6th Edition Hero System

[Zed-F]

No plans for this in the future, I know, but the last thread I could find that looked like it was seriously discussing this was a year ago, so perhaps thinking has crystallized on this a bit further. What are the big changes people would like to see in 6th Edition Hero? I'm not talking about little peeves like Regeneration being split out of Aid or whatever, I'm talking broad strokes here. If you think all Hero needs is a few small tweaks here and there... then that's fine too, and all we really need to know for the purpose of this thread.

For myself, I would like to see a lot of streamlining of the rules go in for the next version. We have many different ways of making more than one attack in the same round -- autofire, sweep/rapid fire, MPA -- and they are all slightly different. The adding damage rules is a mass of contradictions and exceptions. The FAQ to go from FREd to 5ER was huge, and still the clarifications and addenda keep piling up.

I would like to see the system rationalized, not so much in terms of content, but in terms of mechanical consistency. Having several primary and figured characteristics doesn't bother me so much. But I would like to see the way the rules interact with one another streamlined so that everything works together more consistently, with fewer rules exceptions. Right now Hero violates the KISS principle in too many ways, and many of the rules clarifications don't really make sense, which I attribute to different sets of rules not playing nice with one another. Paring down the number of different mechanics would make it easier to really make sure the ones that are left interact more cleanly and logically.

It's become increasingly clear that one cannot rules-lawyer one's way to a balanced system. It just causes an endless proliferation of exception-case rules. So I'd vote to get back to essentials, and then revise from there with the intent of keeping the mechanics as universal and streamlined as they can be made to be.

What broad-stroke changes would you like to see?

[bwdemon]

Here's where I start...

1. Divorce DEX from SPD & CV, reduce cost to 1/pt
2. PD base becomes CON/5
3. ED base becomes BODY/5
4. SPD base = 2
5. REC base = (CON + BODY)/5
6. CV base = 0 (must buy CSLs or use special maneuvers to increase)
7. Skill system goes to a (5 + CHA/3) base with 1pt/+1 as the price for all skills and identification of "trained only" skills (e.g. non-Everyman).
8. Remove killing attacks and resistant defenses (see the "Heresy" thread)
9. Remove armor and force field (buy PD/ED and buy as nonpersistent if appropriate)
10. Anything bought as a power is inherently visible (invisibility being the exception, of course).

[Teflon Billy]

Flash Defense applies to all senses by default. With limitations restricting it to individual sense groups.

TB

[Zed-F]

Here's where I start...

1. Divorce DEX from SPD & CV, reduce cost to 1/pt
2. PD base becomes CON/5
3. ED base becomes BODY/5
4. SPD base = 2
5. REC base = (CON + BODY)/5
6. CV base = 0 (must buy CSLs or use special maneuvers to increase)
7. Skill system goes to a (5 + CHA/3) base with 1pt/+1 as the price for all skills and identification of "trained only" skills (e.g. non-Everyman).
8. Remove killing attacks and resistant defenses (see the "Heresy" thread)
9. Remove armor and force field (buy PD/ED and buy as nonpersistent if appropriate)
10. Anything bought as a power is inherently visible (invisibility being the exception, of course).


Flash Defense applies to all senses by default. With limitations restricting it to individual sense groups.
See, this is a collection of tweaks. Putting these out there without giving the overall philosophy behind the changes isn't, IMHO, helpful. I'd prefer it if people would explain what kinds of changes they want to see, and why, without necessarily going into specifics, except to provide an example.

[Doc Democracy]

I suggested this last time we discussed it and I'd suggest it again.

One of the big sources of discord in Hero are characteristics. I would personally remove characteristics from the system and allow powers or skills to be bought that achieve effects like lifting, jumping etc.

Combat abilities could be purchased along the lines of skill levels etc.

To me that would be truer to the HERO ideal of toolkitting. Characteristics are currently too black box for a clean system.


Doc

[OddHat]

1) No more figured characteristics.

2) No more Killing vs Normal damage. No more Energy versus Physical damage. It's all just "Damage".

3) PD and ED replaced by one stat, DEF.

4) No more Hero System Discussion board; all rules disagreements to be settled through pie eating contests.

[schir1964]

...Characteristics are currently too black box for a clean system....
True enough, and there is a reason for this as you well know. (8^D)

It is the Human Template that is presumed for the characteristics. That is why there are figured Characteristics and why STR grants Lifting and Leaping.

To make a sweeping change would require breaking all of these things down into single elements that are defined to have only a single mechanical effect. Then recombine or associate these elements to create the Human Template, Venusion Template, Vehicle Template, Automaton Template, and so forth.

Defenses would need to be reworked to be a single element that would then be used to create all the different types of defenses seen with the current system. This would mean that Characters, NPC's, and Objects would all use the same consistent mechanic as the underlying basis.

Mechanics should allow one to build up from scratch, not have to be torn down to meet a SFX. (Personal Preference)

Death/Destruction/Broken would need to be expounded upon so that they are consistent and allow for more flexibility than the current Stun/Body mechanic allows for.

And many other things that I won't go into.

- Christopher Mullins

[Blue]

All of my opinions run almost completely contrary to those of everyone else here: Divorce all setting material from the Hero System book. Like the Combat Book, Equipment Book, and the forthcoming Character making thingie, I'd publish it as seperate books; Preferably hard-backed, though I'm still down for the soft.

[Starwolf]

Hmmm... I will probably be somewhat of a nay sayer here. I have been a Herophile since the very first publication (I even got Steve Petersons autograph on some convention Teen Titans characters). I feel that if any of the changes BWDemon were to be implemented, it would no longer be Hero but rather a spin off and I would be forced to remain with 5th Ed. This type of radical change to a basic core methodology is one of the reasons I quit playing D&D. When they started adding prestige this and skill point that the system became Non-D&D. Does D20 work? Sure it does but it's not the D&D that I grew to know and love. Would changing the game system work for Hero type games? Yes, but then it woud no longer be Hero. As for tweaking... I don't beleive you can create a system that would not require some sort of tweaking or house rules or explanations. As soon as you allow a new player to pick up the game and open the book, there will be questions, or suggestions as to how they might want to improve your new simple core system. So my vote... Keep the core the way it is.

[Log-Man]

1) No more figured characteristics.

2) No more Killing vs Normal damage. No more Energy versus Physical damage. It's all just "Damage".

3) PD and ED replaced by one stat, DEF.

4) No more Hero System Discussion board; all rules disagreements to be settled through pie eating contests.
Agreed on all points.



Especially that last one. :bounce:

[bwdemon]

See, this is a collection of tweaks. Putting these out there without giving the overall philosophy behind the changes isn't, IMHO, helpful. I'd prefer it if people would explain what kinds of changes they want to see, and why, without necessarily going into specifics, except to provide an example.

The arguments are either self-evident or have been hashed out in enough threads to be common knowledge. All are made in the interest of game balance or removal of unnecessary complications - both of which have been neglected with each subsequent revision.

[ajackson]

There are two basic classes of changes to consider:

Alterations in point costs -- there are costs that are questionable or broken.
Alterations in mechanics -- the Hero System is somewhat clunky; streamlining would be good.

There is a counterforce, however: any new mechanics have to retain the existing consumers. Recall how people reacted to Fuzion? While there were some significant problems with Fuzion, there were also some good ideas -- e.g. the way Fuzion handled stats and tasks was basically superior to Hero. Fuzion died in part due to poor design, but also in significant part due to being both Not Hero and Not Mekton.

[Enforcer84]

*Plops down 5th Ed Revised*
There.

[Lord Mhoram]

Keep the core the way it is.

That is how I feel. I don't want to see much more of a change than there was from 4th to 5th from 5th to 6th - basically fine tuning and small things to make things run smoother;
but things I do not want to see changed:

Characteristic costs, or figured characteristic formulas (Keep STR and DEX as they are!).
Frameworks
Killing Damage (now if this changes some to reduce the stun lotto I can live with it, but there still needs to be two types of damage - on for knocking out, and one for lethal).

In gameplay - Keep 3d6 roll under and the standard combat structure and CV formulas.
Keep game inches. I like the wargame roots.

[KarinsDad]

I think the Speed chart is unnecessarily clunky and puts an extra major effort on the GMs shoulders.

I like a lot of the game as is and do not see a great need for change, but the Speed chart should be chucked and replaced with a simpler, more intuitive system of initiatives.

[John Desmarais]

I think the Speed chart is unnecessarily clunky and puts an extra major effort on the GMs shoulders.

I like a lot of the game as is and do not see a great need for change, but the Speed chart should be chucked and replaced with a simpler, more intuitive system of initiatives.

Personally, I've always viewed the Speed Chart as one of the defining points of Hero.

[Teflon Billy]

I'd also look long and hard at revamping the Powers. It seems to me that there's a lot of cruft and ossified mechanics assumptions from earlier eras just being dragged along from edition to edition.

Power Absorption, True Invulnerability, Possession, etc... are all areas I think that are not adequately covered.

I'd move to a 3d8 or 3d10 roll because I think that 3d6 is just not granular enough to allow for good scaling between true Low-Level Heroic all the way up to Cosmic-Level Superheroic.

The baseline for the system was originally set at Superheroic and never really changed, and it shows.

TB

[Lord Mhoram]

Personally, I've always viewed the Speed Chart as one of the defining points of Hero.

Seconded.

[Blue]

I like the speed chart. The only downside is that in order to have a truly smooth running of a game with the number of players/NPCs I have, I have to use an excel spreadsheet. (It has a nifty little macro that will sort by the current segment, DEX, and a tie breaker if necessary, to tell me who is going now.) Without that, I could leave my laptop at home.

I don't even remember how I did it before computers :) Oh, that's right... I just had 1 to 3 players.

[CorpCommander]

<DELURK>
Ok - so I got back into Hero in 2003 I think just as FREd came out. I liked the new edition a lot. I played it a lot. The last year I've not done any RPGing at all but I still come back to the books for reading and I do have plans to someday form a group again.

That said, I like 5ER. Its the best explained and most consistant version of Hero out there. I've read the threads on ED/PD/DAM/BODY/DEF. I've read the threads on STR is unbalanced. I've read the threads that the impulse chart is a huge burden (and having GM'd I can say that it does require planning but there are many gaming aids out there that help with this sort of thing.)

The problem is - they are all tweeks. They are all game designer calls. There is no perfect version of Hero out there. If you make the changes suggested here in this thread I won't like Hero any more. I think I am in the silent majority even thought the vocal few have added to this thread.

No game is going to appeal to every one, everywhere. Compare Hero to D&D by sales. I will never play a D20 game again. I hate them. They feel restricted and clunky and yet I am in the minority prefering Hero. Perfect doesn't equal better.

Instead of a 6th Edition how about Hero Games focusing on things that will build the player base. Hero will be made better by Hero Games being more profitable. I think 5ER has many more years of life in it.

That's my opinion.
<LURK>

[rjcurrie]

Personally, I've always viewed the Speed Chart as one of the defining points of Hero.

Same here. Of course, I also found it intuitive and simple to use, so what do I know? :)

[Scott Baker]

Personally, I've always viewed the Speed Chart as one of the defining points of Hero.


Seconded.

And thirded (is that even a word? :) )

Scott Baker

[KarinsDad]

I like the speed chart. The only downside is that in order to have a truly smooth running of a game with the number of players/NPCs I have, I have to use an excel spreadsheet. (It has a nifty little macro that will sort by the current segment, DEX, and a tie breaker if necessary, to tell me who is going now.) Without that, I could leave my laptop at home.


Precisely. With a simpler system, you could leave your laptop at home.

The creation of inits for on the fly combatants or when not using a computer takes up valuable time. Even prepared encounters require valuable GM time, especially if he does not have all of the combatants on a computer.

It's not a hard concept, it's just a pain in the butt one.

[rjcurrie]

Assuming that you want to keep a certain amount of backward compatibility, here's what I'd do:

Combine PD and ED into DEF. DEF would cost 2 character points per point.
Figured characteristics become primary characteristics with default base values, rather than being. well, figured. (For example, DEF 2, SPD 2, REC 4, END 20, STUN 20) DEX would drop to a cost of 2, CON and BODY would drop to a cost of 1.
Leaping would start at a default of 4m fwd/ 2m up -- not based on STR.
Inches would be eliminated and all distance values would in terms of meters. For example, Running would cost 1 point per meter. Hexes would still be two meters.
Inlcude explicit advice on using the combat system without a map and hexes.
Simplify the rules for adding damage.
Clean up and simplify Power Descriptions where possible. There's probably a few minor changes to made here and there.
And more small things in this vain.

[Scott Baker]

The baseline for the system was originally set at Superheroic and never really changed, and it shows.

My sentiments exactly.

Scott Baker

[RPMiller]

A note about the Speed Chart and complexity. I don't get it. I've always just put a d12 on the table in front of me, and then counted down through the DEXs high to low. "DEX 24" "I go..." "DEX 23, 22, 21..." "I go..."

Once you get down to the minimum DEX you change the die to reflect the next segment. It is silly to think the GM has to control every single thing when the players are capable enough to know what their DEX is.

As for 6th Edition, I honestly hope I never see it, but if I do I hope that it is another edit of the existing rules integrating all the FAQs and decisions that Steve has made over the past several years and most importantly I want it to be One Book To Rule Them All. It should be "The" rules and not have any other books required regardless of genre. That way source books can just concentrate on the setting, genre, or what have you.

As I read through the Hero Q&A thread, I continually see Steve saying read this book or that book. That shouldn't happen, every reference should be to one book. I imagine this would be a hefty tome, but some of its size could be reduced by removing a lot of the genre specific stuff. Heck, I would even be cool with a Player's and a GM's editions.

[bwdemon]

IMHO, if you're putting out a new version, you should make the game more balanced and more accessible. Otherwise, you're just bilking your customers for a rehash of the Same Old Thing(tm). Just because something is status quo doesn't mean it's the best thing for the game.

The first (balance) goes toward making sure that 5pts of X is close in effect to 5pts of Y. If you don't want that to be balanced, then you shouldn't bother with point-buy systems at all. As is, it isn't balanced, so something needs to change here.

The second (accessibility) goes toward making sure that new players can step into the game without unnecessary effort. You consolidate things where sensible, remove unnecessary things, and otherwise work to ensure that complications are minimized. This includes everything from the rules used to the descriptions of them. Fifth edition added quite a bit of unnecessary complication to fourth edition, outside of the helpful changes that were made, and now it needs some housecleaning.

[CorpCommander]

Another idea on the speed chart.

Get 12 index cards. One for each impulse. List in order of dex those who should have a phase plus all the villians that *might* show up. Flip them in order. You can even keep them behind your GM Shield if you are all secretive and stuff. Job done. No more hassle. You get to keep a great game mechanic AND leave the laptop at home.

[bwdemon]

I'm good with the SPD chart, but that might be due to my time using it. As an alternate mechanic, give each player (SPD) in phases that they can play at any time. Players with higher SPD can interrupt players with lower SPD. In case of a tie, DEX is used as a tie-breaker, then opposed DEX rolls. Every time you use an phase, your effective SPD drops by 1. It's a fun system and it'd allow for detailed multi-phase actions to occur as a single event (spend multiple phases).

For those who might remember it, this is based slightly off of the old HKAT system...

[Lord Mhoram]

Another idea on the speed chart.

Get 12 index cards. One for each impulse. List in order of dex those who should have a phase plus all the villians that *might* show up. Flip them in order. You can even keep them behind your GM Shield if you are all secretive and stuff. Job done. No more hassle. You get to keep a great game mechanic AND leave the laptop at home.

What we do - We have little cards (business card size).
One the card is
Name DEX/Ego (if needed)
P H A S E S

Then they are put on a little table in dex order. A d12 (as mentioned above) keeps track of the segment. It's worked for us for years. The PCs cards stay week after week, and as a bonus, when a bad guy drops, the card is handed to the person who did the most to drop them - a nice instant reward (I keep all the ones for my characters in the character folder). :)

[steamteck]

H.. Keep the core the way it is.


absolutely. I like the core. The characteristics,figured characteristics as they are and all. Frankly with the tweaks suggested I would give the 6th edition a pass. Just streamline a few things would be fine with me.

[gojira]

*Plops down 5th Ed Revised*
There.

1. A color version of Champions.
2. More supplements/books with all rules in them (i.e., include the Sidekick rules)
3. Streamlining of some of the genre books/lines.



There is a counterforce, however: any new mechanics have to retain the existing consumers. Recall how people reacted to Fuzion? While there were some significant problems with Fuzion, there were also some good ideas -- e.g. the way Fuzion handled stats and tasks was basically superior to Hero. Fuzion died in part due to poor design, but also in significant part due to being both Not Hero and Not Mekton.

Right-o. Too much alteration risks Fuzioning the system again. I think getting rid of figured characteristics, or the default types of damage, would tend to fuzion the system a bit too much. One possibility would be to introduce some more optional rules for genres where, for example, a single type of def is appropriate, but I'm not really sure how that would work out.

[Wolf]

I gotta say I'm down with most of the Traditionalist here.

1) "Streamlining" would be good and friendly to new players, if your going to "D&D" the system your going to loose a lot of the older players, and going with a more streamlined book, your keeping info in an easy to find place.

2) I seem to remember a pole some years back, on the boards here, about how long have you been a herophile, and I think some large percentage (well over 50% if I remember correctly) was set to people who have been at this game for a while. If your playing it, it's good, even though there may be some house rules used... I remember I use to complain about AD&D2E and how broken that was with all of my compadres' , well we got what we wanted, and now a monster is on the loose... if you can live with it enough to get on the boards for any length of time, then think to your self, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

3) I also like the thought that some of the money I've dropped on these books will be worth it, IE, like no new copies of old books I already have etc... I found hero at the decline of the ICE age, with 4th ed... and survived, something like, 6 years, with only 4th ed., Ninja Hero, and Dark Champions... had some great games... but if I gotta go buying a new rule book every 5 years, well, I'll just hole up with the small library I have now, and keep it there.

4) Outside of that, I liked the options that you had buying the 4th ed rule book...
A) One with just the basics, "HERO" (I think it had a western cover, I didn't like that one. However it serves the example, but then again I came from a bigger is better perspective back then).
B) One with the "Champions" logo, with additional supers information, and soft cover.
C) One with the "Champions" logo, with additional supers information, and hard cover.
D) One with the "Champions" logo, with additional supers information, and hard cover, and a floppy of a Hero designer type program.
Add a hard cover of the basic type, and I'm good... and to run with the idea of choice "D"- the HD program, heck use an old copy of the HD2, with a link to "upgrade to the full version" on it... I dunno, but I think this was a heck of a way to do it.
When I was younger I was like, "wow, how progressive" but I thought the floppy program was a bit crappy, unlike the new HD... and for now, the only reason I know about it is I got in on the HD2 beta testing... and fell for it, if I was still living in Ohio, I'd still never know about it, so it pushes that program to newbies and removes some fear of the "big black book of death". Example: "hey I've heard you can do anything with this." "nice, but I'm not reading through that!" "Hey look, it's got a character maker, I'll buy that, read up on some of the rules, run this program, and I'll see if I can run this next week." (I had a lot more time when I was in High school.)

5) From what I've heard for the defense in the D&D3.5 arguement, most of what people say is that it's "internally consistent". I think that Hero is currently, some disagree, so take a look at that, see if it is. I'm not a math wiz maybe it's not, and I just don't see it, but if your going to move big that would be the way to jump so at least you'll make up the people you loose in people you gain, from a company perspective. Depending on what changes is what side of that fence I'll be on, as I said, I've got a small library that I can hold on for a long winter with... I'd like to have more books for it, sure, but you never know when a (company) system's going to take a dump on you... (My Rolemaster collection is in serious pieces due to certain books never coming out- the Essence companion, I think, is the big one). And the used book store is a great place to find discounted books for older systems... My AD&D2ed, D6 starwars, and Shadowrun libraries are bigger than they have ever been.

My two copper.

[Sketchpad]

I would keep inches mainly because I prefer the imbedded tactical system. But, I would also make conversion much simplier ;) I agree with streamlining the rules a bit, as well as keeping the Speed Chart (but also providing some options). I think most of my changes would be story or cosmetic beyond that ... I would change the Hero worlds into a slew of worlds, providing Genre books with sample campaigns (some of which get expanded in campaign books) and continuing a full range of Ultimate books.
I would like to see Hero also start producing high-quality cardboard minis as PDFs and move foward with more digital presence. I'd love to see more design in the books ... but that's the designer in me speaking ;)

[casualplayer]

The secret that designers don't like to talk about is that a perfectly fair system would perfectly flop. Many, many gamers buy and play RPGs for the perverse joy of breaking them and finding/exploiting the loopholes. The Teflon Billy Phenomena (not our TB, KODT's TB.) Making HERO foolproof would mean forsaking the money of fools. Commercial suicide.

That said, I sure would like to never see another fraction in a HERO book. Decimals please. Fractions come in slightly behind public speaking as a lingering fear from school and has to be scaring away at least a few potential players.

Talents should go to the sidebars like the power constructs they are. Perks should be campaign specific and not be concretely pointed out, except for maybe Follower and Vehicle. Powers should be foundations that you build upon not convoluted barsteel that you have to file down to fit. Get rid of the genre bias that pervades.

In my dreams all the absolutes would go away. No halving defenses, Desolid would become scalar again, Damage Reduction would fade to an unpleasant memory, Automaton stupidity would be thrown on the scrapheap. Won't happen, but I can dream can't I?

Keep the SPD chart. The SPD chart es bueno.

[Edsel]

Put me down in the column who is generally happy with things the way they are. Everyone has a few house rules with most games that they play but I certainly don't see anything that warrants a 6th Edition of the game.

Now a reprint with fantastic artwork and graphics... I could go for that.

[Comic]

Sixth Heroes Revised EDition?

Make it fully compatible with FRED.

Include the errata, fix any misprints, expand the appendices and make the whole easier to cross-reference and search.

Make it fully compatible with portable, online-able, graphical, multiplayable electronic systems.

Include a dozen laminated index cards, spiral bound, and a dry-erase marker to help the SPD-challenged.

Make it fully compatible with Google Tools, so sharing character sheets is as easy as sharing spreadsheets, mapping is as easy as using Google Maps, and populating character sheets with skills, powers and disadvantages is as easy as clicking on links to a S.H.R.ED. online database.

Speaking of links, a library of links to those wonderful resources I see often in the discussion boards would be great, too -- be it IRC tools or source material for settings.

Third generation cell phones are coming to North America, so maybe some interfaces with the mobile gaming abilities provided by cell and wireless technologies would be nice.

Flash (or Java) toolkits to make GMing easier would be great.

A running combat history for characters, including tallying the effects of various attacks and maneuvers, so people can get a good idea of their character's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats the same way as coaches study past game videos to learn what to train harder.

I like a game I can play without batteries or cords, if I happen to have a few people nearby I can arrange to game with.. but I'm not going to ignore the whole world of people who might play in an online campaign if the tools were improved and made more accessible.

[Lord Liaden]

To be honest, I believe that with Fifth Edition, Revised the core HERO System has evolved about as far as it can in its current form. In that book we have all the core rules and many of the optional ones; tons of examples of superpowers, magic spells, tech, weapons of all periods, vehicles, computers and Lord-all; chargen tutorial, combat example, and genre-emulating advice; and sample characters from most genres. Everything is organized, categorized, indexed, and clarified to within an inch of its life. Most of the changes that have been proposed - redefining the cost of certain Characteristics, eliminating the Figured element of Characteristics, changing how Killing Attacks work, etc. - are IMHO in the grand scheme of things just fiddly tweaks which don't fundamentally alter the game. I doubt that all of them taken together would really justify putting out an all-new Sixth Edition, especially since there's no concensus among HEROdom as to what should be changed. Any such modifications would largely be the personal preferences of whoever at Hero Games was put in charge of the project. And let's face it, we all make such modifications to our individual games already. ;)

If there was ever to be a Sixth Edition, I for one would only support it if it were a radical departure from what's gone before. I would say, leave the Fifth Edition for those of us who like detailed, layered rules. For Sixth Edition, go for simplified, stripped-down core mechanics, with options to modify them to the complexity that individual gamers want. There have been proposals for such things here on the boards before: eliminate Energy Blast, Killing Attack, Strength damage, and replace them with a generic Attack Power; chuck Force Field, Armor, Normal and Resistant Physical and Energy Defense, in favor of generic Defense; then use Modifiers to customize them to work as desired. Keep a few primary Characteristics, but with the cost for them based on campaign parameters, and any Figured Characteristics based on what would be used in the campaign (e.g. all BODY Damage with no STUN, Endurance or not, Sanity or Mana stats in game genres that would use them).

I'm not saying that those specific changes should necessarily be made, but that's the direction I would go. Define the core elements and basic mechanics of HERO, and then provide the tools for gamers to infinitely customize them. Use those tools to create settings and prebuilds as examples of how that could be done, each one tailored to the basic assumptions of that setting within that genre. That, to me, would justify a Sixth Edition.

(Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm actually happy with HERO the way it is, and would like to keep Fifth Edition material around for others like myself even if something like what I describe came about - kind of a "New and Classic Coke" arrangement.) ;)

[Nolgroth]

Awww the heck with it! Let's just ditch HERO and go back to Fuzion. :D

**Looks at the angry crowd with pitchforks and RUNS! ** :eek:

Seriously and on topic, I'm presently very satisfied with the way HERO looks right now. Indeed, I don't imagine myself shelling out money on a new edition of the rules, unless they were somehow really better in all ways.

The only thing I always lamented about HERO is the way Strength worked in terms of lifting things. Always seemed too predictable. You have X Strength, you can always pick up Y weight. There was never any margin for "didn't get the proper leverage" or "my hand slipped" or some other way to say that lifting this weight wasn't always successful. I just had an idea on how to fix that with a House Rule, so HERO 5th Edition Revised is now perfect in every way. :thumbup:

[Doc Democracy]

Been thinking and we are still within a paper publishing paradigm (always wanted to say something like that! :) )

What if the sixth edition was effectively electronic. It would have an update to the rules and introduce new things. However, the software should be able to allow the material to roll back to a previous edition, selectively update from the fifth edition or even to add house rules before providing a pdf that would be available for perusal or printing.

