Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 83

From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 3:15 AM 
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #83 
 
 
champ-l-digest       Wednesday, December 9 1998       Volume 01 : Number 083 
 
 
 
In this issue: 
 
    Re: Living Shadows... 
    Re: Durability of Various Things 
    RE: High Fantasy Hero Races! 
    Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
    Champions Acrobat Files 
    Re: combat drones 
    Champs Rule of X 
    Re: combat drones 
    Re: Champs Rule of X 
    Re: Durability of Various Things 
    Re: combat drones 
    RE: Jay Ward movies 
    Re: combat drones 
    Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
    Re: Champs Rule of X 
    Re: Durability of Various Things 
    Re: Champs Rule of X 
    Re: Off Topic but tangential 
    Re: combat drones 
    Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
    Is Earth an object or barrier (not so mild rant) 
    Re: Durability of Various Things 
    Re: Jay Ward movies 
    Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:19:45 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Living Shadows... 
 
>On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 07:13:31 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote: 
> 
>> (Speaking of which, does anyone else think Duplication 
>>should get a point break if both characters are exactly the same?  I mean, 
>>which is more useful, two identical characters or two equally-powered 
>>characters with different abilities?) 
> 
>No. Surely Duplication mandates that the characters are the same - 
>you're producing a *duplicate*, not a Multiform, after all? Though I 
>might allow 'cosmetic' differences, like one male, one female. 
 
Nope.  As written, Duplication is effectively a Multiform where the form 
splits off rather than you change into it.  I can see reasons why they did 
it that way, too...the person who can turn into two superpowered beings but 
with different powers, for example.  But I've always thought he did have a 
point; generally, being able to turn into four identical guys is less of an 
advantage than turning into four different guys. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:30:10 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Durability of Various Things 
 
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
>Hash: SHA1 
> 
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
> 
>WS> I'd have to go back and look at what velocity Rat said it was going, 
>WS> but I suspect not; 
> 
>The bike: STR 15, Speed 3, DEF 3, Body 11. 
>The Jeep Cherokee: STR 30, DEF 5, Body 15, Mass: ~1.6 ton (-4kb).  It's a 
>Jeep, just bigger and tougher. 
> 
>The bike's velocity: ~25mph, call it 40kph, 11.1 meters/second, or about 
>17"/Phase.  For a Move Through, the bike is doing 9D6.  Figure average 
>damage. 
> 
>Cherokee takes 9 - 5 = 4 Body damage, about 1/4 of its total. 
>Bike takes 9 - 3 = 6 Body damage, more than 1/2 of its total. 
> 
>Knockback: 9 - 4 = 5", and figure maybe 2/3 of its Strength being used to 
>resist knockback due to the anti-lock brakes being engaged, maybe 1" kb. 
> 
>All in all, a usable approximation of what really happened. 
 
To a point, since the larger vehicle didn't get knockback.    On the other 
hand, at a higher velocity, there'd have been preportionately less 
difference in the damage, which is generally not the case IRL.  Problem is, 
the damage figures for the two should probably be based on the motorcycle 
for damage tot he car, and the car for damage to the motorcycle. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:56:59 -0800 (PST) 
From: Michael Hayden <mhayden@tsoft.com> 
Subject: RE: High Fantasy Hero Races! 
 
On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Brian Wawrow wrote: 
 
[Bri's races (deletia)] 
 
Except for the Andrizi, all of your races seem to be derived exclusively 
from their ecological regions (forest, maritime, plains, etc). Very nice 
if you're going strictly by evolutionary processes, but if they're all 
supposed to be intelligent or semi-intelligent, the forces of civilization 
would have blurred the boundaries between them a long time ago. Trade 
routes, tribal movements, interbreeding, slavery, war, and so on. 
 
In other words, all intelligent races would inevitably want to get out and 
see the world. As such, they would all end up settling somewhere else 
regardless of their ecological origins. Furthermore, this would all happen 
generations before the world as a whole evolved to the typical "high 
fantasy" level of civilization, so in the long run ecology would be 
irrelevant. Individual races may still keep to themselves, but it would be 
for political and historical reasons more than anything else. 
 
Look at Tolkien. The men, elves, hobbits, orcs, and dwarves all go pretty 
much wherever they please. (Yes, they do, over the course of all three 
Ages. Don't just look at the end of the Third Age.) Their home realms are 
products of their racial characteristics, rather than the other way 
around. The ents and the eagles are the only exceptions. 
 
