General Rules Issues [Archive] - Page 10 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Markdoc

Feb 12th, '09, 11:51 PM

I don't think 25% or 50% are mispriced, but I think 75% is where the pricing starts to fall out of line - double the cost to boost the benefit by 50%. If I had no defenses at all, I'd be taking 21 STUN and 6 BOD from a 12d6 attack with 50% resistant damage reduction. I could buy that up to 75% and take 10.5 and 3, or I could buy 20 rDEF and take 11 and no BOD. If I could take an extra 0.5 STUN to avoid taking 3 BOD, it seems very worthwhile from a character survival perspective.

Yeah, but if you look at the example you gave, the extra cost to go to 75% halves the damage you take again. That's what it's supposed to do. It's a powerful ability and seems to be appropriately priced. Your mistake, I think, is to compare it to regular DEF and then note that the cost is out of line. But (IMO) they are not supposed to be the same. Damage reduction is a defence, but it is not intended to be equivalent to DEF. Under normal situations, DEF is usually superior - and I'm cool with that, because in abnormal situations DR is superior. The character with DEF is better against a regular EB and KA with a low to middling stun multiples. The character with DR has some protection against KA with high stun multiples, and is better against AVLD or NND attacks. He's also better protected against huge damage attacks. Given that - and the asymmetric nature of the way DR affects damage, it really doesn't bother me that the cost is not entirely analogous to DEF.

You can - as you have demonstrated - easily make plenty of examples where DEF outperforms DR of the same cost. I can trivially make examples where DR outperforms DEF of the same cost. That tells us nothing, really apart from the act that they work differently. What I am more concerned about, is "Does it balance well in play?" and the answer so far seems to be yes.

As I said, I'm not keen on 100% resistance (Desolid isn't really equivalent, since you have to include both a loophole and pay a huge penalty if you want to be able to use your powers on others) - though as noted I don't absolutely hate the idea.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Feb 13th, '09, 12:05 AM

I haven't played in any really high-powered campaigns myself, but some friends of mine had one som years ago, and every single player character had at least 50% DR vs. physical and energy. You could argue that it simply is something all really powerful characters should have, same as the ability to survive in space. However, the costing of DR makes it a very poor choice for low-powered characters, even where it would thematically make sense.

Yeah, this is pretty much my thinking. In cosmically powered games, yes, many, if not most most characters have DR. They almost all have life support, and resistant DEF as well, and Characteristics up in the 30-50+ range and VPPs are typically very common. I'm not seeing the problem here.

In low powered games DR is expensive - but then, so is Desolid. We use it in our heroic level games and appropriately limited - for example in a fantasy game, "Tough: 50% rPDR, stun only (-1/2), requires a CON roll (-1/2)" 30 active 15 real - makes for an awesomely effective heavy fighter - and the cost is on par with plenty of other fighting maneuvers. DR gets heavy usage in spells like "Iron Body" and so on. Again, it's a highly useful advantage: especially in games which use hit locations - which is rather expensive. I'm still not seeing the problem here.

There is, however, one simple way to make characters take less damage from attacks, which scales perfectly, and which is more flexible than DR:

If you buy twice as much CON, BODY, STUN, and REC, you effectively take half damage from all attacks. You can choose to increase some of these more than others in order to gain relatively greater protection from one aspect of damage, and you can buy some of them limited: "not vs. killing attacks", "only versus energy", etc.

This is possible within the current rules, without adding anything. Removing DR will thus not make any character concept impossible, but it will remove one of the near-absolutes from the game.

Your "simple way" however is not only grotesquely expensive once you move out of the lower points ranges, but has a vastly unbalancing effect on the game, affecting not only damage, but stunning, transform, healing, transfer powers, time to death, recovery in combat and CON rolls. As a replacement for DR, I'd grade it "F".

cheers, Mark

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 13th, '09, 01:24 AM

This doesn't make "base cost removes 25%, double that removes half, now double the total again for each additional halving" reasonable.
Let's look at it another way: You pay 30 points to halve the damage that make it through other defenses. Should it make any difference that a part of these other defenses is Damage Reduction rather than DEF?

Or a third way: You argue that the second halving is worth less because there is less damage to halve: If there's only 25 points to halve, it's obviously worth less than if there's 50 points to halve. This would also mean that if you bought +25 DEF, then the first 50% DR should cost less than 30 points, because then there would only be 25 STUN to halve from an attack that would otherwise do 50 STUN.

Or a fourth way: If you have 25 DEF, then by your line of argument, the next 25 DEF should be cheaper, because if you're hit by a 30 STUN/5 BODY attack, the first 25 DEF will remove 25 STUN and 5 BODY, while the second 25 DEF will only remove 5 STUN.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Feb 13th, '09, 05:35 AM

Yeah, but if you look at the example you gave, the extra cost to go to 75% halves the damage you take again. That's what it's supposed to do. It's a powerful ability and seems to be appropriately priced. Your mistake, I think, is to compare it to regular DEF and then note that the cost is out of line. But (IMO) they are not supposed to be the same. Damage reduction is a defence, but it is not intended to be equivalent to DEF. Under normal situations, DEF is usually superior - and I'm cool with that, because in abnormal situations DR is superior. The character with DEF is better against a regular EB and KA with a low to middling stun multiples. The character with DR has some protection against KA with high stun multiples, and is better against AVLD or NND attacks. He's also better protected against huge damage attacks. Given that - and the asymmetric nature of the way DR affects damage, it really doesn't bother me that the cost is not entirely analogous to DEF.

The situations where DR is superior need to be roughly equivalent to those where it is inferior for matters to balance out. In low power games, it's extremely rare for those 30 points spend on Damage Reduction to prove superior to the same investment in defenses.

You can - as you have demonstrated - easily make plenty of examples where DEF outperforms DR of the same cost. I can trivially make examples where DR outperforms DEF of the same cost. That tells us nothing, really apart from the act that they work differently. What I am more concerned about, is "Does it balance well in play?" and the answer so far seems to be yes.

Like many things, I think it balances well in play because we make it balance well in play. A character with 75% physical and energy damage reduction pays 120 points for defenses, plus whatever he paid for his actual PD, ED and resistant defenses. He probably has a bit of Regeneration as well since he'll take BOD a lot more than the typical Super (and no one else has 120+ points to spend on this), so let's assume 8 PD, 8 ED, both with 5 Resistant and 16 points on Regeneration for a total of 37 on defenses, plus Damage Reduction = 157 points. He'll take about 8.5 STUN from a typical 12d6 attack. He'll take 28 STUN and 4 BOD from a max damage 4d6 KA. A 5d6 AVLD will do 4 on average

Would you let a character spend the same 157 points on defenses? Let's say that's 12 each Power, Sight Flash, Hearing Flash and Mental defense for 48 points, we'll spend 5 on Lack of Weakness leaving 104. Let's give him 20 rPD and 20 rED, spending another 60, leaving 44. Add 22 to each of PD and ED. for a total of 42. Now let's compare those attacks.

The AVLD does 5.5, marginally more, but this character is also protected from blindness, deafness, adjustment powers and mental powers.

The EB does nothing on an average roll. A 54 point EB is the break even point. That's over 15d6 with an average roll. Will there be as many or more attackers with over 15d6 attacks? Enough to make up for all the standard opponents with 12d6 and the agents with 8d6 - 10d6 blasts?

The KA will get 78 STUN through, but no BOD, with that perfect hit, so that infrequent occurrence leaves defenses at a big disadvantage. But, again, will these be frequent enough to make up for the spread on average attacks? The average KA roll is 14 BOD and 37.33 STUN - 4 in 6 average damage attacks do nothing to the guy who bought defenses.

And it seems reasonably likely we won't have the highly volatile KA stun multiple in 6e, in which case the only common benefit enjoyed by the Damage Reduction character will be gone.

Let's look at it another way: You pay 30 points to halve the damage that make it through other defenses. Should it make any difference that a part of these other defenses is Damage Reduction rather than DEF?

Or a third way: You argue that the second halving is worth less because there is less damage to halve: If there's only 25 points to halve, it's obviously worth less than if there's 50 points to halve. This would also mean that if you bought +25 DEF, then the first 50% DR should cost less than 30 points, because then there would only be 25 STUN to halve from an attack that would otherwise do 50 STUN.

Or a fourth way: If you have 25 DEF, then by your line of argument, the next 25 DEF should be cheaper, because if you're hit by a 30 STUN/5 BODY attack, the first 25 DEF will remove 25 STUN and 5 BODY, while the second 25 DEF will only remove 5 STUN.

The next 25 remove up to 25 points from an attack. The next 30 Damage Reduction still lets points through, no matter how much is purchased. I would let a character add 50% damage reduction to his 15 rDEF character in a typical Supers game. Total cost 105 for PD and ED. I might even allow 35 rPD and 35rED, but I doubt I'd allow 20rPD, 20rED and total PD and ED of 43 and 42 (same 105 point cost). The defenses make the character too effective.

Similarly, I'd probably allow a guy with, say, 8 rPD, 8 rED and 75% damage reduction (144 points spent), but I doubt I'd allow 24 rPD, 24 rED with 60 total PD and ED. But it carries the same cost - and only the one I'd allow needs to also buy up his BOD, regen or healing to deal with the BOD damage he will take.

If one character would be allowed and the other wouldn't, despite spending the same points in the same broad area (defenses), I don't believe the two approaches are balanced.

Lucius

Feb 16th, '09, 11:24 AM

Because every "absolute" listed so far has a bypass built in.

And don't bring up the vegan. I dated her.

Then I think you and I are in agreement.

No Normal Defense has a defense that stops it cold.

Desolid has some kind of attack that still effects the character.

I think this sort of meta-rule is a principle worth preserving.

Lucius Alexander

Preserving a metapalindromedary

Greywind

Feb 16th, '09, 08:27 PM

Which, given the fact that it can be "worked around", pretty much makes it not an absolute.

SteveZilla

Feb 16th, '09, 08:36 PM

"The only thing absolute in the game is that absolutes aren't."

BobGreenwade

Feb 17th, '09, 07:22 AM

Which, given the fact that it can be "worked around", pretty much makes it not an absolute.That's my thought precisely.

Markdoc

Feb 17th, '09, 08:20 AM

Which, given the fact that it can be "worked around", pretty much makes it not an absolute.

"The only thing absolute in the game is that absolutes aren't."

That's my thought precisely.

Which is where we ended up last time we had this discussion - absolutes are OK in-game, as long as they are not actually absolute.

cheers, Mark

Vulcan

Feb 17th, '09, 08:28 AM

Which, given the fact that it can be "worked around", pretty much makes it not an absolute.

Even Superman has his Kryptonite.

Greywind

Feb 17th, '09, 08:36 AM

Superman isn't absolute. He's conflicted. The Kryptonian is a sexual deviant.

Markdoc

Feb 17th, '09, 08:39 AM

Even Superman has his Kryptonite.

You don't even need kryptonite - he's been punched unconscious (or even to death) often enough by strong people. He's not invulnerable, just really tough. Like most absolutes in the source material, it turns out to not be absolute. Which makes sense - in fiction, as in gaming, absolutes are not that much fun.

cheers, Mark

Vulcan

Feb 17th, '09, 09:02 AM

You don't even need kryptonite - he's been punched unconscious (or even to death) often enough by strong people. He's not invulnerable, just really tough. Like most absolutes in the source material, it turns out to not be absolute. Which makes sense - in fiction, as in gaming, absolutes are not that much fun.

cheers, Mark

Exactly!

Checkmate

Feb 20th, '09, 12:59 PM

I'm going to completely ignore 152 pages of posts, and just answer these questions the way I wanna :p

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.
I like the d6, but I'm not married to it. If using different dice allows modifiers to have a lesser effect, I'm for it.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m not convinced this is necessary. I know that some people favor switching to some sort of “roll high” system on the grounds that it’s somehow more intuitive, but I don’t necessarily agree, and I have yet to see any ideas along those lines that really seemed to me to withstand scrutiny. Unless strongly convinced otherwise I intend to stick with the current HERO method of rolling low.

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.
I agree with broadening the bell curve. I like this idea run with it . No I have absolutely no idea how to do it, but I'm sure someone in the 153 pages before this post does.:D

Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m strongly in favor of doing this. There’s absolutely no reason to keep the hex. The HERO System shouldn’t require you to use an entirely separate form of measuring things; it’s an impediment to learning the game. It also leads to annoying confusion on some issues (“I can attack anywhere in an adjacent hex... so in theory I have a reach of 13 feet?”). It would make a lot more sense to measure things in meters. That would also allow characters to buy Movement Powers more granularly (e.g., 1 meter of Flight for 1 Character Point).

I like the Hex. We tend to think too much in terms of what our minature is doing, we forget what is actually supposed to be happening. The characters are actually dancing around their hex dodging and trying to get a good shot. They don't need a 13' reach they just wait until they dance close to each other.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Steve’s Thoughts: If I were designing the game from the get-go I probably wouldn’t use the metric system; it’s generally annoying. But since the HERO System has used it for over 25 years I don’t see any good reason to change now. If nothing else it’s helped me learn that a kilogram is 2.2 pounds. ;)

As an Amercian, I would love the Imperial System, however I feel the same way, after 25 years why fight it?

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any reason to, but since it’s an important part of the system the question needs to be asked.

I think the rounding rules work fine. I would examine the rules for adding STR and Jumpping.

Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?

Steve’s Thoughts: This would be a really radical change and would require changing how a lot of other aspects of the system work (e.g., Adjustment Powers, Power Frameworks). While it would simplify some things, it strikes me as upsetting the apple cart to an extreme degree — the AP/RP distinction is firmly ingrained in both the rules and the minds of gamers. I don’t think eliminating the concept is worth the difficulties it would cause — but as always I’m willing to listen to discussion. ;)

I've heard a lot of dissatisfation with adjustment powers, so this may need a more thorough look at. My feeling is that its fine the way it is.

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?

Steve’s Thoughts: My thinking is that we should not. The HERO System has always lacked absolutes — with a few minor exceptions, there’s no absolute, 100%, guaranteed way to hit, do damage, be invulnerable to damage, be invisible, perceive something, or the like. There are plenty of good reasons for this (not the least of which is that in fiction, such “absolutes” often turn out to be not so absolute after all), and it’s sort of a core philosophy of the system. There are some specific questions dealing with “absolutes” issues below, but in general I think it’s best to keep things the way they are and simply incorporate the Absolute Effects Rule from FH into the core rulebook.
Absolutes should absolutely NOT be a part of HERO.

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m in favor of doing this, even if I only make them optional, because I think it’s a valuable mechanic that can add a lot to many campaigns. Players seem to like having just a bit of control over things, and Hero Points gives that to them without running roughshod over the GM. I think they enhance the “dramatic realism” aspect of the HERO System.

This is a frivolous thing. If you want "Hero Points" in your game add them. I suppose you could add an optional rule to the core rules, but I personally feel its a waste of paper.

Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I think gaming and gamers have matured to the point where we can safely explain that even in Superheroic games, it’s probably OK to have minor items (like ordinary flashlights and cellular phones) without paying for them. Combat-effective items like weapons and armor should always require points, but I don’t think it’s going to unbalance anyone’s campaign if characters have ordinary cars to drive around in “for free.”

Similarly, I want to emphasize early in the 6E rulebook that GMs shouldn’t stress about making characters pay points for things that don’t really have any impact on the campaign. If you want your character to be an expert on Italian literature, just write down KS: Italian Literature 17- for 0 points — when is that ever likely to have any effect on the game? Even some standard Skills, like Navigation, probably only need to be paid for in certain types of campaigns. Bringing this issue to everyone’s attention early on should effectively counteract the idiotic and ignorant arguments we sometimes see about “you have to buy chairs with Character Points.”
I think you should have to pay points for Italian Literature 17-. In 5th ed. The base points for a "typical" Champions game was increased from 250 points to 350 points. The justification for that was the increase in the amount of skills and Perks/Fringe Benefits.

Now I could see, not making you buy KS: Pre 1600's Italian Lit and KS: Post 1600's Italian Lit, and reinforcing the concept of simple tasks don't require a roll.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 21st, '09, 01:37 AM

Greywind

Feb 21st, '09, 06:29 AM

I think the game needs to change to D30. That hardly sees any use...

IndianaJoe3

Feb 21st, '09, 06:57 AM

I think the game needs to change to D30. That hardly sees any use...

The -0 0 +0 version or the 1-30 version? :help:

ghost-angel

Feb 21st, '09, 07:36 AM

Down With Platonic Solids! D16!

SteveZilla

Feb 21st, '09, 08:23 AM

I think the game needs to change to D30. That hardly sees any use...

What about the d24?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/24_sided_dice_d24.jpg

SteveZilla

Feb 21st, '09, 09:01 AM

On the topic of which dice to roll: I recently suggested a zero-centred roll(2d6-2d6), but as someone pointed out, it doesn't increase the spread much. Here is a variant that does, though it isn't "d6 pure": 2d6-d12.

At first sight, this may seem like an odd choice, but it has a clear advantage: Half the results will be positive, while the other half will be 0 or less. This means that (a) Roll + OCV > DCV has a 50% chance of success for OCV = DCV and (b) Roll + OCV > DCV is interchangable with Roll + DCV > OCV, which allows players to roll for defense rather than having the GM roll attacks for NPC. This also works for opposed skills: You can roll Stealth vs. Perception or Perception vs. Stealth and get the same result spread.

The standard operation will thus be Ability + 2d6-d12 > Target. If Ability = Target, you have exactly 50% chance to succeed.

2d6-d12 also has about half again the spread of 3d6. The distribution is as follows:

-10 or 11: 1/432 = 0.23%
-9 or 10: 3/432 = 0.69%
-8 or 9: 6/432 = 1.39%
-7 or 8: 10/432 = 2.31%
-6 or 7: 15/432 = 3.47%
-5 or 6: 21/432 = 4.86%
-4 or 5: 26/432 = 6.02%
-3 or 4: 30/432 = 6.94%
-2 or 3: 33/432 = 7.64%
-1 or 2: 35/432 = 8.10%
0 or 1: 36/432 = 8.33% (=1/12)

- Klaus

That does produce a nice bell curve, both reasonably wide and not terribly tall. Instead of 3D6 + OCV - DCV > 11, if we used 2D6-D12 + OCV - DCV > 1, it would lower the chance of success from 62% to 58% for equal CVs. (I don't want it to be a 50:50 proposition, but that's just my preference to avoid extraneous whiffing in combat).

But the question then becomes, if this is used, what effect would that have on characteristic's contribution to combat & skills?

Currently, every 3 DEX grants 1 CV, and a difference of 4 CVs between combatants makes for a 95%/16% chance for success. With 2D6-D12, it would then take 5-6 CVs difference to achieve the same results -- a slight-to-modest increase in the "spread" in terms of CV vs CV chances (from 4 to 5-6).

Greywind

Feb 21st, '09, 09:11 AM

The -0 0 +0 version or the 1-30 version? :help:1-30. Only one I have.

What about the d24?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/24_sided_dice_d24.jpgDon't have one of those, so we can't switch to that.

JmOz

Feb 21st, '09, 07:55 PM

I think I said this before, but on issues of not needing to buy everything: I think this is a good idea overall, I think the GM needs to talk to the players about the level of detail he wants. If I am doing LAW & ORDER HERO then I will want all of the (Lawyer) characters to have skills representing specialties, and detailed knowledge skills. But if I am running a Champions game where you want to play a lawyer but will be rarely in the courtroom a KS and PS will suffice...

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 22nd, '09, 01:41 AM

That does produce a nice bell curve, both reasonably wide and not terribly tall. Instead of 3D6 + OCV - DCV > 11, if we used 2D6-D12 + OCV - DCV > 1, it would lower the chance of success from 62% to 58% for equal CVs. (I don't want it to be a 50:50 proposition, but that's just my preference to avoid extraneous whiffing in combat).
That is a valid concern, but I do like that you could let players roll for their own defense as well as rolling for their attacks. It also lightens the GM's burden. Besides, if we aren't going to take advantage of the zero-centredness, we might as well use 2d6+d12 and use Roll + OCV - DCV >= 15.

