General Rules Issues

[Susano]

Two die rolling suggestions --

1) "Take an 11" or something like that. Basically making it clear characters can "take an 11" and perform and action and achieve a desired result without risk of failure. This should be an out-of-combat declaration and take the minimum time for the skill (at least). In other words, if you make dinner and "take and 11" you spend at least an hour and prepare an adequate meal.

2) "Dude, he's frickin' Tarzan!" -- taken from a quote by Darren Watts, this encourages GMs to not require die rolls when the PC is about to do something cool, dramatic, and/or in his realm of expertise. The example is from a sequence where Tarzan leaps out a window and runs to Central Park along roof edges, telephone lines, and railings. If asked if the player to roll to see if Tarzan pulls this off, Darren replied with the opening quote (edited for public consumption). We use this "rule" when PCs are about to do something that lets them shine -- if the brick wants to bend/break something, the quick person wants to do something agile, and so on. Once again, this is out of combat stunts or ones that won't directly affect the action. In the previous example, having Tarzan slip and fall wouldn't advance the plot, so why make him roll? OTOH, if he wants to run across a rope across a chasm and avoid guys with guns -- then roll!

[Mojo_Bones]

My read on the "always" part was that it meant that when you attacked all of the powers being used in the attack had to go off at the same time. Rather than that any Powers ever used at the same time must always be used at the same time. After all Linked already existed as a Limitation, so if they'd meant that Powers had to be Linked to be used at the same time I would've thought they'd have just said that.
Yes linked existed as a limitation, but if I remember correctly, there were other things that went along with the linked limitation (been about 20 years since I made a 1st ed character so my memory may be faulty). The linked power had to have a lower cost, didn't it? So if I wanted two 1 1/2d6 killing attacks linked, that didn't work. With the MPA case it would. I could have a claw, claw, rend attack with MPA, but I don't think you could do that with the original "linked" limitation. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I always thought.

[archermoo]

Yes linked existed as a limitation, but if I remember correctly, there were other things that went along with the linked limitation (been about 20 years since I made a 1st ed character so my memory may be faulty). The linked power had to have a lower cost, didn't it? So if I wanted two 1 1/2d6 killing attacks linked, that didn't work. With the MPA case it would. I could have a claw, claw, rend attack with MPA, but I don't think you could do that with the original "linked" limitation. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I always thought.

I'm pretty sure that You just took Linked on the lowest Active Point Power(s). If you had two Powers Linked that were the same point cost I'd certainly allow one of them to take the Linked Limitation.

[SteveZilla]

However, the current skill roll mechanic is as easy as kiss my hand. I think we can live with it. Changing it to roll over would be more consistent, but it would result in "buying down" your skill rolls instead of buying them up, which I suspect would lead to more head-scratching than the current OCV mechanic, or even the inconsistency of having it function differently than to-hit rolls. Also, it creates practical problems in terms of die rolls and skill levels.

Changing to a Roll High system doesn't automatically mean that skill values get lower as one gets better. Look at D&D's combat. That system is Roll high for combat and skills, yet you don't see the Base Attack Bonus or skill values decreasing as one improves.

It just becomes Roll + (STAT / 5) + Skill Levels +/- Modifiers >= 12 (or Roll >= 13 for a Familiarity). Essentially, the STAT/5 contribution, skill levels, additional bonuses bought with the Skill, and any other modifiers (like rushing or being in a bad situation) become modifiers to the Roll, the end result of which has to be greater than or equal 12.

So, for a 23 DEX Thief using their Lockpicking they have spent 5 points on (3 + 2), and using an Overall Skill Level to pick an extremely difficult lock (-5 penalty -- see 5er p45) has a net modifier to their roll of (DEX/5) + 1 +1 -5 = +2. So if they Roll a 10 or more, with that plus 2 they succeed by beating/tying the 12!

On the issue of the Knockback Dice being still "Roll Low is Good". There is an easy way to flip them. Let the person receiving the knockback roll. Now all of a sudden, High numbers are good. ;)

[CTaylor]

Not linked through the actual limitation, but they have to always go off together. Has this changed in some way?

That reads "linked by the limitation" to most people, and that's what was presumed by most players and GMs that I know of. The new edition basically stated that each phase you could launch "any number of attack powers can be fired off at the same time if you have the END"

[James Gillen]

Two die rolling suggestions --

1) "Take an 11" or something like that. Basically making it clear characters can "take an 11" and perform and action and achieve a desired result without risk of failure. This should be an out-of-combat declaration and take the minimum time for the skill (at least). In other words, if you make dinner and "take and 11" you spend at least an hour and prepare an adequate meal.

2) "Dude, he's frickin' Tarzan!" -- taken from a quote by Darren Watts, this encourages GMs to not require die rolls when the PC is about to do something cool, dramatic, and/or in his realm of expertise. The example is from a sequence where Tarzan leaps out a window and runs to Central Park along roof edges, telephone lines, and railings. If asked if the player to roll to see if Tarzan pulls this off, Darren replied with the opening quote (edited for public consumption). We use this "rule" when PCs are about to do something that lets them shine -- if the brick wants to bend/break something, the quick person wants to do something agile, and so on. Once again, this is out of combat stunts or ones that won't directly affect the action. In the previous example, having Tarzan slip and fall wouldn't advance the plot, so why make him roll? OTOH, if he wants to run across a rope across a chasm and avoid guys with guns -- then roll!

"What are you, retarded or something? Don't you know who I AM? I'm the Goddamn Batman."

[Susano]

"What are you, retarded or something? Don't you know who I AM? I'm the Goddamn Batman."

I like my SFX better. :p

[casualplayer]

Two die rolling suggestions --

1) "Take an 11" or something like that. Basically making it clear characters can "take an 11" and perform and action and achieve a desired result without risk of failure. This should be an out-of-combat declaration and take the minimum time for the skill (at least). In other words, if you make dinner and "take and 11" you spend at least an hour and prepare an adequate meal.