Typically, such high fantasy racial distinctions are the product of some 
magical/mythological intervention rather than pure evolution -- and even 
then, the distinctions are not nearly so dramatic as to produce such 
phylogenetically diverse species. In pure evolution, one intelligent,  
tool-using species would rise to dominance and wipe out all competition 
(i.e., Cro-magnon versus Neanderthal). Any sub-species would be the result 
of the dominant species' intervention (which loops back to the 
magical/mythological path described above). 
 
So, to make sense, it's gotta be a single race that evolved to dominance, 
settled everywhere, and wiped out all competitors, or a bunch of only 
moderately divergent races produced from magical/mythological intervention 
with no correlation to any particular ecological niches. Anything in 
between can't help but feel like a bunch of smaller, individual settings 
slapped together in some attempt at a larger campaign world. 
 
Blah. Sorry, didn't mean to rant, but this one one characteristic of high 
fantasy that has always annoyed me. 
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ 
    Michael "Doc" Hayden -- mhayden@tsoft.com -- http://tsoft.com/~mhayden/ 
         Hey, I use Procmail (with Spam Bouncer), so spam away!  (^_^) 
 "What you are about to see is real. These are not actors; they're directors." 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 19:33:34 -0600 
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net> 
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
 
At 04:59 PM 12/8/98 -0500, Glen Sprigg wrote: 
>In my Canadian Champions campaign, with the Canadian Shield et. al., I've 
>come up with an organization called Humanity.  These guys aren't prejudiced 
>against mutants; they're prejudiced against any and all paranormals, 
>including those who use technology or even super-skills a la Batman.  They 
>are a real pack of psychos.  I figured that would be more reasonable than 
>just picking on mutants (which Marvel has really done to death; there 
>aren't even any remains left by now). 
 
Having an organization which picks on "paranormals", defined as innate 
superhumans of any origin, would be more reasonable ... but IMHO, it really 
isn't more reasonable if you go so far as to include pure tech (Iron Man, as 
opposed to scientifically created paranormals like Armadillo or even Cap) or 
"super-skills" that are simply the result of intensive training -- at that 
point it becomes very difficult to draw the line between "us" and "them".  
Technology and training are the province of "normal" humanity -- it's what 
we have to solve problems without super-powers. If anything, a paranoid 
group bigoted against "paranormals" should be /favorably/ disposed towards 
essentially unaltered humans (like Batman or Tony Stark) who prove 
themselves competitive with the "freaks" -- they prove the superior nature 
of the "normal folks". 
 
(Wow, that's a lot of scare quotes.) 
 
- -- 
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to  
do nothing." -- attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797) 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Visit the SoapVox at http://www.io.com/~angilas/soapvox.html 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:55:51 -0600 
From: "Commando" <commando@mail.com> 
Subject: Champions Acrobat Files 
 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE22DC.62BF3440 
Content-Type: text/plain; 
	charset="iso-8859-1" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
 
Does anyone know where the Champions 4th Edition acrobat files are located? 
There were four pages that were cheat sheets for powers, disadvantages, 
combat mods and etc.  I had them but were lost after a hard dive crash. 
 
Thanks in advance to anyone who can send them to me or point me to the web 
site. 
 
Commando 
 
========================================== 
"There can BE only one" 
 
JS Stefanski 
========================================== 
 
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE22DC.62BF3440 
Content-Type: text/html; 
	charset="iso-8859-1" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
 
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> 
<HTML> 
<HEAD> 
 
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = 
http-equiv=3DContent-Type> 
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3511.1300"' name=3DGENERATOR> 
</HEAD> 
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> 
<DIV><SPAN class=3D460305515-08121998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial = 
size=3D2>Does=20 
anyone know where the Champions 4th Edition acrobat files are = 
located?&nbsp;=20 
There were four pages that were cheat sheets for powers, disadvantages, = 
combat=20 
mods and etc.&nbsp; I had them but were lost after a hard dive=20 
crash.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> 
<DIV><SPAN class=3D460305515-08121998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial = 
 
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> 
<DIV><SPAN class=3D460305515-08121998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial = 
size=3D2>Thanks=20 
in advance to anyone who can send them to me or point me to the web=20 
site.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> 
<DIV><SPAN class=3D460305515-08121998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial = 
 