But the question then becomes, if this is used, what effect would that have on characteristic's contribution to combat & skills?
Well, Steve has been asking for a way to increase the granularity, so that +/- 1 OCV doesn't make as much difference as it does now. 2d6-d12 will allow bonuses at shorter intervals, e.g. every CHA/2½ as I've suggested. :)

- Klaus

Balabanto

Feb 22nd, '09, 08:16 AM

I think the reward of this is going to be problematic. When you build a skill heavy character, a lot of those useless little skills do come into play every so often.

I don't think allowing people to have ridiculously high skill rolls in obscure specialities is honest or fair. Suddenly "He's a genius in his field" is free. And that's a BIG problem, because if you run a game like mine where you have a bunch of different PC groups in the same world, scaling that against the WORLD ITSELF becomes very difficult.

And what if the GM has already decided that there's a villain out there who's just as good, if not better, than a PC. One misallowed skill like this CAN RUIN THE WHOLE GAME FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

To this idea of freebie high skill rolls, I say...(BLEEP!) no!

ghost-angel

Feb 22nd, '09, 01:06 PM

If it never comes up, or possibly might come up once a campaign - no harm no foul.
If it could possibly come up more than once - then it's not obscure enough to qualify.

It's one of those case-by-case rules and getting that worked up over it is silly.

dropblack

Feb 23rd, '09, 08:51 AM

Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?

It may be a shallow pet peeve of mine, but one of the things that turns me off about GURPS is that 1 (1 inch) hex = 1 meter--when using figures the scale is all off (what can I say, I like using figures and creating dioramas of the scenes). My only concern would be to keep the (semi-)relative scale of the figures proportionate with whatever kind of hex map or grid is being used.

Jhaierr

Feb 26th, '09, 12:21 AM

A quick note on "absolutes":

I think that if you are going to have options in the rules like using Desolidification with "only vs. fire" to emulate an immunity to fire (which is a bit kludge-like), then you might as well have 100% Damage Reduction that you can attach a limitation to ("only vs. fire") instead. That's far more intuitive and less like a "there are no absolutes so I'm trying to work around it by using Desolidification" situation. Perhaps Damage Reduction should be more expensive at higher levels to account for the new 100% level?

Or, alternatively, have Damage Reduction work more like Dispel. The various levels are cheap vs. one particular attack, and more expensive as you add on more types of attacks that it protects against (just like Dispel works). Eventually you end up with a +2 advantage combined with 100% Damage Reduction, which allows for an absolute effect -- but it's quite expensive.

Just an idea -- I haven't thought it through all the way or in great detail.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 26th, '09, 05:33 AM

I think that if you are going to have options in the rules like using Desolidification with "only vs. fire" to emulate an immunity to fire (which is a bit kludge-like), then you might as well have 100% Damage Reduction that you can attach a limitation to ("only vs. fire") instead. That's far more intuitive and less like a "there are no absolutes so I'm trying to work around it by using Desolidification" situation. Perhaps Damage Reduction should be more expensive at higher levels to account for the new 100% level?

I agree that 100% "reduction" is preferable to the Desolid kludge. A GM who doesn't want 100% immunity will simply not allow either ability in his game, so why not make it simple for the GM who does want to allow such an ability?

As to pricing, +40 rPD or +60 PD for the same cost as 75% Damage Reduction seems to compare favourably in most cases. I don't think Damage Reduction is underpriced at any typical campaign level for DC and defenses (especially if killing attacks are fixed to remove their volatility).

PhilFleischmann

Feb 26th, '09, 01:20 PM

Another problem with the Desolid kludge: it *still* isn't absolute! If Asbestos Man is Desolid vs fire attacks, and fire attack with +1/2 Affects Desolid on it still affects him. And in some cases, even a mere +1/4 version is sufficient.

Kdansky

Mar 7th, '09, 02:29 AM

I do have another general issue, and it is big:

Currently, we have those nifty point-values for everything. Well, in the end, they do not work out very well. It is easy to construct two characters for similar points and end up with one that is utterly ineffective and another which is totally breaking the game. To me, it seems that currently points are not really a measure of power at all. Even if you build a good character, you can be sure that Sean or I will find a way to shave off 10 points and make a better one. Ad Infinitum. Sure, the GM can stop me, but then he is eyeballing to begin with.

Reasons for that:

- Advantage Stacking
- Figureds which skew the balance heavily
- Attributes such as OCV/DCV rolled on 3d6, making very small improvements huge in effect.
- Same goes for speed.

And a few more. In the end, I have eyeballed a 100% of the characters in the current game. I even gave one a few more points to burn because the cool stuff he imagined could not be afforded. Does he break the game? Hell no!

My next game will not have total point values for characters I think. Because that is easier to balance than points without meaning.

steamteck

Mar 7th, '09, 06:24 AM

A quick note on "absolutes":

Or, alternatively, have Damage Reduction work more like Dispel. The various levels are cheap vs. one particular attack, and more expensive as you add on more types of attacks that it protects against (just like Dispel works). Eventually you end up with a +2 advantage combined with 100% Damage Reduction, which allows for an absolute effect -- but it's quite expensive.

Just an idea -- I haven't thought it through all the way or in great detail.

Often the devil's in the details but I really like the basic idea.

The Main Man

Mar 8th, '09, 02:16 PM

I kinda like the idea too - IIUC, Jhaierr - you are saying that Damage Reduction is not universal at base but rather that advantages must be bought for it to achieve this status.

I might suggest that DR's base costs are halved at the least - I'm not sure if it should be Resistant by default to boot or not though.

Jhaierr

Mar 9th, '09, 02:58 PM

Okay, I'm going to sit down and figure out some cost possibilities for my "DR is like Dispel" idea.

Damage Reduction, unlike the current system, works by default against one particular special effect. Also, it is by default Resistant. The base cost is:

25%: 5
50%: 10
75%: 20
100%: 40

Each Damage Reduction Power is bought vs. Energy, Physical, or Mental.

The Advantage levels are:

Base: one special effect (e.g., fire, swords)
+1/4: a small group of similar special effects (e.g., fire/heat/microwave damage, blade damage) or two special effects (e.g., fire and ice, swords and maces)
+1/2: two groups of similar special effects (e.g., fire/heat/etc and ice/cold/etc, blades and blunt weapons)
+1: a related group of special effects (e.g., elemental damage, weapons, magic)
+2: all damage

If you want non-resistant, then you apply a -1/2 limitation: Non-resistant. (Alternatively, you can create a different base cost for non-resistant DR, but the advantages stay the same.)

What do you guys think?

Jhaierr

Mar 9th, '09, 03:23 PM

Some potential writeups:

Blessing of Garana: 100% Physical Damage Reduction (vs. broadswords only) (40 points).

(Totally immune to physical damage from swords, but unfortunately, a dagger, a scimitar, or a kitchen knife will get right through.)

Flame-retardant suit: 50% Energy Damage Reduction (vs. heat/fire, +1/4) (12 points)

Farisian's Hidden Mind: 75% Mental Damage Reduction (vs. telepathy or scrying (mind scan), +1/2) (30 points)

(I believe each mental ability should count as one group of special effects...)

Impervious Skin: 100% Physical Damage Reduction (vs. all special effects, +2) (120 points)

Fire Elemental Inherent Protections: 100% Energy Damage Reduction (vs. fire/heat/etc, +1/4) (50 points)

The Slayer is Tough (but can still be shot with a bullet): 50% Physical Damage Reduction (vs. all special effects, +2), non-resistant (-1/2) (30 AP, 20 RC)

(Punches, kicks, throws, bashes, etc. are much less effective vs. the Slayer, but knives and bullets....)

Shunting Field: 75% Energy Damage Reduction (vs. all special effects, +2) (60 points)

Jhaierr

Mar 9th, '09, 04:06 PM

Oops. Since this thread is more for General Rules Issues, I copied those posts to the Powers A-E thread instead, here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1795995

So we can discuss that over there instead.

ghost-angel

Mar 22nd, '09, 02:17 PM

I don't know if that has been mentioned, I'm not looking either 'cuz that's how I am.

Resource Pools need to be made a core rule concept, especially for Heroic Games, but even for Superheroic Games they can be used as a Normal Item control measure.

They're just an extremely useful concept.

The Main Man

Mar 22nd, '09, 06:08 PM

I concur - having them inside of the core rules would remove some particular mistaken prejudices about the HERO system.

Kdansky

Mar 23rd, '09, 03:09 AM

Netzilla

Mar 23rd, '09, 04:23 AM

I disagree (hah!) ;)

We are currently playing a game where people have equipment pools, and it just does not work out very well. It is just a factor five to ten cheaper to buy your stuff through it than differently and one rarely has drawbacks. Sure, stuff can get lost or malfunction, but you can bring three spares and still have points left over. We are always mixing and matching house-rules and optional things with every game a-new, to see which ideas work and which ones don't. I really do not see the point of a ressource pool. In the end it is so utterly cheap that people can just carry around as much gear as they want, it just increases book-keeping (and makes the GM cringe everytime they want a tool and ask: "What does it cost?", since he has to figure out the real points of it).

I would rather go the Focus of Opportunity-approach. If you want to shoot guns, buy 3d6 RKA, OAF of opportunity (gun).

Well, my group's experiences have been different. We've run a few games now with Resource Pools and, if anything, we tend to not have enough points in the pool for everything we want. How many points do your Pools start with? Do you allow unlimited increases in Pool sizes? If so, I'd guess that's your problem. With our group, like any points expenditure, you have to have an in-game justification for increasing (or purchasing a new) ability.

Kdansky

Mar 23rd, '09, 06:00 AM

Netzilla

Mar 23rd, '09, 06:37 AM

I agree that we may be using it wrong, or possibly, it does not fit our setting very well. What kind of equipment do you guys allow in ressource pools? With us, "equipment book list" does not work, since that list is fairly noncomprehensive for our homebrew Sci-Fi setting. ;)

Depends on the campaign. In my current game (Mythic Greek Hero, see my sig), We only have an Equipment Pool. I only make the Characters pay for combat gear (I felt no need to track torches, rope, tents and the like that closely) and started then at 40 points. One character (Sarrigone) spent 3 CPs at character creation to up her limit to 55 points. As her character was 1) a descendant of Aries, 2) the team tank and 3) the only dedicated front-line warrior; so it made sense for her. No one has attempted to buy up their starting levels yet, but we're only 3 episodes into the campaign.

A couple years back, one of the others ran a sci-fi game were we did all three (Equipment, Vehicles/Bases and Contacts/Followers) pools exactly as written up in DC. Most importantly was probably the fact that the GM strictly enforced the rules requiring a Perk for access to military/advanced equipment. My character (the sniper/computer hacker) always had to seriously consider his gear going into a mission (if I take the sniper rifle and the side-arm I can take my laptop but no grenades or the knife; if I drop the side-arm, I can take the scope for the rifle but then, that's my only weapon...) The heavy-weapons guy had it even worse.

The campaign I'm currently prepping (Monster Hunters) will be using the same basic rules as the sci-fi game did. One thing our group noticed from the sci-fi game and from prepping the next campaign, is that while the Equipment rules work well and the Vehicle/Base rules work okay, the Contacts/Followers pools can be a bit wonky. I adjudicate it: you don't have to pick your Contacts/Followers before hand but once you reach your pool limit, any further rolls Contact rolls automatically fail and followers are unavailable/unable to help.

We've never used Resource Pools in a straight supers setting.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Resource Pool rules don't allow you to have the Independent limitation on your gear, upping its cost by a non-trivial amount.

Markdoc

Mar 23rd, '09, 08:30 AM

Our experiences have been the same as Netzilla's: we've used resource pools in a cyberpunk setting (Susano's Kazei 5 game) and in two different fantasy games (one GM'ed by me, one by another GM). I would agree that they are not satisfactory, but for the exact opposite reason: they tended to limit players in illogical ways.

Example: in the cyberpunk game, I had to decide between carrying a couple of grenades or a sword. We're not talking encumbrance here - it's just that the assault rifle and sword basically filled the pool. The GM (sensibly, IMO) limited the pool size so that free stuff didn't dominate character concept but as a result, it was often an irritant.

Second example: In an FH game, a Character turns up for a major battle in his shirt. Reason: his pool was not big enough for his armour and the nasty-sword the GM gifted us with a few sessions back. I mean, really :rolleyes:

I think resource pools are an OK optional rule, and under certain circumstances, they would probably work well, but having tried them, as a player and a GM, I prefer to handle access to "free" equipment on a case by case basis. That said, I think they should stay in: I'd just prefer they not be shifted into the rules as a standard option. They are essentially an alternate framework that works totally differently from existing ones.

cheers, Mark

ajackson

Mar 23rd, '09, 12:11 PM

One variant I've pondered: if you have a plot/hero point system (points you can spend to get various benefits, such as luck effects, pushing, or power stunts), you can have plot points also be spent to use equipment you haven't paid for.

The Main Man

Mar 23rd, '09, 12:43 PM

ghost-angel

Mar 24th, '09, 02:27 PM

I'm not sure exactly how others are using the Pools - but I almost always force Independent Limitation on items in the Pool; it reflects the removable nature of the item from the campaign, and helps reduce Real Points enough that many things fit. (losing the item does not remove the Pool Points, it's just a reflection that the character does not 'own' the item in any permanent sense.)

Also, I'm not saying the Pools as they currently stand should go in. Maybe some different split suggestions for various games.

Perhaps for a Fantasy Hero Game it'd make more sense to have an Armor Pool, a Weapon Pool, and a Misc. Magic Item Pool. Considering that magic added to basic equipment can do so many things it adds to AP/RP quickly.

Star Hero could divide out to Combat Equipment, Non-Combat Equipment so you can get both weapons/armor and all the cool techie toys common to the setting.

And, you could also introduce a Mass/Size Modifier to Equipment. Big heavy stuff takes up more of the pool. If Life Support is a big bulky SCBA it could take 3x its Real Points in the Pool; but a super-light weight pistol could take up 1/2 its RP.

And, of course, there's GM control to how large a pool can or should get.

I just think the idea of them is too useful a concept to not include as a Core Rule Concept.

Insaniac99

Mar 26th, '09, 11:17 AM

Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I think gaming and gamers have matured to the point where we can safely explain that even in Superheroic games, it’s probably OK to have minor items (like ordinary flashlights and cellular phones) without paying for them. Combat-effective items like weapons and armor should always require points, but I don’t think it’s going to unbalance anyone’s campaign if characters have ordinary cars to drive around in “for free.”

Similarly, I want to emphasize early in the 6E rulebook that GMs shouldn’t stress about making characters pay points for things that don’t really have any impact on the campaign. If you want your character to be an expert on Italian literature, just write down KS: Italian Literature 17- for 0 points — when is that ever likely to have any effect on the game? Even some standard Skills, like Navigation, probably only need to be paid for in certain types of campaigns. Bringing this issue to everyone’s attention early on should effectively counteract the idiotic and ignorant arguments we sometimes see about “you have to buy chairs with Character Points.”

As a related issue, I REALLY think you should include a discussion about plot devices here.

What I mean is that Plot devices like time-stop don't need to be statted up or assigned to points. Same thing with the big D's many minions and lairs, I mean we get that he has a ton, enough to do what he wants, right? so why go into detail about how much points he pays for them or an actual number of bases and minion he has at a given time?

And if you have the physical embodiment of strength, able to lift Kilimanjaro with a single hand (without breaking a sweat no less), you don't need to say how strong he is, unless there are lots of other people (or Player Characters) in your game who can do that same thing.

So I think hero 6 should mention that there are also times you don't need to worry about the powers as well as the points, you just use a huge helping of Hand-wavium to do it.

To use the common object example, you don't need to say a Flashlight is "images, only to create light, OAF" you just say you have a flashlight. Something like a hero that uses flames, maybe he pays a point or two for a "create light" power that he doesn't lose but it really is just a special effect of his powers and not something that players should even worry about. We (or atleast, I) don't want a scenario when they are underground and the human torch says "I turn up my flame to create enough light for people to see" and the GM or the system goes "Did you pay points for that? How about making a power skill roll to see if you can" or even something like "Ok, you can this time, but next time you have to pay points."

bigbywolfe

Mar 26th, '09, 11:43 AM

As a related issue, I REALLY think you should include a discussion about plot devices here.

What I mean is that Plot devices like time-stop don't need to be statted up or assigned to points. Same thing with the big D's many minions and lairs, I mean we get that he has a ton, enough to do what he wants, right? so why go into detail about how much points he pays for them or an actual number of bases and minion he has at a given time?

And if you have the physical embodiment of strength, able to lift Kilimanjaro with a single hand (without breaking a sweat no less), you don't need to say how strong he is, unless there are lots of other people (or Player Characters) in your game who can do that same thing.

So I think hero 6 should mention that there are also times you don't need to worry about the powers as well as the points, you just use a huge helping of Hand-wavium to do it.

To use the common object example, you don't need to say a Flashlight is "images, only to create light, OAF" you just say you have a flashlight. Something like a hero that uses flames, maybe he pays a point or two for a "create light" power that he doesn't lose but it really is just a special effect of his powers and not something that players should even worry about. We (or atleast, I) don't want a scenario when they are underground and the human torch says "I turn up my flame to create enough light for people to see" and the GM or the system goes "Did you pay points for that? How about making a power skill roll to see if you can" or even something like "Ok, you can this time, but next time you have to pay points."

You kind of jumped topics. Plot devices like death rays or time machines, if not normally available to the PC’s, are one thing. Using your powers in ways you never paid for is another. Why should Flame Guy have bonuses to seeing in the dark but Ice Guy, Strong Guy, and Laser Guy don’t? That seems like rewarding certain SFX choices unfairly, especially if you don’t also include the limitation that he is sticking out like a soar thumb to anyone who would want to attack him. The light example is a fairly minor one, but it, like anything, could be carried to an extent where some power SFX are just undesirable or, the flip side, taken by everyone.

Insaniac99

Mar 26th, '09, 12:55 PM

You kind of jumped topics. Plot devices like death rays or time machines, if not normally available to the PC’s, are one thing. Using your powers in ways you never paid for is another.

first, the Plot Device versus common stuff are, in my mind, two sides of the same coin. They are both there to further the story along and don't affect combat or skills directly.

Put it this way, do you want to stat up everything you can do with a Leatherman or say it gives +1 to some skills? Then if they don't pay points for it it is just the standard, easily lost, multi-tool that you can get at the local store, you pay points to have it with you most of the time; but you don't need to stat up how much damage the knife does, that you can precisely measure about 6 inches, that you can cut wires, or the hundred other things the Leatherman can do.

I think it is the same thing with a flame character: obvious, logical, minor things that a superhero with X abilities should be able to do that don't directly affect combat or skills shouldn't need to be statted up.

Why should Flame Guy have bonuses to seeing in the dark but Ice Guy, Strong Guy, and Laser Guy don’t? That seems like rewarding certain SFX choices unfairly, especially if you don’t also include the limitation that he is sticking out like a soar thumb to anyone who would want to attack him. The light example is a fairly minor one, but it, like anything, could be carried to an extent where some power SFX are just undesirable or, the flip side, taken by everyone.

I think that the ability to create regular light is extremely minor, and of course if you have a giant walking light-bulb he is going to stick out, who said he wouldn't? I don't think that flame-man should have to buy a create-light ability and then buy a disadvantage "DF: walking light-bulb"; that's just silly. When he is in a situation that he can't use his flame powers for whatever reason he can't create light, and if he creates light then he stands out, it just makes sense. When he starts being able to create an unnatural light that counters an unnatural darkness, that is when he should start paying points.

