Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 473
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 11:24 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #473
champ-l-digest Wednesday, July 28 1999 Volume 01 : Number 473
In this issue:
Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
Re: Extra Time & Multipower Slots
Re: Extra Time & Multipower Slots
Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Re: Extra Time & Multipower Slots
Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
Past Digital Hero Articles
Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Re: AP w/ Martial Arts
Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Whoops, my bad! Error in HTML filter for CW ...
Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:41:08 -0500
From: Ross Rannells <rossrannells@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin wrote:
> At 05:12 PM 7/27/1999 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> >At 05:35 PM 7/27/1999 -0500, Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin wrote:
> >>
> >>Assuming the Gilligan's Island movie includes a remake of the premiere, and
> >>is not a Castaways: Many Years After story, I'd like to see Katie Holmes as
> >>Mary Ann. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss is okay, but Katie Holmes is hard to beat
> >>for that wholesome appearance.
> >
> > I probably would've gone for Beverly Mitchell (of "Seventh Heaven"), but
> >then I'd have to wait about five years. :-]
>
> You might easily have to wait that long for her to /look/ old enough, but
> Beverly will be 19 in January; she's actually 14 months older than "big"
> sister Jessica Biel. Katie Holmes turns 21 just before Christmas, so
> there's really not that much difference in their ages.
>
> > And for Thurston Howell III, David Ogden Stiers.
>
> Or Kelsey Grammer. Let's see...Susan Sullivan as Mrs. Howell? Kathy
> Ireland as Ginger? Topher Grace as Gilligan? (Most of you won't recognize
> that last name, but he plays Eric Forman on "That 70's Show.")
>
> Damon
Topher Grace doesn't look old enough to play Gilligan. I think the guy
(can't recall his name) who plays Joxar on Xena. I think he could pull
it off.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:36:24 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
>
> Ugh. I was afraid this discussion might have to do with hydrostatic
shock. Folx, hydrostatic shock is basically a myth as far as causing
damage to people; the only part of the body rigid enough for
hydrostatic shock to matter is the insides of the skull.
>
What does hydrostatic shock have to do with it? I said,
"Hydra-shocks", which are bullets which have tested as generally
superior to normal rounds in FBI and other tests, and have routinely
produced superior results in actual use, according to Marshall's
statistics. Not because they cause superior "hydrostatic shock", but
because they penetrate hard materials better, soft materials and sheet
metal without clogging that prevents expansion, and routinely expand
more reliably and to consistent dimensions better than most other
rounds, resulting in a wound that gets better test and real-world
results than standard hollow points.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:59:48 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Extra Time & Multipower Slots
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> * GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au> on Tue, 27 Jul 1999
> | In fact this is NOT the case, although I will concede that it is
often
> | the way it tends to be (wrongly) interpreted. If I have a series
of
> | powers such as Force Field, Flight, and Shapeshift that all have
the
> | Extra Time limitation, I CAN activate the Flight and the
Shapeshift
> | while I'm spending time to activate the Force Field. Indeed, I can
> | activate all three at once - it will simply take longer for them
to
> | "turn on".
>
> Really. I'll have to look at that again. If you're right, then it
is we
> (my group) that has been doing it wrong for-practically-ever.
Depends upon which you mean. If the power with Extra Time is in a
Multipower, then the slot is locked up. If it _isn't_ in a Multipower,
then you can do whatever you please, so long as the Power with Extra
Time does not require an attack roll. If it does, it prevents other
attacks only, but has no other effects on the use of other abilities.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:01:14 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Extra Time & Multipower Slots
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
<snip>
>
> Given that it IS very common to view "Extra Time" as "I can't do
> anything until this time elapses", perhaps a new limitation that
> reflects this is in order. It would, in general, be more limiting
than
> Extra Time is.
There is one already. Concentration when activating only plus Extra
Time.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:57:28 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
From: Christopher Taylor <christopherrt@home.net>
> >> > When I say "realistic", I mean it. Not "heroic", but "Your
player got
> >> > shot with a .357 Magnum Hydra-Shock round. Being completely
average,
> >> > he has about a 95% chance of being taken out of the fight, and
has a
> >> > significant chance of dying, even with medical attention.
