Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 436
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 7:30 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #436
champ-l-digest Tuesday, June 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 436
In this issue:
Reply about FH Magic System Design
Re: Fantasy Hero Magic System Design
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
Re: Cyber HERO
Re: Cyber HERO
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
[Semi-OT] Yahoo/Geocities warning
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
RE: Variable powers
Re: Cyber HERO
RE: Reply about FH Magic System Design
RE: Reply about FH Magic System Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:55:50 -0700
From: Rodger Bright <rodger.bright@cbpr.com>
Subject: Reply about FH Magic System Design
I have found that the only way to make mage types on par with regular fighters is to
limit them.
I'll start off by saying that any Channeler (i.e. mage or mage sub type) starts the
game with a Channeling Potential of 6. CP is a free skill, it just represents the
maximum amount of active points a character can have in Powers and Abilities.
Effectively, I am running a Damage Class 6 game. No more then 30 active points in
regular powers, no more then 10 Active points in Defense Powers, and no more then 6
active points in Mental/Power/Flash defense. Every Time a PC gets 10XP their CP goes
up by one point. I kicked around the idea of letting PC's buy up their CP, but that's
just another thing you have to throw XP into, and ends up costing too much in the long
run. It also helps me monitor the game by only allowing them to raise their CP base
don how much XP they have received.
The rationale behind all the multiplier numbers is that I have a concept for magic in
my world. It is not the hokey, "Anybody can learn magic, and you memorize the spells,
and then they disappear from your head" system. The way it works is that you are born
with the ability, or you are not. If you don't learn how to channel properly, you will
die, end of story. People have different potentials, if you go to an Order that trains
Blademasters and they find out that you have a very high potential for channeling, they
will send you to a school that specializes in teaching full Channelers. i.e. People
with extraordinary potential for manipulating Vil'a'dar (what I call magic). Potential
does not relate to "how much" of Vil'a'dar you can handle, it relates to how long you
are able to use it, and to what you are able to do with it. There are no spell
components in my game, there are no common "spells". Everybody might have a 6d6 EB,
but they can all be defined very differently. There are just about no magic items in
my world.
If you are found to have latent channeling ability you would be assessed, and depending
upon your potential you would be directed to the appropriate type of training. Now
because Full Channelers spend almost all of their training in the use of Vil'a'dar they
learn how to flex their magic muscles, so to speak. because of this they are able to
do things with Vil'a'dar that no other type of person can. i.e. They are able to
simply create Powers of their own design, with GM permission of course. They are also
trained how to be very efficient conduits, and how to maximize their Endurance for
Channeling. A Blademaster spends more time learning how to wield a sword then he does
playing with Vil'a'dar, and what he DOES learn about channeling has to do with his
sword anyway. i.e. They train him how to augment his fighting ability with Vil'a'dar,
and because of this he may not simply choose whatever Powers he wishes. There are
strict forms and abilities that Blademaster Towers teach, and a Blademaster may choose
to learn these, and these only.
We used to use no special system for END and Channelers. Your END for Channeler Powers
and Abilities came out of your physical END. This turned out to be WAY too powerful.
A 250 point brick regular fighter couldn't even touch a 200 point Blademaster. A
Blademaster had all the same fighting ability, PLUS they could totally augment their
regular ability with kick ass magic. Along the same lines, Channelers were simply way
too powerful, granted, at the beginning of a campaign they could only throw 30 active
point attacks, which is a little less then a fighter, but they could do it a range,
with a myriad of special effects, and they could do it for a long time. They could
also throw up a crud load of defenses that a regular fighter can't even compete with.
Some Full Channeler schools only allow you to wear robes, and you can never use any
weapon of any type. Other full Channeler schools specialize in Civil Engineering, and
most of it's members wear full suits of Plate mail and wield picks and hammers. If you
are a full Channeler you need to be a member of a School, Tower, Order, Sect, or Way.
Though some people just luck out and find someone to be their personal mentor and
teacher, and they might learn how to do things VERY differently then they would of had
they gone to a traditional School or Tower.
The END Reserve multiplier numbers (i.e. 15x, 10x, 5x) are arbitrary, they cost
nothing. The great thing about Hero is that you can do whatever you want.
