Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 364
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 12:34 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #364
champ-l-digest Saturday, May 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 364
In this issue:
RE: Hexless Combat
Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity [Off Topic: Worf]
Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Re: Champs Page???
RE: Hexless Combat
RE: Hexless Combat
RE: Hexless Combat
RE: Hexless Combat
Gaming Styles
Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity [Off Topic: Worf]
Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
Hero Web Site
RE: Hexless Combat
RE: Hexless Combat
Re: Gaming Styles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 18:54:08 -0700
From: Grant Enfield <enfield@asu.edu>
Subject: RE: Hexless Combat
Wayne Shaw wrote (among other things) about "hexless" combats:
> On the other hand, I've also done without on occasion, so
> perhaps it's just
> a question of degree. I just have alarm bells go off in my
> head when I
> hear someone use the phrase "The story takes precedence over
> mechanics in my
> games." It all too often means someone is willing to distort
> hell out the
> situation to serve what they consider the 'needs of the
> story', and that's
> not what I'm here to game for.
I think it's interesting how different gamers react in these situations. To
borrow language from rec.games.frp.advocacy, how much gamers align
themselves with "gamist," "simulationist," or "dramatist" types of play
interests me.
I don't understand why, but there often seems to be a perceived hierarchy
among the types of play: "gamist" dungeon crawls are for fat, old losers who
don't know how to talk to girls; "simulationist" battlefield re-enactments
are for even older losers who have wives but forgot how to talk to them;
"dramatist" shared stories are for pansies who talk way to much for girls.
(Note that none of styles are for girls.)
It may have something to do with how rules systems appeared historically,
but there often seems to be the notion that gamers "progress" from gamist
hack-n-slashers who played DnD to nit-picky simulationists who play I dunno
what they play (probably DnD still) and finally when they outgrow DnD they
become dramatists who know how to play "beyond" the rules.
This is all from my point of view, of course. It's just that I noticed I had
this weird, defensive reaction when Scott Nolan suggested playing HERO
without counting all the little hexes. Part of it is that I _like_ counting
the hexes. The strategy board game aspects of combat I really enjoy. Part of
what I appreciate about the HERO system is how well it allows different
styles of play, but I think it grounds itself in strong mechanics. But
that's probably just the way I play it. :)
Does anyone else see these sorts of things?
Or understand what I'm talking about?
Or care what I'm talking about ;)
grant
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:42:53 -0700
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
>> I suppose, I just was using the logic that Comic books, books, etc in the
>> large majority represent regen being from beyond 'death' and healing lost
>> limbs etc. Since the purpose of the game system is to accurately represent
>> the genre and source material (within game balance, thanks whoever reminded
>> me of that), then the way regen is used in that source material would carry
>> over to the game. Doesn't mean that was the intent of the power, but since
>> it wasn't stated, I just guessed it was.
>
>In comic books, characters rarely die; and it's a convention in many games
that
>PCs and NPCs never (or very rarely) are killed permanently. Perhaps the
>Regeneration is used as a special effect for this rule?
Thats a thought :) Although Trolls, etc with regen in fantasy dont die
when hacked to bits either, it takes fire or some such. It's hard for me
to imagine any example of regeneration where the person who has it dies
when 'fatal' damage is done to them, it just seems to be an assumption of
the power.
>The fact is, it just seems wrong to me to pay 20 points for a power that
either
>does not get used (because of the above genre convention) or gets used only
>because I bought it (because the GM feels allowed get my character killed
more
>often, since he can resurrect himself). Granted, a character with
Regeneration
>post Death is a defense in a way, since he can walk in deadly attacks (say
a 8d6
>Killing Attack) that no sane character without the power would, but it seems
>quite expensive for something that shouldn't happen very often.