Hospital
> >> > visit time."
>
> For the life of me I don't understand why people post like this. In
the
> rules there are hit locations, they are very handy for representing
this
> sort of thing.
They are less than effective when compared to the real world.
> Lets see here, minimum attack of 2 BOD, that means you
> barely clipped the guy with a shard of your bullet that broke up in
flight
> (postulating how a gun would do minimum damage). Do you think that
shold
> kill someone?
Probably not. Nor did I suggest that it would.
> I'm sorry but there is no handgun that has a 95% chance of
> killing someone every shot, if I shot your finger off with the
Avenger 30mm
> gatling cannon on an A-10 you STILL only lost a finger.
Who said 95% chance of dying? I didn't. I said a 95% chance that you
were taken out of the fight, which isn't the same as dying. This
statistic is taken from real-world police reports. Evan Marshall spent
years collecting police reports, throwing out all cases where the
target was hit more than once, in the torso, to get his statistics.
And Hydra-shocks, in his findings, had better than 95% reliable
one-shot stopping power.
I did miss something there, as I wasn't trying for an in-depth
discussion on stopping power. The 95% reliability of a Hydra-shock to
take someone out of a fight is based upon a torso hit. I wasn't trying
to fill in all the details.
> The size and power
> of the bullet does not matter nearly as much as where you get shot.
The size and power of the bullet can matter a great deal. Getting shot
in the torso from a .22 will often not stop a person. Getting shot in
the torso from a .357 Magnum will usually stop a person, regardless of
ammo used.
> If you use hit locations, disabling, and impairing you will rip
people
> apart. The thing people seem to miss is that hardly EVER does
someone die
> instantaneously on the spot from a lethal attack.
Nor did I say or suggest that it would. Shots from pistols have about
a 15% chance of killing a person, if they get prompt modern medical
attention. I said they would take a person out of a fight, not kill
him.
> Unless the damage was so
> greivous to remove a lot of vital tissue or crush it into paste, you
bleed
> to death or die over a matter of minutes or seconds. In other
words... you
> are below 0 BOD and bleeding to death. Using the bleeding rules,
this can
> be rather unpleasently fast, and is an example of how if you use all
the
> optional damage rules, Hero is very lethal and very believable.
I don't generally find the rules to be either one, though the optional
rules do help. Using the optional rules, a .357 Magnum to the upper
chest will do a maximum of 9 BODY. It _can't_ instantly kill you. It
can, by causing bleeding, cause an average man to be dead in a couple
of minutes. But a single successful first aid roll can stop that, and
in the mean time he can act pretty much as if he is uninjured up until
the time he collapses. In the real world, he needs a hospital. In
HERO, trauma centers and ambulances are virtually useless. Either the
person is dead before the ambulance arrives, or a first aid roll
stopped his dying, in which case all he needs is rest for a full
recovery.
The bullet also does an average (assuming a +1 STUN hollow point) of
23 STUN. A completely average man will usually go down instantly. But
a slightly above average man won't. And hollow point .357 Magnum
rounds will stop most people most of the time. The good ones have a
90%+ reliability, in real-world situations. Much better than in HERO.
The people at HERO try, and for the most part they do a better job
than most systems. But they aren't nearly as realistic as you seem to
think. They designed their rules to make it easier to be a hero, and
movies and some books make injured heroes resemble the Energizer
bunny; they keep going and going and going and going....
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:20:08 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
> Christopher Taylor writes:
> > If you use hit locations, disabling, and impairing you will rip
people
> > apart. The thing people seem to miss is that hardly EVER does
someone die
> > instantaneously on the spot from a lethal attack. Unless the
damage was so
> > greivous to remove a lot of vital tissue or crush it into paste,
you bleed
> > to death or die over a matter of minutes or seconds.
>
> And the amount of vital tissue which needs to be removed to kill
instantly is pretty extreme. Humans can live for a little while
missing the torso below the waist (4-5d killing to the gut), and even
remain briefly conscious. Of course, without super-medicine, they're
going to die and you can't do anything about it, but requiring 10 body
to the head or vitals, or 20 body in the remainder of the torso (or 40
body to the limbs...), to _instantly_ kill someone, isn't really out
of line.
