General Rules Issues

[Vondy]

Further thought: There should be a mechanic to prevent characters (PC or NPCs) from just constantly trying Interaction rolls until the run their target out of Hero Points (aside from the meta rule of "Don't be an A** and that in many situations their target can just walk away or refuse to listen). Maybe Interaction rolls countered by Hero Points should be considered Failed and the rules from The Ultimate Skill which suggest a failed Skill roll can't be repeated until the character gains at least +1 modifier through some means be brought into play.

I may be mistaken, but isn't there a general rule in the skills section that amounts to "you can't keep making rolls unless the circumstances change." I may have the wrong game, but that's been my policy for years.

[nexus]

I may be mistaken, but isn't there a general rule in the skills section that amounts to "you can't keep making rolls unless the circumstances change." I may have the wrong game, but that's been my policy for years.

IIRC, it was a GM discretion area but there was a section in the TUS that codified the issue a bit more. Either works really, I was just musing about the problem.

[steamteck]

Generally, I'm in favor of this (and I was planning on incorporating it as a House Rule at some point). Here's an idea I've been rolling around. Hero Points could work with Interaction skills as well. For a "carrot" approach, PCs could be award Hero Points for going along with a successful use of an Interaction skill against them or alternatively the "stick" would be to charge Hero points to override a successful use of an Interaction skill on their character. NPCs could do this as well (but it should be rare) and "unimportant" characters that don't have Hero Points couldn't.

I would also suggest Hero Points be optional. They don't fit in some genres and grittier games.


I like that. If nothing else this discussion is giving me more ideas for house rules.:)

[Terry Wilcox]

If I were designing the game from the get-go I probably wouldn’t use the metric system; it’s generally annoying.

I can see it now...

Metric:

Player: If I fly 30 metres per second, how many kilometres per hour is that?
GM: Umm, 30 x 3600 / 1000 is 108?

Imperial:

Player: If I fly 90 feet per second, how many miles per hour is that?
GM: Umm, 90 x 3600 / 5280 is a funky number...

Yup, multiplying and dividing by 10 is so much more annoying than 12 or 5280.

[ajackson]

IMX, 'roll high' systems, like d20 do tend to encourage just piling on bonuses with abandon.
On a 3d6 system, there's a psychological breakpoint at 18, which means people tend to not go beyond that. There are other psychological breakpoints which can be taken advantage of for similar benefit, such as 10.

[Opal]

On a 3d6 system, there's a psychological breakpoint at 18, which means people tend to not go beyond that. 3d6, roll low, yes, there is. Roll high, any such breakpoint vanishes when the GM names an outrageously high difficulty modifier. And, for some reason I don't pretend to understand, GMs, IMX, are much more willing to name an astronomical target number, than an absurd penalty.

[Vondy]

I can see it now...

Metric:

Player: If I fly 30 metres per second, how many kilometres per hour is that?
GM: Umm, 30 x 3600 / 1000 is 108?

Imperial:

Player: If I fly 90 feet per second, how many miles per hour is that?
GM: Umm, 90 x 3600 / 5280 is a funky number...

Yup, multiplying and dividing by 10 is so much more annoying than 12 or 5280.

Its a question of acculturation.

Giving someone grief because they were clearly acculturated differently than you were doesn't amount to an effective way of winning friends and influencing people. I grew up with Imperial, but live in a country that uses metric (and play hero). I find them the same in terms of ease and annoyance. Why? Because I'm used to them both. Steve is used to imperial. He grew up with it and it comes as easily to him as kiss your hand. His subconscious naturally measures that way because he's been doing it that way his whole life. You're used to metric (since you consider feet "funky") and your subconscious natually measures that way. My subconscious naturally does conversions. :thumbup:

The American metric-phobia and the european "imperial is stupid" mindset are both lame. What I find amusing is that the former states of the british empire use metric, but the americans, who pride themselves on having thrown the british out, still militantly cling to a version of the british empires measurement system. I also find it amusing that citizens of british commonwealth nations are the ones who most frequently blow hot air out of their tuches about Americans and the imperial system. Hell and death, it was your system, wasn't it? Its an atavistic, tribal, petty-minded cross-atlantic and north-south pissing contest.

I really don't care which system he uses.

But, were it left to me, I'd choose cubits... and handsbreadths, mils, parsangs, lugs, reviit, the volumes of eggs and olives, and their ilk. I mean, really, why not?

[Mirgos]

Being fairly new to the Hero System I'm still reeling a bit at the thought that in a year's time I may have to fork out for a new edition, but I'll probably recover. Anyway, my thoughts tend the general:

Keep the metric system - I live in Ireland so we use the metric for all maths, physics, etc but ask me my height & I'll say 5' 10', weight 12st (one is a lie!). Include a basic conversion table for metric to imperial for those who need it, but as has already been said multiplying & dividing by 10 is easier.

Roll high or low - not sure what the argument is about here. If you learn one card game it doesn't mean it is impossible or even more difficult to learn another - the same with an rpg - just tell the layers this is the rule, I'm sure if they can handle the maths involved with creating a character (ie applying advantages & disadvantages, etc) they won't be long in catching on to the fact that sometimes you roll high & sometimes low.

Don't see the problem with changing ranges to real world values - just means you have to give a scale to your maps, whether hex or otherwise- although some notes on how to apply the area of effect types would be useful.

Hope this ramble doesn't put too many to sleep.

Mirgos

[archermoo]

is about here. If you learn one card game it doesn't mean it is impossible or even more difficult to learn another - the same with an rpg - just tell the layers this is the rule, I'm sure if they can handle the maths involved with creating a character (ie applying advantages & disadvantages, etc) they won't be long in catching on to the fact that sometimes you roll high & sometimes low.


Thank you for the wonderfully concise way of putting this. :thumbup:

Sláinte!

[Supreme Serpent]

(prepares hand grenade)

Everything on the table? How's this for a radical proposal?

(tosses hand grenade)

Divorce Heroic and Superheroic. Stop trying to be completely universal with one set of rules/scales that fits for everything. Hero started as doing superheroes, it's what it was designed for, but gradually the design philosophy has been to increase the ability to simulate heroic level.

Take 6th ed Hero fully into the heroic-level realm, and build without regard to superheroic considerations. Make a similar, but seperate Champions which uses a lot of the same concepts and rules but makes alternate choices in order to better simulate superheroes/high power play. Essentially, make 6th ed two similar, but distinct games.

:eek:

[Vondy]

(prepares hand grenade)

Everything on the table? How's this for a radical proposal?

(tosses hand grenade)

Divorce Heroic and Superheroic. Stop trying to be completely universal with one set of rules/scales that fits for everything. Hero started as doing superheroes, it's what it was designed for, but gradually the design philosophy has been to increase the ability to simulate heroic level.

Take 6th ed Hero fully into the heroic-level realm, and build without regard to superheroic considerations. Make a similar, but seperate Champions which uses a lot of the same concepts and rules but makes alternate choices in order to better simulate superheroes/high power play. Essentially, make 6th ed two similar, but distinct games.

:eek:

That would be the "universality" thread, son.

And... welcome to the dark side. :eg:

[nexus]

That would be the "universality" thread, son.


Where is this thread?

[Vondy]

Where is this thread?

Under the sticky ones. Its a non-steve thread.

[archermoo]

Where is this thread?

It's one of the user added ones at the bottom of the 6e thread list.

[Mirgos]

Forgot to mention this in last post.

With regards to skills - particularly those rarely used - why not take an idea from Tristat whereby skills are costed depending on how useful they are in a particular genre. Downside is the table to list each skill's cost by genre could take up a fair amount of space.

[Opal]

It occurs to me that there's another way to aproach this. So, here is my evaluation of how each possible idea lines up with the 'guiding philophies' (1-6) and 'why 6e?' (1-2) points:

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?Runs afoul of (2) This is change for change's sake, there's no problem with the dice mechanic, which gives a good bell curve range. Heck, GURPS ripped it off.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled? This hit's (6) and (2) it might be possible to make the resolution mechanic simpler or easier to learn, and thus more attractive to new players. I hate the idea, but I'm trying to give an honest assessment here.

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.(4) and (5) are at odds here. This is ideal for dramatic resolution at the heroic end, where a comparatively normal hero is able to mop the floor with comparatively normal thugs, even though there's no indication he's mind-bogglingly faster or more skilled than they are. A little difference having a big impact is very good for dramatic realism. It doesn't help much with granularity, though, as a it narrows the range of CVs you can have in a campaign while keeping everyone effective.


Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?
Invoking (2) Hero lends itself strongly the use of miniatures (or just cardboard chits) and hex maps, which argues for it to stay, it also supports the movement and AE mechanics. This all seems to work rather well, as it is. You'd have to change movement and AE, and all formulae and manuevers that are currently based on movement or other sorts of velocity. A big ripple effect for a minimal benefit.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?If you want to broaden it's apeal (2), you might consider that most of the world does use the metric system. While middle aged Americans may find it annoying, it's increasingly familiar to most.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?Hero rounding already works (2), changing it would make it different, but not better. As long as rounding is consistent, it enhances ease of play (6).

Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?Runs afoul of (2) it's already working fine, (4) why would a CON drain (sucking blood, say), work /faster/ on a cyborg who has some of his CON focused, why would a Drain: HKA, dull a sword faster than a claw? Were's the dramatic realism in that?

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”? OK, it's a big idea, but (1) everything's on the table and (2) we want to make the game more accessible. Many concepts do call for absolutes, the lack of them is a long-standing criticism of the system. And, of course, Hero /does/ have some absolutes, and, really, doesn't handle them that badly. Adding them might improve dramatic realism (4) - the impentrable mail of Argd really can't be penetrated - and make it easier to build many concepts (5).

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules? Such systems exist in other games, so may be familiar and attractive to new players (2), they are consistent with dramatic realism in the 'storytelling' style (4), and easy to explain and implement (6). They are at odds with Hero's fairly detailed and get-what-you-pay-for mechanics, though (2).

Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?Though this sounds like a good idea to me, it doesn't really advance the stated agenda. A broader aproach to explaining the role of character points might make the game easier to pick up (6). Points are for things that matter, not for things everyone has or can do. You don't have to pay points for your base stats, you shouldn't have to pay points to have a cell phone or pencil or even ordinary trasportation. The base line will be different in every campaign, of course. Rather than explaining the 'pay for everything rule' you could just throw it out, making things simpler (6), and more accessible to new players (2).


(This is a painful exercise - I find myself endorsing ideas I hate.) :idjit:

[Opal]

Oh, and final comment on General Rules Issues:

Since /everything/ is on the table, I'd like to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Hero needs fewer general rules to have issues with. I say this as someone who loves rules, and hates cliches, but, sometimes "less is more." :sick:

[Chris Goodwin]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Opal again.

[CountZero]

My apologies if this has already been said in the thread (and I doubly apologize if Steve says that they're already doing it) but I figure it wouldn't hurt to say it anyway.

What I'd like to see with Hero 6, is that whatever the changes are to the system, it shouldn't be complicated and painful to convert stuff from Hero 5 to Hero 6. Now, this doesn't mean "don't change anything", but make the changes such where someone can look at the changes between Hero 5 and 6, and go "Okay, here's how I convert over NPCs or whatever" to get them to work in Hero 6.

To give an idea what I have in mind, as I'm typing this I'm looking over at my bookshelf, and looking at all my Hero 5 books (which, admittedly, aren't as many as I'd like). Now there are some of these books I'd say are definitely going to be converted over and reprinted (Champions, Star Hero, Ultimate Martial Artist, Ultimate Vehicle). There are some that are highly likely to converted (Ninja Hero, Pulp Hero, Dark Champions). However there are some that I'm pretty unsure about (Hudson City), and one that I'm certain won't be converted over and reprinted (Reality Storm).

Those latter two books I'd like to be able to re-use in my Dark Champions and Champions campaigns (respectively) - however, if the conversion process is, well, too arcane and complicated* then I'm probably not going to do the conversion. It won't necessarily preclude me from adopting Hero 6 - but it will somewhat slow my full embrasure of it.




*The irony of being concerned about complex and arcane systems when we're talking bout Hero does not escape me. Anyhoo, I'm looking forward to learning more about the system as the process goes on.

(Oh, and congrats on the MMO, by the way).

[ajackson]

Forgot to mention this in last post.

With regards to skills - particularly those rarely used - why not take an idea from Tristat whereby skills are costed depending on how useful they are in a particular genre. Downside is the table to list each skill's cost by genre could take up a fair amount of space.
It also doesn't work very well in Tristat (important skills tend to be genre-appropriate skills and thus should be bought up), and gets into the question of knowing ahead of time what skills will be useful.

[The Shadow]

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

In a word: YES!

And I would very much like to see a "power stunt" system too. Having to explicitly buy Every. Single. Thing. Your. Character. Can EVER Do, no matter how seldom they'll actually do it, is oppressive. Let people get a one-off using a Hero Point and be done.

At any rate, for superheroes. It won't fit all genres, of course - but I figure that Hero Points will have to have different effects in different genres anyway.

[Agent333]

I'm late to the party, but I have to throw in my $0.02 before it's far too late.

ROLL-HIGH vs. ROLL-LOW:

For me, the issue has been long settled. For several years now I've used an inverted die-rolling method, it works great and the new people I used it with took to it readily. Should Hero use my task resolution method? I hope not, I depend on the books to use the tried and true roll-low mechanic so I can quickly convert to roll-high in an instant.

I would more likely endorse that Hero 6E have available different methods/options for players to use the numbers in the books to resolve skill rolls and combat. The bonuses run along a statistical scale that can be adopted in a number of ways (some presented in this thread and many more shown over the years and presented during the life of these forums). Hopefully such options can be condensed into side-bar format and given the "official option" stamp of DoJ.


(For the curious: )
Our house rule for skill/activation roll is:

3D6 + bonus/penalty > 10 = success.

We call it the "Beat Ten" rule and it's taken directly form Bill King's Wasteworld game. To convert from Hero, subtract 11 from the skill/activation roll. The resultant positive or negative number is the modifier to your 3D6 roll.

Our house rule for combat is the ever popular:

3D6 + OCV > DCV + 10 = success.



If anyone is keeping score for Steve; I vote no to changing to roll-high.

[Acid_Crash]

I'm late to the party, but I have to throw in my $0.02 before it's far too late.

ROLL-HIGH vs. ROLL-LOW:

For me, the issue has been long settled. For several years now I've used an inverted die-rolling method, it works great and the new people I used it with took to it readily. Should Hero use my task resolution method? I hope not, I depend on the books to use the tried and true roll-low mechanic so I can quickly convert to roll-high in an instant.

I would more likely endorse that Hero 6E have available different methods/options for players to use the numbers in the books to resolve skill rolls and combat. The bonuses run along a statistical scale that can be adopted in a number of ways (some presented in this thread and many more shown over the years and presented during the life of these forums). Hopefully such options can be condensed into side-bar format and given the "official option" stamp of DoJ.


(For the curious: )
Our house rule for skill/activation roll is:

3D6 + bonus/penalty > 10 = success.

We call it the "Beat Ten" rule and it's taken directly form Bill King's Wasteworld game. To convert from Hero, subtract 11 from the skill/activation roll. The resultant positive or negative number is the modifier to your 3D6 roll.

Our house rule for combat is the ever popular:

3D6 + OCV > DCV + 10 = success.



If anyone is keeping score for Steve; I vote no to changing to roll-high.

I really like both of these roll systems and I for one would love to see them implemented as either mainstays or listed as options.

I also think that for HERO to become a truely generic roleplaying system, they should do something that other games of similar types don't do is have more than one way of rolling dice for skills and combat and stuff.

Why does it HAVE to be just roll low or roll high?

What's stopping him from putting in both systems? I mean, at the beginning of the skills chapter, just list both ways of doing it. Have your rules for rolling low and also have rules for rolling high... either in a sidebar or actual rules...

Cater to both sides because I think it would work, and then it'd be up to the GM to decide which he wants to use.

I really think that HERO system is versatile enough to incorporate both, and it would be something that no other game has really done, and this would ALSO make HERO system more unique and different.

[Markdoc]

Just to make sure this oldster of oldsters understands:

OCV + Die Roll - 10 = DCV Hit?

Korrekt. Although I actually do the last step myself (as GM) - the players simply read me off their OCV + die roll and say "17" or "13". Shifting the target modifier to 10, keeps the statistics exactly the same, since the mean of the 3d6 curve is actually 10.5. So 11- or 10+ are the same probability.

What provoked this epiphany was - all all things - AD&D. For years they had a system (THACO) where you had your "hitty number" derived from level/class (essentially OCV) and then you then modified that with your opponent's actual AC (essentially DCV) and then added your dice and the difference from THACO gave you what AC you hit. It's actually not that hard - for years I had the charts in my head and could do it on the fly - but it confused lots of players - especially when you added in bonuses (essentiallly like CSLs :D) Then some genius at WOTC pointed out you could get the same probability if you inverted AC (originally, the lower the number, the better) by simply taking the level bonus and adding the roll - and a million players and GM's went d'oh!

There were, of course, people who lamented the passing of THACO and the joys of an armour class of -5 :D

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Step one: Calculate OCV for attacker and DCV for Defender
Step two: Add 11 to OCV
Step three: Subtract die roll from OCV + 11 and tell GM what DCV or less you hit

Yes, but in a game, the player doesn't necessarily KNOW the DCV of the target. What I was describing was the process your typical game goes through. In that case it's:

Step one: Player calculates OCV for attacker
Step two: Player adds 11 to OCV
Step three: Player subtracts die roll from OCV + 11 (note: this is where many people choke) and tells the GM your OCV and the modified score ("4 over OCV, etc")
Step four: GM calculates difference between OCV for attacker and DCV for Defender
Step Five: GM compares the difference and adjudicates hit/miss

The roll high methods - using your descriptive approach is:
Step one: Player calculates OCV for attacker
Step two: Player adds dice roll and tells GM the number
Step Three: GM compares number to DCV and adjudicates hit/miss

Even if we assume the GM simply tells the players the DCVs they need to hit, it still involves an extra calculation on the player's end - the need to compare the OCV/DCV and calculate the difference. It's not much but a extra 30 second lag that's repeated over and over in the course of an evening is disruptive to smooth play.

I'm one of those people who's used the old method for so long that either is intuitive for me. But I have taught many, many people Hero and as von DMan notes, for many people "add two numbers" is significantly easier than "compare two numbers, and compare the difference of those two numbers to the first number plus 11 minus the dice".

I can understand people saying " I like the older method and would prefer to continue using it". I can't understand anyone saying - they are just as easy. They aren't.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

No, if the roll high method is included at all, it should be used for skill rolls as well. Having different mechanics for attacking and skills is regrettable.

I do exactly what von Dman suggests: roll high for combat, roll low for skills. The former because it's dead easy to explain to new players, and the latter .... because it's dead easy to explain to new players.

N00bies grok: "This is your attack number. Add the dice and that tells you what you hit. This is is your skill number - you need to roll under this to succeed".

It's not at all confusing, even to people who - quite literally - have never rolled a dice or played a roleplaying game in their life - and I have two of those in my current group. And remember, I am starting occasionally with people who have to have the concept explained to them that you roll a dice to generate a random number....

cheers, Mark

[caris]

Yes, but in a game, the player doesn't necessarily KNOW the DCV of the target. What I was describing was the process your typical game goes through. In that case it's:

Step one: Player calculates OCV for attacker
Step two: Player adds 11 to OCV
Step three: Player subtracts die roll from OCV + 11 (note: this is where many people choke) and tells the GM your OCV and the modified score (("4 over OCV, etc"
Step four: GM calculates difference between OCV for attacker and DCV for Defender
Step Five: GM compares the difference and adjudicates hit/miss

The roll high methods - using your descriptive approach is:
Step one: Player calculates OCV for attacker
Step two: Player adds dice roll and tells GM the number
Step Three: GM compares number to DCV and adjudicates hit/miss

Even if we assume the GM simply tells the players the DCVs they need to hit, it still involves an extra calculation on the player's end - the need to compare the OCV/DCV and calculate the difference. It's not much but a extra 30 second lag that's repeated over and over in the course of an evening is disruptive to smooth play.