That is probably the best reason not to use this rule, and I probably wont
use it as a house ruling. I wouldn't ever pay that much for a power just
because of those reasons. And a power that people dont buy is too
expensive or useless.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Deo Gloria Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:45:08 -0700
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
>>The fact is, it just seems wrong to me to pay 20 points for a power that
either
>>does not get used (because of the above genre convention) or gets used only
>>because I bought it (because the GM feels allowed get my character killed
more
>>often, since he can resurrect himself). Granted, a character with
Regeneration
>>post Death is a defense in a way, since he can walk in deadly attacks
(say a 8d6
>>Killing Attack) that no sane character without the power would, but it seems
>>quite expensive for something that shouldn't happen very often.
>
> Please pardon what may seem like a momentary non sequitur.
> Ten years ago, I was in a discussion group on Star Trek, as TNG was just
>in its earlier seasons. One of the big points that folks made fun of was
>that any time a monster got on the Enterprise, it would attack Worf and
>knock him around. The poor guy got whacked more often than Seeker.
> Why? Because Worf, a Klingon, was the toughest guy on the Enterprise.
>When the writers wanted to show how tough a monster was, they'd have it
>attack Worf, so when he went down the audience could say, "Wow, if that
>thing took out Worf, how are those puny humans going to handle it? What if
>Riker had been the guy it had attacked?"
Actually when I saw it I always said "gee Worf is a pussy" because he was
NEVER shown to be all that tough. In fact for years his only contribution
to the show was to get pasted and say things like "We should attack NOW!"
and get ignored.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Deo Gloria Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:47:12 -0700
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
>>>I tend to agree with this, though I don't think it was ever really relevant
>>>to regeneration question; what was was whether regeneration would in fact
>>>counteract that condition called 'dead'. I think it was a stretch to
say it
>>>would, since at that point you'd be effectively arguing the Healing Aids
>>>could do the same thing.
>>
>>I suppose, I just was using the logic that Comic books, books, etc in the
>>large majority represent regen being from beyond 'death' and healing lost
>>limbs etc. Since the purpose of the game system is to accurately represent
>
>Actually, that's not even necessarily the case in comics. For example,
>though both of them can take punishment that would kill a normal, if you do
>sufficient damage to either Wolverine or Sabertooth of the X-books, they
>die. The same is true of the Vigilante and most of the DC characters I
>know who regenerate. Regeneration from death is actually more common in
>certain sorts of fantasy than it is in superhero settings. The limb
>regrowth is another question.
>>the genre and source material (within game balance, thanks whoever reminded
>>me of that), then the way regen is used in that source material would carry
>>over to the game. Doesn't mean that was the intent of the power, but since
>>it wasn't stated, I just guessed it was.
>
>I think personally that you used a bad assumption in your axioms there, but
>the conclusion was correct given the bad assumption. They were trying to
>simulate comics...but most comic regenerators don't come back from
>death...just from bad, bad injuries.
Well I see your point but the bad, bad injuries that they sustained
typically would kill a normal person (having an arm rent off, throat
slashed etc. Consider the AD&D troll example, you could reduce it to Troll
cubes and serve it for your dinner party with toothpicks in the bits... and
it would come back unless you burned the bits.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Deo Gloria Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 21:59:32 -0500
From: Ross Rannells <rossrannells@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Johnson, Adam wrote:
> <snip>
> 3) Flurries
> Is the point of a flurry to hit your opponent, or just confuse him so you
> can get that one good strike in?
> (BTW, I think the "sheesh, you didn't even try" bit was a bit uncalled for,
> and a bit impolite.)
>
> <snip>
Actually flurries are quite easy to do. Simply by autofire on your Strength,
Martial Arts Attacks, and Damage Class. A little expensive but it works.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
>Well I see your point but the bad, bad injuries that they sustained
>typically would kill a normal person (having an arm rent off, throat
>slashed etc. Consider the AD&D troll example, you could reduce it to Troll
>cubes and serve it for your dinner party with toothpicks in the bits... and
>it would come back unless you burned the bits.
But one has to remember that whatever else it was finally used for, it was
originally designed for superhero gaming. And that sort of effect is quite
rare there. When looking at what a given power is designed to simulate,
it's always safest to look at the superhero model first. Remember that, for
example, to make armor or weapons act like weapons in fantasy or realistic
modern games, power modifiers are necessary. That's fairly characteristic
of the system.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 23:10:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jason Sullivan <ravanos@NJCU.edu>
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity [Off Topic: Worf]
On Fri, 28 May 1999, Christopher Taylor wrote:
> > Please pardon what may seem like a momentary non sequitur.