This would be a cost efficient way for Hero to update their product for new markets, retain their old market and allow existing users to toolkit their rulebooks as much as they want.

Probably not an option at the moment but publishing technology is moving fast enough that I think a reasonable future possibility.

Doc

[BNakagawa]

The only thing I always lamented about HERO is the way Strength worked in terms of lifting things. Always seemed too predictable. You have X Strength, you can always pick up Y weight. There was never any margin for "didn't get the proper leverage" or "my hand slipped" or some other way to say that lifting this weight wasn't always successful. I just had an idea on how to fix that with a House Rule, so HERO 5th Edition Revised is now perfect in every way. :thumbup:

Funny, that's one of the things that always turned me off about dice pool games such as L5R. I could never tell how much stuff my character could carry or how fast they could move until you tried carrying stuff or running. In the real world, you go to the gym, you know how much weight to put on the machine. In a dice pool world, you never know...

[Pentoth]

I have been playing Hero since 2002. If a 6th edition came out that's it I am done buying Hero matherial. My AD&D 2nd ed collection is a good size and my 3.0 collection is non existant. Same with World of Darkness, Shadowrun you get the idea. Their is no reason to move on with the company if their is nothing wrong with the system.

[Nolgroth]

Funny, that's one of the things that always turned me off about dice pool games such as L5R. I could never tell how much stuff my character could carry or how fast they could move until you tried carrying stuff or running. In the real world, you go to the gym, you know how much weight to put on the machine. In a dice pool world, you never know...Hmmmmn. I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much, but I was more interested in extreme Feats of Strength (such as lifting a heavy object off of an NPC to save them) more than I was routine application of strength (slinging a rucksack or carrying a laundry basket). I totally agree about complete randomness.

[Doc Democracy]

I have been playing Hero since 2002. If a 6th edition came out that's it I am done buying Hero matherial. My AD&D 2nd ed collection is a good size and my 3.0 collection is non existant. Same with World of Darkness, Shadowrun you get the idea. Their is no reason to move on with the company if their is nothing wrong with the system.

Basic economics would suggest that companies need to produce something new on regular basis however.

As you say, you may feel no need to move on (and a company like Hero might not be able to provide continuing support for old editions - though new supplements would probably not be difficult to retrofit) but the company may not feel that you are the best market for milking more revenue from in the coming years.

Just as programmes like Buffy slowly decline in audience over time, the market for supplements for a particular system declines and is only boosted by the flash bang wallop launch of a new edition or ruleset.


Doc

[GAZZA]

I don't think Hero is fundamentally "broken" enough to "require" anything more than tweaks, so I can't really say what major changes they could make for a 6th edition.

Some of the things I wouldn't mind seeing:

The return of Seeker to the front covers. Always used to be able to judge whether a book was any good or not by whether or not Seeker was on the cover getting his butt kicked; the absence of this (virtually infallible) criteria makes new purchases highly speculative. I'm not going to be hard line on this one, though - I'd accept any Australian ninja in Seeker's place. ;)
Simplifying the combat and skill systems. I like "always roll high" myself (if you can be bothered search for my recent thread on my work in that area). More granularity in the skill system and characteristics would possibly be an option as well (so that there is a meaningful difference between 19 DEX and 20 DEX).
Rolling back "no cap" on Succor and Suppress; rolling back the "clarification" that Damage Shield requires Continuous.
Dispensing with Hand Attack and just making it limited STR (would have the advantage of dispensing with all the funny little rules about how STR and HA add together with advantages).
Either splitting out Regeneration and Mental Paralysis as separate powers, or making real advantages and limitations that actually would work to modify Healing and Entangle to produce these effects. (At the moment it's a case of "Well, these modifiers wouldn't actually make the power do what we're saying it does, but just move along and pretend, m'kay?").
Increasing the cost of STR, either directly (1.5 or 2 points per) or indirectly (by stripping it from some of the figured characteristic calculations). Possibly do the same for CON.
Replace "Gradual Effect" with the HSA1 version, at least as an additional option if not an actual replacement.
Pull the Incomplete Characters rules into the core, so that Vehicles and Bases become just Followers, and Automatons, Spirits, and so forth can all be built according to a unified rule set.
Do something about STUN lotto, at least with an optional rule.
Give Transform the face lift that Change Environment got; some of Phil's suggestions are a great starting point.
Have another look at Multiform. Especially consider its potential to be used in VPPs (which is now all but sanctioned thanks to Ultimate Metamorph). If included in its current form in 6th edition, be ready with plenty of sidebars about the abuse potential.But honestly I don't really care if any of the above is done or not (except the Seeker option - that's a deal breaker). If it is, great; if not, that just means I'll still use my (hopefully still compatible) house rules, the same way I do with every other RPG I play.

[Pentoth]

Basic economics would suggest that companies need to produce something new on regular basis however.

As you say, you may feel no need to move on (and a company like Hero might not be able to provide continuing support for old editions - though new supplements would probably not be difficult to retrofit) but the company may not feel that you are the best market for milking more revenue from in the coming years.

Just as programmes like Buffy slowly decline in audience over time, the market for supplements for a particular system declines and is only boosted by the flash bang wallop launch of a new edition or ruleset.


Doc

Hey if they want to move on I understand. I just won't move with them. I have purchased virtually every book HERO have released in this edition and I buy every book shortly after release because HERO is an excelent company and in this market every penny helps. I won't move with editions because while I get they have to sell books I have to store them. Storing books that don't get used is a waste of space. As far as retrofitting goes if a company wants to move onto something new. (There perogative) I have the right to say I am not wasting time modifying new stuff or my money on something I have to modify. (My perogative) If they don't view me as being the best target audience that's cool. I will show them the same loyalty and move onto someone who does or stick with my old books. Either way they won't get my money.

[GAZZA]

Yeah, but I find storing books in the electronic age to be much less problematic; Hero books are excellent in that they sell them in PDF form.

I'll certainly follow Hero to a 6th edition and beyond, though I reserve the right to moan about the changes they make. :)

[Pentoth]

I am not a fan of the .pdf format. I want to feel the book in my hand and smell the paper. Ergo I have to store it and won't move on. Fact is even the mentionng of a new edition on these boards is enough to make me look into a time line for release. Buying new books when they are going to be out of date (Especially with a game system that I can make everything anyway) is a waste of money.

[Monolith]

I would like to see a 6th edition which takes the game back to its cinematic roots. Over the last few years it seems as though Hero Games' products have been intentionally forcing the game into a more 'realist' approach rather then cinematic. The game has now become too much about analyzing the differences between .38 and a .9mm pistol rather then the cinematic effects of what someone does with a gun.

Many of the current Hero Games' books, like The Ultimate Skill and the upcoming Ultimate Energy Projector, based on what I have seen in that forum, seem to be about simulating realism in the game rather then the cinematic. I honestly believe this trend toward realism is one of the factors which drove me away from the game.

There is nothing realistic about the various gaming genres. Batmain is larger then life. Conan is larger then life. James Bond is larger then life. Han Solo is larger then life. Doc Savage and his crew are larger then life. The gamers who want to play frail book geeks who fight mafia incursion in NYC are not in the majority. They are the minority, and yet it seems as though the game is becoming more and more tailored for those types of players.

My signature used to be what I believed. I do not believe it any more. A cinematic, less rulesy, 6th edition would bring me back into the game. The more books being produced to simulate realism with the system only pushes me farther and farther away from the game. Just my 3d6 worth.

[OddHat]

Basic economics would suggest that companies need to produce something new on regular basis however.


There's truth to this, and to the argument that if the company doesn't do well then the game will disappear.

On the other hand, I don't make my buying, reading, or viewing decisions based on the commercial success of a product; if I did, then I'd either stop playing RPGs entirely or switch to online gaming. Like others in the thread, I don't think I'd switch to a HERO 6th unless it made some major improvements on the current system.

[bwdemon]

I'm generally an early-adopter when it comes to gaming products (and lots of other things). I don't worry so much about the money involved. I don't buy a computer and expect to use it for more than five years and I spend more on my computer. Gaming is just one of those things I establish a budget for.

Except in a few rare cases, the later editions/revisions are superior to the prior editions. I only have one RPG where I prefer a previous edition of a game to the later editions (HKAT). I'll buy a new core book for pretty much any game of interest now. That allows me to get a good read on the setting and system. It also allows me to play the game without problem. However, I won't buy supplemental materials unless I really like the game and want what the supplement offers. The more I like the system & setting, the more I'll like the game, the more supplements I'll buy.

Hero didn't make too many changes from 4th to 5th and made very few from 5th to 5th Revised. I do feel la little like I was bilked, because so many of the same problems from the earliest editions remain problems today and so few changes were made. I would likely purchase 6th edition regardless, but I don't know if I'd purchase anything else unless it addresses the problem areas.

[Doc Democracy]

I am not a fan of the .pdf format. I want to feel the book in my hand and smell the paper. Ergo I have to store it and won't move on. Fact is even the mentionng of a new edition on these boards is enough to make me look into a time line for release. Buying new books when they are going to be out of date (Especially with a game system that I can make everything anyway) is a waste of money.

This is obviously an economic decision for you to make, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but the last statement doesn't follow.

if you have bought all of the current Hero books and find them good value and know that they will produce another four in the current series before producing a 6th edition, you wouldn't buy those four books or upgrade?

I can understand if you want to stick with the 5th Edition and keep all of the good value books you have then the last four books will obviously be the same good value all of the other books you keep.

I can also understand a 6th Edition adopter not buying the next four books for potential incompatability reasons.

I cant understand not buying any of them...


Doc

[Pentoth]

Doc

It makes sense because with HERO I don't need the books. While you never truly need them I can build anything with the core book. So purchasing other books in a series that will be being discontinued doesn't make sense to me. It's kinda like I know the company is leaving me behind because I am not their target market. Since I am not their target market they don't need my money. I can always buy the last of the 5th edition books used on Ebay or something if I really want them that bad. Call it sour grapes if you want but I won't give the company my cash if they are leaving me behind. Companies when doing a reboot would be foolish not to account for a certain percentage of older players not buying into the new system. Since I would considered in the percentage of players that is an acceptable loss by business standards. (Once again their perogative) I will take off early and not give my cash to the company that knowingly plan for my departure in an attempt to garner new players. (My perogative)

[Wolf]

Doc

It makes sense because with HERO I don't need the books. While you never truly need them I can build anything with the core book. So purchasing other books in a series that will be being discontinued doesn't make sense to me. It's kinda like I know the company is leaving me behind because I am not their target market. Since I am not their target market they don't need my money. I can always buy them used on Ebay or something if I really want them that bad. Call it sour grapes if you want but I won't give the company my cash if they are leaving me behind. Companies when doing a reboot would be foolish not to account for a certain percentage of older players not buying into the new system. Since I would considered in the percentage of players that is an acceptable loss by business standards. (Once again their perogative) I will take off early and not give my cash to the company that knowingly plan for my departure in an attempt to garner new players. (My perogative)

I agree with him, short form (personal prerogative); I love the way Hero has handled their stuff. Steve resurrected a defunct system that I personally loved, and he's producing books, that I wouldn't have had otherwise. He answers questions about rules, on line, within a day (most times), and reads these forums... no other company listens to their audience that way, so to support this I buy as much as I can from them, as if to say, "this is the way to do it." However if they make me have to do all the groundwork again, if I don't end up liking the way it's turned out... if it looses what "hero games" is to me (not saying that I would or wouldn't buy a 6th, but I'd check it out) then I would no longer continue to support it... Example, I found out that Cyberpunk was back out... I bought the main book... it sucks @$$, badly, IMHO So I forked out some money on the history of what it was... threw it away (can't give it to others, wouldn't feel right), I still have all my old books, and they still work great.

[GAZZA]

Man, I hope nobody is organising a Hero Games boycott because of this thread! It's purely hypothetical, right?

What I could do with actually are some adventure books for Champions (yes, I can make up my own as well as the next guy, but they're nice to have if you find yourself in a hurry).

[bwdemon]

What I could do with actually are some adventure books for Champions (yes, I can make up my own as well as the next guy, but they're nice to have if you find yourself in a hurry).

I'm not so big on adventure books. My top priority is setting material (city books, organization books, etc.). The more setting material I have to work with, the happier I am. After that, I tend toward the Ultimate _____ books (concept/build ideas) and the rogue's gallery books (concept/build ideas and easy access to NPCs).

[GAZZA]

Horses for courses. Setting material is largely useless to me (I live in Western Australia; I set my campaign in Western Australia - and while I can move cities around, the "feel" is wrong).

I do like the Ultimate books. I'm less of a fan of Enemies books (I have the set from 4th edition, but that's because I'm a collector - if I buy the 5th edition versions, it will be after everything else) since I prefer to make up my own.

[Log-Man]

I don't think Hero is fundamentally "broken" enough to "require" anything more than tweaks, so I can't really say what major changes they could make for a 6th edition.

Some of the things I wouldn't mind seeing:

The return of Seeker to the front covers. Always used to be able to judge whether a book was any good or not by whether or not Seeker was on the cover getting his butt kicked; the absence of this (virtually infallible) criteria makes new purchases highly speculative. I'm not going to be hard line on this one, though - I'd accept any Australian ninja in Seeker's place. ;)
Amen! :hail:

[Spence]

Personally, I've always viewed the Speed Chart as one of the defining points of Hero.


Seconded.


And thirded (is that even a word? :) )

Scott Baker

Fourtheded :D

[Hugh Neilson]

Fifthed

[Doc Democracy]

It makes sense because with HERO I don't need the books. While you never truly need them I can build anything with the core book. So purchasing other books in a series that will be being discontinued doesn't make sense to me.

As I said, I can understand people not moving to a new edition of a system - my urge to do that ended when the move from RQII to RQIII worked out so badly.

I could even understand not buying any more books if you were ditching the system wholesale - selling the old collection. The last few books should be of the same value as the books you intend to keep.

if it was simply that you could make anything you wanted from the core book then none of the other books would be anything but a waste of time either.


It's kinda like I know the company is leaving me behind because I am not their target market. Since I am not their target market they don't need my money. I can always buy the last of the 5th edition books used on Ebay or something if I really want them that bad. Call it sour grapes if you want but I won't give the company my cash if they are leaving me behind.

Your gonna take it personal! :) I understand that!! :D

I will not continue the derail any further - please go back to your normal business....


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Fifthed

In this thread, dare I say sixthed?!

:D

[Pentoth]

Your gonna take it personal! :) I understand that!! :D

I will not continue the derail any further - please go back to your normal business....


Doc

It's not that I am taking it personally. I just won't support a company that is moving in a direction that I am not going in. That doesn't make sense. It's like voting for a political party that you don't agree with. Fact is I believe one of the market's biggest problems right now is the rebooting of systems. D&D 3.0 was not a big problem (even though I liked 2.0 players options better) but then 3.5 came out and now there is already talk of a 4.0 WOD came out with a version 2.0 after saying in one of their Vampire books that having Gehenna take place in their books would be tacky. Heck their are even 2 companies putting out different versions of Earthdawn.

When a reboot is done because major work needs to be done to improve a system I get that. When it is done because core books make more money and it is merely a corporate cash cow decision I get it however I won't support it.

[Lord Mhoram]

I tend to believe it's better to actually see what changes are made before taking an adamantine stand on it [not that I expect to ever see a 6th edition]. In my experience knee-jerk reactions to something tend to be reversed after the emotions have cooled down and actual experience fills the void.

Well.. except for Fuzion. At least in my case.

[bwdemon]

I had dismissed Fuzion without a second thought when it came out. I later took a look at it and ended up buying the CNM books. It really isn't that bad of a system. It is significantly different than HERO, but not bad at all.

[Tom Carman]

I tend to believe it's better to actually see what changes are made before taking an adamantine stand on it [not that I expect to ever see a 6th edition]. In my experience knee-jerk reactions to something tend to be reversed after the emotions have cooled down and actual experience fills the void.

A Sixth Edition (which would need a new snappy nickname) doesn't seem necessary. But a streamlined variant Fast Action HERO!TM as an addition to the SideKick-class of book might be an interesting project. Not another Fuzionization, it should be clearly labeled as not an update of the existing rules, but as a HERO-derived simplified fast-play variation.

[Lord Mhoram]

I had dismissed Fuzion without a second thought when it came out. I later took a look at it and ended up buying the CNM books. It really isn't that bad of a system. It is significantly different than HERO, but not bad at all.

I bought the books for the source material.
It isn't a great system (I put it below SAS and above M&M), but it was presented as a replacement for HERO. Which it isn't. I still won't play it (but them I don't play the other two I mentioned either) I have a system that fits my playstyle and approach perfectly with HERO, so why switch. :)

[Vondy]

One of the big sources of discord in Hero are characteristics. I would personally remove characteristics from the system and allow powers or skills to be bought that achieve effects like lifting, jumping etc.

Doc

I did an experiment (supers only) where players purchased characteristic rolls for primary characteristics, and figured characteristics (which are much harder to reduce to skills) had a flat base and associated cost to increase.

I had a system for body rolls and wound levels to determine how badly injured a character was when they took body damage. It worked pretty well.

I could have taken it farther by:

1) Using a similar system based on CON rolls for dealing with STUN damage and REC.

(I already had an opposed roll system for dealing with grabs and presence attacks, and had fiddled with opposed rolls for mental powers).

2) Having PD and ED be restricted to defenses/powers (Damage - Defenses = penalty or bonus to CON or BDY roll).

one thing you'd have to think hard on would be the strength chart, though. In terms of lift, would you just take a penalty for each step up the chart you went (which could break at lower levels unless there was a rule about "normals" not being able to roll more than a few steps up which wouldn't be a stretch based on different pushing rules for heroic and superheroic games), or would you have more than one strength chart?

I think you might have to keep END (for some genres) and SPD, though. I'm not sure how you would rework them without it turning into a chore.

Overall it worked, but I moved before I had the opportunity to take it farther. I might fiddle with it some more. Von Hero.

[Vondy]

I had dismissed Fuzion without a second thought when it came out. I later took a look at it and ended up buying the CNM books. It really isn't that bad of a system. It is significantly different than HERO, but not bad at all.

Different is bad. Evil, evil, bad, bad!

[Chris Goodwin]

I had dismissed Fuzion without a second thought when it came out. I later took a look at it and ended up buying the CNM books. It really isn't that bad of a system. It is significantly different than HERO, but not bad at all.

It's not a terrible system, but it was Hero's New Coke.

[Lord Mhoram]

It's not a terrible system, but it was Hero's New Coke.

Yeah.

I remember on the Champs mailing list when Steve Peterson was saying how anything you could do with HERO you could do with Fuzion. I talked about my FH game, and how it was crossworld, and I had a Cyberpunk, an Old West Doctor, a low powered superhero and a couple of natives. I asked if the different plugins would be balanced against each other and still be able to run such a game.

He admitted that for me HERO was better. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

I think Fuzion would've done OK if it had been produced by any other publisher other then Hero Games. A big percentage of Hero fans are fanatical loyalist to their system [even if they're always complaining about it here :)]. Fuzion was a stab to the heart and slap in the face to many Hero fans so the majority never gave it much of a chance.

Yeah.

It could have even worked if it was handled differently. They had decided to only publish Fuzion books in print, and relegate what little support for the HERO system they were going to do as PDFs (one of the first publishers to do PDFs, even if they handled it badly). That was the big insult.

Now given the size and position of the company of the time, the idea of trying to support fully two different lines with different systems was likely not something they could have done.

Plus the fact that there was a big poll from the fans about Hero 5th, and then Fuzion was announced, which made it look like a Bait and Switch to a lot of fans.

A lot of bad feelings there.

I myself was so burned by that (and the problems during the Cybergames era) I didn't trust DOJ and their plans for it, until about the 5th book, and the initial release of Hero Designer. Glad I was wrong. :)

[Doc Democracy]

said lots of interesting stuff

I agree about the figured stuff. Defences, STUN, BODY, END and REC are all very different to the primary stats - much more game artifacts than powers.

I will be bookmarking this for later reference!


Repped (or would have been - will have to owe you)


Doc

[Vondy]

I agree about the figured stuff. Defences, STUN, BODY, END and REC are all very different to the primary stats - much more game artifacts than powers.

I will be bookmarking this for later reference!


Repped (or would have been - will have to owe you)


Doc

Thanks.

Thinking about it again made me wonder what I would do if I did go all the way with it. I'm working on it right now! I suspect it will look like a very different game.

[Spence]

Yeah.

I remember on the Champs mailing list when Steve Peterson was saying how anything you could do with HERO you could do with Fuzion. I talked about my FH game, and how it was crossworld, and I had a Cyberpunk, an Old West Doctor, a low powered superhero and a couple of natives. I asked if the different plugins would be balanced against each other and still be able to run such a game.

He admitted that for me HERO was better. :)

Well I still have my copy of Fuzion and CNM. And to be blunt, it was completely broken as published. The CNM book talks about plugins and Fuzion talks about plugins. But there isn't a single actual plugin in the book. Nada. None. They didn't include them in the rule book. And there wasn't a single paragraph of how to design a plugin.

The only way I can describe is if you take Hero 5th and remove the entire powers chapter. Delete it, but leave all other text in place. And then sell it as a rules system. The examples of characters talk about Energy Blast, but nothing actually tells you what EB is or its costs.

My guess is once you had made up all the plugins on your own or found them via other gamers, the game might be OK. But the way I looked at it, if I can not actually play the game or even make a character from the rulebook, it is broken.

[Chris Goodwin]

The first edition of Fuzion was intended to use the Powers from 4th edition Hero, believe it or not. There was a different system for Advantages and Limitations (turning them all into Adders, essentially) but you were supposed to use the Powers as written.

[archermoo]

Changes I would like to see in a theoretical 6th edition:

While keeping all characteristics, get rid of the terms "Primary" and "Figured". All stats would be "Primary", the ones currently figured would be set with a the base they would currently have with normal straight 10 starting stats. This would potentially require reworking point totals. An alternative would be to base all stats at 0, which would obviously require even more reworking of point totals.

Change cost of Con and Body to 1/1. Change cost of Dex to 2/1.

Potentially adding in "Hero points" of some kind. 'Course I've been using those for somewhere around 20 years now...

If the Speed Chart were to be removed, I'd either not "upgrade", or I'd have to work it back in. As others have said, it is one of the things that makes Hero Hero.

Any other things I would change are a game by game thing, which are better handled by house/game rules. I've played using 3d10 instead of 3d6, and I quite like it. Though I'm not sure that an "official" change is needed. It is specifically appropriate for Dragaeran based adventures, as the base target number works out to 17... :D

[Spence]

The first edition of Fuzion was intended to use the Powers from 4th edition Hero, believe it or not. There was a different system for Advantages and Limitations (turning them all into Adders, essentially) but you were supposed to use the Powers as written.

That explains a lot. Too bad they didn't include that little tidbit of information in the book. I'll have to go and take a really good look again. But just flipping through it I didn't see anything that said "use 4th Ed powers, etc". Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I never saw it before.

[ajackson]

That explains a lot. Too bad they didn't include that little tidbit of information in the book. I'll have to go and take a really good look again. But just flipping through it I didn't see anything that said "use 4th Ed powers, etc". Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I never saw it before.
It was fairly obvious if you were familiar with 4e. With a few exceptions (KAs became straight dice) the rule was 'divide cost by 5; each +1/4 advantage is equivalent to 1d6'. It had a couple of mechanical issues, however (because of how a few advantages worked, that formula really wasn't well balanced).

[Chris Goodwin]

That explains a lot. Too bad they didn't include that little tidbit of information in the book. I'll have to go and take a really good look again. But just flipping through it I didn't see anything that said "use 4th Ed powers, etc". Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I never saw it before.

I think it depended on which version you were looking at. At least one of them stated it explicitly.

[Spence]

It was fairly obvious if you were familiar with 4e. With a few exceptions (KAs became straight dice) the rule was 'divide cost by 5; each +1/4 advantage is equivalent to 1d6'. It had a couple of mechanical issues, however (because of how a few advantages worked, that formula really wasn't well balanced).


I don't agree it would have been obvious. So....

We will just have to agree to disagree ;)

[Spence]

I think it depended on which version you were looking at. At least one of them stated it explicitly.

I may have missed it. But at the time I was a regular on the old hero BBS on Usenet. The old un-moderated boards from back in the day. The old Hero writers would post fairly regularly and so would many of the fans. I specifically remember posting a comment asking what was up with Fuzion CNM. I can't remember the exact phrasing but I wanted to know if CNM powers were broken or if I was missing something. I was flayed alive, you would think I had desecrated the Vatican or something. The kicker for me was one of the company types, (it has been so long I can’t remember exactly who it was) was absolutely venomous and directly called in to question my intelligence and on into other topics. It was actually the start of the “time I refused to play anything Champions” period of my gaming life.

I ask plenty of stupid questions on this board. But I always have gotten a civil answer, at least the first time and always from the Hero staff.

Wow, it has been what? Over ten years and it still brings my blood pressure up. :eek:

[pinecone]

1) No more figured characteristics.

2) No more Killing vs Normal damage. No more Energy versus Physical damage. It's all just "Damage".

3) PD and ED replaced by one stat, DEF.

4) No more Hero System Discussion board; all rules disagreements to be settled through pie eating contests.

What Kind of pie?...

[Chris Goodwin]

I may have missed it. But at the time I was a regular on the old hero BBS on Usenet. The old un-moderated boards from back in the day. The old Hero writers would post fairly regularly and so would many of the fans. I specifically remember posting a comment asking what was up with Fuzion CNM. I can't remember the exact phrasing but I wanted to know if CNM powers were broken or if I was missing something. I was flayed alive, you would think I had desecrated the Vatican or something. The kicker for me was one of the company types, (it has been so long I can’t remember exactly who it was) was absolutely venomous and directly called in to question my intelligence and on into other topics. It was actually the start of the “time I refused to play anything Champions” period of my gaming life.