2) "Dude, he's frickin' Tarzan!" -- taken from a quote by Darren Watts, this encourages GMs to not require die rolls when the PC is about to do something cool, dramatic, and/or in his realm of expertise. The example is from a sequence where Tarzan leaps out a window and runs to Central Park along roof edges, telephone lines, and railings. If asked if the player to roll to see if Tarzan pulls this off, Darren replied with the opening quote (edited for public consumption). We use this "rule" when PCs are about to do something that lets them shine -- if the brick wants to bend/break something, the quick person wants to do something agile, and so on. Once again, this is out of combat stunts or ones that won't directly affect the action. In the previous example, having Tarzan slip and fall wouldn't advance the plot, so why make him roll? OTOH, if he wants to run across a rope across a chasm and avoid guys with guns -- then roll!

Ah, the "Broad Side of Barn" house rule, also known as "+3." If you are advantaged to complete the task where you would have to roll 14- (+3,) then just assume you did it and keep the game moving.

[casualplayer]

So you could have MPAs but they need to be "linked" to each other according to the (almost)original rules. Not linked through the actual limitation, but they have to always go off together. Has this changed in some way?

Well, boy, did the original designers ever screw the pooch by reusing terminology. I thought linked meant Linked in that quote from Champions III.

If you could always just blaze away with MPAs, how did anyone ever survive meeting Dr. Destroyer? What, is he stingy with END use?

[archermoo]

Well, boy, did the original designers ever screw the pooch by reusing terminology. I thought linked meant Linked in that quote from Champions III.

If you could always just blaze away with MPAs, how did anyone ever survive meeting Dr. Destroyer? What, is he stingy with END use?

Except that they didn't use the term linked in the quote. They said you can use as many powers in an attack as you want, and noted that they always had to go off together. I always took that to mean you can't for instance use an ED Drain and an EB together and have the Drain work first.

[casualplayer]

Except that they didn't use the term linked in the quote. They said you can use as many powers in an attack as you want, and noted that they always had to go off together. I always took that to mean you can't for instance use an ED Drain and an EB together and have the Drain work first.

Mojo Bones provided the rules text and it was some seriously sloppy rules construction. Without getting any further into the Great Linked Debate, 6th should avoid rulesslop like that above all else. Hardly seems necessary to mention though because, if anything, Steve errs on the other side. Takes a lawyer to fight rules lawyers!

[archermoo]

Mojo Bones provided the rules text and it was some seriously sloppy rules construction. Without getting any further into the Great Linked Debate, 6th should avoid rulesslop like that above all else. Hardly seems necessary to mention though because, if anything, Steve errs on the other side. Takes a lawyer to fight rules lawyers!

I wasn't saying it couldn't have been written better. I just pointed out that they didn't use the word "linked" as you claimed.

[pinecone]

Two die rolling suggestions --

1) "Take an 11" or something like that. Basically making it clear characters can "take an 11" and perform and action and achieve a desired result without risk of failure. This should be an out-of-combat declaration and take the minimum time for the skill (at least). In other words, if you make dinner and "take and 11" you spend at least an hour and prepare an adequate meal.

2) "Dude, he's frickin' Tarzan!" -- taken from a quote by Darren Watts, this encourages GMs to not require die rolls when the PC is about to do something cool, dramatic, and/or in his realm of expertise. The example is from a sequence where Tarzan leaps out a window and runs to Central Park along roof edges, telephone lines, and railings. If asked if the player to roll to see if Tarzan pulls this off, Darren replied with the opening quote (edited for public consumption). We use this "rule" when PCs are about to do something that lets them shine -- if the brick wants to bend/break something, the quick person wants to do something agile, and so on. Once again, this is out of combat stunts or ones that won't directly affect the action. In the previous example, having Tarzan slip and fall wouldn't advance the plot, so why make him roll? OTOH, if he wants to run across a rope across a chasm and avoid guys with guns -- then roll!

Yeah, I already do this...I call'em "Heroic actions" they just work, 'cause you are a Hero.

The only dude who have to roll are ones with Unluck, because failing a normal task is part of their "shtick"....most everyone rolls in combat, but if you try to catch a falling civilian, and soften their fall with your body, you don't roll.....(if you have unluck, the "civilian" turns out to be evil or something maybe...)......um...so clearly I agree....:)

[Klaus Mogensen]

2d6+d20
I've been thinking more about how to increase the granularity of skill and combat rolls, which Steve mentions as a thing he'd like to see if it can be done simply. What I've come up with is to roll 2d6+d20. The distribution (see graph below) is rather similar to 2d6+d6x3, which I've suggested earlier (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1554971&postcount=410), but I think the simplicity and familiarity of simply rolling and adding three dice is worth breaking with the d6 purity. 2d6+d20 is also nice in other respects, as I will show.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27116&stc=1&d=1205167962

2d6+d20 has a range from 3 to 32 with a mean of 17.5 and a spread of 6.25. One-third of the values (and half the rolls) are on the 'plateau' from 13 to 22, with an exact 5% chance of getting each of these values. It's sort of like taking the middle half of a normal d20 and appending gauss-like 'wings' to either end.

3d6 has a spread of 2.96, so this has slighly more than twice the spread (or granularity). This fits reasonably well with skill and combat bonuses that increase as CHAR/2 (averaging skill and combat bonuses into a single bonus).

As a side note, if we were instead to roll (d6-d6)+d20, the mean would be 10.5, same as for 3d6. This would be nice, but I fear too complicated.

The resolution system can either be a roll-under system as in older editions or a roll-high system as some seem to favor. I will discuss both.