> > Ten years ago, I was in a discussion group on Star Trek, as TNG was just
> >in its earlier seasons. One of the big points that folks made fun of was
> >that any time a monster got on the Enterprise, it would attack Worf and
> >knock him around. The poor guy got whacked more often than Seeker.
> > Why? Because Worf, a Klingon, was the toughest guy on the Enterprise.
> >When the writers wanted to show how tough a monster was, they'd have it
> >attack Worf, so when he went down the audience could say, "Wow, if that
> >thing took out Worf, how are those puny humans going to handle it? What if
> >Riker had been the guy it had attacked?"
>
> Actually when I saw it I always said "gee Worf is a pussy" because he was
> NEVER shown to be all that tough. In fact for years his only contribution
> to the show was to get pasted and say things like "We should attack NOW!"
> and get ignored.
To Worf's credit, he did alot of damage in Star Trek: Generations
to a number of Borg in HtH combat, and from what I've seen, he "gets all
the chicks" to boot (Dax and Troi).
...not to mention he's been in movies, on ST:TNG and ST:DS9.
...and he's the voice of I.M. Weasel.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 22:31:45 -0500
From: Ross Rannells <rossrannells@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> >By golly you're right...
> >
> >So a riposte could look like:
> >
> >OCV +2
> >DCV +2
> >STR+2d6 Strike
> >Must follow successful block
> >1/2 phase maneuver
>
> Not sure but that I'd make it a little cheaper and not give it that big a
> DCV bonus, personally; a riposte is pretty likely to get through, but it
> doesn't actually make your next defense all that much better.
Now from my fencing class in college I remember a reposte being a
quick bump against your oponents blade followed by a thrust. Since
the thust after the bump is always weaker then a stardard thrust, I
have always felt that a reposte was accurately modeled with a simple
Defensive Strike, with a slash being a Martial Strike and a thrust
being an offensive strike.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 20:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
>
>
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>> >By golly you're right...
>> >
>> >So a riposte could look like:
>> >
>> >OCV +2
>> >DCV +2
>> >STR+2d6 Strike
>> >Must follow successful block
>> >1/2 phase maneuver
>>
>> Not sure but that I'd make it a little cheaper and not give it that big a
>> DCV bonus, personally; a riposte is pretty likely to get through, but it
>> doesn't actually make your next defense all that much better.
>
>Now from my fencing class in college I remember a reposte being a
>quick bump against your oponents blade followed by a thrust. Since
>the thust after the bump is always weaker then a stardard thrust, I
>have always felt that a reposte was accurately modeled with a simple
>Defensive Strike, with a slash being a Martial Strike and a thrust
>being an offensive strike.
A Defensive Strike doesn't have the Follow element, and really is too good
Defensively. If a riposte doesn't work, often it's not that hard to nail
the person attempting it. I think I'd give it the Follow element, and a
pattern something like OCV +2, DCV +1. Ought to make it a nice cheap manuever.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 23:26:20 -0500
From: Ross Rannells <rossrannells@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> >
> >
> >Wayne Shaw wrote:
> >
> >> >By golly you're right...
> >> >
> >> >So a riposte could look like:
> >> >
> >> >OCV +2
> >> >DCV +2
> >> >STR+2d6 Strike
> >> >Must follow successful block
> >> >1/2 phase maneuver
> >>
> >> Not sure but that I'd make it a little cheaper and not give it that big a
> >> DCV bonus, personally; a riposte is pretty likely to get through, but it
> >> doesn't actually make your next defense all that much better.
> >
> >Now from my fencing class in college I remember a reposte being a
> >quick bump against your oponents blade followed by a thrust. Since
> >the thust after the bump is always weaker then a stardard thrust, I
> >have always felt that a reposte was accurately modeled with a simple
> >Defensive Strike, with a slash being a Martial Strike and a thrust
> >being an offensive strike.
