Characteristics Issues

[The Main Man]

I second that.

Post-Apocalyptic HERO sets a good example for this idea, and it sounds like Urban Fantasy HERO will do the same.

[mirage]

While I've heard reports that the BBB fell apart, I've never actually seen one (nor the 4e Hero System Rulebook) do so. I suspect it was a print-run issue. Also, on those that did fall apart, I was under the impression that it took considerably longer than just a few weeks. However, I've heard of that happening to nearly every copy of C:tNM. Besides, having a book fall apart after only 3 or 4 game sessions really doesn't help your image any.


Well, I still have my CtNM/Fuzion stuff, what little I bought. They're in much better shape than my BBB was, the softback was much more durable than the hardback was.



Sure. I agreed that C:tNM failed to win over the Hero community. My point was that Fuzion, as a system, did not fail (since it's still in use by various publishers) and that the important point is not that it failed to win over Hero fans, but why and how. You were responding to a post about the Complexity and Balance of Characteristics and invoked the Fuzion system in response. Fuzion's Characteristcs were not one of its weaknesses and besides, none of the proposed changes were at all like how Fuzion does Characteristics anyway.

I was responding to suggestions of simplifying and making fundamental changes to the system in order to win over new players.

[Klaus Mogensen]

While I've heard reports that the BBB fell apart, I've never actually seen one (nor the 4e Hero System Rulebook) do so. I suspect it was a print-run issue. Also, on those that did fall apart, I was under the impression that it took considerably longer than just a few weeks. However, I've heard of that happening to nearly every copy of C:tNM. Besides, having a book fall apart after only 3 or 4 game sessions really doesn't help your image any.
FWIW, my BBB has fallen apart (though admittedly after more than a few weeks) while my C:tNM is fine (though not heavily used).

- Klaus

[Netzilla]

Well, I still have my CtNM/Fuzion stuff, what little I bought. They're in much better shape than my BBB was, the softback was much more durable than the hardback was.

FWIW, my BBB has fallen apart (though admittedly after more than a few weeks) while my C:tNM is fine (though not heavily used).

Perhaps there were multiple print-runs of C:tNM as well. I do know that there were reports of Steve P. and company having to replace several copies for customers who complained. It was a common complaint on both the old Champions and Fuzion mailing lists and every copy in my gaming group fell apart. Of course, as Klaus's post implies, a lot of that will also vary with frequency of use.

Fortunately, I feel this is as unlikely to be an issue with 6e as it was with 5e.

[Netzilla]

I was responding to suggestions of simplifying and making fundamental changes to the system in order to win over new players.

Three things:

First, simplifying does not automatically make things worse (conversely it also does not automatically make things better). As I said, you have to look at the specifics of what failed and why. Simply suggesting that simplification is bad does no one any good. That's what you did when you simply wrote "Fuzion" in response to a call for more balance and simplicity in the Primary/Figured characteristic relationship.

Second, none of the suggested means to simplify things worked in the same manner in which Fuzion simplified the system. So, again, shouting "Fuzion" doesn't help much.

Finally, even if the proposed changes were like Fuzion, you gave no indication for how such changes were bad.

The 6e threads aren't just about saying yea/nay to proposed changes. They're about discussing the merits and flaws of those changes. Simple cries of "Fuzion" in response to proposed changes really doesn't give Steve Long much to go on when evaluating these ideas.

Now, since this thread has been derailed enough at this point, and I don't think I can make my call for better quality feedback any more clear, I shall make this my last post on this tangent.

[SteveZilla]

The Figureds debate is basically two warring philosophies that are at odds with one another.

1) Game System: The system should be a game system that can be played with relatively quick setup for both players and GMs alike. Customization is possible but becomes more problematic the further away from the basic premises and design the game system geared for (Human-centric, Narrow/Single/Common Genre Implementations). The Strength is that current characters and campaigns are less impacted and players are more familiar with having to "learn how the game works" and once having done that, find the system easier and easier to work with. Also, the system has been tested for balance at various levels and will work well within those tested areas it was designed for. The weakness is that there is inconsistency with the application of core mechanics and that Multi-Genre, Non-Humancentric, Non-common campaigns are very difficult to create and run since the system is a game system, not a universal toolkit in it's ideal form.

2) Universal Toolkit: The system should be a universal toolkit that is consistent in application in order to build a game system that will work well with any Genre/Campaign. The Strength is that there is a true separation of Mechanics from SFX and that truly any game system can be built that will work well for the Genre or Campaign someone wants to play. The Weaknesses is that the GM must do more work to build the Game System and must test for the balance levels depending on the Genre(s)/Campaign desired.

These are the two camps.

Which should the Hero System be? I don't know.

Can the Hero System be both? Provisionally...
In a single book, no, but as a Universal Toolkit Book and a Game System Templates book, yes.
The Universal Toolkit would contain all the mechanics needed to create any game system.
The Game System Template book(s) would contain game systems that could be picked up and played relatively quickly and yet still be customizable within its intended design.

Is this what the Hero System should be? Again, I don't know.

- Christopher Mullins

Interesting. I could see this possibly working. "This" meaning producing a single "high-level" book that is The Ultimate Toolkit (TUT), and one or more "low level" Game System Books (GSBs) that implement the rules of The Ultimate Toolkit book in specific ways. A Setting Book would flesh out the "world" that uses a specific GSB. And it's possible that more than one setting book could use the same GSB.

The High/Low approach would allow people who just want to play the game can buy the GSB (and buy the Setting Book that uses that GSB if desired) and play straight from there. Or if they really want to get their hands dirty they can buy The Ultimate Toolkit as well, allowing them to see "the little man behind the curtain" as it were. They can use TUT to modify a GSB or go completely freeform and create their own.

My problem with Fuzion was that I perceived it as being TUT but without any direction or guidance on how to build a game system from it -- I.e., no GSB as a place to start from. That, and the fact that at the time I just wanted to play -- not have to do a bunch of beforehand work before I played.

Another downside to having only The Ultimate Toolkit (TUT) is that the Game System is the single biggest guiding/limiting factor in character creation. Without a "common framework" like Game System books, it becomes a nightmare (if not impossible) to build a character in one's spare time to use in some undetermined game later. TUT gives so much flexibility that until you are actually *in* a game, you have no idea what kind of Game System to build your character for.

And I really hated the Fuzion graphics. :ugly:

http://www.talsorian.com/images/FuzionLogo.jpg

[PhilFleischmann]

I think you have to stop thinking that complex simply means difficult.
Huh? Well if the complexity *doesn't* mean difficult, then what the heck is the problem? Why fear complexity if it doesn't make anything harder? This is a role-playing game - it's going to be complex by necessity. If you don't want complexity, play checkers.

I also think (I do it a lot :) ) that part of the complexity is that you dont do those calculations once - you do them every time you change your primary characteristics. It is complex because things keep changing consequent to changes you make.
Fair enough, but as others have pointed out, the same thing happens in d20 or any system where characteristics can improve over time. It still isn't that often, and still doesn't happen during actual play.

That doesn't make it difficult, it makes it a pain in the posterior.
What does this even mean? Where is that pain coming from, if not difficulty?

It is also a pain that is more apparent to newcomers than to old timers (who do much of this stuff on the fly because they are used to it).
Everyone here was once a newcomer, and apparently none of use were driven away by the six very simply calculated Figured Characteristics.

Complexity is not just difficult, it is the perception of difficult (something the character sheet does not help with) and the tedium of continually doing calculations before you get to do the cool stuff.
If it's just a marketing thing, then nothing we do to change the rules themselves is going to matter that much. If people have a false perception, that can't be corrected simply by catering to their irrationality or prejudices. Anyone who says, "HERO is too complex," is still going to think that, even if we decouple figureds.

And BTW, there's no "continually doing calculations" - it's *once* when you create the character, and then maybe once in a while, after that, when you buy up one of four Primaries. And it *never* is "difficult".

And there is also a positive marketing factor: the idea of getting something extra. Buy 10 points of STR, get 2 PD, 2 REC, and 5 STUN for FREE! I'm not a marketing expert, but there are a lot of businesses that use that strategy very effectively.

[Chris Goodwin]

Huh? Well if the complexity *doesn't* mean difficult, then what the heck is the problem? Why fear complexity if it doesn't make anything harder? This is a role-playing game - it's going to be complex by necessity. If you don't want complexity, play checkers.

There are plenty of fun, decent roleplaying games that aren't anywhere as complex. And no insults needed in response, thank you.

What does this even mean? Where is that pain coming from, if not difficulty?

It's extra work. Doing fifty sixth-grade arithmetic problems isn't exactly difficult, but it is tedious and a barrier to entry. If we can cut that down by twenty, it's a net gain IMO.

If it's just a marketing thing, then nothing we do to change the rules themselves is going to matter that much. If people have a false perception, that can't be corrected simply by catering to their irrationality or prejudices. Anyone who says, "HERO is too complex," is still going to think that, even if we decouple figureds.

Anecdotally at least, the opposite is true.

[PhilFleischmann]

There are plenty of fun, decent roleplaying games that aren't anywhere as complex. And no insults needed in response, thank you.
Wasn't planning on it.

It's extra work. Doing fifty sixth-grade arithmetic problems isn't exactly difficult, but it is tedious and a barrier to entry. If we can cut that down by twenty, it's a net gain IMO.
Fifty? Where are you getting that figure? There are only 6 figured characteristics. How many dice rolls do you have to add up duing the course of the game? Should we eliminate those? If we want to reduce the arithmetic, we should look at the dice first - the area of the game that involves the most frequent calculations.

Anecdotally at least, the opposite is true.
Where are you getting you anecdote from? The future? When have Figureds been decoupled in the HERO System, where poeple have said, "HERO was too complex before, but now I'll buy it!"?

[Chris Goodwin]

Wasn't planning on it.


Fifty? Where are you getting that figure? There are only 6 figured characteristics. How many dice rolls do you have to add up duing the course of the game? Should we eliminate those? If we want to reduce the arithmetic, we should look at the dice first - the area of the game that involves the most frequent calculations.

I counted it up once. There are something like 54 arithmetic operations needed just to fill out the stat block. For the primaries, eight of those are "start with the base value". Leaving six for the figureds... eliminating the "figured-ness" of Figureds should eliminated about twenty. I haven't counted but that sounds about right.

Where are you getting you anecdote from? The future? When have Figureds been decoupled in the HERO System, where poeple have said, "HERO was too complex before, but now I'll buy it!"?

I mentioned to a friend of mine, back when 6e was first announced, that one of the items on the table was decoupling Figureds. His response was "Finally! That right there would almost get me to come back to Hero."

[Hugh Neilson]

I counted it up once. There are something like 54 arithmetic operations needed just to fill out the stat block. For the primaries, eight of those are "start with the base value". Leaving six for the figureds... eliminating the "figured-ness" of Figureds should eliminated about twenty. I haven't counted but that sounds about right.

