phone W:(215)466-3628; H:(215)348-9113
http://www.erols.com/robtwest
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vespucci.advicom.net from mdmitche@advicom.net server root@199.170.120.42 ip 199.170.120.42
X-Envelope-Recipient: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: VPP and Magic (Was Re: How Complicated Is Champions?)
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 14:31:28 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
>>More or less. Instead of 'Must have X points in College', I use an
>>Expertise system 'Must have X points in KS: Particular College'. I also
>>use VPPs as players like to be able to change spells, and it better
>>models wizards of literature.
>You see but that's a no. I want to use VPPs but it looks far more
>expensive than the normal system. While most spells have low real costs,
>the active costs are pretty high sometimes. Do you vary X by spell?
>>If you're interested, I'll email it to you.
>I'd be interested in what limitations you put on the VPP control cost.
We use VPP, with all magic broken down into the 27 spheres of AD&D priests.
(Some of it overlaps FH spell colleges quite a bit.) PC mages and priests
must buy a "magic skill" for each sphere (although it is cheaper at low
levels, because of my house rules).
The active cost bothered me too, until I came up with this. The VPP can
take no limits. The control cost was always bought at a -1 limit (-1/2 for
spell book or religious restrictions, the other -1/2 for when and how
spells could be switched). So the final control cost was always 1/4 the
VPP. Then I just jumped clear of the rules completely and decided that the
control cost was the "active limit" instead. For a price break (and ease
of calculation), I used a 1/5 ration instead of 1/4. It works like this:
VPP just like before, but no control cost required, active cost not based
on
size of pool.
Every point in Active Limit gives 5 points of active cost in the pool.
This way, with the active cost independent of the actual VPP, you can
construct a "normal" character if you want, say, 30 point VPP (30 points)
and 30 Active Limit (6 points). Or, for only 3 more points, the character
can cast 45 active point spells, without waiting for another 15 points in
the pool.
Steven Mitchell
mdmitche@advicom.net
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo smtp3.erols.com from robtwest@erols.com server @smtp3.erols.com ip 207.172.3.236
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:48:47 -0700
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
To: Champions Listserver <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: Champions Dialogues #1
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
Sakura wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 May 1998, Robert A. West wrote:
>
> > at you just because he has no other reasonable action. Then, you will be
> > very glad that you don't have the extra defense.
>
> I think you misworded this?
You are right. I got caught halfway between, "Didn't sell back the extra
defense" and "have the extra defense." Thanks for the catch.
>
> > GM: That is part of the price break for the EC. I can see taking Visible
> > Power Effects on your Armor in the EC for +1/4, but that is all.
> >
> > Player: What about Visible Power Effects on my Armor at least?
>
> Um...this is also confused...the GM suggests taking visible effects and
> then says 'don't take them, they're already visible?'
Clumsy attempt on my part to compress a long part of the discussion. The
GM toyed with Visible, then expressed doubts because of the fact that
there are other, already visible, powers that are already giving the same
effect.
>
> Well, here's an example of a character who has Damage Shield, always on -
> but doesn't have 'Visible Power Effects' on his rED, Only vs. Fire.
>
> The character would look normal, but be surrounded at a small distance by
> an aura of flames. Thus, the character does not look like he himself is
> on fire, but like there is fire around him. Sure, it's /likely/ that he's
> immune to flames, but if he were 'on fire' I'd think that would be even
> more likely.
>
> Basically, it sounds like the GM is limiting the player (saying that
> anyone can tell he is immune to flames) without giving him the points for
> it.
>
> Um...on the other hand, it just occurred to me that Armor is a Standard
> Power...and it's therefore visible unless purchased otherwise.
Hmmm...everyone was operating on the assumption that powers that do not
affect another character and that do not normally use END are not
visible. Otherwise, Armor would have to be visible to three sense
groups. Perhaps we are in error, or remembering something from 3rd
Edition.
--
<------------------------------------------------------->
Robert A. West /// "Censorship is tyranny."
Phone W:(215)466-3628; H:(215)348-9113
http://www.erols.com/robtwest
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo prescienttech.com from ratinox@peorth.gweep.net server @londo.prescienttech.com ip 199.103.216.62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 May 1998 15:56:03 -0400
Lines: 26
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Joe Mucchiello writes:
> They others are looking for a power where you can hang on to an overhang
> and occasionally fall.