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> 
<DIV><SPAN class=3D460305515-08121998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial = 
 
size=3D2>Commando</FONT></SPAN></DIV> 
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> 
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial=20 
size=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></DIV>= 
 
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><EM>&quot;There can BE = 
only=20 
one&quot;</FONT></EM></DIV> 
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> 
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>JS = 
Stefanski</FONT></DIV> 
<DIV align=3Dcenter> 
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20 
size=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></DIV>= 
</DIV> 
<DIV align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</DIV> 
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML> 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE22DC.62BF3440-- 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 08 Dec 1998 20:55:17 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: combat drones 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
 
WS> Then doing otherwise with Automatons is _really_ pushing it.  Frankly, 
WS> I think you're at best being overly legalistic on this one, Rat; 
WS> there's nothing I see int he Follower rules that precludes buying an 
WS> automaton as a follower... 
 
I said that Followers have a mind of their own.  That is, they are 
controlled by the GM, not the player. 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use 
Charset: noconv 
 
iQA/AwUBNm3YhIJfryJUlUjZEQK7NwCgilMXWohDJ31RpiwduWEyZwVk9HAAoMxJ 
VtA1TH+HoO6tvBgHethK1Cht 
=wzPi 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an 
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to 
                                    \ Earth, presumably from outer space. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:42:55 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Champs Rule of X 
 
        Okay, I've been talking about this a lot, so it's only fair to 
expose it to the 'tender' mercies of the list.  I've been using this for 
about six months, and though it's had some rough spots, and needed 
refinement for a while, it's worked overall pretty well.  One of the things 
not mentioned in it is that I assume you can trade off up to have your 
Defensive X for Offensive X and vice versa; this is particularly useful for 
operating procedures that are all offense like some energy projectors and 
most mentalists. 
        Obviously, the specific numbers and the way some things were set up 
embody my biases, and would probably need to be modified for other 
campaigns.  None the less, I thought it might be useful to share. 
 
                 Rule of X Calculations 
 
Offensive X=OCV + applicable levels + DC of largest attack    
Defensive X=DCV + appliciable levels + 1/8 of total Physical, 
Energy, Mental and Power Defense and points of Lack of Weakness + 
1/15 of STUN  
  
Special Cases:  
  Levels: Levels that can obviously only be applied to OCV  or to 
DCV are applied accordingly.  Levels that obviously  splittable 
(such as Overall or All Combat Levels) are assumed to  be split 
evenly; odd levels can be placed on Offensive or  Defensive X at 
the descretion of the player.  Martial Arts or  five point Hand 
to Hand levels are to be counted split, as the  offer beneficial 
advantages regard blocks and dodges even when  not being used for 
normal DCV.  
  Martial Arts: As noted about, Martial Damage Classes and  the 
first 2D6 of Martial manuevers are added to the Offensive X.  
While modifiers to martial manuevers per se are not factored in,  
 
taking a full martial package adds +1 to both your Offensive and  
Defensive X, under the theory that the versitility and modifier  
shopping possible is worth something.           
  Ego Combat Value: On those occasions when the sum of a  
character's OECV and Ego Combat Power exceed his normal OCV and  
physical attack power, use the former instead.  If DECV is higher 
than DCV, average the two for purposes of Defensive X.  
  Damage Reduction: Stun should be multiplied by the Damage  
Reduction divisor before Defensive X Calculation is done.    
Invisibility and similar operating procedures are  
considered to increase your OCV and DCV by half again for  
purposes of the calculation if both normal hearing and normal 
sight are included.  If hearing is not included, the CV values 
should be increased by a third again.           
  Desolid is assumed to increase your DX by one per speed  point 
over 3.    
  Missile Deflection: Missile Deflection that effects any attack 
increases your DCV for Defensive X by a third again; if it can be 
used to protect adjacent targets, increase it by half again.  If 
it can be used at range, double it.  Reflection applies the same 
modifiers to your OCV for Offensive X purposed.  Bonuses to the 
Deflect Roll are considered defensive levels.   
  Aid: For simplicity, Aid is treated as an Offensive Power  and 
acts accordingly.  Long Duration Aids to other abilities  should 
be factored into the ability before DX or OX is figured.   In 
this case, "long term" is defined as having any extended fade 
rate. For Aids with increased maximums, consider the bonus to be 
half the maximum yield, or the average die roll, whichever is 
greater. 
  Absorption: Short duration Absorbs can generally be  
ignored, execpt those that feed STUN.  In those cases, multiply  
the expect yield over a round out, divide by two, and add that to 
your STUN pip total before calculation.  
  Obviously, in some cases you may need to figure out  
multiple DXes for cases where these powers are in multipowers.    
Find Weakness: Find Weakness should be treated as  
increasing the attack it applies to by half again for purposes of 
offensive X.           
  Speed: Each Speed point over Four adds +1 to both  
Defensive and offensive X.  
  Each Luck Point counts as one DX or OX, split evenly as  
possible, with the odd point going to DX.  
   