>
> A Defensive Strike doesn't have the Follow element, and really is too good
> Defensively. If a riposte doesn't work, often it's not that hard to nail
> the person attempting it. I think I'd give it the Follow element, and a
> pattern something like OCV +2, DCV +1. Ought to make it a nice cheap manuever.
In my experience a reposte is not a parry. It doesn't stop you opponent from
strking you even if it is successful (especially with pistol grips). So I've
always
interpreted the slight bump as being what gives the +3 DCV. The following
attack definately has no damage bonus as it is almost all arm and has no body
mass behind it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 21:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
>> A Defensive Strike doesn't have the Follow element, and really is too good
>> Defensively. If a riposte doesn't work, often it's not that hard to nail
>> the person attempting it. I think I'd give it the Follow element, and a
>> pattern something like OCV +2, DCV +1. Ought to make it a nice cheap
manuever.
>
>In my experience a reposte is not a parry. It doesn't stop you opponent from
>strking you even if it is successful (especially with pistol grips). So I've
>always
>interpreted the slight bump as being what gives the +3 DCV. The following
>attack definately has no damage bonus as it is almost all arm and has no body
>mass behind it.
In practice, you have to have done a 'parry' (getting the opponent's blade
out of line) before you do it, though, which makes it effectively dependent
on a parry. That's why the follow element. And you'll notice I didn't
suggest any extra DC on my comment above.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 22:36:22 PDT
From: "Jesse Thomas" <haerandir@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Champs Page???
On Fri, 28 May 1999 "Raven" <raven@neteze.com>
>
>Is anyone else having problems get the Hero Games web page to load?
Yes. It's been a problem all week. I haven't seen the Hero Games page in
days.
Jesse Thomas
haerandir@hotmail.com
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 03:35:45 -0400
From: "Scott C. Nolan" <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Hexless Combat
At 05:52 PM 5/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Scott C. Nolan wrote:
>
>
>> Precision is overrated. It's a role-playing game, not a
>> strategy boardgame.
>> The story takes precedence over mechanics in my games.
>
>
>Not to start the whole gamist/simulationist versus dramatist thing because I
>think I tend to enjoy aspects of all of those things, but then how do you
>deal with the precision the combat system and character creation seem to
>call for?
>
>
>What I mean is this:
>If you don't measure out range modifiers, how do they work? If you don't
>measure out movement, how do you know how far to move with a half-move of 8"
>as opposed to a half-move of 5"?
>
>If you can't really tell the difference between ranges, and especially if
>you can't tell the difference between movement powers, how do you know how
>much to buy? If you don't know how much to buy, doesn't it quickly turn into
>"I fly fast," and why should that cost any points?
>
>
>It just seems to me that because of the powers being purchased so that for a
>specific number of points you get a specific game effect, HERO system needs
>a certain amount of precision, or it turns into some other game. Certainly
>not every agent needs full stats or even needs to have specific points of
>STUN--a solid hit or two should just knock them out. But I don't want a
>similar attitude or effect leveled at my own player character: I'd hate to
>find myself unconscious because I'd been hit enough times the GM felt I
>should be, or because the scene would be more dramatic if my character were
>knocked out.
>
>I'm certainly not saying that this is how you play, or if it is how you
>play, that this is bad. I don't care for it, and it seems out of whack with
>how I understand the HERO system rules. So I'm curious how you build
>characters and run combat. It just seems to me that if I balance point
>totals (or even add the points up) during character creation, I really have
>to measure movement and ranges in inches, and count STUN and END for player
>characters.
>
>
>So let me know how you approach this. I'm honestly interested. I just can't
>see how this sort of thing works from my perspective.
In the dozens of Champs games and hundreds of Fantasy Hero games I have
played and GMed (respectively), we have used hexes, oh, maybe ten times.
When movement comes up, the GM says "He's sixteen yards away" (we
use yards instead of meters in the FH game). We know that's 8 hexes.
If your move is 8", you can make it with a full move.