We already have a Climbing skill, which does exactly that. That is *NOT*
superhuman. While only a few world-class climbers can handle it, they *DO*
it, with nothing more than their bare fingertips.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNWh7UZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGT1gP/YKBq8V7kImIgphZTl3MFpq2XD3Np3Nyg
QBQ2RHpM2IzACH1TXn9B76A1gNdecXleRLEsQv/CtBPQaCpVqe5QbMMljj8WLuFA
bw/JHvLNxq6SDH2RXXLMHrVoliHriQRtU1gzo82WisWMLGeSTu8j71gZWXfXJJUD
gWfOtMlaIfk=
=yFg0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo prescienttech.com from ratinox@peorth.gweep.net server @londo.prescienttech.com ip 199.103.216.62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 May 1998 15:57:41 -0400
Lines: 30
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Curtis Gibson writes:
>> I am advocating the use of a game mechanic that mirrors the desired
>> effect over a by-the-book technically accurate power construct that does
>> not.
[...]
> Rat apparently could not answer a question yes or no.
The question is not one that can be simply answered "yes" or "no". Special
effects always come first.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNWh7tJ6VRH7BJMxHAQE82AP/aLWJaCq4x3wvNQ85JHYKty5mLOaH0T7p
QnavBS2sophG6kBUle04vnMo8fq+jIjmHOm9snh/qoA4tW2w8mOW+wAJxpeSmG5g
JtRADXavOcYjeso46WEt+d9N1KYofYOROK1T9BPzQOhlPKXHnC1QnZ+QDO6FxbQ3
WpYF3+onTG0=
=rycs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo prescienttech.com from ratinox@peorth.gweep.net server @londo.prescienttech.com ip 199.103.216.62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Clinging/Climbing
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 May 1998 16:00:59 -0400
Lines: 44
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Remnant writes:
> You're welcome. I am sorry that you didn't choose to explain your
> contradiction and instead decided to imply that I took your quote out of
> context to make it appear to be a contradiction.
You quoted me out of context, thus your perception of a contradiction.
> You originally argued that Clinging RSR: Climbing with a couple of other
> limitations duplicated Climbing alone and therefore was an invalid
> construct.
The claim that it is an invalid construct because the whole point of it is
to duplicate Climbing.
> Now you argue that Clinging RSR: Climbing with a couple of other
> limitations makes someone much more than simply the greatest climber in
> the world.
Yep. Climbing does not allow one to stick to a wall; Clinging does.
Rather, with Climbing, your natural Strength is used to hang on; with
Clinging, the Clinging Strength is used. Unless you remove that, too, in
which case you no longer have the primary use of Clinging (first sentence
rule).
No contradiction.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNWh8eZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEErwP+OOmaETGNNT7qR/9N6X2pcrlzpc/mB9r9
2NuKwFEtLllBxZ36OMcvnI40hhCF5ogN/AniUXQCRliZw8p/SjCBtZlLd1qkpwBt
g23Je/EQ/PQthY2BjjS11QZVkL6OytlnowqmABaHvJHThasZTscgojs4NZ+j2fOg
Wzymz9v5eL0=
=wbzk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo vespucci.advicom.net from mdmitche@advicom.net server root@199.170.120.42 ip 199.170.120.42
X-Envelope-Recipient: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
To: "Hero Mail List" <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: How Complicated Is Champions? (long)
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:30:12 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
<Well, you would need rules (R) or even Meta for balance purposes. I
<thought you were looking for a Ultimate Superpower book. But you want a
<Superpowers Grimore. A whole section on claws, fire, invisibility, etc.
<That would be huge, cf. Hero Templates from back in February on this list.
<(Anyone still working on that?)
< Joe
Not exacly what I want. And I'm not advocating removing the rules and meta
rules entirely. (In fact, what I want are MORE meta rules. Or another
way, I want meta rules for all rules explicity stated, not just implied.
Let me give an example.