Ice-guy could have the power to chill-drinks without paying points, or cooling the area around him a little bit (doesn't completely counter Change environments, but might be a small bonus); strong-man could have some other non-combat brick-tricks he doesn't have to pay points for, if he wants to create a diamond once in a while then fine, if he wants to do that to become rich then that is buying wealth but either way he doesn't need a "transform, one thing to another, coal into diamonds" power, that is pure silliness and something I think Hero should really try and get away from.

Vulcan

Mar 26th, '09, 01:03 PM

Insaniac99

Mar 26th, '09, 01:39 PM

The 'coal into diamonds' power is actually statted up in the UNTIL Powers guide... :D

To an extent, I kind-of-agree with both sides of this argument. Flame guy should be able to light an area for no points - it's nothing he could not do with a flashlight, whch I've never seen a GM make someone pay points for. On the other hand, counteracting a Change Environment (even in a small way) is a rather big thing to do for free.

And 'coal into diamonds' could have a pretty big impact on the diamond market too...

I suppose what I'm saying is, if the GM would let a character do it with free equipment (in a pay-for-gear game), allowing a character do it with powers isn't going to break anything.

I know the coal to diamonds is statted up, I own most of the books for hero, I just think it is silly to do so because any effects the ability would have can pretty much be role-played.

To be fair I'm not proposing that my suggestions are the best for everyone. I do think, however, that the main rules book should have some discussion about it and provide a couple different ideas of when you don't want to pay points or bother statting things up, including logical extensions of someone's FX that don't really impact the game (GM's call that)

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 26th, '09, 01:57 PM

Insaniac99

Mar 26th, '09, 02:08 PM

If we introduce Hero Points, then a use could be to create a minor effect based on the SFX of a power - e.g. use a flame power to create light. If the player gets tired of paying character points, he can buy the power proper.

- Klaus

I think you mean if he gets tired of paying Hero Points.

I think it solves part of the problem, but not all, why does the Furious Ferret get the flashlight for free by going to the local supermarket but the local Flame-headed hero has to pay points (either character or Hero) to do the same thing?

a better question might also be whether or not the character pays points for it why the heck do we need to stat up a flashlight as "images, only to create light"?

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 26th, '09, 02:17 PM

I think you mean if he gets tired of paying Hero Points.
Right you are. :o

why does the Furious Ferret get the flashlight for free by going to the local supermarket but the local Flame-headed hero has to pay points (either character or Hero) to do the same thing?
Nothing would prevent Flameface from buying a flashlight - he just has the ability to pay a Hero Point to make light without a detour to the supermarket.

a better question might also be whether or not the character pays points for it why the heck do we need to stat up a flashlight as "images, only to create light"?
Change Environment may be a better fit, but you're right. Perhaps simple non-combat abilities could be taken from a list of items, sort of like Life Support or Enhanced Senses.

- Klaus

ajackson

Mar 26th, '09, 02:19 PM

I think it solves part of the problem, but not all, why does the Furious Ferret get the flashlight for free by going to the local supermarket but the local Flame-headed hero has to pay points (either character or Hero) to do the same thing?
Who says he does? Charging the Furious Ferret character points for going to the store and grabbing something, if it's actually significantly plot-relevant, isn't a terrible idea (in practice, I would probably charge him a plot point to say "Of course, I carry a flashlight" and pull it out).

Insaniac99

Mar 26th, '09, 02:50 PM

Nothing would prevent Flameface from buying a flashlight - he just has the ability to pay a Hero Point to make light without a detour to the supermarket.

I meant no reason for him to not just create the light based off of his SFX, but you knew that :)

Change Environment may be a better fit, but you're right. Perhaps simple non-combat abilities could be taken from a list of items, sort of like Life Support or Enhanced Senses.

that might be an interesting way to go about it, and of course the GM could decide when they have to pay points for the ability vs get it for free due to SFX vs going to the local market and grabbing something that provides it

Who says he does? Charging the Furious Ferret character points for going to the store and grabbing something, if it's actually significantly plot-relevant, isn't a terrible idea (in practice, I would probably charge him a plot point to say "Of course, I carry a flashlight" and pull it out).

I don't think most common items you could get in the supermarket should end up being plot-relevant (at least not with supers), and a flashlight should almost never be plot-relevant unless it is some super-flashlight.

my rule about payment for common items is generally this (I don't think a standard light should ever require points in a supers game, but I'll use that as my example):

Furious Ferret says "of course I have my trusty Ferret-light with me!": (possibly) costs 1 plot point because it is natural for him to have it, cost based on how big of a deal it really is in the campaign of course.
Furious Ferret says "before we head out, I'm going to run to the store and grab a flashlight": free but very fragile and easily lost
Furious Ferret says "I always carry my trusty Ferret-light with me": 1 point because it can be removed/destroyed, but not in some accident and it is a bit brighter because isn't a super cheap knock-off brand like the free version
FlameHead says "duh, I'm fire, I generate light whenever I want" (or Furious Ferret has his light built into his suit): 2 points because you can't kill the light without depriving other powers

to be perfectly clear: everyone is perfectly free to have differing opinions about when you start paying points or statting things up, in fact I encourage it, I think it is much more important to have the book discuss some of the things we just have and emphasize that there are things you just don't want to try to stat up, even when you still think the players should pay points. If, in a survival-horror game flashlights become vital to survival, charge points, but you still don't need to stat them up.

Markdoc

Mar 27th, '09, 06:48 AM

Perhaps for a Fantasy Hero Game it'd make more sense to have an Armor Pool, a Weapon Pool, and a Misc. Magic Item Pool. Considering that magic added to basic equipment can do so many things it adds to AP/RP quickly.

Star Hero could divide out to Combat Equipment, Non-Combat Equipment so you can get both weapons/armor and all the cool techie toys common to the setting.

This is actually a good idea - I wish we had thought of it when we were testing "resource pools" out back then (I use quote marks just because this is long before the concept appeared in print: for us it was an intermediate step between Supers and Fantasy).

cheers, Mark

Hugh Neilson

Mar 27th, '09, 10:17 AM

Perhaps for a Fantasy Hero Game it'd make more sense to have an Armor Pool, a Weapon Pool, and a Misc. Magic Item Pool. Considering that magic added to basic equipment can do so many things it adds to AP/RP quickly.

I like this idea. Keeping the different types of equipment in separate pools seems like a much better emulation of the source material, where some characters never carry weapons and others don't wear armor.

Lucius

Mar 28th, '09, 08:07 PM

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again because I was just reminded how important it is:

This game system desperately needs a "If you've never played a role playing game before" section. I still can't believe it wasn't in FRED.

It doesn't have to be long. It just needs to explain what a role playing game is and define terms like character, player character, and so forth. It needs to lay out the ground rules of not just the Hero System, but of role playing in general.

Things like - you decide what your character thinks and feels, and decides to try to do. But you cannot for example decide if the character succeeds at what they try to do. You can say for example that you're looking for something in particular, or just listening, but the person running the game decides what there is to see and hear, and there may be a random dice roll involved to determine if your character is aware of something. You can decide - within the limits of the setting - things like how your character dresses and what they look like, but probably won't be able to decide about things outside the character, like the weather on a given day or the distance from one town to the next or the attitudes or actions of a non player character.

I know, these are really, really basic ideas that I mastered at 12, but I still think they need to be spelled out. First, because we DO hope to draw new players into this game, don't we? And second, because sometimes even experienced gamers lose focus on the basic ideas.

Lucius Alexander

In the absence of rules to the contrary, the palindromedary claims the right to decide what everybody else's characters think, feel, and try!

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 28th, '09, 11:50 PM

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again because I was just reminded how important it is:

This game system desperately needs a "If you've never played a role playing game before" section.
I disagree. First, I doubt Hero System will ever be the choice for people who've never roleplayed before - they are much more likely to go for a heavily advertised game like D&D or a media tie-in game.

Second, in this day and age, you can just link to an internet article about the roleplaying, like the one on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game. There's no need to clutter the book with something that will only be of interest to a fraction of a percent of its users.

- Klaus

bigbywolfe

Mar 28th, '09, 11:52 PM

I disagree. First, I doubt Hero System will ever be the choice for people who've never roleplayed before - they are much more likely to go for a heavily advertised game like D&D or a media tie-in game.

Second, in this day and age, you can just link to an internet article about the roleplaying, like the one on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game. There's no need to clutter the book with something that will only be of interest to a fraction of a percent of its users.

- Klaus

With the MMO coning out isn't Hero now a "media tie-in game"? I thought that was half the reason for making 6th now...

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 29th, '09, 12:33 AM

With the MMO coning out isn't Hero now a "media tie-in game"? I thought that was half the reason for making 6th now...
As I understand it, the MMO is based on the Champions setting, not the Hero System rules. So unless Hero changes its name back to Champions and uses rules similar to the MMO, there will be very little synergy, I suspect. Besides, MMO players won't be entirely unfamiliar with the idea of roleplaying.

It might be a far better idea for Hero Games to make a new beginner-focused Champions game based on "Hero Ultralight". Something no more complex than the old Marvel Super Heroes game. I kinda like that idea...

- Klaus

AnotherSkip

Mar 29th, '09, 06:07 AM

in 5th there IS a 'if you have never roleplayed before' section.

Sorry Guys, Steve allready beat ya to it. :cool:

Lucius

Mar 29th, '09, 06:45 AM

in 5th there IS a 'if you have never roleplayed before' section.

Sorry Guys, Steve allready beat ya to it. :cool:

Please give me a page citation in either FRED or FRED Jr.

I searched for it and failed to find it.

What there IS is a "if you never played HERO before" section. I think you are mistaken in thinking that there is a "if you never roleplayed before" section.

However, I sincerely hope you are right that Steve "beat us to it" and has already decided to include it in SHRED.

Lucius Alexander

Maybe it's in the palindromedary.

ghost-angel

Mar 29th, '09, 07:16 AM

The Hero-System takes the stance that if you found that book you are at least peripherally familiar with the idea of Role-Playing Games. Which isn't too bad a position considering the saturation today at various levels (considering the acronym can be seen on video game box covers from Gameboy to X-Box).

So no - it does not have a section that defines the term RPG - which would take about a paragraph or two.

It does have a decently sized section that defines how Hero is different from other RPGs.

Whichever is the better approach is really a decision of what Steve & Darren believes the target audience is - Cold Calls of people who've never encountered the idea before; or people who know what an RPG is and are looking to expand their experiences with them.

Lucius

Mar 29th, '09, 08:40 AM

The Hero-System takes the stance that if you found that book you are at least peripherally familiar with the idea of Role-Playing Games. Which isn't too bad a position considering the saturation today at various levels (considering the acronym can be seen on video game box covers from Gameboy to X-Box).

So no - it does not have a section that defines the term RPG - which would take about a paragraph or two.

That's part of my point - it would take up very little space.

And as for the acronym appearing on video games - I'm well aware that there are video games that call themselves role playing games. I think that's another good reason to include such a section, because someone who has encountered the words in that context and thinks they know what they mean is probably worse off in terms of understanding what a role playing game really is than someone who knows that they don't know.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary looks at the book and quickly concludes that it's not a Rocket Propelled Grenade

Lucius

Mar 29th, '09, 09:52 AM

What's Important.

This isn't exactly a “deal breaker” list. But I did want to recap the things that really matter to me.

1.Fixing the Normal/Killing Damage inequity.

This is an issue that's been with the game from the beginning, A lot of proposals have been floated to deal with it. The issue is twofold: first, Killing Attacks enjoy a superior rolling mechanic. Because of the way Defenses work in Hero, rolling fewer dice for a similar average damage is better than rolling more dice for the same similar average damage, because fewer dice make the damage more random and therefore more likely to roll high. Being more likely to roll low is no drawback because failing to penetrate Defense by 1 is the same as failure to penetrate by 20. The “STUN Lotto” exacerbates this problem, but does NOT cause it. Second, Killing Attacks have a kind of limited Attack Vs Limited Defense – and the Defense costs fifty percent more than “Normal” Defense!!

I can't imagine doing a new edition and not doing something to address this issue, and there's been no shortage of ideas over the years. I've changed my own mind as to the best solution several times.

2.Addressing the fact that STR and CON are worth more than their cost, especially in terms of figured characteristics.

I've been aware of this for years of course but it's only in the last year or so that I heard of the solution of “make the figureds cheaper” rather than “make CON and STR more expensive.” There are other ways to address the problem, some of which tie into possible solutions to the Killing/Normal problem. I dislike the proposal to just eliminate figured characteristics, for reasons I may have time to go into later today, but at least it does address this longstanding problem.

3.Separate the Defense Power, the property of being immune to most physical and energy attacks, including ones such as Drains and No Normal Defense attacks, from the Movement Power that allows characters to pass through solid objects.

Personally, I would not cry if the property of being immune to most physical and energy attacks, including ones such as Drains and No Normal Defense attacks were eliminated from the game. Certainly a lot of people like the idea of having no “Absolutes.” But if it's retained I don't think it should be so closely tied to a given set of implied special effects, nor automatically linked by default to what amounts to a movement power.

4.Either eliminate Normal Characteristic Maxima (and of course Age) or change it to be more consistent with the rest of the system.

This is another position it took me years to come to, but it's been years since and nothing has changed my mind in the meantime. Normal Characteristic Maxima is like the Flintmobile. Remember that “car” the Flintstones had? Everyone piles in and then all their little feet start running. It doesn't help you get anywhere, and meanwhile you're lugging around a big wood and stone contraption.

For heroic campaigns, all that's needed is to state that whoever is running the game should either forbid or severely restrict Characteristics above certain limits, and then suggest guidelines on where the limits should be. The same as is done for Damage Classes, Defenses, Active Points of powers, and so forth, for various campaign levels and styles. Even on 75+75 pts and even laboring under double costs it's possible – heck, it's easy - to build characters with outrageous characteristics. It's not possible to do so in the face of a simple, easily enforced, absolute prohibition.

At the superheroic level, it might be a good idea to have a Disadvantage that defines a character as “only Human” in a world full of superbeings. But this isn't it. A character can have Normal Characteristic Maxima and be totally inhuman in every conceivable way. A Physical Limitation that imposes some of the heroic rules (no knockback, bleeding, etc) on a character might be better, but really if you want to make a character human – just make the character human. Don't buy STR 60 and also don't buy the defenses of a Sherman tank or the power of unassisted flight at Mach 2 (or any other “natural” supersonic movement) or anything else that violates the character conception – just like you would building to any other character conception.

5.Change the rule that allows STR and DEX to be bought with a limitation “Not with Extra Limbs.”

Okay, so maybe that one's not so screamingly “important.” But the ability to buy a 5 pt Power and then save more than 5 pts on a Limitation on STR and DEX, meanwhile getting a character that costs less than an identical character without Extra Limbs, is such an obvious bit of munchkinry I can't imagine not wanting to close up this loophole unless you're trying to encourage munchkins.

6.Make Growth, Shrinking, and Density Increase consistent

Maybe this is just a personal Psych Lim, but logical inconsistency bugs me. I could live with it if these Powers were eliminated and a package (or “template”) presented for buying the abilities associated with them. I could live with it if these Powers were retained and could be bought “Always On.” Keeping them and imposing an arbitrary restriction forbidding them from taking a certain Limitation that in many cases should logically apply, just drives me up a wall.

7.How to resolve these and other issues

My answer would be – as synergistically as possible.

For example, while I oppose eliminating Figured Characteristics entirely, dropping PD and ED and replacing it with an “everyman” Power called DEF (like everyone gets the everyman Power, Running) that's “Resistant” by default and can be Limited to make it work vs physical or energy attacks, or to make it “non-resistant” can be part of an overall strategy that 1) reduces the perception that STR and CON are underpriced 2) simplifies the concept of damage in the game system by folding physical and energy – which were always just “meta special effects” - together 3) shortens the Characteristic list and 4) holistically addresses the Killing/Normal conundrum.

For another example, having an Adder for Teleportation that allows one to end a phase inside a solid object can eliminate Tunneling (you want to make a hole? Buy a damaging power. You want to pass through without making a hole? Buy Teleportation) and Desolidification (If the property of being immune to most physical and energy attacks, including ones such as Drains and No Normal Defense attacks, is removed from the game, folded into Damage Reduction – since it basically is nothing but 100% Damage Reduction – or into Extradimensional Movement, or made into its own Power.) Note of course that making the Power list shorter is good ONLY if that is done without eliminating any real options.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is vitally important to me personally but is utterly trivial to the Hero System.

BobGreenwade

Mar 29th, '09, 12:40 PM

One really broad thing I'd like to mention... it probably has been said more than once, in a number of different ways, but generally speaking: The simplest solution is usually the best one. The issue I raised recently about Transparent Force Walls is a case in point: one has to do somersaults to properly do, for example, a light barrier that blocks ED and Sight Group Flash Defense but lets everything else through without noticing, and a simple rule that both shortens the text and simplifies the construction fixes the whole thing.

Close to that one is this: It's better to have what you don't need than to need what you don't have. Compeltely disallowing something because it's unbalanced is a bit unfair for those of us who find a use for it and won't abuse it, especially GMs who want to use it as a plot device but still build it with points (for any of numerous reasons). We want a toolkit that can do anything, not anything except A and B and C and J and Z and AA and QQ and BDBDBD and OMG.... if it makes sense mathematically but looks like it would be unbalancing, then allow it to happen mathematically but require the GM's permission. Only disallow what doesn't make logical sense, such as Darkness that Does Knockback.

And then there's Never start a land war in Asia, but I don't think we have to worry too much about that. ;)

bigbywolfe

Mar 29th, '09, 01:33 PM

The issue I raised recently about Transparent Force Walls is a case in point: one has to do somersaults to properly do, for example, a light barrier that blocks ED and Sight Group Flash Defense but lets everything else through without noticing, and a simple rule that both shortens the text and simplifies the construction fixes the whole thing.

Not sure what the issue you brought up was, but you can do what you described above by adding two simple advantages.

Just what Bob asked for...: Force Wall (10 ED/6 Flash Defense: Sight Group), Transparent to PD Attacks (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1) (100 Active Points)

100 points is maybe a little expensive, but there you go. 1 power, 2 adders, no somersaults.

BobGreenwade

Mar 29th, '09, 01:57 PM

100 points is maybe a little expensive, but there you go. 1 power, 2 adders, no somersaults.And, by a strict reading of the 5th Ed RAW, it can be brought down in an instant by any Ego Attack, Drain, or non-Sight Flash Attack.

See the Powers F-K thread for details on why.

Lucius

Mar 29th, '09, 04:58 PM

Lucius

Mar 29th, '09, 06:48 PM

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?

Steve’s Thoughts: My thinking is that we should not. The HERO System has always lacked absolutes — with a few minor exceptions, there’s no absolute, 100%, guaranteed way to hit, do damage, be invulnerable to damage, be invisible, perceive something, or the like. There are plenty of good reasons for this (not the least of which is that in fiction, such “absolutes” often turn out to be not so absolute after all), and it’s sort of a core philosophy of the system. There are some specific questions dealing with “absolutes” issues below, but in general I think it’s best to keep things the way they are and simply incorporate the Absolute Effects Rule from FH into the core rulebook.

Other than incorporating the Absolute Effects Rule, I'm not thinking we need to import any new absolutes into the system. But I DO very much think that one of the absolutes already in the system should be either deleted or adjusted.

The property of being immune to most physical and energy attacks, including ones such as Drains and No Normal Defense attacks, is one absolute that has been with the system from the very beginning. Some things about the way it's handled are in my view excellent; but the way its presented, as part of the Power Desolidification, implies that it's limited to only certain kinds of SFX and links it to a movement power that is only appropriate for those SFX.

That is why I propose presenting this particular absolute as its own Power, or allowing 100% Damage Reduction instead. In either case, please keep those two good ideas, the defined SFX exception that still effects the character, and the rule forbidding a character using this defense from freely attacking other characters without an expensive Advantage. (I can remember what we didn't even have the Advantage, and Desolid was an automatic “you no can hurt me, I no can hurt you” deal.)