Roll-under system
The standard 11- roll on 3d6 has a 62.5% chance of success. The closest on 2d6+d20 are 19- (60%) and 20- (65%). I choose the latter for being a nicer number. The combat rules will then be:

Base CV = DEX/2
Attack Roll = 20 + Attacker's OCV - Defender's DCV
Roll this or less on 2d6+d20 to hit

For skills, things are a bit more complex, since CHAR/2 on 2d6+d20 gives a somewhat faster skill probability increase than CHAR/5 on 3d6. Taking a CHAR of 13 as the standard measure (in the middle of the realistic human range from 6 to 20), we get a roll of 12- on 3d6 as a typical base skill. This has a 74.1% chance of success. On 2d6+d20, the closest is 22- (75%). Assuming typical Hero rounding (6.5 rounded to 7), this corresponds to 15 + CHAR/2:

Base Skill Roll: Roll 15 + CHAR/2 or less on 2d6+d20 to succeed

20 and 15 are both very nice numbers, I think.


Roll-high system

The basic rolls above translate directly into these roll-high rules:

Base CV = DEX/2
Attack Roll = 2d6+d20 + Attacker's OCV
Roll DCV + 15 or higher to hit

Base Skill Roll: Roll 20 or more on 2d6+d20 + CHAR/2 to succeed

Again, very nice numbers.


Alternative roll-high system
The two systems above both try to emulate classic Hero probabilities, only with a finer granularity. However, I would like to see something symmetric, where it doesn't really matter who's considered 'attacker' or 'defender' in opposed rolls. While this may be obvious for combat, it is less so e.g. in the case of Encryption (is the encrypter or the code-breaker the attacker?). Hence this suggestion:

Skill/Combat Roll: Roll 2d6+d20 + CHAR/2 + Levels
For opposed actions, roll at least 18 + opponent's CHAR/2 + Levels
Base target value for unopposed rolls = 20

Granted, 18 is a less nice number than 15, but it allows such things as letting players roll for both their attacks and their defenses while the GM only uses fixed numbers for the NPCs. A side effect, however, is that the standard chance to hit in combat is reduced from 62.5% to 50%.


Skill/Combat Levels
There are several wasy of handling skill levels. A simple solution is to buy skill and combat levels with skill points rather than character points in order to retain the familiar costs of 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10 points per level. 1 character point would then buy 3 skill points. I have arrived at this exchange rate in order to make a 5-point level that gives +1 to all INT skills or all PRE skills slightly cheaper than buying +2 in one of these characteristics (which will also give +2 in all skills as well as other things).

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[SteveZilla]

Much earlier upthread, I proposed an alternative to the current dice roll mechanic. I put it in a single-page Excel spreadsheet which I zipped and attached to my post.

I never got any feedback on my proposal. Did anybody have trouble opening the spreadsheet? Should I repost so that all the info is in the body of the post?

[GamePhil]

Related to getting a better explanation of "having to buy everything" in Superheroic games, I would like to see the distinction between Heroic and Superheroic games eased.

Instead of buying everything in Superhero games but getting free equipment in Heroic, just have a generic idea of what you have to buy in all types of games (something like, you must buy everything that is not readily available to all Characters with points). Really, pretty much the way it is now, just changed in presentation.

Have NCM as a possible 0 point Disadvantage in general rather than associating it with all Heroic games. Some games that are Heroic otherwise have the occasional high-Characteristic character, and while that can be done now, this could help encourage it.

And so on. The difference becomes based on the point levels involved and what options you choose, rather than establishing fixed differences between only two types of setting.

[Kagetatsu]

On dice rolls...

I'd stick with 3d6 and roll low, as it's a proven system. But if market research shows that "roll low" is a major entry barrier, it won't kill me to adjust. If you do go that way, may I suggest that Hero Designer should be set up to provide numbers for both systems.

There's one very simple thing you could change (without really changing anything), and that's the definition of OCV. Let's say OCV = 11 + DEX/3, and the to-hit roll is OCV - DCV. That's mathematically identical to the existing system, but simplifies the calculation.

On hexes...

Don't switch to Imperial. It's a ridiculous system.

I like hexes, because I use figures (Heroclix, usually). I don't recommend one metre hexes, because to be useful, the hex needs to be big enough to accommodate a figure, and from experience I know that I can get a worthwhile combat arena onto a tabletop using 2 metre hexes. Go to one metre, and you've got only 1/4 as much ground area on a map the same size.

[Hugh Neilson]

On die rolls, the question comes down to the desired relative impact of skill versus chance.. d20, with its linear scale, has a high relative impact of chance. With a +10 bonus, and needing a roll of 21, you have a 50/50 chance. Enhancing that bonus by 5 (generally meaning gaining 5 levels) leaves a 25% chance of failure at the same task.

3d6, with its much tighter bell curve, has a high relative impact of skill. If you need 10- (a 50% chance) to accomplish a task, that same +5 bonus will reduce your failure chance to under 5%, with a 3 point bonus reducing failure to less than 10%.

It's objective fact that each modifier (ie skill) makes more difference in Hero than in d20. It's subjective preference as to the impact increased skill should have versus random chance.

With this in mind, I would suggest retaining the current default but providing a discussion of options in this regard (ie optional rules which enhance, or even further restrict, the impact of chance vs. skill). On one extreme, skill becomes the only variable if we remove the die roll entirely - it's always a 10. At the other extreme, we could roll d100 (or any larger figure desired) rather than 3d6 to determine success or failure.

[Chris Goodwin]

Since all of the sacred cows are on the block, how about the "dice vs. CHA, CHA+10, CHA+20, CHA+30, etc." rule. It's currently used in PRE attacks and Mental Powers. I'm thinking it could be done as a straight Skill vs. Skill or Skill vs. CHA roll. This could turn PRE Attacks into Skills (Intimidate, which might be an Everyman skill) and Mental Powers into Powers with Skill Roll type constructs (the way, for instance, Danger Sense and Missile Deflection used to be done in 3rd edition).