OK, let's look:

1. PD: divide STR by 5
2. ED: divide CON by 5
3. REC: Divide STR by 5 (assuming I forgot to keep my base PD jotted down somewhere)
4. REC: Divide CON by 5 (assuming I forgot to keep my base PD jotted down somewhere)
5. REC: Add #3 and #4
6. STUN: Divide STR by 2
7. STUN: Divide CON by 2
8. STUN: Add #6 and #7
9. STUN: Add #8 to BOD
10. END: Multiply CON by 2
11. SPD: Divide DEX by 10
12. SPD: Add 1 to #11
13. SPD: Add 1 to #12
14. SPD: Subtract final digit in DEX from 10 (point cost to round SPD up, which everyone does)

I think that's broken down as far as possible and I count 14 operations. There's also computations to add or sell back, but those won't be eliminated by decoupling these stats.

I mentioned to a friend of mine, back when 6e was first announced, that one of the items on the table was decoupling Figureds. His response was "Finally! That right there would almost get me to come back to Hero."

Because it would reduce complexity, or for some other reason? And that would ALMOST do it - what else is needed? [NOTE: a sample of 1 is pretty limited, but Chris said "anecdotaly", so that's not at issue.]

[Vulcan]

I counted it up once. There are something like 54 arithmetic operations needed just to fill out the stat block. For the primaries, eight of those are "start with the base value". Leaving six for the figureds... eliminating the "figured-ness" of Figureds should eliminated about twenty. I haven't counted but that sounds about right.

And I'm sure if I went looking I could come up with about that many 'basic arithmetic operations' to make a beginning character in d20 as well. Heck, I could possibly come pretty close using White Wolf's System.

I don't see this as a valid argument.

I mentioned to a friend of mine, back when 6e was first announced, that one of the items on the table was decoupling Figureds. His response was "Finally! That right there would almost get me to come back to Hero."

He hasn't ever seen the rules on building powers, has he? If he things dividing by 2 and 5 is too much of a pain, he's gonna have a fit multiplying 5 points per die by 8 dice and then multiplying by 1.75 for advantages and dividing by -2.25 for limitations (for example).

And that's before getting into power frameworks....

[Doc Democracy]

He hasn't ever seen the rules on building powers, has he? If he things dividing by 2 and 5 is too much of a pain, he's gonna have a fit multiplying 5 points per die by 8 dice and then multiplying by 1.75 for advantages and dividing by -2.25 for limitations (for example).

And that's before getting into power frameworks....

You still aren't looking at it in terms of cost-benefit. It isn't the difficulty of doing this. I remember early designing of characters when I would be continually swapping characteristics and continually recalculating the figureds from those changes. not once, multiple times.

I am however an inveterate tinkerer and the numbers fascinated me. I got pleasure from juggling the numbers. Not everyone is like that and those that are not will find this a pain to do and even more of a pain to repeat.

Character creation is the place most people complain about (in my experience) and when I have taken that away and presented simple (colourful) character sheets with a bare minimum of system numbers on them, people have preferred playing HERO to M&M and other superhero systems. Some people who were anti-HERO didn't even realise they were enjoying playing that hated system until a good distance into the game.

The numbers get in the way. They are crucial but until people are bought into it (like all of us) they do not appreciate the benefit they are getting for the very noticeable cost.

I think that there isn't a huge need to simplify the system (though there are areas which would benefit) but there is a definite need to simplify the presentation of it and figureds come into an area where (unless we make them much more useful in defining genres and gameplay) there is an easy gain to be made.

Doc

[Vulcan]

And if you're fiddling with your characteristics to make your character fit the point level (up or down) then you're likely also fiddling with the level or your powers too. So the complexity of the powers build process still overshadows the basic math of figured charcteristics.

The best way to deal with this percieved complexity is not to decouple figured characteristics, it is to publish Game System books where all the power builds have been pre-made and characters can be made in a 'pick one off chart a, one off chart b' format to the people who want their games presented in that matter (i.e. the d20 and WW diehards).

[Doc Democracy]

And if you're fiddling with your characteristics to make your character fit the point level (up or down) then you're likely also fiddling with the level or your powers too. So the complexity of the powers build process still overshadows the basic math of figured charcteristics.

Not dismissing the game books but that is a bigger investment for DOJ to make.

However, not only are powers really only a Champions issue, powers are core to Champions - they are the cool stuff. Characteristics is something that "every other game makes easier than this!" (not necessarily true but you are fighting perceptions).

It's still a cost-benefit thing. People see greater benefit from their powers and the calculations are directly related to the power in hand. Figureds are consequential to changes made to primaries and so have less benefit to the cost of the calculations.

Doc

[Klaus Mogensen]

He hasn't ever seen the rules on building powers, has he? If he things dividing by 2 and 5 is too much of a pain, he's gonna have a fit multiplying 5 points per die by 8 dice and then multiplying by 1.75 for advantages and dividing by -2.25 for limitations (for example).

And that's before getting into power frameworks....
It's perfectly possible to play Hero without using Powers, not to mention Frameworks. For modern action, pulp adventure, and historic campaigns, you can manage well with just Characteristics, Skills, Perks, and Talents. Even with Powers, often only the GM needs to do the math when creating suitable spells, vehicles and supernatural abilities for the campaign. But you can't make any character without doing the math for Figureds, and that makes many players give the game up before they discover how fun the crunchy bits are.

Also, if doing Figureds is that easy, how come it's done wrong for many sample characters?

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

And yet 3E D&D (gotta use 3E, I decided to give 4E a pass) was wildly successful with the following figured characteristics:

AC
Will Save
Reflex Save
Fortitude Save
Initiative Bonus
Melee To-Hit Bonus
Missile To-Hit Bonus
Grapple Bonus
Individual Weapon To-Hit Bonuses (usually at least two, sometimes more, sometimes up to 4 for a single weapon!)
Save DC's for spellcasters

And many of these have to be recalculated every time a charcter gains a level...Or a magic item...

In HEROS the figured characteristics get figured one time (maybe multiple passes to get the numbers right) at character creation and then only get revisited if you buy more primary characteristics.

Figured charcteristics are a part of any game. HEROS just puts them right up front. So PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN and CV are actually less figured characteristics than in D&D. And yet D&D is commerically sucessful...

It's the perception of the rules that needs changing, not the rules themselves. Because the rules of HEROS are not that much more complex than those of (for example) D&D.

[Hugh Neilson]

And I'm sure if I went looking I could come up with about that many 'basic arithmetic operations' to make a beginning character in d20 as well. Heck, I could possibly come pretty close using White Wolf's System.

If the math for figured's is TRULY a problem (and I don't say it is or it isn't), then why not take the D&D solution? Put in a chart, just like D&D does. I don't have to subtract 10 from the stat, divide by 2 and round down to determine the bonus from a stat in d20. Instead, I look at the chart that does the math for me.

So PD has a chart, chart #1 (CHAR 2- = +0 PD; STR 3 - 7 = +1 PD). PD is on the sheet as a series of boxes - add "STR Bonus" to "Purchased PD" = PD. Cost = Purchased PD (and is in a separate box in a neat row with other "cost" boxes).

ED uses the same chart, but you use your CON. ED is on the sheet as a series of boxes - add "CON Bonus" to "Purchased ED" = ED. Cost = Purchased PD (and is in a separate box in a neat row with other "cost" boxes).

REC uses the same chart. REC is on the sheet as a series of boxes - add "STR Bonus" to "CON Bonus" to "Purchased REC" = REC. Cost = Purchased REC x 2 (and is in a separate box in a neat row with other "cost" boxes).

STUN uses Chart #2, which is CHAR 0 = +0, CHAR 1 - 2 = +1, CHAR 3-4 = +2. STUN is on the sheet as a series of boxes - add "STR Bonus" to "CON Bonus" to "BOD" to "Purchased STUN" = STUN. Cost = Purchased STUN (and is in a separate box in a neat row with other "cost" boxes).

END uses no chart - it is on the sheet as a series of boxes - add "CON" to "CON" to "Purchased END" = END. (we'll forego the chart that says 0 = +0, 1 = +2, etc.) "Cost" = 1/2 Purchased END (round up) and lines up with all the other "cost" boxes.

SPD is a more complex one. We'll have Chart #3, "CHAR = 0 - 9 = +1; CHAR = 10 - 19 = +2", and so on. We'll add Chart #4, "Base SPD Cost" which shows "DEX ends in 0 = +10"; "DEX ends in 1 = +9", etc. to "DEX ends in 9 = +1". SPD on the sheet is 1 + DEX bonus + Purchased SPD. SPD cost is 2 boxes, "Base SPD Cost" + "Puch SPD x 10" = SPD cost (and we align that SPD cost with all the other cost boxes).

This is what D&D does - each stat has a bonus. If your stat changes (maybe because you are using a point build system, which has been suggested since 3e; maybe because you increase a stat at every 4th level; maybe because you get a magic item that boosts a stat; maybe because you take ability score damage; maybe because someone casts a buffer spell on you), the bonus for that stat changes and so do all abilities derived from it.

Note that the Chart #1 bonus is also your bonus to all skills based on that stat. Now you don't have to divide by 5 every time you buy a skill - you check the chart and apply your bonus.

TRULY less complex? Not in my opinion. But apparently, D20 is viewed as way less complex - and this is how they get around making you do the arithmetic. They add charts and other arithemtical formuli.

Looking at the D&D 3.5 character sheet you can download here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/downloads), I see the following arithmetical requirements:

Ability Scores
6 times - add base score to race modifier (function), add enhancement bonus (function), add misc bonus (function), subtract misc penalty (function). Four functions six times = 24 functions.

Combat Options Attack bonus is BAB, add STR or DEX mod (function), add weapon enhancement bonus (function) and SIZE modifier (function) = 3 functions each. Damage = BAB + STR mod if melee (maybe if ranged) + weapon enhancement bonus, so 2 more functions. That's five functions per weapon - assume conservatively a melee and a ranged weapon and that's 10 functions.

Init Mod

That's DEX MOD + Special Mod's 1 function

Grapple

BAB + STR (function) + SIZE (function) + MISC (function) so 3 functions

Saves

BASE + Ability (function) + magic (function) + Misc (function) - ignore Temporary since it won't be done at creation and that's 3 functions per save = 9 functions

Armor Class

10 + Armor bonus (function) + shield bonus (function) + DEX mod (function) + SIZE (function) + Deflection (function), ignoring natural AC and misc. as unusual so not used = 5 functions

Touch AC = 10 + DEX mod (function) + SIZE (function) + Deflection (function) = 3 functions

Flat footed AC = 10 + Armor bonus (function) + shield bonus (function) + SIZE (function) + Deflection (function) = 4 functions

So far, that's 59 functions - more than the 54 counted for Hero.

Page 2 has nothing (except for how many functions to add up your encumbrance? PASS on that.)
Page 3 - ignore spells, psionics, etc. as we'll assume a simple fighter with no such abilities.
Page 4 - my, look at all the skills. Each requires you add your ranks to your ability modifier (function) and misc modifier (function). I count 36 that can be used untrained - let's assume he doesn't buy any that can't be used untrained, and he has 72 more functions.