Meanwhile, creating an Adder for Teleport that allows being inside a solid object at the end of phase makes the other function of Desolid superfluous. It also means we can dispense with Tunneling. If you want to make a hole, use a damaging attack – we have well defined rules for creating holes, I think. If you want to pass through without making a hole, use Teleport.

Lucius Alexander

Absolute Palindromedary

Hugh Neilson

Mar 30th, '09, 05:20 AM

The Hero System is just that – a system. It's not a collection of separate rules elements that don't impact each other. That is what makes thinking of possible solutions to the system's problems challenging. The only sensible approach is a holistic one, not trying to consider various game elements in isolation.

Proposal to
Reconcile Killing and Normal Damage
Mitigate STR & CON pricing issue
Encourage character diversity
Simplify the system via consolidation, without eliminating any options.

First, establish that the Killing Attack is the “default.” The solution is not to make Killing an Advantage, but to make the alternative a Limitation. Actually it should be two limitations: One to change the dice rolling mechanic, and one (perhaps called Nonlethal) to work against Non-Resistant Defenses. That way we have the greatest freedom to mix and match effects. By making it clear that all non-lethal attacks are Limited, it becomes a little more obvious that the damage that comes with STR is not actually worth 5 pts per 5 pts of STR. I suggest making each Limitation worth – ¼, which may be underpricing them but does bring the total exactly in line with the Limitation already used for Hand to Hand Attack.

This means it will virtually never be efficient to place a non-killing attack in a framework due to the AP always matching the killing attack AP. This should lead to a marked increase in the use of killing attacks vs normal attacks.

I'd need to see the pricing structure to asses whether the relative pricing of killing versus normal attacks comes out logical. That also depends on the relative pricing of resistant and non-resistant defenses, as well as the expected prevalence of resistant defenses. At present, the balance seems about right due to the frequency of resistant defenses, but that frequency has evolved due to the need for characters to be protected from killing attacks - some chicken & egg here.

I don't like the overall philosophy, though. This logic would suggest Defenses should be an ability that provides all forms of defense, fully resistant, and we apply limitations for, say, nonresistant defenses that only protect against physical damage (to get back to PD). It suggests movement should be three dimensional through all media without the need to cross the intervening space, and we'll limit it down where exceptions exist.

I think that such an overall structure could form a useful means of assessing the values of various constructs, but I think I still want separate movement, defense and attack powers, even if their values are determined based on this type of a superstructure.

Cut the price of REC and END to 1 and 1/10, to match END Reserve (Given that END Reserve is not lost when Stunned, there's no reason I see for it to be cheaper.) Cut the price of STUN – perhaps to ½ . And drop PD and ED entirely. It now becomes more viable to buy up END and/or REC rather than buy Reduced END on powers, and to buy up STUN rather than buy defenses. Plus, CON and STR no longer look underpriced.

Leaving aside defenses, I agree with this approach, although the pricing may need fine tuning.

Replace PD and ED with an everyman Power, Defense or DEF. Everyone starts with 1 pt of DEF just as they start with 6” of Running, and it can be bought up or down for 3 pts. DEF applies to all nonexotic damage by default, and can be limited so as to only stop non-lethal attacks (attacks with the Nonlethal limitation) or to apply against only certain special effects (such as impact damage.) Making the first Limitation - ½ will hold true to the idea of making Defenses cheaper than Attacks.

First off, you dropped the base DEF by 1 for a normal, although you made it Resistant. I'm concerned with whether nonlethal DEF is a likely purchase. Your proposal on attacks will mean most attacks will likely stay lethal, and this proposal hits the AP of defenses, and makes resistant the default, so I expect more resistant defenses, not less. It will also make characters with differing levels of PD and ED much less likely, a situation some may like but others dislike. I don't see this as a change that improves the game.

Conversion of PD and ED into a single defense could also be pursued by making DEF [STR + CON]/10. A separate cost would still apply to make it resistant. Force Fields and Armor could be presented as examples of Characteristics Bought as Powers rather than separate powers. They'd remain pretty common in character writeups (much like Regeneration is a sample build for healing, but still commonly used in writeups).

AnotherSkip

Mar 30th, '09, 05:36 AM

First, establish that the Killing Attack is the “default.”

Which means that as a GM who Doesn't want everyone dead in my campaigns I have to deal with even more craptacular resistance.....:thumbdown

Cut the price of REC and END to 1 and 1/10, to match END Reserve (Given that END Reserve is not lost when Stunned, there's no reason I see for it to be cheaper.)

So I should sell back my End and buy only an end reserve since the prices are the same so thath whenever I get KO'ed I still have my full end?:thumbup:

bwdemon

Mar 30th, '09, 12:25 PM

Vulcan

Mar 30th, '09, 12:56 PM

bwdemon

Mar 30th, '09, 01:14 PM

Somehow I suspect the math behind the MMORPG is even more intense than that currently featured in the HERO System. Since it's, you know, run on a computer...
Not necessarily. MMOs have very simple combat systems by tabletop standards. You're generally looking at a percentile-based system in computer games with very few modifiers impacting a chance to hit vs. chance to be hit roll. The complicated math comes into play with rendering graphics, but that's not an issue in tabletop.

Also, I wouldn't say that the math is the problem with HERO. HERO's math is elementary school level. The problem is that the system is too bloated, lacks sufficient granularity, and lacks balance in some aspects.

Vulcan

Mar 30th, '09, 01:15 PM

Not necessarily. MMOs have very simple combat systems by tabletop standards. You're generally looking at a percentile-based system in computer games with very few modifiers impacting a chance to hit vs. chance to be hit roll. The complicated math comes into play with rendering graphics, but that's not an issue in tabletop.

Also, I wouldn't say that the math is the problem with HERO. HERO's math is elementary school level. The problem is that the system is too bloated, lacks sufficient granularity, and lacks balance in some aspects.

I don't think so. You obviously disagree.

Lucius

Mar 30th, '09, 02:52 PM

Leaving aside defenses, I agree with this approach, although the pricing may need fine tuning.

In fact, iweren't you the first one to propose reducing the cost of the figured characteristics? If so, I owe you rep, several times rep even. I can't believe I went around all those years occasionally muttering "One of these days they really should increase the cost of STR and CON" and it never occurred to me to come at the problem from the other side.

Conversion of PD and ED into a single defense could also be pursued by making DEF [STR + CON]/10. A separate cost would still apply to make it resistant.

Part of the point is to ensure that STR and CON are NOT getting you too excessively much in benefits relative to cost.

And I will admit that part of my reason for wanting Resistant DEF as the default, and Nonresistant as a Limitation, is to bring it into "harmony" with the way default Damage and Nonlethal Damage work under the proposed system.

Attack Powers, like Flash, take Defense Powers, like Flash Defense.

Attack Advantages, like Armor Piercing, take Defense Advantages, like Hardened.

Right now, resistant Defenses is an Addervantage - neither exactly an Adder nor exactly an Advantage but working in some ways like both, an orphan mechanic. And Killing and Normal attacks are separate powers whose relative costs do not reflect their relative effectiveness at all.

Maybe my preference for making Nonresistant a Limitation to match Nonlethal is just an aesthetic issue, but it looks to me like it's making the whole system more consistent.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary remembers that someone once observed that the Hero system is so internally consistent and functions so smoothly that when comes across the jarring flaws, it's like a huge pothole in an otherwise smooth and level highway.

Lucius

Mar 30th, '09, 03:28 PM

Which means that as a GM who Doesn't want everyone dead in my campaigns I have to deal with even more craptacular resistance.....:thumbdown

I was going to respond and then it struck me that I may not understand what you're saying. If I don't get it, what I have to say may have no value to you. But I'll respond anyway and if I'm wrong, please correct my asumptions.

What I think you're saying is
Your players generally want Killing Attacks for their characters.
You anticipate that the use of Killing Attacks by player characters will result in unacceptable levels of lethality in the game.
Your players resent and resist your efforts to control Killing Attacks in your game.
You feel that what I've proposed would make them even more resistant to your efforts to run a game that doesn't feature a high body count (or any body count, if that's your preference.)

Part of what makes Killing Attacks so attractive to players is that in the system as it stands, there is little real incentive to take Energy Blast as opposed to Killing Attack. If the Energy Blast is cheaper, so that X points spent on Energy Blast (or whatever we're going to call it) are actually equivalent to X points spent on a Killing Attack, I expect that Killing Attacks would be less popular.

If you're running a Champions game, I have to point out that a 60 Active Point attack of any sort hitting an unprotected normal is likely to be fatal, whether that's an Energy Blast, a Killing Attack, a Brick's punch, or even a Martial Strike. Moving up to agents and villains, the Killing Attack is more likely than a Normal Attack to injure or kill but is still far more likely to render such targets unconscious than to kill them. If your motivation is that you're "a GM who Doesn't want everyone dead" then I think limiting Damage Classes is more effective than singling out Killing Attacks.

And finally, if your problem is that your players simply do not understand or sympathize with your desire to run a game with few or no fatalities, you have a problem in the gaming group and not the rules set. If you want to run a "silver age" game where no one important ever dies, for example, and someone wants to play a rabid Wolverine who's a casual killer, someone is going to be unhappy - maybe everyone will be unhappy.

So I should sell back my End and buy only an end reserve since the prices are the same so thath whenever I get KO'ed I still have my full end?:thumbup:

You do realize that if you think that's an attractive option under my proposal, it's an even MORE attractive option under the current rules?

Under the current system, if you have 13 CON and therefore 26 END you can sell that off for 13 pts and buy 130 pts of END in a Reserve.

Under my proposal, you would only get 2.6 pts back and only get a 26 END Reserve.

Lucius Alexander

Nonlethal Palindromedary

bwdemon

Mar 30th, '09, 03:40 PM

I don't think so. You obviously disagree.

Nothing wrong with good old-fashioned disagreement! :)

bigbywolfe

Mar 30th, '09, 08:40 PM

So I've been thinking on the 6th edition switch a bit more and I've come to a realization: it might be best if the tabletop game made every effort to mirror the rules of the MMORPG, regardless of the degree of change involved, with perhaps a keener eye toward game balance and non-realtime gameplay.

I know dozens of individuals in my area who won't buy D&D4 because they tried to make it more like an MMORPG. The owner of our local gaming store won't even recomend it, and he's hurting for sales.

What's there to lose? Some grumpy ol' gamers (GOGs) will stick to their 5th edition, but most will move along with the 6th edition wave. The more change, the greater the number of GOGs heading off to pasture. The less change, the more likely the GOGs will approve, but the less likely any new players will care to invest the time into learning how to play.

If you want new players, this would be the time for a big change. Make it simple to go back and forth between HERO and the MMO and you're more likely to get new players, right? Make characters as close as possible to the MMO and creation will be more intuitive.

I hardly ever see anyone on the boards who is still playing 4th Ed Hero, but I do see many 5th Ed players having "remember when?" discussions about 1st Ed Champions. "Some grumpy ol' gamers" are the people who buy every edition (sometimes even every book) and have helped keep the company afloat for decades. I’m not saying we should kowtow to them, but disregarding their opinions entirely is ignorant. Ignoring decades of “playtesting” to try to make the game more like a video game for the ADHD generation is foolish, plain and simple. It is entirely possible to lose more old players than gain new ones, even with an MMO tie-in.

And for the record, I'm not a "GOG", I just got into Hero last year. I'm planning on making the jump to 6th, but there are some gamebreaking issues that could prevent that.

bwdemon

Mar 31st, '09, 03:29 AM

I know dozens of individuals in my area who won't buy D&D4 because they tried to make it more like an MMORPG. The owner of our local gaming store won't even recomend it, and he's hurting for sales.
Lots of reasons for that, but the big four are: 1) GOG syndrome; 2) large third-party support for 3.5-based material; 3) it isn't like an MMO at all, it's like a CCG; and 4) it isn't based on any MMO of the same branding. It's been a few months now and a lot of the GOGs are starting to come around and make 4th edition purchases, but they don't have to. Among the GOGs, there are still plenty of people out there whining about the HUGE changes from 3.0 to 3.5.

Plus, D&D has an issue with the counter-culture sheep. It is the #1 game in the market and that makes it a bit of a target, like pop music, Microsoft or Wal-Mart. It doesn't help that tabletop gamers tend toward counter-culture a bit more strongly than most populations. Still, RPGA doesn't seem to have any problems filling tables week after week.

I hardly ever see anyone on the boards who is still playing 4th Ed Hero, but I do see many 5th Ed players having "remember when?" discussions about 1st Ed Champions. "Some grumpy ol' gamers" are the people who buy every edition (sometimes even every book) and have helped keep the company afloat for decades. I’m not saying we should kowtow to them, but disregarding their opinions entirely is ignorant.
And here I agree, but I'm not disregarding their opinions entirely. GOGs get grumpy when the only change to a new edition is new formatting and a higher number. They get grumpy when anything more than that changes, too. They still buy if they're locked onto the product, though. We've had GOGs in this very forum saying they won't buy 6th if there are too many changes, but they likely said the same thing about 5th and FRED and here they are.

The problem with GOGs is that, eventually, they lack the time, ability, or desire to play and they stop buying. I believe that if you took a forum poll asking how many people actually play the game anymore outside of conventions, the number of non-players would be fairly large. Any new edition is a great reason for them to stop. If the GOGs die off slowly and you've steadfastly refused to appeal to anyone else, then what are you left with?

Ignoring decades of “playtesting” to try to make the game more like a video game for the ADHD generation is foolish, plain and simple. It is entirely possible to lose more old players than gain new ones, even with an MMO tie-in.
Decades of playtesting didn't really lead the game anywhere more productive, though. Like the tax code, it just got built up and unnecessarily complicated without ever fixing the issues that have been there for years. Sure, HERO could lose more GOGs than gain new players, but it wasn't exactly sustainable on GOGs alone before. It needs to become more playable and accessible. It needs to handle granularity better, so that low-powered games can thrive. It needs to work toward balance, point-for-point, instead of holding onto old text for dear life.

I know you want to downsell the idea with comments like "video game for the ADHD generation", but we aren't talking about a simple restrictive system and the more recent gaming generations have proven themselves capable of handling greater levels of detail. By all accounts, the MMO will have a very open system. If it does the job, then why not mirror it?

And for the record, I'm not a "GOG", I just got into Hero last year. I'm planning on making the jump to 6th, but there are some gamebreaking issues that could prevent that.
I'm absolutely a GOG, but I'm one of those that's grumpy about the lack of changes. Been with the game for ages, but the MMO is where the appeal is for me and the MMO is bringing people to these forums - people who are interested in the setting and game that led to the MMO. If they pick up a copy of FRED, they'll likely never be back.

Lucius

Mar 31st, '09, 03:46 AM

They still buy if they're locked onto the product, though. We've had GOGs in this very forum saying they won't buy 6th if there are too many changes, but they likely said the same thing about 5th and FRED and here they are.

Yes, and do you know what that proves? That FRED and FRED Jr were not examples of "too many changes."

An example of "too many changes" would be Fusion, an example which completely disproves your contention "They still buy if they're locked onto the product."

Lucius Alexander

Editing and feeding errors to the palindromedary

steamteck

Mar 31st, '09, 04:20 AM

nexus

Mar 31st, '09, 04:38 AM

I'm teetering on getting 6th as it is. And if it's reduced to a table top video game locked into a single genre I'll have no interest in investing my money into taking a step backwards. Many people don't care for D and D 4th for reasons that have nothing to do with "GOG Syndrome" or being "counter culture sheep" (Isn't it fun to deride and insult everyone with a different opinion than yours?) it has to with having different opinions and goals for their gaming. D and D 4th does what it was designed to do very well but some people don't want to do what it does. That's all. I want Hero System to do what it was designed to do better. That is a be universal system that can used to emulate a wide variety of genres and setting including the ones I build myself with an aim towards being cinematic.

Not as a tie in product to an MMORPG. If I want to play the MMO, I'll buy a copy. If I wanted "rules lite" there's plenty of games for that. Hero System is more than Champions and I, for one, like it that way. Trimmed, organized and enhanced with greater options, balance and flexibility is good thing, over simplified, locked into a single genre and "dumbed down" is not.

All IMO, of course.

Edit: If DOJ wants to produce a game that IS an emulation of the MMO that could work (though IIRC, the WoW and Everquest RPGs didn't do too well... but that could be for a variety of reasons).

AnotherSkip

Mar 31st, '09, 05:19 AM

I was going to respond and then it struck me that I may not understand what you're saying. If I don't get it, what I have to say may have no value to you. But I'll respond anyway and if I'm wrong, please correct my asumptions.

What I think you're saying is
Your players generally want Killing Attacks for their characters.
You anticipate that the use of Killing Attacks by player characters will result in unacceptable levels of lethality in the game.

Anticipate? No. Allready facing the problem? Yes. And it is just one character

Here is part of the problem. Just about Every gun IN THE BOOK is a Killing attack. Thus anyone with a GUN SFX will get a Killing attack. some cyborgs and many other archetypes from the source materials follow this paradagim even if it makes no sense.

Your players resent and resist your efforts to control Killing Attacks in your game.

Sure yeah when they can instantly point to the book and say "but this is what the rules say i should have".
Irregardless of campaign design.

You feel that what I've proposed would make them even more resistant to your efforts to run a game that doesn't feature a high body count (or any body count, if that's your preference.)

Some target groups should have a low body count,

Part of what makes Killing Attacks so attractive to players is that in the system as it stands, there is little real incentive to take Energy Blast as opposed to Killing Attack. If the Energy Blast is cheaper, so that X points spent on Energy Blast (or whatever we're going to call it) are actually equivalent to X points spent on a Killing Attack, I expect that Killing Attacks would be less popular.

If you're running a Champions game, I have to point out that a 60 Active Point attack of any sort hitting an unprotected normal is likely to be fatal, whether that's an Energy Blast, a Killing Attack, a Brick's punch, or even a Martial Strike. Moving up to agents and villains, the Killing Attack is more likely than a Normal Attack to injure or kill but is still far more likely to render such targets unconscious than to kill them. If your motivation is that you're "a GM who Doesn't want everyone dead" then I think limiting Damage Classes is more effective than singling out Killing Attacks.

That is all fine and well until you whip out the main weapon chart take the weapons as listed (including limits that don't limit) add in 0 end (to repersent having effectively unlimited number of charges, and did I mention the rules that suggest 0 end should be not included in the DC limits?) and take rapid attack and PSL's vs. said penalties?

I have played in some fun games with guys who didn't care too much for the rules but that was Waaay broken.

And finally, if your problem is that your players simply do not understand or sympathize with your desire to run a game with few or no fatalities, you have a problem in the gaming group and not the rules set. If you want to run a "silver age" game where no one important ever dies, for example, and someone wants to play a rabid Wolverine who's a casual killer, someone is going to be unhappy - maybe everyone will be unhappy. The Players and I are working upon solutions to the problem that are of a mechanical effectiveness rather than a social contract effectiveness.

I think the realy simple solution is: Keep Dark(Dork) Champions out of the main book.
But i also undertand that people love some of tha So trying to keep it down Would be a better choice.

bwdemon

Mar 31st, '09, 06:48 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 31st, '09, 07:21 AM

Fuzion's Champions was just hung out there in the wind and wasn't executed properly (ask people about finding rules...). Setting-wise, it's the best thing ever put out in the line. Rules-wise, it isn't bad and it felt more balanced (e.g. you can make a Batman-type and still be combat competent within the standard amount of points, good rule of X, etc.).
The main problem with Fuzion was that the rules were unfinished. It was an incomplete merger of "Hero Light" and Interlock, and it couldn't always decide which rule to use. Just the fact that you were offered the option of 3d6 or d10 vs. d10 as the main roll showed that. I was also irritated by the constant use of "meters/yards" - just call it meters or yards!