If you want to channel, you HAVE to pick an archetype. There is a lot of leeway given
to Full Channelers, but you still fall under the auspices of that archetype.
Hopefully that makes it a little clearer how I do things in my world. If you want even
more rambling about the magic system in my world check out the web page, it has quite a
bit of info on just that subject.
- --Rodger
http://i.am/altandara
Lance Dyas wrote:
> Roger Bright scribbled in the virtual electrons:
>
> >
> > We also have different multiples depending upon the "type" of Channeler
> > you play.
> > A Full Channeler (i.e. a Mage) gets 15xChanneling Potential, a Monk gets
> > 10x, and
> > a Paladin or Blademaster gets 5x.
>
> Blargvh
> Magical ability tied tightly to a "character type" DnD strikes again and I bet Full
> Channelers
> cant use armor "because game master says so".
> Blargh ;)
>
> Sorry, gut reaction, un called for.
>
> Seriously,
> What kind of package deals did you put together and how did you
> you quantise the above effect in them. Multipliers don't seem like they
> would fit well into the Hero System Mechanics Paradigm... wheeeew say that thrice
> quickly .
>
> Lets see a Partial Channeller ability is a +1 advantage to the Paladin /Blademaster
> chanelling ability(5x)
> and the Full Channeller gets a +1 1/2 . What is the base cost for having a 5x?
> Do normal non class type characters" have a multiplier
>
> >
> > Just thought I would give you an idea as to how I have done it, and what
> > my group
> > has come up with. Doesn't work for everyone, and might not work for
> > ANYONE else,
>
> Might not... but IF you elaborate... could stilll be very useful to someone. ;)
> Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jason Sullivan <ravanos@NJCU.edu>
Subject: Re: Fantasy Hero Magic System Design
...for Long Term powers that require END feeding apart from an END
Reserve (like Flight) you may wish to try the following:
Give the power a +1/4 Advantage that allows it to feed from END or
the END Reserve. The wizard's natural recovery will be able to "feed" the
power. This is apt if powers cause strain on the wizard.
Allow the character to have a seperate END pool, making it a
"maintainece Magic" pool, which has a higher REC, preferabally enough to
rechare the expendiutres in the powers that eat END.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:37:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Rodger Bright wrote:
> The rationale behind all the multiplier numbers is that I have a concept for magic in
> my world. It is not the hokey, "Anybody can learn magic, and you memorize the spells,
> and then they disappear from your head" system.
Hey...it wasn't that hokey when Jack Vance used it...
> The way it works is that you are born
> with the ability, or you are not. If you don't learn how to channel properly, you will
> die, end of story. People have different potentials, if you go to an Order that trains
> Blademasters and they find out that you have a very high potential for channeling, they
> will send you to a school that specializes in teaching full Channelers. i.e. People
> with extraordinary potential for manipulating Vil'a'dar (what I call magic).
What if you want to be a Blademaster? (I didn't read the original post
unfortunately, could you resend it to me?) Or can full Channellers do
anything a Blademaster can do?
> Channeling. A Blademaster spends more time learning how to wield a sword then he does
> playing with Vil'a'dar, and what he DOES learn about channeling has to do with his
> sword anyway. i.e. They train him how to augment his fighting ability with Vil'a'dar,
> and because of this he may not simply choose whatever Powers he wishes. There are
> strict forms and abilities that Blademaster Towers teach, and a Blademaster may choose
> to learn these, and these only.
And if the Blademaster later decides to learn more about Channelling? Or
if a full Channeller wants to learn some of the Blademaster weapon
augmentation tricks? Is that possible?
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:10:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Rodger Bright wrote:
<snip>
OK, I checked your web page about the magic system and I have a couple of
questions now:
The blademaster stuff has IAF: Sword...isn't it common knowledge that a
Blademaster's magic goes through his sword? If so, I'd give it the full
OAF. Even if it's not common knowledge, I think an attempted disarm or
removal of the sword is fairly likely to be attempted anyway, so I'd be
inclined to give the OAF points on the theory that nobody is going to
mistake the sword for anything but a powerful, important weapon.