See, the numbers are exact, but they're in our heads rather than on the
table. Pretend you were blind. Would you have to stop playing?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 03:45:08 -0400
From: "Scott C. Nolan" <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Hexless Combat
At 06:54 PM 5/28/99 -0700, Grant Enfield wrote:
>
>
>Wayne Shaw wrote (among other things) about "hexless" combats:
>
>
>> On the other hand, I've also done without on occasion, so
>> perhaps it's just
>> a question of degree. I just have alarm bells go off in my
>> head when I
>> hear someone use the phrase "The story takes precedence over
>> mechanics in my
>> games." It all too often means someone is willing to distort
>> hell out the
>> situation to serve what they consider the 'needs of the
>> story', and that's
>> not what I'm here to game for.
>
>
>I think it's interesting how different gamers react in these situations. To
>borrow language from rec.games.frp.advocacy, how much gamers align
>themselves with "gamist," "simulationist," or "dramatist" types of play
>interests me.
>
>I don't understand why, but there often seems to be a perceived hierarchy
>among the types of play: "gamist" dungeon crawls are for fat, old losers who
>don't know how to talk to girls; "simulationist" battlefield re-enactments
>are for even older losers who have wives but forgot how to talk to them;
>"dramatist" shared stories are for pansies who talk way to much for girls.
>(Note that none of styles are for girls.)
>
>It may have something to do with how rules systems appeared historically,
>but there often seems to be the notion that gamers "progress" from gamist
>hack-n-slashers who played DnD to nit-picky simulationists who play I dunno
>what they play (probably DnD still) and finally when they outgrow DnD they
>become dramatists who know how to play "beyond" the rules.
>
>This is all from my point of view, of course. It's just that I noticed I had
>this weird, defensive reaction when Scott Nolan suggested playing HERO
>without counting all the little hexes. Part of it is that I _like_ counting
>the hexes. The strategy board game aspects of combat I really enjoy. Part of
>what I appreciate about the HERO system is how well it allows different
>styles of play, but I think it grounds itself in strong mechanics. But
>that's probably just the way I play it. :)
>
>Does anyone else see these sorts of things?
>
>Or understand what I'm talking about?
>
>Or care what I'm talking about ;)
Well for the record, I don't care about the simulationist aspects, but I don't
think that it's wrong, or better or worse. I play a lot of Amber Diceless,
too,
and on that list, they can't think of a worse game than Hero, because of
it's 'dependance' on mechanics. To me, both points of view miss the point,
which is that it's just a game, and if you're having fun, you're doing it
right.
My point was merely about how -I- play, not how anyone else should.
And to respond to Wayne's comment, I suspect that my games probably
would contain too little exactness for your tastes and that's okay. But
don't make the mistake of thinking that not following every step you follow
means that I don't give solid gaming detail to my players. I do place the
story above everything else (everything but fun, that is), but that doesn't
mean that the story is all. I don't believe I sacrifice any important detail -
I just speed up the game by eliminating the visual element.
Now, I'm the first to admit that I love it when we do pull out the maps
and miniatures. But it means that's all that's going to happen for the
rest of the night. I should also mention that (horrors!) some of my
game sessions have had no combat (once even no dice rolling at all).
Many others are nothing but combat.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 02:41:15 -0700
From: Grant Enfield <enfield@asu.edu>
Subject: RE: Hexless Combat
[Grant Enfield wrote about different gaming styles]
Scott C. Nolan responded:
[snip]
>
> My point was merely about how -I- play, not how anyone else should.
>
> And to respond to Wayne's comment, I suspect that my games probably
> would contain too little exactness for your tastes and that's
> okay. But
> don't make the mistake of thinking that not following every
> step you follow
> means that I don't give solid gaming detail to my players. I
> do place the
> story above everything else (everything but fun, that is),
> but that doesn't
> mean that the story is all. I don't believe I sacrifice any
> important detail -
> I just speed up the game by eliminating the visual element.
I know I'm prejudiced by my recent experiences in a game where there wasn't
a map really and the descriptions of areas and characters were sketchy too.