That makes 131 functions. But Hero's the complex one? One more for bonus languages = 132. That's a pretty big number.

To the extent there is a problem, the problem is PERCEPTION, not REALITY. Changing the rules will not necessarily change perception.

He hasn't ever seen the rules on building powers, has he? If he things dividing by 2 and 5 is too much of a pain, he's gonna have a fit multiplying 5 points per die by 8 dice and then multiplying by 1.75 for advantages and dividing by -2.25 for limitations (for example).

And that's before getting into power frameworks....

Yup

However, not only are powers really only a Champions issue, powers are core to Champions - they are the cool stuff. Characteristics is something that "every other game makes easier than this!" (not necessarily true but you are fighting perceptions).

I agree we're fighting perception. To overcome that, people need to actually read and apply the rules. If they won't try it due to perception, no change in the rules will address this.

And powers are not "just Champions". What's the biggest RPG on the market? D&D. What's the biggest genre on the market? Fantasy. SPELLS are also powers - and they come with way more math, as they tend to have advantages and they virtually always have significant limitations.

I think you can only change the perception that "this game is more complex than d20" by making your game a d20 game. Anything else will be "different" which means "unfamiliar" which typically causes the perception it is "complex".

[Hugh Neilson]

It's perfectly possible to play Hero without using Powers, not to mention Frameworks. For modern action, pulp adventure, and historic campaigns, you can manage well with just Characteristics, Skills, Perks, and Talents. Even with Powers, often only the GM needs to do the math when creating suitable spells, vehicles and supernatural abilities for the campaign. But you can't make any character without doing the math for Figureds, and that makes many players give the game up before they discover how fun the crunchy bits are.

For Fantasy (the #1 genre for RPG's), Supers (Hero's most popular genre judging by genre board posting preferences) and Sci Fi (psionics, mutations, alien abilities), powers are needed. Even modern action, pulp and historic games often use superskill powers.

Talents are just pre-fab powers. How many games use only those presented in the main rules? d20 feats and class abilities are talents, and spells are powers/talents. How many extra books of those have been published. Did that reduce complexity?

You can't make a D&D character without over 100 mathematical operations. The answer seems to be "disguise the math, especially multiplication or division, to reduce the math to addition and subtraction". We could certainly fix characteristics with charts. You're not going to fix powers as easily.

[Doc Democracy]

TRULY less complex? Not in my opinion. But apparently, D20 is viewed as way less complex - and this is how they get around making you do the arithmetic. They add charts and other arithemtical formuli.

I like the idea of the charts. Makes things easy for users and possibly their use in lots of other things.

Looking at the D&D 3.5 character sheet you can download here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/downloads), I see the following arithmetical requirements:

[snip]

To the extent there is a problem, the problem is PERCEPTION, not REALITY. Changing the rules will not necessarily change perception.


WotC may have gone too far on this - the 4th edition sheet and game are so much more obviously number heavy than 3rd edition it is untrue. However - the calculations are all indicative of your character getting better due to levelling. HERO misses out on this...

And powers are not "just Champions". What's the biggest RPG on the market? D&D. What's the biggest genre on the market? Fantasy. SPELLS are also powers - and they come with way more math, as they tend to have advantages and they virtually always have significant limitations.

Players having and designing powers are by and large about Champions. Spells, superskills and psionics tend to come pre-packaged unless you have an experienced group. It is the way we are trained to expect these things. I find that in such genres it is better not to give the players the power write-ups - it frightens them (unless they are Champions players).

I think you can only change the perception that "this game is more complex than d20" by making your game a d20 game. Anything else will be "different" which means "unfamiliar" which typically causes the perception it is "complex".

Not in my experience. There are lots of notD20 stuff out there that do not have the maths heavy reputation of HERO.

I maintain that figured characteristics are seen as calculations to no great purpose by non HERO people. I think you could make more of them to push character designs down different paths but unless you do, they would be better of decoupled and bought from a base like everything else.

I'm still not sure what benefit they give unless they encourage certain ratios of statistics and I might even be convinced to retain figureds but not allow them to be altered (a la CV). At least that way you would be certain of the ratios involved. :)


Doc

[The Main Man]

As much as I've said about the decoupling of Figured CHAR, I am of course like the rest of us who does not have a personal problem doing them.

That being said, I do think that HN's chart suggestion could be a good solution.

While it is true that D&D has plenty of calculations, they are not presented as such and they are additive (the simplest math) at that.

While characters continually have to adjust their "figured" scores, they are also done so in an additive way and they all use the same basic scores to be determined in the first place (Dex Bonus, Cha Bonus, etc) and a character just adds +1 to it as they go up in level according to a chart.

I will concede that Power construction probably will overwhelm a player who cannot handle even figured CHAR.

[nexus]

I
Players having and designing powers are by and large about Champions. Spells, superskills and psionics tend to come pre-packaged unless you have an experienced group. .


I've used the ability to design your own Spells, Psionic powers, cinematic tricks, etc with some degree of game balance as a major selling point for Hero system over systems with pre packaged lists many times with new players so I'm going to differ with the conclusion it's a perk only for Champions or experienced players. The Power construction system is, for me, one of the important facets of the system for me and one of the original things that drew to playing Hero System over "menu" games like Storyteller and to a degree, GURPs.

[PhilFleischmann]

OK, let's look:

1. PD: divide STR by 5
2. ED: divide CON by 5
3. REC: Divide STR by 5 (assuming I forgot to keep my base PD jotted down somewhere)
4. REC: Divide CON by 5 (assuming I forgot to keep my base PD jotted down somewhere)
5. REC: Add #3 and #4
6. STUN: Divide STR by 2
7. STUN: Divide CON by 2
8. STUN: Add #6 and #7
9. STUN: Add #8 to BOD
10. END: Multiply CON by 2
11. SPD: Divide DEX by 10
12. SPD: Add 1 to #11
13. SPD: Add 1 to #12
14. SPD: Subtract final digit in DEX from 10 (point cost to round SPD up, which everyone does)
You were a little more generous than I would have been here. I wouldn't count doing precisely the same calculation more than once. That eliminates 3 and 4. And where are you getting #13? If you really want two more points of SPD than you get from your base DEX, then why not just make #12 "Add 2 to #11"?

So that brings the number of operations down to 11.

Character creation is the place most people complain about (in my experience)
In my experience, character creation is the main thing people love about HERO. You can create precisely the character you want. In RPG's in general, character creation is important - if you don't like it, you probably aren't going to like RPGs very much at all. Sure, you might enjoy a hack-and-slash adventure, but you probably aren't going to be as interesting in role-playing your character - because you don't have as much interest in making it *your* character. And of course, even when your initial character is pregenerated, you're still making character creation decisions when you spend xp/level up.

However, not only are powers really only a Champions issue,
That's not even close to being true! Even in the most down-to-earth genres, there are powers like: RKA, HKA, Running, Leaping, Swimming, Armor, Flash, Entangle, HA, Find Weakness, Luck, Life Support, Swinging, etc.

And to add another area, besides powers, that is more complex than Figured Chars: Martial Arts, and the Adding Damage rules. STR + HA + MA maneuver + MA extra DCs + Weapon Damage + Velocity Damage.

Decoupling figured chars simplifies the HERO System about as much as removing the dashboard cigarette lighter simplifies a car.

Also, if doing Figureds is that easy, how come it's done wrong for many sample characters?
Like who? Where? I haven't seen any in 5th edition.

And yet 3E D&D (gotta use 3E, I decided to give 4E a pass) was wildly successful with the following figured characteristics:

AC
Will Save
Reflex Save
Fortitude Save
Initiative Bonus
Melee To-Hit Bonus
Missile To-Hit Bonus
Grapple Bonus
Individual Weapon To-Hit Bonuses (usually at least two, sometimes more, sometimes up to 4 for a single weapon!)
Save DC's for spellcasters
You forgot Speed (movement), Hit Points, and Caster Level (which is often different from Level).

However - the calculations are all indicative of your character getting better due to levelling. HERO misses out on this...
Huh? Do you not use experience points in your games? Are you not allowed to spend them to improve your character? If you want it to "feel" more like leveling (again, a matter of perception, not of actuality), then you can always save them up until you get a batch of 10 or 20 or whatever you feel is a "level's worth" and spend them all at once.

Spells, superskills and psionics tend to come pre-packaged unless you have an experienced group. It is the way we are trained to expect these things. I find that in such genres it is better not to give the players the power write-ups - it frightens them (unless they are Champions players).
No. It's D&D where the Powers all come pre-packaged. "We" are only "trained" to expect them that way only because "we" are D&D players. That's one of the main reasons we switch to HERO - so we can build our own powers, and not just for Champions.

[Chris Goodwin]

That's one of the main reasons we switch to HERO - so we can build our own powers, and not just for Champions.

No. This attitude is harmful.

The reason we switch to HERO is so we have options. We can do prepackaged if we want, or build our own if we want.

[PhilFleischmann]

No. This attitude is harmful.
Yes. It causes cancer in laboratory rats.

The reason we switch to HERO is so we have options. We can do prepackaged if we want, or build our own if we want.
Whatever. It was shorthand.

[Hugh Neilson]

WotC may have gone too far on this - the 4th edition sheet and game are so much more obviously number heavy than 3rd edition it is untrue. However - the calculations are all indicative of your character getting better due to levelling. HERO misses out on this...

Hero has less calculations at a time to spend your xp. And all of the calculations I listed for D&D - every one - need to be done at initial character creation. Leveling comes later.

Note that the sheet I referenced was for 3rd Ed, for several reasons. First, I haven't worked with 4e. Second, it was easy to find. Finally, 3e maintained popularity. I fully expect 4e will as well, but that's unproven as yet.

Players having and designing powers are by and large about Champions. Spells, superskills and psionics tend to come pre-packaged unless you have an experienced group. It is the way we are trained to expect these things. I find that in such genres it is better not to give the players the power write-ups - it frightens them (unless they are Champions players).

The point that this is not a universal experience has already been made by other posters above.

Not in my experience. There are lots of notD20 stuff out there that do not have the maths heavy reputation of HERO.

Have a look at calculations necessary in those games for character creation, then. I suspect they also require math, but likely bury it more.

I maintain that figured characteristics are seen as calculations to no great purpose by non HERO people. I think you could make more of them to push character designs down different paths but unless you do, they would be better of decoupled and bought from a base like everything else.

I maintain that the posters who have noted that other games very commonly have their own versions of "figured characteristics" are correct in that observation.

I'm still not sure what benefit they give unless they encourage certain ratios of statistics and I might even be convinced to retain figureds but not allow them to be altered (a la CV). At least that way you would be certain of the ratios involved. :)

"not allowing them to be altered" removes flexibility. To me, Hero's strength is flexibility and choice. This brings the weakness of added complexity. The two are inextricably linked. D&D with just the PHB is much less complex, and much less flexible, then if you add in more sourcebooks. Yet sourcebooks sell. There seems to be demand for extra flexibility, even at the cost of extra complexity.

And CV can be altered - we just don't allow it to be purchased directly. We should. It would be more flexible.