Lightning Strike has the limits of 'only while weilding sword in battle'
and 'must use sword every phase' - isn't the first one subsumed in the
second? Also, the 'Gestures Throughout' doesn't seem to fit with the
description of only raising the sword high above his head to start the
power.
I also would not give a -1/4 limitation for 'can only attack with Martial
Maneuvers or Special Powers' - chances are, the players are going to be
using Martial maneuvers anyway, since they're more effective than the
basic ones, so it's not really limiting at all.
Some other ideas for a Blademaster would be a counterstrike-style Damage
Shield or an attack flurry (autofire).
Perhaps powerful Blademasters can learn to use their enhanced swords to
deflect magical attacks as well as more mundane weapons. A Dispel taking
the form of 'cutting' the magic could be quite cool as well.
One thing that may not have come up: your Suppress being all-or-nothing
means that it is not likely to work at the levels you allow - only very
powerful people will be able to do it, and then only to the very weak.
(For example, someone with a Chanelling Potential of 10 - fairly
impressive if I understand your system correctly - would only be able to
reliably block people with a Chanelling Potential of 4 or less. Average
roll on 5 dice is 17...) You might wish to reconsider, or allow 'partial'
shielding so that the person can't call upon as much of the Source as
they normally would. This would make the Suppress ability effective
enough to be actually worthwhile.
Spirit Archers: I would give the 'Ballista Bolt' power a further
limitation to reflect the fact that the Aid wears off instantly (unless
I'm misunderstanding the power).
J
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Cyber HERO
Michael Surbrook writes:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> > >> Hi. a friend of mine is getting ready to run a cyberhero game.
> > >> does anyone know of any source for hero-fied cyberpunk stuff?
> > >
> > >Yeah, Kazei 5, from Hero Games. Also, check out my webpage, especially
> > >http://www.otd.com/~susano/kazei5.html
> >
> > There's also Cyber Hero, the cyberpunk sourcebook.
>
> I try not to think of that.
Curtis Scott, the original author of CyberHero, was also a member
of this list before he died in a traffic accident on the way to GenCon
several years ago. As a former acquaintance (I'm afraid I didn't know
him long enough to call myself his friend, though he ran a fun Call of
Cthulu game), I feel compelled to comment.
CyberHero is not my favorite Hero product. Not even close. I
mentioned this to Curtis. Curtis was very unhappy with the way
CyberHero turned out and expressed some dissatisfaction with the
process by which the final product was developed. Since I'm not him,
and he never really did give me all the details, I can't comment
further on CyberHero specifically. As a professional technical
author, I do have a lot of empathy for any author producing a book,
particularly a book that must contend with external forces and the
vicissitudes of project schedules.
It's a lot tougher than some folks think, particularly when the
process is complicated by external issues (why do you *think* so much
software doc is worthless?)
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: Cyber HERO
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Steven J. Owens wrote:
> Curtis Scott, the original author of CyberHero, was also a member
> of this list before he died in a traffic accident on the way to GenCon
> several years ago. As a former acquaintance (I'm afraid I didn't know
> him long enough to call myself his friend, though he ran a fun Call of
> Cthulu game), I feel compelled to comment.
>
> CyberHero is not my favorite Hero product. Not even close. I
> mentioned this to Curtis. Curtis was very unhappy with the way
> CyberHero turned out and expressed some dissatisfaction with the
> process by which the final product was developed. Since I'm not him,
> and he never really did give me all the details, I can't comment
> further on CyberHero specifically. As a professional technical
> author, I do have a lot of empathy for any author producing a book,
> particularly a book that must contend with external forces and the
> vicissitudes of project schedules.
I had heard that what we got and what was written were two very different
things. I *at one point) was given a copy of the original draft (found on
the net) and really kicked myself later for getting rid of it. I didn't
mean to slam Curtis with my comments, my comment was regarding the final
product, which has three authors credited and probably suffered from some
severe editorial hacking before release (from ICE? Hero?). Myself, I
have to wonder what my final K5 book looks like. AFAIK: It went through
whole, but I have no way of know right now, I haven't seen my copy of it.