Mind Scan would turn into a Detect, as might Telepathy and Mind Link; in fact, Telepathy and Mind Link would be reconciled into one Power. Mind Control might be turned into a different Power called Command. Mental Illusions might drop into Images, potentially with a mental component; in fact, it might be possible to buy Images, Single Target, Vs. Ego Instead Of INT, Reduced By Mental Defense instead of Mental Illusions. Extras such as the ability to do STUN and BODY via Mental Illusions would instead be handled through those Powers directly, based on ECV.

Mental Powers Based On CON would simply use CON rolls to resist rather than EGO Rolls.

There might be a "basic Mental Power" called Mental Contact, which might be the basis for one character forcing their way into another's mind.

I haven't worked all of the details out here, but hopefully that doesn't reflect on the concept. Comments are welcome.

[Vondy]

Since all of the sacred cows are on the block, how about the "dice vs. CHA, CHA+10, CHA+20, CHA+30, etc." rule. It's currently used in PRE attacks and Mental Powers. I'm thinking it could be done as a straight Skill vs. Skill or Skill vs. CHA roll. This could turn PRE Attacks into Skills (Intimidate, which might be an Everyman skill) and Mental Powers into Powers with Skill Roll type constructs (the way, for instance, Danger Sense and Missile Deflection used to be done in 3rd edition).

Mind Scan would turn into a Detect, as might Telepathy and Mind Link; in fact, Telepathy and Mind Link would be reconciled into one Power. Mind Control might be turned into a different Power called Command. Mental Illusions might drop into Images, potentially with a mental component; in fact, it might be possible to buy Images, Single Target, Vs. Ego Instead Of INT, Reduced By Mental Defense instead of Mental Illusions. Extras such as the ability to do STUN and BODY via Mental Illusions would instead be handled through those Powers directly, based on ECV.

Mental Powers Based On CON would simply use CON rolls to resist rather than EGO Rolls.

There might be a "basic Mental Power" called Mental Contact, which might be the basis for one character forcing their way into another's mind.

I haven't worked all of the details out here, but hopefully that doesn't reflect on the concept. Comments are welcome.

This is the one mechanic I would really like to see go. Doing telepathy as a sense is pretty easy (and managable with opposed rolls) and I see no reason mind control and mental illusions couldn't be dealt with with opposed rolls of some sort (you might have to construct it as a power with various adders and whatnot, but it would be possible). Last week I started rebuilding the team mentalist this way to see what could be done.

[James Gillen]

Since all of the sacred cows are on the block, how about the "dice vs. CHA, CHA+10, CHA+20, CHA+30, etc." rule. It's currently used in PRE attacks and Mental Powers. I'm thinking it could be done as a straight Skill vs. Skill or Skill vs. CHA roll. This could turn PRE Attacks into Skills (Intimidate, which might be an Everyman skill) and Mental Powers into Powers with Skill Roll type constructs (the way, for instance, Danger Sense and Missile Deflection used to be done in 3rd edition).

Mind Scan would turn into a Detect, as might Telepathy and Mind Link; in fact, Telepathy and Mind Link would be reconciled into one Power. Mind Control might be turned into a different Power called Command. Mental Illusions might drop into Images, potentially with a mental component; in fact, it might be possible to buy Images, Single Target, Vs. Ego Instead Of INT, Reduced By Mental Defense instead of Mental Illusions. Extras such as the ability to do STUN and BODY via Mental Illusions would instead be handled through those Powers directly, based on ECV.

Mental Powers Based On CON would simply use CON rolls to resist rather than EGO Rolls.

There might be a "basic Mental Power" called Mental Contact, which might be the basis for one character forcing their way into another's mind.

I haven't worked all of the details out here, but hopefully that doesn't reflect on the concept. Comments are welcome.

You can do that, as VDM says he has, but by the same token why not just do physical combat as Skill vs. Skill rolls?

JG

[MPT]

I should have mentioned this earlier

Multiple Power attacks should be removed and sent as an optional rule. Linked should become an advantage on a power, of two flavours--a larger advantage if the power can be used separately, a slightly smaller advantage if it can only be used with a power of higher Active points.

I never allowed Multiple Power attacks when I GMed as I was running a Fantasy game and felt that this would be too overwhelming on PCs with their limited defences against such attacks. This seems like a good compromise assuming that 'only be used with a power of higher Active points.' refers to powers in general and not a specific power (since you can combine effects in one power normally).

[Vondy]

You can do that, as VDM says he has, but by the same token why not just do physical combat as Skill vs. Skill rolls?

JG

Ahem. I did this in a fantasy game...

I think the argument against it is speed - it adds a die roll - on the other hand I found that comparing MoS was relatively quick, and that you could just have mooks take "MoS 0" and only roll for named opponents, which sped things along when hordes of ninja started popping out of the woodwork, but also created another issue: do these mooks always get a minimum hit or dodge success (MoS)? The solution (if this is perceived as a problem) is a sheet of pre-rolled mook rolls, though it never proved to be a real problem in terms of "fair play." It also mandates a few changes: you have to tweak the martial arts maneuvers to work with this system (OCV bonuses to your martial arts skill roll, DCV bonuses to your evasion skill roll, and since evasion is assumed as an automatic action dodging needs to be defined as an active action that adds to your evasion roll); and, you have to decide how granular the combat skills are: do you have them mirror the weapon familiarities, or do you have general ones and apply a -3 to weapons they don't have a familiarity for? I found the latter worked pretty well, but was open to a small measure of abuse.

I liked this method a lot, but am so used to the OCV system that I don't typically use it. I have one player who really became a proponent of it, however, and he uses it in all the games he runs.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.”