I'm one of those people who's used the old method for so long that either is intuitive for me. But I have taught many, many people Hero and as von DMan notes, for many people "add two numbers" is significantly easier than "compare two numbers, and compare the difference of those two numbers to the first number plus 11 minus the dice".

I can understand people saying " I like the older method and would prefer to continue using it". I can't understand anyone saying - they are just as easy. They aren't.

cheers, Mark

No, you are still over complicating things:

If you are subtracting the die roll from 11+OCV, why are you than apparantly adding another step to determine how much the level of success varies from the OCV, when the level of success just equals the DCV?

I'm going to copy your steps for the current method below with an example of how what you are describing to me, and do the same with my steps below it.

Step one: Player calculates OCV for attacker (ex: 7)
Step two: Player adds 11 to OCV (ex: 7+11=18)
Step three: Player subtracts die roll from OCV + 11 (note: this is where many people choke) (ex: 18-12=6) and tells the GM your OCV and the modified score (("4 over OCV, etc" (7-6=1 under OCV, "GM I have an OCV of 7, and I rolled 1 under it") What is the purpose of this step? Does it serve a purpose other than trying to obscure the DCV?
Step four: GM calculates difference between OCV for attacker and DCV for Defender (ex: 7-7=0)
Step Five: GM compares the difference and adjudicates hit/miss (OK, I have no real easy way to express this?)

The way I describe it:

Step one: Player calculates OCV (ex: 7)
Step two: Player adds 11 to OCV (ex: 7+11=18)
Step three: Player subtracts die roll and tells GM what DCV or less they hit (ex: 18-12=6 "I hit a DCV 6 or less GM")

At no point does the player need to know what the DCV is any more than in your roll high method. The differences are you add 11 to the OCV and subtract the die roll instead of adding the die roll to the OCV and subtracting 10. It doesn't give the player any more information than they have with your mechanic unless they do not know how to calculate the target number, which if the formula is put in the main rules they will, because I assume your players are perfectly capable of "I hit so that means their maximum possible DCV right now is OCV+die roll-10."

Seriously, it sounds like you and your group have over complicated the process for whatever reason in your own heads, and it was trying to convey that complicated method to the new people was the problem. Now, the new people may still have found the process counter intuitive and choked at it, but from your description of what steps you were making them do, we can not know that.

[Vondy]

Korrekt. Although I actually do the last step myself (as GM) - the players simply read me off their OCV + die roll and say "17" or "13". Shifting the target modifier to 10, keeps the statistics exactly the same, since the mean of the 3d6 curve is actually 10.5. So 11- or 10+ are the same probability.


I have no issues with the method in of itself.

However, why not calculate DCV as DEX/3 + 10.

I found the problem with this idea myself, below.

Then it boils down to OCV + 3d6 = DCV Hit.

They still don't know what DCV they are rolling against: maneuvers, combat levels, situational modifiers are "behind the screen" as it were.

The method you're using works, but it seems like a step could be removed.

On the other hand, DCV as DEX/3 + 10 does require 1/2 DCV penalties be replaced with a negative modifier of DEX/6, but most people do those calculations during character design and not in-game anyways.

As for factoring OCV as OCV +11 and using the formula OCV - 3d6 = DCV Hit, I would say: addition is the most basic and most intuitive mathematical operation. Its the one we teach tots before substraction. As such I'm inclined to leverage that. Even with the roll under skill method we're actually doing addition and comparing the result to a target.

However, OCV + 11 does mean you can leave 1/2 DCV penalties unchanged if you want and not use a modifier of DEX/6. But, to me, that's just six of one and a half dozen of another.

One issue, however, is that we would run into the weird reality of having the minimum DCV being 10 (a hex). That means a character with an OCV of 7 couldn't miss DCV 0 without negative modifiers in play and hence, I have found the hole in my thinking all on my lonesome.

As such, OCV being DEX/3 + 11 seems like a better option. However, then you run into the following possibility: you miss DCV 0 if you end up with a negative result on OCV - 3d6 = DCV hit. It works, its not broken like the other method, but on its face it looks a little odd. And it can lead to negative results, which would make some people suspicious of their dice. :eg:

Sorry about the tortuous rant.

Some people think out loud, I think out-keystroke.

[caris]

One issue, however, is that we would run into the weird reality of having the minimum DCV being 10 (a hex). That means a character with an OCV of 7 couldn't miss DCV 0 without negative modifiers in play and hence, I have found the hole in my thinking all on my lonesome.

Except just as a roll of 18 is treated as an automatic failure in the low roll system, a roll of 3 could be treated as an automatic failure in the roll high system.

[Vondy]

Except just as a roll of 18 is treated as an automatic failure in the low roll system, a roll of 3 could be treated as an automatic failure in the roll high system.

If you use that option, yes. But do I want to switch to a method that requires I use that rule? Not sure.

[caris]

If you use that option, yes. But do I want to switch to a method that requires I use that rule? Not sure.


OK, now I'm confused. Under the current rules, if a roll of 18 is not an automatic failure any difference where OCV exceeds DCV by 7+ is an automatic success. How do you avoid it, if you are not using 18 as an automatic failure.

[Terry Wilcox]

I grew up with Imperial, but live in a country that uses metric (and play hero). I find them the same in terms of ease and annoyance. Why? Because I'm used to them both.

You're used to metric (since you consider feet "funky") and your subconscious natually measures that way. My subconscious naturally does conversions.

I too grew up with Imperial but live in a country that uses metric. It's called Canada. I'm comfortable with both. I just find math easier with multiples of 10, rather than 12, 5280, 8, 16, 3, etc.

I also find ounces a little confusing since there's 20 ounces in a pint, except in America where it's 16 ounces. And those ounces aren't the same size. And when a recipe asks for ounces, do they mean fluid ounces or weight?


The American metric-phobia and the european "imperial is stupid" mindset are both lame.

What's that got to do with me saying that math with multiples of 10 is easier than math where you divide and multiply by 5280 or 1760 or 3 or 12?

I thought the point of 6th edition was to simplify. I can do 10s without a calculator, but 5280s take a lot more work.

[Markdoc]

I have no issues with the method in of itself.

However, why not calculate DCV as DEX/3 + 10.

I found the problem with this idea myself, below.


Two problems, actually - you found one, the other is the whole "how do you deal with halving DCV" thing. Since (for me at least) subtracting 10 from the target number is so trivial as to be effortless, I simply lifted that part off the players and left DCV alone.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

No, you are still over complicating things:

Obviously, I'm not expressing things well - in my last post I wrote "process your typical gamer goes through" and tried to make plain* that I was indicating the thought process as far as I can work it out (which as far as I can tell is why you often get the "OCV plus 2" call).

I'm curious - do you never have players who give you readouts as "My OCV plus 2" instead of "DCV8"? I used to get it all the time. Not from everybody. Not even, I would estimate from most of my players, but from about a quarter or a third, I got it all the time. Usually, after a 20-30 second pause while they looked like they were concentrating. It didn't matter how many times we went through the basic math.

In it's shortest form, the math the player needs to do, is OCV + dice vs OCV +11 - dice.

It's clear that some people have problem (a minor problem - it's not that I ever had a player who couldn't do it - just that it slows them down) with the second version. I've never met anyone who had problems with the addition version. It's always been at least as fast - and it's almost always faster.

cheers, Mark

*I guess I didn't make it very plain :D

[steamteck]

Obviously, I'm not expressing things well - in my last post I wrote "process your typical gamer goes through" and tried to make plain that I was indicating the thought process as far as I can work it out (which as far as I can tell is why you often get the "OCV plus 2" call).

I'm curious - do you never have players who give you readouts as "My OCV plus 2" instead of "DCV8"? I used to get it all the time. Not from everybody. Not even, I would estimate from most of my players, but from about a quarter or a third, I got it all the time. Usually, after a 20-30 second pause while they looked like they were concentrating. It didn't matter how many times we went through the basic math.

In it's shortest form, the math the player needs to do, is OCV + dice vs OCV +11 - dice.

It's clear that some people have problem (a minor problem - it's not that I ever had a player who couldn't do it - just that it slows them down) with the second version. I've never met anyone who had problems with the addition version. It's always been at least as fast - and it's almost always faster.

cheers, Mark


Its me , the problem child weirdo again. I've tried both methods and found the addition took longer. I stuck with it about 2 weeks.( 2 big sessions and 5 solo with my wife )before I went back to roll under. Maybe eventually it would become easier but it was way too much trouble for my brain and slowed combat down as I mentally fumbled.

[Hugh Neilson]

I too grew up with Imperial but live in a country that uses metric. It's called Canada. I'm comfortable with both. I just find math easier with multiples of 10, rather than 12, 5280, 8, 16, 3, etc.

I also find ounces a little confusing since there's 20 ounces in a pint, except in America where it's 16 ounces. And those ounces aren't the same size. And when a recipe asks for ounces, do they mean fluid ounces or weight?

And, of course, it is those who decry the "complex math" required by the Hero system who want it to switch to imperial measurements. :nonp:

[Chris Goodwin]

This isn't quite a rules issue, but I think this is the place to put it.

Instead of making Basic a cut down version of the rulebook, why not make it a "how to" textbook? Sort of a Hero System For Dummies, not in so many words. Here's where the explanation of the concepts goes. It might have a short section to describe Skills and Powers, maybe as a reference section in the back, but the book is primarily focussed on teaching the game. (Perhaps with lots of "see page XX" references internally, and then sidebars that say "For more information, see Hero System 6th Edition Characters, p. YY".)

It's like the difference between a textbook and a reference material. The big books are more intended as reference; veterans don't really need the "how to" stuff.

(Oh, and can we make the official name Hero System as opposed to HERO System?)

[Acid_Crash]

Well, I do ask again, but why can't Steve write 6th edition in a way to incorporate both a roll low AND roll high game mechanics???

I see no reason why he can't and by doing this both sides of the coin are given consideration and rules to play the game with, and I doubt it would be all that hard to do.

There is no logical argument one way or another to keep with Just roll low or switch completely to Just roll high. Use both.