I just am missing how not using a map makes combat go faster. I think it
would slow it down as players got confused and needed things explained again
and again. The only thing I can think is that things just get really loose,
and then I'm back to why pay points for things that don't really matter.
What am I not getting here?
grant
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 02:32:02 -0700
From: Grant Enfield <enfield@asu.edu>
Subject: RE: Hexless Combat
Scott C. Nolan wrote:
> In the dozens of Champs games and hundreds of Fantasy Hero
> games I have
> played and GMed (respectively), we have used hexes, oh, maybe
> ten times.
> When movement comes up, the GM says "He's sixteen yards away" (we
> use yards instead of meters in the FH game). We know that's 8 hexes.
> If your move is 8", you can make it with a full move.
>
> See, the numbers are exact, but they're in our heads rather
> than on the
> table. Pretend you were blind. Would you have to stop playing?
I'm still not getting this. Does each player keep track of where their own
character is then? What if there's a discrepancy (player says one thing, GM
says another)? Why isn't it easier just to draw a map and put markers on it?
I'm obviously missing something here.
Certainly you don't have you draw a scale map and use miniatures for a
simple combat of a few PCs against a single opponent. This part I
understand. I would not "run" combat when the outcome is inevitable either.
Maybe it's just the nature of the people I have played with, but I kindof
expect one satisfying combat per 3-4 hour game. (I'm thinking of Champions
here where an adventure is structured like a comic book plot. In other
genres that have a higher degree of continuity, I would expect combat to
happen more or less often depending on the game.) A combat with four to six
PCs against a bunch of agents, a few henchmen, and a big villain I could not
keep track of in my head. I can't even keep track of it with the map: what
were those agents over there doing...um...shooting? But even a middle sized
fight (against some agents or a team of supervillains) I think I'd get lost
trying to remember who's doing what. Then you add cover and obstacles,
innocents, property to destroy--no I have to have a map. In fact, any fight
that turns into more than the PCs rushing up to their opponents and hitting
them a bunch (oh the good old days of DnD) I think would confuse me without
a map.
If I went blind, I think I'd miss that I could see. Perhaps I could still
play HERO, but it would be more difficult. I just don't understand why I
wouldn't use a map when I could.
Again, I'm not trying to sucker you in so I can "win" here. I really don't
understand how it would be easier to do combat without the visual aid of a
map and some markers. Please try to explain this to me. (I know you're
starting to think I'm a retard.)
grant
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 02:56:13 -0700
From: Grant Enfield <enfield@asu.edu>
Subject: Gaming Styles
I just realized that in a previous post, I disparaged "DnD" as a gaming
style I grew out of. I did grow out of it, and so I associate it with my own
adolescent gaming.
I see HERO system as a vast improvement over class and level-based systems.
And the idea that I'd have to "roll up" a character is absurd to me now. I
don't play new game systems, why wouldn't I just play in their world with
HERO mechanics?
On the other hand, I get offended when people suggest that HERO has too much
mechanics or that games should be simpler.
Sure HERO could use an overhaul. Why have figured characteristics? Why have
skills tied to stats? Why have powers like Ego Attack that cost far less
than they should? Why have Images, Invisibility, Darkness, and Change
Environment all work differently? If it's about point balance, none of these
things make any sense.
But I think HERO's fundamental concepts are right on.
I guess I just "shared," huh? My name is Grant Enfield, and I am a
gamaholic. . . .
Sorry about that. I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to beat up on
Scott Nolan. It really disturbs me that I can't understand why other people
play their games differently.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 07:26:36 EDT
From: SteveL1979@aol.com
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity [Off Topic: Worf]
In a message dated 5/28/99 11:11:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ravanos@NJCU.edu writes:
<< > Actually when I saw it I always said "gee Worf is a pussy" because he
was
> NEVER shown to be all that tough. In fact for years his only contribution
> to the show was to get pasted and say things like "We should attack NOW!"
> and get ignored.
To Worf's credit, he did alot of damage in Star Trek: Generations
to a number of Borg in HtH combat, and from what I've seen, he "gets all
the chicks" to boot (Dax and Troi).