You were a little more generous than I would have been here. I wouldn't count doing precisely the same calculation more than once. That eliminates 3 and 4. And where are you getting #13? If you really want two more points of SPD than you get from your base DEX, then why not just make #12 "Add 2 to #11"?

So that brings the number of operations down to 11.

I'm glad you think my numbers overly generous. My goal was to maximize the numbers - err on the side of Hero being complex - in order to ensure my bias did not slip the other way. Similarly, I hope I picked conservative numbers for d20 (eg. "he only has 2 weapons and no spells or special abilities").

That, and I think someone who has trouble with figured's might not be bright enough to remember he did the same calculation before, or remember what the result was, or look for it on the character sheet ;)

SPD's bonus +1 comes partly from that bias and partly from my step by step figuring out how one would build SPD.

In my experience, character creation is the main thing people love about HERO. You can create precisely the character you want.

I think this cuts to the core of the matter. Hero is positively viewed by those players who place a higher value on flexibility of character creation than on simplicity or perceived simplicity. It is negatively viewed by those who higher value on simplicity of character creation than on flexibility.

Hero's character creation, overall, is more complex. It has more choices and options, and that adds both flexibility and complexity. The question is whether the market overall values that flexibility enough to overcome the drawback of complexity. We know existing hero players value the flexibility - if they didn't, they would largely be Hero detractors rather than Hero players.

The problem I see is perception. If those d20 players with three dozen sourcebooks could see the ability to create all those abilities, and more, with a single book - Hero System - this would overcome a lot of resistance. But they confuse "different" with "more complicated".

And to add another area, besides powers, that is more complex than Figured Chars: Martial Arts, and the Adding Damage rules. STR + HA + MA maneuver + MA extra DCs + Weapon Damage + Velocity Damage.

In fairness, I think there's a pretty strong push for simplifying the Adding Damage rules.

No. It's D&D where the Powers all come pre-packaged. "We" are only "trained" to expect them that way only because "we" are D&D players. That's one of the main reasons we switch to HERO - so we can build our own powers, and not just for Champions.

This kind of highlights a key issue as well, at least to me. Hero is not the market leader. D&D is. Hero is not going to be the market leader. It is going to expand by attracting D&D/d20 players. Becoming more like d20 reduces barriers to entry, without question. But it also reduces the incentive for players disenchanted with d20 to switch.

Hero should not, in my opinion, aim to reduce the differences between d20 and Hero. It should be emphasizing the benefits of those differences.

[Hyper-Man]

...

Hero should not, in my opinion, aim to reduce the differences between d20 and Hero. It should be emphasizing the benefits of those differences.

Repped.

[Doc Democracy]

:no:

You know. I was trying to engage with the presence of characteristics in the game and even find ways of making them so much more useful I would think they were a benefit.

After this discussion I think I'll stick to my original position. The game would be cleaner, simpler and would emphasis the differences between market leaders like D20 better if there were no characteristics at all.

I think I'm done here.

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

....if there were no characteristics at all.


...and I stated it wrong again.

The game as it stands would not be playable without PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN and BODY so I am advocating the removal of primary characteristics, not secondary ones (though without the primaries, they would not be figured).


Doc "really and truly finished now....honest" :o

[Klaus Mogensen]

I do think that HN's chart suggestion could be a good solution.
For calculating STUN, we would need a three-dimensional chart. ;)

About the comparison with D20: In D20, the bonus for all characteristics is calculated the exact same way, which makes it simple. In Hero, we get some bonuses by dividing by 5 and rounding down, others by dividing by 5 and rounding off, yet others by dividing by 3 and rounding off, or by dividing by 2 and rounding off, or by dividing by 10 and rounding down. It is this confusion that makes HERO seem much more complex than D20.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

The problem I see is perception. If those d20 players with three dozen sourcebooks could see the ability to create all those abilities, and more, with a single book - Hero System - this would overcome a lot of resistance. But they confuse "different" with "more complicated".
In all fairness, it IS more complicated to design your own powers with a system like Hero's than to pick them off a list in a book. Compared to when RPGs were new, players tend to lack time more than they lack money, hence the popularity of source books containing material you could easily (given enough time) make yourself.

Even though I prefer the added flexibility that a toolkit like Hero provides, I have found this lack of time to be a problem myself, making me choose 'finished' games over Hero when I run campaigns. A thorough streamlining of the Hero toolkit would make me more liable to return to using it.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

You forgot Speed (movement), Hit Points, and Caster Level (which is often different from Level).

And initiator level, which is different from caster level or character level :D

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

I like the idea of the charts. Makes things easy for users and possibly their use in lots of other things.

I like the idea of a $2 calculator. It's a lot handier than a couple dozen pages of charts.

But that's just me.

WotC may have gone too far on this - the 4th edition sheet and game are so much more obviously number heavy than 3rd edition it is untrue. However - the calculations are all indicative of your character getting better due to levelling. HERO misses out on this...

What, buying an extra +1 OCV or an extra +1 die of damage isn't getting better? And you don't need to wait to 'level' to do it...

Players having and designing powers are by and large about Champions. Spells, superskills and psionics tend to come pre-packaged unless you have an experienced group. It is the way we are trained to expect these things. I find that in such genres it is better not to give the players the power write-ups - it frightens them (unless they are Champions players).

That's funny, many of the D&D players I've seen come over to HEROS took to the powers section like a duck to water. Maybe it's just your players - or maybe it's just mine...

Not in my experience. There are lots of notD20 stuff out there that do not have the maths heavy reputation of HERO.

True. But exactly none of them are as flexible as HEROS.

I maintain that figured characteristics are seen as calculations to no great purpose by non HERO people. I think you could make more of them to push character designs down different paths but unless you do, they would be better of decoupled and bought from a base like everything else.

We will forever disagree here. You see decoupling as a simplification likely to attract new players. I see decoupling as (at best!) a cosmetic gesture that will last only until new players see how complex power builds are and then they will run screaming - assuming they see math as complex in the first place.

I'm still not sure what benefit they give unless they encourage certain ratios of statistics and I might even be convinced to retain figureds but not allow them to be altered (a la CV). At least that way you would be certain of the ratios involved. :)


Doc

I've listed the benefits I see in them; obviously you disagree.

[Hugh Neilson]

You know. I was trying to engage with the presence of characteristics in the game and even find ways of making them so much more useful I would think they were a benefit.

After this discussion I think I'll stick to my original position. The game would be cleaner, simpler and would emphasis the differences between market leaders like D20 better if there were no characteristics at all.

...and I stated it wrong again.

The game as it stands would not be playable without PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN and BODY so I am advocating the removal of primary characteristics, not secondary ones (though without the primaries, they would not be figured).

The elimination of characteristics is, I think, a viable approach from a theoretical perspective. However, I think it's impractical in that the market expects them to be there. That said, unbundling the various aspects of characteristics would be an interesting alternative to consider. We would retain the attributes listed above, plus we could retain COM (like the other seven above, it does only one thing). The other six would become:

STR:
- lifting/throwing (the ability to shift objects/mass)
- HTH damage (probably including Squeeze damage)
- holding

CON:
- resistance to being stunned
- any health roll we want to add in

DEX:
- OCV (we could split between HTH and range, if desired - we'll have Mental separated already)
- DCV (we could split between HTH and range, if desired - we'll have Mental separated already)
- skill bonuses (again, possibly separated - hand/eye co-ordination and gross motor skills need not be "the same")
- combat order

INT:
- knowledge bonuses
- memory bonuses
- perception bonuses

EGO:
- Mental OCV
- Mental DCV
- strength of will bonuses
- resistance to PRE attacks

PRE:
- interaction bonuses (again, perhaps segregated betwen impressiveness, attractiveness, persuasiveness, etc.)
- impressiveness (PRE attacks)
- resistance to PRE attacks (one attribute instead of the higher of two characteristics)

For calculating STUN, we would need a three-dimensional chart. ;)

No, we would add a series of bonuses together, with a chart for STR, the same chart for CON and adding BOD.

About the comparison with D20: In D20, the bonus for all characteristics is calculated the exact same way, which makes it simple. In Hero, we get some bonuses by dividing by 5 and rounding down, others by dividing by 5 and rounding off, yet others by dividing by 3 and rounding off, or by dividing by 2 and rounding off, or by dividing by 10 and rounding down. It is this confusion that makes HERO seem much more complex than D20.

One simplifier would be to divide all characteristics by 5, or something similar. Every point counts. Let's work it through.

Assuming no cost changes, STR could cost 5. That doubles lift, adds 1d6 HTH damage, adds 1 PD, adds 1 REC and let's say adds 2 STUN.

CON costs 10, and adds 1 PD, 1 ED, 1 REC, say 3 STUN (so 1 STR + 1 CON = 5 STUN) and 10 END.

Logically, DEX costs 15, adds 1/2 to SPD and 1 to DEX rolls, but should add 1 2/3 to CV. At present, +30 DEX costs 90, adds 10 CV (9 per CV), 6 DEX (15 per +1) rolls and 3 SPD. Maybe we just split the difference. Let's make DEX cost 12, and add 1 to OCV, DCV and DEX rolls.

That leaves the SPD link...it should be DEX/2.5, which is not pretty math. I don't like DEX/2 as it bumps SPD too quickly, but DEX/3 is painful math. Let's use DEX/2.5 and put a chart in for the math impaired. 0 2 DEX = +0 SPD; 3 - 4 DEX = +1SPD, 5-7 DEX = +2 SPD, 8-9 DEX = +3 SPD, 10-12 DEX = +4 SPD.

We won't change BOD - it's a tracking stat. So it costs 2, and does what it's always done - +1 STUN and +1 "to kill".

INT is +5 per point and increases all INT and PER rolls by 1.

EGO has rolls (+10 per increase) and ECV (+1 per 6 points) so we'll again split the difference and make EGO cost 12 and grant +1 ECV and +1 to willpower type rolls. That's 2/3 the cost of DEX, so we keep the same ratio. I like that.

PRE's uses all work on division by 5, so it costs 5 points for +1d6 PRE attack and +1 to PRE skill rolls.

And PRE attacks get resisted by 5x the higher of EGO and PRE (if we're making no other changes - I'm in favour of only EGO resisting PRE attacks, but that's a separate issue).

COM can cost 2 points per +1 or 3 per +1. Let's say 2. COM needs better defined mechanics, which might assist in assigning it a cost. Give it mnore to do and the price can go up.

PD and ED still cost 1 each. REC still costs 2, STUN 1 and END 1/2 (as indicated previously, I'm in favour of dropping the price of REC, STUN and END to fix the "figured dilemma", but this focuses on primaries, not secondaries). SPD still costs 10.

It's a big change aesthetically, but not so much mechanicaly. It removes fine gradations, and really removes differentiation within the "normal human" range. But it's way easier math, so if that's the goal, here's a way to get there.

In all fairness, it IS more complicated to design your own powers with a system like Hero's than to pick them off a list in a book. Compared to when RPGs were new, players tend to lack time more than they lack money, hence the popularity of source books containing material you could easily (given enough time) make yourself.