We have the formulas for both, people have playing the game using both, and I'm sure they have had any problems with rolling high with the current rules as people who use roll low.

Plus, by supporting both roll low and high, the game puts itself in the unique position to seperate itself from Gurps even more and make itself more unique in supporting two different dice rolling mechanics that are both viable and easy to do.

[archermoo]

Obviously, I'm not expressing things well - in my last post I wrote "process your typical gamer goes through" and tried to make plain* that I was indicating the thought process as far as I can work it out (which as far as I can tell is why you often get the "OCV plus 2" call).

I'm curious - do you never have players who give you readouts as "My OCV plus 2" instead of "DCV8"? I used to get it all the time. Not from everybody. Not even, I would estimate from most of my players, but from about a quarter or a third, I got it all the time. Usually, after a 20-30 second pause while they looked like they were concentrating. It didn't matter how many times we went through the basic math.

In it's shortest form, the math the player needs to do, is OCV + dice vs OCV +11 - dice.

It's clear that some people have problem (a minor problem - it's not that I ever had a player who couldn't do it - just that it slows them down) with the second version. I've never met anyone who had problems with the addition version. It's always been at least as fast - and it's almost always faster.

cheers, Mark

*I guess I didn't make it very plain :D

I've never had anyone who had any problems when it was presented as "Take the difference between your roll and 11 and add it to your OCV if you rolled below 11, subtract it if you rolled above".

And as to speed, possibly another method might shave a second or two off the time it takes, but I'm not really in a race. HERO combat is already plenty fast in my experience. Saving a minute or two over the course of an entire combat doesn't really change anything. Heck, most groups I've played with already spend more time that that talking about entirely non-game related stuff during an average combat.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, I do ask again, but why can't Steve write 6th edition in a way to incorporate both a roll low AND roll high game mechanics???

I see no reason why he can't and by doing this both sides of the coin are given consideration and rules to play the game with, and I doubt it would be all that hard to do.

Funny...we have the suggestion to present this (and other things) two or more different ways in the midst of complaints that we'd rather see the rule book short enough that it fit in one volume. There are tradeoffs...

[caris]

I'm curious - do you never have players who give you readouts as "My OCV plus 2" instead of "DCV8"? I used to get it all the time. Not from everybody. Not even, I would estimate from most of my players, but from about a quarter or a third, I got it all the time. Usually, after a 20-30 second pause while they looked like they were concentrating. It didn't matter how many times we went through the basic math.

Nope, the problem that I usually have is since most of the other GMs that I play with have been using a "to hit" table since 1990 (we made our own using spread sheets), players keep just saying "I have OCV X and Rolled Y", and let me handle all the math. I usually write "OCV + 11 - Die Roll = DCV or less hit" on the top of everyone's character sheets and new people just reference back to it.

Now, my current GM does seem to go through those mental gyrations that you are describing, because he wants me to tell him my OCV and Roll and I've heard him mummbling eleven minus is X added to his OCV is DCV. He is the only person that I've played with to do that. I've asked him about it, and he only says "its how he is used to doing it."

I wonder was printing the formula as "OCV+11-DCV=Die Roll needed" something that was first done in 4th, and that 1-3 used some other way to tell people how to determine if they hit like roll under 11 and compare amount made or failed by to the difference between OCV and DCV?

[caris]

Well, I do ask again, but why can't Steve write 6th edition in a way to incorporate both a roll low AND roll high game mechanics???

I see no reason why he can't and by doing this both sides of the coin are given consideration and rules to play the game with, and I doubt it would be all that hard to do.

There is no logical argument one way or another to keep with Just roll low or switch completely to Just roll high. Use both.

We have the formulas for both, people have playing the game using both, and I'm sure they have had any problems with rolling high with the current rules as people who use roll low.

Plus, by supporting both roll low and high, the game puts itself in the unique position to seperate itself from Gurps even more and make itself more unique in supporting two different dice rolling mechanics that are both viable and easy to do.

With the combat roll it isn't that big of an issue. With skills, I don't see any easy way to notate on a character write up the skill roll/modifier for both the roll low and the roll high that won't seem confusing/annoying to most people.

[rjcurrie]

I wonder was printing the formula as "OCV+11-DCV=Die Roll needed" something that was first done in 4th, and that 1-3 used some other way to tell people how to determine if they hit like roll under 11 and compare amount made or failed by to the difference between OCV and DCV?

It's been printed as "11+OCV-DCV" since 1st edtion.

[SSgt Baloo]

I can see it now...

Metric:

Player: If I fly 30 metres per second, how many kilometres per hour is that?
GM: Umm, 30 x 3600 / 1000 is 108?

Imperial:

Player: If I fly 90 feet per second, how many miles per hour is that?
GM: Umm, 90 x 3600 / 5280 is a funky number...

Yup, multiplying and dividing by 10 is so much more annoying than 12 or 5280.

Meh! I used to rule that every 1" per segment was functionally equivalent to 5 MPH. then all you had to do was divide movement/turn by 12 and multiply by 5 (or divide by 24 and multiply by 10 :D). Conversion to KPH was easier, but not often used in my crowd. When we had a FAC (forward Air Controller) join our group, he was not only comfortable with the Metric System, he taught us the approximations I still use today (40inches = 1 yard + 4 inches = 1m, 3m = 10', etc.)

I noticed that when people had an easy handle to grasp the Metric system with, their resistance to using it dissolved. It didn't matter if their approximations were done in broken English. Meters are really 39.25 inches or therabouts. I was using substandard inches (and full-sized meters). The error was only about 2%. Sue me. :p

I really don't care which system he uses.

But, were it left to me, I'd choose cubits... and handsbreadths, mils, parsangs, lugs, reviit, the volumes of eggs and olives, and their ilk. I mean, really, why not?

D@mn you, Von D-Man! I can't rep you anymore today! Cut it out, can't ya?! :mad::eg::D

Though this sounds like a good idea to me, it doesn't really advance the stated agenda. A broader aproach to explaining the role of character points might make the game easier to pick up (6). Points are for things that matter, not for things everyone has or can do. You don't have to pay points for your base stats, you shouldn't have to pay points to have a cell phone or pencil or even ordinary trasportation. The base line will be different in every campaign, of course. Rather than explaining the 'pay for everything rule' you could just throw it out, making things simpler (6), and more accessible to new players (2).

Well put (and not just that part of your post, either). I'd rep you, but it seems I've been too generous in the last 24 hours. :o

[Markdoc]

Well, I do ask again, but why can't Steve write 6th edition in a way to incorporate both a roll low AND roll high game mechanics???

I see no reason why he can't and by doing this both sides of the coin are given consideration and rules to play the game with, and I doubt it would be all that hard to do.

Actually, you are right. We've gotten carried away with the debate rather than the subject: I suggested it because experience has shown that "rolling up" is easier to teach newbies. The truth is though, that it's not a big deal and is easy to switch from one way of doing it to the other if you want: the mechanism and the probabilities are exactly the same. IIRC, the "roll up" method has alreday been suggested as an alternative in the rules (though maybe I'm wrong: I can't think where it is...).

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I've never had anyone who had any problems when it was presented as "Take the difference between your roll and 11 and add it to your OCV if you rolled below 11, subtract it if you rolled above".

That's almost exactly - word for word - how I used to explain it. For many people that's all it takes, maybe a couple of reminders. But I've also played with people who still had problem with that basic formulation after (literally) more than a year of regular play. And a lot of people seem to actually do the math exactly like that in their head (the way Caris laid it out is closer to how I actually think about it, myself) - and have problems with it. How you wrote it above is how I tried to describe it, up-thread.

And as to speed, possibly another method might shave a second or two off the time it takes, but I'm not really in a race. HERO combat is already plenty fast in my experience. Saving a minute or two over the course of an entire combat doesn't really change anything. Heck, most groups I've played with already spend more time that that talking about entirely non-game related stuff during an average combat.

I quite often play with fairly large groups - my current FH game has 8 players, of whom 6 are hardcore and almost always turn up. If you have two or three players in that number who go "Ummm.. wait a sec ... um ... DCV 7. No wait, DCV 8! Ummm - my CV plus 3!" then it rapidly becomes a significant irritant (well, it does to me, anyway).

It's not about a race - or even about time - it's about making the rules as transparent to the players as possible so that they can concentrate on what they want to do, not "what are the rules for doing what I want to do?". When a player stumbles on a rule, that transparency is lost. That's the important point, for me.

From my point of view, I've found a solution that obviates that irritant, with no apparent downside. Now it's true that not every group (and certainly not every player) may need that solution - but the point is that some certainly do: and the fact that there are plenty of people who have converted suggests it's not a problem unique to our group.

And as a GM, even if only some of my players have a problem, if I can easily solve it, why ever not?

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Nope, the problem that I usually have is since most of the other GMs that I play with have been using a "to hit" table since 1990 (we made our own using spread sheets), players keep just saying "I have OCV X and Rolled Y", and let me handle all the math.

Heh. Maybe that's why you've never had any players that stumble on the math :D
For me though, one of the nice things about Hero system combat is that it's very flexible, but I don't need any tables to run it. I normally do all the combat without once looking at the GM screen or rules, since it all runs on fairly simple calculations.

Now, my current GM does seem to go through those mental gyrations that you are describing, because he wants me to tell him my OCV and Roll and I've heard him mummbling eleven minus is X added to his OCV is DCV. He is the only person that I've played with to do that. I've asked him about it, and he only says "its how he is used to doing it."

I don't know why either - the first GM who introduced me to Champions did it like that, and I've met plenty who do - including several who also made charts to read off. I don't do it myself - but it is precisely, people like this I swapped the formula around to help.

I wonder was printing the formula as "OCV+11-DCV=Die Roll needed" something that was first done in 4th, and that 1-3 used some other way to tell people how to determine if they hit like roll under 11 and compare amount made or failed by to the difference between OCV and DCV?