Yeah, that kinda sucked. I actually got ripped new ones out of the blue a few times while I was there, and this was posting Hero related stuff (in one case a character, in another a direct response to a question) on what was considered at the time the "Champions newsgroup" because something like 90% of the postings were devoted to Hero.

Fuzion was, almost literally, Hero's New Coke. To anyone who was around Hero in the 1999-2001 time frame, in the transition from Original Hero to Cybergames to DOJ, it was a sucky time indeed to be a Hero fan, but what started it all was Steve Peterson's "big announcement". Steve Long had done a few "What would you like to see in Hero 5th?" questionnaires out on the newsgroup and the Champions mailing list around the 1994-95 timeframe. As far as I know he'd written the book when Peterson had said "We've got some great news coming soon!" There'd been lots of speculation about 5th edition up until that time, and then the Fuzion announcement came and hit a lot of people hard. There were statements, quickly backtracked from the Original Hero partners, that Hero support would effectively cease, that Fuzion would take over, that all previous Hero supplements were fully compatible with Fuzion with very little conversion necessary, that all new Fuzion supplements would be fully compatible with Hero with very little conversion necessary.... That stirred the Hero community into a big boiling pot of rage, pretty much. The Original Hero guys were persona non grata on rec.games.frp.super-heroes for a while, and they took some hard flames there. As a result, pretty much any Fuzion questions got flamed hard core as well.

[steamteck]

I agree about the figured stuff. Defences, STUN, BODY, END and REC are all very different to the primary stats - much more game artifacts than powers.

I will be bookmarking this for later reference!


Repped (or would have been - will have to owe you)


Doc

See,To me the connections to the primary characteristics make perfect sense. If they dropped this factor I'd just stick with the old way. I really like the way they all interconnect.

[rjcurrie]

See,To me the connections to the primary characteristics make perfect sense. If they dropped this factor I'd just stick with the old way. I really like the way they all interconnect.

Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with all interconnections in Hero. That was include basing Skills on characteristics, the Language chart, free Transport Familiarities from certain Skills, etc. Basically, if you want something, you pay for it. Nothing gives it to you for free. But I suspect I'm in a very small minority with this opinion. :)

[Fitz]

Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with all interconnections in Hero. That was include basing Skills on characteristics, the Language chart, free Transport Familiarities from certain Skills, etc. Basically, if you want something, you pay for it. Nothing gives it to you for free. But I suspect I'm in a very small minority with this opinion. :)

I'm coming around to the same conclusion -- it was the SPD 6 guy running at over 40 km/h that finally did it for me :)

[casualplayer]

Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with all interconnections in Hero. That was include basing Skills on characteristics, the Language chart, free Transport Familiarities from certain Skills, etc. Basically, if you want something, you pay for it. Nothing gives it to you for free. But I suspect I'm in a very small minority with this opinion. :)

Might be a larger minority than you suspect. There are especially sore spots, like free Mental Awareness with every Mental Power, but all of the implied and figured stuff just makes the system more vulnerable.

[steamteck]

I'm coming around to the same conclusion -- it was the SPD 6 guy running at over 40 km/h that finally did it for me :)

That's actually under the world sprint record so seems like no big deal but still very fast.. If these things get divorced from each other it really cracks the system for me. People with 50 ST and Con with 10 Stun make no sense to me unless a really strange special effect is involved. keeping skills connected with Stats makes sense to why shouldn't a more agile person have a better basic acrobatic roll than someone else. Spider-man's base acrobatics roll definitely should be better than the thing's

[Fitz]

Maybe so, but why should being more agile make you run faster?

[Lord Mhoram]

Maybe so, but why should being more agile make you run faster?

It doesn't DEX has not impact on Running. :)

[Spence]

Yeah, that kinda sucked. I actually got ripped new ones out of the blue a few times while I was there, and this was posting Hero related stuff (in one case a character, in another a direct response to a question) on what was considered at the time the "Champions newsgroup" because something like 90% of the postings were devoted to Hero.

Fuzion was, almost literally, Hero's New Coke. To anyone who was around Hero in the 1999-2001 time frame, in the transition from Original Hero to Cybergames to DOJ, it was a sucky time indeed to be a Hero fan, but what started it all was Steve Peterson's "big announcement". Steve Long had done a few "What would you like to see in Hero 5th?" questionnaires out on the newsgroup and the Champions mailing list around the 1994-95 timeframe. As far as I know he'd written the book when Peterson had said "We've got some great news coming soon!" There'd been lots of speculation about 5th edition up until that time, and then the Fuzion announcement came and hit a lot of people hard. There were statements, quickly backtracked from the Original Hero partners, that Hero support would effectively cease, that Fuzion would take over, that all previous Hero supplements were fully compatible with Fuzion with very little conversion necessary, that all new Fuzion supplements would be fully compatible with Hero with very little conversion necessary.... That stirred the Hero community into a big boiling pot of rage, pretty much. The Original Hero guys were persona non grata on rec.games.frp.super-heroes for a while, and they took some hard flames there. As a result, pretty much any Fuzion questions got flamed hard core as well.

Ah, someone else who has experienced the fire ;)

On a serious note. I took the time to read through the old CNM book. Remember I haven't played it, but I really don't see the point since it seems to just be Hero tweeked. It does indeed have a superpower plug in as well as a conversion paragraph that I had not read at the time, why or how I missed it I don't know, since it appears pretty straight forward.

Like I said I have asked more than a few dumb questions in my time, and if the answer to my question had been something along the order of "did you read page 127?" I would have probably given the game a real tryout. But when the only responses were questioning my parents marital status and whether my sexual preference included farm animals and the "official" reps appeared to be OK with it, it kinda ended my interest.

All in all it is water under the bridge. But I do have to say the binding they used on the book is pretty lame I haven't looked at the book since I boxed it years ago, and then just shelved it. But when I opened it this week the first four pages fell out.....

[Spence]

That's actually under the world sprint record so seems like no big deal but still very fast.. If these things get divorced from each other it really cracks the system for me. People with 50 ST and Con with 10 Stun make no sense to me unless a really strange special effect is involved. keeping skills connected with Stats makes sense to why shouldn't a more agile person have a better basic acrobatic roll than someone else. Spider-man's base acrobatics roll definitely should be better than the thing's

My take on it is that Spider-mans acrobatics roll should be higher, not necessarily the base roll. The rules are a game structure to allow you to modify the exact micro structure of the character. Not to have broad brush capabilities where a few base characteristics give you a broad range of abilities. Spider-man should indeed have a higher acrobatics than the Thing. That is why you can buy up his roll independently of his characteristics.

Games that approach things in a more broad sense are out there. If that is the approach to Supers you enjoy, then give them a shot. I myself don't like them that much, but they are still well written and fun games. I just got a copy of the Mutants and Masterminds core rulebook and have been flipping through it. I haven't actually read it, but it looks OK so far. I think it is a bit to broad brush for me, but I cannot make any kind of real judgment until i can actually read it and digest it. I don't think it has a chance of replacing Hero as my system of choice, but it could be good as a stepping stone for new players or an idea mine.

[Spence]

Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with all interconnections in Hero. That was include basing Skills on characteristics, the Language chart, free Transport Familiarities from certain Skills, etc. Basically, if you want something, you pay for it. Nothing gives it to you for free. But I suspect I'm in a very small minority with this opinion. :)

Not too small. I usually make people pay for everything in a supers game. If there are to be "free" things I write up an everyman package and give it out like that. In supers games I also tend to run thing more generalized using skills in a more broad brush way. A Super detective doesn't have to buy each and every sub-category like forensics or fingerprinting. The Detective Skill covers it. On the other hand in a modern spy/DC Heroic game I use a more specific approach. For Pulps it is somewhere in the middle.

To me it is all about the game style I am simulating. In a Supers game the Super detective is well Super. The game shouldn't stall because he didn't select the correct one of 28 specialty skills. The same thing in pulp. Electronics or Electrical skills cover a very wide range. In a DC/modern game computer repair, computer software and electronic while related cover distinctly different abilities.

It is all about game flow.

[Nolgroth]

Well I still have my copy of Fuzion and CNM. And to be blunt, it was completely broken as published. The CNM book talks about plugins and Fuzion talks about plugins. But there isn't a single actual plugin in the book. Nada. None. They didn't include them in the rule book. And there wasn't a single paragraph of how to design a plugin.

The only way I can describe is if you take Hero 5th and remove the entire powers chapter. Delete it, but leave all other text in place. And then sell it as a rules system. The examples of characters talk about Energy Blast, but nothing actually tells you what EB is or its costs.

My guess is once you had made up all the plugins on your own or found them via other gamers, the game might be OK. But the way I looked at it, if I can not actually play the game or even make a character from the rulebook, it is broken.Actually there was a Mekton plug-in, a Powers Plug-in and a Martial Arts plug-in in the first printing of C:NM (or Fuzion 4.4.3). In the Fuzion 5.0 rules, there were no plug-ins included, though the rules were rather cleaned up and reformatted. The changes made the rules a little more consistent. As written, it looked like it would be perfect for a modern espionage game.

You are absolutely right about no plug-ins in version 5.0 and no guidelines on how to create them. At least with 4.4.3, there were a couple of "built in" plug-ins that could serve as an example. Still not good enough to replace HERO as the company flagship.

In a lot of ways, Fuzion was more of a rules beta test than it was an actual, complete product. That it was marketed as a complete product was a shame. Not only were the HERO fans ticked off at the "bait 'n' switch," they were put off by the incomplete and less robust rules system that had been dumped on them. Let's not talk about the Image inspired "New Millennium" setting. I think that engendered as much hate as the rules did. Truly dark days during the Cybergames era.

The funny thing is, I liked many of the concepts behind Fuzion. I haven't really read through the rules in some time, but I remember defending them in the past (with appropriate negative comments included). I'm ultimately glad DoJ bought out the HERO name and went on to create the best RPG ever, but Fuzion still has some concepts that I find attractive.

All of this, of course, contributes nothing to the 6th edition discussion. Fuzion is and should always remain a separate topic than any edition of HERO.

[Fitz]

It doesn't DEX has not impact on Running. :)

Not directly, but it does increase your SPD, which increases the number of segments you can move on, which increases your overall running speed.

[Balabanto]

The SPD Chart: Keep it. The Hero System Combat System is the finest base set of mechanics in the world.

World Specific Material: I would prefer if this was minimized, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, but why sell one setting when you can sell a bunch of them? Wizards has been successful with Eberron and Forgotten Realms, there's no reason you can't have a core book and multiple setting books that don't interact with each other at all.

Linking these divergent settings is a mistake, IMHO. Yeah, it's cool for the people who want them linked, but I think it should be clear that something like that is wholly optional. The goal is to increase marketing and access to people who prefer doing different things with Hero System, by placing the house rules in their private setting box.

The Realism Issue: Yes. I loathe this. I agree with Monolith and all who support him in this regard. Realism, as I've said elsewhere, isn't real, it's just realism.

When you have a realistic SETTING, that's when you clamp on the realism.

Here's how that can be controlled:

Hero 4th had two wonderful things that 5th edition is missing:

1) The character creation checklist. I still use this thing. It's fantastic. Above all, it asks this question "Is the player's character so well built or innovatively designed that every campaign villain will need to be redesigned to cope with him?"

2) The campaign guidelines sheet, where it covers AP ranges, themes, realism, etc, and then gives you ways to codify it on a 1-5 scale, though I think if they bring it back it should be a 1-10 scale.

Other things I liked that have already been said. One type of Flash Defense. I support this immensely.

Flash Defense has become the herald of the god of nitpickiness. I actually had a player ask me the other day "Mike, can I buy smell flash defense?"

Me: Huh? Wha...oh...sure...Are you SURE you want to buy this power?

I've been playing the system for a long time. I don't think I've ever built a villain with a flash vs. smell.

I really do want something a little more cinematic, and a little more skill justification based.

Also, I really, and I mean really (Grovel, grovel) want the complimentary skill rolls changed, and what you can do with a skill roll lowered. There's a point somewhere around 18- where the system just breaks down, because people can now use skills on the skill list to manipulate their power pool or their MP that requires a skill roll, and they have a skill roll in the low 30's when they're not using their pool. This is really inane.

Either there needs to be a rule that you can't use skills off the skill list to do things with powers that require skill rolls, or what you can do with a skill roll needs to change.

The reason why I don't like the complimentary skill roll rules is "Never leave the house roleplaying." If I and all my buddies can gen a truly phenomenal skill roll, I can reprogram Dr. Destroyer's countdown to doom device from my laptop in the morning.

I understand that some people are pros from Dover, but I've never really agreed with that philosophy, because it makes things not fun for the other players at the table.

This is unheroic and not very satisfying.

[Nolgroth]

Hmmm some thoughts...

If you baseline the Figured Characteristics, it becomes a little more work if you really want to do something freaky. What if you were running a truly epic campaign and wanted to start the characters out at 15 base stats with a maximum of 30? Would you adjust the "extended" characteristics (no longer being Figured) to the new base? What about running a super gritty campaign, where everybody starts at a base of 5 in the Primary characteristics? Would you then adjust the base of the "extended" characteristics downward?

If so, then the idea of starting the characters with a base of 0 would be out. Okay, you could still start the extended characteristics out with some value, but then you have to figure out at what level. That just adds another level of complexity. That usually adds versatility and that would be a good thing. It could also be more of a pain than it's worth.

I think I'm leaning on the pre-figured base value for what is now Figured Characteristics. it may take some time for the GM to set things up, but that is the nature of HERO. Extended prep time for quicker play.

[Spence]

Actually there was a Mekton plug-in, a Powers Plug-in and a Martial Arts plug-in in the first printing of C:NM (or Fuzion 4.4.3). In the Fuzion 5.0 rules, there were no plug-ins included, though the rules were rather cleaned up and reformatted. The changes made the rules a little more consistent. As written, it looked like it would be perfect for a modern espionage game.

You are absolutely right about no plug-ins in version 5.0 and no guidelines on how to create them. At least with 4.4.3, there were a couple of "built in" plug-ins that could serve as an example. Still not good enough to replace HERO as the company flagship.

In a lot of ways, Fuzion was more of a rules beta test than it was an actual, complete product. That it was marketed as a complete product was a shame. Not only were the HERO fans ticked off at the "bait 'n' switch," they were put off by the incomplete and less robust rules system that had been dumped on them. Let's not talk about the Image inspired "New Millennium" setting. I think that engendered as much hate as the rules did. Truly dark days during the Cybergames era.

The funny thing is, I liked many of the concepts behind Fuzion. I haven't really read through the rules in some time, but I remember defending them in the past (with appropriate negative comments included). I'm ultimately glad DoJ bought out the HERO name and went on to create the best RPG ever, but Fuzion still has some concepts that I find attractive.

All of this, of course, contributes nothing to the 6th edition discussion. Fuzion is and should always remain a separate topic than any edition of HERO.

I just had a real stupid moment. I had looked at my copy of CNM and found the plugins you mentioned and thought I had just been being stupid for some reason. But after your mention of a version without them, I took a look at my copy and there is an old sticker on it that says "used game $12". I know I bought my original CNM new. I buy a lot of old RPG's form stores and this must be one. I bet I have another copy floating around that is version 5.0. I distinctly remember there no powers plugin. Oh well, you are correct when you say this particular thread doesn't lead anywhere.

[tomd1969]

This is my Fuzion post.

I remember those bad, bad days right around the time of the release of C:NM. To me, as a sideline observer, it seemed like much ado about nothing. Some feelings were hurt, I'm sure (and I don't mean to belittle that), but I had then (and still do) other and more important things to do in my life (such as an ailing father who would eventually die) than rage at a game company because they "pulled" support for my favorite game system. It's just a game, for pity's sake--get a grip, people. I am guilty of this in several ways (more out of mob mentality than anything else), but I just couldn't work up the vitriol that seemed to be coming from some quarters of the Hero Community at the time.

The arguments for and against the Fuzion system at the time were usually based on irrational emotionalism and ad-hoc attacks, and not an honest critique of the system itself. I bought C:NM when it came out, read it, tried it out, decided that it didn't explain a lot of things sufficiently for it to be a workable system, and then dismissed it.

Having said that, however, in more recent years, I've come to prefer the way that Fuzion handles skills to the way Hero does. It just seems more internally consistent to me. I've said it in the past that Hero doesn't have one game mechanic (by that, I mean Task Resolution system)--I can't remember the specifics now, but I think I counted six at one time (I know that most of them had to do with Skills, but one included the difference in the way Killing Damage and Normal Damage were figured).

The problems with Fuzion are manifold: The seams between the Hero System and the Interlock system are obvious to me: the Mekton system just seems kinda tacked on, and not integrated with the whole; The fact that they needed another Figured Characteristic ("Resistance", which was Will x 3) to maintain consistency between the Hero System's Mental Powers (based on a 1-20 human range) and Fuzion's Characteristics (based on a 1-7 human range); the combat rules seem disjointed, and in certain places unclearly written, perhaps because it liberally took bits from one system and bits from another which didn't always gel.

While I applaud many of the things Fuzion did (such as trying to unify the Hero System to fewer task resolution systems and simplifying it overall), it has it's fair share of glaring flaws.

[Lord Mhoram]

While I applaud many of the things Fuzion did (such as trying to unify the Hero System to fewer task resolution systems and simplifying it overall), it has it's fair share of glaring flaws.

My biggest problem, aside from emotional issues, is that the plugins were not going to be balanced against each other (I had asked the creators specifically). At least in HERO everything tries to be balances, but the whole thing I saw with fuzion was the problem with 3rd ed Gurps - you could have a mecha system, and a psi system, and a magic system and a superpowers system, and none of them would match.
Probably the strongest reason I play HERO is it's universiality. I like to play cross genre, genre mash or dim hopping games. Losing that was the main reason I ignored Fuzion.

[steamteck]

My take on it is that Spider-mans acrobatics roll should be higher, not necessarily the base roll. The rules are a game structure to allow you to modify the exact micro structure of the character. Not to have broad brush capabilities where a few base characteristics give you a broad range of abilities. Spider-man should indeed have a higher acrobatics than the Thing. That is why you can buy up his roll independently of his characteristics.

.

So you're saying with no training the thing and spider man should be equally acrobatic? I must be misunderstanding you. If you don't want characteristics to have the effects that just make logical connections then I suppose eliminating them is no big deal. This is just so incomprehensible to me I feel I must be missing your point somehow. Am I being that obtuse or are we that completely on different wavelengths?

[steamteck]

Maybe so, but why should being more agile make you run faster?

It was just an unrelated example of relating Stats to abilities/skills sorry to be confusing.

[Doc Democracy]

So you're saying with no training the thing and spider man should be equally acrobatic? I must be misunderstanding you. If you don't want characteristics to have the effects that just make logical connections then I suppose eliminating them is no big deal. This is just so incomprehensible to me I feel I must be missing your point somehow. Am I being that obtuse or are we that completely on different wavelengths?

No, he's working on the Hero principle - buying 14- Acrobatics does not necessarily mean you are a trained acrobat - it could mean that you are a complete natural.

Hero divorces game mechanics from special effects - that is as true of skills as of powers.

As such - if you were buying Spiderman and the Thing you would ensure that Spiderman had better acrobatics than the thing. At present that, and OCV and SPD to an extent, are all wrapped up in buying DEX. In a clean system they would be bought seperately.


Doc

[sinanju]

No, he's working on the Hero principle - buying 14- Acrobatics does not necessarily mean you are a trained acrobat - it could mean that you are a complete natural.

Hero divorces game mechanics from special effects - that is as true of skills as of powers.

As such - if you were buying Spiderman and the Thing you would ensure that Spiderman had better acrobatics than the thing. At present that, and OCV and SPD to an extent, are all wrapped up in buying DEX. In a clean system they would be bought seperately.


But, but...see, that's the thing. By giving Spider-Man a DEX of 33 and the Thing a Dex of, for instance, 18, you are assuring that Spider-Man's acrobatics roll is superior. As is his ability to duck, dodge and otherwise avoid being hit, as well as his innate (i.e., untrained) ability to hit a moving target.

I like the connection between stats and skills, for the most part.

[Spence]

So you're saying with no training the thing and spider man should be equally acrobatic? I must be misunderstanding you. If you don't want characteristics to have the effects that just make logical connections then I suppose eliminating them is no big deal. This is just so incomprehensible to me I feel I must be missing your point somehow. Am I being that obtuse or are we that completely on different wavelengths?

No I am not talking about that at all. You are confusing character concept, character story and SFX with character build game mechanics.

In concept and story Spidey is more agile than Thing. Nothing in the game mechanics prevents you from doing that. It is called paying for a few more levels of acrobatics, skills etc..

From your post you seem to be implying that since the purchase of one or two items for the character doesn't automatically give you your personal idea of proper capability spread that the system is broken. What you are looking for is a cookie cutter pre-builds. That is trademark of systems like D20 and Paladium. But not what Hero is. Hero allows me to create exactly what I am looking for.

Your statement about training means you have completely missed the entire point of the conversation as I understood it. Buying up Spidey's acrobatics roll to give him a better capability IS the training. Thing would probably spend his points (training) on other things because Spidey probably doesn't have the damage resistant capabilities of Thing nor should he.

I buy a Dex that sets me at a good baseline of what I am attempting to end up with. I am not one of the Dex addicted that has Dex averages at 30+. The Dex's in my games average at around 20. I prefer the finesse of buying other additional skills, characteristics and powers to refine the character rather than the brute force sledge hammer of throwing points at Dex and then complaining that certain characters are too agile. Which is what this boils down to. Your statement is absolutely true, Spidermans base acrobatics roll should be higher that Things, but the problem is more likely that Things Dex was bought too high in the first place, not that Spidey was too low.

Also there are a lot of people who confuse Dex with Spd. They want the PC to be fast so they pump up the Dex so the figured Spd is high. I prefer to set the Dex at a reasonable level and buy up Spd separately to give the character more actions. My bst Spiderman clone had a Dex of 25. all the spectacular spidey stuff I modeled differently. Instead of him "dodging" bullets and such, I used "missile deflection" with the SFX being he dodged rather that actually deflected anything. I purchased up levels in acrobatics as well as DCV and others. In the end I created a highly agile and quick Spiderman without smashing the square Dex pin through the round hole. My big bruisers (Thing types) rarely have Dex's above 20. Mostly their Dex is 15-18 with other items purchased up as required.

In the end it all comes down to what you want. If you want the game system to do it all for you as far as balancing everything automatically. Then you are in the wrong ballpark. Hero is designed to allow you to build exactly what you want, and if what you want is not balanced, then it won't be balanced. Hero occupies that pigeonhole in gaming that allows the gamers maximum flexibility while retaining a fair balance. It can't be perfect because the only way to do it is to eliminate the very flexibility that is its purpose.

It is like the non-argument about KA. I say non-argument because it really has no point. If you do not like KA, simply do not use it. Not using it does nothing to game play, the wheels do not fall off.


Now I may be completely miss reading what you are saying, and I'll admit "reading people" on discussion boards is not my strong suit. But my impression from your posts is that you want the system to do all of the balancing and ability level setting for you. If that is the case I recommend something like Blood of Heroes, Heroes Unlimited or Mutants and Masterminds. They are more tied to having a "power level" control over all capabilities as a whole.

[Spence]

But, but...see, that's the thing. By giving Spider-Man a DEX of 33 and the Thing a Dex of, for instance, 18, you are assuring that Spider-Man's acrobatics roll is superior. As is his ability to duck, dodge and otherwise avoid being hit, as well as his innate (i.e., untrained) ability to hit a moving target.

I like the connection between stats and skills, for the most part.

Exactly. You can go that route and it works. For myself I like to go with Spidey at 25 Dex and Thing at 18 and then buy up their abilities.

But both approaches to the problem are equally valid.

But to give both Spidey and Thing a Dex of 30 and say that something is wrong isn't a valid complaint.

[Spence]

No, he's working on the Hero principle - buying 14- Acrobatics does not necessarily mean you are a trained acrobat - it could mean that you are a complete natural.

Hero divorces game mechanics from special effects - that is as true of skills as of powers.

As such - if you were buying Spiderman and the Thing you would ensure that Spiderman had better acrobatics than the thing. At present that, and OCV and SPD to an extent, are all wrapped up in buying DEX. In a clean system they would be bought seperately.


Doc

Yes, yes and maybe.

The maybe, OCV and Spd are indeed based on Dex, but the extent of the impact depends on the person buying the character. Just like any of the figured characteristics have their foundation in the base characteristic. The trick (in my mind) is to set the base where you want it and round everything else up to meet the character concept. Not throw points a the combat stats so I can be the biggest baddest combat monster in the game.

#1 concept for me in Hero: You don't spend points because you can, you spend them because you should.

;)

[steamteck]

But, but...see, that's the thing. By giving Spider-Man a DEX of 33 and the Thing a Dex of, for instance, 18, you are assuring that Spider-Man's acrobatics roll is superior. As is his ability to duck, dodge and otherwise avoid being hit, as well as his innate (i.e., untrained) ability to hit a moving target.

I like the connection between stats and skills, for the most part.

Thanks everyone else is on planet 10 just not getting what I'm saying or reading extra irrelevant stuff stuff. my point was as Sinanju stated buying up the DEX should give you an innate advantage in DEX related things.

[steamteck]

Exactly. You can go that route and it works. For myself I like to go with Spidey at 25 Dex and Thing at 18 and then buy up their abilities.

But both approaches to the problem are equally valid.

But to give both Spidey and Thing a Dex of 30 and say that something is wrong isn't a valid complaint.