Really? 20 BODY can completely _disintegrate_ a small car, in the Hero
System. 40 BODY would blow a hole in Grand Coolee Dam.
> One thing I've considered (more for specific characters than as a
general rule) is giving +1 defense vs body for every 2 body damage
already taken. This means you can't easily chop someone to ribbons
with 1 pip killing attacks.
Interesting idea. However, it also means that a man who is hit for 9
BODY can take an average round from a .38 without further injury. And
do so repeatedly. That might be excessive.
GM: "OK, you have a 15 BODY, because you are tough. You have just
taken maximum damage from that .44 Magnum. That's twelve BODY."
Player: "Right. Once I recover from being stunned, I jump up and shoot
the guards."
GM: "The guards fire on you. You are hit 5 times with 9mm rounds.
However, since none of them do more than 12 BODY, you take no BODY
damage."
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:56:19 -0700
From: Christopher Taylor <christopherrt@home.net>
Subject: Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
>> >> > When I say "realistic", I mean it. Not "heroic", but "Your player got
>> >> > shot with a .357 Magnum Hydra-Shock round. Being completely average,
>> >> > he has about a 95% chance of being taken out of the fight, and has a
>> >> > significant chance of dying, even with medical attention. Hospital
>> >> > visit time."
>>
>> For the life of me I don't understand why people post like this. In the
>> rules there are hit locations, they are very handy for representing this
>> sort of thing.
>
>They are less than effective when compared to the real world.
Not sure exactly what you mean, but again this is fairly subjective since
we don't get numerical readouts to damage and trauma hehehe, basically it
comes down to what ends up feeling fairly believable when all is said and
done.
>> Lets see here, minimum attack of 2 BOD, that means you
>> barely clipped the guy with a shard of your bullet that broke up in flight
>> (postulating how a gun would do minimum damage). Do you think that should
>> kill someone?
>
>Probably not. Nor did I suggest that it would.
>
>> I'm sorry but there is no handgun that has a 95% chance of
>> killing someone every shot, if I shot your finger off with the Avenger 30mm
>> gatling cannon on an A-10 you STILL only lost a finger.
>
>Who said 95% chance of dying? I didn't. I said a 95% chance that you
>were taken out of the fight, which isn't the same as dying. This
Sorry, when I read 95% and reasonable chance of dying I thought you were
talking about those kinds of numbers. Since you didn't specify the
location, I just wanted to point out that simply being SHOT by a bullet
that doesn't kill does not mean that the rules are a mess. It matters
where and how much of the bullet's energy affects the target.
>statistic is taken from real-world police reports. Evan Marshall spent
>years collecting police reports, throwing out all cases where the
>target was hit more than once, in the torso, to get his statistics.
>And Hydra-shocks, in his findings, had better than 95% reliable
>one-shot stopping power.
No question about that. The problem with this is that when you do the
damage for a high powered pistol round it averages to around 5 BOD and on a
chest hit this is 5 BOD/15 STN. In other words is it the system or the way
the gun is built? Shouldn't bullets do more damage, rather than saying
Hero Games represents this poorly?
>> If you use hit locations, disabling, and impairing you will rip people
>> apart. The thing people seem to miss is that hardly EVER does someone die
>> instantaneously on the spot from a lethal attack.
>
>Nor did I say or suggest that it would. Shots from pistols have about
>a 15% chance of killing a person, if they get prompt modern medical
>attention. I said they would take a person out of a fight, not kill
>him.
Thats where stun and disabling comes into play... if you take a disabling
shot to the chest you are out of a fight, if you are using the rules
strictly. The high end of all these rules works well (I used them for my
Vietnam game and it was truly ugly, people got ripped literally apart and
taken out with alarming regularity. The only system I saw that acted like
that was Traveller 2300).