  In some cases, this calculation may produce higher X values 
than is really reflected in the character, for example very 
narrow special effect targeted powers.  In those cases at my 
discretion the power may either be reduced or disregarded. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:31:36 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: combat drones 
 
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
>Hash: SHA1 
> 
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
> 
>WS> Then doing otherwise with Automatons is _really_ pushing it.  Frankly, 
>WS> I think you're at best being overly legalistic on this one, Rat; 
>WS> there's nothing I see int he Follower rules that precludes buying an 
>WS> automaton as a follower... 
> 
>I said that Followers have a mind of their own.  That is, they are 
>controlled by the GM, not the player. 
 
In the case of automatons, I'm not sure that's a particularly meaningful 
difference.  They don't have a 'mind' at all for the most part.  Since, in 
practice, most GMs don't bother to manage Followers themselves but simply 
reserve the right to override the player when they abusing them, I suspect 
the distinction in the case of automatons between the player controlling 
them and the GM controlling them is vanishingly small. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 08 Dec 1998 22:44:12 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: Champs Rule of X 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
 
WS> Obviously, the specific numbers and the way some things were set up 
WS> embody my biases, and would probably need to be modified for other 
WS> campaigns.  None the less, I thought it might be useful to share. 
 
Since I was the one who said that no simple formulae could encompass the 
breadth of possibility in Hero, allow me to throw out a ringer. 
 
Assume two characters who are otherwise equal.  Assume both have 5 PD and 5 
ED, DEX 18. 
 
A has a 12D6 EB and a 30PD/30ED FF, Speed 3.  OX=18, DX=14.75 
 
B has a 6D6 EB and a 15PD/15ED FF, Speed 10.  OX=18, DX=15 
 
By your formulae, B is slightly better in a fight than A, even though B 
cannot do more than scratch A on an astronomically rare damage roll.  And 
even then, wow, 1 whole Stun gets through. 
 
By my 'wing it' method, I see that B's attacks will never penetrate A's 
defenses.  It would take A maybe two Turns to beat B into submission; maybe 
longer if B uses his actions to Recover lost Stun or flee, but A will still 
win, one way or the other. 
 
No formulae can ever substitute for a bit of common sense. 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use 
Charset: noconv 
 
iQA/AwUBNm3yC4JfryJUlUjZEQImuACfcICMMuXSZtORozagrSlX1zoStD8AoNSD 
WoIJIE8KlC3wwGlA39w0ruk0 
=WYUQ 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. 
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \  
                                    \  
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 08 Dec 1998 22:04:48 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: Durability of Various Things 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
 
WS> To a point, since the larger vehicle didn't get knockback. 
 
Why should it?  It was not moving, it was being hit. 
 
WS> On the other hand, at a higher velocity, there'd have been 
WS> preportionately less difference in the damage, which is generally not 
WS> the case IRL. 
 
At 50mph the motorcycle would have been totally demolished and the Cherokee 
would have been rendered largely undrivable (call it the vehicular 
equivalent to a crippling injury).  The Cherokee would have its front end 
in to the radiator damaged, and the trunk of the Neon in front of us would 
be staved in. 
 
In game mechanics, the Move Through would be 15D6 instead of 9D6.  With 
average damage, the motorcycle would be negative Body (if it could) and the 
Cherokee would be down by 2/3 of its total.  Instead of about 1", the 
knockback would have been more like 7", the Cherokee would take another 2 
Body or so in the front, and the Neon would take 3 Body from behind. 
 
Again, the game mechanics are reasonably close to the real world. 
 
WS> Problem is, the damage figures for the two should probably be based on 
WS> the motorcycle for damage tot he car, and the car for damage to the 
WS> motorcycle. 
 