See that seems irrelevant to our earlier conversation. We are obviously not both speaking the same language. I think I'm going to give this one a skip for awhile because I feel like I'm saying the sky should be blue and you're telling why it shouldn't be green. Sinanju gets my point at least.

[Lucius]

It is like the non-argument about KA. I say non-argument because it really has no point. If you do not like KA, simply do not use it. Not using it does nothing to game play, the wheels do not fall off.
.

See, this misses the point. It's not just a matter of "not liking KA."
I don't have a problem with Killing Attacks per se, personally.
I don't have a problem with Killing Attacks being more effective than Normal Attacks.
I have problem with Killing Attacks being more effective than Normal Attacks AND COSTING THE SAME.

Lucius Alexander

And a Ranged Killing Palindromedary

[Kristopher]

I'd leave the whole thing alone and stop messing with stuff.

[Spence]

See, this misses the point. It's not just a matter of "not liking KA."
I don't have a problem with Killing Attacks per se, personally.
I don't have a problem with Killing Attacks being more effective than Normal Attacks.
I have problem with Killing Attacks being more effective than Normal Attacks AND COSTING THE SAME.

Lucius Alexander

And a Ranged Killing Palindromedary

Hmmm..Last time I looked they didn't.

If I recall correctly KA costs three times as much. 15pts per die instead of 5 pts per die of normal attack.

Of course my book could be a misprint......;)

[Goradin]

I don't think we need a sixth edition. This game is still better than M&M.

[Grond]

ReFREd is perfect.
Just add some color and more decent artwork and that's all I can ask.

[Lucius]

I'd leave the whole thing alone and stop messing with stuff.

While I don't agree, I have to admit I can see the appeal of the position. :D

In any case, I am sure we are a long way from another edition being published.

Lucius Alexander

Feeding obsolete supplements to a palindromedary

[OddHat]

Q: Figured Characteristics and How Many Characteristics We Really Need

On average, a person who can lift more with his arms will also be able to lift more with his legs, punch harder, and throw objects further. That's only on average; sports are full of guys with great strength in Movement A but only moderate strength in Movement B.

Still, it would be a pain and add very little to game play to divide Strength into Explosive Strength, Support Strength, Pushing Strength, Strength-Endurance, Pulling Strength, Upper Body Explosive Strength, Hand Strength, etc. We just slap one number down, call it Strength, and accept that it isn't entirely accurate.

We don't break Intelligence into four (or a dozen, or a hundred) stats, we don't break damage into a dozen or more different stats, etc.

Accurate simulation is all well and good, but the game still has to be playable. We pick a few stats, enough for a compromise between simulation and playability, and we move on.

There's a case to be made for fewer stats and tighter integration of Figured Stats and Skills into their base stats; it keeps things simple. For a game, sometimes that's more important than accuracy.

The main complaint about figured stats as they work now is that STR and CON save you so many points as compared to buying the benefits they give separately. If we really wanted to solve that problem, we could just bump up the cost of both until it's no longer too much of a bargain (however much too much may be).

[Hugh Neilson]

The main complaint about figured stats as they work now is that STR and CON save you so many points as compared to buying the benefits they give separately. If we really wanted to solve that problem, we could just bump up the cost of both until it's no longer too much of a bargain (however much too much may be).

I'm always intrigued by the fact that the solution is always "raise the cost" of something. Couldn't we re-jig the balance just as effectively if we LOWERED the cost of figured characteristics, and re-set the "no figured" limitation, stat by stat, to better match the value lost?

What if we did the following (rough guideline which I've posted before):

Reduce the price of STUN to 1/2 point, REC to 1 point and END to 1/3 point.

Declare them "defensive powers" so that adjustment powers do not gain a huge advantage. Don't mess with PD or ED since they link with other defensive powers. Grant figured as follows:

STR grants STR/5 in PD and STR/7.5 in REC (yes, the math is a bit harder - buy a calculator or use computer SW for character building).
10 STR grants 1 PD and 1 REC.

CON grants CON/5 in ED, CON/3.75 in REC, 2/3 CON in STUN and 2x CON in END.
10 CON grants 2 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 20 END.

BOD grants BOD x 1 1/3 STUN.
10 BOD grants 13 STUN

RESULT: STR and BOD get a -1/2 limit for No Figured Char; CON gets -2.75 (yes it's big - CON doesn't do a lot besides grant figured characteristics). These are now mathematically correct. DEx and SPD are unchanged, so -1/2 works.

We can now eliminate the "can only sell back 1 figured" restriction, since you can't create an infinite loop any more.

A standard (10's across the board) guy has the same base figured's as before.

BOD and CON contribute more, and STR contributes less. Appropriate as STR gives considerably more other benefits.

LOTS of changes to the dynamic. eg. since there is no longer a "figured' advantage to high STR and CON, do we need to allow EC's of characteristics for Bricks and other stat-based characters to keep them balanced with, say, blasters and others more reliant on frameworks? I don't know - playtesting would provide a better indicator.

Again, too much to worry about for not enough benefit. In my experience, the system works. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Maybe those having problems with STR and CON in heroic games might find this a reasonable fix, but I suspect STR (and DEX) would remain prized.

For my games, I think this would be a preferable solution. I don't see a lot of people buying up REC and STUN now. This recosting might change that. How many people now would consider selling back 5 PD and 5 ED to buy 10 STUN? Maybe if it were 20 STUN the economics would make more sense.

The cost of END gets a little closer to the END reserve, so that's not as deeply discounted. Maybe its REC cost needs to decline a bit.

[OddHat]

I'm always intrigued by the fact that the solution is always "raise the cost" of something. iCouldn't we re-jig the balance just as effectively if we LOWERED the cost of figured characteristics, and re-set the "no figured" limitation, stat by stat, to better match the value lost?

Whichever, if the issue is important enough to worry about at all.

[rjcurrie]

It's interesting to see the argument that keeping figured stats makes things simpler, since part of my reasoning for suggesting that they be made primaries with their own bases was simplicity. To me, it's far simpler to have to decide how STUN I want and buy that amount, rather than first having to remember (if you're not a frequent character creator) the formula for STUN (STR/2 + CON/2 + BODY), apply that formula and then adjust the value to what I want.

[Spence]

It's interesting to see the argument that keeping figured stats makes things simpler, since part of my reasoning for suggesting that they be made primaries with their own bases was simplicity. To me, it's far simpler to have to decide how STUN I want and buy that amount, rather than first having to remember (if you're not a frequent character creator) the formula for STUN (STR/2 + CON/2 + BODY), apply that formula and then adjust the value to what I want.

While I am happy the way things are. That is actually a very reasonable thought. Making the secondary’s start at their base defaults and requiring the stats to be bought up individually isn't that bad of an idea. There would probably need to be some cost adjustments, or maybe not.

But all in all this kind of change really doesn't change the innate feel of the game. For me it doesn't anyway.

[archermoo]

Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with all interconnections in Hero. That was include basing Skills on characteristics, the Language chart, free Transport Familiarities from certain Skills, etc. Basically, if you want something, you pay for it. Nothing gives it to you for free. But I suspect I'm in a very small minority with this opinion. :)

I think some interconnections are necessary. If you divorce all interconnections from the Stats, what purpose to most of them serve? If you don't get a bonus to skills or CV from Dex, all you've got left is using it for generic Dex rolls.

I like the current connectedness between Stats and most things in Hero. Just not stats with each other. :)

[archermoo]

I'd leave the whole thing alone and stop messing with stuff.

For the most part I agree. :)

[tomd1969]

Hmmm..Last time I looked they didn't.

If I recall correctly KA costs three times as much. 15pts per die instead of 5 pts per die of normal attack.

Of course my book could be a misprint......;)

Umm... yes, it does cost 15 pts per d6, but I think you're missing the point. Each of those d6s KA is actually 3DCs--theoretically equivalent to 3d6 normal damage (also 3DCs), which also costs 15 pts.

[lapsedgamer]

I actually think the system has reached a point where any more tinkering will make it harder and less fun to play, not easier and more enjoyable. Admittedly, I am just now relearning the system after a long absence, but I seem to remember the previous edition being more user friendly.

It seems to me that there are so many little fixes aimed at preventing munckinry that you really have to have an Associate's Degree in the Hero System to effectively run a game. I liked it better when the GM would just look Junior in the eye and say, "No that's unbalancing and not fair to the other players. Rethink it." Having been on the receiving end of that statement a couple of times, I never took it personally. I really hate rules lawyers.

I've never noticed a problem with the cost of any of the powers or abilities, but my builds were usually really simplistic and not really aimed at point effectiveness.

So, yes. Leave it alone and stop messing with stuff.

[GAZZA]

It seems to me that there are so many little fixes aimed at preventing munckinry that you really have to have an Associate's Degree in the Hero System to effectively run a game.
That's interesting.

Most obvious mechanical changes to me between 5th and 4th edition:
"Great Linked Debate" settled. But I was always on the "right side" of that debate, so no change there for me.
Aid price doubled. Something had to be done, sure, but doubling the cost means that using Aid is now often inferior to just buying the target for Aid outright (why buy 5d6 Aid STR for 50 points rather than just buy +30 STR for 30?)
Transform now automatically Cumulative (good!) but split into Mental, Physical, and Spiritual (not so good - why do I have to do the equivalent of kill someone three times over?)
Multiform and Duplication now much cheaper for multiple forms, and Multiform no longer has a cost increase for buying forms with more points than the base form.
Using Suppress more than once is now cumulative.
Hand Attack cost increased with an "automatic limitation".
Lack of Weakness slightly altered (but not in an incompatible fashion).
Advantages for adjustment powers expanded (but not in an incompatible fashion).
Damage Shield "clarified" to require Continuous.I'm sure I missed something, but that is enough to go on. I'm leaving aside the more cosmetic changes (like the greater use of examples and so forth) not because they're unimportant, but because they are not relevant to the question at hand regarding "changes made to avoid munchkinism".

From my perspective whether you agree or not with the changes listed above (and I certainly have my reservations about some of them), the intent doesn't seem to be aimed at reducing munchkinism; there's only two cases where it actually involved a cost increase (Aid and Damage Shield), and some of them are a munchkin's wildest fantasy come true (Multiform, for example - yes, most GMs will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you try and abuse it, but the potential is certainly there).


I liked it better when the GM aould just look Junior in the eye and say, "No that's unbalancing and not fair to teh other players. Rethink it." Having been on the receiving end of that statement a couple of times, I never took it personally. I really hate rules lawyers.In my experience you're at least as likely to have to say this now as you were before.

[Hugh Neilson]

Most obvious mechanical changes to me between 5th and 4th edition:[LIST]
Aid price doubled. Something had to be done, sure, but doubling the cost means that using Aid is now often inferior to just buying the target for Aid outright (why buy 5d6 Aid STR for 50 points rather than just buy +30 STR for 30?)


Ummm...no it isn't. The cost of Aid was raised to 6 2/3 per die from 5. It was then made 0 END by default, for a total of 10 points, but "old Aid", which cost END, would cost 6 2/3 points per d6.

A bigger change, to me, was the segregation of Aid and Healing such that even points Aided to a stat that was below its starting maximum have a fade rate. A couple d6 Aid bought to operate automatically every phase was an easy abuse in 4e that's gone in 5e.

[GAZZA]

Ummm...no it isn't. The cost of Aid was raised to 6 2/3 per die from 5. It was then made 0 END by default, for a total of 10 points, but "old Aid", which cost END, would cost 6 2/3 points per d6.
Well, it used to cost 5, now it costs 10.

Yes, granted they added 0 END, and that makes it work out mathematically, but that still leaves you with a power costing twice as many Active Points as before (not by any means irrelevant, since it makes Aid in Multipowers and to a lesser extent VPPs much less useful; I've yet to design a character in 5th edition that used a vanilla Aid).

I doubt that they "decided" that "6 2/3" was an appropriate number. It's far more likely that they increased it to 10 from 5 to keep it consistent with other "attack powers" (which all cost either 5, 10, or 15 points per die), realised that they'd overnerfed it, and threw in 0 END to compensate.


A bigger change, to me, was the segregation of Aid and Healing such that even points Aided to a stat that was below its starting maximum have a fade rate. A couple d6 Aid bought to operate automatically every phase was an easy abuse in 4e that's gone in 5e.Good catch, I knew I'd missed something.

It's not really gone, though; you can still do that with a 0 END Continuous Succor.

[Spence]

Umm... yes, it does cost 15 pts per d6, but I think you're missing the point. Each of those d6s KA is actually 3DCs--theoretically equivalent to 3d6 normal damage (also 3DCs), which also costs 15 pts.

Actually that IS the point.

15 pts KA = 1d6

15 pts Norm = 3d6

15 pts = 3 DC's

The difference is how the damage is applied.

By the same token it can be argued that 10 pts of Mind Scan is totally overpriced compared to 10 pts of TK, because I cannot do anything that physically acts on the world with MS.

KA and the various forms of attack, EB etc., are simply game mechanics used to provide a structure for simulating the world. They have to have a starting point and an internal logic. Heck, many people play D&D 3.5 and they skipped the whole internal logic part which means that part isn't really a requirement.

As far as pure playability, Hero is one of the few games that actually has a logical internal consistency. That doesn't mean there are not any problems IMO, but overall the system has shaken out very well over the years.

For KA my personal style is to ignore/eliminate the minimum STN. It was a house rule from 1982 when I started playing used by the GM who taught me the game. Now I completely forget it isn't "standard". Essentially it allows a KA to inflict BDY but no STN on a multiplier role of 1 (1d6-1).

But back to the actual topic. The game system essentially runs at 5pts per magnitude or step (d6, DC, etc). That is its internal logic, and it works well. If you think that 5 pts per DC is not a good formula, great, kudo’s on your individuality:thumbup: . Feel free to change/modify/discontinue KA in your game. I tweek to personal taste all the time. My tweeks are different from genre to genre.

But it isn’t the game system. It is a basic truth that no system can satisfy everyone.

5 pts per DC is a good way to do it. I don’t have a problem with it at all and play “book” when it is a con or store game. But KA is perfectly balanced within the internal logic of Hero. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, granted they added 0 END, and that makes it work out mathematically, but that still leaves you with a power costing twice as many Active Points as before (not by any means irrelevant, since it makes Aid in Multipowers and to a lesser extent VPPs much less useful; I've yet to design a character in 5th edition that used a vanilla Aid).

I doubt that they "decided" that "6 2/3" was an appropriate number. It's far more likely that they increased it to 10 from 5 to keep it consistent with other "attack powers" (which all cost either 5, 10, or 15 points per die), realised that they'd overnerfed it, and threw in 0 END to compensate.

I'm sure a lot of the thinking was geared around "it's worth more than 5 but less than 10 - how can we get a round number". They could have made it ranged by default instead. However, I find it hard to consider added flexibility a pure price increase. If Drain were 15 points per die and ranged by default, I wouldn't consider its cost to be up 50%, even though I could cram less AP into a framework.

[GAZZA]

I'm sure a lot of the thinking was geared around "it's worth more than 5 but less than 10 - how can we get a round number". They could have made it ranged by default instead. However, I find it hard to consider added flexibility a pure price increase. If Drain were 15 points per die and ranged by default, I wouldn't consider its cost to be up 50%, even though I could cram less AP into a framework.
I'm with you, but ideally I'd like a power to cost as little as possible per increment, even if it means getting rid of some of the frills (you can always get those back with advantages). I think that philosophy is generally followed in Hero, except for the counter balance that most powers are bought in increments of 5, 10, or 15.

While I don't really like (and rarely use) the new Aid, I should point out that I do agree that it was probably too good in 4th edition - something needed to be done.

[bwdemon]

Actually that IS the point. 15 pts KA = 1d6, 15 pts Norm = 3d6, 15 pts = 3 DC's. The difference is how the damage is applied. By the same token it can be argued that 10 pts of Mind Scan is totally overpriced compared to 10 pts of TK, because I cannot do anything that physically acts on the world with MS.

If Mind Scan did exactly the same thing as Telepathy, then this would make sense. Unfortunately, KAs do exactly the same thing as Normal attacks (cause BODY and STUN) and do so more effectively at lesser cost.

KAs get to do BODY damage against a more expensive and, in the vast majority of contexts, reduced defense. Second, if the target has no resistant defense, then STUN doesn't get stopped by nonresistant defense. Third, the damage structure causes more STUN and more BODY on average with extreme outliers possible.

Any power that does exactly the same thing as another and has an enhanced effect for the same cost = unbalanced.

[PhilFleischmann]

I'm sure a lot of the thinking was geared around "it's worth more than 5 but less than 10 - how can we get a round number". They could have made it ranged by default instead. However, I find it hard to consider added flexibility a pure price increase. If Drain were 15 points per die and ranged by default, I wouldn't consider its cost to be up 50%, even though I could cram less AP into a framework.
I think the reason they added 0 END was for the presumably not uncommon application of Aid to END. It's a little odd to have to spend END to bump up your END. Yes, you could do it that way, but it just makes it more confusing.

But back to the main point, I am going to try to resist commenting on all the other little tweaks and changes being proposed:

IMO, 6th Edition should be a 10-page booklet.

On the first page, it should say:
"Buy 5th Edition, Revised. Use that. The following nine pages contain a few minor updates and improvements to the system. We even had room for a few original illustrations. The changes in this booklet are those that we, the designers of the HERO System, after much consideration and playtesting, have concluded are improvements to the game. Each individual change given is followed by a paragraph explaining why this change was made. And remember: You are free to modify or ignore any of these rule changes as you see fit, just like you can with any of the rules in 5ER."

Ten pages should be more than enough for all the needed changes, plus plenty of examples, any necessary charts or tables, and a few illustrations.

[RPMiller]

I think that would get my vote and my money. Presuming they were good changes. ;)

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd do it a little different. I'd make the basic 6th edition book the 6th edition Sidekick, with just enough rules to be able to play. Maybe primarily written in a "here's how to play" format more than a "here's the short version of the Hero System reference guide" book. The next books would be the 6th edition Book of Characters, a 500 page hardcover with nothing but character creation (Characteristics, Skills, Talents, Powers, and Disadvantages, maybe with an additional section on weapons, Vehicles, Bases, Computers and AIs; a dozen or so sample characters; and tons of worked examples of Powers) and the 6th edition GM's Guide (with expanded and highly detailed combat, campaigning, etc.).

[Hugh Neilson]

I think the reason they added 0 END was for the presumably not uncommon application of Aid to END. It's a little odd to have to spend END to bump up your END. Yes, you could do it that way, but it just makes it more confusing.

You could also heal END - does it make any more sense for that to copst END? I think the simple answer is that the cost of Aid needed to go up - 5 points was too low - but 10 points was too high.

[OddHat]

I've said this many times before, but the main changes I'd like to see are organizational. My prefered version of 6thEd would feature:

1) A Core 6thED book, very close in style to 5thER. All the rules, plenty of examples of the rules in use, environmental and sfx issues, the works. Setting information would be minimal aside from characters used to illustrate the rules.

2) Stand alone world books. Each of these would have a basic, slimed down version of the rules, sidekick style or leaner, with refs to the main 6thED book for additional info. They'd also have basic info on a specific setting, and a selection of heroes, villains, adventure locations, plot seeds, and essentials. Think of a half sized version of the Algernon Files packaged with a slightly slimmer Sidekick and a few pages of maps and location descriptions. The best art the company could afford as well. Something a new player can use to immediately jump in and start playing that evening.

Expanded versions of everything would be fun after those two, and I'd buy them, but my only real complaint about HERO right now is that I can't just put one glossy book down in front of a new player and say "This is all you need to start GMing by tomorrow".

Incidentally, with Algernon Files or Gestalt (which will knock your socks off) plus Sidekick, we're closer than we were a few years back.

[Thia Halmades]

Without intentionally repeating anything y'all said, as per my usual, I haven't read everything y'all said, I'm going to say this: most of my suggestions are really more like tweaks; I think HERO is fantastic because it's consistent. I wouldn't really want to see any 'sweeping, radical changes.' I would like to see the following:

1) Divide the system into two core sub-systems; HEROIC and SUPERHEROIC. I appreciate it's a toolkit, but what makes sense in SH (STR 1:1, etc.) doesn't always make sense in Heroic. It wouldn't really take more than 4 or 5 pages, but it's an important section and should be given its due. I don't play Super. I only play Heroic, and sometimes the system drives me batty for that reason.

2) Please, for the love of all that's Holy, consolidate ALL Advantages and ALL Disadvantages into ONE PLACE. Expand and elucidate on where certain things are hiding; I'm not saying 'clean up the index' as much as I'm saying 'clarify the content.' This might mean a new side bar here or there; inevitably it takes us a half-hour to find something really basic.

3) I did read a bunch of people insist that all damage become "damage." Not Killing or Normal, nor have any more PD/ED defense (all DEF). This is more a pure HP system, and would turn STUN into something closer to SDC. Personally, I prefer the STUN/KA rules as they stand. If I wanna STUN someone, I buy a STUN attack. If i wanna kill 'em, I buy a Killing Attack with STUN Lotto.

3a) Admittedly, some work might need done on the whole STUN lotto thing, but hey. That happens.

4) Alternate rule: Going to -BODY kills you. Going to -STUN should ALSO kill you (i.e., I have 40 STUN; I get reduced to -41 STUN. I be dead).

5) Throw out and revamp the entire vehicle/base system. Vehicles are not people and shouldn't be built like people; Robot Warriors gets a lot closer. Maybe I'm too attached to Battletech, I don't know.

I will now veg out and play the Blacksite demo.

[Vondy]

1) Divide the system into two core sub-systems; HEROIC and SUPERHEROIC. I appreciate it's a toolkit, but what makes sense in SH (STR 1:1, etc.) doesn't always make sense in Heroic. It wouldn't really take more than 4 or 5 pages, but it's an important section and should be given its due. I don't play Super. I only play Heroic, and sometimes the system drives me batty for that reason.


Agreement.

[Vondy]

I did an experiment (supers only)...

This post is for Doc Democracy.

I found my notes on this. They were intended at taking the idea further, but I never got around to hammering out the rough spots. They do include my oft-mentioned, but never posted, charts for dealing with presence attacks and grabs as opposed rolls using 3d6, however.

This is incomplete - I never worked out a solution for what I call the "figured characteristics problem"


Assumptions:


Its superheroic, and no hit locations.

All primary characteristics are 3d6 roll under rolls. Com is purchased as a perk. I never dealt with what to due about figured characteristics (and this is the big sticking point with this experiment).

Speed was jettisoned. Instead all turns have 6 phases. You make a dex roll on each. The MoS determines who goes first, but if you have a failure you don't go. A critical failure means you take a penalty (this was because mooks have low rolls and it helps eject them faster).

You don't roll damage. You check the quality of your success against the chart and use the number as a multiple on the Damage Classes for stun. All attacks do 1 body per DC (less applicable defenses).

Killing Attack is a +3/4 Modifier on a regular attack. It does damage the same way, except you need resistant defenses to counter the body, or to get to count normal defenses against the stun. The price is based on the fact that resistant defenses are, effectively, a +1/2 advantage.

CV has gone the way of the Dodo. Instead, you buy skill rolls, both for WF, martial styles, etc. Everyone has melee, throw, shoot, dodge, and block as everyman skills at 8-. Unless someone is caught flat-footed or choose to ignore an attack they are assumed to be dodging and roll 8- (or their skill roll) for the contest. Martial arts OCV mods go to your to hit roll, DCV mods go to the dodge roll. Actively dodging gives you the modifiers to your dodge roll as laid out in the book (+3/+5).

The presence (and metal attack other than ego blast) charts have two levels: Named Characters and Mooks. The GM decides which chart an NPC uses.

I used a different strength chart that was tailored to my campaign, and strength was purchased as follows: lift/leap/roll cost 3/2 for an 11- base roll. Damage costs 3 points per DC. In general, each level of strength starting at 11- must have an accompanying damage class buy unless the GM gives permission. The reason for this is costing the strength damage against EBs and whatnot. It results in very close costs.
Notation:


QoS: Quality of Success.
CS: Critical Success.
MS: Master Success.
NS: Normal Success.
NF: Normal Failure.
CF: Critical Failure.
Roll off: Roll 1d6, highest die wins. Keep rolling until there is a victor.
BO: Break Out. The Defender breaks the hold.
DA: Defender Advantage. The defender gains +2 on all contests against this opponent for their next action phase.
AF: Attacker Fumbles. 1/2 combat rolls until the end of their next action phase.
DF: Defender Fumbles: 1/2 combat rolls until the end of their next action phase.
DI: Defender immune to this form of mental attack from this particular mentalist for the duration of the scene.
NE: No effect - essentially the same result as a "miss."
L1: Presene or Ego.
L2: Presence +10 or Ego +10
L3: Presence +20 or Ego +20.
L4: Presence +30 or Ego +30.
OUCH: As dramatically apropos: the defender is down for the count; optional wounding, disabling, or bleeding rules come into play; the character cannot breakout (grab or mental) for the duration of the scene (etc), or perhaps, for presence and metal attacks, uses the mooks chart (if they are on the named chart).
I toyed with the idea of using negative column shifts for fumbles and ouch results, but never actually tried it in play, and wasn't very attached to the idea. One of my players, a big Marvel Supers fan, did want to try it, however.Advantages and Disadvantages:


I found mentalists more playable.
Once you know the charts - and they're simple and few in number - it runs very quick (esp. if you have a player who takes forever to count damage).
It streamlines the mechanics in some ways (notably: almost everything is 3d6 roll under).
It doesn't require a great deal of recosting.
While it has the advantage of more regular results and no really bad rolls, getting the "big hit" or Ego/Presence +30 results was too rare for my tastes.
Dealing with figured characteristics - as noted above - is a real sticking point. I left them as non figured characterists because otherwise you have to recost the whole system.

[schir1964]

Adjustment Powers default to affecting a single SFX by default.