A thought on this which may appeal to your legal background.

I believe a character sheet is appropriately viewed as a contract between the player and the GM that the points assigned will be reflective of the value of abilities and drawbacks over the course of the campaign. If points are charged for an ability, this indicates it will be useful. The more points charged, the greater the usefulness, based on combined frequency of usefulness and level of usefulness when it does come up. Similarly, the more points granted a disad, the greater the detriments, based on the combination of how frequently it will come up and how much impact it will have when it arises.

EXAMPLE: Tony wants a werewolf, and takes "Vulnerable to Silver". The impact of the vulnerability is set by 1.5x damage or 2x damage. If Tony selects this as "rare" and the GM agrees, the GM has also agreed this won't come up very often. If Tony says "very common" and the GM agrees, there will be much more frequent use of silver against the werewolf. If Tony says "rare" and the GM thinks "very common", then the two need to agree on how often this will come up, and Tony's character gets disad points accordingly.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I believe a character sheet is appropriately viewed as a contract between the player and the GM that the points assigned will be reflective of the value of abilities and drawbacks over the course of the campaign. If points are charged for an ability, this indicates it will be useful. The more points charged, the greater the usefulness, based on combined frequency of usefulness and level of usefulness when it does come up. Similarly, the more points granted a disad, the greater the detriments, based on the combination of how frequently it will come up and how much impact it will have when it arises.

EXAMPLE: Tony wants a werewolf, and takes "Vulnerable to Silver". The impact of the vulnerability is set by 1.5x damage or 2x damage. If Tony selects this as "rare" and the GM agrees, the GM has also agreed this won't come up very often. If Tony says "very common" and the GM agrees, there will be much more frequent use of silver against the werewolf. If Tony says "rare" and the GM thinks "very common", then the two need to agree on how often this will come up, and Tony's character gets disad points accordingly.
I have increasingly come to favor systems where you don't get points for Disads and such up front, but only when they come into play (perhaps as 'hero points' rather than character points, as in e.g. M&M). Then you don't have to bother with defining frequency too precisely.

A similar take could be taken on uncommonly used skills. They could become a kind of perk or talent that doesn't cost points up front, but instead you pay hero points when you want to use them. You might even have things that are perks and disadvantages at once, e.g. a Contact that you pay hero points to use for favors, but get hero points whenever they demand favors in return.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[nexus]

Another idea for Hero Points: Quirks.

Quirks would inhabit a middle ground between Disadvantages and Perks/Talents. In a situation where a quirk could applicable as a benefit, the player could put a Hero point and get a reasonable but temporary situational bonus.

In a situation where the quirk was a drawback they could get a Hero point if there are willing to accept a reasonable situational penalty.

Ex: A character has a Quirk: Refined British accent and it trying to charm some information out of a suspect NPC. The player could spend a Hero Point and suggest “She really finds British accents charming” and get a good bonus on their Persuasion or Conversation roll.

Or alternatively,” the gm could offer a Hero point with the suggestion “She finds the British annoying and stuck up.”

Neither has to be accepted but it offers some narrative control, similar to Aspects in Spirit of the Century.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Another idea for Hero Points: Quirks.

Quirks would inhabit a middle ground between Disadvantages and Perks/Talents. In a situation where a quirk could applicable as a benefit, the player could put a Hero point and get a reasonable but temporary situational bonus.

In a situation where the quirk was a drawback they could get a Hero point if there are willing to accept a reasonable situational penalty.

Ex: A character has a Quirk: Refined British accent and it trying to charm some information out of a suspect NPC. The player could spend a Hero Point and suggest “She really finds British accents charming” and get a good bonus on their Persuasion or Conversation roll.

Or alternatively,” the gm could offer a Hero point with the suggestion “She finds the British annoying and stuck up.”

Neither has to be accepted but it offers some narrative control, similar to Aspects in Spirit of the Century.

I have argued for something similar. It would be an extension of what M&M2 calls Complications (which can't work as advantages).

Many current Disadvantages could fall into the Quirk category. I think any Disadvantage that is more a story hook than a disability should be such a Quirk: Secret Identity, Dependent, Hunted, Accidental Change, etc. While these may put the character in a tight spot, they also mean that the character comes into focus in the scenario, which is an advantage to the player. This will also mean that there need be no pre-evaluation of how often such a disadvantage comes into play: the character simply gets rewarded when it happens.

A lot of Perks could also fall into this category: In general, you would pay a hero point to use e.g. a Contact or Police Powers, but sometimes the contact or police authority would require some kind of service, which would give the character a hero point.

At any rate, I think this discussion belongs more in the Disadvantages and/or Perks/Talents thread.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[nexus]

Personally, I think disadvantages work fine as they are. Quirks was suggested as an addition.

[Vondy]

Another idea for Hero Points: Quirks.



Having thought on it, and considered the idea of "pointless" ( :help: ) complications (I've already snagged that term) that provide her points if they hinder the character, or can theoretically be used as an advantage if the character expends a hero point, I think quirks could just be defined as a low intensity complication (disad). At the same time, what your proposing works within the context of the current system failry well.

[BobGreenwade]

Here's a point that's been brought up in a couple of other threads, but probably should be mentioned here so it's as early as possible in the redesign process. I think I was the first to bring it up, but others have echoed the sentiment and few if any posters have contradicted it.

If the system is changed too much, it will cease to the the Hero System we all know and love.

The result of the radical, wholesale changes might still be a good game. It might be an excellent game. One might even go so far as to say it's a better game system than Hero (at least, it's not inconceivable). But if it wanders too far from what's already established over the past 25+ years, it won't truly be the Hero System. It may be called the Hero System 6th Edition, but it will actually be something else.