Right now, killing attacks and energy blast are fairly well explained as
far as Rules (R) go. Also, weapons are one of the few things presented as
components, since no one bothers to list all the standard advantages and
limitations--they just say "short sword, +1 OCV, 1d6+1", etc. But give
only the HSR to a new person and ask them to extend the weapon list--forget
it! Spend a few years playing and tinkering, pick up Ninja Hero (which
explain a lot more "why" on the weapons), do a little reverse engineering
on the existing lists (including working through the errors, where weapons
were not bought the way HSR says they are)--do all that, and you can do
your own weapons and make them fit.
So yes, it's a tall order. Not only do I want weapons fixed, I want the
same thing for claws, and fire spells, and so on. The way I see this
happening is by very careful notation and division of the work into
appropriate books. For example, put M and R in a book by themselves, with
pratically no examples. You can buy it or not. If you do not, then you
are stuck guessing or just playing with what other books give you.
Make a variety of component books. Make some of them genre books. A FH
book might give the existing weapons list, the same thing for claws, wings,
scales, fantasy armor--just one giant book of components, with a handful of
pages at the beginning listing some popular FH optional rules and the
corresponding meta rules to support the option. On the other hand, make
some component books grouped by subject--i.e. Bestiary Parts with just
components on making monsters. Note that their is some overlap. And some
decision would have to be made on not duplicating things too much, based on
when books are coming out. I think a 32 or 64 page book devoted to nothing
but weapons would be great. Present several different ways of doing
weapons, and a fairly complete list for each.
But do not do this. Don't put a ton of very specific source examples in
the rule book and the campaign book, because they start out annoying if I
want to change things, and rapidly become completely useless if I do change
things. Rather restrict such things to their own books. Make them small
if necessary, even 32 pages.
I suppose what I really want is a different structure to handle
communication problems. Templates can help, but they are only half. It is
the template/component combination that is powerful. Let me pick on the
Bestiary for a second. (I actually like it, but I need to illustrate a
point.) Claws in that book are bought a certain way. It may be standard,
it may be official, it may even be the best--but it isn't my way. Ditto
for growth, flying, scales, etc. Now, the book cannot be my way, because
then Hero Games would really have people mad. But it could have a section
at the beginning that basically said: When we list claws, followed by a
damage class, this is how we bought it. Same for every other component.
Then the actual listing would be two things:
Much shorter, because no points, or other game mechanics, beyond that
necessary to use the monster
Much easier to change for an individual and still remain accurate and
useful.
Listing would be something like this: Dragon, giant lizard template, some
adjustment to specific stats, claws-DC 8, wings-10", breath-DC 6, cone.
Follow this with other types of dragon listing. Then provide the ecology,
habits, tactics type text. If I change the way I do claws, then that whole
page is still accurate and useful.
Now that I write this, and think about someone's earlier response, I'd say
you would have to divide R into play rules (PR) and design rules (DR). The
former is short and easy, the second is long and complicated. Both have
associated meta rules. Do this, and a guy with PR, the bestiary, and
whatever book has claw components (maybe also the bestiary) can make lots
of changes to monsters with NO design rules or experience. If my dragon
example is a wimp (and it is), he has a whole list of claws to switch.
"Boom! I as GM decide all dragons have +4 DC on their claws and they use
the reduced penetration, two attacks per action claws." That was easy to
tell the players and very clear.
There's a lot more in this vein, but I'll stop now.
Steven Mitchell
mdmitche@advicom.net
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo hilltop.ic.edu from trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu server @hilltop.ic.edu ip 192.217.244.1
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 16:16:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: Champs List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Re:Players who dont pay attention
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
> >Got all this beat. I'm playing in a AD & D game where three of the players
> >get up the middle of the game, go in the bathroom, and smoke pot. Often
> >its just me and the GM sitting in the gaming room hanging out.
>
> Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of the legality issues involved,
> going to another room and engaging in another unecessary activity should be
> unacceptable.
I'll agree with that wholeheartedly. Although I'm one to agree on
periodic smoke breaks when playing in a non-smoking environment. I've
always found use in these smokebreaks to do a little strategy talk, etc.
-Tim Gilberg
-"Hey! MacLeod! Get off of my ewe!"