Why should it?  Damage is nothing more than the transfer of kinetic energy 
and the accompanying elastic deformation.  A stationary vehicle has no 
kinetic energy: it has zero ability to do damage.  All it can do is absorb 
kinetic energy from whatever it is that hits it. 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use 
Charset: noconv 
 
iQA/AwUBNm3oz4JfryJUlUjZEQLvmACgs3iguORRv4vI12IWIK/dXCbXRXAAoPbh 
1WDeLEH3ELx+pt1YsMiMmNo5 
=BXY1 
- -----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. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 08 Dec 1998 23:12:27 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: combat drones 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
 
WS> In the case of automatons, I'm not sure that's a particularly 
WS> meaningful difference. 
 
With a computer, the PC tells it what to do, and it does it if it is 
capable of doing so.  With a follower, the PC tells the GM what he wishes 
the follower to do, and the GM decides how to interpret it.  The difference 
between the two can be staggering. 
 
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that GMs, not players, write up 
followers. 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use 
Charset: noconv 
 
iQA/AwUBNm34qYJfryJUlUjZEQJLBQCeMFz4Lk9dHurAbLZ6esB9sq48ulAAni3F 
o1/kzxHgAAOIDy7TF+bROH7y 
=LjEA 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. 
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \  
                                    \  
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 22:24:09 -0600 
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net> 
Subject: RE: Jay Ward movies 
 
At 05:23 PM 12/8/1998 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote: 
>   I was about to confirm with my belief that Roger *Ramjet* was a product 
>of Jay Ward's fertile imagination (since it had a similar pace and look) 
>when I saw Damon's post. 
>   However, I do think that Roger Ramjet would be fertile ground for a Hero 
>System supplement! 
 
Agreed.  I'm not going to attempt this myself, but for anyone with way too 
much time on his hands:  Roger is a jet pilot, as are his junior sidekicks 
the American Eagles (Yank, Doodle, Dan and Dee).  When Roger downs his 
proton pill, he gains "the power of 20 atom bombs" for 20 seconds.  Doesn't 
sound like much time, but these were only five minute cartoons.  Some of 
the villains in the show were Jacqueline Hyde, Noodle Romanoff from 
N.A.S.T.Y., Lotta Love, General G.I. Brassbottom, and the Height Brothers 
(Cronk, Horse and Gezundt).  Gary Owens provided Roger's voice.  Roger and 
the gang were based in Lompoc, CA. 
 
Damon 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 13:40:05 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: combat drones 
 
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
>Hash: SHA1 
> 
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
> 
>WS> In the case of automatons, I'm not sure that's a particularly 
>WS> meaningful difference. 
> 
>With a computer, the PC tells it what to do, and it does it if it is 
>capable of doing so.  With a follower, the PC tells the GM what he wishes 
>the follower to do, and the GM decides how to interpret it.  The difference 
>between the two can be staggering. 
> 
>And you seem to be ignoring the fact that GMs, not players, write up 
>followers. 
 
That's true if the follower is hired or otherwise acquired.  I think it's 
pretty much senseless to have the GM write-up the robot the player-character 
has built, however, any more than he would the vehicle he built or the armor 
her built. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:47:17 +1100 
From: Hamish Laws <h_laws@postoffice.utas.edu.au> 
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
 
At 01:11 PM 12/7/98 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote: 
> 
>>This might be a bit off-topic, but I never understood how people like 
>>Genocide could say 'mutants are wrong, but you other freaks are okay.' 
>>Human-firsters should be scared of ALL 'natural' metas, because all 
>>metas might have the potential to pass on their altered physiology. 
> 
>Ah, but that's the kicker; there's no particular sign that other metahumans 
>will breed true, or even breed other metahumans.  In the worlds where 
>mutants exist, they _explicitly_ do the latter at least. 
 
Except that in Marvel Quicksilver's daughter was not a mutant and in the 
Guardians Of The Galaxy series the colony started by the fleeing mutants 
came to have fewer and fewer powered mutants over the generations. 
 
I think they were down to 10 or so mutants by whenever the Guardians were 
set. 
 