- Christopher Mullins

[tomd1969]

I'd do it a little different. I'd make the basic 6th edition book the 6th edition Sidekick, with just enough rules to be able to play. Maybe primarily written in a "here's how to play" format more than a "here's the short version of the Hero System reference guide" book. The next books would be the 6th edition Book of Characters, a 500 page hardcover with nothing but character creation (Characteristics, Skills, Talents, Powers, and Disadvantages, maybe with an additional section on weapons, Vehicles, Bases, Computers and AIs; a dozen or so sample characters; and tons of worked examples of Powers) and the 6th edition GM's Guide (with expanded and highly detailed combat, campaigning, etc.).

This is my 6th edition post.

I'm with you Chris... I really think that's how the Hero System should be done. There are many who disagree with me, but that's my feeling on it. Too many people are scared away by the monstrous main rulebook, and more and more people (it seems to me) are going to M&M for supers roleplaying because, no matter if it's true or not, it is perceived as being a simpler system.

Most of 5Ed are optional rules that you would only use in certain circumstances/genres. There aren't many 4-color supers campaigns that would use the Automatic Fire skills, or even the Defensive Maneuver I-IV, just to pick two examples off the top of my head. The Hero System (IMO, YMMV, etc) needs to be stripped back down to its core system(s) and re-presented in that fashion.

This is the 21st century, and the Hero System (as it is perceived by non-fans of the system) is seen as definitely a system from the '80s--25 years ago it was an innovative system, now it has become a bloated parody of itself. Most modern game systems are going the way of the Storyteller System: simple systems that can be picked up within an hour's read of the rulebook.

IMX, there are fewer and fewer people that want crunch with their games. They want it easier and faster, particularly as alternative forms of entertainment (computer/console games, frex) become more sophisticated. Why play a game that would take days (if not weeks) of reading (reading is hard!), when I can plug in a game console, insert a disc, and be playing within minutes (if not seconds)? That's what Hero (and other RPGs) must compete with.

[nexus]

Yeah.

I remember on the Champs mailing list when Steve Peterson was saying how anything you could do with HERO you could do with Fuzion. I talked about my FH game, and how it was crossworld, and I had a Cyberpunk, an Old West Doctor, a low powered superhero and a couple of natives. I asked if the different plugins would be balanced against each other and still be able to run such a game.

He admitted that for me HERO was better. :)

Yeah, Fuzion isn't terrible and I've seen it expanded on in intersting ways. For example. Artesia but it didn't do it for me.

[nexus]

Might be a larger minority than you suspect. There are especially sore spots, like free Mental Awareness with every Mental Power, but all of the implied and figured stuff just makes the system more vulnerable.

I do like the relationship of characteistic to skill rolls thought. Palladium's almost completely lack of connection between your skills and your ability drove me up the wall.

[Spence]

I'd do it a little different. I'd make the basic 6th edition book the 6th edition Sidekick, with just enough rules to be able to play. Maybe primarily written in a "here's how to play" format more than a "here's the short version of the Hero System reference guide" book. The next books would be the 6th edition Book of Characters, a 500 page hardcover with nothing but character creation (Characteristics, Skills, Talents, Powers, and Disadvantages, maybe with an additional section on weapons, Vehicles, Bases, Computers and AIs; a dozen or so sample characters; and tons of worked examples of Powers) and the 6th edition GM's Guide (with expanded and highly detailed combat, campaigning, etc.).


I've said this many times before, but the main changes I'd like to see are organizational. My prefered version of 6thEd would feature:

1) A Core 6thED book, very close in style to 5thER. All the rules, plenty of examples of the rules in use, environmental and sfx issues, the works. Setting information would be minimal aside from characters used to illustrate the rules.

2) Stand alone world books. Each of these would have a basic, slimed down version of the rules, sidekick style or leaner, with refs to the main 6thED book for additional info. They'd also have basic info on a specific setting, and a selection of heroes, villains, adventure locations, plot seeds, and essentials. Think of a half sized version of the Algernon Files packaged with a slightly slimmer Sidekick and a few pages of maps and location descriptions. The best art the company could afford as well. Something a new player can use to immediately jump in and start playing that evening.

Expanded versions of everything would be fun after those two, and I'd buy them, but my only real complaint about HERO right now is that I can't just put one glossy book down in front of a new player and say "This is all you need to start GMing by tomorrow".

Incidentally, with Algernon Files or Gestalt (which will knock your socks off) plus Sidekick, we're closer than we were a few years back.


This is my 6th edition post.

I'm with you Chris... I really think that's how the Hero System should be done. There are many who disagree with me, but that's my feeling on it. Too many people are scared away by the monstrous main rulebook, and more and more people (it seems to me) are going to M&M for supers roleplaying because, no matter if it's true or not, it is perceived as being a simpler system.

Most of 5Ed are optional rules that you would only use in certain circumstances/genres. There aren't many 4-color supers campaigns that would use the Automatic Fire skills, or even the Defensive Maneuver I-IV, just to pick two examples off the top of my head. The Hero System (IMO, YMMV, etc) needs to be stripped back down to its core system(s) and re-presented in that fashion.

This is the 21st century, and the Hero System (as it is perceived by non-fans of the system) is seen as definitely a system from the '80s--25 years ago it was an innovative system, now it has become a bloated parody of itself. Most modern game systems are going the way of the Storyteller System: simple systems that can be picked up within an hour's read of the rulebook.

IMX, there are fewer and fewer people that want crunch with their games. They want it easier and faster, particularly as alternative forms of entertainment (computer/console games, frex) become more sophisticated. Why play a game that would take days (if not weeks) of reading (reading is hard!), when I can plug in a game console, insert a disc, and be playing within minutes (if not seconds)? That's what Hero (and other RPGs) must compete with.

You all have some really good ideas, and some very valid points. We all have our own takes on the minute details and tweeks but in general have the same idea. For me I don't think there is too much hard core rebuild needed, just a tweek of the presentation.

I would go with taking Sidekick and adding two extra sections.

One would be a chapter on Character Creation. The one thing that has always been lacking is an explanation of how to think when building anything using Hero. An in the rulebook guide to "reason from effect" . I was thinking along the lines of a example spelling out the thought process as a narrative on the complete creation of at least two different characters in the genre.

Two would be a short starter adventure and the foundation for a mini-campaign rooted in the existing CU.

I would call this the Champions Sidekick. It would contain the minimum to start a Champions game with the needed prompts and built in details needed by a completely new GM trying to start a Champions game.

All of the rest of the books are still there and still do what they were intended for. But the Champions Sidekick would be there to allow the brand spanking new, afraid of math, doesn't like to read, gamer pick up Hero and go.

Later if the Champions Sidekick concept works, you could come out with a Fantasy Hero Sidekick, A PulpHero SideKick and so on as needed.

On a related note. I would add the chapter on how to think in chraracter creation and the example narratives to the Character Creation Handbook. But for CCH I would include at least 2 examples for every primary genre, Pulp, Champs, Dark Champs, etc.



And last but not least. Here I am reversing one of my firmly entrenched positions. While I personally do not care at all about color and art, I must concede many of the new gamers do. I picked up M&M and read it last week. I doesn't look to be that bad at all. From reading it, it is probably not as flexible for the GM to create or change new things not already anticipated. But for a player, the core rules allow you to pretty much make what you will.

It is flashy with great color and the average gamers who pick it up will be walked through building the of their PC's and the GM is walked through the first two adventures. I made my first PC three hours after reading the book for the first time. And that included making myself lunch.

Can hero do that? I say yes. I can whip out a new PC or NPC in 30-40 minutes on paper. If I have a few NPC Villains I can run a basic bank robbery with no prep at all. But I have played Hero for years.

A brand new gamer faces a steep concept challenge trying to decipher how the mechanics are used to create characters. Especially if they do not have anyone to directly talk to about it.

[Gary]

Some suggestions off the top of my head.

1) Remove Figured Characteristics. This will involve recosting some stats.
2) Completely revamp the linkage between Str, HA, and Martial Arts DCs so that it makes logical and game mechanical sense
3) Revamp velocity damage rules
4) Remove Elemental Controls and replace with a "Drain one drain all" limitation for all powers that are that closely entwined.
5) Something to limit Advantage Stacking abuse
6) Revamp martial arts rules so there is no diminishing returns for purchasing many maneuvers

[rjcurrie]

Some suggestions off the top of my head.

1) Remove Figured Characteristics. This will involve recosting some stats.
2) Completely revamp the linkage between Str, HA, and Martial Arts DCs so that it makes logical and game mechanical sense
3) Revamp velocity damage rules
4) Remove Elemental Controls and replace with a "Drain one drain all" limitation for all powers that are that closely entwined.
5) Something to limit Advantage Stacking abuse
6) Revamp martial arts rules so there is no diminishing returns for purchasing many maneuvers

1) I assume you are referring to the idea of making Figured Characteristics non-figured (i.e., primarieis with their own bases) as opposed to simply getting rid of those characteristics.

2) I agree.

3) What's the problem with the velocity damage rules?

4) I could probably live with something like that, especially since such a Limitation could be applied to Multipowers that are representative of the same "power".

5) I think this would be best handled as a suggestion that a GM may want to put a limit on the maximum amount of Advantages allowed.

6) Hmmm. I don't think I like this idea. I think I prefer the simpler method of just paying for each maneuver.

[Spence]

Well, after reading the many suggestions I have come to a conclusion. Play a different system. And I am not meaning it in a malicious way. Hero has a cohesive and internally balanced system that has evened out after over 20 years. While many people like of dislike bits and piece, the changes do not fit.

Minor items are easily solved by the mere fact Hero is a tool kit.
an example:
Don't like KA? Don't use it. Problem solved.
If you like KA, use it. No problem to be solved.

If the dislike of the system is so great that you are functionally re-writing major parts of the game mechanics? Then the question is Why? If the characteristics bother someone so bad that they re-write the entire section if the rules, then they are no longer playing Hero. They are playing a different game. A Hero character has basically three parts, Characteristics, “Things they can do” (Skill, powers, talents, etc.) and Disadvantages. If you remove a complete section the game is no longer Hero.

If you want a quick fast-play supers RPG, then I recommend Mutants & Masterminds. If you want a much more detailed system that lets you into the core rule mechanics, then stay with Hero. Both are solid games and well worth it IMO. Neither are in anyway broken, they just approach things with a different style.

[archermoo]

Well, after reading the many suggestions I have come to a conclusion. Play a different system. And I am not meaning it in a malicious way. Hero has a cohesive and internally balanced system that has evened out after over 20 years. While many people like of dislike bits and piece, the changes do not fit.

Minor items are easily solved by the mere fact Hero is a tool kit.
an example:
Don't like KA? Don't use it. Problem solved.
If you like KA, use it. No problem to be solved.

If the dislike of the system is so great that you are functionally re-writing major parts of the game mechanics? Then the question is Why? If the characteristics bother someone so bad that they re-write the entire section if the rules, then they are no longer playing Hero. They are playing a different game. A Hero character has basically three parts, Characteristics, “Things they can do” (Skill, powers, talents, etc.) and Disadvantages. If you remove a complete section the game is no longer Hero.

If you want a quick fast-play supers RPG, then I recommend Mutants & Masterminds. If you want a much more detailed system that lets you into the core rule mechanics, then stay with Hero. Both are solid games and well worth it IMO. Neither are in anyway broken, they just approach things with a different style.

Oh I have no interest in rewriting the entire Characteristic section of the rules. I just want to get rid of figured characteristics and make all of the current ones primaries. Which would require recosting some of the existing primaries.

But then again, I'm more than willing to take care of it with house rules. Or for that matter just live with it. I've found it annoying since I first read the rules, but obviously not too annoying, as I've been playing the system since 1981. :)

[archermoo]

I think the issue here is that 6E isn't about only Champions. If people have issues with Champs then sure, go and try M&M; but if the issue's in one of the other genres then what? :) I'd rather Hero had stayed Champs, but that's just me. :)

IMO, if Hero has a main flaw it's the current one-size-fits-all approach. The simple truth is one size doesn't fit all. Supers have different mechanical needs for fantasy, pulp, modern, or science fiction and vice-versa. 6E can still be a universal toolkit but it needs genre books that aren't afraid to actively change the universal rules and customize them for each presented genre. Each genre also needs independent sourcebooks so that a tank in Champs can be blasted by a competent superhero and your wounded Batman clone does need to be concerned about a pride of lions. If you treated each genre like its own game there'd never be strength cost, stat inflation, stun lotto, or any other issues within the game, IMO.

On the other hand, I'd say that one of Hero's greatest strengths is that its one size does fit all. I've used it to play everything from 0 point normals to 1,000 point galactic heros, and just about everything in between, and it has handled it superbly. The fact that the rules don't change when the genre changes is an important part of what makes it such a great system.

[Spence]

I think the issue here is that 6E isn't about only Champions. If people have issues with Champs then sure, go and try M&M; but if the issue's in one of the other genres then what? :) I'd rather Hero had stayed Champs, but that's just me. :)

IMO, if Hero has a main flaw it's the current one-size-fits-all approach. The simple truth is one size doesn't fit all. Supers have different mechanical needs then fantasy, pulp, modern, or science fiction, and vice-versa. 6E can still be a universal toolkit but it needs genre books that aren't afraid to actively change the universal rules and customize them for each presented genre. Each genre also needs independent sourcebooks so that a tank in Champs can be blasted by a competent superhero and your wounded Batman clone does need to be concerned about a pride of lions. If you treated each genre like its own game there'd never be strength cost, stat inflation, stun lotto, or any other issues within the game, IMO.

Oh I see your point and am in no way trying to say that anyone is "wrong". I just am familiar enough with the system that I can get the effect I need by plugging/unplugging existing options already present.

There are already independent source books for each genre, but if you mean a combined rulebook/genre book, it was already done in 4th. and I have no objection at all. But I would go the route of Editing Sidekick for "genre flavor" and add a few campaign/genre chapters plus at least one intro adventure. In "Champions Sidekick" all of the art and descriptions would be superrific. In "Fantasy Sidekick" all the art and descriptions would be, well fantasy oriented.

For my style of play and if I was writing the book, "Champions Sidekick" wouldn't even mention hit location, bleeding etc. While they would be a prominent feature of “Fantasy Sidekick” of “Dark Champions Sidekick”.

Just like Sidekick is a reduced version of 5thRev, the genre portions would contain usable cross section of the information in the actual genre source books, but not all. Just like the Combat Handbook. Not a lot of actual new material, but a very useful reformatting. Like the universal Sidekick, the Genre Sidekicks would be an entry level book, but geared to the specific genre of interest.

[Spence]

Oh I have no interest in rewriting the entire Characteristic section of the rules. I just want to get rid of figured characteristics and make all of the current ones primaries. Which would require recosting some of the existing primaries.

But then again, I'm more than willing to take care of it with house rules. Or for that matter just live with it. I've found it annoying since I first read the rules, but obviously not too annoying, as I've been playing the system since 1981. :)

Another alumni of the original game :thumbup:
I start playing 1st Ed in 82.

It is just me but I see any significant change to characterists as a re-write of 30% of the mechanics, since characteristics would no longer figure the same. I hated the very minor tweeks I had to do to convert my 4th ed stuff. I'd be a really unhappy camper redoing everything ;)

[Spence]

On the other hand, I'd say that one of Hero's greatest strengths is that its one size does fit all. I've used it to play everything from 0 point normals to 1,000 point galactic heros, and just about everything in between, and it has handled it superbly. The fact that the rules don't change when the genre changes is an important part of what makes it such a great system.

Me too me too

what he said :D

[Lord Mhoram]

IMO, if Hero has a main flaw it's the current one-size-fits-all approach. The simple truth is one size doesn't fit all. Supers have different mechanical needs then fantasy, pulp, modern, or science fiction, and vice-versa........ Each genre also needs independent sourcebooks so that a tank in Champs can be blasted by a competent superhero and your wounded Batman clone does need to be concerned about a pride of lions. If you treated each genre like its own game there'd never be strength cost, stat inflation, stun lotto, or any other issues within the game, IMO.

And the day HERO does that, I'll be a grognard and play a previous version. One of the biggest appeals of HERO to me is the very universal nature of the game. I even had Steve Peterson, while he was pimping Fuzion, tell me that HERO was better than fuzion for my use. I ran a transworld fantasy - I just handed each character their home genre book and said "This is your max D, this is the damage level I want, have some of these kinds of skills" and set them to it.

I like the fact that a tank is a tank is a tank, and that a colt .45 is a colt .45 is a colt .45. This aspect is as important to me as no dice in character creation, and as integral to the enjoyment of the game as the effects based system. I don't know of any other system that is this completely universal, and losing that would lose one of the greatest pieces of uniqueness about the game.

What you describe is turning HERO into a game engine with different rules and builds for each genre. Sorry, no thanks.

Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel really strongly about.

[Gary]

1) I assume you are referring to the idea of making Figured Characteristics non-figured (i.e., primarieis with their own bases) as opposed to simply getting rid of those characteristics.

2) I agree.

3) What's the problem with the velocity damage rules?

4) I could probably live with something like that, especially since such a Limitation could be applied to Multipowers that are representative of the same "power".

5) I think this would be best handled as a suggestion that a GM may want to put a limit on the maximum amount of Advantages allowed.

6) Hmmm. I don't think I like this idea. I think I prefer the simpler method of just paying for each maneuver.

1) Yes.

3) The velocity damage rules break down once you get to the superheroic level or noncombat levels. A tank shell does 8d6 RKA or 24 DCs damage, but a terminal velocity fall does 30 DCs. Doesn't make sense to me. A kamikaze plane or a sidewinder missile hitting a target would do hundreds of dice of damage considering how fast it's moving using the movethrough rules. That's the problem with a linear velocity damage system. Fortunately, I have a set of house rules that takes care of this problem quite nicely and has proven to be very balanced in actual play. :)

5) It's not just the number of Advantages, it's the synergy of certain combinations of Advantages. Hero tried to have a fix for the most abusive, Autofire, by adding an additional +1 synergy Advantage, but it doesn't really work and there are other Advantages where something like that should apply.

6) The problem is that someone paying 50 pts in maneuvers to be a well rounded martial artist is at a tremendous disadvantage vs someone who buys 20 pts and spends the other 30 on CSLs and DCs. There is a huge dimiishing returns aspect of maneuvers where the 5th Strike maneuver is worth far less than the 1st Strike maneuver.

[Spence]

I was actually referring to the various universal Hero System books: Bestiary, Vehicle, etc. The real animal writeups in the Bestiary are basically pointless for superhero games. Likewise, the various vehicle writeups are designed to function against each other rather then against characters. Because of this you end up with the CU's most powerful superhero team without a member who can use their attack to dent a tank, let alone an invading alien's starship, without house rules. Even books like the Ultimate Martial Artist should have rules adjustments giving more leeway to superheroes. A super with a 30 strength should do more damage with a karate chop then a 10 strength thug, IMO, but they both do the same damage.

But they do, 6 dice vice 2 based on pure Str.;) But I do understand what you mean, even if I don't precisely agree. And the Champions in CU is for a lower point world. But even they can trash a M1 Abrams, we played it out before. If you want the DC'ish power level, use the alternate version Champions 3000. It isn't a problem of the system, it appears that you have a different criteria for how powerful, powerful should be. For the basic Champions game they established 350 as "standard" and wrote them up at that level. I like that level myself, supers are super but they do have to be careful because they can be hurt by a thug with a high powered rifle. One of the reasons I liked Marvel over DC in the lat 70's early 80's. Marvel hero could get hurt and even Spiderman could get killed by a bullet. DC's heroes were so over the top powerful that normal people were simply cockroaches to be stepped on or plot devices to be saved. To me that was boring. So the CU Champions are right about where I like them, in fact my campaign is running at 350. But if I was a DC fan type, then Champs 300, 700 pt, would be more like it.





As someone who original introduced the concept of a Champions Sidekick I think the need has gone beyond that now. Those Sidekick books could work if you wanted to introduce someone to 5E but I think there's too much confusion now between stat inflation and NCM usage and why "bulletproof" superheroes are getting stunned by bullets. Those rules issues need to be adjusted per genre, and that's not something a Sidekick can do [it wasn't even done in the various genre books].

Of course I don't believe there'll ever be a 6E. The demand just isn't there for it from the existing fanbase. It's far easier for the people not satisfied with Hero to either house rule or move on [old timers will house rule and newbies will move on], IMO.

That was you? I never knew where the idea started.

While I don't agree with some with some of your conclusions, I think the problem is that the rules are too generic and cover too wide afield for new players to zero in and figure out what needs to be done. It isn't a problem that the system cannot do it, it is a case of simply too many options available for someone new to the system.

And my bulletproof heroes never get sunned by a street thug. A 1d6 pistol just doesn't generate enough stun to take out a brick. :D

[Spence]

And the day HERO does that, I'll be a grognard and play a previous version. One of the biggest appeals of HERO to me is the very universal nature of the game. I even had Steve Peterson, while he was pimping Fuzion, tell me that HERO was better than fuzion for my use. I ran a transworld fantasy - I just handed each character their home genre book and said "This is your max D, this is the damage level I want, have some of these kinds of skills" and set them to it.

I like the fact that a tank is a tank is a tank, and that a colt .45 is a colt .45 is a colt .45. This aspect is as important to me as no dice in character creation, and as integral to the enjoyment of the game as the effects based system. I don't know of any other system that is this completely universal, and losing that would lose one of the greatest pieces of uniqueness about the game.

What you describe is turning HERO into a game engine with different rules and builds for each genre. Sorry, no thanks.

Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel really strongly about.

I agree with liking the constancy across genres, but making genre specific "Sidekicks" doesn't mean changing anything in the actual rules. For a supers genre options that are specific to Heroic genres simply do not need to be mentioned. There is also no need to cover real world armor as in Fantasy Hero or Dark Champs. My supers armor is usually OIF and doesn't weight anything.

[Lord Mhoram]

But they do, 6 dice vice 2 based on pure Str.;)

He said karate chop - that is a killing strike. Does the same amount of damage with a 10 STR as a 30.

[Lord Mhoram]

I agree with liking the constancy across genres, but making genre specific "Sidekicks" doesn't mean changing anything in the actual rules. For a supers genre options that are specific to Heroic genres simply do not need to be mentioned. There is also no need to cover real world armor as in Fantasy Hero or Dark Champs. My supers armor is usually OIF and doesn't weight anything.

I can see that. I was mostly responding to MitchellS' post.

I'd love to see genre sidekicks, likely bound with the base genre book and a basic setting (game in one book) - I think that would work. But, the basic rules, what is 5er these days, lays it all down, and it is consistant all through the line - and things like vehicles, normal animals, guns, armor use the same write up no matter which genre you are playing. A .45 colt in the Old west book is the same as in Dark Champions is the same in Cyberhero (grandpa's gun).

[GAZZA]

He said karate chop - that is a killing strike. Does the same amount of damage with a 10 STR as a 30.
Annoying, I agree, but the alternative means that any brick spends 5 points for a HKA and ends up with a 4d6+1. Has to be some sort of limit.

[Spence]

He said karate chop - that is a killing strike. Does the same amount of damage with a 10 STR as a 30.

Actually no. At least as I interpret the core rules. I am sure there are probably other options available, but for supers I tend to stay with the core rules vice options.

A normal thug with 10str will get his ½d6K, or a total of 1d6K (STR base + MA).

Since for haymaker and martial arts the STR is the base damage (p405) (30 STR or 2d6K in this case), The maneuver has a base of HKA ½ d6 (2DC) making the modified base (p406) 2½d6K well within permitted range.

So a 30 STR Karate Chop will get 2 ½ d6K. A big difference from 1d6K max of the thug.

[GAZZA]

Actually no. At least as I interpret the core rules. I am sure there are probably other options available, but for supers I tend to stay with the core rules vice options.

A normal thug with 10str will get his ½d6K, or a total of 1d6K (STR base + MA).

Since for haymaker and martial arts the STR is the base damage (p405) (30 STR or 2d6K in this case), The maneuver has a base of HKA ½ d6 (2DC) making the modified base (p406) 2½d6K well within permitted range.

So a 30 STR Karate Chop will get 2 ½ d6K. A big difference from 1d6K max of the thug.
I believe you are incorrect.

The base damage for a HKA in this case is 1/2 d6 (or 2 DCs). You cannot more than double this with any adders. Therefore the maximum damage is 4 DCs (or 1d6+1), available to anyone with 10 STR or greater.

The only thing that increases this for a martial arts KA is extra DCs. For a "real" HKA, the only way to increase it is to buy more dice.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Spence]

I believe you are incorrect.

The base damage for a HKA in this case is 1/2 d6 (or 2 DCs). You cannot more than double this with any adders. Therefore the maximum damage is 4 DCs (or 1d6+1), available to anyone with 10 STR or greater.

The only thing that increases this for a martial arts KA is extra DCs. For a "real" HKA, the only way to increase it is to buy more dice.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ummm nope,

P405 – Determining Base Damage

Direct quote: “For Haymaker and Martial Manuevers, a character’s STR in the base damage. The basic Manueuver damage – such as +2DC’s from a Martial Strike, or +4 DCs from a Offensive Strike or Haymaker – is not the same thing as Extra DCs purchased for a characters martial arts.”

The example indicates “He cannot more that double the base damage provided by his STR”


Since a karate chop is a unarmed attack the Base Damage is determined by STR.

For the Thug in our example it is ½d6K (2 DCs for the 10 STR). He can not do more than double the base, which the Karate Chop does with its ½d6K for a total of 1d6K

For the Super in our example the 30 STR gives a base of 2d6K. The Karate Chop ads ½d6K for a total of 2½d6K. But the ceiling would be 4d6K.

Now I know of at least two other paragraphs that contradict each other on this subject.

I choose to use the initial basic rule for my supers games. It is simpler and runs faster and makes sure that supers are supery. At least IMO but YMMV.

[GAZZA]

Ummm nope,

P405 – Determining Base Damage

Direct quote: “For Haymaker and Martial Manuevers, a character’s STR in the base damage. The basic Manueuver damage – such as +2DC’s from a Martial Strike, or +4 DCs from a Offensive Strike or Haymaker – is not the same thing as Extra DCs purchased for a characters martial arts.”