...not to mention he's been in movies, on ST:TNG and ST:DS9.
...and he's the voice of I.M. Weasel. >>
Sadly, the TNG writers, by their own admission, had *no clue* what to
do with Worf. In part I think they were handicapped by the Roddenberry-esque
view of things, where military prowess wasn't really regarded as virtuous.
He's gotten a lot better in DS9, where the writers have a clue, IMO.
I suppose to get this back to relevance someone should provide stats
for a bat'leth or something. :)
Steve Long
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 05:25:02 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: SPD chart and timing issues was RE:(null)
At 09:59 PM 5/28/1999 -0500, Ross Rannells wrote:
>
>Actually flurries are quite easy to do. Simply by autofire on your Strength,
>Martial Arts Attacks, and Damage Class. A little expensive but it works.
Backing up to something someone said a little while ago about building
Powers as Martial Arts attacks, I have noticed that, where there is a
correspondence between Advantages/Limitations and Martial Arts Elements,
it's +/-1 point for an Element per +/-1/4 Advantage/Limitation.
With that in mind, though I'd attach a Stop Sign on it (even as a House
Rule), I think one might allow a Martial Arts maneuver to be built using
the NH/UMA maneuver construction rules, with Autofire as a 2-point element.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 05:33:24 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unstoppable Immortal Entity
At 07:53 PM 5/28/1999 -0700, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>Well I see your point but the bad, bad injuries that they sustained
>>typically would kill a normal person (having an arm rent off, throat
>>slashed etc. Consider the AD&D troll example, you could reduce it to Troll
>>cubes and serve it for your dinner party with toothpicks in the bits... and
>>it would come back unless you burned the bits.
>
>But one has to remember that whatever else it was finally used for, it was
>originally designed for superhero gaming. And that sort of effect is quite
>rare there. When looking at what a given power is designed to simulate,
>it's always safest to look at the superhero model first. Remember that, for
>example, to make armor or weapons act like weapons in fantasy or realistic
>modern games, power modifiers are necessary. That's fairly characteristic
>of the system.
Actually, although Champions was released first by a large margin, Steve
has pointed out more than once that the system was originally designed to
work in both superhero and fantasy gaming. In fact, IIRC, the alpha
playtest of Fantasy Hero was ready before the alpha playtest of Champions.
Not that what you said is without validity. To be sure, the unmodified
Powers do work best in a superhero setting; but then again, superheroes is
the only genre in which characters regularly are able to use special powers
unfettered, and it's immensely hard to predict what fetters are appropriate
in any given setting of any other genre.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:36:36 EDT
From: HeroGames@aol.com
Subject: Hero Web Site
We're in the midst of changing our ISP; the Hero site should be up on its ne=
w=20
home (same URL: www.herogames.com) next week. We've got an all new site=20
design, which we'll be filling in with lots of information in the coming=20
weeks. Plus we'll have message boards, and our online store (with direct=20
software downloads!) will open for business shortly after the site is up.
Sorry for the inconvenience in the meantime...
=97 Steve Peterson, Hero Games=20
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 12:02:13 -0400
From: "Scott C. Nolan" <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Hexless Combat
>> My point was merely about how -I- play, not how anyone else should.
>>
>> And to respond to Wayne's comment, I suspect that my games probably
>> would contain too little exactness for your tastes and that's
>> okay. But
>> don't make the mistake of thinking that not following every
>> step you follow
>> means that I don't give solid gaming detail to my players. I
>> do place the
>> story above everything else (everything but fun, that is),
>> but that doesn't
>> mean that the story is all. I don't believe I sacrifice any
>> important detail -
>> I just speed up the game by eliminating the visual element.
>
>I know I'm prejudiced by my recent experiences in a game where there wasn't
>a map really and the descriptions of areas and characters were sketchy too.
>I just am missing how not using a map makes combat go faster. I think it
>would slow it down as players got confused and needed things explained again
>and again. The only thing I can think is that things just get really loose,
>and then I'm back to why pay points for things that don't really matter.