Even though I prefer the added flexibility that a toolkit like Hero provides, I have found this lack of time to be a problem myself, making me choose 'finished' games over Hero when I run campaigns. A thorough streamlining of the Hero toolkit would make me more liable to return to using it.

This is the key philosophy issue - removing the custmization aspect removes it from being Hero, to me. I aree with the time issue, but to me that's not a question of "should Hero change to be more salable", but rather, "is Hero not viable in the current market". Gut the xcustomization, and it's not Hero anyway.

[Vulcan]

...and I stated it wrong again.

The game as it stands would not be playable without PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN and BODY so I am advocating the removal of primary characteristics, not secondary ones (though without the primaries, they would not be figured).


Doc "really and truly finished now....honest" :o

And then we wind up with an even more complicated series of power builds to do what comes in a nice, neat, simple chart now. I think this is a truly bad idea, and a dealbreaker for 6E.

Besides, I can hear new players now. "What do you mean there's no STR characteristic? You mean I have to buy lifting ability and HTH damage separately!?!"

[Vulcan]

It's a big change aesthetically, but not so much mechanicaly. It removes fine gradations, and really removes differentiation within the "normal human" range. But it's way easier math, so if that's the goal, here's a way to get there.

Here's your big change. With most characters having a 2-6 CON & EGO, it just became a lot easier to Stun and Mind Control characters.

That's the problem with such a massively sweeping change. It has a ripple effect throughout the game, having unintended effects in the way things interact.

HEROS has 25+ years of playtesting behind it. I think we need to concentrate on the real problems in the system (KA Stun Lotto, STR being too cheap) and fix those in the simplest ways to have minimum 'ripple effect' on the system.

This is the key philosophy issue - removing the custmization aspect removes it from being Hero, to me. I aree with the time issue, but to me that's not a question of "should Hero change to be more salable", but rather, "is Hero not viable in the current market". Gut the customization, and it's not Hero anyway.

I hope that doesn't mean you think Steve and Co. should scrap the whole thing and make a new 'simple' system to sell in the new millenium...:eek:

[nexus]

This is the key philosophy issue - removing the customization aspect removes it from being Hero, to me. I agree with the time issue, but to me that's not a question of "should Hero change to be more salable", but rather, "is Hero not viable in the current market". Gut the customization, and it's not Hero anyway.

That would be the issue with me. Turning Hero into a "list" based game (or severely curtailing the toolkit) would eliminate most of the draw for me. List games have been out there, for years and I haven't switched to them because they limit my option. I find myself chafing under their limitations. And frankly, you end up making up new stuff anyway but its handwave and best guess about build and balance as there's usually nothing to guide you in the process except look at the examples and hope. Hero System gives the process some structure. The ability to customize is one of the main reasons I used Hero more predominately than it's main rival in the generic game area GURPs.

And there are books of "canned" abilities available for those that want or need them for Hero System. In my experience the ability to create is one of the draws of Hero System, not a drawback to new prospective players.

And then we wind up with an even more complicated series of power builds to do what comes in a nice, neat, simple chart now. I think this is a truly bad idea, and a dealbreaker for 6E.

Besides, I can hear new players now. "What do you mean there's no STR characteristic? You mean I have to buy lifting ability and HTH damage separately!?!"

That was a problem with another game system (BESM 4th, IIRC) due to the way the build system was structured getting "superhuman strength" did not proportionality increase your melee damage capacity, an effect that seemed to flow logically from the first pick. It tripped up quite a few newcomers and was a major complaint.

Hero System and other Point buy games already carry a specific stigma, IME. New players fear that they are going to forget something vital in character generation only to discover it during play. The joke is "What do you mean I forgot to buy "Breathe Air!?".

I think discarding the characteristics will aggravate that perception and add a level of complexity to the character generation process or more space in the core book to explain how a X number of things that used to be simple characteristics have to be built under the new purchase structure.

But honestly this is also a theoretical discussion at this point as I don't think Steve Long plans anything quite that radical for 6th Edition.

[Hugh Neilson]

Here's your big change. With most characters having a 2-6 CON & EGO, it just became a lot easier to Stun and Mind Control characters.

We simply create new attributes, "STUN Threshold" and Mental Threshold", based on 5x the relevant stat and we're back to where we started. However, I agree that any such revision needs to be designed with the remaining elements in mind.

Any major change carries the issue of integration with the rest of the system. Scrap figured's, and the costs of many primaries should fall. Dropping the price of those primaries makes adjustment powers enhancing or reducing them much more effective.

HEROS has 25+ years of playtesting behind it. I think we need to concentrate on the real problems in the system (KA Stun Lotto, STR being too cheap) and fix those in the simplest ways to have minimum 'ripple effect' on the system.

As a fan and player of the current Hero system, I agree.

But economics are also a driver. If DoJ can increase sales by sweeping change (and that's a huge IF), should they do so? Will a 6e that just tinkers with a few things generate the sales DoJ wants/needs to prosper? Major change has the advantage of clearing the way for a bunch of new books that bring the old 5e books, characters and settings into 6e. Minor tinkering doesn't. For 6e to be viable for D0J, it probably needs to make significant changes. That leaves Steve with the task of assessing how much change is enough to make 6e worthwhile economically, without changing it so much it becomes unrecognizable and the existing base just sticks to 5th.

I hope that doesn't mean you think Steve and Co. should scrap the whole thing and make a new 'simple' system to sell in the new millenium...:eek:

I like to believe there is a market for a game with Hero's flexibility, despite the resultant complexity. I don't think DoJ will go the "simplify it for sales" approach. But the theory that Figured have to go because they're "too complex" suggests a lot of other things need to be simplified for the game to succeed. If that much needs to be simplified, I don't think what we have left would still be Hero, or that it would be a game I'd be that interested in. I'd probably stick to 5e, and I suspect a lot of other current Hero players would as well.

[Marcus Impudite]

I'd probably stick to 5e, and I suspect a lot of other current Hero players would as well.
I'm pretty sure at this point that I'll be sticking with 5th Ed. So yeah, you're probably right.

[rjcurrie]

But the theory that Figured have to go because they're "too complex" suggests a lot of other things need to be simplified for the game to succeed. If that much needs to be simplified, I don't think what we have left would still be Hero, or that it would be a game I'd be that interested in. I'd probably stick to 5e, and I suspect a lot of other current Hero players would as well.

Of course, the main argument for decoupling figured statistics is not that they are too complex but rather that they are somewhat atypical for the Hero System in that buying STR, DEX, CON, and BODY give you other elements of the system (namely, the figured characteristics) for free. They make the assumption that the same relationships between Primary and Secondary characteristics exist for all characters. Now, sure you can work around it with the No Figured Characteristics limitations and/or buying back one of the figured characteristics to represent characters for which these relationships do not hold but isn't it simpler to just remove the relationships and the assumptions that go with them?

[Balabanto]

On the one hand, decoupling removes those assumptions. On the other hand, it kind of eliminates the logic of the game and replaces that logic onto the player designing the character. You run a lot of tournament events, Rod, so you're not gonna see a lot of the things that people who aren't as experienced as us do with the system.

Will it give you more flexibility? Yes.

Will it give you people who "Buy Back" characteristics with high characteristic characters, effectively saving points, especially in older games where everything will have to obey the rules of previous design? Yes, again.

Decoupling DEX from SPD is cute, but it's only going to encourage the kind of design escalation I dislike most, where people raise their DEX to unholy heights in order to hit everything and not have to pay for skill levels. Even if you uncouple DEX from SPD, this just means that the points that formerly went into skill levels will now go into SPD instead.

Is it the responsibility of the GM to curb this stuff? Yes! But it's my belief, and I know that this is not shared by many, that the basic equations that Steve and George used to make the game had a point of no return on their bell curve, and that the bell curve was specifically designed to function a certain way with those figured characteristics in place. If you take the figured characteristics out of the equation, you need to move the point on the line where average attacks and defenses are, in order to balance the system. For most people, this isn't a sticking point.

But it is for me.

[Vulcan]

We simply create new attributes, "STUN Threshold" and Mental Threshold", based on 5x the relevant stat and we're back to where we started. However, I agree that any such revision needs to be designed with the remaining elements in mind.

So now there is another math operation. So much for simplifying things.

Simplifying things isn't neccessary. Changing the public perception of the game is.

Any major change carries the issue of integration with the rest of the system. Scrap figured's, and the costs of many primaries should fall. Dropping the price of those primaries makes adjustment powers enhancing or reducing them much more effective.

Which is another big reason not to decouple figured's.

But economics are also a driver. If DoJ can increase sales by sweeping change (and that's a huge IF), should they do so? Will a 6e that just tinkers with a few things generate the sales DoJ wants/needs to prosper? Major change has the advantage of clearing the way for a bunch of new books that bring the old 5e books, characters and settings into 6e. Minor tinkering doesn't. For 6e to be viable for D0J, it probably needs to make significant changes. That leaves Steve with the task of assessing how much change is enough to make 6e worthwhile economically, without changing it so much it becomes unrecognizable and the existing base just sticks to 5th.

I agree that making sweeping changes to increase sales is a huge IF. Because (in my experience) the best advertising for RPG's is word of mouth, and if the existing fanbase is mostly saying 'HEROS was pretty good until it jumped the shark for 6E" then new players will likely continue to give HEROS a pass. And now not only are there no new players buying books, the existing fanbase isn't buying either.

That sounds more like a recipie for disaster to me.

I like to believe there is a market for a game with Hero's flexibility, despite the resultant complexity. I don't think DoJ will go the "simplify it for sales" approach. But the theory that Figured have to go because they're "too complex" suggests a lot of other things need to be simplified for the game to succeed. If that much needs to be simplified, I don't think what we have left would still be Hero, or that it would be a game I'd be that interested in. I'd probably stick to 5e, and I suspect a lot of other current Hero players would as well.

Totally agreed.

I look at it like this. D&D is the Ford of RPG's. White Wolf is GM. Carry the metaphor as far as you wish to other game compaines. They make decent products (or indecent, if you really desipse one or more of them). But for the ultimate gaming experience, you turn to HEROS - the Ferrarri of RPG's.:celebrate

That it doesn't cost any more than the others is just gravy... :D

[Vulcan]

Of course, the main argument for decoupling figured statistics is not that they are too complex but rather that they are somewhat atypical for the Hero System in that buying STR, DEX, CON, and BODY give you other elements of the system (namely, the figured characteristics) for free. They make the assumption that the same relationships between Primary and Secondary characteristics exist for all characters. Now, sure you can work around it with the No Figured Characteristics limitations and/or buying back one of the figured characteristics to represent characters for which these relationships do not hold but isn't it simpler to just remove the relationships and the assumptions that go with them?

Simpler? Depends.

If we decouple, several things happen.

1) Primary characteristics need to be repriced to reflect their decreased utility.

2) Due to the repricing, adjustment powers just got a lot more effective when used on charcteristics. So now they need to be repriced.

3) Due to the decreased effectiveness of adjustment powers, now pretty much everything else needs to be looked at and potnetially repriced.