> It's a lot tougher than some folks think, particularly when the
> process is complicated by external issues (why do you *think* so much
> software doc is worthless?)
I had a few arguments with my editor and Bruce, yes...
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds
you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:57:16 -0700
From: Rodger Bright <rodger.bright@cbpr.com>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
I honestly don't know who Jack Vance is.......
> Hey...it wasn't that hokey when Jack Vance used it...
>
> > The way it works is that you are born
> > with the ability, or you are not. If you don't learn how to channel properly, you will
> > die, end of story. People have different potentials, if you go to an Order that trains
> > Blademasters and they find out that you have a very high potential for channeling, they
> > will send you to a school that specializes in teaching full Channelers. i.e. People
> > with extraordinary potential for manipulating Vil'a'dar (what I call magic).
>
> What if you want to be a Blademaster? (I didn't read the original post
> unfortunately, could you resend it to me?) Or can full Channellers do
> anything a Blademaster can do?
Full Channelers theoretically could do "some" of what a Blademaster does. But a Blademaster
spends MANY years perfecting his skill with the sword. A Full Channeler spends Many years
perfecting their skill with Vil'a'dar... VERY different areas of study. A Blademaster's use
of Vil'a'dar is strictly to augment their utterly impressive fighting ability. A Full
Channeler would probably just rather throw an entangle on you, and then RKA you till you were
a pulp. Though some Schools do teach the use of Vil'a'dar as well as other skills (such as
fighting with weapons). Blademasters get really kick ass Martial Arts maneuvers, and are
allowed to really pump up their fighting skill. I wouldn't let a Full Channeler get 6 OCV
levels with HTH combat, it just wouldn't make sense.
> > Channeling. A Blademaster spends more time learning how to wield a sword then he does
> > playing with Vil'a'dar, and what he DOES learn about channeling has to do with his
> > sword anyway. i.e. They train him how to augment his fighting ability with Vil'a'dar,
> > and because of this he may not simply choose whatever Powers he wishes. There are
> > strict forms and abilities that Blademaster Towers teach, and a Blademaster may choose
> > to learn these, and these only.
>
> And if the Blademaster later decides to learn more about Channelling? Or
> if a full Channeller wants to learn some of the Blademaster weapon
> augmentation tricks? Is that possible?
Theoretically a Blademaster could learn how to use Vil'a'dar for other things besides
fighting augmentation, but I would only allow very specific things. They would never be able
to learn how to do an unaided ranged attack (it just goes against everything they have been
taught). They are very single minded, they believe that true wisdom and enlightenment comes
from becoming one with their sword. A Full Channeler could learn some of the fighting
augmentation tricks of a Blademaster, but I would be VERY stingy with them. A Full Channeler
with a +2 SPD would be WAY too powerful. But we have a "Battle Mage" in our group. There is
a guy playing a Channeler from the Order of the Stone Fist (A Tower dedicated to the use of
Earth and Stone) who is a half giant, he wields a pick and hammer, and most of his Powers are
directly related to hand-to-hand combat and excavation. He has an EB that emanates from the
tip of his hammer, but only upon a successful hit. This sounds kind of unbalancing, but it
fits his character concept. He would be part of a work party that had the job of tearing
down a mountain, so he would smack some rock, channel a bit, and then WHAM! a bunch of rock
would get blasted to crud.
Let me know if that cleared it up a bit.
- --Rodger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:18:06 -0700
From: Rodger Bright <rodger.bright@cbpr.com>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
> The blademaster stuff has IAF: Sword...isn't it common knowledge that a
> Blademaster's magic goes through his sword? If so, I'd give it the full
> OAF. Even if it's not common knowledge, I think an attempted disarm or
> removal of the sword is fairly likely to be attempted anyway, so I'd be
> inclined to give the OAF points on the theory that nobody is going to
> mistake the sword for anything but a powerful, important weapon.\
Some will/do have OAF. Certain Powers would cause their sword to glow, this
would be an OAF. But if they simply had to use the sword in the effect of
the Power, and it wasn't obvious that the sword played a crucial part, then
it would only be IAF. E.g.. If they had a Missile Deflection Ability that
required them to bat the arrows away with their sword, that is most
definitely OAF.