The example indicates “He cannot more that double the base damage provided by his STR”
Correct.


Since a karate chop is a unarmed attack the Base Damage is determined by STR.

Not correct. The base damage is 1/2d6 K. While this attack "involves" STR, STR is not the base damage. This is quite poorly worded, perhaps, but I'm certain that a 30 STR character with Killing Strike only does 1d6+1 KA (barring extra DCs). cf pp 398, where it says that Killing Strike is treated as if it were an HKA for adding STR.

"Adding" STR would not be meaningful if the base damage was determined by STR.

[GAZZA]

I don't expect heroes to crack the earth open with the mighty blows, but I never saw the Avengers get taken out by a squad of Abrams [or have to beat them by flipping them over because their attacks won't hurt them :)].
Am I alone here in thinking that the Avengers is hardly a good example of a set of "starting superheroes"? They are, IIRC, the Marvel Universes cream of the crop, are they not?

Certainly I can imagine any number of Marvel superheroes struggling with a tank - up to and including Spiderman (though he'd undoubtedly be able to gum the barrels up, dodge the bullets, and so forth).

[OddHat]

It's not tough to make a 350 point HERO character who can smash tanks or ignore 2d6RKAs even when attacked by surprise with max damage; I've posted a few. That's not the power level official CU characters are generally written at.

However, what does Diamond do with a leaping move through? Isn't it about 25d6? That should get him through a tank's side armor easily enough.

[Hugh Neilson]

He said karate chop - that is a killing strike. Does the same amount of damage with a 10 STR as a 30.


Annoying, I agree, but the alternative means that any brick spends 5 points for a HKA and ends up with a 4d6+1. Has to be some sort of limit.

It bears noting that this was the reason for the KA fix from 1st Ed (when STR adds were unlimited) to 2nd Ed (when the current "can only double the base KA" rule was implemented). The forst Enemies book had numerous high STR characters who had a 1d6 KA, bulked up to very high levels by their STR's.

I don't like the idea of a Brick being able to spend 10 points (either for a basic MA package or a 1/2d6 HKA purchased directly) and netting a 4d6+ HKA. How much oomph can you get behind those tiny little claws?

[OddHat]

Do you actually believe the Thing in the comics needs to do leaping move-through to smash a tank in the comics?

Depends on the artist, writer, and "age". Diamond can still reliably explode through a Tank's side armor and strike a heroic pose; he just has to take the CV penalties built into a move through to do it. From a SFX pov he bunches his mighty muscles and throws himself into the tank. Makes a good splash panel.


My original point was that things need to be built to fit the genre they will be played in. You should not have to bend the genre to make things work.

And I agree; my character designs don't follow CU guidelines, mainly because those guidelines don't fit the type of Superhero stories I want to tell in my home campaign. The CU is a setting for more vulnerable, lower powered supers.

[Lord Mhoram]

Ummm nope,


I choose to use the initial basic rule for my supers games. It is simpler and runs faster and makes sure that supers are supery. At least IMO but YMMV.

Umm nope. :)

Page 399 under Killing Strike

"Rules regarding adding STR (as if to an HKA) and what defenses apply to Killing Damage apply to the damage done by a Killing Strike"

So in effect a Killing Strike is a 1/2d6 Killing attack. Using the rules under Killing Attack, you can't more than double your Killing Damage.

And also, under your rules, if I run a 75 STR brick, and I buy killing strike I get a 5 1/2 D6K for the 5 points of a Killing Strike?

[OddHat]

IMO it's not the CU. It's the universality of the system now. There are plenty of comic characters who can be built on the 300-400 pt range who can defeat a tank in the comics: Colossus, Cyborg, Superboy, etc. The difference is that as the game has become more universal the environmental material has crept up. Does anyone remember when the M2 Bradley used to have 8/10/12 defense? Now it's 14/18. A 250 pt superheroes could damage the bradley and get to the Viper agents hiding inside. A 350 pt superhero would have a hard time scratching a bradley in 5E [assuming the same 12d, 25 def, 5 speed averages].

Superheroes haven't become weaker. Since 4E and the push of universality everything else has become tougher. 1E through 3E tanks were 10/14, 4E tanks became 16/20, 5E tanks became 20/30 and in all that time superheroes stayed 12d, 20-25 defense, 5 speed. Universality took the "super" out of superheroes.

That's one point of view, and you can certainly downgrade military hardware to solve it. You can also look at that 350 point, 12d, 20-25 Def as the problem (of Supers who aren't able to imitate Comic Book levels of power when facing military hardware) within the CU. If the GM doesn't like those averages, he can always raise them.

[Lord Mhoram]

That's one point of view, and you can certainly downgrade military hardware to solve it. You can also look at that 350 point, 12d, 20-25 Def as the problem (of Supers who aren't able to imitate Comic Book levels of power when facing military hardware) within the CU. If the GM doesn't like those averages, he can always raise them.

I'd agree there, it isn't the universiality it's the scaling.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd agree there, it isn't the universiality it's the scaling.

The military hardware stats have been bumped enormously. I don't believe the old HW stats have been unworkable in a Modern Adventure game. With that in mind, I agree the problem isn't universality, it's "stat inflation" applied to military HW.

The comics routinely show Supers punching through tanks, damaging targets impervious to military HW, and otherwise demonstrating superior power to military hardware. As such, either the HW should be downgraded, or the Supers should be upgraded, to make such genre emulation practical in a universal system.

My view is that the military HW stats have been inflated excessively and should be dragged back down where they belong.

[Hugh Neilson]

You get the stat inflation because the hardware needs to compete against itself. A 2d6+1 rka bullet created for a "real" setting can penetrate a 10 def tank created for a super setting, and so you must bump the tank to make it tougher. And each time you bump something to reflect real life it makes it that much more impossible for superhumans to defeat it. So you go from a Bradley having 8 def sides to having 14 def sides [which makes it impossible for starting supers to hurt in 5E].

To me, the bottom line is that the universal system can work. To do so, however, the scale must be set out universally. Either the stats of military HW need to be downgraded (and that likely means downgrading lower level HW - the bullet example being one of them - commensurately), or the stats of the Supers need to be upgraded.

[Lord Mhoram]

Each genre needs its own scale so that the characters in those genres can act the way do in the source material, IMO.

And again that is just scaling - have starting supers be 500 pts, with higher Def and damage, no change to rules, and things are scaled right.

Or you have minor tweaks (like the different optional rules now like Hit locations ect) that is a variation of something presented in Galactic Champions - all "Real world" equipment (guns tanks whatnot) do half damage vs Supers, and have a x2 vuln to all super attacks.

You get supers blowing through tanks, and no vast changes to the system. This allows the universality that is one of the greatest pieces of uniqueness for HERO to stay. :)

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think it takes such drastic measures to fix the problem.


Part of it for me, is that I don't play "Champions" or "Pulp Hero" I play HERO that happens to be in that setting - quite often my games are cross genre or genre mixing. If I were to do that with different writeups and rules for different genres, then I would have to choose which build to use - and what if the characters go from one type of world to another. That would be a big mess. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

To me, the bottom line is that the universal system can work. To do so, however, the scale must be set out universally. Either the stats of military HW need to be downgraded (and that likely means downgrading lower level HW - the bullet example being one of them - commensurately), or the stats of the Supers need to be upgraded.

Yeah, what he said. :)

[OddHat]

Tank Smashing Bullet Bouncer Dude doesn't need to be 500 points to smash tanks. ;)


TANK SMASHING BULLET BOUNCER DUDE

Val Char Cost Roll Notes
125 STR 115 34- Lift 838.9ktons; 25d6 [12]
17 DEX 21 12- OCV: 6/DCV: 6
23 CON 26 14-
10 BODY 0 11-
8 INT -2 11- PER Roll 11-
8 EGO -4 11- ECV: 3
20 PRE 10 13- PRE Attack: 4d6
14 COM 2 12-

35+15 PD 10 Total: 50 PD (43 rPD)
10+15 ED 5 Total: 25 ED (25 rED)
3 SPD 3 Phases: 4, 8, 12
30 REC 0
46 END 0
85 STUN 0 Total Characteristic Cost: 186

Movement: Running: 6"/12"
Leaping: 27"/54"
Swimming: 2"/4"

Cost Powers END
56 Nigh Invulnerable: Armor (15 PD/15 ED), Hardened (+¼) (56 Active Points)
19 Invulnerable. and Nigh: Damage Resistance (28 PD/10 ED)
40 No, Really, He's Nigh Invulnerable: Physical Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75% (60 Active Points); STUN Only (-½)
20 I did Mention the Nigh Invulnerable Part, Right?: Energy Damage Reduction, Resistant, 50% (30 Active Points); STUN Only (-½)
15 Leaping +2" (27" forward, 13 ½" upward) (Accurate), Usable as Gliding (+¼) (15 Active Points) 1
5 Rapid Healing

Skills
6 Hates Tanks: +6 with Move Through
1 PS: Bodybuilder 8-
1 PS: Fitness Trainer 8-
1 Streetwise 8-

Total Powers & Skill Cost: 164
Total Cost: 350

200+ Disadvantages
10 Hunted: Tank Man, the Human Tank 8- (As Pow, Harshly Punish)
10 Hunted: Panzer 8- (As Pow, Harshly Punish)
10 Hunted: International Tank Marketing Consortium 11- (Less Pow, NCI, Mildly Punish)
20 Hunted: VIPER 8- (Mo Pow, NCI, Harshly Punish)
Notes: For having destroyed so many of their expensive vehicles
10 Psychological Limitation: Loves Smashing Big Things, Especially Tanks (Common, Moderate)
20 Psychological Limitation: Protects the Innocent, Especially From Tanks (Very Common, Strong)
20 Psychological Limitation: Overconfident Braggart and Show Off (Very Common, Strong)
20 Enraged: When Facing Tanks (Common), go 11-, recover 11-
10 Reputation: Super Strong Nigh Invulnerable Idiot, 11-
15 Social Limitation: Secret ID: Buck Manslab, Personal Trainer (Frequently, Major)
5 Dependent NPC: Dara Darling, Fitness Model Girlfriend 8- (Normal; Useful Noncombat Position or Skills)

Total Disadvantage Points: 350

Background/History: Buck Manslab became obsessed with weight training and posing in front of mirrors after his family was killed by tanks. Steroid use triggered his transformation into Tank Smashing Bullet Bouncer Dude. Since that day, he has waged a one man war against the forces of evil, especially the ones in tanks. Buck leads a simple life as a fitness trainer and bodybuilder, partnered with his lovely girlfriend Dara Darling (who also handles most of the business).

Personality/Motivation: Buck Manslab is heroic, boastful, and really hates tanks.

Quote: Is that a tank?!? Rargh!

Powers/Tactics: With a 34d6 move through, 43d6 when diving, TSBBD doesn't really need many other tactics. His OCV is 7 with his normal move through or 4 when diving, but his standard target is a tank, so missing isn't that much of a problem. He'll usually go for the side armor. TSBBD is Nigh Invulnerable; ordinary bullets hitting him by surprise have 1 chance in 216 of getting 20 stun through (5 if he's expecting the attack), and on average will do nothing at all. On the other hand, exotic attacks have a reasonable chance of hurting him.

Campaign Use: Joke flying brick that smashes tanks.

Appearance: Big, beefy manly man in red, white and blue spandex and a full mask. Big, beefy manly man with blond hair and blue eyes when out of costume.

Character by Robert Dorf, 2007

[Chris Goodwin]

The military hardware stats have been bumped enormously. I don't believe the old HW stats have been unworkable in a Modern Adventure game. With that in mind, I agree the problem isn't universality, it's "stat inflation" applied to military HW.

The comics routinely show Supers punching through tanks, damaging targets impervious to military HW, and otherwise demonstrating superior power to military hardware. As such, either the HW should be downgraded, or the Supers should be upgraded, to make such genre emulation practical in a universal system.

My view is that the military HW stats have been inflated excessively and should be dragged back down where they belong.

But how often in the comics do you see tanks vs. supers? I mean, in the comics, when tanks are there, they're more often there to give the heroes something to tear through to show how tough they are, with maybe an "Oh em gee, maybe we should worry about those tank guns." Whereas, as has been said, in Tank Hero you want to tune everything as closely as possible.

The other consideration (re: 2d6+1 RKA handguns vs. tank armor) is, what about Real Weapon? We already know swords can't chop through stone walls or wooden doors; why aren't we assuming handguns can't shoot through tank armor?

[archermoo]

I believe my point was that I never said starting level. If you go back and read what Spence replied to you will see that I stated the CU's most powerful superhero team without a member who can use their attack to dent a tank.

You do realize that the Champions are starting power level characters, right?

Personally I don't see that the power level of any characters written for the official setting does anything to show how the system itself is balanced. The Champions can't trash tanks left and right. That doesn't mean the system is broken, it means that the Champions weren't designed to be able to trash tanks.

[archermoo]

And the point being, since that is not the case, you have a universal system which does not work as intended.

How so? If what you meant was that the official setting does not have the power of example supers balanced with military hardware as you would like that is one thing. You do realize that you can change the power level of supers in your own game, right? And that there is a difference between the official setting and the rules?


So you either have bullets shooting through tanks so that supers can too, or you have bullets that can't shoot through tanks and supers can't either, or you make supers 500 point characters so they can shoot through tanks but bullets can't, or you remove most of the granularity added to the game for the non-supers genres so that people don't have to build 500 point characters when they used to play fine with 250 point ones, or you create different baselines for each genre that best fits their individual needs. I choose the last option. :)

Understood, you don't like generic systems. That's fine, more power to you. However, they do work just fine for those of us that do like them. Just keep in mind that there is a difference between "it is broken" and "I don't prefer it".

[archermoo]

I am saying that no published Champions superhero team example has the power to defeat tanks in the same manner [and that includes the most powerful teams in the CU] as prescribed by the genre source material. When someone like Dr. Destroyer can't damage a tank with a head on shot from a 30d6 attack, there's a problem in the design. :)


Hmmm... I've played generic games for the last 26 years I've been gaming. I must hate them. :)


It's broken and I don't prefer it. I don't think you're going to find any Champions player who believes a comic book superhero shouldn't be able to defeat a simple tank. The 250 point starting superheroes could do it back in 1E. Why is it that 500-750 point members of the Sentinels can't? That's the point you seem to be missing.

You keep going back to "the official setting doesn't work like I want it to, so the game system itself must be broken". The game system and the official setting are not the same thing. The setting not working how you like it is not the same as the rules being broken.

[archermoo]

The game settings are supposed to represent the genre. If Hero with Champions isn't reflecting the superhero genre then it's not only broken mechanically but also broken genrecally. :)

Ur? The game setting is the author's take on their way a superhero world can be built with the Hero rules. You disagreeing with them about it doesn't make either the setting or the rules broken. That's like saying "The sample paintings I've seen done with this brand of oil paints are ugly, so this brand of oil paints are broken."

You not agreeing with the power levels in the CU doesn't make it broken, nor does it make the rules as a whole broken. It means that, shock and surprise, you don't agree with where the authors set the power levels.

Oh, and another note. One reason that 5e tanks are tougher than 1e tanks might be because tank technology has improved a bit in the last 25 years...

[Teflon Billy]

In 1981 when the M1 abrams was introduced it at has 105 mm cannon. That cannon was upgraded to the current 120 mm version in 1984 in the M1A1.

In Champions 1-3E the 105mm tank cannon did 4d6 rka and the 152mm howitzer did 5d6 rka. In 5E Hero the Abrams 120mm cannon does 8d6 [the 105mm cannon does 7.5d6]. Those extra 15 mm doubled the damage output. That's strange considering the extra 47 mm from the howitzer only added an additional 1d6.

It doesn't seem like a technology increase issues. It seems more like unneeded stat inflation to me. :)
You are ignoring that a tank's main gun and a howitzer (with regards to direct damage) are not comparable (tanks fire giant, sometimes explosive, bullets, where artillery fire large explosive projectiles) and the technological difference between the original 105mm rifled main gun and the 120mm smooth bore main gun are not comparable with regards to raw mm differences.

TB

[OddHat]

You should've made him an OIF battlesuit so you could've gotten him another 150 points. :)

The core point of the design is that you really can get a much higher power level than the default CU, without using particularly complicated builds. If the GM wants 350 point tank smashing characters, they're easy enough to put together. ;)

[steamteck]

The core point of the design is that you really can get a much higher power level than the default CU, without using particularly complicated builds. If the GM wants 350 point tank smashing characters, they're easy enough to put together. ;)

It just feels wrong that he has to be strong enough to lift battleships to damage a tank though. I just house rule 2x damage against non super objects basically. Personally I wouldn't change much. definitely leave my figured characteristics alone!:eek:

[OddHat]

It just feels wrong that he has to be strong enough to lift battleships to damage a tank though. I just house rule 2x damage against non super objects basically. Personally I wouldn't change much. definitely leave my figured characteristics alone!:eek:

A side effect of linear damage and geometric lift progression.

I'm not saying the current DEF values for tanks are "right"; I'm just pointing out that you can build 350 point characters who can smash them, without tricky or complicated designs. The CU Setting doesn't encourage such characters, but the System has no problem with them.

[archermoo]

In 1981 when the M1 abrams was introduced it at has 105 mm cannon. That cannon was upgraded to the current 120 mm version in 1984 in the M1A1.

In Champions 1-3E the 105mm tank cannon did 4d6 rka and the 152mm howitzer did 5d6 rka. In 5E Hero the Abrams 120mm cannon does 8d6 [the 105mm cannon does 7.5d6]. Those extra 15 mm doubled the damage output. That's strange considering the extra 47 mm from the howitzer only added an additional 1d6.

It doesn't seem like a technology increase issues. It seems more like unneeded stat inflation to me. :)

All of which have absolutely nothing to do with how the actual core rules work, but have to do with the design of the setting. I understand that you don't agree with the way the current setting is written. But the setting isn't the rules. It is just one example of something that can be built with the rules. Disagreeing with how someone built their setting, whether that setting is the official one or not, doesn't make the setting broken. It just makes it different than you would prefer.

I'm still waiting to hear something about the actual rules that you consider to be broken. All I've seen so far is complaints that the official setting wasn't written the way you would write it. That doesn't even count as broken for the setting, much less the rules behind it.

[archermoo]

I never said the rules were broken. I said the official material, when applied to universality, does not properly function when spread across multiple genres in 5E. You can spout rhetoric about settings until you are blue in the face but it will change nothing.

Champions 1E through 3E managed to support multiple genres without the escalation currently seen in 5E. It's no longer possible to emulate "super"-heroes based upon the suggested guidelines for that genre in 5E when you apply the current environmental issues a superhero must interact with in 5E. You can certainly not use the suggested guidelines as Oddhat did, but that seems to belittle the purpose of the guidelines in the book, IMO. No matter how much fan zeal someone might possess to cloud their vision it's very clear that something has changed in the system when a 105mm tank cannon has been changed from 4d6 rka to 7.5d6 rka and tank armor has been changed from 10/14 to 20/30.

As I said above, overall it really does not matter to me. I am perfectly content with M&M as my superhero system of choice and only purchase Champions Universe material as reading/pillaging fodder anyway. When I feel the need to play other genres with Hero I'm perfectly content to pull out my 2E Fantasy Hero or my 1E Justice, Inc. My non-Champs 5E books have longs sense been sold. :)

So when you wrote "And the point being, since that is not the case, you have a universal system which does not work as intended" you didn't mean that you thought the Hero system was broken? Good to know.

Hero supports a wide variety of genres in an exemplary fashion. You obviously prefer other systems. More power to you. That you let your fan zeal cloud your vision when it comes to Hero 5th isn't overly surprising. Nothing matches the zeal of the converted, nor their disdain of that which they converted from.

As a note yet again, what changed the amount of damage tanks do and how much defense they have has nothing to do with the system. It is a change in the setting. Hero is a generic system. The official setting and the system are different things.

[Gary]

There clearly is a scaling problem in Hero across genres. Just compare modern weapons with futuristic weapons. A 76 mm WW2 tank gun does 7d6 RKA. And it's basically a popgun compared to today's weapons. Yet a plasma cannon does 5d6 RKA. And a WW2 era battleship main gun compares favorably with 30th century weapon systems mounted on space warships.

I'm also puzzled on how a 2000 pound bomb does less damage than the WW2 vintage T-34 or Sherman main gun.

[archermoo]

I don't hate Hero. I hate 5E Hero. I don't feel that Darren and Steve did the system justice with all their changes. Steve's "realism" mentality is not what is best for the game, IMO. Someone earlier in the thread said something about Hero becoming too much about writing everything to simulate realism rather then genre. I happen to be someone who agrees with that. I don't think I'm the only one. A 6E that was written to genre rather then realism would probably bring me back into the fold. As it is now there are too many other good game choices in the market that anyone should play something they don't enjoy. :)

Very true, you shouldn't play a game you don't enjoy. I only ever objected to the reference that the system itself was broken because you don't like the official setting.

From what I know about it, I don't like the M&M system. The same goes for games like Dogs in the Vinyard. However I don't pretend that they are broken just because I don't like them. I just note that while they are tea, they aren't my cuppa, and move on.

[GAZZA]

I don't hate Hero. I hate 5E Hero. I don't feel that Darren and Steve did the system justice with all their changes. Steve's "realism" mentality is not what is best for the game, IMO.
I must add my voice to those saying that these changes are not to the system, but to the setting.

The system changes from 4th edition were minor - Aid doubled in cost, Healing split out to a separate power, Duplication and Multiform are now more powerful, that sort of thing - and none of them are anything to do with realism.

I'm unable to understand why you will purchase Champions books and use them as material for an M&M campaign and yet can't do the same thing for a Hero game - you're obviously having to do conversions to get them to work for M&M, and even if you still need to convert things back to what you consider acceptable levels, the effort required should be less. If the nature of the objection is no more than the equivalent of "tanks are too tough in the CU", it seems to me that you're doing the equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here - especially since it appears you have access to older edition setting material that (if I'm not mistaken) you could simply use instead.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

[Balabanto]

The changes are to the setting, but the problem is that the books are informed by and react to the setting. It's a marketing technique, but it's not always a successful one.

I think part of the problem is that Hero's target audience is different from say, D+D's.

In D+D, the setting is everything.

But Hero System fans, who are toolkit people, consider the setting irrelevant.

[Loxly]

But Hero System fans, who are toolkit people, consider the setting irrelevant.

Irrelevant? :nonp:

I do not think it means what you think it means.:doi:

[GAZZA]

No, I'd agree. I couldn't care less about the setting since I won't be using it. Mind you, I'm not so sure that many D&D players aren't the same.

[tomd1969]

Irrelevant? :nonp:

I do not think it means what you think it means.:doi:

I think he means that the official setting is irrelevant to him because he doesn't use it. Make sense?

[Loxly]

I think he means that the official setting is irrelevant to him because he doesn't use it. Make sense?

Ahhh ...


No, I'd agree. I couldn't care less about the setting since I won't be using it.

... I get it now.


Mind you, I'm not so sure that many D&D players aren't the same.

Agreed.

[Vondy]

But Hero System fans, who are toolkit people, consider the setting irrelevant.

I guess I'm not a fan. I used to only care about the mechanics, but the lack of setting support for genres that diverge from the real world in more than a cosmetic manner is a problem for me because I don't have the world building time I once did. I discovered I had a life (I'm iffy on whether having a life is a good thing, but there it is). As a result, I've taken to focusing on genres that require few, if any powers, and don't take immense amounts of world-building time (e.g., pulp, espionage, military, historical, etc). This edition has made greater strides in attempting to provide settings, but they aren't supported in the traditional sense (for financial reasons presumably), and with few exceptions they don't resonate with me (I liked what I saw of Valdorian Age, and have heard good things about Tuala Morn), but even for the ones I might want to us, stand-alone setting books won't sustain much of a campaign. And for all that, I have chosen to use hero in genres I do have time for as opposed to finding games that cover and support genres I don't have time for. So maybe I am a fan. I guess it boils down to this: some of us fans do care about setting.

[archermoo]

No, I'd agree. I couldn't care less about the setting since I won't be using it. Mind you, I'm not so sure that many D&D players aren't the same.

Pretty much how I feel about all games. I've never been overly interested in games that the rules were inextricable from the setting, as I've never really had any interest in running someone else's world.

Which I suppose is odd, since the first RPG I ever played was EPT... :D

[Balabanto]

Well, I do have a job (But not a life) so my solution has been publish as much as possible. If I have printed sheets I can always reference, I don't have to do it again. Plus, consider the advantages of templating. (You'll see an example of this in Digital Hero soon, in Secret Origins II) Your entire campaign can run with about 20 sheets, and varying them slightly.

[Black Rose]

Oh I see your point and am in no way trying to say that anyone is "wrong". I just am familiar enough with the system that I can get the effect I need by plugging/unplugging existing options already present.

There are already independent source books for each genre, but if you mean a combined rulebook/genre book, it was already done in 4th. and I have no objection at all. But I would go the route of Editing Sidekick for "genre flavor" and add a few campaign/genre chapters plus at least one intro adventure. In "Champions Sidekick" all of the art and descriptions would be superrific. In "Fantasy Sidekick" all the art and descriptions would be, well fantasy oriented.

For my style of play and if I was writing the book, "Champions Sidekick" wouldn't even mention hit location, bleeding etc. While they would be a prominent feature of “Fantasy Sidekick” of “Dark Champions Sidekick”.

Just like Sidekick is a reduced version of 5thRev, the genre portions would contain usable cross section of the information in the actual genre source books, but not all. Just like the Combat Handbook. Not a lot of actual new material, but a very useful reformatting. Like the universal Sidekick, the Genre Sidekicks would be an entry level book, but geared to the specific genre of interest.