FWIW, I think many of the later Fuzion-powered games showed promise. In particular, Artesia looks awesome, though a bit intimidating.

- Klaus

Ice9

Mar 31st, '09, 01:53 PM

The Main Man

Mar 31st, '09, 02:01 PM

I like that perspective, not to say that I was ever in the camp for simulating an MMORPG in the first place.

Lucius

Mar 31st, '09, 02:31 PM

Anticipate? No. Allready facing the problem? Yes. And it is just one character

Here is part of the problem. Just about Every gun IN THE BOOK is a Killing attack. Thus anyone with a GUN SFX will get a Killing attack. some cyborgs and many other archetypes from the source materials follow this paradagim even if it makes no sense.

Unfortunately, if a game system is going to have anything like a "Killing Attack" in it, guns and bladed weapons have to be classified that way - or you get an absurdity like the first edition of DC Heroes, where the batarang is considered "lethal" but guns are considered "non-lethal combat" :idjit:

Steve Long could , of course, resolve the issue by simply cutting Killing Attacks out of the game - maybe guns and knives would be built with Penetrating instead, with some additional Advantage that lets the BODy be Penetrating, and rigid armor would be defined as having one level of Hardened. No more Killing Attacks, no more Resistant Defense, and the game is perhaps that much simpler.

I don't consider that an optimal solution, but it would still be an improvement on what we have now.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary fears the crab cannon, however it's defined

Tasha

Mar 31st, '09, 02:32 PM

I think you mean if he gets tired of paying Hero Points.

I think it solves part of the problem, but not all, why does the Furious Ferret get the flashlight for free by going to the local supermarket but the local Flame-headed hero has to pay points (either character or Hero) to do the same thing?

a better question might also be whether or not the character pays points for it why the heck do we need to stat up a flashlight as "images, only to create light"?

I can see this from a Champions point of view, but Hero is more than just Champions.

So in my Urban Fantasy Hero Game SHOULD I be making the mage stat up that "Light" spell, when her Compatriot can go into a Hardware store and purchase the Mag-light that does the same thing?

Or perhaps both the "Spell" and the Maglight should be "paid" for using an Equipment pool. It would be VERY nice to see stuff in the rules that cover this better.

Tasha

Greywind

Mar 31st, '09, 02:56 PM

Make the mage stat it up just for the mental exercise...

Tasha

Mar 31st, '09, 03:02 PM

Yes, and do you know what that proves? That FRED and FRED Jr were not examples of "too many changes."

An example of "too many changes" would be Fusion, an example which completely disproves your contention "They still buy if they're locked onto the product."

Lucius Alexander

Editing and feeding errors to the palindromedary

Fuzion's Real problem IMHO was not that the changes were too sweeping. The major problem with it was that the rules were incomplete for the genre that they were trying to sell too (Champions Superhero). Many of us GOG's were very unhappy that characters that were easy to create under Hero 4th were impossible because certain powers were missing.

There WERE good things about Fuzion, Hero/R-Tal created too much bad feelings with the things that were missing.

Hell, I wish that things like the Resolution system (roll high) would make it back into basic hero. It made teaching combat much easier, also it created the illusion of the skill system being open-ended. Unlike the current skill situation, which seems very closed.

So perhaps we shouldn't be looking to remove powers (Tunneling), but looking to bring back some powers that were thrown out in 5th edition (ie Regeneration, Instant Change and other mechanics that require inconsistant cheese to work in 5th edition)

Tasha

The Main Man

Mar 31st, '09, 03:04 PM

Hell, I wish that things like the Resolution system (roll high) would make it back into basic hero. It made teaching combat much easier, also it created the illusion of the skill system being open-ended. Unlike the current skill situation, which seems very closed.

Tasha

Roll High Resolution could be introduced int he Advanced Players Book.

Tasha

Mar 31st, '09, 03:06 PM

Roll High Resolution could be introduced int he Advanced Players Book.

As long as I can make Hero Designer create Printable characters for that I would be one happy gamer.

Greywind

Mar 31st, '09, 03:08 PM

I personally would prefer to avoid multiple "rule" books...

Hugh Neilson

Mar 31st, '09, 03:15 PM

I personally would prefer to avoid multiple "rule" books...

I would too. Unfortunately, I think economics are against us. 20 years ago, RPG's published a rule set, and then published very occasional additional rule supplements and lots of adventure scenarios.

Guess what?

The rule supplements sold way better than the adventures.

Steve and Co need to make DoJ profitable. The way to do that seems more linked to rule books than to other publications.

The Main Man

Mar 31st, '09, 03:24 PM

As long as I can make Hero Designer create Printable characters for that I would be one happy gamer.

It would be nice if there was such an interface for a future HERO designer.:)

Greywind

Mar 31st, '09, 03:27 PM

I would too. Unfortunately, I think economics are against us. 20 years ago, RPG's published a rule set, and then published very occasional additional rule supplements and lots of adventure scenarios.

Guess what?

The rule supplements sold way better than the adventures.

Steve and Co need to make DoJ profitable. The way to do that seems more linked to rule books than to other publications.
And today, companies are printing adventure "modules" as hard cover books...

The Main Man

Mar 31st, '09, 03:33 PM

T'sa shame, really.

It would be kinda cool to have an archive of user-submitted adventures on the website at the very least.

Greywind

Mar 31st, '09, 04:20 PM

I don't see where that would be an issue, if the company has server space to store things. They'd put them up in free stuff. You'd have to ask and they'd need submissions. Then, whether or not they were edited or caveat emptor.

Insaniac99

Mar 31st, '09, 04:29 PM

T'sa shame, really.

It would be kinda cool to have an archive of user-submitted adventures on the website at the very least.

M&M does this, they also sell adventure books too. M&M is currently profitable, I see no reason why Hero or any other RPG couldn't do the same.

Lucius

Mar 31st, '09, 04:40 PM

So perhaps we shouldn't be looking to remove powers (Tunneling), but looking to bring back some powers that were thrown out in 5th edition (ie Regeneration, Instant Change and other mechanics that require inconsistant cheese to work in 5th edition)
Tasha

I have no problem bringing Regeneration back. In fact, if I owned Hero Games, you'd see Regeneration back and Healing gone.

But given that Tunneling does two things, namely make holes and get people to the other side of barriers, that can be done by powers already in the game, namely any damaging attack and Teleport, I don't see that it's necessary to retain it.

As I said, eliminating Powers is only good if we're at the same time preserving or increasing options.

Lucius Alexander

Preserving and increasing palindromedaries

The Main Man

Mar 31st, '09, 06:08 PM

M&M does this, they also sell adventure books too. M&M is currently profitable, I see no reason why Hero or any other RPG couldn't do the same.
Ironically I have nothing in particular to contribute to such an idea, but I think that it would be cool nonetheless.

Say, who does the HERO Wiki again?

Maybe there could be "adventure pages."

Tasha

Mar 31st, '09, 07:27 PM

I have no problem bringing Regeneration back. In fact, if I owned Hero Games, you'd see Regeneration back and Healing gone.

But given that Tunneling does two things, namely make holes and get people to the other side of barriers, that can be done by powers already in the game, namely any damaging attack and Teleport, I don't see that it's necessary to retain it.

As I said, eliminating Powers is only good if we're at the same time preserving or increasing options.

Lucius Alexander

Preserving and increasing palindromedaries

Tunneling MAY be used that way in your games, but the power's real purpose was to simulate those supers that can travel underground at fast rates. You would need the power to simulate things like the Classic D&D monster the Land Shark. So Tunneling is a Travel Power first and foremost. It references Def penetration because not all "earth" is created equal. So Yes I guess It could be used to create holes in Walls, but that's really not the power's primary purpose.

So YOU may not see a need for the power, and IF the only thing that it was good for was breaching barriers. Then I could see your point. As a travel power it is quite useful and I don't believe that an RKA would make up the difference and would only add to the complexity of an already complex ruleset.

Thank you for explaining why you think that Tunneling must die. I was actually wondering and I wasn't sure where you had made your whole point.

Tasha :D

PS If that all sounded snotty, I don't mean it that way :D

The Main Man

Mar 31st, '09, 07:32 PM

I kinda wonder if there is some way to link "Tunnelling" with the alternate Desolidification from TUMe called "Density Decrease."

Both of them deal with bypassing materials with one based on BODY and the other based on DEF.

steamteck

Apr 1st, '09, 03:38 AM

Tunneling MAY be used that way in your games, but the power's real purpose was to simulate those supers that can travel underground at fast rates. You would need the power to simulate things like the Classic D&D monster the Land Shark. So Tunneling is a Travel Power first and foremost. It references Def penetration because not all "earth" is created equal. So Yes I guess It could be used to create holes in Walls, but that's really not the power's primary purpose.

So YOU may not see a need for the power, and IF the only thing that it was good for was breaching barriers. Then I could see your point. As a travel power it is quite useful and I don't believe that an RKA would make up the difference and would only add to the complexity of an already complex ruleset.

Thank you for explaining why you think that Tunneling must die. I was actually wondering and I wasn't sure where you had made your whole point.

Tasha :D

:D

Actually it sounded like a philosophy all of us should consider before leaping on the "eliminate this mechanic" bandwagon.:thumbup:

bwdemon

Apr 1st, '09, 03:41 AM

If you were to make HERO exactly like an MMO, it would be the worst MMO ever. No graphics! Combat is many times slower! Only 3-5 other players! Who would want to play that? Tabletop games need to offer something different than an MMO, because they can't compete on the graphics, speed, or number of players front.
Agreed, and it does. This still isn't an argument against aligning the rules with the MMO, though.

Take MMO combat, for example. Tactically, most of it is pretty boring. Use your basic attacks repeatedly, use special moves as they become available, in a rythm that keeps the enemy stunned/aggro/debuffed as much of the time as possible. Either stand there next to the monster or run backward kiting it, depending on your class. In an MMO, this all happens fairly quickly, and has entertaining graphics. In a tabletop game, it would get dull after the first fight.
I don't know about you, but most HERO characters I've seen have basic attacks they use repeatedly and special attacks they use only rarely - in other words, less variety than MMOs offer. Both do get tedious, though.

So focus on the things an MMO can't do:
* Modify the environment. Smash through walls, build fortifications, dig tunnels, level cities.
* Think outside the box, solve things in unexpected ways.
* "Zoom in", filling in details dynamically as they're needed. The players decide to go west, they find a mining town. They talk to some locals and hear about an incident with some bandits last year. They research the incident, and find out that one of the bandits left a sword behind. They go examine the sword and find it has the mark of a legendary craftsman. And it goes on from there. But none of these details needed to be pregenerated into the game world.
* Shapechange, Duplicate, use Images or Mental Illusions, and so forth. There are a lot of powers that are trivial or at least fairly simple to adjucate in a game, but would be practically impossible in an MMO.
* Control time - in a tabletop game, you can stretch out the five seconds of a bomb counting down, and fast-forward through resting or uneventful travel.
* Make lasting changes to the game world.
* Destructible environments are available, as are base building and cover mechanisms. I don't know if this particular game will use them, but they're there.
* Outside the box thinking can come into play, especially based on the abilities of the characters involved. However, I would agree that MMOs tend to set goals based on stopping X from happening and giving you a handful of key goals to do just that. You have to do all of them, you can't skirt around them or defuse them in alternate ways.
* MMOs do tend to put combat first. It's also a huge part of HERO. You can do more back and forth flowing RP with the GM in tabletop, but the opportunity for RP and player-generated RP is still there in MMOs.
* You're pregenerating it for tabletop, which is no different from it being pregenerated for the MMO.
* I wouldn't agree that any of those powers are impossible for an MMO. Control over duplicates can be an issue, but pet mechanics can fix those issues. Images and Mental Illusions wouldn't necessarily have a visual effect in the MMO (you wouldn't see it on tabletop, either), but the same results could be achieved. Shapechange would probably have pre-set forms, making it the worst candidate, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in the MMO.
* Video games of all sorts are famous for making a few seconds last forever or for demanding hurried action when there is no consequence to deliberation. Regardless, I wouldn't say it's a good thing in either context. At least the MMOs have timed components that mean something.
* Lasting changes to the game world are, admittedly, very difficult to do with an MMO by virtue of the scale of the game and the interest in having everyone able to play every piece.

Tasha

Apr 1st, '09, 09:52 AM

Actually it sounded like a philosophy all of us should consider before leaping on the "eliminate this mechanic" bandwagon.:thumbup:

Thank you. The eliminate the Mechanic crowd has been around for quite awhile.

On the old Hero AOL boards there was a school of thought that all powers could be summed up by 4 base abilities (Movement, Attack, Defense and something else), that you could then build the other powers by adding advantages and Limitations. While I haven't see that exact thing crop up here, I do see it's cousin crop up in these discussions about eliminating powers.

The problem is that these "Simplifications" almost universally make the game MORE complex for beginners. They look simpler, but they make the players work harder to get to the same result.

In fact IMHO, all rules changes should be viewed from both the Beginner perspective and that of the Veteran Player. IF we eliminate something, does that really make the game easier/more fun for the player.

Tasha

Tasha

Apr 1st, '09, 10:18 AM

About that MMO thingie..

One thing about using Cryptic's rule system for Hero 6.0 is that of course Hero doesn't have a licence to do so. It would also "throw the baby out witht he bath water" so to speak. It is the elimination of 20years of good game development for something that is untried in a PnP setting.

Though I am finding that certain players in my gaming group are looking for MMO tactics to work in a PnP game. This is one thing that DnD 4th edition does pretty well. Which is enforcing the roles of Tank, Controller, Leader (Healer/Buffer), and Damage dealer. It is interesting the play and see how much better the group works together.

In most hero games the players build their characters as what the folk at Cryptic call "Tank Mages" that is a High defense character with lots of high Damage abilities. While it does work for most campaigns, it really doesn't simulate most Superhero games worth a darn. ie I would venture to say that most if not all Champions Characters have some form of resistant defenses and could bounce attacks from most guns. Now in comics you don't really see that many character with that much resistant defenses, but it works because most of those characters don't get attacked with guns or other killing attacks.

So perhaps a discussion on how to use those roles to create more dynamic combats. How to build those kind of characters where everyone has something that they can be doing in combat and where the opposition doesn't take out all of the "squishies".

I guess this is a thought exercise more than anything. Though there may be something here that is worth exploring (I hope)

Tasha

bwdemon

Apr 1st, '09, 01:12 PM

One thing about using Cryptic's rule system for Hero 6.0 is that of course Hero doesn't have a licence to do so.
I'm not sure what they have or don't have here. If it absolutely isn't available now, then it may be to Cryptic's and HERO's advantage to have the MMO system adapted to tabletop gaming.

It would also "throw the baby out witht he bath water" so to speak. It is the elimination of 20years of good game development for something that is untried in a PnP setting.
You say "good game development," while I would say the game has actually regressed, bloated, and made efforts to move away from playability while adhering to core imbalances and a lack of granularity. It's still a good system, but it could be a lot better with the attention of an editor with an eye to kill bloat.

Though I am finding that certain players in my gaming group are looking for MMO tactics to work in a PnP game. This is one thing that DnD 4th edition does pretty well. Which is enforcing the roles of Tank, Controller, Leader (Healer/Buffer), and Damage dealer. It is interesting the play and see how much better the group works together.
This has been an interesting development in tabletop games. D&D4 pays lipservice to the concept, but a wizard won't explode the second a goblin looks at him crosswise, whereas squishies have the survivability of a snowman in a forest fire in most MMOs.

Still, newer players with an MMO background do tend to want to fall into MMO roles, regardless of game. An aggro mechanic would be key to making the pure MMO model work in tabletop, but I'm not necessarily interested in that. I'm more interested in looking at the core mechanics and how characters are built. It doesn't have to be a perfect port and I wouldn't expect it to be, but HERO could learn a lot from any system that could trim fat from this bloated beast and make it more accessible to the purchasing public.

In most hero games the players build their characters as what the folk at Cryptic call "Tank Mages" that is a High defense character with lots of high Damage abilities. While it does work for most campaigns, it really doesn't simulate most Superhero games worth a darn. ie I would venture to say that most if not all Champions Characters have some form of resistant defenses and could bounce attacks from most guns.
I wholly agree, but I don't know whether to expect the Champions MMO to reflect the tank mage or the traditional MMO. Would it be a bad thing if Champions tabletop gaming evolved to reflect more realistic and/or genre-appropriate expectations? In many cases, all it would take is attention to the stock builds. Keep non-super stats within the NCM and you're halfway there.

Now in comics you don't really see that many character with that much resistant defenses, but it works because most of those characters don't get attacked with guns or other killing attacks.

So perhaps a discussion on how to use those roles to create more dynamic combats. How to build those kind of characters where everyone has something that they can be doing in combat and where the opposition doesn't take out all of the "squishies".
characters get attacked with those things all the time, they just don't often get hit with anything other than normal physical attacks and that damage is downplayed significantly. To mirror the comics, you'd want a high OCV penalty for using anything other than normal physical damage and 50% damage reduction (physical, nonresistant) on everyone. Armored and otherwise somewhat-invicible characters are the exception, of course, but they still dodge plenty.

However, that's not my goal. My goal, if I had any monetary interest in this, would be to do whatever is reasonably possible to make the jump from one to the other to be as easy as possible, while including necessary elements that the MMO doesn't use and paring the bloat down as much as possible. As is, FRED needs liposuction, a roll of antacids, and an enema.

For example, the skills list is completely out of control in HERO and it makes "Batman" builds far too expensive. Would the game fall apart if many of the skills were replaced with braoder equivalents at the same prices? No. Some skills should move over to Talents, as well (e.g. Acrobatics, Breakfall, Martial Arts, etc.). Would the game fall apart if Martial Arts were modeled by point cost equivalent and not to a legacy unbalanced mechanic? No. Drop resistant defenses and killing attacks, the game still works fine (killing attacks "kill" because they do a lot of damage, not because they do special damage). Elemental Controls serve no good purpose. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 1st, '09, 04:13 PM

On the old Hero AOL boards there was a school of thought that all powers could be summed up by 4 base abilities (Movement, Attack, Defense and something else), that you could then build the other powers by adding advantages and Limitations. While I haven't see that exact thing crop up here, I do see it's cousin crop up in these discussions about eliminating powers.

The problem is that these "Simplifications" almost universally make the game MORE complex for beginners. They look simpler, but they make the players work harder to get to the same result.

In fact IMHO, all rules changes should be viewed from both the Beginner perspective and that of the Veteran Player. IF we eliminate something, does that really make the game easier/more fun for the player.

While I agree with the above, the "4 base abilities" approach may make a good backdrop to the design and costing of the actual abilities appearing as powers. That is, while the book would present Running, Flight, Teleport, etc., these would be costed based on "Move" and the hidden advantages and limitations. There would be nothing wrong with presenting this macro structure, but it would be background, not the main power design mechanic.

Tasha

Apr 1st, '09, 04:45 PM

I'm not sure what they have or don't have here. If it absolutely isn't available now, then it may be to Cryptic's and HERO's advantage to have the MMO system adapted to tabletop gaming.

You say "good game development," while I would say the game has actually regressed, bloated, and made efforts to move away from playability while adhering to core imbalances and a lack of granularity. It's still a good system, but it could be a lot better with the attention of an editor with an eye to kill bloat.

This has been an interesting development in tabletop games. D&D4 pays lipservice to the concept, but a wizard won't explode the second a goblin looks at him crosswise, whereas squishies have the survivability of a snowman in a forest fire in most MMOs.

Still, newer players with an MMO background do tend to want to fall into MMO roles, regardless of game. An aggro mechanic would be key to making the pure MMO model work in tabletop, but I'm not necessarily interested in that. I'm more interested in looking at the core mechanics and how characters are built. It doesn't have to be a perfect port and I wouldn't expect it to be, but HERO could learn a lot from any system that could trim fat from this bloated beast and make it more accessible to the purchasing public.

I wholly agree, but I don't know whether to expect the Champions MMO to reflect the tank mage or the traditional MMO. Would it be a bad thing if Champions tabletop gaming evolved to reflect more realistic and/or genre-appropriate expectations? In many cases, all it would take is attention to the stock builds. Keep non-super stats within the NCM and you're halfway there.

characters get attacked with those things all the time, they just don't often get hit with anything other than normal physical attacks and that damage is downplayed significantly. To mirror the comics, you'd want a high OCV penalty for using anything other than normal physical damage and 50% damage reduction (physical, nonresistant) on everyone. Armored and otherwise somewhat-invicible characters are the exception, of course, but they still dodge plenty.

However, that's not my goal. My goal, if I had any monetary interest in this, would be to do whatever is reasonably possible to make the jump from one to the other to be as easy as possible, while including necessary elements that the MMO doesn't use and paring the bloat down as much as possible. As is, FRED needs liposuction, a roll of antacids, and an enema.

For example, the skills list is completely out of control in HERO and it makes "Batman" builds far too expensive. Would the game fall apart if many of the skills were replaced with braoder equivalents at the same prices? No. Some skills should move over to Talents, as well (e.g. Acrobatics, Breakfall, Martial Arts, etc.). Would the game fall apart if Martial Arts were modeled by point cost equivalent and not to a legacy unbalanced mechanic? No. Drop resistant defenses and killing attacks, the game still works fine (killing attacks "kill" because they do a lot of damage, not because they do special damage). Elemental Controls serve no good purpose. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

One thing that 5th edition suffers from is a tendancy to want to overexplain everything. It's our fault that Steve had to write it this way. As players like to take rules to places they were never meant to go. Unfortunatly this means that the Rules esp for Powers/Skills/Talents are quite long. This is why Hero released the Sidekick rules. Sidekick is the rules slimmed down into something that a beginner would find digestable, while still being completely useable in a game that uses the whole ruleset.

Also I think that you will find that the "bloat" is also used to explain the many ways a certain power can be used and how their adders are used, also the Advantages and limitations that are only used for that particular power. It makes the Character generation section longer, but I don't really think that one could really get around their inclusion.

Now I LOVE the variety that the current rules allow and I do not support losing any part of the great Variety of Skills that are available in the system. That Variety is why Hero is my system of choice. It's why I really HATE the skill list in 4th Edition D&D it's way too short to be useful for anything out of combat.

I do agree that making a skill heavy character is difficult in Champions, I have found that when I have run Supers campaigns that I give the Players a additional 50 points to spend on non-combat Skills (ie skills that don't include combat skill levels and Martial Arts). That way the players come up with fun power concepts and still have a list of skills that they can use out of combat.

I guess you COULD make the rules easier by making a bunch of canned abilities and call them powers/talents. Actually there's a game that does that. It's called GURPS, and isn't really what is my idea of fun. I LIKE the toolbox approach. I don't want to lose any of the tools in the box. Even the obscure tools that aren't used very often or the ones that are used in ways that they weren't meant to. Also I don't want my tools to be pared down to a Crescent Wrench, Flat Screw driver, a Pair of Pliers and a Hammer. While I can do a ton of stuff with those tools, I really do appreciate my Sockets, Screwdriver assortment, Vice Grips etc. The right tools make getting the job done easier than making due with a small amount of kind of right tools.

Tasha

AnotherSkip

Apr 1st, '09, 08:03 PM

Thank you. The eliminate the Mechanic crowd has been around for quite awhile.

On the old Hero AOL boards there was a school of thought that all powers could be summed up by 4 base abilities (Movement, Attack, Defense and something else), that you could then build the other powers by adding advantages and Limitations. While I haven't see that exact thing crop up here, I do see it's cousin crop up in these discussions about eliminating powers.

The problem is that these "Simplifications" almost universally make the game MORE complex for beginners. They look simpler, but they make the players work harder to get to the same result.

In fact IMHO, all rules changes should be viewed from both the Beginner perspective and that of the Veteran Player. IF we eliminate something, does that really make the game easier/more fun for the player.

Tasha

Obviously You haven't seen some of my posts..
4th would be senses.

and right it can appear more complex... the same way D&D by making all te choices for you makes it easier to pick up the game. but much harder to figure out what changing X does to Y.

ajackson

Apr 1st, '09, 08:34 PM

For example, the skills list is completely out of control in HERO and it makes "Batman" builds far too expensive.
Hm. Not in my experience. It's a fair chunk of points, but it's also a fair increase in capability. I've built plenty of characters with 50+ points in skills.

ghost-angel

Apr 2nd, '09, 06:17 AM

bwdemon

Apr 2nd, '09, 06:53 AM

If you really really wanted to break Hero into base components:

Attack
Defend
Move
Sense
Adjust
Miscellaneous Weird

Looks good on paper. probably completely unusable though.

Having all the Powers - especially things like Armor and Froce Field - split into similar looking but ultimately different components is not mere Mechanics In Action; it's conceptual concepts put in easy reach.

prebuilding Persistent Defenses and Constant Defenses as seperate Powers makes them look really close, but it's a concept help idea that allows both quicker generation and easier piecing together of larger concepts we call Characters.

Sure, it really does look great on paper to say "Attack Power - Modify to Needs" but it'd play like crap.
I agree that some level of breakdown is necessary, but HERO has gone way too far in many aspects and not far enough in others. Instant change went from a single entry to a horrid overcomplication. Regeneration should be spelled out as its own power. Many skills should be consolidated.

Plus, powers within the same subgroup aren't necessarily cost-benefit balanced against each other right now. If X and Y achieve the same basic benefit, but X is cheaper than Y and/or offers more secondary benefits, then there's an issue. Killing attack isn't balanced, necessary or helpful, which negates the need for resistant defenses and an entire mechanic in the game. The armor/force field debate is a similar issue.

So, while I am calling for some consolidation, I'm not calling for absolute consolidation or reducing the game mechanics to a coinflip. A reasonable compromise does exist.

ghost-angel

Apr 2nd, '09, 06:57 AM

I have never found Killing Attack to be unbalanced in any Campaign I've run.

I have found the distinction between Armor and Force Field to be both important and helpful both Mechanically and Conceptually, and on top of that had generated ease of gameplay.

So - I'm just going disagree with those two points wholly and completely. but that's neither here nor there.

bwdemon

Apr 2nd, '09, 07:07 AM

One thing that 5th edition suffers from is a tendancy to want to overexplain everything. It's our fault that Steve had to write it this way. As players like to take rules to places they were never meant to go. Unfortunatly this means that the Rules esp for Powers/Skills/Talents are quite long. This is why Hero released the Sidekick rules. Sidekick is the rules slimmed down into something that a beginner would find digestable, while still being completely useable in a game that uses the whole ruleset.
Sidekick isn't really a selling point. Give gamers a choice between basic rules and advanced rules, they'll buy and play advanced. If advanced isn't playable, then they'll stop playing it and buying things for it. If "advanced" is changed to "optional", then you've got a better model.

Also I think that you will find that the "bloat" is also used to explain the many ways a certain power can be used and how their adders are used, also the Advantages and limitations that are only used for that particular power. It makes the Character generation section longer, but I don't really think that one could really get around their inclusion.
No, the bloat I'm talking about is specific to too many rules and unreasonable decompression, not too much text or too many pages.

Now I LOVE the variety that the current rules allow and I do not support losing any part of the great Variety of Skills that are available in the system. That Variety is why Hero is my system of choice. It's why I really HATE the skill list in 4th Edition D&D it's way too short to be useful for anything out of combat.
I'll have to look at D&D4's skills again, but my analysis will come down to whether or not the system allows me to have a character that is skilled in X. If I can be skilled in X under that skill system, then it's fine. If, in order to be skilled in X, I have to choose A-P, then it's not fine. If I have to take a skill to do something that anyone is able to do fairly well, then it's not fine. Compress the closely-related skills and allow for specialization (e.g. limited levels) within each.

I do agree that making a skill heavy character is difficult in Champions, I have found that when I have run Supers campaigns that I give the Players a additional 50 points to spend on non-combat Skills (ie skills that don't include combat skill levels and Martial Arts). That way the players come up with fun power concepts and still have a list of skills that they can use out of combat.
Not every character is or should be skill-heavy. Other systems don't have the same problem HERO does in this regard, so why keep the problem going? Consolidate and cheapen.

I guess you COULD make the rules easier by making a bunch of canned abilities and call them powers/talents. Actually there's a game that does that. It's called GURPS, and isn't really what is my idea of fun. I LIKE the toolbox approach. I don't want to lose any of the tools in the box. Even the obscure tools that aren't used very often or the ones that are used in ways that they weren't meant to. Also I don't want my tools to be pared down to a Crescent Wrench, Flat Screw driver, a Pair of Pliers and a Hammer. While I can do a ton of stuff with those tools, I really do appreciate my Sockets, Screwdriver assortment, Vice Grips etc. The right tools make getting the job done easier than making due with a small amount of kind of right tools.
Never played GURPS, but I imagine its canned abilities/powers are little different from HERO's canned abilities/powers in the grand scheme of things. It's likely just the label on the can that's different. Both claim to be universal systems, after all.

Also, I'm not saying that anything would be lost. Addition by subtraction is more what I'm looking at. I want people to be able to do anything under the rules, but that doesn't necessarily require a rule for everything or the level of decompression that the system currently has. Again, it comes down to whether you can do X in the game and whether the cost for X is reasonable given its benefits, especially in light of things that have the same basic benefit.

Tasha

Apr 2nd, '09, 09:38 AM

Sidekick isn't really a selling point. Give gamers a choice between basic rules and advanced rules, they'll buy and play advanced. If advanced isn't playable, then they'll stop playing it and buying things for it. If "advanced" is changed to "optional", then you've got a better model.

No, the bloat I'm talking about is specific to too many rules and unreasonable decompression, not too much text or too many pages.

Funny thing is that I don't really think that there ARE more rules in 5th edition. It takes Steve twice as many pages and at a smaller typeface than they did in 4th edition, but with the exception of a removal of around 3 or 4 powers and a change in the way that COM was purchased (no rounding). I don't really remember much of a change. Mostly the rules became better explained in 5.x over 4.x. There's a ton of Optional rules for just about anything, but that was a consolidation of stuff that was in earlier genre books. So does it again come down to page count that is making you think that the system has been overcomplicated?

BTW I have been playing Hero since Champions 2.0. So I have seen nearly all of the different versions the rules have gone though. I also have played Fantasy Hero heavily since 1.0.

I'll have to look at D&D4's skills again, but my analysis will come down to whether or not the system allows me to have a character that is skilled in X. If I can be skilled in X under that skill system, then it's fine. If, in order to be skilled in X, I have to choose A-P, then it's not fine. If I have to take a skill to do something that anyone is able to do fairly well, then it's not fine. Compress the closely-related skills and allow for specialization (e.g. limited levels) within each.

Not every character is or should be skill-heavy. Other systems don't have the same problem HERO does in this regard, so why keep the problem going? Consolidate and cheapen.

I disagree that there are skills that need to be compressed. I could agree that perhaps some skills COULD loose their expensive internal options. Do we really need to spend 12+points on being able to hack any computer system out there? Though I do see the need for sometimes wanting that detail.

Funny thing is that I want them to ADD to the Skill list. For one, I would love to see a skill that works like the DnD skill of Insight, which allows characters to know when they are being lied to or something is being put over on them. kind of an anti-Pre Skill.

Never played GURPS, but I imagine its canned abilities/powers are little different from HERO's canned abilities/powers in the grand scheme of things. It's likely just the label on the can that's different. Both claim to be universal systems, after all.

Also, I'm not saying that anything would be lost. Addition by subtraction is more what I'm looking at. I want people to be able to do anything under the rules, but that doesn't necessarily require a rule for everything or the level of decompression that the system currently has. Again, it comes down to whether you can do X in the game and whether the cost for X is reasonable given its benefits, especially in light of things that have the same basic benefit.

Unfortunately giving the people the ability to do anything tends to require better explanations, which tends to cause rule bloat. Hell, if you don't believe me go check out the rules FAQ.

I am sorry, but Addition by Subtraction sounds like so much doublespeak to me. I guess you want an edition that gets to the point quickly and concisely. No extra words, no optional rules, just the core rules. I guess I could see wanting that. Unfortunately, for my uses that book would be a waste of my money. I want the tomes that have ALL of the rules. I hate having to use like 4 or 5 books to create my character. If they can get me back down to 2 or 3 I would be quite happy (ie Core Players book, Genre Book, Ultimate Martial Artist).

Of course the funny thing is that the Hero Combat Handbook (the Book that handles the Non Character Creation Rules) is only like 175 pages. That's 15 pages less than the 5th edition Revised section of "rules" of course it doesn't have stuff about giving exp. just combat.

Also, what is adding to the density of the rules are the many charts that either repeat info from other charts in a different easier to understand way or they consolidate info from other places in the rules to make the info easier to find (ie Perception modifier Charts). Again these make the rules seem more complicated, but really just make info easier to find.

So I guess I don't really have a huge problem with the Rules. Though sometimes I wish that certain power writeups would get to the point quicker then deal with options.

Tasha

Lucius

Apr 2nd, '09, 03:00 PM

The last Champions character I designed and played (as opposed to the ones I played but didn't design, or designed and haven't played (yet)) had over 100 pts in Skills. That's not counting Martial Arts of course. I think I had at least 9 points just in various languages.

And yes, it was built on the "Standard" superhero budget.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is an off-the-budget allocation....

mallet

Apr 2nd, '09, 03:05 PM

Tasha

Apr 2nd, '09, 06:49 PM

Off the current topic, but I thought I should throw this in before Steve Locks the threads.

I think character Package Deals should actually give characters a point break in the cost. Just like EC power framework gives a discount in cost in order to reward players for having a consistent idea for their character (Fire Guy, Ice Guy, etc...), I think that player should then also be rewarded for having a consistent background for their character, which is shown by taking a package deal.

And if that isn't going to happen then, please, please, please change the name from Package Deal to something else.

We used to use package deals that way back in the days of Fantasy Hero 1st edition. It was more of an house rule than anything. It was interesting for Background and "Class" packages, but it could be a bit overpowered for Racial packages.

ghost-angel

Apr 2nd, '09, 07:05 PM

Package Deals gave a price break/points back bonus in 4E. It'd be a step backwards in Steve's eyes.

I also think points back should never be reintroduced, but also do agree they need to be renamed - Archetype Templates, or just Templates, would work fine.

AnotherSkip

Apr 2nd, '09, 08:02 PM

Build your own Skill enhancer.

Should be Nuff' said.

ghost-angel

Apr 2nd, '09, 08:08 PM

The ones from Ultimate Skill should be in the Advanced Rules Guide.

rjcurrie

Apr 2nd, '09, 10:05 PM

Off the current topic, but I thought I should throw this in before Steve Locks the threads.

I think character Package Deals should actually give characters a point break in the cost. Just like EC power framework gives a discount in cost in order to reward players for having a consistent idea for their character (Fire Guy, Ice Guy, etc...), I think that player should then also be rewarded for having a consistent background for their character, which is shown by taking a package deal.

And if that isn't going to happen then, please, please, please change the name from Package Deal to something else.

I have to admit that I strongly disagree with the idea of giving price breaks for packages (my suggested change for the name of package deals). Personally, I think it discourages creative thinking and that, in my mind, is a bad thing. When you reward players for taking packages (which would normally be created by the GM), you are punishing players who build characters with consistent and interesting backgrounds but do so without using any of the GM's pre-built packages. Does this seem right?

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '09, 12:11 AM

Build your own Skill enhancer.
Not a bad idea! I always like it when player races (and sometimes classes) have something nobody else can get; this could be a part of that.

- Klaus

AnotherSkip

Apr 3rd, '09, 03:47 AM

I have to admit that I strongly disagree with the idea of giving price breaks for packages (my suggested change for the name of package deals). Personally, I think it discourages creative thinking and that, in my mind, is a bad thing. When you reward players for taking packages (which would normally be created by the GM), you are punishing players who build characters with consistent and interesting backgrounds but do so without using any of the GM's pre-built packages. Does this seem right?

Gm's can approve PLayer built packages, just like anything else a player builds for a campaign.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 3rd, '09, 04:43 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '09, 06:41 AM

Package Deals should be renamed Templates or just Packages. They should not provide a point break, but I could see certain packages allowing things other characters would be denied (eg. special abilities possessed by no PC except dwarves, for example).

In the Characteristics thread, we discuss Normal Characteristics Maxima considerably. I'd like to see NCM eliminated in favour of hard caps based on the campaign. Allowing certain races to exceed the usual cap (eg. dwarves are especially hardy and can have CON 3 over the cap) would be one possibility in a package for dwarves.
Dwarves could also have IR vision, which humans aren't allowed to buy. Elves could go beyond caps with PER and perhaps Diminished Sleep. There are many possibilities. I think Templates can be attractive without point breaks if they give access such otherwise restricted abilities.

- Klaus

ghost-angel

Apr 3rd, '09, 09:56 AM

The system needs more fluffy bunnies.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 3rd, '09, 05:46 PM

Fluffy Bunnies: 3d6 RKA, Autofire (10 shots), 1 Hex Accurate, Inobvious Accessible Focus.

SteveZilla

Apr 3rd, '09, 08:25 PM

First, establish that the Killing Attack is the “default.” The solution is not to make Killing an Advantage, but to make the alternative a Limitation. Actually it should be two limitations: One to change the dice rolling mechanic, and one (perhaps called Nonlethal) to work against Non-Resistant Defenses. That way we have the greatest freedom to mix and match effects. By making it clear that all non-lethal attacks are Limited, it becomes a little more obvious that the damage that comes with STR is not actually worth 5 pts per 5 pts of STR. I suggest making each Limitation worth – ¼, which may be underpricing them but does bring the total exactly in line with the Limitation already used for Hand to Hand Attack.

I'n not fond of the idea of STR inherently being build with a limitation in it's construction (which complicates it a bit more than the way it is now). All characters (generally speaking) have STR while only some have Killing Attacks.

Cut the price of REC and END to 1 and 1/10, to match END Reserve (Given that END Reserve is not lost when Stunned, there's no reason I see for it to be cheaper.) Cut the price of STUN – perhaps to ½ . And drop PD and ED entirely. It now becomes more viable to buy up END and/or REC rather than buy Reduced END on powers, and to buy up STUN rather than buy defenses. Plus, CON and STR no longer look underpriced.

Lets see:
Properties of Regular REC & END:

Character gets his REC added to his END (and STUN) on Post-Phase 12.
Character Recovers more slowly than Post Phase 12 when deeply Knocked Out.
Character can take a Full Phase Action to Add REC to END (and STUN).
Character looses* his END when Knocked Out.
Character cannot continue to feed END to Constant/Continuous powers while Stunned or Knocked Out, causing them to shut off at the end of the Segment.

Properties of Endurance Reserve REC & END:

Character gets his REC added to his END (and STUN) on Post-Phase 12.
Character Recovers every Post Phase 12 regardless of his Stun Level.
Character cannot take a Full Phase Action to Add REC to END (and STUN).
Character keeps his END when Knocked Out.
Character does continue to feed END to Constant/Continuous powers while Stunned or Knocked Out, preventing them from shutting off at the end of the Segment.

The Endurance Reserve has one property that is the same as the regular REC/END (#1), one that is worse (#3), and three that are superior (#2, #4 & #5). So unless #3 is valued extremely highly, I don't see it offsetting the benefits provided by the three positives. So, wouldn't that indicate that the Endurance Reserve's prices should at least rise to match the Regular END & REC -- if not exceed their price?

Blue Jogger

Apr 4th, '09, 11:36 PM

I always thought the invisible -1 limitation on the REC for Endurance Reserves was that it was in no way helping you get back your STUN or heal back your BODY (slowly over the course of months). And while the battery doesn't drain out when you are knocked unconscious, you can't take recoveries to pump it up faster.