> Lightning Strike has the limits of 'only while weilding sword in battle'
> and 'must use sword every phase' - isn't the first one subsumed in the
> second? Also, the 'Gestures Throughout' doesn't seem to fit with the
> description of only raising the sword high above his head to start the
> power.
Only While Wielding Sword in battle means that you have to be in Melee
combat, if you are 10" away from your enemy, you are out of luck, you can not
use the Power. The Reason Must use Sword every phase is in there is because
you can usually do things in Combat that don't require your weapon, Dodge for
instance. If a Blademaster has Lightning Strike Activated (which is a +2 SPD
for those that care) they HAVE to use their sword every Phase, they Can Not
Dodge, Punch, Kick, etc... They start the Ability by raising their sword in
the air (i.e. Hey look at me, I am powerful, kill me first). Then they go
into sort of a dancing frenzy, and during this dance they are considered to
be executing specific forms and routines, they can't just stand there and
smack their foe, they need to be keeping up a fluid motion of attacks,
therefore, Gestures Throughout.
> I also would not give a -1/4 limitation for 'can only attack with Martial
> Maneuvers or Special Powers' - chances are, the players are going to be
> using Martial maneuvers anyway, since they're more effective than the
> basic ones, so it's not really limiting at all.
You are correct, most of the time players will only ever use their martial
maneuvers. But that limitation also means they can't dodge, they can't do
haymakers, they can't sweep, they can't disarm unless they have that specific
martial maneuver, they can't grab, no move throughs, no move-by's, I can
think of a lot of moves i like to do that don't fall into the Martial
Maneuvers category.
> Some other ideas for a Blademaster would be a counterstrike-style Damage
> Shield or an attack flurry (autofire).
We have been kicking around some different ideas for an autofire attack. it
is just hard to add the autofire advantage to a physical weapon attack, it
gets kind of kludgy. I like the idea for a counter strike DS.
> Perhaps powerful Blademasters can learn to use their enhanced swords to
> deflect magical attacks as well as more mundane weapons. A Dispel taking
> the form of 'cutting' the magic could be quite cool as well.
That would be cool, Missile Deflection, All ranged attacks, or Energy based
only or something. That Dispel is also a cool idea, I have to come up with
an Ability for that.
> One thing that may not have come up: your Suppress being all-or-nothing
> means that it is not likely to work at the levels you allow - only very
> powerful people will be able to do it, and then only to the very weak.
> (For example, someone with a Chanelling Potential of 10 - fairly
> impressive if I understand your system correctly - would only be able to
> reliably block people with a Chanelling Potential of 4 or less. Average
> roll on 5 dice is 17...) You might wish to reconsider, or allow 'partial'
> shielding so that the person can't call upon as much of the Source as
> they normally would. This would make the Suppress ability effective
> enough to be actually worthwhile.
That's the whole idea, it is just about impossible to Shield someone. The
only people that can do it are REALLY bad ass guys. CP 10 is pretty high up
there for PC's. But most of my bad guys are AT LEAST CP 15 or higher. It's
nice to have things that are out of a PC's reach, and then after playing a
character for 2 years, all of a sudden they can use Suppress with some
proficiency.
> Spirit Archers: I would give the 'Ballista Bolt' power a further
> limitation to reflect the fact that the Aid wears off instantly (unless
> I'm misunderstanding the power).
You channel a 6d6 AID on the Arrow. That arrow is effectlivey Aided so that
it will do more damage when it hits. Theoretically you could throw that
arrow and it would still do some decent damage (whatever was role don the 6d6
AID). When it comes out a bow it does it's regular damage (from being
propelled by the bow), and it does it's added damage (From the AID). It
lasts until it fades. You could theoretically channel that Ability on
multiple arrows, and as long as you use them within a Turn they wouldn't lose
any power.
- --Rodger
P.S. If everybody else is finding this discussion boring, let me know. Dr.
N. and I can continue it in private.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:18:47 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
At 01:57 PM 6/29/99 -0700, Rodger Bright wrote:
>I honestly don't know who Jack Vance is.......
Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" stories - consisting of a number of short
stories and a few novels - included a magic system that was the inspiration
for D&D's magic.
Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:29:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Rodger Bright wrote:
> I honestly don't know who Jack Vance is.......
>
> > Hey...it wasn't that hokey when Jack Vance used it...
Jack Vance wrote several novels in a series called "The Dying Earth". The
basics of the 'memorize, cast & forget' magic system were lifted from his
works, although he handled them far better than TSR/Gygax did.
> > What if you want to be a Blademaster? (I didn't read the original post
> > unfortunately, could you resend it to me?) Or can full Channellers do
> > anything a Blademaster can do?
>
> Full Channelers theoretically could do "some" of what a Blademaster does. But a Blademaster
> spends MANY years perfecting his skill with the sword. A Full Channeler spends Many years
> perfecting their skill with Vil'a'dar... VERY different areas of study.
True. But could one be half and half? Could you split your energies
between the augmentation of the blade and full channelling, to be more
broadly effective than a Blademaster (but probably not as powerful as a
Channeller who has worked with pure Vil'a'dar all his life?)
> > > Channeling. A Blademaster spends more time learning how to wield a sword then he does
> > > playing with Vil'a'dar, and what he DOES learn about channeling has to do with his
> > > sword anyway.
> >
> > And if the Blademaster later decides to learn more about Channelling? Or
> > if a full Channeller wants to learn some of the Blademaster weapon
> > augmentation tricks? Is that possible?
>
> Theoretically a Blademaster could learn how to use Vil'a'dar for other things besides
> fighting augmentation, but I would only allow very specific things. They would never be able
> to learn how to do an unaided ranged attack (it just goes against everything they have been
> taught). They are very single minded, they believe that true wisdom and enlightenment comes
> from becoming one with their sword.
There has never been and will never be a Blademaster who doubts this
wisdom? Or one who learns to overcome what essentially seem to be false
limitations put on him?
> A Full Channeler could learn some of the fighting
> augmentation tricks of a Blademaster, but I would be VERY stingy with them. A Full Channeler
> with a +2 SPD would be WAY too powerful.
I guess I was also talking about someone who has the potential to be a
Full Chaneller, but who wants to be a Blademaster instead...would the
Blademaster school not accept them? If it did, would they be better than
the other Blademasters at manipulating Vil'a'dar? YWould they have an
easier time breaking away from the Blademaster restrictions on the use of
Vil'a'Dar if they decided to try to learn Full Channelling later?
I guess I'm trying to figure out if the differences between these
character Archetypes are really as discrete as they seem to be, or if
they're a bit fuzzier and (to my mind) more realistic.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:47:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: [Semi-OT] Yahoo/Geocities warning
Apologies for the off-topic beginning of this message. Relevance to
GURPS and HERO will be established later.
If anyone has their website on Geocities, be advised: the Terms of Service
now give Yahoo the right to basically do whatever they want with the
content of your webpage. They get the 'royalty-free, perpetual,
irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right to use,
reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works
from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part)
worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or
technology now known or later developed.'
(It sounds to me like they're going to do a 'Geocities CD' and they want
to do it without paying the people who did the work a cent.)
Gaming-relevant section:
It strikes me that this is exactly the sort of thing that a greedy
megacorp would do in a cyberpunk setting...extend a 'free' service to the
public and then use it to defraud the innocent dupes who use the service.
It could be everything from Big Brother watching everything you do through
your free Internet connection to experimental drugs slipped into your
'Shop-at-home' service groceries. Discovering and shutting such an
operation down would be a fine adventure seed.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 18:24:40 -0400
From: Juan Antonio Ramirez <tonio@prtc.net>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
Rodger Bright wrote:
[snip]
> the air (i.e. Hey look at me, I am powerful, kill me first). Then they go
> into sort of a dancing frenzy, and during this dance they are considered to
> be executing specific forms and routines, they can't just stand there and
> smack their foe, they need to be keeping up a fluid motion of attacks,
> therefore, Gestures Throughout.
>
I thought 'attacking' didn't count as Gestures... it had to be something else. I
believe the BBB specifically excludes attacks as valid Gestures...
Of course, if you're the GM, and it works for you .... 8)
- --Tonio
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 18:31:08 -0400
From: "Scott C. Nolan" <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Reply about FH Magic System Design
At 01:57 PM 6/29/99 -0700, Rodger Bright wrote:
>I honestly don't know who Jack Vance is.......
>
>> Hey...it wasn't that hokey when Jack Vance used it...
Jack Vance is the brilliant, eclectic science fiction and fantasy
writer on whose books "The Eyes of the Overworld" and "Cugel
the Clever", (two of hundreds he has written) the D&D magic
system is loosely based.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:41:16 -0500
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: RE: Variable powers
At 12:33 PM 6/29/1999 -0400, David Nasset wrote:
>From: Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin [mailto:griffin@txdirect.net]
>
>> That's what Limited Power is there for. It's a catch-all category for
>> anything not covered by another, more specific, Limitation.
>> Inventing new,
>> specific modifiers in order to avoid using existing, flexible
>> modifiers
>> seems counterintuitive.
>
>Actually, the opposite seems counterintuitive to me. When a Modifier or
>Power is _too_ flexible, it can be very useful, as well as adding stability
>(especially cross-campaign stability) to the game, to create general cases
>and turn them into new Modifiers or Powers.
>
>Your argument basically says, "Don't ever create new Limitations. Limited
>Power is better."
That is not what I said, it's what you read into what I said. It is not
necessary to create new, specific modifiers for every case, because Limited
Power will usually work just fine as a catch-all. The argument "There is
no specific Limitation to cover this situation, so I must create one" is
specious, because Limited Power will probably do the job.
Specific modifiers should be "broken out" only when the parameters of the
situation the new modifier is supposed to cover are not adequately handled
by an existing Limitation, *including* Limited Power.
So, I *do* allow for the need to create new Limitations, as long as: (a) no
specific modifier already exists to fit the requirements, and (b) the
parameters of the proposed new Limitation cannot be described by any of the
following phrases...
* Power only works (or does not work) when/if/unless/while <condition>
* Power loses some of its effectiveness
>Secondly, using your argument, I could argue that adding new effects to
>Powers should not be done, so long as Transform could do it. If inventing
>new, specific modifiers in order to avoid using existing, flexible modifiers
>is bad, then so is creating new, specific powers in order to avoid using
>existing, flexible powers.
I haven't mentioned Transform or anything like it during any part of this
thread. I haven't suggested that creating new modifiers (or powers) is
bad. I have said that doing so /when it's not necessary, because an
existing option will do the job/ is bad. Again, you are not commenting on
my argument, you are commenting on your own [flawed] interpretation of my
argument.
>Thirdly, this is partly intended as a rewrite of Variable Advantage, which
>it needs. I don't see why rewriting an existing Limitation to be more
>flexible is counter-intuitive.
Are you sure it needs a rewrite? Maybe it just needs a clarification. Has
anyone asked for a ruling from SteveL or anyone else at Hero Games on the
question of whether VA can be used alone, without Armor Piercing or any
other Advantage filling the slot that VA makes available. If Rat is right,
and it can be used by itself, then it seems plenty flexible enough to me.
Maybe you should get that question settled before you go rewriting the option.
Change of subject: Why am I suddenly getting attached documents from you on
almost all your posts?
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:07:00 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Cyber HERO
At 01:00 PM 6/29/1999 -0700, Steven J. Owens wrote:
>> >
>> > There's also Cyber Hero, the cyberpunk sourcebook.
>>
>> I try not to think of that.
>
> Curtis Scott, the original author of CyberHero, was also a member
>of this list before he died in a traffic accident on the way to GenCon
>several years ago. As a former acquaintance (I'm afraid I didn't know
>him long enough to call myself his friend, though he ran a fun Call of
>Cthulu game), I feel compelled to comment.
>
> CyberHero is not my favorite Hero product. Not even close. I
>mentioned this to Curtis. Curtis was very unhappy with the way
>CyberHero turned out and expressed some dissatisfaction with the
>process by which the final product was developed. Since I'm not him,
>and he never really did give me all the details, I can't comment
>further on CyberHero specifically. As a professional technical
>author, I do have a lot of empathy for any author producing a book,
>particularly a book that must contend with external forces and the
>vicissitudes of project schedules.
I'm familiar with Curtis' tale, and I also saw much of the original
manuscript (and even had a copy of my computer before my fatal crash last
year). I heard, also, that another one of the three authors (one of the
two Michaels) expressed such embarassment over the trash that none of them
wrote that, were I in their shoes, I would have sued to have my name
removed from the cover.
My understanding of the situation is that someone at ICE decided to make
some changes (about 98% of the changes between the actual Final Draft and
what was seen in print) to make it more closely match something that they
had of their own in the cyberpunk arena.
I still have no idea how much of my manuscript for TUV will be cut, and
how much will be changed. For one thing, I originally thought it would be
electronic format only, and so I crammed everything in that I thought could
possibly be useful for a HERO System GM; a book of that size will hardly be
practical in print format, so I'm expecting that, at the very least, the
sample characters will be cut out. Also, I originally wrote it for 4th
Edition, and though I did what I could to make it work with 5th Edition, I
already know of at least a half-dozen things that I didn't know about (or,
at best, was unsure of) that will have to be altered or inserted. And then
there are the plain ol' editorial decisions that I'm sure will come (though
only a couple of "editorial instructions" were given based on the First
Draft).
I'm still waiting to see what it comes out like. Given that the Hero
Guys are quite understandably finishing off the Fifth Edition Rulebook
first (since TUV is, after all, a supplement to that book), it'll probably
be a while (though I'm holding out hope that it'll be ready to ship, or at
least taking pre-orders, by the end of September). When it does, well,
maybe I'll fill everyone in on how the final product differs from my own.
(Or maybe not.)
My real point is, though, that I don't blame the guys credited as being
the authors for how bad it is, and neither should anyone else. Some bad
editorial decisions were made.
And so, maybe another edition of Cyber HERO is in order, this time using
the original manuscript and Michael Surbrook's new rules as a basis.
PS: I'm going to go look around a little later for the original
manuscript for Cyber HERO, and if I can find it, I'll let the list know.
- ---
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
Interested in sarrusophones? Join the Sarrusophone Mailing List!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/sarrus.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:26:00 -0400
From: David Nasset <dnasset@cns.eds.com>
Subject: RE: Reply about FH Magic System Design
From: Juan Antonio Ramirez [mailto:tonio@prtc.net]
>
> I thought 'attacking' didn't count as Gestures... it had to
> be something else. I
> believe the BBB specifically excludes attacks as valid Gestures...
> Of course, if you're the GM, and it works for you .... 8)
Attacking cannot be Gestures. However, doing strange things while attacking
can be, if they are distinctive enough. When using this Power, a Blademaster
has to do something (it could be a highly stylistic martial dance) that is
so distinctive that _everyone_ knows he is using magic.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:27:00 -0400
From: David Nasset <dnasset@cns.eds.com>
Subject: RE: Reply about FH Magic System Design
From: Scott C. Nolan [mailto:nolan@erols.com]
>
> At 01:57 PM 6/29/99 -0700, Rodger Bright wrote:
> >I honestly don't know who Jack Vance is.......
> >
> >> Hey...it wasn't that hokey when Jack Vance used it...
>
> Jack Vance is the brilliant, eclectic science fiction and fantasy
> writer on whose books "The Eyes of the Overworld" and "Cugel
> the Clever", (two of hundreds he has written) the D&D magic
> system is loosely based.
Actually, the first he wrote using that magic system was "The Dying Earth",
I believe. I liked it, but disliked "Cugel the Clever", due to a hatred of
the title character. I don't want to be amused by the antics of a man who
robs, murders, kidnaps, and rapes within the first few chapters of the book.
Such subjects may be good for dark humor, or a serious story, but I don't
find them amusing.
Partly due to "Cugel the Clever", and partly due to other reasons, I never
got around to "The Eyes of the Overworld".
Filksinger
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #436
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 04:18 PM