Could be: I don't unfortunately have anything of the original books left except the old chracter sheets with a picture for photocopying.

cheers, Mark

[rjcurrie]

Actually, you are right. We've gotten carried away with the debate rather than the subject: I suggested it because experience has shown that "rolling up" is easier to teach newbies. The truth is though, that it's not a big deal and is easy to switch from one way of doing it to the other if you want: the mechanism and the probabilities are exactly the same. IIRC, the "roll up" method has alreday been suggested as an alternative in the rules (though maybe I'm wrong: I can't think where it is...).

cheers, Mark

You know, in my convention games, I get a few players every year who have never played Hero before and I can't remember a single one of them complaining or even wincing when told they roll 3d6 and want low. Perhaps some of the other convention GMs might drop by and give their experiences.

[Karmakaze]

You know, in my convention games, I get a few players every year who have never played Hero before and I can't remember a single one of them complaining or even wincing when told they roll 3d6 and want low. Perhaps some of the other convention GMs might drop by and give their experiences.

I haven't had a problem with it either. Usually the only thing that requires extra explanation is counting body off of normal damage dice, and even that sinks in pretty quickly.

[ajackson]

I haven't had a problem with it either. Usually the only thing that requires extra explanation is counting body off of normal damage dice, and even that sinks in pretty quickly.
Speaking of which, changing the way Body is counted for normal attacks isn't a terrible idea.

[archermoo]

Speaking of which, changing the way Body is counted for normal attacks isn't a terrible idea.

A sentiment that I could hardly disagree with more.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Heck, most groups I've played with already spend more time that that talking about entirely non-game related stuff during an average combat.Interesting you should mention that... ;)

In my experience, HERO System combat is not inherently slow. Far and away the factor I see that causes it to become slow is players who ignore what's going on until it's their turn to do something. It's not the rolling dice and noting effects and such that takes the time. It's the hemming and hawing over which bad guy to attack, and which attack to use, and how far away is that guy, and is that guy still up, and endlessly explaining your thinking behind why you're about to do what you're about to do when you're about to do it, and so on and on and on. :winkgrin:

I realized this when I first starting running Challenge Of The Superfriends games at conventions. One of the ground rules of that game is that when each character's Phase comes up, the player must be ready to immediately lead off with a soliloquy, or they lose their Phase (you get no screen time if you've got nothing to say). Although I didn't put that house rule in place for that game with the specific intention of speeding up combat, it did speed it up quite a lot. And when thinking about it, I realized the reason was that the players had to think about what they were going to do before it was their turn... not wait until it was their turn to start thinking about what they were going to do. :)

[Derek Hiemforth]

You know, in my convention games, I get a few players every year who have never played Hero before and I can't remember a single one of them complaining or even wincing when told they roll 3d6 and want low. Perhaps some of the other convention GMs might drop by and give their experiences.I've never had a problem with it either. A couple of years ago, I even ran a Sidekick-based game specifically intended for people who'd never played HERO before, and none of them had any problem grasping it or any objection to doing it. Nor did they apparently have any philosophical issues with it, since I know that at least 5 of the 6 players in that game purchased one or more books from the Hero Games booth at that con. :)

[archermoo]

Interesting you should mention that... ;)

In my experience, HERO System combat is not inherently slow. Far and away the factor I see that causes it to become slow is players who ignore what's going on until it's their turn to do something. It's not the rolling dice and noting effects and such that takes the time. It's the hemming and hawing over which bad guy to attack, and which attack to use, and how far away is that guy, and is that guy still up, and endlessly explaining your thinking behind why you're about to do what you're about to do when you're about to do it, and so on and on and on. :winkgrin:

I realized this when I first starting running Challenge Of The Superfriends games at conventions. One of the ground rules of that game is that when each character's Phase comes up, the player must be ready to immediately lead off with a soliloquy, or they lose their Phase (you get no screen time if you've got nothing to say). Although I didn't put that house rule in place for that game with the specific intention of speeding up combat, it did speed it up quite a lot. And when thinking about it, I realized the reason was that the players had to think about what they were going to do before it was their turn... not wait until it was their turn to start thinking about what they were going to do. :)

Oh I already generally know what I'm going to do before it is my turn, unless something happens right before my turn to change things. I usually wait until after I've figured it out before I start gabbing. :) Though I will say that I have gamed with people that would do something entirely non-game related during combats any time it wasn't their phase. Knitting seemed to be popular at one point. So every time it cam to their phase they had to spend a few minuted remembering what went before, and then catching up with what everyone else did since then. VERY frustrating. But not restricted to HERO in the least. :)

[Chris Goodwin]

Speaking of which, changing the way Body is counted for normal attacks isn't a terrible idea.

Anyone coming from another game where you have to count successes in a dice pool should have no trouble with learning to count the BODY.

[ajackson]

Anyone coming from another game where you have to count successes in a dice pool should have no trouble with learning to count the BODY.
Oh, counting body isn't hard. It's tedious. That's the general issue with hero system math.

[Opal]

Oh, counting body isn't hard. It's tedious. That's the general issue with hero system math.Tedious? You line up the one's and sixes you roll. Extra ones, subtract them from the number of dice you roll. Extra sixes, add them to the number of dice. I know some seriuosly math-phobic sorts that I've pushed into playing Hero, and counting BOD on normal dice is one of the less intimidating things for them.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Oh, counting body isn't hard. It's tedious. That's the general issue with hero system math.
Huh. I just note whether I rolled more sixes than ones, and by how many. I don't find that tedious, nor do I really even consider that "math" (not sure if you were saying it was, or just comparing the "tedium" of counting BODY to the tedium of doing math in other parts of the system).

[Derek Hiemforth]

VERY frustrating. But not restricted to HERO in the least. :)Exactly my point. :) HERO System combat isn't slow... any tactically-based RPG's combat is going to be slow, if you have players not following what's happening while it's not their turn, and not thinking about what they're going to do when it is their turn...

[steamteck]

Funny...we have the suggestion to present this (and other things) two or more different ways in the midst of complaints that we'd rather see the rule book short enough that it fit in one volume. There are tradeoffs...


Maybe but I but I for one really like the little sidebars about alternate methods such as average damage or average damage plus 10% per pip the roll made by. I've tried and still use some of the alternates.

[archermoo]

Exactly my point. :) HERO System combat isn't slow... any tactically-based RPG's combat is going to be slow, if you have players not following what's happening while it's not their turn, and not thinking about what they're going to do when it is their turn...

Well yeah. I was agreeing with you. :)

[Derek Hiemforth]

Well yeah. I was agreeing with you. :)
Shocking! ;)

[Chris Goodwin]

Oh, counting body isn't hard. It's tedious. That's the general issue with hero system math.

No more so than counting 7s and up on a handful of d10's.

And tedious implies something taking hours.

[rjcurrie]

No more so than counting 7s and up on a handful of d10's.

And tedious implies something taking hours.

Well, I guess if you're a reeeeallly slow counter. :D

[SCUBA Hero]

On rounding rules:

They don't need to be changed, but they DO need to be clearly defined and stated.

There are currently three types of rounding in Hero System:

1. Up (i.e., -1 OCV per -5 STR or fraction thereof below a weapon's STR Min)
2. Down (i.e., +1DC per every full 3" of velocity)
3. Nearest, tie goes to the player (i.e., 1 END per 10 Active Points in a Power, 15 AP -> 1 END)

Also, provide a meaningful example for the following statement: "You only have to use one decimal place to round" (FReD, p. 7)


Actually, #3 isn't quite right... if .5 always goes in favor of the player, then when the player hits with an Armor Piercing attack against a PD of 15, then PD = 15/2 = 7.5, round in favor of the player = 7. But if a villain attacks with an Armor Piercing attack against a player with a PD of 15, then PD = 15/2 = 7.5, round in favor of the player = 8. But under my understanding of the 5er rules, both PDs are 7.

In summary, eliminate ambiguity and provide examples.

[SCUBA Hero]

As a general rule: Tighten up the language and provide examples, especially where existing players disagree.

For example: FReD, p. 357, Full Phase Actions, "Full Phase Actions take a character's entire Phase; he can do nothing else and take no other Actions that Phase." Clear enough.

FReD, p. 358, Zero Phase Actions, "A character may perform as many Zero Phase Actions as he wishes at the beginning of a Phase or after performing a Half Phase Action, but not after performing an Attack Action or a Full Phase Action."

These sentences are in direct conflict. Can a character perform a zero-phase action before a full-phase action or not? Now, I know my answer, based on my experience with the system and other rules text, but someone reading for the first time does not (plus, it is possible my answer is wrong; it's happened before!).

And, clarify exeptions - there are zero phase actions that can only be done once per phase (i.e., changing points in a Multipower, FReD p. 321) - and these should be clearly noted as exeptions to the general rule, not requiring the player to memorize the entire 600+ page rulebook for exeptions to the general rule.

[TSandman]

Maybe but I but I for one really like the little sidebars about alternate methods such as average damage or average damage plus 10% per pip the roll made by. I've tried and still use some of the alternates.

From the Newbie PoV (ie: mine) I like those alternate rules/options as it exists today...

it would be great to have both rolling systems, if it can be done simply (skills as Combat is already simple either ways).

[Lucius]

Runs afoul of (2) This is change for change's sake, there's no problem with the dice mechanic, which gives a good bell curve range. Heck, GURPS ripped it off.



Just a quibble, but - no, no they didn't.

Steve Jackson, who did GURPS, earlier did Melee/ Wizard/ The Fantasy Trip, with a 3d6 mechanic. If anything, Champions ripped the idea off from TFT.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary notes that rolling 3d6 really goes all the way back to rolling up characters for D&D....so it's a very very ancient legacy.

[Markdoc]

You know, in my convention games, I get a few players every year who have never played Hero before and I can't remember a single one of them complaining or even wincing when told they roll 3d6 and want low. Perhaps some of the other convention GMs might drop by and give their experiences.

It's not the "rolling low" part that's the problem - I still roll low in my games for skills and that's never caused a problem. You just tell people "this is your skill number, you need to roll equal to or under it". Easy concept, no math beyond "add the dice" required.

It's the "Add 11 to your OCV, then subtract the dice and that's what you hit" which is the problem. And amusingly, after being told "it's never a problem", several people are starting to admit "well yeah, my players don't actually do the math" or "actually I do have one guy who has this problem" or "actually we moved over to charts instead".