Not sure why 10 END in an Endurance Reserve costs 1 point. However, it does seem to be play balanced fairly well. Whenever the Reserve runs out, I usually curse the REC not the END.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 5th, '09, 02:11 AM

Not sure why 10 END in an Endurance Reserve costs 1 point. However, it does seem to be play balanced fairly well. Whenever the Reserve runs out, I usually curse the REC not the END.
All I can say is that in our group, we decided to change Endurance Reserve END cost to 4 END for 1 point. That seemed well balanced.

My biggest problem with Reserves is that you don't get enough of a point break for buying a Reserve with slow recovery. Buying REC with Slow Recovery can never be cheaper than buying 1 REC/turn, but will always be slower unless you buy enormous amounts of REC. With 1 REC/turn, you will recover 100 END in a 20-minute break - why would you ever choose to spend 40 points on 100 REC with a -1½ "once per 20 minutes" limitation?

Perhaps the Slow Recovery limitation should apply to the entire Reserve, not just the REC, but the END cost start higher - perhaps at 2:1, as for normal END. After all, for a normal Endurance Reserve the built-in limitation that you can't take recoveries is balanced by the built-in advantage that you don't lose END or REC when knocked out.

Or forget about REC and simply say that the END in a Reserve is fully recovered in 1 minute (possibly prorated per turn), and then apply limitations to slow this down. So a 60-END Reserve would e.g. normally cost 30 points and recover 60 END per minute (or 12 END per turn). We now apply a -1½ limitation "Recovers in 1 hour" (1 END per minute), which reduces the cost to 12 points. This solution is more expensive than the current version in both cases, but I think the current version is much too cheap.

- Klaus

AnotherSkip

Apr 5th, '09, 05:18 AM

we were discussing character building the other day and without Equipment pool rules or other things we realised that a normal can easily exceed 100points (and in fact 200 points) with a decent selection of equipment.

As a counter to the spiraling cost of technology (which just may indicate that Hero prices need to come down) there was discussion of EveryGizmo as a campaign idea. Wealth penalties could include reduced access to the Everygizmo concept.

Lucius

Apr 5th, '09, 10:08 AM

I'n not fond of the idea of STR inherently being build with a limitation in it's construction (which complicates it a bit more than the way it is now). All characters (generally speaking) have STR while only some have Killing Attacks.

Lets see:
Properties of Regular REC & END:

Character gets his REC added to his END (and STUN) on Post-Phase 12.
Character Recovers more slowly than Post Phase 12 when deeply Knocked Out.
Character can take a Full Phase Action to Add REC to END (and STUN).
Character looses* his END when Knocked Out.
Character cannot continue to feed END to Constant/Continuous powers while Stunned or Knocked Out, causing them to shut off at the end of the Segment.

Properties of Endurance Reserve REC & END:

Character gets his REC added to his END (and STUN) on Post-Phase 12.
Character Recovers every Post Phase 12 regardless of his Stun Level.
Character cannot take a Full Phase Action to Add REC to END (and STUN).
Character keeps his END when Knocked Out.
Character does continue to feed END to Constant/Continuous powers while Stunned or Knocked Out, preventing them from shutting off at the end of the Segment.

The Endurance Reserve has one property that is the same as the regular REC/END (#1), one that is worse (#3), and three that are superior (#2, #4 & #5). So unless #3 is valued extremely highly, I don't see it offsetting the benefits provided by the three positives. So, wouldn't that indicate that the Endurance Reserve's prices should at least rise to match the Regular END & REC -- if not exceed their price?

You're looking at it one way, and concluding that the END Reserve is underpriced.

I looked at it from the other direction, and concluded that regular END and REC are overpriced.

However, it's entirely possible to decide both are true, and advocate raising one price and lowering the other.

Lucius Alexander

Sounds like something a palindromedary would do.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 6th, '09, 04:45 PM

Properties of Endurance Reserve REC & END:

Character gets his REC added to his END (and STUN) on Post-Phase 12.

Wrong! You don't get STUN at all (even in parentheses).

The Endurance Reserve has one property that is the same as the regular REC/END (#1), one that is worse (#3), and three that are superior (#2, #4 & #5).
That's of the properties you listed, but there are more:

Regular END & REC:
6. Before you've even spent any points, a character already has 20 END and 4 REC - for free! And since most characters will buy up their CON (and many buy up their STR), they may have even more free END and REC to start with.

Endurance Reserve END & REC:
6. You don't get any of either for free, no matter how much CON or STR you buy.

Vulcan

Apr 6th, '09, 09:55 PM

Regular END & REC:
6. Before you've even spent any points, a character already has 20 END and 4 REC - for free! And since most characters will buy up their CON (and many buy up their STR), they may have even more free END and REC to start with.

Endurance Reserve END & REC:
6. You don't get any of either for free, no matter how much CON or STR you buy.

Assuming, of course, that figured characteristics make it into 6E.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 7th, '09, 04:53 AM

Assuming, of course, that figured characteristics make it into 6E.

Everything I've seen suggesting Figured's get removed would have a base REC and END equal to the base for a 10 STR/CON character

bwdemon

Apr 7th, '09, 10:25 AM

Putting this here since it would apply to both advantages and limitations:

Why not switch to a mechanic where only the net advantage or disadvantage is applied to the base cost of the power? This cuts out one chart, which is useless anyway as soon as a power hits something other than a multiple of 5, and moves to a more intuitive process.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 7th, '09, 05:52 PM

Assuming, of course, that figured characteristics make it into 6E.
No, only assuming that characters start with a base of some positive amount of END and REC (such as 20 and 4).

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 8th, '09, 02:38 AM

Before the boards are closed, I'd like to present a consolidated system that collects what I think may be my best ideas about dice rolls, skills, and characteristics. This makes it a bit longish, but everything connects...

Ability Roll: 2d6 + d6x3
In other words, roll three dice where one is a different color or size. Multiply this die by 3 before adding. See graph (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27071&d=1204408383) for distribution.

Alternative: 2d6+d20
This has the same average and a very similar distribution (see graph (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27116&d=1205167962)).
The advantage is that it doesn't involve multiplication; the disadvantage is that it isn't "d6 pure".

Roll-high combat option: Roll+OCV >= 15+DCV to hit
Roll-low combat option: Roll <= 20+OCV-DCV to hit
Hit chance with OCV=DCV is 66.7% (65% with 2d6+d20) compared to 62.5% now.

Skill Levels:
1-point level: +1 on a single skill or maneuver
2-point level: +1 on three related skills or maneuvers
3-point level: +1 on a broad group of related skills or maneuvers, +1 PER, or +1 DCV
5-point level: +1 all combat
8-point level: overall level
CSLs of 2 points or higher can also be used for DCV for the affected maneuvers or be swapped for damage: 4 levels ~ +1 DC (note: if powers become 0-END by default, the exchange rate should be 3:1).

Defenses:
Rather than distinguishing between PD and ED, I suggest distinguishing between Stun Defense (SD) and Body Defense (BD).
Look here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1813221&postcount=1273) for details.

Characteristics in general:
Primary Characteristics all cost 2 points per +1 and have base 10, ncm 20.
Optional Characteristcs follow the same structure, but only cost 1 point per +1.
Secondary Characteristics follow different cost structures.

There are no "figured characteristics"; instead many abilities are derived directly from a single characterictic the way e.g. CV and STR damage are now. Derived values are affected when the characteristic is boosted or drained.

Characteristic Breakpoints:
All Primary and Optional Characteristics have the same breakpoints; at 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, etc.; i.e., at every 2½ (rounded up).
This is abbreviated as Characteristic Bonus = CHA/2½.

List of Primary Characteristics:
Edit: I have moved a few things around to achieve better balance in costs.

STR
Full value determines lifing ability.
Derived values: HTH/Thrown damage (½d6 x Bonus); Brace vs. KB (-1m x Bonus); Stun Defense (SD = Bonus); Bonus to STR Roll.

CON (merged with BODY)
Full value determines stunning threshold and Body points.
Derived values: REC (= Bonus); Bonus to CON Roll.

MOVE (replaces Running, Swimming and Leaping)
Full value determined initiative and Running "/turn (divide by SPD to get "/phase).
Derived values: Swimming "/turn (= Bonus); Running broad jump (= Bonus meters).
Note: END Cost (if used) for Swimming and Leaping is determined by the amount of MOVE used, not the distance moved.

DEX (part of current DEX Characteristic)
Full value: Not used (would be nice to find a use, though).
Derived values: OCV (= Bonus); Bonus to Manual Skills and DEX Rolls.

AGI (part of current DEX Characteristic)
Full value: Not used (would be nice to find a use, though).
Derived values: DCV (= Bonus); Bonus to Athletic Skills and AGI Rolls.

INT (WITS might be a better name to show it isn't pure intellect)
Full value: Possibly used as initiatuve for mental actions (mental attacks, PRE attacks, etc.)
Derived values: Bonus to Intellect Skills, PER Rolls (and PER skills?), and INT Rolls.

PRE (now includes willpower)
Full value determines resistance to PRE Attacks.
Derived values: PRE damage (½d6 x Bonus); Bonus to Social Skills and Will Rolls (~ Resistance Talent).

Sample Optional Characteristics

EGO (used in campaigns that include mental powers)
Full value determines resistance to mental effects.
Derived values: ECV (= Bonus); Mental Defense (MD = Bonus); Bonus to EGO Rolls.

COM (used in campaigns where physical beauty is important and follows a strict standard of objectiveness)
Full value determines quality of looks.
Derived values: Bonus can be used instead of PRE Bonus for Social Skills in situations where beauty is important.

STATUS (used in campaigns where status is important and follows a strict hierarchy)
Full value determines level of status.
Derived values: Bonus can be used instead of PRE Bonus for Social Skills in situations where status is important.

MAGIC (used in campaigns where magic is central)
Full value determines maximum Real Cost of spells.
Derived values: Power Defense (= Bonus); Bonus to Magic Skill(s).

Secondary Characterictics
SPD: As now, unless a good alternative to the SPD chart is found.
STUN: As now.
END: As now, unless Powers and STR are made 0-END by default, in which case it may be merged with STUN.
Body Defense (BD) Cost 2, base 2, human max 4.

I think that's about it! (phew...)

- Klaus

Tasha

Apr 8th, '09, 12:53 PM

Wow, kind of interesting. It's a real huge change but I see merit in what you are thinking.

For Rolls, how about just rolling 5d6? I guess you are trying to flatten out the Curve, but honestly at the end of a long game I would rather be adding things than, doing any multiplication (even simple Multiplication)

So I also guess that Skills that are based on a Characteristic roll would be (Stat/3), which is a neat change that could even be implemented now. It increases the granularity of skills by quite a bit and kills the 3's and 8's as being the only breakpoint for skills. It also has the great side effect of making the system more uniform between combat and non-combat.

On your stat list, I don't really care for your Status and Magic. Though they could be Tertiary Stats that the GM sets at campaign start. Status could be used like equipment points, and Magic could be used to purchase Spells.

Ego is a stat that I would be annoyed to lose. I think that PRE and EGO are different enough that they should be seporate entities. Ego plays a role in most games as a way to push past Psych Limits and for Pushing. I would be sorry to see it go. Also I don't see how the weight of someone's personality(their charisma/intangable leadership aura), would also make them have a stronger will.

Also perhaps body could be a secondary stat. Since you already have Body Defense. having as much body as Stun could allow us to finally kill the Stun Lotto. Have killing attacks become an adder onto Energy Blast. Stun=Body rolled, then apply Resistant Body and Stun Defenses.

Though I think I could play your system. It's different but it does have it's merits.

Tasha

As far as I am concerned CHA could be lost without any real problems. There should be a talent that covers being good looking at the different levels.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 8th, '09, 02:02 PM

For Rolls, how about just rolling 5d6? I guess you are trying to flatten out the Curve, but honestly at the end of a long game I would rather be adding things than, doing any multiplication (even simple Multiplication)
5d6 only has 29% greater variation than 3d6. As you add dice, you get a tighter bell curve. 2d6+(d6x3) has about twice the variation of 3d6. The same is true for 2d5+20, which doesn't require multiplication, but isn't "d6 pure".

If 2d6+(d6x3) is implemented, perhaps Hero Games could persuade a dice manufacturer to make a d6 numbered 3-6-9-12-15-18; i.e., with the multiplication already done.

So I also guess that Skills that are based on a Characteristic roll would be (Stat/3)
No, they would be (Stat/2½), or rather Characteristic Bonus.

On your stat list, I don't really care for your Status and Magic. Though they could be Tertiary Stats that the GM sets at campaign start. Status could be used like equipment points, and Magic could be used to purchase Spells.
Well, they are optional characteristics. They don't have to be included in the main book except perhaps as examples of optional characteristics.

Ego is a stat that I would be annoyed to lose. I think that PRE and EGO are different enough that they should be seporate entities. Ego plays a role in most games as a way to push past Psych Limits and for Pushing.
The problem with EGO is that if you balance its cost based on mental combat, it will be much too expensive in campaigns that don't have mental powers, and if you balance its cost based on no-mental-powers campaigns, it will be much too cheap in campaigns that do have mental powers. The only way to resolve this is to make it about nothing but mental powers and ignore it in campaigns that don't have any.

Also I don't see how the weight of someone's personality(their charisma/intangable leadership aura), would also make them have a stronger will.
All RPG characteristics are collections of things that aren't necessarily the same, otherwise we would need a million characteristics. We already have perception linked to intelligence, lifting strength linked to punching strength, and dexterity linked to how often you can act. It might help to think of PRE as "spirit" - spirited people (at least in fiction) tend to be both charming and strong willed.

Also perhaps body could be a secondary stat. Since you already have Body Defense. Having as much body as Stun could allow us to finally kill the Stun Lotto. Have killing attacks become an adder onto Energy Blast. Stun=Body rolled, then apply Resistant Body and Stun Defenses.
That's certainly an option. It would also prevent us from having to count damage dice two ways. "Killing" should probably be an advantage rather than an adder, though, since you would need proportional more rBD the greater the attack is.

- Klaus

ajackson

Apr 8th, '09, 02:27 PM

The problem with EGO is that if you balance its cost based on mental combat, it will be much too expensive in campaigns that don't have mental powers, and if you balance its cost based on no-mental-powers campaigns, it will be much too cheap in campaigns that do have mental powers. The only way to resolve this is to make it about nothing but mental powers and ignore it in campaigns that don't have any.
Nope, there's another way. Don't have it affect ECV and make it cheap.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 8th, '09, 04:00 PM

5d6 only has 29% greater variation than 3d6. As you add dice, you get a tighter bell curve. 2d6+(d6x3) has about twice the variation of 3d6. The same is true for 2d5+20, which doesn't require multiplication, but isn't "d6 pure".

This assumes we want to increase the role of random chance in determining success or failure.

Greywind

Apr 8th, '09, 06:48 PM

Switch to a straight D30 system.

All rolls are based off of 3D30...

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 8th, '09, 10:16 PM

This assumes we want to increase the role of random chance in determining success or failure.
I did two things in my suggestion: Changed 3d6 to a roll with about twice the variation, and changed skills from CHA/5 to CHA/2½. These two things cancel out in respect to randomness; we just get finer granularity (something Steve has asked for).

Combat will be somewhat more random, since we have changed CV from DEX/3 to DEX/2½ while doubling the variation in rolls.

- Klaus

Markdoc

Apr 8th, '09, 10:56 PM

Seriously? Any system that requires adding up one set of dice, modifying by CV (or skill) and levels and then adding up another set of dice and then subtracting that total from the first?

It has about as much chance of being adopted as getting the players to pull their own teeth and using them as wagers in skill vs skill contests.

The stated goal of 6E is to simplify game play, not complicate it.

cheers, Mark

Eodin

Apr 8th, '09, 11:04 PM

Since my thoughts are more general and apply across groups of power, I'll post here.

I would like to see various powers modularized. Since HERO is a toolkit, apply that to the powers.

Armor, Force Field, Force Wall, Mental Defense, Power Defense, Flash Defense -- all would become Defense. The modular parts would make various things easier to build. Armor is Defense, Zero END, Persistent. FF is Defense. Mental Defense is Defense, with the type being Mental. Force Wall is Defense, with a Barrier advantage - no damage gets through unless brought down. And so forth.

Aid, Succor, Drain, Transfer -- all would become Alteration. Succor would add points and cost END, Aid would be Succor with a Boost/Return Rate advantage, Drain would be Negative/Reduction and Usable As Attack, Transfer would be both Drain and Aid combined, and you could add in a mod to Rearrange points such as move 3d6 points from Running to Armor/Defense.

While I would like to see Energy Blast and the 2 Killing Attacks rolled together as Damaging Attack, I'm not sure how you'd have a mod to distinguish between Normal Dice and Killing Dice. But having the uniform mods for Ranged, Does/Doesn't Add STR damage, etc. work the same across all of them would be good.

Healing and Regeneration need a simplification, it's just too hard to build Regeneration of the non-superhero type.

Need a way to have a "pain" power, similar to the "Stun" power. It's possible to be in great pain and yet take no stun or body. You can have pinched nerves where moving is very painful (and so you don't move very fast) but no STUN or BODY damage is involved, and if you WANT to move fast you can, it's just very painful, something along the lines of an EGO Roll to continue moving rather than an Entangle that can be broken.
And for those who, like me, have had the wind knocked out of them, it's possible to be fully conscious and be unable to physically react to anything a longer period of time than "1 phase".

If HERO keeps the 12-second Turn, I also want to have movement based on the Turn (although Teleport would be tricky since it is by definition instantaneous unless Extra Time limits are added to it). Having combat speeds of 2 and 4 should not mean running twice as far in a 12-second time period or flying twice as far or swimming... you get the idea.
Also, a vehicle's SPD should match that of the driver if the driver is actually controlling it, so another reason for inches-per-turn speed.

I would like to see a more elegant way to do Usable On Others, similar to Aid or Succor. It shouldn't take 12 advantages just to make sure that your spell of Wind Protection won't fade from fair damsel Nell just because you walked down to the castle to visit with your friendly alchemist.

I'd like to see an elegant/modular way of handling shapeshifters/multiforms. There should be a "common" bit that persists across all forms, and a "form" bit that is specific to a particular form. It's a huge pain to make sure that my wizard's skills are maintained correctly across all forms as he gains experience and applies it to various skills.

On a side note I had a wierd dream, Steve had created a version of HERO that was linear instead of logarithmic. Normals had stats in 100 to 200 range, and supers had thousands of points. Of course dice was a problem, so it was "recommended" to use a dice rolling program to avoid rolling 50 dice for various attacks. Oh well.

The Main Man

Apr 8th, '09, 11:26 PM

1. I had a similar idea as yours in regards to Defense, whereas I was thinking of it for Hero Designer interficial streamlining.

Now that I think of it, Force Field already has that interface so basically, Defense should be modeled after Force Field in that respect.

2. I believe that Force Wall should be allowed to buy BODY.

It's rather difficult to simulate that whole, "Our shields are at 60% Captain!" thing, plus they are so all or nothing yet one can make a Barrier out of Entangle and there's no fuss.

3. I'm thinking that Hexes/Turn could work out if the Acceleration/Deceleration Rules were more strongly emphasized, but I do agree that it makes more sense.

4. Good call on Multiform.

That has sometimes annoyed me to no end.

Maybe Multiform could work something like a Power Framework?

5. I believe that your dream is some high octane nightmare fuel for HERO gamers. ;)

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 8th, '09, 11:38 PM

The consolidated system (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1813911&postcount=2398) I presented yesterday has as a feature that Characteristic Bonuses are CHA/2½. This has made me consider some rather far-reaching streamlining.

(1): What if we divided Primary Characteristics by 2½?
Then the Bonuses above would just be the Characteristic itself, and every point in a Characteristic would always count (no 'breakpoints').