Just thought I'd chime in with that point. :)

[eavatar]

Here's a point that's been brought up in a couple of other threads, but probably should be mentioned here so it's as early as possible in the redesign process. I think I was the first to bring it up, but others have echoed the sentiment and few if any posters have contradicted it.

If the system is changed too much, it will cease to the the Hero System we all know and love.

The result of the radical, wholesale changes might still be a good game. It might be an excellent game. One might even go so far as to say it's a better game system than Hero (at least, it's not inconceivable). But if it wanders too far from what's already established over the past 25+ years, it won't truly be the Hero System. It may be called the Hero System 6th Edition, but it will actually be something else.

Just thought I'd chime in with that point. :)

Seconded... and I am defender of "If it isn't broken don't fix" Add some few new things is ok, but change a lot... Please, no. Please people don't tryu make Hero sounds something differen than Hero. Do we need Spirit of Century Mechanics? NO,SoC works for SoC don't work for a Super Hero game or any other other genre! Do we need Gurps elements? NO, Hero and Gurps already are quite close! Do we need M&M elements? NO, Hero is Hero and M&M is M&M, the system has a solid core and change this core to add M&M elements is too much!

[casualplayer]

Here's a point that's been brought up in a couple of other threads, but probably should be mentioned here so it's as early as possible in the redesign process. I think I was the first to bring it up, but others have echoed the sentiment and few if any posters have contradicted it.

If the system is changed too much, it will cease to the the Hero System we all know and love.

The result of the radical, wholesale changes might still be a good game. It might be an excellent game. One might even go so far as to say it's a better game system than Hero (at least, it's not inconceivable). But if it wanders too far from what's already established over the past 25+ years, it won't truly be the Hero System. It may be called the Hero System 6th Edition, but it will actually be something else.

Just thought I'd chime in with that point. :)

Whereas I'm wholeheartedly in favor of refining the game to first principles (SPD Chart, point-based character construction, threshhold defenses, 5 pts gets you 1d6 of ouch-inflicting) and rebuilding from there. There are so many features added on that Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time that grate and rub and degrade the efficiency and diminish the core beauty of the system that I think we would be happier if we rebuilt rather than remodel. And if all that happens is the carpets get shampooed and the walls painted, I will decline to buy.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Whereas I'm wholeheartedly in favor of refining the game to first principles (SPD Chart, point-based character construction, threshhold defenses, 5 pts gets you 1d6 of ouch-inflicting) and rebuilding from there. There are so many features added on that Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time that grate and rub and degrade the efficiency and diminish the core beauty of the system that I think we would be happier if we rebuilt rather than remodel. And if all that happens is the carpets get shampooed and the walls painted, I will decline to buy.

I'm in this camp more than in the "let everything alone" camp. However, I favor an approach where things only get changed if there are very good reasons to do so. I think there's a lot of room for changes without the system "ceasing to be Hero", and I, for one, would rather have a great game that is 80% what Hero is now than a merely good game that is 98% what Hero is now.

I've read arguments like "we should not include elements from M&M, because that's M&M, not Hero". Well, I think that a good idea is a good idea no matter where it originates, and M&M has 'stolen' so many elements from Hero that I think it is only fair to steal a few back. I don't fear that Hero will be too M&M-like; I doubt that's something that even the most radical proponents of changes want.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[nexus]

Whereas I'm wholeheartedly in favor of refining the game to first principles (SPD Chart, point-based character construction, threshhold defenses, 5 pts gets you 1d6 of ouch-inflicting) and rebuilding from there. There are so many features added on that Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time that grate and rub and degrade the efficiency and diminish the core beauty of the system that I think we would be happier if we rebuilt rather than remodel. And if all that happens is the carpets get shampooed and the walls painted, I will decline to buy.

And if the house gets torn down to the foundation and built again I'll be very disinclined to be buy in. Some refinement and polishing is fine but completely restructuring and thus largely invalidating everything that came so I'd have to start off at the ground floor again doesn't thrill me. There simply isn't that much I find "objectively" wrong with the system as it stands. If I'd wanted essentially a new system there's plenty out there for me to choose from. If I wanted M and M, SoTC, Storyteller, GURPs etc, I would have gotten into them a long time ago.

There is a middle ground between nothing changes but editorial mistakes and "Hero In Name Only" but there that happy medium lies is probably different for everyone so I'll wait and see.

I'll allow for the possibility that some heavily revised variant will blow me away so utterly I'll be willing to sink hundreds of dollars and hours of work into converting everything over to it but from where I stand now I don't see that happening. It would be easier for me to stick with 5th.

Of course I don't speak for everyone but I don't think I'm alone either.

[archermoo]

And if the house gets torn down to the foundation and built again I'll be very disinclined to be buy in. Some refinement and polishing is fine but completely restructuring and thus largely invalidating everything that came so I'd have to start off at the ground floor again doesn't thrill me. There simply isn't that much I find "objectively" wrong with the system as it stands. If I'd wanted essentially a new system there's plenty out there for me to choose from. If I wanted M and M, SoTC, Storyteller, GURPs etc, I would have gotten into them a long time ago.

There is a middle ground between nothing changes but editorial mistakes and "Hero In Name Only" but there that happy medium lies is probably different for everyone so I'll wait and see.

I'll allow for the possibility that some heavily revised variant will blow me away so utterly I'll be willing to sink hundreds of dollars and hours of work into converting everything over to it but from where I stand now I don't see that happening. It would be easier for me to stick with 5th.

Of course I don't speak for everyone but I don't think I'm alone either.

Which is the fine line that DoJ has to walk. They have to make it different and better enough to make people want to buy it, while not changing it so much that it isn't still HERO. I don't envy them the task, but I do look forward to the results. In part because overall the changes that Steve lists that he is likely to implement are pretty much all ones that I either like or am willing to live with. And in part because I trust Steve and Darren and the rest of DoJ.