**************************************************************************** 
The Politician's Slogan 
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all 
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. 
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.' 
**************************************************************************** 
 
Mad Hamish 
 
Hamish Laws 
h_laws@postoffice.utas.edu.au 
h_laws@tassie.net.au 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:46:34 -0800 (PST) 
From: Bryant Durrell <durrell@innocence.com> 
Subject: Re: Champs Rule of X 
 
Stainless Steel Rat writes: 
> "WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
>  
> WS> Obviously, the specific numbers and the way some things were set up 
> WS> embody my biases, and would probably need to be modified for other 
> WS> campaigns.  None the less, I thought it might be useful to share. 
>  
> Since I was the one who said that no simple formulae could encompass the 
> breadth of possibility in Hero, allow me to throw out a ringer. 
>  
> Assume two characters who are otherwise equal.  Assume both have 5 PD and 5 
> ED, DEX 18. 
>  
> A has a 12D6 EB and a 30PD/30ED FF, Speed 3.  OX=18, DX=14.75 
>  
> B has a 6D6 EB and a 15PD/15ED FF, Speed 10.  OX=18, DX=15 
>  
> By your formulae, B is slightly better in a fight than A, even though B 
> cannot do more than scratch A on an astronomically rare damage roll.  And 
> even then, wow, 1 whole Stun gets through. 
>  
> By my 'wing it' method, I see that B's attacks will never penetrate A's 
> defenses.  It would take A maybe two Turns to beat B into submission; maybe 
> longer if B uses his actions to Recover lost Stun or flee, but A will still 
> win, one way or the other. 
>  
> No formulae can ever substitute for a bit of common sense. 
 
Sometimes they can come close, though, which is all I ever ask. 
Things don't gotta be perfect... 
 
(Hm.  A hits, let us be generous, 2 out of 3 phases.  12d6 is an 
average of 42 points of STUN, 12 BODY.  B takes 22 points of STUN each 
time A hits, again on average.  B has, say, a 10 REC.  I think B is 
going to last longer than 2 turns, since he only has to spend 4 of his 
10 phases recovering, leaving 3 more phases to recover from the 
occasional lucky hits.  But your point is still valid; I just don't 
think it matters too much if the formula is *generally* useful.) 
 
- --  
  Bryant Durrell [] durrell@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell 
 [----------------------------------------------------------------------------] 
           FAMOUS, adj.  Conspicuously miserable.  -- Ambrose Bierce 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:58:07 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Durability of Various Things 
 
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
>Hash: SHA1 
> 
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
> 
>WS> To a point, since the larger vehicle didn't get knockback. 
> 
>Why should it?  It was not moving, it was being hit. 
 
That was my point...so it's mass difference _did_ weigh in, just indirectly. 
 
> 
>WS> On the other hand, at a higher velocity, there'd have been 
>WS> preportionately less difference in the damage, which is generally not 
>WS> the case IRL. 
> 
>At 50mph the motorcycle would have been totally demolished and the Cherokee 
>would have been rendered largely undrivable (call it the vehicular 
>equivalent to a crippling injury).  The Cherokee would have its front end 
>in to the radiator damaged, and the trunk of the Neon in front of us would 
>be staved in. 
> 
>In game mechanics, the Move Through would be 15D6 instead of 9D6.  With 
>average damage, the motorcycle would be negative Body (if it could) and the 
>Cherokee would be down by 2/3 of its total.  Instead of about 1", the 
>knockback would have been more like 7", the Cherokee would take another 2 
>Body or so in the front, and the Neon would take 3 Body from behind. 
 
There's a problem here...if there was actually serious knockback in game 
mechanics terms, the motorcycle would have taken less damage.  In fact, it 
would have, from your numbers, taken less damage than the Cherokee. 
 
> 
>Again, the game mechanics are reasonably close to the real world. 
 
See above.  Not really. 
 
> 
>WS> Problem is, the damage figures for the two should probably be based on 
>WS> the motorcycle for damage tot he car, and the car for damage to the 
>WS> motorcycle. 
> 
>Why should it?  Damage is nothing more than the transfer of kinetic energy 
>and the accompanying elastic deformation.  A stationary vehicle has no 
>kinetic energy: it has zero ability to do damage.  All it can do is absorb 
>kinetic energy from whatever it is that hits it. 
 