>What am I not getting here?
That you are assuming the very thing you wish to prove. As I have said, it
is certainly looser. But I deny that it is -really- loose. Suffice it to say
in
twenty-two years of doing this (five with HERO), it is only about once or
twice a year that we use maps, and people keep coming back for more,
including those of my players who are very aware of their stats and
points.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 12:05:21 -0400
From: "Scott C. Nolan" <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Hexless Combat
At 02:32 AM 5/29/99 -0700, Grant Enfield wrote:
>
>
>Scott C. Nolan wrote:
>
>
>> In the dozens of Champs games and hundreds of Fantasy Hero
>> games I have
>> played and GMed (respectively), we have used hexes, oh, maybe
>> ten times.
>> When movement comes up, the GM says "He's sixteen yards away" (we
>> use yards instead of meters in the FH game). We know that's 8 hexes.
>> If your move is 8", you can make it with a full move.
>>
>> See, the numbers are exact, but they're in our heads rather
>> than on the
>> table. Pretend you were blind. Would you have to stop playing?
>
>
>I'm still not getting this. Does each player keep track of where their own
>character is then? What if there's a discrepancy (player says one thing, GM
>says another)? Why isn't it easier just to draw a map and put markers on it?
>I'm obviously missing something here.
>
>Certainly you don't have you draw a scale map and use miniatures for a
>simple combat of a few PCs against a single opponent. This part I
>understand. I would not "run" combat when the outcome is inevitable either.
>
>Maybe it's just the nature of the people I have played with, but I kindof
>expect one satisfying combat per 3-4 hour game. (I'm thinking of Champions
>here where an adventure is structured like a comic book plot. In other
>genres that have a higher degree of continuity, I would expect combat to
>happen more or less often depending on the game.) A combat with four to six
>PCs against a bunch of agents, a few henchmen, and a big villain I could not
>keep track of in my head. I can't even keep track of it with the map: what
>were those agents over there doing...um...shooting? But even a middle sized
>fight (against some agents or a team of supervillains) I think I'd get lost
>trying to remember who's doing what. Then you add cover and obstacles,
>innocents, property to destroy--no I have to have a map. In fact, any fight
>that turns into more than the PCs rushing up to their opponents and hitting
>them a bunch (oh the good old days of DnD) I think would confuse me without
>a map.
>
>If I went blind, I think I'd miss that I could see. Perhaps I could still
>play HERO, but it would be more difficult. I just don't understand why I
>wouldn't use a map when I could.
>
>Again, I'm not trying to sucker you in so I can "win" here. I really don't
>understand how it would be easier to do combat without the visual aid of a
>map and some markers. Please try to explain this to me. (I know you're
>starting to think I'm a retard.)
For you, it might not be. For me, by the time I got up from my chair, went
to the cabinet, pulled down the maps and miniatures, pulled out the ones
I'd need and set them up (not to mention cleaning up later), I'd be halfway
through the combat my way.
Imagination is the pirmary tool of the game, with or without a map.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 09:38:22 -0700
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Gaming Styles
Grant Enfield wrote:
>
> I just realized that in a previous post, I disparaged "DnD"
> as a gaming style I grew out of. I did grow out of it, and so
> I associate it with my own adolescent gaming.
A lot of people started FRP with it, so that's when they went
through the adolescent stage. (I started with Boot Hill and
then The Fantasy Trip.)
> On the other hand, I get offended when people suggest that
> HERO has too much mechanics or that games should be simpler.
As long as you don't just snap at people. I could start
getting annoyed at the people who go "No sane
game/character/weedwacker should have/survive/need a
8d6 RKA.", but I'd rather just let it go. No one plays
exactly the same and it's only an issue if you play in the
same game.
> I guess I just "shared," huh? My name is Grant Enfield, and
> I am a gamaholic. . . .
Depending on how much you ignore of real life that could
get you 5 - 15 points.
And on the orignal topic:
I like seeing a lot of character development, but tend to
wargame during a session.
- -Mark
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #364
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 04:00 PM