[nexus]

Which is the fine line that DoJ has to walk. They have to make it different and better enough to make people want to buy it, while not changing it so much that it isn't still HERO. I don't envy them the task, but I do look forward to the results.


I started a thread with a similar idea. It's a rough job.


In part because overall the changes that Steve lists that he is likely to implement are pretty much all ones that I either like or am willing to live with. And in part because I trust Steve and Darren and the rest of DoJ.

While I can't say the same thing. Many of the proposed changed I do not like and I've disagreed with several of Steven Long's rulings and choices for 5th. I'm not saying anything for certain just yet but I'm looking at 6th with a great deal of trepidation.

[philhall]

Convert everything to metric, if for no other reason than consistency. Thus, my opinion is ditch the 1" hex -- or at the very least convert to 2.54cm.

[archermoo]

While I can't say the same thing. Many of the proposed changed I do not like and I've disagreed with several of Steven Long's rulings and choices for 5th. I'm not saying anything for certain just yet but I'm looking at 6th with a great deal of trepidation.

Understandable.

Personally I wish people (not you necessarily, just a general observation) would pay a bit more attention to what Steve has to say about the possible changes he has posted. Quite a number of them are ones that he says he isn't planning on making. But yet at least some people seem to be treating them all as things that are either going to happen or are guiding principles Steve is using.

As an example, Steve mentions the idea of every point in Characteristics being "worth it". In the end of his posting of his views on the topic he reject the idea, but yet a number of people seem to be assuming that is the driving force behind the changes in 6e.

[nexus]

As an example, Steve mentions the idea of every point in Characteristics being "worth it". In the end of his posting of his views on the topic he reject the idea, but yet a number of people seem to be assuming that is the driving force behind the changes in 6e.

Somewhat unrelated to what your saying, but that's another thing putting me off 6th. Some of the things I'd like to see addressed have been more or less dismissed.

[SCUBA Hero]

Consider removing restrictions on MPAs, such as not (as a default) allowing two HKAs, but then making it the standard for animals to be allowed to do so. If points are paid, why the restriction? Also the restriction of not allowing multiple slots in a MP or EC for a MPA.

[bushido11]

A 6th Edition of HERO and everything is up for change...interesting.

Before I go into what I would like to see changed, I'd like to take a little time about my experiences and opinions of HERO. It's a very solid system, one of the most solid systems out there. However, I have been unable to find a group willing to play HERO. I've had far more luck with Mutants & Masterminds 2nd Edition, which lets me do pretty much everything I wanted to do with a familiar ruleset. With that said, here are some of the main things I'd like to see changed.

-Roll high. It's time to get with the program. Rolling low is a fading paradigm in dice rolling which leads to lots of convulsive rules (see GURPS on rolling scores above 20, under 6, vast difference in scores, etc.) 3d6 + modifiers. You still get to keep the bell curve. With a roll high system, you can either have different target numbers for task difficulty or have a universal target number (like 11, for example) and have everything else as a modifier, including task difficulty.
-Comliness. Get rid of it as a primary stat and change that into a skill modifier or a talent or something.
-Calculating damage. Takes way too long and/or is too convulted. Attacks to a base amount of damage, modified by degree of success of the attack roll. You determine a successful hit and damage in one roll. Every 4 STUN you take deals 1 BODY as well. You can still have the STUN multiplier if you want.
-Change the unit of measurement from hexes to feet or meters.
-Get rid of Elemental Controls and expand the Multipower rules to handle Elemental Controls. As for VPPs, simply them as follows: the more versatile the effect, the more cost per points, like M&M's Variable Power or GURPS's Modular Abilities.
-Have some sort of Hero Point rule or Conviction, even if it's just optional.

More than rule changes, I think the layout could use a change to be more user-friendly for newbies. Include lots of templates, like BESM 3rd edition did. I was really impressed with Sidekick as it trimmed a lot of the fat that the regular rulebook has.

[steamteck]

"get with the program' rolling high leads to it own problems. 3d6 plus modifier just doesn't cut it in so many ways. Normally I'd just let this pass but the assumption of superiority just gets my goat. basically I pretty much disagree with everything you said

[Vondy]

"get with the program' rolling high leads to it own problems. 3d6 plus modifier just doesn't cut it in so many ways. Normally I'd just let this pass but the assumption of superiority just gets my goat. basically I pretty much disagree with everything you said

This whole discussion got me to pull out my "mad scientist" hat. With much less work than I thought necessary I have converted the entire system to a single 3d6 roll under mechanic and 2 MoS charts (1 for damage, one for presence attacks and mental powers) that fit in 1/2 of one column of a sheet of standard letter-size paper. The charts are simple and I think most people would have them memorized inside of a session or two. And, the charts don't change much in terms of actual mechanics, they just define how much damage per die and what level of effect is achieved based on MoS instead of a traditional die roll. In fact, it could be reduced to 1 chart (and might be better that way).


Mwahahahahahaha!!!! :help:

[bushido11]

Honestly, other than making a buck by lining up a new product with the Champions MMO, what's the point of coming out with a 6th edition of HERO? Many people who play HERO and use it as their main system of choice, such as steamteck, like it the way that it is (or at least dislike my proposed changes). And then people jump on Wizards of the Coast for coming out with D&D 3.5 just for a buck? :thumbdown

Even if the rules don't change, at least change the format of the book. That book is too massive, and it doesn't even have rules to come up with your own martial arts styles.

To me, what makes HERO what it is is its ruleset. Change that, and it's not really HERO anymore. Why sell out? The book can be 2000 pages long, and there will still be loads of questions on the forums of "how does this work" or "how can I make such-and-such power." Granted, that happens with any RPG, but the game is one of the most fleshed out and systems out there.