Which sounds like a lot of work for DoJ, which equals a lot of money spent in development. More than they can afford? Maybe, maybe not. More than is prudent? Probably, but I'm no expert.

Besides, there are these points to consider as well.

4) The decreased cost of characteristics means non-characteristics-based characters just got even cheaper. This leaves them even more points relative to their characteristics-driven fellows. Time for more playtesting....

5) New players have even less of an idea what the relative level of 'secondary' charcteristics is viable for a character - leading to newbie mistakes like '4 REC' or '2 SPD' characters, subsequently leading to a disgusted newbie who walks away from the system never to return.

Is the relatively minor amount of simplification (especially next to the math involved in power builds) worth upsetting 25 years of playtesting? Is it worth removing a basic measure of starting characteristics in the ones that provide subtle benefits that a new player may not realize?

Is it really worth it? I don't think so.

[schir1964]

In all fairness, it IS more complicated to design your own powers with a system like Hero's than to pick them off a list in a book. Compared to when RPGs were new, players tend to lack time more than they lack money, hence the popularity of source books containing material you could easily (given enough time) make yourself.

Even though I prefer the added flexibility that a toolkit like Hero provides, I have found this lack of time to be a problem myself, making me choose 'finished' games over Hero when I run campaigns. A thorough streamlining of the Hero toolkit would make me more liable to return to using it.

- Klaus
This is the key philosophy issue - removing the customization aspect removes it from being Hero, to me. I agree with the time issue, but to me that's not a question of "should Hero change to be more salable", but rather, "is Hero not viable in the current market". Gut the customization, and it's not Hero anyway.
Of course, the main argument for decoupling figured statistics is not that they are too complex but rather that they are somewhat atypical for the Hero System in that buying STR, DEX, CON, and BODY give you other elements of the system (namely, the figured characteristics) for free. They make the assumption that the same relationships between Primary and Secondary characteristics exist for all characters. Now, sure you can work around it with the No Figured Characteristics limitations and/or buying back one of the figured characteristics to represent characters for which these relationships do not hold but isn't it simpler to just remove the relationships and the assumptions that go with them?
This is true. It's not about simplifying things. It's about increasing flexibility and consistency in application (removing all the 'exceptions' to how the rules work - Exceptions are meant to be created/enforced by the GM, not the rules).
On the one hand, decoupling removes those assumptions. On the other hand, it kind of eliminates the logic of the game and replaces that logic onto the player designing the character. You run a lot of tournament events, Rod, so you're not gonna see a lot of the things that people who aren't as experienced as us do with the system.

Will it give you more flexibility? Yes.

Will it give you people who "Buy Back" characteristics with high characteristic characters, effectively saving points, especially in older games where everything will have to obey the rules of previous design? Yes, again.

Decoupling DEX from SPD is cute, but it's only going to encourage the kind of design escalation I dislike most, where people raise their DEX to unholy heights in order to hit everything and not have to pay for skill levels. Even if you uncouple DEX from SPD, this just means that the points that formerly went into skill levels will now go into SPD instead.

Is it the responsibility of the GM to curb this stuff? Yes! But it's my belief, and I know that this is not shared by many, that the basic equations that Steve and George used to make the game had a point of no return on their bell curve, and that the bell curve was specifically designed to function a certain way with those figured characteristics in place. If you take the figured characteristics out of the equation, you need to move the point on the line where average attacks and defenses are, in order to balance the system. For most people, this isn't a sticking point.

But it is for me.
The Figureds debate is basically two warring philosophies that are at odds with one another.

1) Game System: The system should be a game system that can be played with relatively quick setup for both players and GMs alike. Customization is possible but becomes more problematic the further away from the basic premises and design the game system geared for (Human-centric, Narrow/Single/Common Genre Implementations). The Strength is that current characters and campaigns are less impacted and players are more familiar with having to "learn how the game works" and once having done that, find the system easier and easier to work with. Also, the system has been tested for balance at various levels and will work well within those tested areas it was designed for. The weakness is that there is inconsistency with the application of core mechanics and that Multi-Genre, Non-Humancentric, Non-common campaigns are very difficult to create and run since the system is a game system, not a universal toolkit in it's ideal form.

2) Universal Toolkit: The system should be a universal toolkit that is consistent in application in order to build a game system that will work well with any Genre/Campaign. The Strength is that there is a true separation of Mechanics from SFX and that truly any game system can be built that will work well for the Genre or Campaign someone wants to play. The Weaknesses is that the GM must do more work to build the Game System and must test for the balance levels depending on the Genre(s)/Campaign desired.

These are the two camps.

Which should the Hero System be? I don't know.

Can the Hero System be both? Provisionally...
In a single book, no, but as a Universal Toolkit Book and a Game System Templates book, yes.
The Universal Toolkit would contain all the mechanics needed to create any game system.
The Game System Template book(s) would contain game systems that could be picked up and played relatively quickly and yet still be customizable within its intended design.

Is this what the Hero System should be? Again, I don't know.

- Christopher Mullins

[Michael Hopcroft]

As for something more realistic, is some adjustment of the costs of the basic characteristics desirable?

When GURPS 4e came out, the most important single change was that the two main skill-basing attributes (DX and IQ) were doubled in cost from 10 to 20. This had the effect of discouraging huge arrays of cheap skills as most near-normal power levels. The effect was much less, of course, at higher point totals, and those point totals were subject to major inflation as the game was targeted more towards the cinematic as opposed to gritty realism.

[Duskwalker]

Q – “Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?”

Yes!


Q – “Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?”

Yes! There needs to be some absolutes, and 0 should be it. If used at all, negative traits should only be used to prolong recovery from Adjustment Powers.


Q – “If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?”

Yes. All Characteristics should cost the same. Much of the cost for attributes had to do with their impact on the game through the Figured Characteristics they modified.

Q – “Should we change the HERO System so that ‘every point in a Characteristic matters’ and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at ‘breakpoint’ levels?”

Yes! Characteristics should be simplified with 1 point in a Characteristic adding +1 to a Challenge/Combat roll. Simply reduce the old 0-20:Characteristic/5 to a 0-4 scale for Normals.

The scale could be decimalised to a 0-10 scale for normal humans.

Challenge/Combat rolls would now be 1d10 + Characteristic + Skill


Q – “Should the cost of STR be changed?”, “Should the cost of DEX be changed?”, and “Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?”

Yes! The cost of Characteristics should be standardised and cost the same for all. The cost need not be 1-for-1, and using the simplified 0-4 Characteristic range would cost at least 5-to-1.

Q- “Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?”

Not necessarily. ED should be done away with. PD should represent damage to the physical BODY of a mortal or structure. Type of damage – solid projectile (bullet, arrow), radiation, fire, laser-beam, etc is Special Effects. Having a defence that protects only from energy would be an application of the Limitation modifier.

Q – “Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?”

Yes! The two types of defences should be Physical Defence (PD) and Mental Defence (MD). A third defence of Spiritual or Soul Defence (SD) could even be a possibility, giving the three aspects to a mortal being – Mind, Body, and Spirit.

Q – “Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?”

Modified yes! If kept, the SPD chart should be decimalised into 10 seconds/segment per Turn.

As an alternative I propose the introduction of and Action Point system, whereby 1 Action Count (AC) equals ½ second action. 1 Phase equals 2 Seconds, and 1 Turn equals 5 Phases (10 seconds). A character receives a number of action counts equal to SPD x 2. Thus a normal human receives 4 AC per 2 second phase. To determine the number of AC required to perform an action, the GM need only multiply the number of seconds required by 2. Example: If the GM says it will take 30 seconds to pick a lock, the number of AC required is 60 [30 x 2]. A SPD 3 (6 AC per phase) character would require only 20 seconds to complete the same task [60 / 6 = 10 phases].

Q – “Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?”

No! This option should be up to the individual GM.

Q - "Should we make Size a Characteristic?”

Yes! But size should represent volume as well as area. This could be used for creatures, vehicles and bases.

A human of size 2 would represent a volume of 1m3 [2m x 1m x ½m]. A creature twice as big size 4 would have a volume of 8m3 [4m x 2m x 1m]. Size 8 = 64m3, and so on. A FRed Hex would equal size 4 [2m x 2m x 2m = 8m3].

[AnotherSkip]

Levelling is like an RPG birthday - you get presents and everything.

I'm getting too old to view birthdays as anything more than a day to recieve funeral notices, casket ads and check to Obits to see if im dead yet.

[IndianaJoe3]

OK, I think I've figured out a way to tweak Characteristics that, "fixes" the cost of STR without breaking anything else.

STR no longer adds to Leaping.
REC is reduced in cost to 1 CP per point of REC.
END is reduced in cost to 1/10 CP per point of END.
STUN is calculated as BODY + CON.

Under these rules, 10 points of STR would return 6 points of HA, 2 points of PD, and 2 points of REC - balanced. (One could reasonably claim that, "lifting capacity" should be worth something, but how much?) CON becomes less valuable as well, but not cheap enough to justify reducing its cost.

Steve's sample characters don't change much in price with this change. The brick increases from 236 pts to 244 pts. The martial artist drops from 161 to 159 pts, and Randall Irons goes from 91 pts to 90.

[PhilFleischmann]

OK, I think I've figured out a way to tweak Characteristics that, "fixes" the cost of STR without breaking anything else.

STR no longer adds to Leaping.
REC is reduced in cost to 1 CP per point of REC.
END is reduced in cost to 1/10 CP per point of END.
STUN is calculated as BODY + CON.

Under these rules, 10 points of STR would return 6 points of HA, 2 points of PD, and 2 points of REC - balanced. (One could reasonably claim that, "lifting capacity" should be worth something, but how much?) CON becomes less valuable as well, but not cheap enough to justify reducing its cost.
I believe that's 7 points of HA (6.666 rounds up). But not a big deal.

Doing the math for CON: 10 points of CON (costs 20) gives 2 points of ED, 2 points of REC, 20 points of END (costs 2), 10 points of STUN. Total = 16, not bad.

Though I still prefer simply doubling the cost of STR - it's simpler and also "'fixes' the cost of STR without breaking anything else".

[AnotherSkip]

The scale could be decimalised to a 0-10 scale for normal humans.

Challenge/Combat rolls would now be 1d10 + Characteristic + Skill


Modified yes! If kept, the SPD chart should be decimalised into 10 seconds/segment per Turn.

Q - "Should we make Size a Characteristic?”

Yes! But size should represent volume as well as area. This could be used for creatures, vehicles and bases.

A human of size 2 would represent a volume of 1m3 [2m x 1m x ½m]. A creature twice as big size 4 would have a volume of 8m3 [4m x 2m x 1m]. Size 8 = 64m3, and so on. A FRed Hex would equal size 4 [2m x 2m x 2m = 8m3].


Fan of Cyberpunk 20 20 I see?

really no I don't like having 1-10 or 1-4 being the range. it just forces the expenditures of the points witout allowing any differences. see some Gm's have considered forcing characters to buy up their characteristics a point/level at a time.

Want an 18 Str from your 13 Str? buy it over the next five sessions.
It enables a force for change to be gradual and grainular rather than giant stepping blocks. in addition each point is valuable. get hit by a 1d6 drain Str and that 16 Str 50% of the time (if you are lucky) act as a buffer for that change whereas a 15 Str on a roll of 3 would lose effectiveness.

[IndianaJoe3]

Though I still prefer simply doubling the cost of STR - it's simpler and also "'fixes' the cost of STR without breaking anything else".

It does make STR damage cost twice as much as other forms of damage. I was trying to avoid that.

[Vulcan]

Yeah, it makes the damage class rules get more complicated (1 DC = 5 AP of attack power - EXCEPT STR...) and high-STR characters suffer under AP caps, which some GM's (mine included) actually use as a guide to keeping characters under control.

Decoupling many - if not all - figured characteristics off STR solves the problem with a minimum of change all around. What if we:

1) Decouple leaping from STR. Let's face it, if the Hulk didn't jump for miles in the comics, this probably would never have made it into the rules. And in real life, the guys who can jump the highest are never big power-lifter types; they are much smaller and lighter than that (although I grant that they do tend to have huge leg muscles...)

2) Switch REC from STR/5 + CON/5 to BODY/5 + CON/5. Helps justify that x2 cost on BODY that right now seems a bit overpriced.

3) Change STUN to CON + BODY. Simplfies the math quite a bit right there.

So now 5 STR provides Lifting, HTH damage, and 1 PD. Seems to me that should bring STR back into balance without unduly penalizing 'brick' concepts (who usually have high CON and BODY to back up the high STR). Sure, they'll have to spend a bit more on REC and STUN to get back to orignal levels, but it's far less than would be needed if STR is decoupled entirely - or if STR becomes x2 cost...

And also removes the big game-balance issue with figured charactristics in the first place.

[steamteck]

3) Change STUN to CON + BODY. Simplfies the math quite a bit right there.

.


Still seems to me STR should contribute to stun or you get some weirdness accidentally happening in character design But I could live with that. I can see my group having some "that's stupid" complaints though.

[AnotherSkip]

1) Let's face it, if the Hulk didn't jump for miles in the comics, this probably would never have made it into the rules.


Or Early Superman, Or Spidey or Doc Sampson, or She Hulk (though the last two are related to the Hulk thing) or many heroic characters (Harrison Ford Seemed to have spent a lotta time jumping around during his action adventure days).... yeah there is a big connection between Comic Strength and Leaping.


OTOH I think that STR /= to just damage alone, thusly it could be compared to AP/Penetrating/autofire attacks. Stength does currently x2 as much as any other DC ability and should reflect it.

though decoupling some, if not all of it is a decent idea, bringing it more into line with the real values of the other abilities.

The other problem with making str cost x2 is that selling back to 8 = +4 CP for no net effect.


anyways to change focus a bit: should all movement powers be characteristics?

[nexus]

Or Early Superman, Or Spidey or Doc Sampson, or She Hulk (though the last two are related to the Hulk thing) or many heroic characters (Harrison Ford Seemed to have spent a lotta time jumping around during his action adventure days).... yeah there is a big connection between Comic Strength and Leaping.


Some of the disconnection stems from venue differences, IMO. In a comic, bricks will use their awesome Strength to jump when they need to for plot reasons. Role playing characters tend to be more efficient and tactical when it comes to employing their abilities so, IME, bricks in game will use their free leaping more than most comic bricks that don't have leaping as a big part of the shtick.

[Vulcan]

OTOH I think that STR /= to just damage alone, thusly it could be compared to AP/Penetrating/autofire attacks. Stength does currently x2 as much as any other DC ability and should reflect it.

Either I'm too tired from just having woken up, or this is a bit unclear. Can you clarify this for the awareness impaired?

Because it looks to me like you're saying that 5 STR grants 2 DC, that is, 2 dice of damage, which the rules say it does not. And somehow I'm pretty sure that that's not the point you're trying to make, it just doesn't make sense.

[The Main Man]

I am on the fence on Figured CHAR, but I do think that a good and crucial point is in fact being made that Figured CHAR are easy-going compared to Power Construction and may actually serve as an appetizer of sorts for things to come.

I like the idea that BODY replaces STR for Figuring purposes, and that Leaping is no longer a Figured CHAR (of sorts).

CON currently figures into ED, REC, END, and STUN; under the first suggestion, BODY would figure into PD, REC, and STUN.

STUN should be made to be more in line with END by becoming figured only from BODY at 2xBODY in much the same fashion that 2xCON = Base END and that it costs 1/2 pt

CON --> ED, REC, and END; BODY --> PD, REC, and STUN --- They figure into three CHAR each now.

[The Main Man]

To make things even more simplified here's an idea that borrows from D&D:

1) A CHAR bonus should be calculated from the beginning.

2) This bonus is presented in Figured Calculation rather than the base CHAR.

Example: If I have 10 STR, I would have a "+2" Bonus, which is calculated from STR/5.

Under the current rules, STR/5 = 1 PD, 1 REC, and 2.5 STUN.

With this suggestion, they would be presented as:
HA Damage = STR Bonus (in d6)
Base PD = STR Bonus
Base REC = STR Bonus + CON Bonus
Base STUN = 2.5x STR Bonus + 2.5x CON Bonus + BODY
Base Leaping = STR Bonus

[The Main Man]

Taking my last two posts into consideration here's what I'm looking at:

DEX --> SPD (and CV...)
CON --> ED, REC, and END
BODY --> PD, REC, and STUN

Base PD = BODY Bonus
Base ED = CON Bonus
Base SPD = 1 + DEX Bonus / 2
Base REC = CON Bonus + BODY Bonus
Base END = CON x2
Base STUN = BODY x2

[The Main Man]

Now that that is all out of the way, here's another thought of mine:

COM defenders have been pointing out that PRE is vague too so while I am sick of endlessly debating COM, here's an idea: Combine PRE with COM and call it Charisma (CHA).

Yes, I said it.

It would largely function the same as PRE but with the addition of physical beauty figuring into it, pending on the player.

Let's face it though, STR is the only concrete CHAR there is because it is the only one that can be measured in real life (SPD comes in at second place IMO).

So IOW, CHA is a compromise that concerns itself with mechanics and lets the players sort out its SFX.

[The Main Man]

Or Early Superman, Or Spidey or Doc Sampson, or She Hulk (though the last two are related to the Hulk thing) or many heroic characters (Harrison Ford Seemed to have spent a lotta time jumping around during his action adventure days).... yeah there is a big connection between Comic Strength and Leaping.

That's SFX IMO.

Power lifters would be the best leapers in the world if Leaping and STR were that connected*.




*Of course, there is some level of skill in power lifting beyond just raw strength but the raw strength is always a leg up.

[IndianaJoe3]

Switch REC from STR/5 + CON/5 to BODY/5 + CON/5. Helps justify that x2 cost on BODY that right now seems a bit overpriced.

We're definitely thinking along the same lines. I kept the original formula for REC because the STR calculation had already been done (for base PD), but your formula has merit also.


STUN should be made to be more in line with END by becoming figured only from BODY at 2xBODY in much the same fashion that 2xCON = Base END and that it costs 1/2 pt.

That was my initial thought as well. However, with my changes to the cost of REC and END, CON became overpriced. Revising the STUN formula fixed that.

[Vulcan]

I am on the fence on Figured CHAR, but I do think that a good and crucial point is in fact being made that Figured CHAR are easy-going compared to Power Construction and may actually serve as an appetizer of sorts for things to come.

I like the idea that BODY replaces STR for Figuring purposes, and that Leaping is no longer a Figured CHAR (of sorts).

CON currently figures into ED, REC, END, and STUN; under the first suggestion, BODY would figure into PD, REC, and STUN.

STUN should be made to be more in line with END by becoming figured only from BODY at 2xBODY in much the same fashion that 2xCON = Base END and that it costs 1/2 pt

CON --> ED, REC, and END; BODY --> PD, REC, and STUN --- They figure into three CHAR each now.

Sounds good to me.

[Vulcan]

Now that that is all out of the way, here's another thought of mine:

COM defenders have been pointing out that PRE is vague too so while I am sick of endlessly debating COM, here's an idea: Combine PRE with COM and call it Charisma (CHA).

Yes, I said it.

It would largely function the same as PRE but with the addition of physical beauty figuring into it, pending on the player.

Let's face it though, STR is the only concrete CHAR there is because it is the only one that can be measured in real life (SPD comes in at second place IMO).

So IOW, CHA is a compromise that concerns itself with mechanics and lets the players sort out its SFX.

It's not a bad compromise. The problem is that it still does not address the (in my opinion) need for a way to separate the two.

With the two combined into one, it's hard to model Hitler (ugly as all get-out but one heck of a charismatic dude) vs. Fran Drescher (who is easy on the eyes, but really really really hard on the ears...).

[radioKAOS]

Although making PER it's own characteristic seems interesting, that would allow it to be drained, no? And that seems wrong somehow - would make flashes useless in comparision.

[nexus]

IIRC, Draining Intellect also reduces your Perception roll in addition to the other benefits. CE can already be used to impose massive penalties on Perception rolls fairly cheaply in a hex. Darkness will knock out Perception rolls entirely and Flashes would be more effective for quick elimination of senses. You don't get a Perception a rolls at all when flashed. Draining Perception would just reduce the roll you have.

[Hugh Neilson]

That's SFX IMO.

Power lifters would be the best leapers in the world if Leaping and STR were that connected*.

Even looking to the source material, ignoring Supers, the "leapers" tend to be the lithe acrobatic rogues more than the hulking brute warriors. Indiana Jones would fall into that latter category.

To the Supers, I see two issues. First, for every Hulk or 1940's Superman, there's a Thing, Colossus or Solomon Grundy who walks. So high STR does not lead to high leaping as a general rule, only in specific cases. Many Bricks (Superman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel) can also fly, but that doesn't link Flight to Strength.

Second, how often do you see the brutes like the Hulk and She-Hulk use their superior leaping abilities for tactical movement in combat? Most of what they do with leaping - long distance transport - would easily be modeled by slapping Megascale on base Leaping of 2", probably with some measure of Scalable to allow them to leap less than, say, 10 km per leap. And it has Extra Time - Hulk has time to chat during his leaps. It acts more like Flight with limitations, and maybe that's the best answer.

"Tactical Leapers" are, again, guys like SpiderMan and Nightcrawler - lithe and agile more than huge physical brutes.

[Klaus Mogensen]

"Tactical Leapers" are, again, guys like SpiderMan and Nightcrawler - lithe and agile more than huge physical brutes.
And let's not forget Batroc the Leaper. :)

- Klaus

[radioKAOS]

IIRC, Draining Intellect also reduces your Perception roll in addition to the other benefits. CE can already be used to impose massive penalties on Perception rolls fairly cheaply in a hex. Darkness will knock out Perception rolls entirely and Flashes would be more effective for quick elimination of senses. You don't get a Perception a rolls at all when flashed. Draining Perception would just reduce the roll you have.