>> Unless the damage was so
>> greivous to remove a lot of vital tissue or crush it into paste, you
>bleed
>> to death or die over a matter of minutes or seconds. In other
>words... you
>> are below 0 BOD and bleeding to death. Using the bleeding rules,
>this can
>> be rather unpleasently fast, and is an example of how if you use all
>the
>> optional damage rules, Hero is very lethal and very believable.
>I don't generally find the rules to be either one, though the optional
>rules do help. Using the optional rules, a .357 Magnum to the upper
>chest will do a maximum of 9 BODY. It _can't_ instantly kill you. It
Is this a flaw? Do you think a shot from a 357 should kill someone on the
spot with max damage to the chest? See above about dying instantly.
>can, by causing bleeding, cause an average man to be dead in a couple
>of minutes. But a single successful first aid roll can stop that, and
>in the mean time he can act pretty much as if he is uninjured up until
>the time he collapses. In the real world, he needs a hospital. In
>HERO, trauma centers and ambulances are virtually useless. Either the
>person is dead before the ambulance arrives, or a first aid roll
>stopped his dying, in which case all he needs is rest for a full
>recovery.
Absolutely, that is a problem with.... the Paramedic skill, not with the
combat system. Again, its not the hit locations combat system etc that is
at fault here right? They function believably and simulate the action
well, its the skill here that makes it not work well. By the way disabling
and impairing keeps a player from acting normally and if you move after
getting bleeding stopped... it starts up again.
>The bullet also does an average (assuming a +1 STUN hollow point) of
>23 STUN. A completely average man will usually go down instantly. But
>a slightly above average man won't. And hollow point .357 Magnum
>rounds will stop most people most of the time. The good ones have a
>90%+ reliability, in real-world situations. Much better than in HERO.
As you keep saying, but I question that as above. But you can read plenty
of police reports (and talk to cops first hand, boy did one guy I know have
a story about a guy) that people can take godawful damage and keep going,
and these guys arent olympic atheletes.. Most of the reason people lay down
and stop is because it hurts, and it hurts a LOT. You are shocked and
terrified and want it all to go away, but someone with a stronger will or
reason to go on wont. If anything THAT is what isn't modelled in Hero (and
is, by the way, very cinematic). But an above average person can take a
better shot than an average person. Keep in mind that the police stats are
primarily compiled shooting criminals, often on drugs or otherwise in less
than perfect condition, so the statistics are not precisely representative
of joe average.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Deo Gloria Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:55:36 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
From: Dr. Nuncheon <jeffj@io.com>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> >
> > Will Smith playing James West, and you didn't have a problem
with it?
>
> One of my favorite lines on the topic: "The bad guy has an 80-foot
> mechanical tarantula, and you're worried about the realism of a
black guy
> being in the Secret Service?"
I had no problems with that part. I did have problems with the fact
that the original Jim West was a cool-headed, strong-willed thinker
who rarely joked, and Will Smith's Jim West was a hot-headed,
leap-without-looking fool whose unwillingness to think nearly killed
them both more than once, who joked constantly. The original Jim West
shot almost no one; this Jim West was told by the President, "Not
every situation calls for your patented, 'Shoot first, shoot again,
shoot everyone else, shoot some more, and then think about asking
questions.'" (OWTTE) To put it simply, the character played by Will
Smith didn't even resemble the original character.
This isn't Will Smith's fault; he just played the part he was given.
He quite probably would have made a good Jim West if it had been
written as a serious part; he didn't do badly in the serious part he
had in Independence Day. It is the fault of either the producer, the
writers, or the director. Which it is depends upon which ones decided
on the final version of the character. The producers could have told
the writers that this is what they wanted; a Will Smith star vehicle.
The writers could have written him this way. Or the director could
have, as they often do, completely redone the character and lines. A
lot of bad writing is inserted by directors _after_ the writers lose
all control over the script.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:56:14 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Extra Time & Multipower Slots
From: S A Rudy <sarudy@hotmail.com>
>
> The only problem here is that by a strict interpretation of the
rules, the
> concentration disad would continue to apply even after the extra
time was
> satisfied. It would be a reasonable GM ruling, though, that the
> concentration disad is satisfied by taking place during the extra
time,
> since otherwise it's an extra inconvenience.