(2): What if we also divided all costs by 2½?
This doesn't necessarily follow from (1), but I thought I would grab the idea and run with it. After all, a lot of costs in Hero are multiples of 5. It will reduce granularity somewhat in some places, but it will give us easier numbers to play with. It is sort of the opposite of the suggestion some have made that we should double all costs to prevent half-point costs. If you were against that suggestion, you ought to support this one. ;)

(3): What if END is dropped? As a default, you can use Powers at no cost. Pushing costs STUN.

Anyway, here goes:

Basic Ability Roll: 2d6+d20
Combat Roll: Roll+OCV >= 15+DCV to hit (65% for OCV = DCV).
Opposed Skill Roll: Roll+Skill >= 18+Skill to succeed (50% for equal Skills).
Basic Skill Roll: Roll+Skill >= Difficulty to succeed. Base Difficulty (simple task) is 20.

Skill Levels
3 points: Overall Level
2 points: All Combat
1 point: +1 on three related skills/maneuvers or +2 on a single skill/maneuver
Three combat levels can be traded for +1 DC damage (this includes the 1-point levels that give +2 on a single maneuver; i.e., you would trade +6 OCV for +1 DC)

Primary Characteristics
All Primary Characteristics cost 2 per +1
Base 4, NCM 8

STR
Damage = STR x ½d6
Lifting ability doubles for every +2 STR
Revised Knockback: If attack BODY > target STR (+4 if Bracing), target is knocked back/down. Killing BODY counts half.
Realistic KB option: knockdown if BODY>STR
Heroic KB option: knockback = BODY-STR meters
Superheroic KB option: knockdown = 1m, 2m, 4m, 8m, etc. for BODY-STR = 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

CON
Used for recovery of STUN and BODY (~ REC)
Is subtracted from STUN damage (Stun Defense)
Stunning threshold = CONx2
Realistic STUN Recovery: CON every hour
Heroic STUN Recovery: CON every 5 minutes
Superheroic STUN Recovery: CON every Turn and with Recovery actions

MOVE
Initiative
Running/turn = MOVE x 5m
Swimming/turn = MOVE x 2m
Standing broad jump = MOVE x 1m
Running broad jump = MOVE x 2m

DEX
Base for OCV and Manual Skills

AGI
Base for DCV and Athletic Skills

INT (or WITS)
Base for Intellect Skills and Perception Roll (or Skills)

PRE (or SPIRIT)
PRE Attack = PRE x ½d6
PRE Resistance Treshold = PREx2
Base for Social Skills and Willpower Rolls

Optional Characterictics
All Optional Characteristics cost 1 per +1
Base 4, NCM 8

EGO (used in campaigns where mental powers are common)
Base for ECV
Subtracted from mental damage/effects (Mental Defense)
Mental Resistance Treshold = EGOx2

Other possible Optional Characteristics: COM, STATUS, MAGIC

Secondary Characteristics

SPD Cost 4, base 2, NCM 4
Number of phases per Turn

Toughness (TGH) Cost 1, base 2, NCM 4
Subtracted from BODY damage (Body Defense)
Is half value against Killing Attacks (Normal Attacks with +1/4 advantage).
Note: Armor (cost 2) gives DEF, which subtracts from both STUN and BODY damage and isn't halved

BODY Cost ½, base 10, NCM 20
Tolerance for BODY damage

STUN Cost ½, base 20, NCM 50
Tolerance for STUN damage
May be spent to Push powers
Long-term exertion may cause loss of STUN

- Klaus

Doc Democracy

Apr 9th, '09, 12:49 AM

This was something I was thinking about because of the pain ray thread on the rules forum.

If an attack has an effect that does not immediately cause damage but will do so if the victim voluntarily remains within the field of effect then it causes all kinds of twists in the game.

In the pain ray a microwave ray causes the water to heat up under the skin and cause pain, that is used to disperse crowds as they run away before any real damage is caused.

But what if someone remained there, it would begin to cause STUN and possibly BODY. Ultimately it might even cause blindness as eyeballs cooked.

To me this sounds like the kind of thing cause by the disad susceptibility etc where prolonged exposure causes increasing damage.

I would like to see that mechanic made available to powers where prolonged exposure has effects very different from the instant power effects. Late in the day to be bringing something new to the table but it does indicate that HERO has lots of mechanics (like this and drowning) that are not made available to build powers that rely on the same type of effect.

Something for Steve to consider?

Doc

AnotherSkip

Apr 9th, '09, 04:02 AM

Need a way to have a "pain" power, similar to the "Stun" power. It's possible to be in great pain and yet take no stun or body. You can have pinched nerves where moving is very painful (and so you don't move very fast) but no STUN or BODY damage is involved, and if you WANT to move fast you can, it's just very painful, something along the lines of an EGO Roll to continue moving rather than an Entangle that can be broken.
And for those who, like me, have had the wind knocked out of them, it's possible to be fully conscious and be unable to physically react to anything a longer period of time than "1 phase".

Painful Touch: Change Environment 1 hex, -4 to Ego Rolls(14) If character fails his Ego Roll he cannot Move for the duration of Uncontrolled, Selective (+1/4), Uncontrolled (1 phase for every 1 the Ego Roll is missed by Character may reroll attempt on subsequent action phases, +1/2) No range (touch,-1/2),

I'll Knock YOU: Change Environment 1 hex, -4 to Ego Rolls(14), If character fails his Ego Roll he cannot act for the duration of Uncontrolled, Selective (+1/4), Uncontrolled (1 phase for every 1 the Ego Roll is missed by, +1/2) , No range (touch,-1/2) Linked to Strength attack(-1/2)

PhilFleischmann

Apr 9th, '09, 04:35 PM

Ability Roll: 2d6 + d6x3
In other words, roll three dice where one is a different color or size. Multiply this die by 3 before adding. See graph (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27071&d=1204408383) for distribution.

Alternative: 2d6+d20
This has the same average and a very similar distribution (see graph (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27116&d=1205167962)).
The advantage is that it doesn't involve multiplication; the disadvantage is that it isn't "d6 pure".

Roll-high combat option: Roll+OCV >= 15+DCV to hit
Roll-low combat option: Roll <= 20+OCV-DCV to hit
Hit chance with OCV=DCV is 66.7% (65% with 2d6+d20) compared to 62.5% now.
I think that's too high a chance. IIRC, the original reason 11- was chosen as the chance to hit someone of equal CV was that it was just one point higher than the 50% mark. (I've sometimes felt that even 62.5% was too high). with your ideas, the "base" roll for success should also be one above the 50% mark, with would be 18-.

The method I had suggested many pages ago, while also not "d6 pure" was 3d12 - which also gives twice the variation with a bell curve of exactly the same overall shape, only bigger. And it results in nice easy base "to-hit" numbers: 20- becomes the base roll (hitting someone with equal CV, or a base Skill Roll, or a -1 Activation, etc.) 15- becomes the Familiarity level (equivalent to the current 8- on 3d6), and also works for the -2 Activation roll. And 25- becomes the equivalent of the current 14- on 3d6, as per a -1/2 Activation.

15, 20, 25. What could be easier? And you only ever need three 12-siders. Save your bricks of d6's for damage rolls.

"d6-pure" is a foolish constancy that we can do away with if we have sufficient reason. There's no reason to make a big deal out of it.

The Main Man

Apr 9th, '09, 10:39 PM

I think that the Advanced Player's Guide would be an excellent place to introduce alternative dice.

This way, core HERO can remain d6-based, but players who want to use more of their dice can have a guide for how to do so.

For example, if one converts the damage classes of any given attack, they begin to resemble D&D weapon stats - an important distinction for player conversion.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 10th, '09, 02:11 AM

Ability Roll: 2d6 + d6x3
Alternative: 2d6+d20

Roll-high combat option: Roll+OCV >= 15+DCV to hit
Roll-low combat option: Roll <= 20+OCV-DCV to hit
Hit chance with OCV=DCV is 66.7% (65% with 2d6+d20) compared to 62.5% now.

I think that's too high a chance. IIRC, the original reason 11- was chosen as the chance to hit someone of equal CV was that it was just one point higher than the 50% mark. (I've sometimes felt that even 62.5% was too high). with your ideas, the "base" roll for success should also be one above the 50% mark, with would be 18-.
With 2d6+(d6x3), 18- is 55.6% and 19- is 61.1%
With 2d6d20, 18- is 55% and 19- is 60%

The method I had suggested many pages ago, while also not "d6 pure" was 3d12 - which also gives twice the variation with a bell curve of exactly the same overall shape, only bigger.
I also like this, in spite of its "impurity". ;)

It can be added as a third alternative to my overall suggestion.

- Klaus

AnotherSkip

Apr 10th, '09, 03:52 AM

As odd as this sounds i would suggest some notes on how to build villians that encourage mano a mano combat, say....
12 All But one I: +5 DCV Vs all, Not Vs (PC X, -1)
12 All But one II: +6RPD/+6Red Combat Luck, Not Vs (PC X, -1)

the rationalization being that he has tricks that others haven't dealt with before but that one hero knows them well enough that they should be the individual who should battle them.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 10th, '09, 04:15 AM

Hugh Neilson

Apr 10th, '09, 04:54 AM

PhilFleischmann

Apr 10th, '09, 01:55 PM

As odd as this sounds i would suggest some notes on how to build villians that encourage mano a mano combat, say....
Just a linguistic nitpick: "mano a mano" means "hand to hand," not "man to man." It refers to barehanded, or at least no-range, up-close combat, as opposed to using guns and other ranged weapons. You could have a massive brawl of dozens of unarmed combattants that's mano a mano. Or you can have a one-on-one fight with guns - that's not mano a mano.

A commonly misused phrase that's a pet peeve of mine.

No biggie, nothing personal, just obsessing.

Lucius

Apr 10th, '09, 02:19 PM

Some ways to make skill use, and noncombat adventuring in general, more complex and interesting? Good idea. Gaming shouldn't be about fighting all the time.

Something at the front of the book that defines what a role playing game actually is and delineates core concepts and principles, such as that a Player Character belongs to a certain player and is that player's character to play - GREAT idea, in my opinion, desperately needed in fact. As I keep saying, we do want to actually draw new people into role playing don't we?

Anything that actually violates core principles of what a role playing game is - not a good idea.

Lucius Alexander

In the absence of rules to the contrary, the palindromedary declares ownership and control of everyone's characters!

The Main Man

Apr 10th, '09, 07:06 PM

Similarly, Genre Books are of course good places to introduce new rules, but they can always be compiled into new APG volumes or so.

bigbywolfe

Apr 10th, '09, 09:36 PM

I've talked myself into it this morning.

SIMPLIFICATION: Strip the optional rules out of the core rules. Make the core rules the default rules, and you can play them right out of the box. The Core Rules should let you do everything, but have a single system. One Speed chart. Knockback OR Knockdown. Hit locations OR stun multiples. Vehicle, computer, base, automaton and martial arts maneuver construction. No bleeding, impairing, disabling, classes of mind, normal characteristics maxima, toggle switches (or at least minimize these - some may be truly essential) or other OPTIONAL addons to the main system.

GRANULARITY, FLEXIBILITY and OPTIONS: Put all the options in the world in the APG. Make the APG a 12 volume set, if need be. Add another volume every few years as more optional rules get developed. Have 15 different options to the SPD chart, and 27 different critical hit systems if this number of viable and fun options are developed. Allow for funny sided dice and change the combat system wholesale. Have a system where everything is resolved by rock paper scissors, if you have a system for it. Any options that are worthy of consideration go in the APG (series). BUT KEEP THEM OUT OF THE CORE RULES.

You want a simpler system? Buy the core rules and leave the APG on the shelf. You want more crunch, more options, more, more, more? Buy the APG, and start saving your pennies for the next volume - because Steve will keep coming up with new ideas, and developing other new ideas, so there will ALWAYS be a next volume.

I think there is such a thing as over simplification. The whole point of Hero is to be a toolkit usable in any genre and if you strip it down too far you lose the versatility that draws people to it. Sure, we don’t want to scare new gamers off with the biggest tome of rules ever published, but we don’t want to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water either. For example, Knockback is almost always used in "Super" level games and Knockdown is more often than not used in "Heroic" level games. If only one is included then you drastically limit the style of play and, to some extent, even the genres available. Likewise, impairing and disabling often go hand in hand, and are common in “Heroic” level games as is bleeding. I’m not supporting having a dozen variants on the Speed chart in the core rules or anything, but we need to maintain at least some of the flexibility of the system.

The Main Man

Apr 10th, '09, 11:12 PM

I like the idea of putting rules for other dice into the APG.

Just thinking out loud here (well, as much as typing expresses such):

1. The APG should discuss probability so that more astute players can figure out other dice alternatives that are not laid out within the book itself.

2. It obviously should provide a price guide for different dice schemes, but between resolutions and damage classes this should hopefully be rather formulaic and easy to display on charts.

3. On a similar note, there should be a presentation of roll high vs. roll low.

The Main Man

Apr 10th, '09, 11:28 PM

[quote=Lucius;1815558]Some ways to make skill use, and noncombat adventuring in general, more complex and interesting? Good idea. Gaming shouldn't be about fighting all the time.

I think that HERO has more than proven itself at combat rules design and I agree that non-combat design should become a new goal.

Something at the front of the book that defines what a role playing game actually is and delineates core concepts and principles, such as that a Player Character belongs to a certain player and is that player's character to play - GREAT idea, in my opinion, desperately needed in fact. As I keep saying, we do want to actually draw new people into role playing don't we?
Ah yes, this is another one of those simple organizations that I think would benefit many new players: putting what's in the back of the 5er core rulebook in the front of the 6e core rulebook.

Markdoc

Apr 11th, '09, 02:13 AM

I've talked myself into it this morning.

SIMPLIFICATION: Strip the optional rules out of the core rules. Make the core rules the default rules, and you can play them right out of the box. The Core Rules should let you do everything, but have a single system. One Speed chart. Knockback OR Knockdown. Hit locations OR stun multiples. Vehicle, computer, base, automaton and martial arts maneuver construction. No bleeding, impairing, disabling, classes of mind, normal characteristics maxima, toggle switches (or at least minimize these - some may be truly essential) or other OPTIONAL addons to the main system.

GRANULARITY, FLEXIBILITY and OPTIONS: Put all the options in the world in the APG. Make the APG a 12 volume set, if need be. Add another volume every few years as more optional rules get developed. Have 15 different options to the SPD chart, and 27 different critical hit systems if this number of viable and fun options are developed. Allow for funny sided dice and change the combat system wholesale. Have a system where everything is resolved by rock paper scissors, if you have a system for it. Any options that are worthy of consideration go in the APG (series). BUT KEEP THEM OUT OF THE CORE RULES.

You want a simpler system? Buy the core rules and leave the APG on the shelf. You want more crunch, more options, more, more, more? Buy the APG, and start saving your pennies for the next volume - because Steve will keep coming up with new ideas, and developing other new ideas, so there will ALWAYS be a next volume.

See now, this, I think, is a good idea (apart from the 12 volumes, maybe ... :D) It is, to some extent, what is already done with genre books and ultimate books.

It's also the model used successfully by DnD, but unlike DnD, the Hero mechanics are explicitly delineated, so it's pretty obvious what the "baseline" is and if you make a change you can work out how far it is likely to ripple in the system, which may reduce some of the combination problems DnD had.

cheers, Mark

Hugh Neilson

Apr 11th, '09, 04:17 AM

See now, this, I think, is a good idea (apart from the 12 volumes, maybe ... :D)

Not enough? ;)

Practically, I'd expect an APG as a companion to the main rules, but after that one volume a year would be at the high end, IMO. Mind you, there might be "APG's" under other names - books with a lot of crunch in a specific area.

Lucius

Apr 11th, '09, 01:36 PM

Ah yes, this is another one of those simple organizations that I think would benefit many new players: putting what's in the back of the 5er core rulebook in the front of the 6e core rulebook.

If you found what I'm talking about in the back of the rulebook, please tell me the page number. I failed to find it at all.

Lucius Alexander

Did the palindromedary eat it?

The Main Man

Apr 11th, '09, 03:53 PM

If you found what I'm talking about in the back of the rulebook, please tell me the page number. I failed to find it at all.

Lucius Alexander

Did the palindromedary eat it?

I'm talking about the general idea: the material that's in the back of the core book (genres, dos & don'ts, "don't sweat the small stuff," etc) should be in the front of the book.

OTOH, you do make a good point that it does not really make that "new player" introduction that most RPG's have at the beginning.

I do agree that such a basic thing should be in it.

After all, every RPG is someone's first RPG, more or less.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 12th, '09, 04:33 AM

If you found what I'm talking about in the back of the rulebook, please tell me the page number. I failed to find it at all.

I'm talking about the general idea: the material that's in the back of the core book (genres, dos & don'ts, "don't sweat the small stuff," etc) should be in the front of the book.

OTOH, you do make a good point that it does not really make that "new player" introduction that most RPG's have at the beginning.

I do agree that such a basic thing should be in it.

After all, every RPG is someone's first RPG, more or less.

Hero seems to have taken the position that it is not an "entry level" game and as such the reader is likely to already be familiar with the concept. While I don't disagree with that assessment, I agree with TMM - there will be some players for whom this is their first experience with role playing.

Different games also have different visions. D&D 3.5 has been described as putting to the player the task of integrating numerous different possible character additions (feats, classes, prestige classes, etc.) to find the most broken combinations and make the most powerful character. Steve has described the Hero character creation system as not like your tax return - the goal is not to squeeze out the most economical and powerful character, but to quantify in mechanical terms the character you envision. Even within the hobby, visions of "what is an RPG" differ. I think setting out what this tome (soon to be two tomes) seeks to accomplish - from the basic "what is an RPG" to the marginally less basic "how does Hero implement the RPG concept" - is a worthwhile use of a few pages.

It should not pass judgment on gaming styles. It should not, for example, say "powergaming is wrong" or "any interpretation that says social skills can force characters to take actions their players do not desire" or "high character mortality is bad" or "high character mortality is good". But it should spell out what a role playing game is, and how the Hero system seeks to implement the concept. The rules themselves are dry, mechanical and subject to interpretation. Knowing the objective can often make that interpretation easier.

More broadly, Steve has always resisted discussions of the philosophy behind the rules. Contrary to this, I think the book should set out that philosophy. If the decision behind a specific rule was to reduce lethality, for example, and I want a more lethal game, it helps me to know the philosophy so I can make the decision to change that rule in order to achieve MY philosophy for the game I will run.

Lucius

Apr 12th, '09, 07:12 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I find rules easier to work with if I understand them.

If I can't see a reason for a rule, I am likely to simply reject or ignore it. If a game is full of rules I can't understand (not, can't understand how to implement them, but can't understand why) I am likely to walk away as I walked away from D&D. Explanations that make sense are vital to me, and D&D didn't have them.

Even if I see the reason, I think it should be made explicit; for one thing, others may not see it. For that matter, I could be wrong.

For example, I figured out (assuming I'm right) that the answer to the question "Why is Healing so nerfed?" is "Because if players have access to unlimited Healing, injuries become practically meaningless. STUN and END recover quickly, and if BOD does too, there is no way to slow down or seriously hurt the player characters, short of outright killing them." Player characters never have to face questions like: Do we carry on despite our wounds, or should we retreat, perhaps giving our adversaries time to recover and reinforce and make things even harder if we come back? D&D limited healing by giving clerics only so many spells per day, and of course making potions expendable; Hero limits it by restricting the amount any given character can be healed, making subsequent healings on a given character less useful and ultimately useless. Knowing this I can ignore or work around the restriction with some knowledge of the consequences, or replace the restriction with some other way to regulate healing.

But I don't want to admit how long it took me to even figure out the "why." It would have been nice if there had been an explanation up front. And this is of course only one example.

Lucius Alexander

Some of the things in the book with no explanation make the palindromedary want to bang one of its heads against a wall.