And ya know, all of those have been in my experience too. But none of that should be necessary. So, yeah, there is a problem and it's obviously relatively widespread - heck, it's even made it into 5eR. It doesn't, equally obviously, affect everyone. But the fact that I - and many other GMs - have swapped indicates that there is a problem and that there's a relatively simple fix.

The nice thing about this fix is that there's no downside. It's no harder (actually it's easier), it doesn't change probablities. The only argument against it, that I've heard is "But we've always done it the old way"

cheers, Mark

[Fresh Head]

The only argument against it, that I've heard is "But we've always done it the old way"


As I've interpreted these posts, it seems to me that people don't want change for changes sake. If roll high / roll low produce the same result, then it really doesn't matter which method you use. If it doesn't matter, leave it alone.

That being said, if there is a perception that a roll high system is easier to teach for a new player, I can see why they would want to implement in version 6. And quite honestly, there are worse changes to fear than this one.

[caris]

It's the "Add 11 to your OCV, then subtract the dice and that's what you hit" which is the problem. And amusingly, after being told "it's never a problem", several people are starting to admit "well yeah, my players don't actually do the math" or "actually I do have one guy who has this problem" or "actually we moved over to charts instead". c

No, that is not what I said. What I said was that you were presenting the roll low method for combat as being more complicated than it actually is. Since you were not being clear, I also made comments that if that is how you are teaching how to do the roll, it could not be said from that if the problem is the formula is too complex or not.

You asked if I ever anyone use what you describing to me as a GM as their results. I said that I've encountered one person, who might give me the result you are describing, but he isn't my player. He is my GM. I described what situation I do get.

I have encountered a single person in my personal gaming experience that approaches it with anything like the complexity you describe. In particular it is not those steps you describe. It actually flows more like:

Step one: Calculate OCV
Step two: Subtract die roll from 11
Step three: Add OCV to die roll - 11, and state DCV or less hit

At no point does he go from knowing what DCV or less he hit back to his OCV with a modifer to tell the GM as you seem to be describing in step three here:

Step one: Player calculates OCV for attacker
Step two: Player adds 11 to OCV
Step three: Player subtracts die roll from OCV + 11 (note: this is where many people choke) and tells the GM your OCV and the modified score ("4 over OCV, etc")
Step four: GM calculates difference between OCV for attacker and DCV for Defender
Step Five: GM compares the difference and adjudicates hit/miss

Now, though I think it is just you didn't understand the mental process that your players were going through. They were keeping it to two steps for themselves:

Step one: Calculate OCV
Step two: sutract die roll from 11, tell difference and calculated OCV to the GM

because I doubt you really encountered the hordes of people that you are implying went through those uncessary extra steps, just to give you a headache of having to add level of success to their OCV. Matter of fact, if you think that they were going through those steps, did you actually bother trying to get them to undo the step where they went from OCV+11-die roll to OCV+11-die roll-OCV? Of course, if they weren't going to that extra step, because they were never adding in the OCV in the first place, that could explain the difficulty. Trying to get people to stop doing a process that they weren't doing in the first place, can be pretty dang hard.

All I know about the why is "that is how he is used to doing it." I do not know how he got used to it. He has been gaming far longer than I've known him, and he learned Hero System before I ever met him, so I have no idea if it is him or the way some one taught him to do the roll. Since I do not have any information to draw a conclusion, I can not include him as a definite data point in my analysis.

This has not actually been a problem for me, because he never played in a game that I've GMed. I'm fairly certain it won't be a problem for me since he can do it as quickly in his head as other people use the formula.

As for my other problem, I can state clearly that it is not the math.

1. It is being used to using tables, and wanting to hide the DCV. Those GMs that use the table came out of 2nd Ed D&D in their minds to hit rolls should be looked up on a table. Also this way that don't have to teach new players the formula, but can prove to the players that they are not being random and arbitrary. If the players don't know the formula, they can not reverse calculate opponents DCV. (Only works with those who never want to actually learn the rules in the book.) Those GM's have never been a problem for me. They know that I do not use the table, and they play with me by my way of doing things.

2. Those who give me a problem of assuming that I use a table because their other GMs do. These players could be divided into two types those that had memorized the formuls and those that didn't. Those that knew the formula, just had to understand that I wasn't using the table, and occasionally get a reminder. They had been calculating the DCV's that they hit in their heads all along in those other games. Those that didn't know the formula had to be taught just like a newbie. I found that writing the formula on the character sheet solved both problems. It helped those that didn't know the formula learn it, and it reminded the players that I don't use a table.

As for the well, that subtracting the die roll is still too many steps for the players. I could change it to player gives me their OCV+11 and tell me their die roll. At which point either I could finish off the OCV+11-die roll, or I can do DCV+die roll. And determine success that way. Neither of which is particularly different from what you are doing with the roll high method.

Once again, all of which specifically comes back to your claim that the current method is inherently more complex than your roll high method. Like in these posts:

Again - apart from reversing the combat roll, which is needlessly complicated as it stands, I see no reason to do so.

and

Personally - going on to other poster's comments - I've never assumed that there's an innate bias towards high or low. The reason I switched to roll high in combat is because it's intrinsically easier, not because it's intrinsically "better", or "more intuitive"

Why is it easier? Because it involves a single, simple maths calculation. You already know your OCV. You add your 3d6 roll to it and the total is your target number. OCV+dice. That's it. One basic piece of knowledge and one step. The n00-est of n00bs can do it. They say "I got 17!" and I know that means they hit DCV7.

The current method requires multiple steps. You already know your OCV. You know that if you roll 11, you hit your OCV equivalent in DCV. You then compare your dice roll to 11 and generate a positive or negative number based on the difference of your dice roll from 11, then you add that to your OCV to calculate the DCV you hit. That's 2 basic pieces of knowledge and 3 steps. (or 5 if you include the plus/minus calculation). I've been doing it for years and am generally numerate. I can do it more or less automatically. But there is no way in the world it can be considered "as easy" as the roll-up method. It simply isn't - it requires more steps and more information processing and there's no getting around that fact.

All emphasis yours. These are not claims by you that some fraction of your players had a problem wrapping their heads around the rule, which is very much "some players find one method more intuitive and natural."

This is the second time where I have seen you display the following reasoning train:

1. You have a problem in your game.
2. You change a rule to fix the problem.
3. You conclude that the problem is something inherent to the rule that you changed. Even when I significant portion of other people playing the game never had the problem with that rule that you did, because you can point to others that have had the same problem.

It is fine that you follow that reasoning. It is great if you present the rule change as a fix for other people having the same problem. It is a poor chain of logic for dealing making a change that is going to impact both those without the problem as those with the problem.

It is also a problem when you start with the conclusion, and expect people to intuit your change of logic, when it does not agree with their experience. When you present the problem as universal when it isn't. When you present the problem in a manner other than it actually is. When you are at best over exaggerating a claim for some reason.

To be honest, I find it even harder to understand from you than from most of the poster, because I believe that you are a genetist, and I can't understand why a genetist is presenting his arguements in this manner.

[IndianaJoe3]

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.

I disagree. Absolute (or effectively absolute) effects occur in many genres, and Hero should be able to simulate them. I'd like to see an official method of building absolute effects, even if their use is optional (like hit locations or bleeding). They shouldn't be cheap, but they shouldn't be disproportionally expensive.

[rjcurrie]

I disagree. Absolute (or effectively absolute) effects occur in many genres, and Hero should be able to simulate them. I'd like to see an official method of building absolute effects, even if their use is optional (like hit locations or bleeding). They shouldn't be cheap, but they shouldn't be disproportionally expensive.

Would the section on building absolute effects in Fantasy Hero suit your purposes if it was included in the main rules?

[Vondy]

Two problems, actually - you found one, the other is the whole "how do you deal with halving DCV" thing. Since (for me at least) subtracting 10 from the target number is so trivial as to be effortless, I simply lifted that part off the players and left DCV alone.

cheers, Mark

I mentioned that in my post: DEX/6 is the DCV Mod.

[archermoo]

It's not the "rolling low" part that's the problem - I still roll low in my games for skills and that's never caused a problem. You just tell people "this is your skill number, you need to roll equal to or under it". Easy concept, no math beyond "add the dice" required.

It's the "Add 11 to your OCV, then subtract the dice and that's what you hit" which is the problem. And amusingly, after being told "it's never a problem", several people are starting to admit "well yeah, my players don't actually do the math" or "actually I do have one guy who has this problem" or "actually we moved over to charts instead".

And ya know, all of those have been in my experience too. But none of that should be necessary. So, yeah, there is a problem and it's obviously relatively widespread - heck, it's even made it into 5eR. It doesn't, equally obviously, affect everyone. But the fact that I - and many other GMs - have swapped indicates that there is a problem and that there's a relatively simple fix.

The nice thing about this fix is that there's no downside. It's no harder (actually it's easier), it doesn't change probablities. The only argument against it, that I've heard is "But we've always done it the old way"

cheers, Mark

Your method also has you taking on some of the math yourself. So how again does that make your point valid but the point of the people who are also taking on some of the math for their players not valid?

[IndianaJoe3]

Would the section on building absolute effects in Fantasy Hero suit your purposes if it was included in the main rules?
Yes. It might need some expansion or additional examples, of course.

[Fresh Head]

I disagree. Absolute (or effectively absolute) effects occur in many genres, and Hero should be able to simulate them. I'd like to see an official method of building absolute effects, even if their use is optional (like hit locations or bleeding). They shouldn't be cheap, but they shouldn't be disproportionally expensive.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. :smoke:

[BobGreenwade]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. :smoke:Or a mathematician. ;)

[Lucius]

Something that's occurred to me, although I'll admit the idea may be rejected due to space considerations:

I'd like more "Why."

Not just on the changes; for example, in the unlikely event we keep the cost structure of Characteristics and the rule about selling back only one figured, the sentence expressing that rule could be followed with one or two explaining that "if players are allowed to sell more than one figured characteristic back, it becomes possible to buy a primary characteristic up and then sell back the resulting figured characteristics for more points than were spent on the primary. In other words, you could buy a 100 STR and CON for, effectively, free."