The rules allow for Concentration that only applies until the Power
activates. It is half the value of Concentration that applies during
the entire time the Power is active.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:19:05 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
From: Filksinger <filksinger@flashmail.com>
<snip>
>
> GM: "The guards fire on you. You are hit 5 times with 9mm rounds.
> However, since none of them do more than 12 BODY, you take no BODY
> damage."
"...since none of them do more than 6 BODY...." Sorry.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:03:32 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stun from Killing Attacks
From: Christopher Taylor <christopherrt@home.net>
<snip>
> >They are less than effective when compared to the real world.
>
> Not sure exactly what you mean, but again this is fairly subjective
since
> we don't get numerical readouts to damage and trauma hehehe,
basically it
> comes down to what ends up feeling fairly believable when all is
said and
> done.
Well, a man by the name of Evan Marshal has spent many years
collecting information from police reports. He accepts only cases
where a target was hit in the torso, and where it is known if a single
shot was sufficient. In such cases, he has found that .45s, in all
loads, do no better than 70%, but that .357 Magnum Hydra-shocks did
better than 95%.
I'm not certain of all the details, but his work has been gone over by
staticians and found to have been well done.
<snip>
> >
> >Who said 95% chance of dying? I didn't. I said a 95% chance that
you
> >were taken out of the fight, which isn't the same as dying. This
>
> Sorry, when I read 95% and reasonable chance of dying I thought you
were
> talking about those kinds of numbers. Since you didn't specify the
> location, I just wanted to point out that simply being SHOT by a
bullet
> that doesn't kill does not mean that the rules are a mess. It
matters
> where and how much of the bullet's energy affects the target.
True. But in the Hero System, even with all the optional rules, a .357
Magnum round to the upper chest cannot kill you instantly, and will
probably not stop anyone more than marginally above average, if they
are determined. In fact, it is unlikely to stop a truly determined
average man. This does not jibe with the real world. This is one
reason why I rebuilt the hit location chart to give both vitals and
upper chest a 1 1/2x BODY modifier, for killing attacks only. The
upper chest isn't generally a good place to hit people, but it is an
excellent place to shoot or stab people.
> >statistic is taken from real-world police reports. Evan Marshall
spent
> >years collecting police reports, throwing out all cases where the
> >target was hit more than once, in the torso, to get his statistics.
> >And Hydra-shocks, in his findings, had better than 95% reliable
> >one-shot stopping power.
>
> No question about that. The problem with this is that when you do
the
> damage for a high powered pistol round it averages to around 5 BOD
and on a
> chest hit this is 5 BOD/15 STN. In other words is it the system or
the way
> the gun is built? Shouldn't bullets do more damage, rather than
saying
> Hero Games represents this poorly?
If bullets do more damage, you'd have to up the defenses and BODY of
most materials, many super heroes, and most inanimate objects. If it
wasn't for the problems with the super heroes, I'd probably say, "Go
for it."
> >> If you use hit locations, disabling, and impairing you will rip
people
> >> apart. The thing people seem to miss is that hardly EVER does
someone die
> >> instantaneously on the spot from a lethal attack.
> >
> >Nor did I say or suggest that it would. Shots from pistols have
about
> >a 15% chance of killing a person, if they get prompt modern medical
> >attention. I said they would take a person out of a fight, not kill
> >him.
>
> Thats where stun and disabling comes into play... if you take a
disabling
> shot to the chest you are out of a fight, if you are using the rules
> strictly. The high end of all these rules works well (I used them
for my
> Vietnam game and it was truly ugly, people got ripped literally
apart and
> taken out with alarming regularity. The only system I saw that
acted like
> that was Traveller 2300).
The only problem with this is that a Disabling shot to the chest or
stomache takes 10 BODY, while a .357 Magnum does only 9 BODY to these
locations, at most. IOW, you can't Disable someone with anything short
of a .44 Magnum in any location except Vitals (which appears to be the
groin and lower abdomen) and the Head. Last I checked, shooting
someone in the chest was considered a good way to shoot people, if you
wanted to stop or kill them, but not in the Hero System.