First off, I did not recall that the larger vehicle was immobile.  In any 
case, however, in the real world impacts between vehicles of different mass 
tend to heavily favor the more massive vehicle, moving or not.  I can only 
conjecture as to the physics involved. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 13:07:23 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Champs Rule of X 
 
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
>Hash: SHA1 
> 
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes: 
> 
>WS> Obviously, the specific numbers and the way some things were set up 
>WS> embody my biases, and would probably need to be modified for other 
>WS> campaigns.  None the less, I thought it might be useful to share. 
> 
>Since I was the one who said that no simple formulae could encompass the 
>breadth of possibility in Hero, allow me to throw out a ringer. 
> 
>Assume two characters who are otherwise equal.  Assume both have 5 PD and 5 
>ED, DEX 18. 
> 
>A has a 12D6 EB and a 30PD/30ED FF, Speed 3.  OX=18, DX=14.75 
> 
>B has a 6D6 EB and a 15PD/15ED FF, Speed 10.  OX=18, DX=15 
> 
>By your formulae, B is slightly better in a fight than A, even though B 
>cannot do more than scratch A on an astronomically rare damage roll.  And 
>even then, wow, 1 whole Stun gets through. 
 
Ah, but the Rule isn't designed to rate any two precise individuals against 
each other; it's designed to rate overall opposition against the class of 
opposition.  In this case you've run into some border conditions with damage 
classes at the bottom end...but then, the system is designed to prevent 
overpower, not prevent someone from crippling myself. 
 
> 
>By my 'wing it' method, I see that B's attacks will never penetrate A's 
>defenses.  It would take A maybe two Turns to beat B into submission; maybe 
>longer if B uses his actions to Recover lost Stun or flee, but A will still 
>win, one way or the other. 
> 
>No formulae can ever substitute for a bit of common sense. 
 
It depends what the formula is designed to do.  My use of it is primarily to 
evaluate how a given character will rate against a large number of undefined 
potential opponents.  And you _did_ see my last comment, did you not? 
 
Now if you'd found a way where this failed in the _other_ direction (someone 
was _more_ powerful than the formula represented) I'd be much more 
concerned, because then it would be failing it's primary function.  But the 
system is designed to create a general rating; you can always build two 
characters who are a mismatch for each other under it, with one coming out 
the better.  What is not so easy is to build a character who is a mismatch 
against the wide variety of other opponents...and then, it will likely be by 
being too weak, which is why I have the caveat at the end.  Even in the case 
you presented, the second character, for example, would be far superior to 
the first at cleaning up thugs, and might well be a better choice against 
many martial artists and egoists. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 17:09:20 -0800 
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au> 
Subject: Re: Off Topic but tangential 
 
Acid Rainbow wrote: 
>  
> On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 19:20:35 -0800, Rick Holding 
> <rholding@ActOnline.com.au> sent these symbols into the net: 
>  
> > 
> >       I seem to remember something about this, at least about the cable being 
> >severed by something.  The effect can be done.  The drawback is that 
> >passing a wire through a magnetic field not only produces a current but 
> >also produces a force that will alter the orbit of the device, either 
> >higher or lower depending on the direction of current flow. 
> > 
>    I read a short story in Analog (I think) which hinged on this effect, 
> however since the people in the space station didn't need power, but their 
> orbit was decaying, they pumped power into the cables so as to orbit 
> higher. 
 
	I read the same story.  It was in my mind when I wrote the above. 
- --  
Rick Holding 
 
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common... 
   or if you prefer...  You call this logic ? 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:02:15 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: combat drones 
 
>>Rat writes: 
>>>And you seem to be ignoring the fact that GMs, not players, write up 
>>>followers. 
>> 
>>That's true if the follower is hired or otherwise acquired.  I think it's 
>>pretty much senseless to have the GM write-up the robot the player-character 
>>has built, however, any more than he would the vehicle he built or the armor 
>>her built. 
> 
>Well, actually, as GM, I like to at least have a hand in the design of 
>players' "npc" writeups.  I say "... and 30 pts worth of Mystery Disads", 
>and other stuff like that. 
 
Sure, but does it make sense to do that with something someone _built_, 
unless you're trying for the Ultron effect? 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:48:25 -0800 
From: jayphailey@juno.com (Jay P Hailey) 
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
 
>	Then again, this is the comic book super-hero genre we're  
>talking about, so I guess adherence to real-world genetics is optional. 
> 
>____________________________ 
>Robert L. Harrison 
>Department of Entomology 
>411 Science II 
 
Extremely.  Any real knowledge of genetics and Biology is a handicap when 
dealing with the Comics and Super-hero genre. 
 
 
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!> 
 
"A B C D E-F-G.  Eric the half a bee......" 
 
___________________________________________________________________ 
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. 
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 17:40:45 -0800 
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au> 
Subject: Is Earth an object or barrier (not so mild rant) 
 
Why are people trying to treat objects like barriers?  You have a 
bulldozer.  It is an object with defence and body.  But all Our Hero 
wants to do is go through it.  Lets treat it as a barrier.  That way it 
has less body.  I see something fundamentally wrong with this. 
 