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo hilltop.ic.edu from trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu server @hilltop.ic.edu ip 192.217.244.1
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 16:38:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Good/bad cops
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
> things to their fellow man. I've made sacrifices that most people cannot
> appreciate. To have my profession generalized, slandered, stereotyped and bad
> mouthed by a group of people because of some isolated incidents they may have
> experienced (or heard about) is offensive to me. It discredits the hard work
> that I and most of my brothers and sisters in law enforcement have done as
> good cops.
Oh get off your high horse! Because you work in the field, I
can't mention that I've had a mjority of bad experiences with cops, that's
BS, plain and simple.
> I find the thread insulting and offensive. You are entitled to your opinion.
> I was of the impression that this list was for the sharing of ideas about the
> Hero System, not about bashing cops and the LE profession
It is about discussion, but some people couldn't handle a quick
quip. Especially you, who seem to feel that we should bend over backwards
to keep from saying anything you don't like.
> If the latter is to
> be permitted, and if people are desirous of continuing such a discussion
> despite the fact that a fellow list member finds it offensive, then so be it.
> Have your discussion. I will leave the list.
Good bye. You've made this threat any time you've been disagreed
with. This is an open and frank discussion board, but I've seen people
tip-toeing around to keep from "scareing off" the corporate types.
> I work too hard at my job and have seen too many courageous comrades buried
> serving the public to want to stay on such a list.
Quit thinking that everyone has to cater to you, that's what's
pissed me off. I'm trying to take the debate on police off list, and if
you want to discuss it in that way, fine. I'd love to hear some insights
you have as to the better cops out there -- I personally haven't met many.
I'll take this off list, that's fair, but don't assume that your
personal life is a reason for all of us to make this list all about you
and your opinions.
-Tim Gilberg
-"Hey! MacLeod! Get off of my ewe!"
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo hilltop.ic.edu from trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu server @hilltop.ic.edu ip 192.217.244.1
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 16:47:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: Champions Listserv <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Good/bad cops
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
> > I work too hard at my job and have seen too many courageous comrades buried
> >serving the public to want to stay on such a list.
>
> Don't bother leaving, Mark. The discussion's dead already.
> Besides, Tim's just being a typical English-major college student. He
> knows only his firsthand experience and doesn't think things through to
> look at the broad picture. (You know, kinda like Mike Stivic on "All In
> the Family" -- a lot of ideas and thoughts, but no connection with the real
> world. Good brain, but doesn't bother to use it that much.)
Oh, thanks. Actually, I do have some experiences besides my own,
enough at least to show that cops aren't all that nice to the under 25 (or
maybe 30) crowd. I also have stories of years of persecution from law
enforcement and military against my grandfather and his ancestors, being
native american -- and this still goes on, though more at the federal
level than the local. I'm not going to lay down and agree that all cops
are great, it's just not true. May major point earlier, of course, is
that I think this to be a matter of a general human failing -- people are
drawn to positions where they can get a little bit of power, and are
somewhat corrupted by that power. (Ala George Orwell). I compared it to
teachers, and had a teacher privately jump down my throat. This is
ironic, because I start TAing, teaching two Freshman Comp courses in the
fall, and my biggest worry is making sure that I don't abuse my power in
any way -- I want to be fair, but know that I will have to be careful.
-Tim Gilberg
-"Hey! MacLeod! Get off of my ewe!"
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out5.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out5.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.245
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 18:52:32 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: Hero Mail List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: Put off by what
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Melinda and Steven Mitchell wrote:
> >"Cool! Look at all the options!" was my first reaction. Certainly it
> >never occurred to me that it was complicated. I had played _D&D_, for
> >Christs' sake (which is not as overcomplicated as AD&D, but still more
> >complicated than Champions).
>
> Yikes! Either you are an exception or had tons of experience with other
> games. I initially learned both pretty much on my own, which led to all
> kinds of mistakes, but D&D was much easier AND I had the benefit of
> learning it before learning Hero.
IMO, D&D's reputation for simplicity is largely due to the fact that
so many people learn it first; people think of it as the default, and
anything which differs from it gets labelled confusing. But judged on
its own merits, it's not a simple system at all; there are seperate
rules for everything, with no overall consistency.
(Champions suffers from this too, but not to the same extent IMO.)
> Just curious, did you have this reaction as a player or a GM or both?
Both.
> Also, what prior game experience did you have?