But the real reason I ask for this is that there are certain rules and rulings under FRED that make a lot of people, not just me, go "Huh? What was he thinking?"
Like the rule that says not to take Growth, Shrinking, or Density Increase as Always On. Now, I could have understood saying "Buy the effects you want and link them under the special effect of size/density change" and just eliminating these Powers altogether. But if they're going to exist at all, what's the point of arbitrarily forbidding certain configurations of them? I assume there must be some reason for the rule - but it just baffles me.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary hopes the next edition will prove less baffling, as listening to Lucius moan over and over "What was he THINKING!?" gets tiresome.

[GamePhil]

"What was he THINKING!?"

Keep in mind that 5th Ed was made by committee: Steve was required to put in certain things. For example, as the idea of size not being part of Growth or Shrinking is a concept in Fuzion, I don't think it was his, and may be lost in the next book.

Of course, just because it was in Fuzion doesn't mean he disagrees with it, either. Just saying, one, that it's "What were they THINKING?", and, two, 5th Ed constructs you don't like may go away, if they weren't, in fact, Steve's.

No doubt some will stay, though.

[Hugh Neilson]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. :smoke:

Or a mathematician. ;)

I would expect to be able to build both Sith and mathematicians in the Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit.

Say, if 5e was the Ultimate, what's 6e going to be?

[Teflon Billy]

I would expect to be able to build both Sith and mathematicians in the Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit.

Say, if 5e was the Ultimate, what's 6e going to be?5e will now be deprecated down to Penultimate with 6e taking on the mantle of Ultimate.

TB

[SylvanSnake]

I'm in favor of keeping 3d6 for rolls. Although 3d8 or 3d10 wouldn't be a terrible thing if more variance is needed. Roll high or low wouldn't really affect me either way I guess.

As far as hexes, I think it should be 2 meters/hex. It's a bit closer to what I could imagine as a typical reach during combat. A lot of people are suggesting 1 meter hexes, but I couldn't imagine a combat where everyone is scrunched up within 3 feet of each other. Thinking about it logically, you could barely move your arms.

And honestly, characters shouldn't have to spend points on skills or items which will have little impact on the campaign. And a GM shouldn't be obliged to tailor an adventure around using a skill that a character got for free either. That's not to say that even the most oddball skill wouldn't ever have some use. Using the Italian literature example, maybe 2 players have the skill for their characters. They might send each other secret messages by writing or reciting verses from Italian poems, but changing or adding a few lines. There's always possibilities, but that's in the realm of good role-playing imo, and I still wouldn't think characters should pay for such skills.

[BobGreenwade]

Say, if 5e was the Ultimate, what's 6e going to be?The Aleph-Null Gamer's Toolkit.

[Doc Democracy]

Oh well, Steve thought this belonged in here - more than happy to oblige...


I think that one of the unique selling points of the Hero System is that it is set up to toolkit new games.

I for one think that a new edition would be a tremendous time to ensure that this aspect of the system is deeply embedded in the rules - there should be a good toolkitting section associated with every section of the rules, outlining to new players and most especially new GMs how the rules can be utilised to create unique gaming experiences that are all 'HERO under the Hood'.


Doc

[GamePhil]

Actually, what I'd like to see instead of Hero Points is a description of some kind of "Everyman Powers" concept. That is, Powers or other abilities given to everyone in a given campaign to enhance the feel of the setting. Hero Points would then be an example for a Pulp setting of Everyman Powers, and probably also for Swashbuckler Hero and several other settings.

This goes along with Doc D's suggestion for a Toolkit section, although that's not what made me think of it.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

No. Everybody has 6-sided dice laying about. Plus, I have nearly, 50 6-sided dice, no where the same amount of any other type of dice.


Q: Should we changed the way dice are rolled?

No. Just do not see any need.


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

Never had a problem with it and it goes well with the hex maps, I use for combat.


Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

That the game use metric was one of the things that attracted me to the system in the first place. Metric is the way to go. Well suited to gaming.


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

No. It would be way too radical and way too much work will need.


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

I do not believe in absolutes. As a GM, I dislike the idea. There can be close to absolutes, but no true abolutes, please.


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

Sounds like an interesting idea.


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

Yes, because too many people cannot seem to understand this concept.

[AnotherSkip]

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 LIKE this, i wanted a way to reward good backgrounds and fluff skills are just the right way to do it... and just roll it in to everyman skills (sorta) background skills?

In additiont I was thinking that things on characters sheets like 4 lines for "handcuffs" could be replaced with "handcuffs pg 180" and everyone who cares to will know what handcufs are and use them like other people in dramatic situations. (Ie: I cuff him to the bed... the limitations say you can't do that... What?)

[GamePhil]

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 long as you never say, "You can't buy a chair with Character Points if you really want to," I'm find. I'm still pining for Derek's book of ordinary stuff. I want my lawn gnome attack. :cry:

[Klaus Mogensen]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Not unless there are good reasons to do so.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?
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.

Well... You could broaden the bell curve somewhat by rolling 3d10 or median-of-three-d20, but that would ruin the d6 purity. Other than that, I can't think of anything.

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

I have no problem with that.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Please don't. There are continental Europeans like me playing the game that can't figure Imperial units.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Since I'm mathematically inclined, it's not a big point for me. But for the many mathematically challenged out there, rounding down may be easier.

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

I think this may open too big a can of worms. This distinction lacks in M&M2, and it is easy to abuse in that game's "Multipowers".

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

No, I have always liked that Hero doesn't do absolutes (except for minor things like Life Support).

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

It works well in most systems I've played, so by all means do this. This could also allow a distinction between Disadvantages and mere Complications, as in M&M2, which I would consider a great step forward.

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

Perhaps no so much in more detail as more succinctly.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
Futurist & writer

[arromdee]

How about doing the 17- Italian Literature as a package deal with a large bonus? You just have a package deal "professor" which contains a 15 point skill which is required to be a skill seldom used in the campaign, and a 14 point package bonus. (Probably varied to include more than one skill.)

If you wanted to abuse the rules you could allow a limitation on a skill and say "15 points in Italian Literature, with a -2 (or whatever--I don't have a book in front of me) limitation saying it can be used once per day. Special effect of this limitation is that it's actually used all the time but the game-relevant uses are never more than once a day.

[SteveZilla]

Except that Package Deals don't work that way in 5th ed. Thy no longer have a Package Bonus, and the Disadvantages in a package don't offset the cost of the positives, they just add to a character's points he gets from disadvantages -- which is still capped at what the GM sets the game at.

So for a 200 Base + 150 Disad character, taking a package with 25 points of disads only means he now can only select 125 more Disads for his "Disads section".

[Silbeg]

Which is easily done by either roll high or roll low.

Agreed.

Assume OCV 8, DCV 7, and a roll of 12 (if low), 9 (if high).

low-roll system.

11+OCV - 3d6 = DCV hit.
On the player's character sheet is:
ToHit 19-3d6=DCV hit
He rolls a 12, subtracts from 19, says "I hit a DCV 7".
GM says, "You hit!"


high-roll system:
OCV + 3d6 - 10 = DCV hit (ASSOCIATIVE property, right?)
On character sheet is OCV 8
Player rolls, adds, and says "I roll a 17 to hit).
The GM subtracts 10 from the 17, so note that he hits a DCV 7, and says, "You hit!"
(alternatively, the player subtracts 10 from 17, and says that he hits a DCV 7)


Either way, the GM has not disclosed the actual DCV.

Personally, I prefer the low-roll system, as it always has been. The only change to my thinking has been to do the calculation as 11+OCV-3d6=DCV

Having run several Con games, with complete HERO novices, this has always worked fine, and I have never seen any confusion on how to roll to hit.

In fact, were I asked, I would say that 3d6 rolls are always "roll low", while damage is roll high. Simple enough, and I don't believe it is confusing, anywhere. But, what do I know... I have only been playing the system for 26 years. ;)

[Opal]

That reminds me, are the 'Incomplete' rules still on-line somewhere?

... oh, Digital Hero #10...

[SteveZilla]

I've been working on this idea since the start of the 6th ed. discussion, and think it's hammered out enough for public ridicul-- I mean consumption.

Please see the attached zip file containing a single page Excel spreadsheet. It shows an analysis of the current 3d6 system, and an analysis of my proposed alternative. It includes an analysis of how much difference a +X OCV would make in a fight between otherwise equal combatants, and the formulas for both Roll Low and Roll High (for those who prefer one or the other). The various "key" points on the bell curves are color coded with a legend explaining the colors.

The ideas in this file are meant to resolve (or at least mitigate) several significant issues:

1. Lack of distinction between two close stats (i.e. only 0, 3, 5, & 8 breakpoints matter)
2. Lack of granularity in combat system (a 4 DCV difference = rarely hit)
3. Different systems for Combat and Skills (not as strong as 1 & 2, but it is there).

I propose that the combat and skill rolls be changed from 3d6 to 2d12. This broadens the range of results, reduces the impact between values, yet still preserves a non-flat probability. In addition, because the 2d12 is more "spread-out" than 3d6, the way Skill Rolls are calculated would need to change.

for the regular 9+(STAT/5) skill roll, the normal human range (i.e. STAT = 1 to 20), is from 9 to 13 on 3d6. A very comparable range is found on the 2d12 -- 11 to 18. Almost twice the range (7 vs 4). To keep the actual chance of success the same across the human end of the scale, we need to change the formula from 9+(STAT/5) to 11+(STAT/3).

Combat is still balanced around equal CVs, with equal CVs resulting in a ~60% chance of success.

Now each point of a stat is much closer to the next "breakpoint" than it was before. And as an added bonus, the Skill system is practically identical to the combat system:

Combat: Roll <= 14 + OCV - DCV
Skills: Roll <= 11 + (STAT / 3)

Because changing from STAT/5 to STAT/3 will push the higher end of stat-based skills even higher (like a Brick's Strength Tricks skill based on his 60 STR), this would necessitate a small change to the Requires Skill Roll Limitation.