<snip>
> >I don't generally find the rules to be either one, though the
optional
> >rules do help. Using the optional rules, a .357 Magnum to the upper
> >chest will do a maximum of 9 BODY. It _can't_ instantly kill you.
It
>
>
> Is this a flaw? Do you think a shot from a 357 should kill someone
on the
> spot with max damage to the chest? See above about dying instantly.
It certainly _can_, in the real world. I don't think it _should_,
generally, but people often die from such wounds in seconds or less.
In the Hero System, you don't. Even throwing in the optional Bleeding
rules, its almost impossible to be killed in less than a minute by a
.357 Magnum round directly to the center of the chest. In the real
world, it could easily stop your heart, or cause you to die within
seconds. In the game, the odds of you dying this fast are less than
the odds of having a shot to the center of the chest, waking up in
about 12 seconds, and walking home to rest.
> ><snip>Either the
> >person is dead before the ambulance arrives, or a first aid roll
> >stopped his dying, in which case all he needs is rest for a full
> >recovery.
>
> Absolutely, that is a problem with.... the Paramedic skill, not with
the
> combat system.
Wrong. In the real world, you can be hit with something that takes an
hour to kill you, or even days, Paramedic roll or no. In the Hero
System, it is almost impossible. It is a problem with death and dying,
and with the fact that dying doesn't slow you down in the Hero System
until you are dead.
> Again, its not the hit locations combat system etc that is
> at fault here right? They function believably and simulate the
action
> well, its the skill here that makes it not work well.
Wrong. It is the BODY damage and dying rules, not Paramedic.
> By the way disabling
> and impairing keeps a player from acting normally and if you move
after
> getting bleeding stopped... it starts up again.
Yes, it can. But that doesn't really simulate what often happens in
the real world well. People who hang on the edge of death for days,
whether they move or not, is not part of Hero, nor even an hour. The
bleeding rules are unlikely to take a person down but not kill him for
10 minutes, much less an hour. And if I take 1 BODY, I have to spend
days not moving, or I could bleed to death when the wound reopens.
> >The bullet also does an average (assuming a +1 STUN hollow point)
of
> >23 STUN. A completely average man will usually go down instantly.
But
> >a slightly above average man won't. And hollow point .357 Magnum
> >rounds will stop most people most of the time. The good ones have a
> >90%+ reliability, in real-world situations. Much better than in
HERO.
>
> As you keep saying, but I question that as above. But you can read
plenty
> of police reports (and talk to cops first hand, boy did one guy I
know have
> a story about a guy) that people can take godawful damage and keep
going,
> and these guys arent olympic atheletes.
Certainly. There was a case of a cop who fled from superior gunfire,
and didn't know he had been shot until his wife found 9 bullet holes
in his back that night.
A first hand account came from a friend of mine who was in Viet Nam
and was a rifle instructor. He once told me of a man who charged him
across a field, holding a grenade. He shot him once, and when nothing
happened, checked his rifle and shot him again. When nothing happened
again, he set it on fully automatic, and finally brought the man down
almost on top of him. When he checked the man over, it turned out his
pockets were full of pain-killers and stimulants, and he had tied
tourniquets around his arms and legs to try to prevent blood loss from
stopping him.
But these stories are spread around because they are atypical. A
statistical study of police reports shows this. And it matters quite a
bit what kind of round you use.
> Most of the reason people lay down
> and stop is because it hurts, and it hurts a LOT. You are shocked
and
> terrified and want it all to go away, but someone with a stronger
will or
> reason to go on wont. If anything THAT is what isn't modelled in
Hero (and
> is, by the way, very cinematic).
Also agreed. All rounds ever followed by Evan Marshal had about a
minimum of 50% stopping power from torso shots. This isn't simulated
well in HERO, where an average man hit anywhere but the groin or the
head by a .22 can easily take such a shot and walk away, every time,
with the minor exception of a maximum damage round to the stomach,
which he will need one recovery to wake up from, and _then_ can walk
away w/o any special effort, so long as he doesn't run.