A lot of D&D, some V&V, a bit of Dragonquest.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out2.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out2.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.229
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 18:57:03 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Based on Con for Entangle
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Ross Rannells wrote:
> I don't know if this has been discussed before (if it has I'd appreciate
> directions to a FAQ about it) but I've run into a diagreement with some
> players over a special advantage I allow in my campaign. The
> advantage being "Based on Con", it's a one half advantage and requires
> a lot of scrutiney to be allowed. My justification for this is that you
> could but the power apply a Based on Ego advantage and then a Based on
> Con disadvantage and get the same effect at a cheaper cost.
Based on CON is a Limitation that can only be applied to Mental Powers,
not Powers bought Based on ECV.
> One area where this advantage is becoming common is as an Entagle
> advantage to simulate paralyzying weapons (taser, wide dispersion
> phasers. etc.).
The standard way to do this is Mind Control, based on CON, one command
only (paralysis).
> Low Con characters are really starting to complain because the 3D6
> Entangle, based on Con (standard Taser in the campaign) is taking them
> out right and left.They want the attack dropped or a defence for it. My
> responce so far has been buy up your Con. A regular entangle's only
> defense is a high Str
No... high STR or any high AP normal or killing attack.
> and an Entangle based on Ego's only defence is a high Ego,
What? The Based on ECV Advantage only changes how a Power is targetted,
not the effects of the target. To escape from a BoECV Entangle requires
high STR or a high AP attack.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out4.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out4.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.239
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 18:59:05 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org
Subject: Re: Opinion Poll: Line of Sight
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sat, 23 May 1998, John Lansford wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 11:33:12 -0400, you wrote:
You should probably find a better attribution system for responses
to a mailing list.
> >Mental powers (and a few others) operate along a "line-of-sight" basis.
> >That is, you must be able to see your target. But can line-of-sight
> >include things like video surveillance?
Definitely yes IMO.
> No. Otherwise, a mentalist assassin could kill anyone seen on a
> television.
That may be why the rules forbid Based on ECV Powers from doing BODY
damage.
> > How about through a mirror?
>
> This is no different from looking through a window. Yes, this works;
> it's not important that the victim be able to see the mentalist, only
> that the mentalist see him (directly).
How is seeing an image in a mirror "direct", but seeing an image on a
TV screen not so?
> > Do the mental powers work that way, or would you have to buy Indirect?
>
> I wouldn't allow any mentalist power to work like this, for the
> reasons I gave above. It would be way too easy for abuse and would
> virtually destroy any campaign it was tried in.
I've never seen any problem with it. Could you elaborate?
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to owner-champ-l@sysabend.org using -f
X-SMTP: helo out5.ibm.net from tbarrie@ibm.net server @out5.ibm.net ip 165.87.194.245
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:08:39 -0300 (ADT)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
To: Champions Mailing List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Subject: Re: How Complicated Is Champions?
Sender: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org
On Sun, 24 May 1998, GAZZA wrote:
> > "Cool! Look at all the options!" was my first reaction. Certainly it
> > never occurred to me that it was complicated. I had played _D&D_, for
> > Christs' sake (which is not as overcomplicated as AD&D, but still more
> > complicated than Champions).
>
> Do you really think so? When I decided to start up a new
> fantasy campaign about 18 months ago, I used D&D because it
> was (IMHO) the simplest to learn (and I had a couple of new
> players to break in).
IMO, Ars Magica is the best system available for the fantasy genre.
> Granted AD&D is complex, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it was
> more complicated than Hero.
>
> Of course, that's not to say either of them is OVERLY complex.
> You want lots of options? Then you need a certain amount of
> complexity.
Yes, which is why I would never claim that Hero's character creation
system is overly complex. (I wouldn't mind seeing characeristics
streamlined, but that's a minor point.) But Hero's actual play mechanics,
and to a much greater extent AD&D's, suffer from complexities which don't
actually add much of anything to the game. (Generally in the form of
having totally different rulesets to handle various activities, rather
than a single flexible task resolution system.)
> To return to the topic, though - the only really complex part
> of Hero is character creation.
Which isn't a major concern, since you only need to create a character
once per campaign.
Return-Path: <owner-champ-l@sysabend.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: beelzebubba.sysabend.org: majordom set sender to