As much as I like this idea - and I do, a lot - I wonder how well it would work. Looking up from my keyboard at my HERO books on the shelf above my monitor, I'm hard-pressed to find the material you'd "reduce" out of, say, Turakian Age, much less Fantasy HERO. FH is probably my fifth favorite book - after UMA, NH, USPD I and II, and AsB I and II - and it's because it has so much to consider. A base genre book should be weighty - there's lots to consider. Individual setting books within a genre could be done this way, but I am reminded of GOO's Perfect Guides, which were thin enough to sell quick, but really only acted as a series guide - with pictures - and then some of the characters at the end. Not quite my cuppa, and they never really seemed to sell. And as much as I love Tri-stat, last I checked they weren't a going concern. HERO is, and we all want it to remain so. I'd never want such things to supplant the main books, so here's my idea:

I would like to see campaign books that set down a specific setting to play in, with all the tweaks in place to make it really work (and all said tweaks noted for the fiddlers among us), and


Nothing. Else. Needed.


No need for references to outside texts, or to jimmy the skills list, or anything. It's ready to go out of the gate with pregen characters, or you can make some just as good from the rules provided; but you don't need FREd to do it. And in the back, a nice filled-out form, like we used to have in 4th Ed, showing how the campaign is constructed. Remember those forms? I loved those....

I'd recommend making these "self-contained game worlds" PDFs and just sell them on the site, to make it easy for all concerned. They wouldn't have to cost that much; since they are never intended to see a real print run, those costs shouldn't have to apply. I can think of both a Superheroic and a Fantasy setting I'd love to work out and see in "print", and if they were neatly wrapped up like this, I think it would get a lot of positive attention. The only viable game system that really has multiple settings out that I can think of is d20*, and you can see how much they have to twist things to make it work there.



*sure there's GURPS, but they really say "Here's a dumptruck's worth of info, now have fun!"

[Chris Goodwin]

You really don't even need a full setting, only a full adventure, a couple of adventure hooks for that one to lead into, a few NPCs that could in a pinch double as premade PCs, and a bare suggestion of setting for the adventure to take place in (i.e. enough to, say, let them go to the next town, or what happens if they turn left instead of right at that road down there?). That would be enough for someone to pick up the book and play, which you can't really do with a book that small that includes setting information but no adventure.

Edit: And the wheel comes full circle; what we're describing here is, in essence, first edition Fantasy Hero, or Danger International.

[GAZZA]

I guess it's horses for courses.

While I can appreciate that Hero Games might want to be the "one true system" - it might make them all multi millionaires with supermodel girlfriends - it's not really something that I have any particular desire for as a consumer.

Some games have cool settings that I personally wouldn't detach from the system (eg Amber, HeroQuest, or RuneQuest to a lesser extent). Other games have generally well thought out mechanics that are much more useful if you want to design your own setting - with Hero being the top of that list for me.

To me, the lack of setting specific material in the core rulebook is a feature. If the Champions sourcebook for Hero isn't good enough to satisfy those who want a coherent supers setting, then surely it's possible to just improve that genre book rather than completely redesign the way Hero is marketed and sold? (My main issue with it is the same issue I have with any "modern era" game: I don't live in the US, have little interest in playing US based games, and so I have to design my own Oz stuff anyway - but I can certainly appreciate that game designers would consider Australia to be a marginal audience; I'm totally cool with that).

I would have thought that Hero "mostly works" despite the genre, and that the list of tweaks that need to be made on a genre specific basis wouldn't be a particularly large document. On the other hand I use Hero almost exclusively for Champions (I've had a few goes with Fantasy Hero and Dark Champions but not really for very long), so if that's not the case forgive my ignorance.

[Chris Goodwin]

I thought I'd pull some of the books out and run some comparisons.

* Fifth edition Sidekick is 128 pages of rules, of which about 80 pages are character creation (38 of these are Powers, Advantages, Limitations, and Frameworks, while 12 are Skills, Perks, and Talents, and six are Disadvantages), 18 are combat and adventuring, two are environment, seven are equipment, eight are example characters, three are glossary, two index, and two character sheet.

* First edition Fantasy Hero is 160 pages, of which 53 are character creation (12 are Skills, 30 are a subset of Powers, Advantages, and Limitations for spells, and five are Disadvantages), 30 are combat and adventuring (including the weapons lists), eight are campaigning, 30 are sourcebook (including numerous prewritten spells, magic items, and monsters), 28 are adventuring (including a programmed "choose your own adventure" type solo a short sample adventure, and five sample characters for NPC or pregen PC), one is charts, one is a combat record sheet (DEX, SPD, phases, a couple of other things), one is a spell design sheet (that I still use, in slightly modified format), one is a character sheet, and one is a list of updates written after the book was published.

* Danger International has about 30 pages on character creation (18 on Skills, one and a half on Extraordinary Abilities aka Talents, and four on Disadvantages -- none at all on any subset of Powers), 55 on combat and adventuring (including 13 on vehicle combat and vehicle writeups), 31 on campaigning (including a few on alternate modern genres including things like horror and SF), 17 pages of sourcebook (almost all setting -- the cold war 80's in Hero terms, more or less), 25 on adventuring (including one programmed, one short, and one extensive, well written), one of character sheet, one of charts, and two of advertising/marketing.

So, FH and DI both devote about 90 pages to what Sidekick does in 128. Sidekick uses smaller type and tighter formatting and layout, and probably packs an equivalent to FH and DI's 160 pages each into its page count; if you combined the rulesets for FH and DI and trimmed for redundancy I imagine you'd have about 120 or so pages (say about 110 or so at Sidekick's typesetting and layout) and still have a less complete subset of the rules than Sidekick (for character creation, at least; perhaps more complete for combat!). OTOH, both first edition FH and DI were perfectly playable games even without bringing any other Hero System rules in.

[zornwil]

I would like to see a 6th edition which takes the game back to its cinematic roots. Over the last few years it seems as though Hero Games' products have been intentionally forcing the game into a more 'realist' approach rather then cinematic. The game has now become too much about analyzing the differences between .38 and a .9mm pistol rather then the cinematic effects of what someone does with a gun.

Many of the current Hero Games' books, like The Ultimate Skill and the upcoming Ultimate Energy Projector, based on what I have seen in that forum, seem to be about simulating realism in the game rather then the cinematic. I honestly believe this trend toward realism is one of the factors which drove me away from the game.

There is nothing realistic about the various gaming genres. Batmain is larger then life. Conan is larger then life. James Bond is larger then life. Han Solo is larger then life. Doc Savage and his crew are larger then life. The gamers who want to play frail book geeks who fight mafia incursion in NYC are not in the majority. They are the minority, and yet it seems as though the game is becoming more and more tailored for those types of players.

My signature used to be what I believed. I do not believe it any more. A cinematic, less rulesy, 6th edition would bring me back into the game. The more books being produced to simulate realism with the system only pushes me farther and farther away from the game. Just my 3d6 worth.
This is the statement I was looking for - you are absolutely correct in first identifying "what is this game about." Then and ONLY then can we decide what we need to do.

As you say, the strength, from day one, was the game's approach as a traditional RPG (for its time) with a core ethic of simulating cinematic action, originally superheroic. Not realism. If you ask me, Champions 2nd edition was probably near-perfect mechanically, not because it managed everything perfectly (sure, there were definitely issues) but because the intent was clear and there was less clutter. Successive editions did what successive editions of all sorts of games (mistakenly, in my view) do - try to fix every little problem. That is the road to hell - and 5th demonstrates that trend. That said, 4th was probably the best book of the bunch in readability and completeness, but I think it already was headed in a doomed direction with the detail-spiral becoming entrenched. 5th merely continued what 4th set out to do.

I think now we risk the system becoming one that is only in the hands of the grognards, and no longer a strong enough incentive for the kinds of people (like me) who got into Champions to get into it. Yes, of course, I understand some people (some great ones in fact) have gotten started just from 5th and 4th. But I am not convinced these people wouldn't have based on a product more strongly focused, either. The long-term health of the company and the system are not well-served by a spiral into more and more detail and minutiae. We are losing the forest for the trees.

That said, I fully appreciate that any drastic winnowing or rewrite will lose some players. I don't pretend that getting back to basics wouldn't be a difficult task. It may not even be worthwhile, I don't know - but the absence of doing so, I feel, will doom HERO towards a slow road to extinction/trivialization as a product and more importantly (to me) doom it towards becoming a "system" obsessed with legalistic nuance and loophole management, failling both then as a toolkit and as a playable game.

I don't know the right answer - partly as there isn't one. I think there's a big opportunity, though, to rewrite, without sacrificing detail in execution, how powers and advantages and so on are structured by truly stripping SFX from mechanics, by indicating to people the basic effects of 1d6 per 5 points and how to build powers that aren't abusive, then letting people add any sort of descriptor to a truly agnostic power. For example, no specific Energy Blast or Hand Attack or the like, but "attacks are 1d6 per 5 points; describe what they are doing; here's the guidelines on what is abusive" I think we see enough indie and indie-traditional hybrid games that have whole-cloth swiped HERO's innovative separation (it wasn't quite a divorce!) of SFX and mechanics, and we see it works really well. It gets tricky with things like Desoild and so on, well granted, and I do think we should preserve some basics that have served us well and keep the game tactically based (I am NOT advocating changing it from tactical to purely narrative or the like), such as PD/ED splits as tactical options (though realistically you could just toolkit this and declare PD/ED as the "default" but explain that there can be more or less options here rather easily). I am not sure how I feel still about Doc Democracy's contention about ripping out chars, but it's not a bad idea, so long as we find a way to retain a good focus on what characters can routinely and predictably do, that is the bottom line.

As to books/rules, I would like to see a slim and simple core book, and specific GAMES (not just lists of "ideas" and such) released which would be Champions (a game, with its own rules alterations, etc.) and Pulp Hero and so on.

I am attempting to balance the crowd's desires for "universality" (though I think that is a big illusion, but anyway...) along with keeping the system as a truly cinematic style of play (and despite schir1964's feelings, fully embracing the "human template" because I think that is what cinematic action hero stuff is about). Some will disagree with not being granular and "realistic," but I think that is just a muddled mess that endangers the system with each passing edition.

(Monolith, I'm not suggesting you would agree with any of my proposals, I kind of suspect quite the reverse, but I think the starting point is at least where we agree)

I saw a comment elsewhere implying you were back - it's good to see you, Monolith, welcome back.

[zornwil]

Personally, if I had my way, I would do away with all interconnections in Hero. That was include basing Skills on characteristics, the Language chart, free Transport Familiarities from certain Skills, etc. Basically, if you want something, you pay for it. Nothing gives it to you for free. But I suspect I'm in a very small minority with this opinion. :)
I actually decided you are correct in divorcing the interconnectedness. But I would price some things to remain attractive and true to the point that action heroes are tough and strong and that should be easy to replicate, so preserving in some ways the exaggerated nature of STR. To me, that's part of the point of the game.

[zornwil]

Well, after reading the many suggestions I have come to a conclusion. Play a different system. And I am not meaning it in a malicious way. Hero has a cohesive and internally balanced system that has evened out after over 20 years. While many people like of dislike bits and piece, the changes do not fit.

Minor items are easily solved by the mere fact Hero is a tool kit.
an example:
Don't like KA? Don't use it. Problem solved.
If you like KA, use it. No problem to be solved.

If the dislike of the system is so great that you are functionally re-writing major parts of the game mechanics? Then the question is Why? If the characteristics bother someone so bad that they re-write the entire section if the rules, then they are no longer playing Hero. They are playing a different game. A Hero character has basically three parts, Characteristics, “Things they can do” (Skill, powers, talents, etc.) and Disadvantages. If you remove a complete section the game is no longer Hero.

If you want a quick fast-play supers RPG, then I recommend Mutants & Masterminds. If you want a much more detailed system that lets you into the core rule mechanics, then stay with Hero. Both are solid games and well worth it IMO. Neither are in anyway broken, they just approach things with a different style.
Games are not defined by mechanics; they are defined by the play experience they intend to deliver, and mechanics are defined in turn. I would like the game to support the play experience it delivered 20 years ago, and if possible do so better with each edition. I think the game has suffered - as have most games - by designers tinkering with the system and mechanics to fix minor issues without regard to the overall cinematic play experience it seems to have been intended to deliver. Whereas keeping eyes open to ways to fulfill the originally-intended experience as best as possible is a different matter.

In other words, I think the grognards are stealing my game*, and I hope that stops. Your phrasing makes it sound as if I should play a different game because I should let others continue to repurpose HERO away from what it does best. Not that this was your intent.


* - this is over-stated, upon further thought, but it is a real issue/danger point in my mind, and is part of what I think is occurring with successive editions already

[Lord Mhoram]

they are defined by the play experience they intend to deliver, and mechanics are defined in turn. I would like the game to support the play experience it delivered 20 years ago,

I may be one of the grognards you worry about :) But I actually enjoy the play experience and the mechanics better now than the ones I got 20 years ago.

I prefer the increased "weight" of the system. I really don't care for any kind of simple system (all the forgite and indy games I have seen just leave me cold) - I mean the least complex system I have played is Rolemaster with Companions 1-3 in play. Or D&D 3.0 before all the really good add on books came out.

There is an audience for that kind of game, one that is not catered to by very many companies... well not catered to by a good game. I prefer HERO to play to my kind of player, one that enjoys the complexity and depth of the system.

It could be that market forces are making this kind of game extinct... but if HERO puts itself back to where it was 20 years ago (3rd ed, rules for each game being different) I think it is doing itself a great disservice - now if it has to survive, let it survive, but I will still be playing 5th, and not likely getting a whole bunch of new material.

I for one feel that each edition of the system was a major improvement over the last.

[Chris Goodwin]

I may be one of the grognards you worry about :) But I actually enjoy the play experience and the mechanics better now than the ones I got 20 years ago.

I prefer the increased "weight" of the system. I really don't care for any kind of simple system (all the forgite and indy games I have seen just leave me cold) - I mean the least complex system I have played is Rolemaster with Companions 1-3 in play. Or D&D 3.0 before all the really good add on books came out.


Why? I'm curious. Why do you prefer more complex systems? I honestly am asking in the spirit of seeking knowledge.

[Lord Mhoram]

Why? I'm curious. Why do you prefer more complex systems? I honestly am asking in the spirit of seeking knowledge.

I'll start with my prefered game pedigree, if you will, game that I liked to play -D&D 3.x with virtually every option on (1000s of feats, hundreds or more Prestige classes ect), Rolemaster (2nd ed I think) with the companions, Mythus, HERO. I also enjoy d20 modern, but I feel it doesn't have enough options.

For why I have to go into approach a bit.

I play for immersion, and I am of the idea that the game rules are the physics of the world. So with a complex, robust rules set that lays out exactly what kind of things happen in every situation, I am comfortable. If the game doesn't cover things, then should I find myself in a situation in that area, I feel... like a rock climber that is unsure of every step, thinking he might fall at any moment. I don't know how, in the rules of the game, my character should react, because I don't know the outcome of my choices- the rules don't define them.
That is a big one. And the reason I don't like shared player power in games. If part of the game rules is to allow players (or GM) to chose success or failure due to "coolness" or "narritive importance" then those physics break down, because the same action in the same situation later could have a different decision, depending on mood of players and set up.

Second, I like to build, tinker and play amatuer game designer, with the game, and with the characters - I spend hours outside gametime doing things related to the game just when I play. If I am GMing, it is a lot more - the details of my current FH game take over 100 pages types with 8 pt type. If so much of it wasn't borrowed in style, feel or names from other bits of other games, I'd polish it and publish it. A non complex system doesn't allow me to do that kind of tinkering.

Third options and versitility; and by options I don't mean "you can do or define anything" I want a formal rules set, and rules that let me make choices within that framework- HERO is amazing at this, as is D20 with about 40 books of add-ons. I don't want to be playing a game and run into "I can't do that in this game". I want the game system to be able to allow me to do anything I imagine. Very few do this - one of the reasons that HERO is my system of choice.


Pretty much every "simple" system I've played, I've thought of something that the game doesn't let me do. Complex system do this much less often.

If that doesn't answer, feel free to ask more specifics.

[Tech]

Another alumni of the original game :thumbup:
I start playing 1st Ed in 82.

It is just me but I see any significant change to characterists as a re-write of 30% of the mechanics, since characteristics would no longer figure the same. I hated the very minor tweeks I had to do to convert my 4th ed stuff. I'd be a really unhappy camper redoing everything ;)

I've been playing it since 1981, 2 or 3 days after Champions 1st hit the shelves.
I've seen many of the suggestions. I've seen many of the arguments - for and against chagnes. I've seen the reasonings behind them.. and my opinion is..

use house rules if you must but keep the system the same.

Suggesting changes to suit one's own convictions demand house rules but doesn't mean it needs to be changed.

Champions and the Hero System didn't survive 25 years by changing the core rules, statistics and whatnot but by being what it is: variable, changable within it's own system, dynamic, math intensive (heh) and many other reasons. It survived a time period when there really wasn't a parent company to keep it going yet I believe it's the fans that kept it alive. To say that it needs some changes denies it's survivability, that it has survived because of what it is, not what it is not.

Now, even I dislike some of the changes in the 5th edition (i.e. for one, that Regeneration is a subset of Healing but love the add-ons, Instant Change an unnecessarily overly involved version of Transformation - with a flaw I found since it's based on Transformation but won't go into detail), but hey, I simply resort to an earlier version of that power or in other words a house rule. I have no interest in seeing major changes of the Hero Games system.

It works. It's survived. It's a winner. :thumbup:

[zornwil]

I may be one of the grognards you worry about :) But I actually enjoy the play experience and the mechanics better now than the ones I got 20 years ago.

I prefer the increased "weight" of the system. I really don't care for any kind of simple system (all the forgite and indy games I have seen just leave me cold) - I mean the least complex system I have played is Rolemaster with Companions 1-3 in play. Or D&D 3.0 before all the really good add on books came out.

There is an audience for that kind of game, one that is not catered to by very many companies... well not catered to by a good game. I prefer HERO to play to my kind of player, one that enjoys the complexity and depth of the system.

It could be that market forces are making this kind of game extinct... but if HERO puts itself back to where it was 20 years ago (3rd ed, rules for each game being different) I think it is doing itself a great disservice - now if it has to survive, let it survive, but I will still be playing 5th, and not likely getting a whole bunch of new material.

I for one feel that each edition of the system was a major improvement over the last.
IMHO, it's quite easy to make HERO more complex and you don't need the volume from HERO Games to do that. That's what I did when I enjoyed more complexity. :) I think HERO makes that easier to do than other games, and my approach would be to enable but not entirely support your desires. However, I think there would and should be room for "HERO Arcana" which would well suit your needs.

So don't fear me, embrace me as I take over the company...come on, to the Dark Side..... :D

[Lord Mhoram]

So don't fear me, embrace me as I take over the company...come on, to the Dark Side..... :D

But I could never join someone who likes DitV. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

I think HERO makes that easier to do than other games, and my approach would be to enable but not entirely support your desires.

Hey, as long as all the writeups are universal (ie the same gun, animal, vehicle write ups no matter the genre/game) and there was a rule tome like 5ER, even if each game had it's own slimmed down version of the rules, I could live with it. :)

Sorta like making the spells system transparent in a fantasy game - you give the player "Fireball 3" Radius 2d6Killing" the end cost, and the magic roll modifier, but he never really needs to see the full writeup - the rules in each book are a subset of the Main tome, and contained completely therin - even it the main tome was never refrenced, I wouldn't mind.

[Balabanto]

My problem with 5th edition, and I know you've all heard me whine about this before elsewhere, is the excessive power level of the setting sourcebooks for superheroes. Yes, I buy those sourcebooks to support the setting, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's "Bigger Better Faster Harder" as a mentality.

More dice does NOT equal more fun. It just slows down combat and people spend more time counting.

People have interesting ways of dealing with this. Ask Rod how he does it, I won't speak for him, as awesome as Super Squad America is.

Instead of making characters more powerful to reflect what is realistic for what the heroes should be able to do, why don't we redefine what each d6 of power means and go from there, so that the basic "Two die staging" that was the mathematical genius of the earlier versions of the game doesn't get lost in the shuffle?

[ghost-angel]

This is my 6th edition post.

I'm with you Chris... I really think that's how the Hero System should be done. There are many who disagree with me, but that's my feeling on it. Too many people are scared away by the monstrous main rulebook, and more and more people (it seems to me) are going to M&M for supers roleplaying because, no matter if it's true or not, it is perceived as being a simpler system.

Most of 5Ed are optional rules that you would only use in certain circumstances/genres. There aren't many 4-color supers campaigns that would use the Automatic Fire skills, or even the Defensive Maneuver I-IV, just to pick two examples off the top of my head. The Hero System (IMO, YMMV, etc) needs to be stripped back down to its core system(s) and re-presented in that fashion.

What about those of us who don't use Hero for Supers? Hmmm? I say we strip all the Supers references out and put in Fantasy ones, more people play D&D after all, wiser to get that audience to switch.

Obviously that will mean removing things that don't have any relevance to Fantasy. Like FTL.

So we've taken a step backwards (and a mighty big step at that) into dividing Hero out into Core Genre Systems. (oh, and for reference my first Hero game wasn't Supers, it was Fantasy. As far as I'm concerned this is a Fantasy System.)

Makes for a crappy toolkit if you ask me. The entire appeal of the Hero System to me is the idea I can create any genre with one book. I don't want two or three or five books. It'll turn into a D20 Splatbook Orgy. yay.

[Balabanto]

Well, the point is that you can define for each genre what the numbers mean, GA, and leave the dice system intact.

[Xotl]

Really, I think it's a matter of knowing what you've got, and then building on that. Of course, "building" in this sense is as much a matter of streamlining and reducing as it is addition.

Hero is a relatively complex, cover-everything, one-book toolkit game. The fans of the game enjoy it for that reason, and anyone who picks it up in the future will do so based on the knowledge that it is so. Anyone looking for a different sort of system can find many others, and of those many have been undergoing refinement of their particular approach for 15-25 years. Thus, Hero attempting to take some other basic approach seems silly: it would cease to possess its strengths, while never catching up in one edition to what others have been doing for a decade or more and numerous revisions of their own.

That having been said, I think Sixth should be a refinement, but more radical than the change from 4th to 5th. We want to still be able to build everything, but reworking the characteristics system to eliminate figureds, change COM, and perhaps folding BODY and CON into one stat would still keep the basic framework of the game intact while cleaning things up greatly. Increasing the base stat values above 10 to allow more design room would be useful as well. One generic attack power and one generic defense power would be a great help. A single movement power covering Running, Gliding, Leaping, and Swimming would also be a simplifier (maybe fold FTL and Flight in there too, or make a separate combined flight power). Elemental Controls are unneeded.

Compared to this, deciding to remove Mental Awareness as a freebie from Mental Powers is less important (whether your in favour of that or not, it's not the main kind of change that calls for a Sixth edition: that's more of a Fifth-type change).

The other big change I'd like is user-friendliness. I'd like to see things renamed and adjusted to make the system more intuitive - not to satisfy some arbitrary sense of artful design, but to make things easier for new players. I remember the confusion on a new player's face when I first mentioned 0-phase actions, and he spent the next while trying to see where Segment 0 was on the speed chart. Call them free actions or something instead. Explaining the concept of a ranged attack with No Range is equally fun: Immediate Range or something else that gets the connotation across would be better. Energy Blast: it's odd to have "Energy" in the title when it can be vs. either Energy or Physical defenses. Illogical.

It is easy to explain these issues to someone. The point is: why should we have to? If we're looking to continually bring in new players clearer meanings would help a lot. We old-timers can easily adjust to simple changes in terminology, but we should hold back from nothing that makes the game clearer, no matter how minor in appearance.

My 2 cents.

[Lord Mhoram]

Well, the point is that you can define for each genre what the numbers mean, GA, and leave the dice system intact.

And if I wantedt to take a Cyberpunk, a Superhero (slightly low on attack and defence), a Western character a Jedi, and Pulp era Chtulu investigator and drop them into a fantasy game - which definitions for numbers do I use?
Especially wanted to keep each character's uniqueness intact.

Part of the woderfulness of the system is it's very universal nature.

And the above isn't a hypothetical, it was the basic idea for a FH game I ran for nearly 7 years.

[Lord Mhoram]

(oh, and for reference my first Hero game wasn't Supers, it was Fantasy. As far as I'm concerned this is a Fantasy System.)

Go Go Ghost Angle. :)

I first ran into it as a Supers game, but I've done nearly as much Fantasy as Supers with it, plus a number of oddball can't-fit-in-one-genre-definition type games.

[Lord Mhoram]

Sure it should - it's a universal system, and that is the point of universal systems. And I think switching HERO from a universal system back to a game engine that create genre games is a huge step backwards. Part of the problem is that there are plenty of genre based games out there, but very few universals. I play HERO because it is one of the few, and it's universality is part of what makes it a unique system, and as important as it being point based, or an Effects based system.

As for getting them to work together, I just handed out the limitations - no Defenses over 20 total 10r, no attacks more than 9DC, and use the approriate genre book to build your character (under 4th).

I had no problems.

But then, we both know that you and I stand on the opposite ends of the spectrum about that particular topic. :D



And as a general comment about the tones of my posts, I don't normally get this vehement about my style and playchoice, but when discussion the future (even hypothetical) of the game I love, I'll line up with my opinions and let fly, and defend my stance. I don't want to see HERO turn into something I wouldn't want to play. And destroying it's universality would do that. So I get a little vigorous. :)

[ghost-angel]

You use whichever genre definition fits your needs and adjust accordingly. 5E doesn't allow you to do what you're talking about there without making individual character adjustments. You can't take the 350 pt Taurus, the 150 pt Darien, and the 200 pt Verdict and expect them to work well together in a game. The game shouldn't cater to the small percentage of people who want to do exotics like you describe above. The game should cater to the genres and make the people who want to do the exotics do the extra work, IMO.