Instead of being a -1 per 10 Active Points, it would balance out well at -1 per 5 Active Points IMO:

Current Method:
Power Skill: 9 + (60 STR / 5) = 21- on 3d6. Used to activate a 60 AP RSR power = 21 - (60 / 10) = 15- (95% chance for success)

Proposed Method:
Power Skill 11 + (60 STR / 3) = 31- on 2d12. Used to activate a 60 AP RSR power = 29 - (60 / 5) = 19- (90% chance for success).

I'm sure there would need to be other tweaks needed like for RSR, I just haven't found them all yet. But I think none of these tweaks would be truly deal-breaking.

Thank you,

[Thia Halmades]

You're forgetting mass, how Vehicle DEF interacts with real weapons (i.e., tank vs. pistol) and a few other things, but you've got a good start. I'm also in the (and have posted elsewhere) Scrap DEF and everyone gets PD/ED, because I find DEF kind of kludgy. I see no need to not give vehicles the same breakdown as everything else; sure, a tank may have 20 rPD, but can it withstand, say, an ED based crushing gravity strike as well?

Doubtful. So I'm with you there. The more I think about the whole thing, though, the more I feel that the game doesn't simulate supers as well as it could (see prior notes: Grond v Tank).

[SteveZilla]

I would also agree with going with PD/ED for non-characters instead of DEF. A ceramic crucible can easily withstand the molten lead it holds (high ED), yet will likely shatter if dropped (low PD).

[GamePhil]

You're forgetting mass, how Vehicle DEF interacts with real weapons (i.e., tank vs. pistol) and a few other things, but you've got a good start.

Well, mass and the DEF interaction is surely a good idea, although it may be more gearhead than I'm currently going for. Wouldn't mind adding something like that in general for Heroic games.

Moved the rest of the post to my consolidated post on Incomplete Characters.

[rjcurrie]

Any chance that we can start using "SPFX" for "Special Effects" rather than "SFX"? In theatre and movie scripts, "SFX" means "Sound Effects" while "SPFX" means "Special Effects". Of course, I'm willilng to admit that I may the only person in Hero fandom who is annoyed by this.

[Lucius]

Except that Package Deals don't work that way in 5th ed. Thy no longer have a Package Bonus, and the Disadvantages in a package don't offset the cost of the positives, they just add to a character's points he gets from disadvantages -- which is still capped at what the GM sets the game at.

So for a 200 Base + 150 Disad character, taking a package with 25 points of disads only means he now can only select 125 more Disads for his "Disads section".

Yes, but we're not talking about 5th Ed - we're talking about 6th Ed. We don't know yet if there's any such thing as a package deal or how it would work.

Lucius Alexander

Packaging a palindromedary

[BobGreenwade]

Any chance that we can start using "SPFX" for "Special Effects" rather than "SFX"? In theatre and movie scripts, "SFX" means "Sound Effects" while "SPFX" means "Special Effects". Of course, I'm willilng to admit that I may the only person in Hero fandom who is annoyed by this.No, you're not the only one. But then again, I'm also annoyed that PC can mean not just Player Character, but also Personal Computer, Public Corporation, Politcally Correct, or any number of other things.... yeah, I know, it doesn't quite match up in comparison, and I should well know that since I'm also a playwright, but I just adjust my thinking based on context.

[rjcurrie]

No, you're not the only one. But then again, I'm also annoyed that PC can mean not just Player Character, but also Personal Computer, Public Corporation, Politcally Correct, or any number of other things.... yeah, I know, it doesn't quite match up in comparison, and I should well know that since I'm also a playwright, but I just adjust my thinking based on context.

Good point. I'm not really expecting a change, but I figured I'd ask :)

[GamePhil]

Moving this to its own thread for the time being. I believe it will be too much across threads to fit in one, and I'm having a number of ideas and conjecture about how Steve may implement some of his ideas, so I don't want to clutter up the threads.

[SteveZilla]

Would such a system need an Incomplete Character Sheet for a Power with Physical Manifestation?

[GamePhil]

Would such a system need an Incomplete Character Sheet for a Power with Physical Manifestation?

In general, I wouldn't think so, just as most Foci would not require such a full write up: in generaly, you just get their DEF and Body from the Active Cost as usual, or however you want to do it for Physical Manifestation. However, I could see unusual cases where this might be appropriate. For example, Johny Thunder's Thunderbolt in his later appearances might be a Physical Manifestation of his Variable Power Pool that had its own character sheet.

[Sean Waters]

We should stick with 3d6. We can have a side bar about using other dice types and combinations, but we should stick with what we know.

However, HOW we roll the dice...or read them, at least.

What Hero doesn't really have in the Core Rules is any mechanic that relates the level of success to teh result - you either accomplish what you are after or not. Sometimes that is appropriate, sometimes less so. If you take into account the level of success then you can create more dramatic situations without having to be GM-arbitrary about it.

Examples:

With 'normal' skills - PRE based - a high 'result' gives you future bonuses against the same target, a fail gives you future penalties. Or you get more information than you were after on a high result but on a fail the target gives you misleading information.

Agility skills. These tend to be more all or nothing, but, for instance on a high result on an acrobatics roll you could get +3 for a surprise maneouvre, whereas a bare pass would just get you +1 and a fail might give you DCV penalties.

In combat you could relate the 3d6 roll to hit tot he damage in a number of ways. One of the dice could be a different colour, and you could use that as the multiplier for KA stun damage.

Or you could use the 3d6 roll as part of the damage roll.

Another alternative is you read the Body total from skill checks or rolls to hit and that determines the level of success in some way - so hitting with a roll of 10 comprising 6,2,2 would give a better result than hitting with a roll of 10 comprising 5,3,2, which would be better than a roll of 10 comprising 5,4,1.

The range of 'Body' totals for 3d6 is 0 to 6, with 3 being most common but 2 and 4 being reasonably common - therefore the range of results would not be difficult to calculate.

There are lots of options. I'd like to see some :)

[Doc Democracy]

Here is a general rules request. One of the things about the universality of the system is that everything is all jumbled up in the same place. Some powers, some skills and some talents are very much more useful in one genre than in others or more useful in superheroic stuff, some in heroic and some in normal human level games.

Would it be possible to have some kind of graphic representation of the primary genre of a power/skill/talent? Would other people find it useful - as players? As GMs?


Doc

[Sean Waters]

Here is a general rules request. One of the things about the universality of the system is that everything is all jumbled up in the same place. Some powers, some skills and some talents are very much more useful in one genre than in others or more useful in superheroic stuff, some in heroic and some in normal human level games.

Would it be possible to have some kind of graphic representation of the primary genre of a power/skill/talent? Would other people find it useful - as players? As GMs?


Doc


I feel your pain. At the same time I can see how this might be a trap for the unwary. People could get to thinking that Teleport is something you should avoid unless you are running a sci-fi or superhero game. In fact you might never buy a 'straight' TP in a pulp game but you might well buy a TP as the ability to get from one place to another without being noticed.

I've often thought thought hat the value of a particular ability is very much campaign dependent: a TP ability - however you define it - in a 'hard modern' setting is probably disproportionately useful if only because no one expects it. I'm not sure how you'd code that though.

[nexus]

I feel your pain. At the same time I can see how this might be a trap for the unwary. People could get to thinking that Teleport is something you should avoid unless you are running a sci-fi or superhero game. In fact you might never buy a 'straight' TP in a pulp game but you might well buy a TP as the ability to get from one place to another without being noticed.

I've often thought thought hat the value of a particular ability is very much campaign dependent: a TP ability - however you define it - in a 'hard modern' setting is probably disproportionately useful if only because no one expects it. I'm not sure how you'd code that though.

I don't think it should be, beyond maybe gming advice in genre books. There's too many variables involved. Somethings should be left to the discretion of the GM and their sense of balance and playstyle. Any attempt to "foolproof" the game would make it inflexible (or give it the appearance of being that way). Hero shouldn't, IMO, tell you anything (or very much) about your game.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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 have considered this problem, and I've come up with something that may be a solution without giving up the 'd6 purity' of the system: Rather than rolling 3d6 for skill and combat rolls, roll d6xd6. I don't think that's really more complex, given the low numbers involved.

d6xd6 gives a skewed (and somewhat irregular) bell curve with values from 1 to 36. Let's compare 3d6 and d6xd6:

3d6:
Range: 3-18 (16 values)
Mean: 10.5
Median: 10.5
Median 48.1% of rolls are in the range 9-12 (four values)
Median 67.6% of rolls are in the range 8-13 (six values)
Median 81.5% of rolls are in the range 7-14 (eight values)

d6xd6:
Range: 1-36 (36 values)
Mean: 12.25
Median: 10
Median 50.0% of rolls are in the range 5-16 (twelve values)
Median 69.4% of rolls are in the range 4-20 (seventeen values)
Median 80.6% of rolls are in the range 3-24 (twenty-two values)

As can be seen, the spread of d6xd6 is roughly triple that of 3d6. This means that for combat bonuses, DEX can be used straight as a modifier if d6xd6 is used instead of 3d6. I'm all for bringing skill bonuses etc. in line with combat bonuses, so with this small change, characteristics can be used as straight bonuses for CV, skills and characteristic rolls.

Since d6xd6 is an asymmetric distribution, it matters if rolling low or high is good. If rolling low is good, very skilled characters may sometimes fail at even rather simple tasks (rolling 36 is really bad!). If rolling high is good, low-skilled characters may sometimes succeed at very hard tasks (rolling 36 is really good!). I feel that the latter is more in line with the heroic feel of Hero.

So: To hit, roll d6xd6 + DEX + bonuses and get at least 10 + DEX + bonuses. This will give you a slightly better than even chance (52.8%) of hitting someone with the same CV.

Skill rolls would be d6xd6 + Char + levels versus difficulty. The basic difficulty could be set at 20: a 52.8% chance of success with Char 10 and no skill levels.

Some may dislike the rather uneven distribution of d6xd6 (it has gaps, bumps and dips). A solution would be to add a third d6 after multiplying; i.e., roll d6xd6 + d6 (with the last die distinguished by being a different size or color). This will remove all gaps and smoothen the bumps and dips, but I don't think the extra smoothness is worth the hassle of adding an extra die - especially since the median (13.5) will be a less nice number.
___________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen