Characteristics Issues

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually I won and lost a few races based upon Ego Rolls, Pushing, REC and End rather than Spd and Base stats. Geee Hero is Pretty and Customizable!

Pushing is not supposed to be usable except in truly heroic situations, and its use in an Olympic competition is specifically noted as a place where it would not be appropriate. So we move to "the PC wins every time because he can Push".

REC and END would be highly relevant to long distance events. So would long-term END, which should all but eliminate Pushing as a viable option. But I doubt you would see too many marathon runners with a REC of 4 and 20 END.

In the real world, the marathoners might put on a burst of speed at the end, but they're pretty measured throughout. We had the World Games here some years back, and I can remember the marathon being broadcast in part. Watching the runners themselves, they appeared to lope along at a pretty measured pace. However, when they approached the end, spectators near the finish started running with them. They couldn't keep pace for any material period with these guys who had already run about 26 miles. To me, that's pretty good END/REC management coupled with a running speed that exceeds the baseline human number. Bump Running up to 10" (8 points), take it down to half END (5 points) and bump REC to 7 (6 points) and I think the marathon is well in hand. Or Running up to 7" (2 points), add a SPD point (10 points) and bump REC to 7 (6 points) and you beat my first example. My guess is those marathoners have a pretty fair CON to boot.

A footrace isn't really what the system is designed to emulate. You could definitely toolkit it, though. If you want a game where such races are pretty common, a series of CON rolls, with bonuses/penalties for running-specific skills, higher than average END, REC, CON, Running and SPD, would be the likely approach. But no one would suggest removing CON from the characteristic list, or eliminating the ability to change your running speed (something many games don't feature) because "very few people would play Track & Field Hero".

[James Gillen]

I don't see why some people are so hooked on removing the old HRC characteristic for hair color.

I know, some argue that it has no real game effect, but that's just not true. Fair hair is generally considered more sttractive than dark hair, so it should give a bonus to some PRE skill rolls. In bright light, very fair hair can also blind people (a minor Flash-like effect that's certainly worth some points). True, people with a very high HRC characteristic find it harder to hide in darkness, but that's similar to the RuneQuest POW stat, which also makes it harder to hide.

Others argue that hair color can't really be quantified that precisely. Where do redheads fit into the scale? Or what about aliens with very different hair colors or no hair at all? Well, most campaigns have no aliens, and I don't think HRC should be removed because it doesn't fit the occasional skinhead or redhead.

If people don't like HRC, they can just play without it - there's certainly room enough on the character sheet for one or two characteristics that aren't always used.

And for those who suggest that HRC might be better suited as a Talent or a special case of Obvious Features, I say: Get real! Obviously hair color needs more precise quantification than that. I think we can all agree that there is an obvious difference between chestnut hair and hazel hair, and of course this should be reflected in the system.

I'm sure that if HRC wasn't already a characteristic, there would be just as many people arguing that it should be included as there now are arguing that it should be removed. Nuff said!
;)

- Klaus

Excelsior!

[nexus]

I don't see why some people are so hooked on removing the old HRC characteristic for hair color.

I know, some argue that it has no real game effect, but that's just not true. Fair hair is generally considered more sttractive than dark hair, so it should give a bonus to some PRE skill rolls. In bright light, very fair hair can also blind people (a minor Flash-like effect that's certainly worth some points). True, people with a very high HRC characteristic find it harder to hide in darkness, but that's similar to the RuneQuest POW stat, which also makes it harder to hide.

Others argue that hair color can't really be quantified that precisely. Where do redheads fit into the scale? Or what about aliens with very different hair colors or no hair at all? Well, most campaigns have no aliens, and I don't think HRC should be removed because it doesn't fit the occasional skinhead or redhead.

If people don't like HRC, they can just play without it - there's certainly room enough on the character sheet for one or two characteristics that aren't always used.

And for those who suggest that HRC might be better suited as a Talent or a special case of Obvious Features, I say: Get real! Obviously hair color needs more precise quantification than that. I think we can all agree that there is an obvious difference between chestnut hair and hazel hair, and of course this should be reflected in the system.

I'm sure that if HRC wasn't already a characteristic, there would be just as many people arguing that it should be included as there now are arguing that it should be removed. Nuff said!
;)

- Klaus

:rolleyes:

Is it out of your system now?

[Vulcan]

I don't see why some people are so hooked on removing the old HRC characteristic for hair color.

I know, some argue that it has no real game effect, but that's just not true. Fair hair is generally considered more sttractive than dark hair, so it should give a bonus to some PRE skill rolls. In bright light, very fair hair can also blind people (a minor Flash-like effect that's certainly worth some points). True, people with a very high HRC characteristic find it harder to hide in darkness, but that's similar to the RuneQuest POW stat, which also makes it harder to hide.

Others argue that hair color can't really be quantified that precisely. Where do redheads fit into the scale? Or what about aliens with very different hair colors or no hair at all? Well, most campaigns have no aliens, and I don't think HRC should be removed because it doesn't fit the occasional skinhead or redhead.

If people don't like HRC, they can just play without it - there's certainly room enough on the character sheet for one or two characteristics that aren't always used.

And for those who suggest that HRC might be better suited as a Talent or a special case of Obvious Features, I say: Get real! Obviously hair color needs more precise quantification than that. I think we can all agree that there is an obvious difference between chestnut hair and hazel hair, and of course this should be reflected in the system.

I'm sure that if HRC wasn't already a characteristic, there would be just as many people arguing that it should be included as there now are arguing that it should be removed. Nuff said!
;)

- Klaus

Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about?

[Vulcan]

It looks to me (and to some other people who have sent private messages to me) that Mr. Mogensen, having no vaild point to make, has chosen to resort to sarcasm and belittlement.

I thought this was supposed to be a discussion over the merits and flaws of the Hero System with an emphasis on how we could make it better for the 6th Edition, not a place to insult fellow hobbyists over what is, ultimately, a small issue.

Regardless of how the decision is made, I expect the people who disagree will make a house rule to suit themselves. In light of that, being rude in this discussion seems pretty pointless.

It is, of course, possible that Mr. Mogensen was trying to be funny, and I'm just oversensitive. I admit I can get that way when carefully crafted arguements are ignored in favor of 'fluff'.

[CTaylor]

Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about?

Just a weak attempt at satire.

[Vulcan]

Then I apologize for getting harsh on my last post.

[BobGreenwade]

Over in the Hero System Discussion forum, I just posted a PDF file (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28431&d=1213044266) with my take on how COM could (and, to an extent, should) work. It's pretty completist, taking things to rather an extreme, but I think that at least the basic principles described therein (the first couple of pages or so, boiled down to their most basic) could be incorporated into the 6th Edition rules.

Steve, you have my permission to use any of what's in that PDF, verbatim or otherwise, in the 6th Edition rulebook or any other tome (like an Ultimate book or something else where an expansion on COM might be appropriate).

[Vulcan]

I think everyone needs to look at that PDF. That is some amazing stuff, Bob, thanks for sharing it. There's a good chance that some of it will be appearing on a character I'm working on (he's a standard Energy Projector with an eye for the ladies and a talent for getting dates).

Mr. Long, that is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'd like to see in 6E for COM.

[Southern Cross]

Same here.

[nexus]

Over in the Hero System Discussion forum, I just posted a PDF file (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28431&d=1213044266) with my take on how COM could (and, to an extent, should) work. It's pretty completist, taking things to rather an extreme, but I think that at least the basic principles described therein (the first couple of pages or so, boiled down to their most basic) could be incorporated into the 6th Edition rules.

Steve, you have my permission to use any of what's in that PDF, verbatim or otherwise, in the 6th Edition rulebook or any other tome (like an Ultimate book or something else where an expansion on COM might be appropriate).

That's really some great work.

[James Gillen]

Over in the Hero System Discussion forum, I just posted a PDF file (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28431&d=1213044266) with my take on how COM could (and, to an extent, should) work. It's pretty completist, taking things to rather an extreme, but I think that at least the basic principles described therein (the first couple of pages or so, boiled down to their most basic) could be incorporated into the 6th Edition rules.

Steve, you have my permission to use any of what's in that PDF, verbatim or otherwise, in the 6th Edition rulebook or any other tome (like an Ultimate book or something else where an expansion on COM might be appropriate).

"A person can be only “above average” in
overall looks but exude sexuality, while someone else can be
strikingly beautiful but have only moderate sexual attractiveness."

Quite true.
For instance, Nicole Kidman is exactly my type- tall redhead with a great face and figure- but she doesn't do it for me. I don't think Renee Zellweger is all that attractive but she comes off as a lot sexier.

jg

[Marcus Impudite]

Just a weak attempt at satire.
Very weak.

[mayapuppies]

150 Pages about COM? Holy crud!

[ideasmith]

150 Pages about COM? Holy crud!

While I haven't measured it, I would guess that about half of this thread is about COM. There were other things to say about characteristics, most notably the Figured Characteristic discussion.

[Trebuchet]

I think everyone needs to look at that PDF. That is some amazing stuff, Bob, thanks for sharing it. There's a good chance that some of it will be appearing on a character I'm working on (he's a standard Energy Projector with an eye for the ladies and a talent for getting dates).

Mr. Long, that is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'd like to see in 6E for COM.Ditto. Truly fantastic; and just the kind of honest improvement 6E needs to have if it wants to be worthy of my dollars.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ditto. Truly fantastic; and just the kind of honest improvement 6E needs to have if it wants to be worthy of my dollars.

Treb, I think this cuts to the core of the most significant issue in the creation of 6e, and one that we seem to dance around, given the structure of this forum. We're focused on specific issues, but what's the big picture?

Someone a while back posted the comment that he could not believe someone would change gaming systems over comeliness. I'm inclined to agree. However, I don't think DoJ should be focused on whether any given change will cause people to leave Hero. They should be focused on whether any given change will attract purchasers of Hero 6e.

We don't have to change systems to keep playing 5e, and that is certainly what many of us will do if the changes from 5e to 6e are not to our liking. In order to attract the dollars, as Treb says, 6e needs to make improvements on 5e. 5e is a very strong system, IMO, so Steve has his work cut out for him to make significant improvements and persuade those of us who are playing, and enjoying, 5e to spend the dollars to upgrade to 6e.

Removing COM or changing it to a talent probably isn't a dealbreaker for me. But it's also not a dealmaker. I can stick to 5e and be just as happy. As well, I suspect most or all of the "don't like COM" crowd can also easily stick with 5e and just ignore COM. So how many new sales will eliminating COM, converting it to a talent or retaining it as is generate? I'd say a pretty small number, if any. But expanding the role of COM and making it truly worthy of remaining a characteristic in its own right - as Bob's article does, in my opinion, adds something of at least some significance and would be a step towards attracting my dollars as well.

And unless 6e is going to attract dollars, I'd say it'sneither worth Steve's time and effort to write, or nor DoJ's effort to publish.

[AnotherSkip]

Go ahead. Just try justifying a COM score on a palindromedary. To the palindromedary.

Do all palindromedary characters appear the same?
Is the palindromedary prettier than other palindromedarys? Uglier? about the same?

Irregardless of your answers you have an adjuctable appearance, therefor your palindromedary has a Com stat.
:)

[AnotherSkip]

Pushing is not supposed to be usable except in truly heroic situations, and its use in an Olympic competition is specifically noted as a place where it would not be appropriate. So we move to "the PC wins every time because he can Push". Soooo we make the game less interesting because the gm is suddenly unable to make decisions that can enchance gameplay?

Interesting suggestion.... and oh yeah the other competitors (PC & NPC) could also push, this was for the WIN here folks, not just some ho hum event! major sessions involved here that could determine the future of the game hanging in the balance! If that isn't a situation for the whipping out the "hero" rules then Doc Destroyer doesn't count either.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Over in the Hero System Discussion forum, I just posted a PDF file (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28431&d=1213044266) with my take on how COM could (and, to an extent, should) work. It's pretty completist, taking things to rather an extreme, but I think that at least the basic principles described therein (the first couple of pages or so, boiled down to their most basic) could be incorporated into the 6th Edition rules.
This certainly looks well thought out, but is indicative of what I see as a major change for the worse since 4e (and perhaps even 3e). For lack of better words, I will call it "description bloat". This is a close relative of feature creep, the introduction into products of more and more rarely-used features that make it unnecessarily complex (as seen in many cellphones). In the case of description bloat, however, there are very few new features added, it is just that all features are explained in excessive detail.

Most gamers aren't engineers; they don't want to read a 1000-page manual just to make a character, and they (or their GMs) are perfectly able to make on-the-spot judgement calls for rarely occuring situations or uses of abilities. Explaining things in overly much detail is a disfavor, I think.

I'm reminded of the old AD&D Wilderness Survival Guide, which had tables for how long it takes to start or put out campfires of varying sizes, or one of the Rolemaster Companions that had a Rape Critical Table. This is detail that I neither need nor want.

I think that if Comeliness is retained (and it's not a dealbreaker to me, though I would prefer to see it go as part of a streamlining of Hero), the description should be short and succint - no more than a quarter page at most. More could be suitable for an Ultimate Characteristics book for those who really need/want everything described in enormous detail.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

150 Pages about COM? Holy crud!

Hunh?

The PDF by Bob is 24 pages, and a good portion of it is power builds (that would go into the power section) and talents based on COM (not to be confused with talents REPLACING COM, and would go into the talent section), and optional rules that would likely end up spread across the 6E 'Ultimate' books.

Where'd you get '150 pages' from?

[Vulcan]

<smacks forehead with hand> DOH!

You mean the number of pages in this forum. Sorry.

[schir1964]

Concerning COM and BobGreenwade's PDF:

If COM is to have equal weight as a mechanic vs the other mechanics, then it needs to be fleshed out more mechanically, just as Bob has done. However, even if it were made to have more effect mechanically, my preference would be that it be moved into the Optional Rules section. And that's all it is, a preference, since I think it lends itself to violating the social contract between the player and GM (Presence does too, but it is too ingrained into the system to push for it to be moved to the optional rules).

Appearance is handled by the character's background/description, actions, disadvantages, and more importantly, the player's role-playing of the character choice of reaction to other character's appearance. Same goes for NPC's (Major or Minor), a dice roll won't decide their reaction, as GM, I will.

If it stays, it won't make a difference to me since it never existed anyway, but that's just me.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Vulcan]

Klaus, if you want to play a simple, stripped down game system, there are several other ones available. The core of the HERO system is that very level of detail that you are decrying.

Stripping details out of HERO System just starts bringing it closer to the level of the d20 system, or (taken to extremes) the Vampire system. Most of the people who play HERO System do so because of the level of detail and customization that these other systems just can't match. So taking too much of it out could easily result in the loss of the 'core audience,' while making the game too close to the other game systems to pick up a matching number of new customers.

As things sit now, HERO System is the only game with that level of detail, which puts it on a level beyond the other systems. Bring it down to their level, you put it into direct competetion with them... and the thinned-out HERO System might not survive that.

[Rockhoof]

It looks to me (and to some other people who have sent private messages to me) that Mr. Mogensen, having no vaild point to make, has chosen to resort to sarcasm and belittlement.

Actually, Mogensen's post is a classic reductio ad absurdum. Your post, however, comes across like an ad hominem. I may be reading your post wrong, but it seems like you're attacking him by accusing him of belittlement when you have little or no evidence of such. Reductio ad absurdum arguments are just that, absurd. They exist to show you that the the outcome of a line of thought is inconsistent with some other presupposition that both parties feel bound to. In this case, the twin presuppositions that characteristics should a) have some consistency across all character concepts and b) in the case of living things, a characteristic should be nearly universal. He wasn't insulting anyone, and even if he was, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Eleanor Roosevelt said that and it needs to be remembered because text is a lousy medium for nuance.

To go on, his point is valid, and is in fact, a clever restatement of what quite a few people have been saying: COM as a characteristic can go the way of the dodo, because it's too often not applicable. Further, when COM is applicable, there is a problem of social constructs to worry about. COM doesn't translate across cultural boundaries realisticly very well. As a model, it fails.

Myself, after some thought and reading on this thread, I feel that COM has one other problem: As constructed, it's a limited form of PRE that is priced too expensively.

My solution would be to change Presence to Personality and roll up COM and PRE into the definition. Presence and Prettiness become SFX of a character's Personality, which can be bought to zero for anything that doesn't have one, like automatons, non-AI programs and objects.

[Netzilla]

Klaus, if you want to play a simple, stripped down game system, there are several other ones available. The core of the HERO system is that very level of detail that you are decrying.

I (and I suspect Klaus) feel that there's quite a bit of room between what we have now and a "stripped down game system". When I see that phrase, I think of games like BESM, TFOS and (the ultimate in stripped down) FUDGE. There's a pretty big gap there.

Stripping details out of HERO System just starts bringing it closer to the level of the d20 system, or (taken to extremes) the Vampire system. Most of the people who play HERO System do so because of the level of detail and customization that these other systems just can't match. So taking too much of it out could easily result in the loss of the 'core audience,' while making the game too close to the other game systems to pick up a matching number of new customers.

So, just to make sure we're on the same page, do you consider Sidekick to be too close to d20 or Storyteller for your tastes? I certainly don't, and I'd same the same for Hero 4th, along with Champions 3. All of those have considerably smaller core rule books than Hero 5, much less 5ER, does.

As things sit now, HERO System is the only game with that level of detail, which puts it on a level beyond the other systems. Bring it down to their level, you put it into direct competetion with them... and the thinned-out HERO System might not survive that.

The question is, how much detail is needed by the average gamer in the CORE rulebook? One of the most oft-cited reasons for not adopting Hero as the game system of choice is it's perceived complexity. Part of that is based on our having a 500+ page core rulebook. A core rulebook the size of a college text book is intimidating to many potential players.

Now, I assume that everyone would agree that we want to attract new players to the Hero System. For us, it gives us all more potential people to game with. For DOJ, it improves profitability. Prior to the MMO deal, DOJ didn't appear to be in the greatest financial shape, so maintaining the status quo doesn't do them any good. They have to attract new players. One of the best ways to do that is to take a look at changing those things that kept them from adopting Hero in the first place. Again, one of the most oft-cited reasons is complexity and the shear size of the core rulebook. I agree that DOJ doesn't want to go too far, but quite frankly, I feel there's plenty of room to simplify the system without loosing it's greatest strength, flexibility.

[AnotherSkip]

Over in the Hero System Discussion forum, I just posted a PDF file (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28431&d=1213044266) with my take on how COM could (and, to an extent, should) work. It's pretty completist, taking things to rather an extreme, but I think that at least the basic principles described therein (the first couple of pages or so, boiled down to their most basic) could be incorporated into the 6th Edition rules.

Steve, you have my permission to use any of what's in that PDF, verbatim or otherwise, in the 6th Edition rulebook or any other tome (like an Ultimate book or something else where an expansion on COM might be appropriate).

Cool nuff, if that doesn't do it then *thinks uncharatable thoughts about S Long.*

Shallow Hal a Jack Black Movie also has a relevant point or two.

Hmmmm new character based around the Analyse Looks A gossip collumist....
Oooh a hunter/opponent for a famous character with Secret ID....

oh and Kirk and the alien girls could be covered by the Alien varient of the Bisexual limitation....

Dollhouse.... Heh *Snip* the characters may never see her, but i know Just where to put her.

[Rockhoof]

Again, one of the most oft-cited reasons is complexity and the shear size of the core rulebook. I agree that DOJ doesn't want to go too far, but quite frankly, I feel there's plenty of room to simplify the system without loosing it's greatest strength, flexibility.


I agree, abstraction is a wonderful thing, let SFX do most of the 'reasoning' and let the rules deal with conflict. HERO does an awesome job of this, but it could be awesom-er. Yeah, I said awesome-er.

[jeffkmills]

First, let me start by saying that I don't have the time to read over a thousand posts from folks quibbling over the non-issue of COM, much less 28 pages of well-meaning but supremely over-written text on the subject.

My priority when coming here and discussing 6e is the need to try to attract first- or second-time gamers to the product. Like it or not, sales is what it's all about. We don't get the excellent products we love to have in our hot little hands unless the system is selling. Thanks and kudos to Steve for taking over when he did, and making HERO system what it is today!

There is an underlying conflict here, though: granularity vs. simplicity. Without ease of understanding, the novice feels that the rules are too much for them to try to grasp, or simply takes too much time investment in order to get up to speed. OTOH, the granularity of the system - literally being able to tailor the genre, or a specific power, to do exactly what you need for the game you want to run - is the hallmark, the essential core of HERO.

So, how do we get to a happy medium? Sidekick, IMHO, was one such effort. Keep character generation as simple as possible, to allow the new players a chance to grasp the mechanics before they are overwhelmed with two 600+ page tomes. This is where HERO gets a little schizophrenic!

While plenty of explanatory detail is great, text needs to be trimmed, especially in the areas where the players will be encountering long before they make their first die roll. Explain how and why things work, yes, but cut text like your life depends on it. The fewer pages, the better, at the start. Overwhelm them with detail after we have happy customers, please.

The nitty gritty of granularity can be saved for a GM's tome and genre books, Ultimate books, and so on. Let the GMs determine how much complexity they want to feed their players, and when, as appropriate to the game they want to run.

All that being said, what's the player likely to encounter first? Character creation, and specifically, Characteristics. 17+ Characteristics is insanely complex and overwhelming, but many of these are necessary. A precious few could be trimmed with minimal difficulty, however:

CON and BODY. These two need to be combined into a single Characteristic that covers both. What you wish to call it is moot, and I will not do so here for fear of stepping on what some other game system has called a similar stat, and thereby offending the dear readers of this post ("That's just like such-and-such game! I hate it already!" :mad:). Let's call it CON-BODY for now. I don't see that making the base number to be Stunned and the total hits the same is a real issue. A more system-wise player could always buy C-B, Only to Prevent Stun -1. Further, new players can grasp it easier, because it's their base hits, as well as this Stunned concept they're not quite fully familiar with yet. It neatly combines the full functionality of both Characteristics without losing much (if anything) from either one separately as it currently stands.

COM and PRE. These two are so close to the same Characteristic, it's not funny. Physical beauty is not all it's cracked up to be. Many people see right through it. For others, they are not attracted to the same physical attributes as the so-called mainstream, hereinafter referred to as "the culture" or simply, "the media". For example, up until the 60's, many of what passes for today's women would have been viewed as "emaciated twigs". In the middle ages, a zoftig woman was the ideal of many a painter. Much more "impressive" is the person who trancends physical beauty but can still hold the rapt attention of those who they interact with. Let the combined Characteristic meld both concepts together, and simplify.

PD/ED. I'm one of those who understands tradition, believe me. But two Characteristics for DEF, while a hallmark of the game from the beginning, is one too many. Apply Limitations, like we do to every other Characteristic, to achieve the desired goal. It cleans up the character sheet, and simplifies things enormously.

REC. I recall a post from some martial arts student who basically said (paraphrased), "I wish I could simply not do anything and take a Recovery for a few seconds in the middle of a competition. But that's not the reality of it. I would get pummled by my opponent if I tried that." The question is, what do we want for a game? "Dramatic" realism suggests that REC is nice, if not "realistic". Should this stay, or go? If it became an "optional" Characteristic, is might work well for some games. By one over-simplistic example, REC might work well is super-heroic games, but may be less desirable in a Heroic genre.

END. People have talked up this one, as well. No one likes to keep track of their END, or Encumbrance. It's a tedious, cumbersome task. While I understand the concept of "battle fatigue", perhaps this, too, can be an optional characteristic. It may be more difficult to construct a game system and balancing powers and the like this way, but much easier for players and GMs, both old and new.

Running, Leaping and Swimming. Please just remove them from the tabulation of Characteristics. As Powers, they work well. But most players never buy these up past their base. The most I ever see is players buy +1" of Running, so they have an advantage on Half-moves. This is not a reason to have them on the sheet, listed as a Characteristic. Sure, they'll be listed elsewhere, but for now, let's not intimidate the newbies.

SPD. The grand hallmark of HERO, without which it really wouldn't be HERO, would it? Yet many don't run with it in their games, either. Might this be listed as a "recommended" Characteristic, with the sidebar that it may be easily removed without damaging the playability of the rest of the system, for those who do not wish the added complexity? That would allow players and GM to make the determination for their own respective games.

That could leave us with as little as 8 Characteristics: STR, DEX, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE, DEF, and STUN. There would only be two "Figured" Characteristics, DEF and STUN (plus SPD if a GM chose to include it). And yes, I do believe in "Figured" Characteristics; why the issue is a problem seems to be that there are so damned many of them.

This proposal creates the kind of simplicity that a re-tooling of HERO needs, with out losing much, if any, of the granularity.

Let's debate! Game on! :)

Jeffrey Mills

[nexus]

Personally, I don't want the corebook to be massively cut down. I think the core alone should be enough to run practically any genre -without- a great deal of and handwaving and "roll some dice/make something up" style gaming. I come to Hero to avoid that and having to purchase = several different books just to get the information to run a new genre/setting or whatever.

In many ways I agree with Vulcan and a few others, Hero isn't a "rules-light" system and I don't the focus should be on making it one. To answer a question posed earlier, I don't think Sidekick is bad; it's its nice introduction to the system and an economical purchase for players who will only have a casual interest in the game But I would not like the actual corebook to the size of Sidekick. You can say "most" gamers aren't engineers (I'd actually argue differently considering how many threads there are about game modifications and trying to X game do Y on various gaming forums) but the Hero's contingent fans mostly are. Hero is billed as toolkit and as such it's going to be fairly technical and, well, bulky. So you can make what you want with it.

Looking at it from a different perspective, yes, drawing new players is a good thing but alienating your current fanbase isn't unless you are -certain- you can attract enough new players to replace them. So any large scale changes should be closely monitored.

[nexus]

Actually, Mogensen's post is a classic [I]reductio ad absurdum.

A rather weak once since it assumes a level of incompetence and ignorance in the viewpoint he's addressing that doesn't appear to be present and assumes that Comeliness is as useful as an attribute for "hair color". It borders on being a strawman argument.

[BobGreenwade]

This certainly looks well thought out, but is indicative of what I see as a major change for the worse since 4e (and perhaps even 3e). For lack of better words, I will call it "description bloat". This is a close relative of feature creep, the introduction into products of more and more rarely-used features that make it unnecessarily complex (as seen in many cellphones). In the case of description bloat, however, there are very few new features added, it is just that all features are explained in excessive detail.

I think that if Comeliness is retained (and it's not a dealbreaker to me, though I would prefer to see it go as part of a streamlining of Hero), the description should be short and succint - no more than a quarter page at most. More could be suitable for an Ultimate Characteristics book for those who really need/want everything described in enormous detail.(middle paragraphs snipped by Yours Truly)

The PDF is deliberately built, as I said, to be "completist" in its approach, throwing everything possible. There's no way I'd want all of that, or even all of the rules presented (least of all COM Attacks), in the core rulebook. But limiting the entire description to a quarter page is going too far the other way; there's more than that in 5ER. Half to three-quarters of a page, boiling down the first page and a half of my description to half of that text in addition to an equally pared-down version of what's in 5ER, would be about right IMO.[FONT=Verdana]Concerning COM and BobGreenwade's PDF:

If COM is to have equal weight as a mechanic vs the other mechanics, then it needs to be fleshed out more mechanically, just as Bob has done. However, even if it were made to have more effect mechanically, my preference would be that it be moved into the Optional Rules section. And that's all it is, a preference, since I think it lends itself to violating the social contract between the player and GM (Presence does too, but it is too ingrained into the system to push for it to be moved to the optional rules).Most of what I have in the PDF would naturally be optional rules, and 90% or more wouldn't be in the core rulebook. I don't think COM itself should be made optional; just flesh it out so it does in the rulebook what it does in so many people's campaigns, and in the source material.

The part on scarring and broken bones could maybe go into the core rulebook as new options. I don't like the idea of COM Attacks, and included it only (as I said) for completeness -- someone else, either in this thread or elsewhere, posited the idea, and I played with a fellow once who tried a similar thing under 3rd Ed. Some of the stuff on existing Skills and Powers could be included in the core rulebook as passing ideas, but none of the new Skills, Talents, or Power Modifiers -- though they could certainly go into some future Ultimate-style book.

The main point behind the PDF is to show the general line of thought behind what COM can do, not necessarily what should go into the 6th Edition rulebook.COM and PRE. These two are so close to the same Characteristic, it's not funny. Physical beauty is not all it's cracked up to be. Many people see right through it. For others, they are not attracted to the same physical attributes as the so-called mainstream, hereinafter referred to as "the culture" or simply, "the media". For example, up until the 60's, many of what passes for today's women would have been viewed as "emaciated twigs". In the middle ages, a zoftig woman was the ideal of many a painter. Much more "impressive" is the person who trancends physical beauty but can still hold the rapt attention of those who they interact with. Let the combined Characteristic meld both concepts together, and simplify.While I agree with the general principles you cite, I disagree strongly with your conclusion. As others have pointed out, the main attraction of Hero has been the detail with which one can build one's character. In point of fact, one of the innovations that attracted me to the Hero System was its separation of traditionally combined Characteristics, most especially PRE and COM.

And it clearly bears repeating (for at least the third time, not counting the PDF) that there's much more to COM than sexual attractiveness. After all, there's a huge difference between a Lambourghini and a Studebaker (or even a Prius and a Scion).

[Paragon]

While I haven't measured it, I would guess that about half of this thread is about COM. There were other things to say about characteristics, most notably the Figured Characteristic discussion.

Certainly, most of my involvement was initially about figureds; unlike the Com issue, I don't consider that fundamentally trivial no matter what the decision ends up being.

[Netzilla]

Personally, I don't want the corebook to be massively cut down. I think the core alone should be enough to run practically any genre -without- a great deal of and handwaving and "roll some dice/make something up" style gaming. I come to Hero to avoid that and having to purchase = several different books just to get the information to run a new genre/setting or whatever.

I believe this goal can be accomplished without having a 500+ page tome like we have now. Do you think 4th edition was substantially less flexible than 5th? I don't and yet 4th only clocked in at 256 pages.

In many ways I agree with Vulcan and a few others, Hero isn't a "rules-light" system and I don't the focus should be on making it one.

I don't see anyone suggesting that as a course of action for 6th edition.

To answer a question posed earlier, I don't think Sidekick is bad; it's its nice introduction to the system and an economical purchase for players who will only have a casual interest in the game But I would not like the actual corebook to the size of Sidekick.

Personally, my preference would be to use Sidekick as the guideline for building the "players book" and putting what remains in a separate book for those who want that level of detail. This would help prevent both "sticker shock" at the cost of the core book being $50 or more, plus "page shock" with the size of the core book being 500+ pages. Overall, a cheaper and easier to digest core rulebook would eliminate the majority of the complaints I read and hear about the Hero system.

You can say "most" gamers aren't engineers (I'd actually argue differently considering how many threads there are about game modifications and trying to X game do Y on various gaming forums) but the Hero's contingent fans mostly are. Hero is billed as toolkit and as such it's going to be fairly technical and, well, bulky. So you can make what you want with it.

The question is, "how much is too much"? I think 5th edition crossed that line and 5ER went even further. Fourth had about the right amount of complexity. Rules-wise, 5th didn't add that many new rules, but it sure added a lot of text.

Looking at it from a different perspective, yes, drawing new players is a good thing but alienating your current fanbase isn't unless you are -certain- you can attract enough new players to replace them. So any large scale changes should be closely monitored.

Again, considering that DOJ was having financial difficulties prior to the MMO deal, they can't feasibly keep doing things the same way. They have to try something different or they'll go the way of the previous owners. None of us want that. Maintaining your existing fan base without drawing in new customers is just as certainly a strategy for failure as alienating your existing fanbase all together.

I will re-iterate that I think there is plenty of room to remove bloat from Hero without it becoming rules-lite. Sidekick is not rules lite; fourth edition was not rules lite, nor was third; MnM and DnD are not rules lite. Outside of these boards, I've never seen rules lite used to describe D20. Consider the disconnect if you believe D20 to be rules lite while the majority of the non-Hero gaming community considers it to be more 'middle of the road' on the complexity scale.

[Paragon]

I believe this goal can be accomplished without having a 500+ page tome like we have now. Do you think 4th edition was substantially less flexible than 5th? I don't and yet 4th only clocked in at 256 pages.



I think it was slightly less flexible and substantially less clear; its wise not to forget how much of that page count is taken up by examples, and I think those are gold for new players.

[nexus]

I believe this goal can be accomplished without having a 500+ page tome like we have now. Do you think 4th edition was substantially less flexible than 5th?


Yes, I think it was less flexible. "Substantially" is a matter of opinion but it 5th edition was enough of an improvement for me that I invested a great deal in it money of it. YMMV.


I don't see anyone suggesting that as a course of action for 6th edition.


I see allot of harping about how "complex" and lengthy Hero is and needs to majorly slimmed down. I put "rules light" in quotes but that is a matter of opinion but the suggestions I've sene for so called improvements have leaned in that direction, IMO.


The question is, "how much is too much"? I think 5th edition crossed that line and 5ER went even further. Fourth had about the right amount of complexity. Rules-wise, 5th didn't add that many new rules, but it sure added a lot of text.


And here we disagree. I'm also not particularly fond of the idea of having buy a "Player's book" and a "GM's book" when I already have a corebook that satisfies both needs. Again, that's something I came to Hero to get away from. YMMV.


Again, considering that DOJ was having financial difficulties prior to the MMO deal, they can't feasibly keep doing things the same way. They have to try something different or they'll go the way of the previous owners. None of us want that. Maintaining your existing fan base without drawing in new customers is just as certainly a strategy for failure as alienating your existing fanbase all together.


And I'm not certain this "new" suggestion isn't going to make things better for them. From my standpoint, it won't. Alienating your existing fanbase in a misguided attempted to draw in my more customers is just going to hasten things along in the end.


I will re-iterate that I think there is plenty of room to remove bloat from Hero without it becoming rules-lite. Sidekick is not rules lite; fourth edition was not rules lite, nor was third; MnM and DnD are not rules lite. Outside of these boards, I've never seen rules lite used to describe D20. Consider the disconnect if you believe D20 to be rules lite while the majority of the non-Hero gaming community considers it to be more 'middle of the road' on the complexity scale.

Honestly, I don't think d20 is any less or more "complex" than Hero and most of the Hero players I've talked don't feel D20 is "middle of road" while Hero is more complex. I'm not going to claim they are the "majority" because there's really no to prove or disprove that without taking a grand poll of Hero players.

As I've said before, my opinions are based on my preferences. If 6th edition isn't worth my money, I won't be buying it. It's as simple as that and right now that's looks like how it's going to work out.

All I can speak for are myself and what I've gathered from talking to other people that enjoy and player Hero I've personally talking to. For that group the "improvements" currently being suggested aren't for the most part.

If it works for DOJ, great I just won't be terribly surprised if it doesn't.

[Markdoc]

That could leave us with as little as 8 Characteristics: STR, DEX, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE, DEF, and STUN. There would only be two "Figured" Characteristics, DEF and STUN (plus SPD if a GM chose to include it). And yes, I do believe in "Figured" Characteristics; why the issue is a problem seems to be that there are so damned many of them.

This proposal creates the kind of simplicity that a re-tooling of HERO needs, with out losing much, if any, of the granularity.

Let's debate! Game on! :)

Jeffrey Mills

I've snipped the rest, just to focus on this last point. What you are talking about is a new game, somewhat related to Hero system. I can't see why I'd buy it. That might not matter much, except that I suspect few long term hero players would either: who wants to buy a game that offers less than the one you already own? Even that might not matter much, if it attracted lots of new players.

Which, I suspect, it wouldn't.

Without a substantial advertising budget, with all of the visual appeal for casual browsers of " A clinical user's introduction to gastric endoscopy" and a reputation as a flexible but rules-heavy sim game, it is not going to compete well (read: at all) for the MMO crowd. Traditionally, the entry portal to HERO games has been it's dedicated (perhaps even slightly cultish) fanbase.

Turning it into a game where the core user base says "It used to be a really cool game and then they trashed it" is likely to lead where the last over-simplification of the system led: to the graveyard of forgotten games.

cheers, Mark

[Netzilla]

I think it was slightly less flexible and substantially less clear; its wise not to forget how much of that page count is taken up by examples, and I think those are gold for new players.

Yes, I think it was less flexible. "Substantially" is a matter of opinion but it 5th edition was enough of an improvement for me that I invested a great deal in it money of it. YMMV.

It does depend on what you consider substantial. Yes, there were gray areas, such as Linked but not nearly so many as to justify adding 336 pages to the core rule book (from 4 to 5er). That's a 231% the page count or 4th and that's just too much.

After all, many of us did manage to stumble our way through 4th, 3rd and earlier editions somehow without all the extras. Does the casual player really need "Chapter 7, Changing the System" or is that better left for experienced die-hard GMs? Do we really need to spend 3 pages explaining how falling damage works? There are plenty of places where things can be trimmed and re-organized for both brevity and improved understanding. The fact that, in order to to find all the possible Advantages & Limitations that I could put on my Force Field, I have to look in 6 different sections of the book (Defense Powers, the Force Field description, Advantages, Limitations, Weapons & Armor and finally Vehicles & Bases) actually makes the rules harder to work with and understand.

That's probably the biggest thing I'm talking about when I talk about simplifying the system and reducing page count (I can't speak for anyone else). I'm not saying we need to get rid of Megascale, nor have I argued in favor of dropping or keeping COM and I agree with Bob Greenwade's idea on how to fix the balance issues of Figured Chars. Re-editing the text for brevity and clarity will go a longer way towards making the Hero System understandable than removing things will. Some rule changes could possibly make things simpler (or at least shorter without increasing complexity, like combining PD/ED, Damage Resistance, Force Field and Armor), but those changes are minor compared to editing and re-organization in my mind.

Also, just as an FYI, I do have about 6 feet of shelf space devoted to just 5th edition stuff and probably about another 2-3 feet from older editions. A good chunk of it has neat ideas, but I probably use less than 1/4 of most books and probably less than 10% of several (the core book, USPDB, UV and HSB being the only ones I use in their majority; and with the core book I probably only use about 2/3s to 3/4 of it).

[Netzilla]

I see allot of harping about how "complex" and lengthy Hero is and needs to majorly slimmed down. I put "rules light" in quotes but that is a matter of opinion but the suggestions I've sene for so called improvements have leaned in that direction, IMO.

Speaking only for myself, what I've addressed hasn't been complexity, but rather perceived complexity. I don't consider the Hero System (at its core) to be all that complex. Character creation is only as complicated as you want it to be (the more exotic your character, the more complex it will be). Combat & task resolution, if you leave out all the optional rules is dead simple. However, there's this mass perception out there where Hero is viewed as over-complicated and bloated. What do you propose we do about that? We can't keep going as we have, because that's not working.

And here we disagree. I'm also not particularly fond of the idea of having buy a "Player's book" and a "GM's book" when I already have a corebook that satisfies both needs. Again, that's something I came to Hero to get away from. YMMV.

Depends on the pricing. If two books are not substantially more expensive than 1, then it's no real difference to me. Say, for example, 6th edition as one volume comes in at 650 pages (we're already near 600 with 5er) and has a $55-60 price tag, that's going to be a hard sell for the casual gamer out there, much less those who already view Hero as bloated. If you've got a "basic" book that's 300-350 pages that leaves out the optional/advanced rules (wounds, bleeding, imparing/disabling, changing the system, etc) and clocks in at around $30-35, you've got a lot more reasonable chance to sell that and you still have a complete game in one book. Then, you have the "options" book for about $25-30 containing the various optional rules that increase complexity and you're looking at an overall similar price point ($55-60 vs $55-65) for the completist GM.

And I'm not certain this "new" suggestion isn't going to make things better for them. From my standpoint, it won't. Alienating your existing fanbase in a misguided attempted to draw in my more customers is just going to hasten things along in the end.

I'm not sure which suggestion you're referring to. Mine has simply been to look at areas where the amount of text can be reduced. I haven't been overly specific with my suggestions as, if we can't agree on how long/expensive the core book should be, specific suggestions will get nowhere.

As I've said before, my opinions are based on my preferences. If 6th edition isn't worth my money, I won't be buying it. It's as simple as that and right now that's looks like how it's going to work out.

And a lot of people, myself included, probably won't by 6th edition if it's same as 5th but with more corner-case stuff added in (which is definately how I feel about 5er vs 5th and mildly so about 5th vs 4th).

All I can speak for are myself and what I've gathered from talking to other people that enjoy and player Hero I've personally talking to. For that group the "improvements" currently being suggested aren't for the most part.

If it works for DOJ, great I just won't be terribly surprised if it doesn't.

Well, what they've been doing didn't seem to be working all that well. I assume you're not suggesting that we need to make the system more complicated. Do you think that DOJ should change nothing in spite of the evidence that doing so wasn't working?

[schir1964]

The PDF is deliberately built, as I said, to be "completist" in its approach, throwing everything possible...

...The main point behind the PDF is to show the general line of thought behind what COM can do, not necessarily what should go into the 6th Edition rulebook.
I only glanced over your PDF when I posted, but I went back and read in detail the first two pages again to make sure I didn't miss something.

The issue of COM (for me that is) is that it should have the same clear cut mechanical effect that the other characteristics have. I'm not sure you solved that issue (at least as far as the first two pages).

If it doesn't have a clear cut mechanic and is simply a vague measure of one's overall appearance, then that measure doesn't really give me any idea descriptively about their appearance.

I'll have to go read the Background/Appearance section of the character sheet to get that information, and then I'll need to check the Disadvantages/Perks/Talents for any other related items that may give additional influences on the personality of the character.

Finally, I'll then have to do the same for the NPC who the character is interacting with and then make a decision on the reaction, whatever it may be, since regardless of beauty, different people react differently and not in a consistent manner. The situation the character and npc's are in may actually influence the interaction in a major way that may cause a more consistent reaction, but even that is not guaranteed.

So if I have to go check all those things as factors to get an idea of what that 15 COM means anyway, why bother with having the 15 COM stat to begin with, I'll just go check those things and make my decision on the reaction. One less thing to look at. That's why I said it's never really existed for my games anyway.

But again, that just my preference based on how I handle appearance in my games. Which has no bearing on what may or may not be the common trend of how other people handle appearance.

I'd find your document useful on handling appearance from different perspectives, but not very useful via the COM stat since it never solved the issue (again, for me and only for the first two pages).

As for the enforcing reactions based on COM rolls... that's where I think it treads on the general principle of the social contact between player and GM and who controls the PC reactions.

BTW: Very nice work on the document, but I would have left the picture out for personal reasons.

- Christopher Mullins

[Markdoc]

I'm not saying we need to get rid of Megascale, nor have I argued in favor of dropping or keeping COM and I agree with Bob Greenwade's idea on how to fix the balance issues of Figured Chars. Re-editing the text for brevity and clarity will go a longer way towards making the Hero System understandable than removing things will. Some rule changes could possibly make things simpler (or at least shorter without increasing complexity, like combining PD/ED, Damage Resistance, Force Field and Armor), but those changes are minor compared to editing and re-organization in my mind.

That's what I'd like to see: steamlining and simplification (which I think could make a substantial reduction in bulk without a reduction in content) - not ripping stuff out wholesale "just because". I'd also be open to significant changes in the rules if they came with significant benefits.

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Depends on the pricing


Judging from the current pricing of hardbound books (and I presume the core books at least will be hardbound). I don't see two books as coming in as less expensive than my current copy of 5th.revised. So unless it offers a significant improvement IMO, I won't be getting it. Simple as that. I'm just one customer among thousand and I don't feel my opinions are intrinsically more valuable or accurate than another random Hero player.


Well, what they've been doing didn't seem to be working all that well. I assume you're not suggesting that we need to make the system more complicated. Do you think that DOJ should change nothing in spite of the evidence that doing so wasn't working?

I'm not really convinced a 6th edition is going to be the cure for this problem either or a good idea at all or that "simplification" unless it's its drastic an unpalatable to much of current fan base will draw in a ground swell of new customers (and even that might not too much). It's going to happen barring some unforeseen occurrence so I'm just voicing opinions.

[nexus]

Turning it into a game where the core user base says "It used to be a really cool game and then they trashed it" is likely to lead where the last over-simplification of the system led: to the graveyard of forgotten games.



This is a point I've considered as well. Hero seems to mostly get new players by word of mouth (many games do) and that word comes from the current fanbase. Without a pretty major advertising campaign and much more "glitz" in the production value I'm not sure internal changes will draw in new gamers in large enough numbers to off set the inevitable "bad press" from disappointed former fans.

But this is really starting to drift away from characteristics issues.

[Netzilla]

But this is really starting to drift away from characteristics issues.

Starting? :nonp:

As one of the main contributors to this particular digression :o, I feel I've made my point about as well as I can and will be bowing out of this subthread. It's too bad Steve L closed the thread that had been dedicated to the subject of book length/organization.

Right, I return you now to your regularly scheduled Comliness argument. :p

[Rockhoof]

A rather weak once since it assumes a level of incompetence and ignorance in the viewpoint he's addressing that doesn't appear to be present and assumes that Comeliness is as useful as an attribute for "hair color". It borders on being a strawman argument.

That's the whole point of Reductio ad Absurdum. It shows the logical inconsistency in a new light. That feeling of being upset you're feeling right now? That's cognitive dissonance.

The comparison is exactly that Comeliness is as useful as an attribute for Hair Color, for exactly the same reason: It's not (nearly) universal across character concepts. A hair color attribute forced on a bald guy (fairly common, wouldn't you say?) is exactly analogous to a COM attribute forced on the 'Sole earthbound instance of alien species X', (also fairly common in the Super genera, the Pulp genera, and a host of others). The concept doesn't map well enough, often enough to be a useful abstraction.

IOW: It's not an attribute intrinsic to the properties of the owning character, but an attribute that is quite literally attributed to the properties of the owning character. It's the only attribute that has it's sole basis of effectiveness in the eyes of the beholder. Even worse, it's not obvious when Com should and shouldn't apply, as evidenced by the utter lack of rules for it.

Making Presence and Comeliness a special effect of Personality is a far better solution, because it is obvious when something doesn't have a personality: Zombies, cars, programs and rocks... no personality. What should their COM be? Can you rattle off their scores from memory? Or rationalise them on the spot? No, you can't, because COM is entirely ad hoc. A PER score fixes much of that - intuitively.

What about James Bond? Professor X? High personality, for very different reasons, one's cute and suave, the other's a natural born leader and powerful psychic. Now we have a unified mechanic for social resolution: PER rolls, modified by skills, situations and powers, just like combat. Nice.

[Chris Goodwin]

The comparison is exactly that Comeliness is as useful as an attribute for Hair Color, for exactly the same reason: It's not (nearly) universal across character concepts. A hair color attribute forced on a bald guy (fairly common, wouldn't you say?) is exactly analogous to a COM attribute forced on the 'Sole earthbound instance of alien species X', (also fairly common in the Super genera, the Pulp genera, and a host of others). The concept doesn't map well enough, often enough to be a useful abstraction.

This is an argument against having any measurement of beauty at all in the system, not an argument against the COM stat.

The questions are:

Do we want to have a measurement of beauty in the system?

What does it do?

Once these questions are answered, and not before, we can figure out "Stat or Talent or what?"

And, since we're talking about Comeliness and aliens, who says that an impressive human is going to be impressive to a Z'rb'glax'ian or whatever? Everything from not knowing the language to misinterpreting the queues to something else. (Recall the disastrous first meeting between the humans and Minbari in Babylon 5, for instance. The Minbari came to the meeting with their gun ports open, as a sign of respect, and the humans took this for aggression and opened fire.)

[Klaus Mogensen]

Klaus, if you want to play a simple, stripped down game system, there are several other ones available. The core of the HERO system is that very level of detail that you are decrying.
I'm not objecting to the level of detail. I'm objecting to the level of explanation.

Having examined the difference between 4e and 5e (not having access to 5er), I see very few added powers, skills or other options, but most powers, skills, etc., are explained in 2-3 times as much space. This is what I'm objecting to. Explanation-wise, sometimes less is more.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

First, let me start by saying that I don't have the time to read over a thousand posts from folks quibbling over the non-issue of COM, much less 28 pages of well-meaning but supremely over-written text on the subject.Pardon the digression from the main topic, but... if you don't have time to read it, how on Earth can you tell that it's "supremely over-written"?

[nexus]

That's the whole point of Reductio ad Absurdum. It shows the logical inconsistency in a new light. That feeling of being upset you're feeling right now? That's cognitive dissonance.


Please don't tell me how I feel; I doubt you're psychic. The only thing I felt about the "satire" was some mild contempt as it read like nothing more than a feeble attempt to paint a clown face on the opposing side.

Edit to cut down on snark.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'm sorry but that piece of "wit" didn't open my eyes and wash away illusion that Comeliness has been a useful part of the game for the past 20 years.
And I'm sorry people took offense to it (I did include a smiley to show it shouldn't be taken too seriously).

My main point in doing this was to argue (however obliquely) that if COM wasn't already a part of Hero System, then I don't think a lot of people would be clamoring to include it.

Most of all, I'm sorry that the discussion about COM never seems to end. I think all that can be said has been said, an no further amount of argument is going to move anybody's opinion the least bit. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. The final decision sits with Steve Long, and by now he has plenty of arguments to consider for both keeping COM as it is and for changing it in some way. Further argument (unless somebody has a truly brilliant and original take on the subject) seems redundant to me).

I think the new detail/complexity discussion is much more interesting and relevant, but perhaps it belongs more under General Rules Issues.

- Klaus

[nexus]

A hair color attribute forced on a bald guy (fairly common, wouldn't you say?) is exactly analogous to a COM attribute forced on the 'Sole earthbound instance of alien species X', (also fairly common in the Super genera, the Pulp genera, and a host of others). The concept doesn't map well enough, often enough to be a useful abstraction.


One saying that a single members of an alien species trapped on Earth are as common as bald men is almost as a strained a comparison as comparing Comeliness to a characteristic for Hair Color.

Two, Besides that alien will will have a physical appearance and it will effect how other characters react to it. People tend to react better to Superman than a Predator. The question is how best to represent that. The answer seems to vary from person to person which why I suggest including options.

[Rockhoof]

Please don't tell me how I feel; I doubt you're psychic. The only thing I felt about the "satire" was some mild contempt as it read like nothing more than a feeble attempt to paint a clown face on the opposing side.

Edit to cut down on snark.

My previous post came out a bit more snarkily than intended, I apologize.

It does, however, illustrate a good point: Forum text is lousy for nuance. Why would you feel contempt at a legitimate argumentative strategy? Because forum posts don't cover the basics of body language, tone of voice, volume &ct. We're all friends here, and actual mean-spiritedness is very, very rare on these boards. Give him the benefit of the doubt and see things his way for a little while.

Besides, COM is obviously an SFX of Presence. So there, nyah. :nya:

[Hugh Neilson]

This certainly looks well thought out, but is indicative of what I see as a major change for the worse since 4e (and perhaps even 3e). For lack of better words, I will call it "description bloat". This is a close relative of feature creep, the introduction into products of more and more rarely-used features that make it unnecessarily complex (as seen in many cellphones). In the case of description bloat, however, there are very few new features added, it is just that all features are explained in excessive detail.
************************************************** *********
I think that if Comeliness is retained (and it's not a dealbreaker to me, though I would prefer to see it go as part of a streamlining of Hero), the description should be short and succint - no more than a quarter page at most. More could be suitable for an Ultimate Characteristics book for those who really need/want everything described in enormous detail.

Many of its detractors claim COM should go because it lacks mechanical effects. Presumably, you are not one of these. After all, adding mechanical effects will use space, so arguing COM should be removed due to a lack of mechanical effects is not consistent with arguing space should not be used to add mechanical effects for COM.

And Bob didn't write the article as an inclusion for 6e, but a detailed exploration of COM for another venue. It does, however, show how COM can be used in game, and many detractors argue that it has no in-game use, so it should go.

[jeffkmills]

Pardon the digression from the main topic, but... if you don't have time to read it, how on Earth can you tell that it's "supremely over-written"?

Well, I downloaded the attachment, opened it, skimmed over headers, tables, Power examples, all the way to the end, to find it was 28 pages long. I freely admit that I did not take the time to read the text of it for content. However, IMO if it needs 28 pages to explain how to properly utilize one Characteristic in a role-playing game, that, to me, is over-writing on a very narrow point.

Like several people here, I liked 4e in size compared to 5e. Many items in 5e were expanded upon and described more in depth, which is a double-edged sword. More detail is more granularity, which is an excellent thing overall. However, how much of that needs to be in the core character creation rulebook? Many here feel that a trimmer character creation book would allow novice players an easier entry into our world of HERO. Whether or not that is a valid assumption is up to debate.

However, the increase in the sizes of the descriptions from 4e to 5e have been mentioned in the 'page inflation' that we have been discussing. And certainly, with an estimated 1000+ message on the Characteristics thread being devoted to the discussion of COM as a Characteristic, and the desire to provide extra text in order to 'punch it up' a bit, it follows to look at the amount of text being presented as an addendum to the core rules, especially in light of the need for any explanation of the use of a Characteristic to go in the character creation book, so that players might appropriately decide how many character points to put into a given slot.

Therefore, while your discussion on COM, which by reading the reviews of it in this forum seems well-received, it seems more appropriate to a "The Ultimate Characteristic" book rather than the core rules. If I have offended with my comments, I whole-heartedly apologize. I was simply frustrated with the way the discussion on COM seems to have crossed over into other threads, taking up a great deal of time to cut through to get to any other material that might be interesting to read as well.

I started with a thoughtful look at how one might reduce the plethora of Characteristics in HERO into something a bit more manageable, in part to reflect a personal view that the new rules need to trim pages, rather than add them, and start a meaningful discussion on how this might be achieved. But my original post seems to have gone missing. Hrm. Not sure how that happened. Any ideas?

Thanks for your comments,
Jeffrey Mills

[CTaylor]

It is a symptom of geekitude in gaming that someone can't tell why appearance matters and how appearance is different from force of personality. If you want examples of how to use Comeliness and how it works in the game, Mr Greenwade has done a great job. You can ignore it if you wish, I hope Mr Long is not of the same attitude.

[schir1964]

Hmmm...

This discussion has got me thinking...

While it is true that everything has an appearance, that appearance may or may not have consistent reaction as it were, even from moment to moment.

I propose that the consistency of reaction to appearance is directly proportional to the perceived commonality of that appearance to the individual.

Thus, it is not that an individual that may be deemed beautiful is noticed by the individual just because they are beautiful, but because they perceived to be uncommonly beautiful to the individual that noticed them.

This is then further influenced by personal preferences which makes one perceive another person's appearance as especially beautiful when perhaps the majority of opinions may show that they aren't especially beautiful.

Therefore, if you take the uncommonly beautiful appearance and change things so that specific appearance is now very common to become the norm, does not the reaction to such beauty become less and less over time.

By the same token, in Star Wars, if Jabba the Hutt were to show up on this earth, he would get fairly consistent reactions from humans, but in the Star Wars setting, he might not be noticed given the proper locale (his size is uncommon for sentient creatures even in Star Wars). With so many different appearances in the Catina, what would get a fairly consistent reaction from humans from earth, are virtually ignored by the humans of Tatoine.

Well, enough rambling about nonsense... (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

First, let me start by saying that I don't have the time to read over a thousand posts from folks quibbling over the non-issue of COM, much less 28 pages of well-meaning but supremely over-written text on the subject.

Your post is not a model of brevity either, actually.

My priority when coming here and discussing 6e is the need to try to attract first- or second-time gamers to the product. Like it or not, sales is what it's all about. We don't get the excellent products we love to have in our hot little hands unless the system is selling. Thanks and kudos to Steve for taking over when he did, and making HERO system what it is today!

There is an underlying conflict here, though: granularity vs. simplicity. Without ease of understanding, the novice feels that the rules are too much for them to try to grasp, or simply takes too much time investment in order to get up to speed. OTOH, the granularity of the system - literally being able to tailor the genre, or a specific power, to do exactly what you need for the game you want to run - is the hallmark, the essential core of HERO.

I concur with others who find Hero no more complex than, say, D&D.

So, how do we get to a happy medium? Sidekick, IMHO, was one such effort. Keep character generation as simple as possible, to allow the new players a chance to grasp the mechanics before they are overwhelmed with two 600+ page tomes. This is where HERO gets a little schizophrenic!

While plenty of explanatory detail is great, text needs to be trimmed, especially in the areas where the players will be encountering long before they make their first die roll. Explain how and why things work, yes, but cut text like your life depends on it. The fewer pages, the better, at the start. Overwhelm them with detail after we have happy customers, please.

How many Rules Questions are from new players who don't grasp what the rules say with their present level of detail? If it can be shorter without loss of clarity, wonderful, but don't sacrifice clarity in the interests of brevity.

The nitty gritty of granularity can be saved for a GM's tome and genre books, Ultimate books, and so on. Let the GMs determine how much complexity they want to feed their players, and when, as appropriate to the game they want to run.

The crux of the issue: are we prepared to sacrifice the "one tome provides all the rules" model which Hero has tried to achieve? If not, that one tome will be extensive. Perhaps that model should be sacrificed - it may be that the market does not value it.

All that being said, what's the player likely to encounter first? Character creation, and specifically, Characteristics. 17+ Characteristics is insanely complex and overwhelming, but many of these are necessary. A precious few could be trimmed with minimal difficulty, however:

CON and BODY. These two need to be combined into a single Characteristic that covers both. What you wish to call it is moot, and I will not do so here for fear of stepping on what some other game system has called a similar stat, and thereby offending the dear readers of this post ("That's just like such-and-such game! I hate it already!" :mad:). Let's call it CON-BODY for now. I don't see that making the base number to be Stunned and the total hits the same is a real issue. A more system-wise player could always buy C-B, Only to Prevent Stun -1. Further, new players can grasp it easier, because it's their base hits, as well as this Stunned concept they're not quite fully familiar with yet. It neatly combines the full functionality of both Characteristics without losing much (if anything) from either one separately as it currently stands.

I'm not a fan of combining the two. Do you now STUN easier if you have been wounded? Perhaps you should, but this is a change to the game mechanics which will have a significant impact - characters losing BOD are now also more likely to be Stunned, which makes a death spiral effect.

I also dislike the concept of combining things so we can limit them later to segregate them again. This also links "healthy/fit" to "difficult to hurt" too close for my liking. Are long distance runners really that much more likely to survive a bullet or a sword slash?

COM and PRE. These two are so close to the same Characteristic, it's not funny. Physical beauty is not all it's cracked up to be. Many people see right through it. For others, they are not attracted to the same physical attributes as the so-called mainstream, hereinafter referred to as "the culture" or simply, "the media". For example, up until the 60's, many of what passes for today's women would have been viewed as "emaciated twigs". In the middle ages, a zoftig woman was the ideal of many a painter. Much more "impressive" is the person who trancends physical beauty but can still hold the rapt attention of those who they interact with. Let the combined Characteristic meld both concepts together, and simplify.

Would you then argue that Adolf Hitler, FDR, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin have a natural edge in a beauty contest? They all have high PRE, after all, and PRE and COM "are so close to the same Characteristic, it's not funny".

PD/ED. I'm one of those who understands tradition, believe me. But two Characteristics for DEF, while a hallmark of the game from the beginning, is one too many. Apply Limitations, like we do to every other Characteristic, to achieve the desired goal. It cleans up the character sheet, and simplifies things enormously.

Why not also eliminate all exotic defenses, or even eliminate all defenses? This will be even simpler. We can also merge Stun and BOD. When you get hit, you take damage, and when you take enough damage, you're dead.

Simplicity should not be the overriding goal.

And I reiterate, I don't like merging things just to use limitations to separate them again. "Only vs Fire" is already more than overpriced enough.

REC. I recall a post from some martial arts student who basically said (paraphrased), "I wish I could simply not do anything and take a Recovery for a few seconds in the middle of a competition. But that's not the reality of it. I would get pummled by my opponent if I tried that." The question is, what do we want for a game? "Dramatic" realism suggests that REC is nice, if not "realistic". Should this stay, or go? If it became an "optional" Characteristic, is might work well for some games. By one over-simplistic example, REC might work well is super-heroic games, but may be less desirable in a Heroic genre.

Ducking behind a wall to catch one's breath, and getting a second wind during a fight both seem very relevant. Remove this, and how does one adjudicate the recovery of lost STUN and/or END? Fight's over, so the Healing Fairy flies over and restores all your lost STUN and END? How do we allow for characters to recover consciousness after being KO'd without REC? Is it desirable to move to "once you are down, there you will stay"?

END. People have talked up this one, as well. No one likes to keep track of their END, or Encumbrance. It's a tedious, cumbersome task. While I understand the concept of "battle fatigue", perhaps this, too, can be an optional characteristic. It may be more difficult to construct a game system and balancing powers and the like this way, but much easier for players and GMs, both old and new.

I prefer it as a baseline characteristic with options for its removal.

Running, Leaping and Swimming. Please just remove them from the tabulation of Characteristics. As Powers, they work well. But most players never buy these up past their base. The most I ever see is players buy +1" of Running, so they have an advantage on Half-moves. This is not a reason to have them on the sheet, listed as a Characteristic. Sure, they'll be listed elsewhere, but for now, let's not intimidate the newbies.

I don't care one way or another. We need to consider them, so they will be on the sheet somewhere - no clutter is removed. Perhaps they are better considered characteristics. The ability to change your movement rate is something I like in the Hero system.

SPD. The grand hallmark of HERO, without which it really wouldn't be HERO, would it? Yet many don't run with it in their games, either. Might this be listed as a "recommended" Characteristic, with the sidebar that it may be easily removed without damaging the playability of the rest of the system, for those who do not wish the added complexity? That would allow players and GM to make the determination for their own respective games.

I am opposed to removal of SPD from the core characteristics.

That could leave us with as little as 8 Characteristics: STR, DEX, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE, DEF, and STUN. There would only be two "Figured" Characteristics, DEF and STUN (plus SPD if a GM chose to include it). And yes, I do believe in "Figured" Characteristics; why the issue is a problem seems to be that there are so damned many of them.

Well, if PRE and COM are so similar they must be merged, and so are CON and BOD, I can't see much grounds for keeping EGO and INT separate - may as well just merge them to a single Mental stat.

This proposal creates the kind of simplicity that a re-tooling of HERO needs, with out losing much, if any, of the granularity.

To me, it loses a lot. I suspect others will agree. It's an illusion anyway. How many stats does D&D have? You'll say "six". I say that ignores base attack bonus, fort save, ref save and will save, just off the bat. That makes 10. I bet I missed some others.

[Hugh Neilson]

Soooo we make the game less interesting because the gm is suddenly unable to make decisions that can enhance gameplay?

We follow the rules as written. I have seen no suggestions to date to change the rules as written and allow Pushing to be used in other contexts. The Olympics example is in the rules.

In any case, even if we change the Pushing rules, it fixes footraces, but not contests of intellect or debate, as neither INT nor PRE costs END.

[Trebuchet]

Treb, I think this cuts to the core of the most significant issue in the creation of 6e, and one that we seem to dance around, given the structure of this forum. We're focused on specific issues, but what's the big picture?

Someone a while back posted the comment that he could not believe someone would change gaming systems over comeliness. I'm inclined to agree. However, I don't think DoJ should be focused on whether any given change will cause people to leave Hero. They should be focused on whether any given change will attract purchasers of Hero 6e.

We don't have to change systems to keep playing 5e, and that is certainly what many of us will do if the changes from 5e to 6e are not to our liking. In order to attract the dollars, as Treb says, 6e needs to make improvements on 5e. 5e is a very strong system, IMO, so Steve has his work cut out for him to make significant improvements and persuade those of us who are playing, and enjoying, 5e to spend the dollars to upgrade to 6e.

Removing COM or changing it to a talent probably isn't a dealbreaker for me. But it's also not a dealmaker. I can stick to 5e and be just as happy. As well, I suspect most or all of the "don't like COM" crowd can also easily stick with 5e and just ignore COM. So how many new sales will eliminating COM, converting it to a talent or retaining it as is generate? I'd say a pretty small number, if any. But expanding the role of COM and making it truly worthy of remaining a characteristic in its own right - as Bob's article does, in my opinion, adds something of at least some significance and would be a step towards attracting my dollars as well.

And unless 6e is going to attract dollars, I'd say it's neither worth Steve's time and effort to write, or nor DoJ's effort to publish.While I wouldn't advocate using all of Bob's COM rules, a streamlined version is exactly along the lines of what I'd like to see new in 6E.

To be totally frank, 6E has to add something new to the Hero rules to make it worth our group's $$$. Merely streamlining or a simplification of the existing rules offers nothing to our group. One of the reason's I've fought so hard against the idea of dumping COM is that I see it as a probable indicator of similar changes throughout the system which will bring it closely in line with Champions Online. In truth, I oppose any change to Characteristics whatsoever (although an expanded explanation of the uses of COM would be valuable) as I think Characteristics are the bedrock of the Hero system.

[Vulcan]

Actually, Mogensen's post is a classic reductio ad absurdum. Your post, however, comes across like an ad hominem. I may be reading your post wrong, but it seems like you're attacking him by accusing him of belittlement when you have little or no evidence of such. Reductio ad absurdum arguments are just that, absurd. They exist to show you that the the outcome of a line of thought is inconsistent with some other presupposition that both parties feel bound to. In this case, the twin presuppositions that characteristics should a) have some consistency across all character concepts and b) in the case of living things, a characteristic should be nearly universal. He wasn't insulting anyone, and even if he was, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Eleanor Roosevelt said that and it needs to be remembered because text is a lousy medium for nuance.

To go on, his point is valid, and is in fact, a clever restatement of what quite a few people have been saying: COM as a characteristic can go the way of the dodo, because it's too often not applicable. Further, when COM is applicable, there is a problem of social constructs to worry about. COM doesn't translate across cultural boundaries realisticly very well. As a model, it fails.

Myself, after some thought and reading on this thread, I feel that COM has one other problem: As constructed, it's a limited form of PRE that is priced too expensively.

My solution would be to change Presence to Personality and roll up COM and PRE into the definition. Presence and Prettiness become SFX of a character's Personality, which can be bought to zero for anything that doesn't have one, like automatons, non-AI programs and objects.

1) I admit I may have been a bit harsh in my response. That's why I apologized for it TWO POSTS LATER. Don't bash me after I've already apologized, please.

2) I prefer the granularity of having one charactersitic to demonstrtate Force of Personality (PRE) and another to indicate Attractiveness (COM). It allows me to quickly and simply show whether this character is average, a (possibly ugly) leader a la Stalin or Hitler (preferably with better morals...) or just a pretty face without a personality, without having to go into clumsy constructs such as partially limited characteristics.

3) In the long run, there is only one person on this board who I am trying to convince. His name is Steve Long. The rest of you are entitled to your opinions, and I will try to avoid bashing them. I hope I am entitled to the same.

[ajackson]

It is a symptom of geekitude in gaming that someone can't tell why appearance matters and how appearance is different from force of personality.
Within the resolution of a game system, both of them are simply pluses to social interactions. Force of personality and appearance are just different special effects for a similar mechanical benefit.

[Vulcan]

WARNING: This is a long one!

First, let me start by saying that I don't have the time to read over a thousand posts from folks quibbling over the non-issue of COM, much less 28 pages of well-meaning but supremely over-written text on the subject.

My priority when coming here and discussing 6e is the need to try to attract first- or second-time gamers to the product. Like it or not, sales is what it's all about. We don't get the excellent products we love to have in our hot little hands unless the system is selling. Thanks and kudos to Steve for taking over when he did, and making HERO system what it is today!

There is an underlying conflict here, though: granularity vs. simplicity. Without ease of understanding, the novice feels that the rules are too much for them to try to grasp, or simply takes too much time investment in order to get up to speed. OTOH, the granularity of the system - literally being able to tailor the genre, or a specific power, to do exactly what you need for the game you want to run - is the hallmark, the essential core of HERO.

So, how do we get to a happy medium? Sidekick, IMHO, was one such effort. Keep character generation as simple as possible, to allow the new players a chance to grasp the mechanics before they are overwhelmed with two 600+ page tomes. This is where HERO gets a little schizophrenic!

While plenty of explanatory detail is great, text needs to be trimmed, especially in the areas where the players will be encountering long before they make their first die roll. Explain how and why things work, yes, but cut text like your life depends on it. The fewer pages, the better, at the start. Overwhelm them with detail after we have happy customers, please.

The nitty gritty of granularity can be saved for a GM's tome and genre books, Ultimate books, and so on. Let the GMs determine how much complexity they want to feed their players, and when, as appropriate to the game they want to run.

All that being said, what's the player likely to encounter first? Character creation, and specifically, Characteristics. 17+ Characteristics is insanely complex and overwhelming, but many of these are necessary. A precious few could be trimmed with minimal difficulty, however:

CON and BODY. These two need to be combined into a single Characteristic that covers both. What you wish to call it is moot, and I will not do so here for fear of stepping on what some other game system has called a similar stat, and thereby offending the dear readers of this post ("That's just like such-and-such game! I hate it already!" :mad:). Let's call it CON-BODY for now. I don't see that making the base number to be Stunned and the total hits the same is a real issue. A more system-wise player could always buy C-B, Only to Prevent Stun -1. Further, new players can grasp it easier, because it's their base hits, as well as this Stunned concept they're not quite fully familiar with yet. It neatly combines the full functionality of both Characteristics without losing much (if anything) from either one separately as it currently stands.

COM and PRE. These two are so close to the same Characteristic, it's not funny. Physical beauty is not all it's cracked up to be. Many people see right through it. For others, they are not attracted to the same physical attributes as the so-called mainstream, hereinafter referred to as "the culture" or simply, "the media". For example, up until the 60's, many of what passes for today's women would have been viewed as "emaciated twigs". In the middle ages, a zoftig woman was the ideal of many a painter. Much more "impressive" is the person who trancends physical beauty but can still hold the rapt attention of those who they interact with. Let the combined Characteristic meld both concepts together, and simplify.

PD/ED. I'm one of those who understands tradition, believe me. But two Characteristics for DEF, while a hallmark of the game from the beginning, is one too many. Apply Limitations, like we do to every other Characteristic, to achieve the desired goal. It cleans up the character sheet, and simplifies things enormously.

REC. I recall a post from some martial arts student who basically said (paraphrased), "I wish I could simply not do anything and take a Recovery for a few seconds in the middle of a competition. But that's not the reality of it. I would get pummled by my opponent if I tried that." The question is, what do we want for a game? "Dramatic" realism suggests that REC is nice, if not "realistic". Should this stay, or go? If it became an "optional" Characteristic, is might work well for some games. By one over-simplistic example, REC might work well is super-heroic games, but may be less desirable in a Heroic genre.

END. People have talked up this one, as well. No one likes to keep track of their END, or Encumbrance. It's a tedious, cumbersome task. While I understand the concept of "battle fatigue", perhaps this, too, can be an optional characteristic. It may be more difficult to construct a game system and balancing powers and the like this way, but much easier for players and GMs, both old and new.

Running, Leaping and Swimming. Please just remove them from the tabulation of Characteristics. As Powers, they work well. But most players never buy these up past their base. The most I ever see is players buy +1" of Running, so they have an advantage on Half-moves. This is not a reason to have them on the sheet, listed as a Characteristic. Sure, they'll be listed elsewhere, but for now, let's not intimidate the newbies.

SPD. The grand hallmark of HERO, without which it really wouldn't be HERO, would it? Yet many don't run with it in their games, either. Might this be listed as a "recommended" Characteristic, with the sidebar that it may be easily removed without damaging the playability of the rest of the system, for those who do not wish the added complexity? That would allow players and GM to make the determination for their own respective games.

That could leave us with as little as 8 Characteristics: STR, DEX, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE, DEF, and STUN. There would only be two "Figured" Characteristics, DEF and STUN (plus SPD if a GM chose to include it). And yes, I do believe in "Figured" Characteristics; why the issue is a problem seems to be that there are so damned many of them.

This proposal creates the kind of simplicity that a re-tooling of HERO needs, with out losing much, if any, of the granularity.

Let's debate! Game on! :)

Jeffrey Mills

Game On Indeed!

Granularity vs. Simplicity: I grudgingly agree with you here. There is a LOT of extra text in the character creation part of the 5E (& 5ER) books that a beginner can do without. Having said that, the extra text has given me SOOOO many ideas over the years. It's a bonus that keeps me going back to the basic parts of the book long after I have all but memorized the mechaincs. (Okay, I'm a geek, I admit it.)

Removing Characteristics: Now that's what this forum is all about. To remove, or not to remove. 14 characteristics + 3 separate movement rates are a lot for a newbie to deal with. But all of us here were newbies at one time, and we all learned how to cope. And if someone finds 14 characterisitics hard to deal with, how are they going to handle the dozens of skills, talents, perks, and powers (not to mention advantages and limitations)? Still, your point is a vaild one.

CON and BODY: These two stats are rarely the same on my characters. My knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss your idea. However, I can see your logic, and to my surprise I actually agree with you to a signifigant extent. I'm not sure I actually like it, mind you, but I think I could live with it.

COM and PRE: I just made a post as to why I think these should remain distinct, so I won't go over it again.

PD/ED: In a heroic level game, sure. Go for it. I believe you when you say it really won't make a difference; I don't get to play at the heroic level enough to argue - ad the few times I have, I've seen you're generally right that they're both usually the same. However, in a superheroic game, I believe the distinction can be vital to character concepts. And before you repeat "Apply Limitations, like we do to every other Characteristic, to achieve the desired goal" in general we don't apply limitations to basic functions of characteristics. Sure, you can buy STR only for lifting. But most people don't. That's why we have STR cover 'doing damage' as well as 'lifting weight' under one stat. 'Resisting a punch' and 'resisting getting burned' are very different circumstances, and in general I prefer being able to make that discinction for my superheroes.
So I guess we can put DEF in the main book, and save PD/ED for the Champions Sourcebook?

END (yes, I know I'm out of order): Without END, the the push - one of my favorite parts of the game is the dramatic 'push for that last little bit' followed by 'pushing 'til it hurts' - goes out the window too. I would hate to see such a cinematic feature discarded just to simplify the stat block. Along with taking 'Increased END cost' on a new power, to simulate it being tiring to use...

REC: If you pull REC, then how does one recover STUN in combat (since you already want to throw out END, I won't worry about how REC and END tie together)? Or will the default be once you're at 0 STUN you're OUT, period?
I have lost track of the dramatic battles where someone who was knocked to -20something STUN eventually got back up to save the day. I've even seen it happen in movies. Without REC, then STUN almost becomes 'BODY only to determine unconsciousness', and then you're getting close to loosing the whole point of having STUN separate from BODY in the first place - which is to separate the short-term knockout from the longer-lasting BODY injuries.

Running, Swimming, Leaping: It may reflect from my playing superheroes a lot, but the few times I've played on the heroic level, almost everyone bought a couple extra inches of running, and extra leaping and swimming wasn't all that uncommon. I suppose we could pull it off the stat block and leave it as powers though.

SPD: Take the SPD ou of Heroes, and the combat system that remains is all too similar to d20, in my opinion. Besides, the nastiest character in the one Fantasy HERO game I was in was a wizard with 2 SPD. Sure, he didn't go often, but with what he did with the points, it was always spectacular! http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif
Second nastiest was the 5 SPD monk/martial artists.:eek:

In short, strip the Charactersics block down too far to fit the heroic level, and you wind up having to learn a whole new system just to play at the superheroic level. And it all adds something to the heroic level as well, if you just give it the chance.

Volley back to you!

[Southern Cross]

I agree with Vulcan.Besides which,does anybody take a Recovery in the middle of Hero System combat,anyway?
Also Running,Leaping and Swimminig are Characteristics,not Powers,because it is possible for a normal human to get better at any one of them,given enough practice.

[Trebuchet]

I agree with Vulcan.Besides which, does anybody take a Recovery in the middle of Hero System combat,anyway?I've seen many characters take Recoveries in combat (for END, not because they were Stunned). I wouldn't say it's common, but I wouldn't call it rare either.

Also Running,Leaping and Swimming are Characteristics, not Powers,because it is possible for a normal human to get better at any one of them, given enough practice.There's still a limit to how much that normal human can improve. All the practice in the world won't get a non-superhuman runner to a two minute mile.

It wouldn't do any harm to consider Running, Leaping, and Swimming as Characteristics but I don't think it's any particular improvement either.

[Hugh Neilson]

2) I prefer the granularity of having one charactersitic to demonstrtate Force of Personality (PRE) and another to indicate Attractiveness (COM). It allows me to quickly and simply show whether this character is average, a (possibly ugly) leader a la Stalin or Hitler (preferably with better morals...)

Winston Churchill and FDR

[Hugh Neilson]

There's still a limit to how much that normal human can improve. All the practice in the world won't get a non-superhuman runner to a two minute mile.

It wouldn't do any harm to consider Running, Leaping, and Swimming as Characteristics but I don't think it's any particular improvement either.

While your comment is accurate, all the practice in the world doesn't let someone lift 10 tons either, and that's reflected by a characteristic. Both double in cost past a certain lvel for NCM as well.

[Tonio]

How many stats does D&D have? You'll say "six". I say that ignores base attack bonus, fort save, ref save and will save, just off the bat. That makes 10. I bet I missed some others.

Missed HPs, AC, spells per level per day / psionic strength points, and now I'm probably missing some others. :)

D&D avoids the "complexity" rap mostly by decentralizing complexity. You don't need to know how Great Cleave works unless you're a warrior or barbarian. You don't need to know the details of Prismatic Spray unless you're a caster. You basically learn a couple of rules that cover everybody, then each class, spell, ability, etc. has its own "special" rules. HERO does this the other way around. There are core rules that cover everything. Specific constructs (abilities, package deals, powers, spells, etc.) use these same rules without introducing any "special" ones (for the most part). These makes it look like there are more rules, or the ruleset is more complex, since you have to "get" it all before you can "get" any character. I much prefer a unified ruleset, even if that means I have to "study" it before starting play.

[Hugh Neilson]

Missed HPs, AC, spells per level per day / psionic strength points, and now I'm probably missing some others. :)

D&D avoids the "complexity" rap mostly by decentralizing complexity.

The decentralization term is an excellent illustration. I'd only consider things everyone has to be characteristics, but that still adds AC and hp. I guess it also technically adds Touch AC, Flat Footed AC, Initiative and Grapple, all of which are Figured. And Speed, so that's 17. Hero has 8 primaries, 6 figured's and three movement modes everyone has, so 17.

hmmmm...

[Vulcan]

The decentralization term is an excellent illustration. I'd only consider things everyone has to be characteristics, but that still adds AC and hp. I guess it also technically adds Touch AC, Flat Footed AC, Initiative and Grapple, all of which are Figured. And Speed, so that's 17. Hero has 8 primaries, 6 figured's and three movement modes everyone has, so 17.

hmmmm...

To be fair, if you're going to include the different AC's as separate 'characteristics' then I have to point out that HERO System also has base CV, DVC, OCV, and ECV. Up to 21...

Not that the added 'complexity' (such as it is) bothers me any.

[jeffkmills]

Game On Indeed!

Granularity vs. Simplicity: I grudgingly agree with you here. There is a LOT of extra text in the character creation part of the 5E (& 5ER) books that a beginner can do without. Having said that, the extra text has given me SOOOO many ideas over the years. It's a bonus that keeps me going back to the basic parts of the book long after I have all but memorized the mechaincs. (Okay, I'm a geek, I admit it.)

Removing Characteristics: Now that's what this forum is all about. To remove, or not to remove. 14 characteristics + 3 separate movement rates are a lot for a newbie to deal with. But all of us here were newbies at one time, and we all learned how to cope. And if someone finds 14 characterisitics hard to deal with, how are they going to handle the dozens of skills, talents, perks, and powers (not to mention advantages and limitations)? Still, your point is a vaild one.

CON and BODY: These two stats are rarely the same on my characters. My knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss your idea. However, I can see your logic, and to my surprise I actually agree with you to a signifigant extent. I'm not sure I actually like it, mind you, but I think I could live with it.

COM and PRE: I just made a post as to why I think these should remain distinct, so I won't go over it again.

PD/ED: In a heroic level game, sure. Go for it. I believe you when you say it really won't make a difference; I don't get to play at the heroic level enough to argue - ad the few times I have, I've seen you're generally right that they're both usually the same. However, in a superheroic game, I believe the distinction can be vital to character concepts. And before you repeat "Apply Limitations, like we do to every other Characteristic, to achieve the desired goal" in general we don't apply limitations to basic functions of characteristics. Sure, you can buy STR only for lifting. But most people don't. That's why we have STR cover 'doing damage' as well as 'lifting weight' under one stat. 'Resisting a punch' and 'resisting getting burned' are very different circumstances, and in general I prefer being able to make that discinction for my superheroes.
So I guess we can put DEF in the main book, and save PD/ED for the Champions Sourcebook?

END (yes, I know I'm out of order): Without END, the the push - one of my favorite parts of the game is the dramatic 'push for that last little bit' followed by 'pushing 'til it hurts' - goes out the window too. I would hate to see such a cinematic feature discarded just to simplify the stat block. Along with taking 'Increased END cost' on a new power, to simulate it being tiring to use...

REC: If you pull REC, then how does one recover STUN in combat (since you already want to throw out END, I won't worry about how REC and END tie together)? Or will the default be once you're at 0 STUN you're OUT, period?
I have lost track of the dramatic battles where someone who was knocked to -20something STUN eventually got back up to save the day. I've even seen it happen in movies. Without REC, then STUN almost becomes 'BODY only to determine unconsciousness', and then you're getting close to loosing the whole point of having STUN separate from BODY in the first place - which is to separate the short-term knockout from the longer-lasting BODY injuries.

Running, Swimming, Leaping: It may reflect from my playing superheroes a lot, but the few times I've played on the heroic level, almost everyone bought a couple extra inches of running, and extra leaping and swimming wasn't all that uncommon. I suppose we could pull it off the stat block and leave it as powers though.

SPD: Take the SPD ou of Heroes, and the combat system that remains is all too similar to d20, in my opinion. Besides, the nastiest character in the one Fantasy HERO game I was in was a wizard with 2 SPD. Sure, he didn't go often, but with what he did with the points, it was always spectacular! http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif
Second nastiest was the 5 SPD monk/martial artists.:eek:

In short, strip the Charactersics block down too far to fit the heroic level, and you wind up having to learn a whole new system just to play at the superheroic level. And it all adds something to the heroic level as well, if you just give it the chance.

Volley back to you!

Well, this was what I wanted! A little spirited conversation, some serious discussion... excellent!

REC: I guess I've never seen a combat go on so long that a character at -20 gets back up to save the day without help from another character to recover.

Admittedly, I went very overboard with my Characteristics post. I wanted to generate some different ideas to bat around, and apparently, I succeeded!

Jeffrey Mills

[Vulcan]

We play superheroes a LOT. Bricks often have base REC approaching 20, and 25 isn't too unusual. The energy projectors often buy theirs up to around 20 as well. So, they're only 1 recovery from 'every segment'... if not actually back into the fight.

And in one extremely silly (and high-point) game was the character forever after known as 'superninja.' His REC was triple digits... http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/icon23.gif

The first digit was not a 1... :eek:

[jeffkmills]

Your post is not a model of brevity either, actually.

:p Never said I was good at being brief!



How many Rules Questions are from new players who don't grasp what the rules say with their present level of detail? If it can be shorter without loss of clarity, wonderful, but don't sacrifice clarity in the interests of brevity.

I can agree with this. Were the 4e descriptions confusing?



The crux of the issue: are we prepared to sacrifice the "one tome provides all the rules" model which Hero has tried to achieve? If not, that one tome will be extensive. Perhaps that model should be sacrificed - it may be that the market does not value it.

You are probably right with your observation - the market doesn't seem to respect the single-book model.



I'm not a fan of combining the two. Do you now STUN easier if you have been wounded? Perhaps you should, but this is a change to the game mechanics which will have a significant impact - characters losing BOD are now also more likely to be Stunned, which makes a death spiral effect.

I also dislike the concept of combining things so we can limit them later to segregate them again. This also links "healthy/fit" to "difficult to hurt" too close for my liking. Are long distance runners really that much more likely to survive a bullet or a sword slash?

I hadn't considered this possibility. It is a significant change to combat if you can become Stunned easier after being wounded. It might make sense, but is it desirable? It might well serve to make combats shorter, but at what cost?



Would you then argue that Adolf Hitler, FDR, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin have a natural edge in a beauty contest? They all have high PRE, after all, and PRE and COM "are so close to the same Characteristic, it's not funny".

Ok, the point is well taken. What then, is the line between a necessary Characteristic, and one which is not needed?



Why not also eliminate all exotic defenses, or even eliminate all defenses? This will be even simpler. We can also merge Stun and BOD. When you get hit, you take damage, and when you take enough damage, you're dead.

Ok, so take my concept and poke fun. I'm good for it! :D

Simplicity should not be the overriding goal.

And I reiterate, I don't like merging things just to use limitations to separate them again. "Only vs Fire" is already more than overpriced enough.

Fair enough. I don't think I agree here, but hey, that's what opinions are about.



Ducking behind a wall to catch one's breath, and getting a second wind durin