So we need another way of doing the same thing?

Draining your PER would affect ALL of your senses (even unusual ones that may normaly serve as a defense against flashes)- something which costs an arm and a leg to do with any other power - I guess besides simply draining INT (which is way too effective and rarely used/allowed IME).

Or maybe I'm wrong, let's take a quick example:

Sensory Deprivation: Drain PER 4D6, ranged +1/2, 60pts
- This is going to average 14pts of effect, completely depriving most characters of all of their senses - they would return at a rate of 5 per turn, so NO perception for the first full turn and then allowing VERY limited PER rolls for the second full turn (5- is an abysmal chance of actually perceiving anything), into the third full turn the target would have 10- which is a half decent chance of being able to perceive stuff - we'll assume the target regains senses enough to use them by then. So target is rendered useless for a full 24 segments - and most likely out of the fight by then.

Sensory Deprivation II: Flash 24D6 (to average 24 segments of sensory deprivation) vs Sight group, Hearing group, Mental Group, Radio Group, Smell/Taste Group, Touch Group, Unusual Senses (Spatial Awareness, Infrared, Ultraviolet, N-Ray, Radar, Sonar, Ultrasonic, and whatever else might come up)

24D6= 120 sight group
hearing group 5
mental group 5
radio group 5
smell group 5
touch group 5
Spatial Awareness 5
infrared 3
ultraviolet 3
n-ray 3
radar 5
active sonar 5
ultrasonic 3
I don't think we need to add any more pts for other unusual detects, I'm pretty sure the point is proven.

172pts for the Flash version. Ouch.

Even if you only use 12D6 to say the Drain technically only leaves you without senses for 12 segments, the cost is still going to be 112pts.

That feels really wrong to me.

[nexus]

One thing though reducing the Perception only matters if you have to make one. Your senses are not shut down. Drains don't force rolls. If they didn't have to make one before Perception was rolled the character doesn't have too know. It would be bad if someone was trying to, say, sneak up on the character but normal combat wouldn't be too badly effected. Darkness and Flash completely eliminate senses automatically. Barring some negative characteristic rule for Perception as a characteristic.

A Change Environment effect or Images could "force" a perception roll too It wouldn't be a poor man's "omni flash" and like Drain Intellect would be subject GM moderation (and would be less effective since it wouldn't have a double whammy effect).

[radioKAOS]

It's not a bad compromise. The problem is that it still does not address the (in my opinion) need for a way to separate the two.

With the two combined into one, it's hard to model Hitler (ugly as all get-out but one heck of a charismatic dude) vs. Fran Drescher (who is easy on the eyes, but really really really hard on the ears...).

I'm with you on that.

[radioKAOS]

One thing though reducing the Perception only matters if you have to make one. Your senses are not shut down. Drains don't force rolls. If they didn't have to make one before Perception was rolled the character doesn't have too know. It would be bad if someone was trying to, say, sneak up on the character but normal combat wouldn't be too badly effected. Darkness and Flash completely eliminate senses automatically. Barring some negative characteristic rule for Perception as a characteristic.

A Change Environment effect or Images could "force" a perception roll too It wouldn't be a poor man's "omni flash" and like Drain Intellect would be subject GM moderation (and would be less effective since it wouldn't have a double whammy effect).

Interesting point about Drains not forcing rolls, but I think there's a flaw in that logic. What other thing can be drained that is itself a straight roll? I guess Find Weakness...

I would surely rule that if your PER was at 5- you would have to make rolls. Normally the roll couldn't be that low anyhow, even with your INT drained to 0, your PER is still 9-, so we are into uncharted territory.

I would think normal combat should be intensely affected. Any combat type of combat in real life relies very heavily on Perception and reaction time - regardless if anyone is sneaking up on you.

[nexus]

It's not a bad compromise. The problem is that it still does not address the (in my opinion) need for a way to separate the two.

With the two combined into one, it's hard to model Hitler (ugly as all get-out but one heck of a charismatic dude) vs. Fran Drescher (who is easy on the eyes, but really really really hard on the ears...).

We end up with the debate the runs through D and D circles about just how to tell what "Charisma" is and how much is looks how much isn't, etc.

[nexus]

Interesting point about Drains not forcing rolls, but I think there's a flaw in that logic. What other thing can be drained that is itself a straight roll? I guess Find Weakness...


That's an interpretation but it would be, IMO, a house rule. If your character's ego is drained it doesn't become an issue until it reaches a certain point though combat relies allot of courage and resolve. Perception doesn't effect "reaction time" in Hero. Dexterity does (allegedly Intellect is "speed of thought" but doesn't matter at all under Combat rules, only Dex or Ego for mental powers).

Like any other Drained characteristic. if you don't have to use it and it's not reduced enough to trigger the negative char rules then it doesn't come up. Dexterity and Strength are big ones because they are (or figures derived from them) are used in constantly in combat with Con and Pre* close behind. If Perception was a Primary characteristic it would be like any other and used for calculated Char rolls (and alternate skill bases I assume for certain Skills) it wouldn't be a base roll in and of itself.

*Draining Pre/Ego is pretty bad because Pre attack are free (time wise and CP wise) and can cripple a character for quite awhile.

[nexus]

Remember, Hero characters don't have to make Perception rolls to sense the"obvious" which is subject to GM discretion an if the modifiers to perceive an object or phenomena are positive generally the character doesn't have to roll at all. So the effectiveness of Perception Drain would be variable on GM's calls and the any character with the power would have to be Vetted. I think I'd usually go for Flash or Darkness for direct combat use for the advantages of Range and/or Area of Effect as well as immediate crippling results.

[SteveZilla]

Being able to affect PER as if it were a Characteristic with a Negative Adjustmen Power (NAP?) would make Stealth + Suppress PER a near-god ability IMO since Stealth is an opposed Roll.

[radioKAOS]

That's an interpretation but it would be, IMO, a house rule. If your character's ego is drained it doesn't become an issue until it reaches a certain point though combat relies allot of courage and resolve. Perception doesn't effect "reaction time" in Hero. Dexterity does (allegedly Intellect is "speed of thought" but doesn't matter at all under Combat rules, only Dex or Ego for mental powers).

But if your EGO gets drained to 0 you agree that it is a problem for the character, right? Now apply the same logic to PER. We are saying that PER is a characteristic, not just a roll, and that's where this gets muddled and confusing. With no PER a character could not sense at all. I would think the system very flawed if characters were allowed to go through their lives unaffected by not being able to sense anything. My point about combat being heavily influenced by your perception is a fact of real life - which, I assume we are trying to emulate - not that it is a rule in HERO.

Like any other Drained characteristic. if you don't have to use it and it's not reduced enough to trigger the negative char rules then it doesn't come up. Dexterity and Strength are big ones because they are (or figures derived from them) are used in constantly in combat with Con and Pre* close behind. If Perception was a Primary characteristic it would be like any other and used for calculated Char rolls (and alternate skill bases I assume for certain Skills) it wouldn't be a base roll in and of itself.

*Draining Pre/Ego is pretty bad because Pre attack are free (time wise and CP wise) and can cripple a character for quite awhile.

This is where the confusion lies perhaps. PER as of right now is a roll based on your INT. The proposal is to decouple it from INT and make it it's own 'thing' -

Now correct me if I am wrong but you are thinking that means it becomes its own characteristic (and probably we derive a roll from that at the normal base) while I am thinking that it retains the form it is in now (a roll) but costs cp to increase, thereby becomming something that someone could drain.

[radioKAOS]

Remember, Hero characters don't have to make Perception rolls to sense the"obvious" which is subject to GM discretion an if the modifiers to perceive an object or phenomena are positive generally the character doesn't have to roll at all. So the effectiveness of Perception Drain would be variable on GM's calls and the any character with the power would have to be Vetted. I think I'd usually go for Flash or Darkness for direct combat use for the advantages of Range and/or Area of Effect as well as immediate crippling results.

A PER drain would be just as immediate and crippling for much longer. YMMV of course, but if a characteristic that is as important as PER... say INT for example is brought down to 0 or close to it, that is crippling to a character.

With a PER of 0 or close to it, it would only make sense that that target would have to make rolls to sense just about anything - Now maybe I am crazy but it seems plain to me that the rule about not having to roll to see the obvious is because the general/average human PER roll is going to be 11- and seeing the obvious comes with a positive modifier of what, +4? so at 15- yeah, we don't have to make rolls to see what's obvious. But if your roll was 0 (or less than 0) the +4 doesn't help a whole lot in the way of making your percentage chance of sensing something high enough to let it go without a roll.

[SteveZilla]

2) Switch REC from STR/5 + CON/5 to BODY/5 + CON/5. Helps justify that x2 cost on BODY that right now seems a bit overpriced.

I dunno, Not Dying is worth a lot to me. ;) But I think there is logic that REC is based in part off of STR. IMO nature rarely gives something great big muscles but at the same time gimps it by not proportinately increasing it's ability to sustain the use of those muscles.

3) Change STUN to CON + BODY. Simplfies the math quite a bit right there.

I can see this one easily, especially since every point of BODY damage inflicted (after defenses) also causes a point of STUN damage as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Or maybe I'm wrong, let's take a quick example:

Sensory Deprivation: Drain PER 4D6, ranged +1/2, 60pts
- This is going to average 14pts of effect, completely depriving most characters of all of their senses - they would return at a rate of 5 per turn, so NO perception for the first full turn and then allowing VERY limited PER rolls for the second full turn (5- is an abysmal chance of actually perceiving anything), into the third full turn the target would have 10- which is a half decent chance of being able to perceive stuff - we'll assume the target regains senses enough to use them by then. So target is rendered useless for a full 24 segments - and most likely out of the fight by then.

What are you assuming the cost of PER to be? It looks like you're setting a single point as a +1 or -1. I think the proposal for PER to be a characteristic would set it at 1/2 point or 1 point per, most likely the latter, with the usual 9 + CHAR/5 roll. A 14 point drain would reduce the roll by about 3 (6 if it's a 1/2 point stat).

Sensory Deprivation: Drain INT 4D6, ranged +1/2, only affects PER rolls (-1/2) would be 40pts.

One thing though reducing the Perception only matters if you have to make one. Your senses are not shut down. Drains don't force rolls. If they didn't have to make one before Perception was rolled the character doesn't have too know. It would be bad if someone was trying to, say, sneak up on the character but normal combat wouldn't be too badly effected. Darkness and Flash completely eliminate senses automatically. Barring some negative characteristic rule for Perception as a characteristic.

A Change Environment effect or Images could "force" a perception roll too It wouldn't be a poor man's "omni flash" and like Drain Intellect would be subject GM moderation (and would be less effective since it wouldn't have a double whammy effect).

Yes and no. Assuming no change to the negative CHAR rolls in general, once PER drops to/below 0 you would be required to make a PER roll to detect anything, wouldn't you? Taking any stat below zero is a very effective tactic at present.

[nexus]

Now correct me if I am wrong but you are thinking that means it becomes its own characteristic (and probably we derive a roll from that at the normal base) while I am thinking