	By the current barrier rules, two five foot walls separated by a half 
inch of air has more body and is harder to get through than one ten foot 
wall.  Lets go even further.  Ten one foot walls is even tougher. 
 
	A planet is said (by the barrier rules) to have about 90 body.  The 
Great Sneakthief steals every second hex of dirt between one side of the 
planet and the other.  Suddenly an attack that blew up the planet barely 
goes 20 metres. 
 
	From this, I put forward that the barrier rules don't work beyond a 
certain point.  They work for walls, but I have never heard of a wall 
being 12000km thick.  At some point, a wall stops being a wall and 
becomes an object in its own right.  Treat an object as an object and 
don't try to apply an inappropriate rule. 
 
	As for the deathstar. (It was a slow day at work) 
 
	Using the barrier rules. 
	A planet has 90 body.  Add in 6 for defence of stone makes you need to 
do 96 body to punch a hole.  To get the hole big enough to "cover" the 
entire planet needs another 23 body.  This makes it a total of 119 body 
needed or 34D6 KP costing 510 points base. 
 
	Working on a hex of dirt. 
	A hex of dirt has 16 body and using the same 6 defence, would need to 
have 22 points of damage done to "destroy" it.  This works out to be 
6D6+1KP on average.  Applying the AoE advantage gives a base radius of 
19".  To get it big enough to cover the entire planet requires 18 
doublings or an extra +4 1/2 advantage.  Throw in an indirect to get it 
to the centre and it gives a total advantage of +5 3/4.  This gives a 
cost of 641 points. 
 
	So treating the planet as a sum of its parts doesn't produce a cheaper 
attack which could concern some and overcomes the problems of having 
such a large object with a pitiful amount of body. 
 
	Perhaps somebody closer to the centre of things come in with a ruling. 
- --  
Rick Holding 
 
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common... 
   or if you prefer...  You call this logic ? 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:50:50 -0800 
From: jayphailey@juno.com (Jay P Hailey) 
Subject: Re: Durability of Various Things 
 
>The rider was thrown about twenty feet; two more and he would have  
>taken a header into the guard rail.  Assuming no spinal injuries (he was 
able  
>to move his toes on both feet when the EMTs put him on the back board),  
>the worst he took was a broken femur, and that looked to be a clean 
break. 
 
He's lucky the Great GM In The Sky rolled sucky damage. 
 
 
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!> 
 
"A B C D E-F-G.  Eric the half a bee......" 
 
___________________________________________________________________ 
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. 
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:08:47 -0800 
From: jayphailey@juno.com (Jay P Hailey) 
Subject: Re: Jay Ward movies 
 
>So, if George of the Jungle and Duddly Doright are products of this  
>Jay Ward guy, can I assume that he's also responsible for the greatest 
>square-jawed hero of all time, Roger Jamjet? Now there's a movie I'd 
>like to see. 
> 
>BRI 
 
Siiiigh, Once I gave a character a temporary STR aid and called it a 
"Proton Power Pill" 
 
I also threw in the odd joke about Lompoc, but no one got it. 
 
Roger Ramjet.  Now *there* was a true super hero. 
 
 
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!> 
 
"A B C D E-F-G.  Eric the half a bee......" 
 
___________________________________________________________________ 
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. 
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:33:13 -0800 
From: jayphailey@juno.com (Jay P Hailey) 
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant' 
 
>Ok ... Do you also give extra points for people who show up on  
>human scanners or people who show up on redhead scanners or people 
>who show up on flight scanners?  Personally, I'd just call it part 
>of the character conception.  Now, if mutants are routinely hunted 
>or persecuted throughout the campaign, that would be one thing.  But 
>free points just for showing up on a scanner?   
 
Redheads and normals are not in as much danger of being assaulted on 
sight by Genocide. Therefore, having a piece of your DNA that essentially 
paints a target on you may be considered a limitation. 
 
Yes, essentially Mutants are hunted by Genocide. It's deadly but rare 
enough to be worth only 5 points. 
 
 
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!> 
 
"A B C D E-F-G.  Eric the half a bee......" 
 
___________________________________________________________________ 
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. 
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 
 
------------------------------ 
 
End of champ-l-digest V1 #83 
**************************** 


Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 01:52 PM