> But an above average person can take a
> better shot than an average person. Keep in mind that the police
stats are
> primarily compiled shooting criminals, often on drugs or otherwise
in less
> than perfect condition, so the statistics are not precisely
representative
> of joe average.
People on some drugs are _harder_ to stop than a man not on drugs. Not
harder to kill, but harder to stop. They feel less pain and are often
heavily stimulated, as well. Cocaine, amphetamines, and PCP in
particular, have been known to do this. Nevertheless, the stopping
power of firearms in HERO is sadly lacking. Guns just don't stop
people well in HERO, and dying doesn't work well, either. I had an
optional method of taking care of this that was up on Digital Hero for
a while, but it is gone now, and I can't find a copy.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:30:10 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@flashmail.com>
Subject: Past Digital Hero Articles
Does anyone have the past articles of Digital Hero? I had some data
loss, and wasn't able to recover them all. I can't even find all of my
own articles. Please help. At the very least, I want my articles
again.
Filksinger
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:27:28 -0500
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
At 11:41 PM 7/27/1999 -0500, Ross Rannells wrote:
>
>Topher Grace doesn't look old enough to play Gilligan. I think the guy
>(can't recall his name) who plays Joxar on Xena. I think he could pull
>it off.
Topher Grace is the same age as Katie Holmes, which is one reason I thought
of him playing Gilligan opposite her as Mary Ann. Of course, we've only
seen him in "That 70's Show", where his wardrobe, haristyle and so forth
are supposed to make him look like a young teenager.
34-year-old Ted Raimi plays Joxer, and I'd have no objection to him playing
the role in a Castaways: Many Years Later movie, but I wouldn't cast him as
Gilligan for the series premiere (or a film that told that story) and I
wouldn't pair him with Katie Holmes as a possible romantic interest.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 05:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
Michael Surbrook writes:
> I used to watch the original all the time, which is why I didn't care for
> Will Smith being James West.
I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have, but that's primarily
because the movie as a whole seemed to go a bit overboard; the
original WWW was somewhat gentler. The movie seemed something of a
charicature or parody of the series. In the original series, West was
the macho tough guy and Gordon was the brain, but that didn't mean
West was stupid, nor that Gordon couldn't throw a punch or shoot a gun
if he had to. And the Wild Science was usually a bit less extreme. I
think they had better chemistry, but then again they had a whole
series to work on it.
Will Smith, on the other hand, didn't bother me nearly as much in
WWW as I thought he would. I think he did a pretty good job,
actually, much better than Men In Black (but then again, in MIB the
original character he replaced is supposed to be a _straight man_...).
No comment on a black man in the Secret Service. Frankly, I
don't remember exactly when the service was founded, but I know their
original mission was primarily chasing counterfieters. A black man
in the old west is extremely realistic. It's the typical western
that's completely unrealistic in this regard (along with the typical
modern military movie).
I think the part of the series I missed the most was the WWW
"photo to painting" scene transitions. :-)
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:17:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Steven J. Owens wrote:
> Michael Surbrook writes:
> > I used to watch the original all the time, which is why I didn't care for
> > Will Smith being James West.
>
> I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have, but that's primarily
> because the movie as a whole seemed to go a bit overboard; the
> original WWW was somewhat gentler. The movie seemed something of a
> charicature or parody of the series. In the original series, West was
> the macho tough guy and Gordon was the brain, but that didn't mean
> West was stupid, nor that Gordon couldn't throw a punch or shoot a gun
> if he had to. And the Wild Science was usually a bit less extreme. I
> think they had better chemistry, but then again they had a whole
> series to work on it.
I remember in the WWW TV special movie, Loveless created an atomic bomb,
and the giant spider seemed to me to be straight out of Castle Falkenstien
(which, if we ever ran a game, I wanted to play a US Secret Service
agent), so that part wouldn't botehr me (I haven't seen the film BTW).
> Will Smith, on the other hand, didn't bother me nearly as much in
> WWW as I thought he would. I think he did a pretty good job,
> actually, much better than Men In Black (but then again, in MIB the
> original character he replaced is supposed to be a _straight man_...).
Okay...
> No comment on a black man in the Secret Service. Frankly, I
> don't remember exactly when the service was founded, but I know their
> original mission was primarily chasing counterfieters. A black man
> in the old west is extremely realistic. It's the typical western
> that's completely unrealistic in this regard (along with the typical
> modern military movie).
Sure. One of the things that "The Unforgiven"
and "Silverdaro" got right. But the Secret Service (at least in WWW) is
operating in 1870-1880, and I seriously doubt they would have any black
agents. I mean, how long before you really saw black infantry in the Army
(the Civil War being the exception), or black police officers?
> I think the part of the series I missed the most was the WWW
> "photo to painting" scene transitions. :-)
They took athat out? That's a serious shame.
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"We're not against ideas. We're just against people spreading them."
General Augusto Pinochet
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:28:57 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: AP w/ Martial Arts
At 08:27 PM 7/27/1999 -0700, avargas@netzero.net wrote:
>
>Rat's bit about how STR adds to an AP attack is a little wierd
>though. Unless someone at Hero Games has issued an odd ruling
>recently, you pro-rate the STR. 15 STR is 3 DCs is equal to 2d of
>AP attack, not 3d. Simple.
The only thing weird about Rat's bit is that it's quoted directly out of
The Ultimate Martial Artist. (And for Rat to quote out of an Ultimate book
is *very* weird indeed!)
Keep in mind, though, that the rule only applies to HA under 4th Ed.
- ---
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: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:28:26 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
At 11:41 PM 7/27/1999 -0500, Ross Rannells wrote:
>
>Topher Grace doesn't look old enough to play Gilligan. I think the guy
>(can't recall his name) who plays Joxar on Xena. I think he could pull
>it off.
Style-wise, Ted Raimi (Joxer) could do it, but he's way too old -- in
his mid-thirties, I believe (remember, he was on SeaQuest DSV also, as Tim
Ortiz).
- ---
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: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:39:11 -0500
From: Chris Olson <chris_olson@itd.sterling.com>
Subject: Whoops, my bad! Error in HTML filter for CW ...
The file I put up on the web site had some strange characters in it, and
it had a rather nastier problem. Download it again, or fix the probelms
with the file ...
Strip out the extra control characters (Word does this quite well) and
make sure that the % character in each WIDTH= clause has a '\'
preceeding it:
WIDTH=33% should be WIDTH=33\%
Sorry for the mistake on my part ...
- --
Chris Olson 0309 X257977-A S va dr zh vi 422 _______________
Chris_Olson@ITD.Sterling.COM |-._ __,---,'
Traveller \() ` --' ,'
- --------------------------------------------------------- | | ,'
RPG Software \_()| ,'
in the Far Future \ |,'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ben Brown <benbrown@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Coming Attractions At the Movies
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> Sure. One of the things that "The Unforgiven"
> and "Silverdaro" got right. But the Secret Service (at least in WWW) is
> operating in 1870-1880, and I seriously doubt they would have any black
> agents. I mean, how long before you really saw black infantry in the Army
> (the Civil War being the exception), or black police officers?
>
Way off topic, here, but in fact, after the civil war, there were black
infantry (and cavalry) regiments continuously up until integration of the
armed forces in the late 1940s. I think it was the 24th and 25th infantry
regiments and the 9th and 10th cavalry regiments (the famous "Buffalo
Soldiers"). You're probably correct about the police officers, at least
in most areas (I don't have any statistics on this).
It's unlikely that the secret service would have black agents. On the other
hand, Wild Wild West was never the world's most accurate portrayal of the
secret service.
Oh, and another little note. The title of the 1992 Clint Eastwood movie is
_Unforgiven_, with no definite article. There is another movie, with the
article in the title, also a western, from 1960, with Burt Lancaster and
people like that. I've never seen it, but passed by the box on the shelf
in the video store.
(slight pause as Ben attempts to figure out how we got to this particular
topic)
So! How 'bout that Foxbat. Quite a guy.
- -Ben
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #473
*****************************
Web Page created with Text2Web v1.5.0 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 10:47 AM