Sure you can. I've played in a game where the highest point character was 500 and the lowest 125 at the start.

You can EASILY mix levels and genre with the current toolkit. And yes, it requires a bit of extra work to do this.

[ghost-angel]

And as a general comment about the tones of my posts, I don't normally get this vehement about my style and playchoice, but when discussion the future (even hypothetical) of the game I love, I'll line up with my opinions and let fly, and defend my stance. I don't want to see HERO turn into something I wouldn't want to play. And destroying it's universality would do that. So I get a little vigorous. :)

I'm with you. I like Hero because it's universal.

Otherwise we can go the route of D20 where it claims to have this underlying universal core, but really it isn't.

[Lord Mhoram]

A game that is truly universal will pose like threats to similar archetypes in each genre either by making everyone the same power level [everyone using the same benchmarks no matter what the genre] or by adjusting the threats on a per-genre basis. Right now you have fixed threats but different genre benchmarks, and that just doesn't work.

I've never had a problem with it. Your experiences differ. :)

Problems with both your ideas above - if everyone used the same benchmarks then when you take a writeup of the tough strongjawed hero in pulp, and plopped him in a super universe he would be as strong as superman (the strong jawed hero of that genre) which makes no sense... or you can't use the same writeup of a lion cross genre which mean you have to replicate writeups and if you have a crossover, you have to choose which lion to use, as they are balanced differently - which is also a problem.

[Lord Mhoram]

I'm with you. I like Hero because it's universal.

Otherwise we can go the route of D20 where it claims to have this underlying universal core, but really it isn't.

Or 3rd ed Gurps. Basic character creation system, but each setting/book had it's own way to handle things so the Magic system was not balanced vs Psi not balanced vs Ultratech ect. ick ick ick ick.

[Gary]

I've never had a problem with it. Your experiences differ. :)

Problems with both your ideas above - if everyone used the same benchmarks then when you take a writeup of the tough strongjawed hero in pulp, and plopped him in a super universe he would be as strong as superman (the strong jawed hero of that genre) which makes no sense... or you can't use the same writeup of a lion cross genre which mean you have to replicate writeups and if you have a crossover, you have to choose which lion to use, as they are balanced differently - which is also a problem.


You sorta have the same problem right now with modern weapons and futuristic weapons. A WW2 vintage Sherman does 7d6 RKA while a futuristic plasma cannon does 5d6 RKA.

[OddHat]

Or from another point of view, the point total recommendations aren't useful for modeling experienced fictional characters. Conan, for example, would probably come in around 500+ points if you were to give him all the skills, perks and abilities he shows in the first half dozen books.

As to Nighthawk being tougher than a pride of lions, he should be; he's a superhero. He might not be; he's not combat optimized.

[ghost-angel]

As I said above, you can't use cross-genre characters together without altering them.

Yes, one can. I've done it. I've seen it done.

You may not be able to. That's not a flaw in the system.

[Lord Mhoram]

You just drop the NCM and have everyone build to the same benchmarks. So your 26 dex, 6 speed starting level Nighthawk isn't more impressive then your 20 dex, 4 speed starting level Conan just because you're playing a different genre.

That's just the point, a 26 dex 6 speed character should be more impressive than a 20 dex 4 speed character, no matter what their genre is, or how impressive they are in their home genre.

[Lord Mhoram]

As I said above, you can't use cross-genre characters together without altering them.

I've done it all the time.

[Lord Mhoram]

You sorta have the same problem right now with modern weapons and futuristic weapons. A WW2 vintage Sherman does 7d6 RKA while a futuristic plasma cannon does 5d6 RKA.

Yeah, but that is a problem with the writeups, not the system. That could be fixed easily. :) When 6th comes out and the vehicle and the bestiaries get written, write them with universiality in mind - the reason they have problems now, is that most of them were being built for a specific genre that has it benchmarks slightly different from another rather in mind for true universiality - if I have any complaints about the system that is it.

[ghost-angel]

You sorta have the same problem right now with modern weapons and futuristic weapons. A WW2 vintage Sherman does 7d6 RKA while a futuristic plasma cannon does 5d6 RKA.

Here are some more Plasma Cannons:

Star Hero p158: Emplaced Plasma Cannon 40D6 Energy Blast (planet to space weapon)
Terran Empire p163: Type 1 Plasma Cannon 7D6 RKA (starship weapon)
Spacer's Toolkit p11: M27 Plasma Cannon 9D6 Energy Blast (personal weapon)

The Terran Empire turret laster does 7D6 RKA.

One of the strong points of Hero is that you can bring multiple genre in line to a similar baseline, or you can tailor your campaign to exactly how you want it.

Both options are there.

In one game you can have 5D6 RKA be a deadly tank weapon, in another it might look like a pea-shooter. You can scale it across genre if you like, or not worry what other genre are doing because your game is WWII Hero and Only WWII Hero so it doesn't matter what you look like compared to Superman.

Hero provides both sides of the coin. And the system isn't babysitting you. Your choice, not the books.

[Lord Mhoram]

Hero provides both sides of the coin. And the system isn't babysitting you. Your choice, not the books.

Very Good Point. If the problems are in the official writups, you don't need to use those. :)

[ghost-angel]

Wrong. It's the exact opposite. The problem is that the "Hero System" books [not the campaign books] are supposedly written in a universal way rather then per genre, but actually don't properly function in all the genres. The Bestiary, Vehicle sourcebook, and the various weapons are all written to be universal: here it is use it for every basic genre. The reality is that they don't function properly as universal icons.

I have no problem with Terran Empire having it's own creatures, weapons, ships, and power level. I have no problem with The Turakian Age have it's own creatures, weapons, ships, and power level. I have no problem with Champions have its own creatures, weapons, ships, and power level. But when you start saying the universal creatures, weapons, and ships presented in the Hero System books function the same way for every power level and genre, that's where there's a problem.

The generic write-ups can function the same way for every power level and genre. As long as you define the genre to use those power levels and write-ups.

See - Hero isn't a game. The Main Rules aren't a game. The genre books aren't a game. They're a System used to Make a game.

Unlike many RPGs that couple System and Game (however poorly) Hero tells you how to go about making your game.


Why should starting level warriors in two difference genres be equal? They shouldn't by any means be equal.

Superheroes are larger than life, Much Larger. They should be able to out perform any other warrior.

Captain Jack Sparrow is an extraordinary example of a Pirate for his genre. Should be able to be comparable to Superman who is an extraordinary example of a Superhero? No. A thousand times no.

They compare to the people around them, not people not around them. And once you start to cross genre, Jack sails the Pearl into port in Metropolis and starts to plunder, and man is he good at it. Superman, a Superhero comes in, there shouldn't be a fight. Superman wins. He's a SUPERHERO, Jack is just a REALLY GOOD PIRATE (quite possibly the best Pirate I've ever seen).

25 STR is the same in any genre. That's the comparison to make.

Just because almost no one can attain that in a Sword And Sorcery Genre and almost every is expected to in a Galactic Champions genre means absolutely nothing.

[Lord Mhoram]

You seem to have a "I can't see the forest because of the trees" thing going here.
No I just disagree about your assumptions. I have a different veiwpoint.


In a Champions game he's considered average. Darien the Bold is supposed to be a good representation of a starting level warrior with his 15 dex and 4 speed. Eagle-Eye is supposed to be a good representation of a starting level martial artist with his 24 dex and 6 speed. Each of those character occupies the same niche in their respective genres but because the system uses 2 different benchmark standards Darien the Bold becomes nothing but a VIPER agent challenge to Eagle-eye.



And superheroes by their very nature are supposed to be better than any trained normal (unless that trained normal is a super) - to use non HERO system characters - I would expect to see Borormir (and maybe even Aragorn) get schooled by Nightwing (much less Deathstroke or Lady Shiva). It reinforces the different flavor of the genres - sure Conan may be a bad mofo in a human centric world, but he is not much in a genre where characters can move the moon.

Another example -
A pulp hero, no matter how good he is, is going to pale in comparison to a superhero even if the pulp guy is the very best at what he does in his home setting. Indiany jones can't keep up with Superheroes; and shouldn't be able to in the game.

To me that is a feature, not a bug.

[Lord Mhoram]

Captain Jack Sparrow is an extraordinary example of a Pirate for his genre. Should be able to be comparable to Superman who is an extraordinary example of a Superhero? No. A thousand times no.

They compare to the people around them, not people not around them. And once you start to cross genre, Jack sails the Pearl into port in Metropolis and starts to plunder, and man is he good at it. Superman, a Superhero comes in, there shouldn't be a fight. Superman wins. He's a SUPERHERO, Jack is just a REALLY GOOD PIRATE (quite possibly the best Pirate I've ever seen).




I would expect to see Borormir (and maybe even Aragorn) get schooled by Nightwing (much less Deathstroke or Lady Shiva). It reinforces the different flavor of the genres - sure Conan may be a bad mofo in a human centric world, but he is not much in a genre where characters can move the moon.


I was writing mine before yours got posted, and I say "Ghost Angel get out of my Brain." :)

[Lord Mhoram]

Wrong. It's the exact opposite. The problem is that the "Hero System" books [not the campaign books] are supposedly written in a universal way rather then per genre, but actually don't properly function in all the genres.

What they should do, is rewrite those and have a genre level...

Say "All WW2 stuff maxes at this level"
"All SF max at this level"
"Super stuff maxes at this level"

And then write the universal books with those in mind - a single lion is tough for the FH fighter, or the pulp hero, a pride might be a match for a superhero, and can be completely ignored by a galatic level superhero. But the lion writeups remain the same.

Then when you write the settings books, you keep to that benchmark. Then everything is completely portable, and a laser sword in a FH game is the same as in the SF game (and likely very powerful).

[OddHat]

You seem to have a "I can't see the forest because of the trees" thing going here.

Speaking as a moderator, please try not to get personal here. You disagree, which is fine; accusing the person whose pov you disagree with of just not getting your point can escalate into flames fairly quickly.

Thanks.

[Lord Mhoram]

When Conan fights Cap or Wolverine they are essentially near equals.


Not a lot of knowledge here, but isn't Conan the absolute strongest, or very near that in his own setting. He comes over to a superhero world, and Superman or the Hulk would squish him like a bug. So he moves from "Strongest there is" to the low end of the middle pack in STR scale. Sounds like HERO is doing it's job there.

We don't need to throw out the universals, we need to rejigger the writeups of stuff in each of the genre books and material to match the universal stuff, and each other.

[steriaca]

What I want to see in a 6th edition is this.

What ever new rules and tweaked rules you use, use them. All I want is an afordable, yet still high quality product. That is why I am sergesting spliting the book into a "Charater Builder's Guidebook", and a "Hero Gamemaster's Guidebook".

Oh, and the 'build your own martial arts manuvers' rules in the "Charater Builder's Guidebook". Martial Arts are to useful to evey gendra to restrict this information to JUST whatever the new version of UMA is.

[ghost-angel]

In every cross-genre example ever made in comics

I don't read comics.
They aren't the only source material to draw from or compare things to.


The flaw is in the idea of assuming that superb humans aren't all the same in all genres.

Because they aren't.

A superb human in the Valdorian Age couldn't hold a candle to a superb human in the Tualan Age, who in turn couldn't hold a candle to a superb human in the Champions Age.

Yes, each genre has a slightly different idea of what it means to be Great. And the underlying mechanics of Hero model this nicely in my opinion.

I consider the fact that a superb human is different in each genre to be correct genre simulation.

Conan as done by some hack writer so he can beat up on Batman is as bad an example as mine might be.

[ghost-angel]

No, Conan would be peak human in most of the physical abilities just as Cap is. The Hulk wouldn't squash Conan any easier then he would Cap or Wolverine. And that's the whole point. I wouldn't expect Conan to defeat the Hulk but I wouldn't expect Cap to defeat him either.

I didn't say every character should be able to compete against every character with superpowers. I said all heroic humans should be able to compete against each other across the genres. Just as you'd expect to be able to see Cap and Batman fighting as near equals you should expect to see Conan and Cap fighting as near equals or Batman and Doc Savage doing likewise. That doesn't mean that one's not better then the other, but that being better isn't because one's from a "Superheroic" genre while the other is only from a "Heroic" genre.

Hero is one of the few games that actually separates its genres into different characteristic benchmark levels. I can take a d20 Modern character and move him into a D&D game without needing to add 10 pts of dex, 8 pts of con, 10 pts of Armor Class, etc. A 10th level D&D barbarian can fight a 10th level warrior from Star Wars without issue. Only in Hero is there a benchmark issue.

I don't know what benchmarks you're referring to. Beyond the NCM, which can be exceeded. But I don't adjust characteristics when moving characters across genre. I find them to be comparable.

I also challenge your notion of the 10th Level vs 10th Level challenge. I don't think they are comparable at all beyond characteristics. Heck, I don't think two 10th Level characters from the same genre book in D20 are comparable.

[casualplayer]

The thing that you guys keep swirling around but can't seem to elucidate is the problems stemming from the varying DEX levels and CVs from genre to genre. Damage dealing and defenses don't vary a whole heck of a lot from source material to other source material but when the mean DEX is 13 in Fantasy/Space Opera/Pulp/Just About Everything But Superheroics and the mean DEX in Champions is 20-23 that 3-4 CV discrepancy means that the non-superheroic characters can't compete with Captain Spandex.

If 6th Ed can get the DEX genie back in the bottle where an athletic, nimble Olympic-class superhero can feel comfortable with an 18 DEX then a whole lot of problems are solved.

[JmOz]

The thing that you guys keep swirling around but can't seem to elucidate is the problems stemming from the varying DEX levels and CVs from genre to genre. Damage dealing and defenses don't vary a whole heck of a lot from source material to other source material but when the mean DEX is 13 in Fantasy/Space Opera/Pulp/Just About Everything But Superheroics and the mean DEX in Champions is 20-23 that 3-4 CV discrepancy means that the non-superheroic characters can't compete with Captain Spandex.

If 6th Ed can get the DEX genie back in the bottle where an athletic, nimble Olympic-class superhero can feel comfortable with an 18 DEX then a whole lot of problems are solved.

Time to be a brat. Hero book #2 Enemies Copy right 1982 pg 5, Thok dex 33 spd 7, Mongoose dex 33 speed 7, average dex 23.5

The dex genie has never been in the bottle

Furthermore, and this comes from having read comics for to long, they continously do things well beyond what any olympic athlete could ever HOPE to do, and this goes for normal guy type characters (ala Green lantern with no ring). While I won't debate that it is a non realistic thing for Kyle Rayner to beat up a prison of super villains w/o his ring, I can also point you to where it has happened, and often enough to warrent inclusion as a genre bit...

[zornwil]

Ghost Angel said it well but I think it speaks more to MitchellS' conclusion - HERO is to make a game, which to me means by definition it's not going to be universal if we take that word to mean either completely portable from one gaming group's experience to another or completely portable from one idiosyncratic genre/setting to another. If a gaming group/GM runs a multi-genre/setting campaign or set of campaigns intended for cross-over, that is not a universal setting per se - it is the adapation of genra into one, a way of mashing together Star Trek characters and Justice League (for example) so that each character is equal in spotlight and game impact. Precisely because you have to "make" your game with HERO. As to speaking to portability among game groups, I've heard much from people about how moving from one group to another brought many surprises and differences in running and that characters from ostensibly similar settings/genra aren't allowed into one group whereas they were in another - and I've heard a lot less from people the other way around. Of course, again, this is a very logical consequence of having a system that you create the game for rather than having the game created for you.

I don't consider this a problem at all - but I consider it a reality of the approach which means that the core book ought to be the most agnostic and that all sorts of variations that are genre-specific (which to my mind includes many things now in 5th's core book) be spun into those books.

[zornwil]

My problem with 5th edition, and I know you've all heard me whine about this before elsewhere, is the excessive power level of the setting sourcebooks for superheroes. Yes, I buy those sourcebooks to support the setting, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's "Bigger Better Faster Harder" as a mentality.

More dice does NOT equal more fun. It just slows down combat and people spend more time counting.

People have interesting ways of dealing with this. Ask Rod how he does it, I won't speak for him, as awesome as Super Squad America is.

Instead of making characters more powerful to reflect what is realistic for what the heroes should be able to do, why don't we redefine what each d6 of power means and go from there, so that the basic "Two die staging" that was the mathematical genius of the earlier versions of the game doesn't get lost in the shuffle?
Hi, what do you mean by "the basic "Two die staging" that was the mathematical genius of the earlier versions of the game "?

[Hugh Neilson]

The thing that you guys keep swirling around but can't seem to elucidate is the problems stemming from the varying DEX levels and CVs from genre to genre. Damage dealing and defenses don't vary a whole heck of a lot from source material to other source material but when the mean DEX is 13 in Fantasy/Space Opera/Pulp/Just About Everything But Superheroics and the mean DEX in Champions is 20-23 that 3-4 CV discrepancy means that the non-superheroic characters can't compete with Captain Spandex.

If 6th Ed can get the DEX genie back in the bottle where an athletic, nimble Olympic-class superhero can feel comfortable with an 18 DEX then a whole lot of problems are solved.


Time to be a brat. Hero book #2 Enemies Copy right 1982 pg 5, Thok dex 33 spd 7, Mongoose dex 33 speed 7, average dex 23.5

The dex genie has never been in the bottle

Actually, if one looks at the original Champions, including Enemies, the genie is in the bottle. Superheroic DEX is high compared to normal human DEX. It isn't high compared to DEX in ther genres, because Hero had, at that time, no other genres. It was only Champions. Look to enemies 3 and Stronghammer the Dwarf, who was quite competetive with a superhero, but was ostensibly a fantasy Dwarf plopped into a Supers reality.

The genie left the bottle when Espionage was published, and the bottle was smashed with Fantasy Hero. That was when the Hero designers decided that the same superiority over typical humans did not extend to spy heros, or to fantasy heroes.

This issue also highlights the debate over "system" vs "setting". The system could quite easily manage a Supers game where a typical to slow Brick has a dex of 8, where an experienced, but not exceptionally fast, Super has a dex of 11 to 14, where fast, skilled Supers have a Dex of 14 to 18, the fast martial artists have DEX of 20 to 23, and the truly superhumanly agile characters - SpiderMan and the Flash - reach the amazing pinnacles of 26 DEX.

However, from 1e sample characters in Champions, the characters were drafted with DEX from 18 to 35, not 8 to 26. This choice of DEX benchmark is not the SYSTEM. Drop everyone's DEX by 9, and they will play almost identically compared to one another. All OCV's and DCV's have declined by 3, so the odds of a hit or a miss are unchanged.

The choice of DEX benchmark is a SETTING choice. Had the mainstream CU adopted DEX benchmarks 9 points lower, those transplanted Fantasy characters, with their 15 DEX warriors and nimble 20 DEX rogues would fit in just fine, at least on a comparison of DEX levels.

I would summarize MitchellS' position (and apologies for putting words into your mouth, MitchellS) as being that, while the SYSTEM might support universality, the oficial SETTINGS have failed to support that universality in many ways, not the least of which are poor flow of technology and lack of cross-genre comparability.

Poor flow of technology 30 DEF tanks with 7d6 RKA weapons in the modern setting, with futuristic Star Hero weaponry and force screens falling short of even this comparatively antiquated technolgy. This is exacerbated by 5e's "one timeline" model, which makes it clear that the technology must have stagnated, if not even reversed, for the period of time from now to the far future. New technology is often unreliable - consider early firearms. They were much less effective, and much less reliable, than modern (or even Old West) firearms. Yet they were clearly superior to bows (other than their reload rate). If a tank gun does 7d6 RKA, and tank armor provides 30 DEF, what motivation would there be to develop plasma beam technology when, in its unreliable infancy, it did, say, a 3d6 RKA? What advantage didit have over the conventional weaponry to merit funding the research?

Cross-Genre Comparability As MitchellS has noted, the power level of Supers in particular incorporates considerable stat inflation that renders other genre characters uncompetetive. Much of that inflation was not necessary for the genre, but is caused by setting a max-out point for DEX , for example, in most genres at a level considered below average in the Supers genre. If Supers not noted for their agility had DEX levels more comparable with non-supers not noted for their agility, the genre emulation would not suffer (soldiers and agents have little difficulty hitting the low agility Supers in the comics, and the Hordes of Hydra are still a threat to Cap and his cohorts, so they must be able to hit him!) and the minble rogue would still be in at least the high middle of the pack when transplanted to a Supers setting.

This loss of comparability also shows in attacks. Are Batman's batarangs or Moon Knight's crescent darts (at least somewhat effective in the comics) really vastly superior to throwing knives? Hawkman has been quite effective for years using medieval weaponry - would ge be so effective if we applied CU levels of typical attack and defense, and used the standard Hero writeups? Many Supers use a sword to reasonable effect - would Fantasy Hero sword stats allow such characters to compete? Who would consider giving Cap or Hawkeye the same defenses as even a powerful Fantasy Hero warrior wearing chain mail armor?

Overall The SYSTEM could be used to create a Supers environment where characters designed to these parameters would be effective. But the SETTING designed for Supers in the official Hero System timeline has very different parameters. The superhero setting parameters then get carried over into military hardware, where someone makes the decision that tank armor should be virtually impenetrable to the SETTING's typical Super, and that conventional military weaponry should vastly outpower the attacks of those Supers.

We often pay lip service to the idea that "Hero is about more than Supers", and it is. But there is no reason that the SYSTEM can't support multiple genres in a much more universal fashion than it presently does. However, the 5e SETTINGS fail to do so - they set the benchmarks for Supers, and for modern military weapons, too far above the benchmarks set for other genres, so these aspects of the system fall out of step with the other SETTINGS and they become incompatible.

Could this be fixed in a new edition? Sure. But it would mean radical changes to the baseline in either the Supers genre, or in most other genres. Is that something the current customer base would buy into, or would the cost of improved compatability (presumably appealing to new blood for Hero) be a loss of much of the old guard?

[Lord Mhoram]

But it would mean radical changes to the baseline in either the Supers genre, or in most other genres. Is that something the current customer base would buy into, or would the cost of improved compatability (presumably appealing to new blood for Hero) be a loss of much of the old guard?

Actually I'd be amenable to that. As a personal bias, I want to see superhero stats above normal (so even the best fantasy fighter would be outclassed completley by Bats or Cap) but that is something I could live with.

Univerisality is one of the keystones of what I like about the game. Remove that, and you remove one of the big reasons I play it, so adjustments to published characters and equipment that help that along is all good to me.

But I still think a super should be super period, but that is a bias thing - I tend to run Avengers/JLA kind of supers games.

[Balabanto]

You know, it all comes from the "Strength Chart' or what you can do with the stats.

You change the chart instead of changing the system. For really ridiculous campaigns, just bloat the megascale advantage.

I've learned by that keeping everything simple, people can A) Concentrate on roleplaying and B) Not be totally overwhelmed by the insane collection of numbers that the system CAN produce.

One of the things I've noticed is that simpler characters in Hero are better "Developed." That is, they get more plots, the characters are more interesting to roleplay with, etc, because the GM and the Player both are not thinking about the sheet.

"Holy !@#$%@! Look at everything I can DO." This puts the player's head out of the character and into the SHEET! That's not good.

People tend to overthink their characters in Hero now, because of the excessive realism of the 5th edition, and fail to realize that Steve Peterson and George Macdonald didn't make Hero System from spit and baling wire, though often it seems that way.

The math was designed to produce a RESULT, and that's why, to a lot of people, 4th seems better balanced and smoother than 5th.

That math will ALWAYS work that way, because numbers are what they are, and always distribute the same way every time.

Yes, game balance and being a role model for my fellow game designers of hero matters to me a LOT, maybe more than the rest of you want. But that's what I really want out of Hero System. I want role models for character design so when new players look at the system, they see the same thing in games more or less, no matter what type of game it is by genre, and feel like they aren't over/under powered because their design philosophy seems somehow right or wrong. I know that we live in a bigger/better/faster/harder world. But wouldn't it be nice if a gaming company would have the courage to take what's good about that stuff (The Internet, talking with all of you guys) and get rid of the bad stuff (SUV's, McMansions, Divisiveness in how game systems are interpreted). One of the things about Hero System is that a lot of us have VERY big egoes, myself included. When I open up a new supplement for Champions, I used to do so knowing exactly what the power ranges for the characters would be, how they functioned, and pretty much what every single thing on the sheet was going to do, because characters were slightly simpler, even when they were filled with errors, and everything seemed to FIT together mathematically.

Now, when I buy a supplement for Champions, even within the same genre range, I sit there and I think for just a second before I open the book "What kind of crapshoot will I get when I open this?" It's a different kind of suspense, and I don't like that.

[Lord Mhoram]

One of the things I've noticed is that simpler characters in Hero are better "Developed." That is, they get more plots, the characters are more interesting to roleplay with, etc, because the GM and the Player both are not thinking about the sheet.

I've found just the opposite - I play better, and get GMed better with higher point characters with more on the sheet - all the little advantages and limitations that exactly define everything... those characters are better developed for me when I write up backgrounds, and I find them more interesting to play; mostly because in building them, with all the attention I payed to them with the intricate writeups, I find I understand the personalty and the background better.

For me, greater detail in actual write ups is greater detail in all aspects of the character

[steamteck]

I've found just the opposite - I play better, and get GMed better with higher point characters with more on the sheet - all the little advantages and limitations that exactly define everything... those characters are better developed for me when I write up backgrounds, and I find them more interesting to play; mostly because in building them, with all the attention I payed to them with the intricate writeups, I find I understand the personalty and the background better.

For me, greater detail in actual write ups is greater detail in all aspects of the character

I'm with you here. Complex characters my players make practically write many stories by their writeups.more "real" and rich seeming.

[Balabanto]

Wow, I'll take a simply designed character with a good background over a crunchy number ball with a bad background every time.

I'm not a fan of reams of advantages and limitations. Keeping it simple will keep the game good. And accessible to a larger customer base.