[ajackson]

"get with the program' rolling high leads to it own problems. 3d6 plus modifier just doesn't cut it in so many ways.
Both reactions are excessive. You can't do anything with 3d6+modifier that you can't do with 3d6 roll under, and vice versa. 3d6+Skill vs TN 21+Difficulty is statistically identical to 3d6 vs Skill-Difficulty. I believe that 3d6+Modifier is slightly superior, but my reasons have to do with slightly smoother gameplay, not any difference in range of outcomes.

[Opal]

The only difference I've noticed with roll-high target number systems is that target numbers tend to get inflated. Asside from that, 3d6+modifires, with a generic target of 10 (12 for stat rolls where you get +1/5 in the stat) would be mathematically identical, with it's generic 11- and stat rolls of 9+stat/5. FWIW.

[steamteck]

This whole discussion got me to pull out my "mad scientist" hat. With much less work than I thought necessary I have converted the entire system to a single 3d6 roll under mechanic and 2 MoS charts (1 for damage, one for presence attacks and mental powers) that fit in 1/2 of one column of a sheet of standard letter-size paper. The charts are simple and I think most people would have them memorized inside of a session or two. And, the charts don't change much in terms of actual mechanics, they just define how much damage per die and what level of effect is achieved based on MoS instead of a traditional die roll. In fact, it could be reduced to 1 chart (and might be better that way).


Mwahahahahahaha!!!! :help:

I saw you mentioning that over on the "enhanced senses" thread. Sounds like it shows promise. Like to see them.

[IndianaJoe3]

Honestly, other than making a buck by lining up a new product with the Champions MMO, what's the point of coming out with a 6th edition of HERO? Many people who play HERO and use it as their main system of choice, such as steamteck, like it the way that it is (or at least dislike my proposed changes). And then people jump on Wizards of the Coast for coming out with D&D 3.5 just for a buck? :thumbdown
I'll be blunt - Hero still has plenty of warts. It doesn't handle large objects well. Mental powers and PRE attacks use a different resolution system than other attacks. There's no good way to create objects. Shapeshifting can be really expensive for a cosmetic effect. There's math involved :eek: (although I don't have a problem with that). I could go on and on, but that's what this discussion is about - finding the warts and figuring out what (if anything) to do about them.

[tinman]

-Calculating damage. Takes way too long and/or is too convulted. Attacks to a base amount of damage, modified by degree of success of the attack roll. You determine a successful hit and damage in one roll. Every 4 STUN you take deals 1 BODY as well. You can still have the STUN multiplier if you want.

This is an interesting idea, but wouldn't it unbalance attacks centered on a target hex?

[Klaus Mogensen]

This is an interesting idea, but wouldn't it unbalance attacks centered on a target hex?
I guess that could be handled the opposite way: area attacks do a base damage that can be reduced according to how well you make your DEX Roll.

[CTaylor]

The whole "roll high" argument seems to be based on "that's what the other kids are doing" and I don't see that as particularly compelling.

[steamteck]

The whole "roll high" argument seems to be based on "that's what the other kids are doing" and I don't see that as particularly compelling.


Agree completely. if anything every time someone brings up that particular argument it makes me like the idea less.

[ajackson]

The whole "roll high" argument seems to be based on "that's what the other kids are doing" and I don't see that as particularly compelling.
In other words, you haven't actually been reading the arguments.

The argument for 'roll high' is that it's marginally simpler than 'roll under' for any difficulty where margin of success matters, and it's significantly simpler than the current OCV vs DCV system. That's also the reason other systems have migrated to 'roll high'.

[Tonio]

The whole "roll high" argument seems to be based on "that's what the other kids are doing" and I don't see that as particularly compelling.

Well, that wouldn't be a compelling argument, I agree... but bear in mind there might be a reason why the other kids are doing it. Also bear in mind that doing it because "that's what the other kids AREN'T doing" is also not very compelling (not that I'm implying that's your argument!).

Additionally, I don't think that's what the argument for "high roll" is really based on. At least not my argument, which I don't often express because it's really not a big deal for me. I'd prefer a "roll high" system, and I think it'd be overall better, but I have no problems dealing with a "roll low, sometimes... roll high, other times" system, as long as it's consistent.

[Opal]

The roll high thing comes down to 'subtraction is harder than addition' and "it's counter-intuitive for low to be good."

I can't argue with the later, we're still not really living in a smaller-is-better world. ;)

But the former seems pretty minor to me. Subtraction should not be a major stumbling block, even for younger players (and, really, a 'younger' Hero player is probably 28).

The one issue I have with it is that I've played a lot of D&D since 3E came out (with a strictly 'roll high' resolution system), and the only thing I've really noticed about it is target inflation. With no theoretical upper limit on target numbers, the impulse to scrounge up bonuses is strong, and the DM is always free to increase target numbers arbitrarily high if he feels like it.

In Hero, the roll low system gives a psychological break point at 18- and GMs must assign penalties. Somehow, a -10 penalty just seems more extreme than a 20 target number.

[ajackson]

But the former seems pretty minor to me. Subtraction should not be a major stumbling block, even for younger players
It's not a major stumbling block. The thing is, even very minor rough spots do affect people, so if they can be removed at a reasonable cost, it's worth doing so.

[CTaylor]

Golf must be an insurmountable obstacle for some people.

[Tonio]

Golf must be an insurmountable obstacle for some people.

Actually, I've seen that most people stumble significantly when learning about golf because of the "low score is good" concept. It's not because they can't handle the math properly, and not because they can't understand that a low score is better, or what the score actually represents, but because they're so used to higher scores being better. We don't consciously think about everything that goes on. We rely on reactions and attitudes learned from past experience. If you've been stung by bees a lot, you avoid them, not because you see the bee, measure the distance between it and you, approximate its flight speed, calculate the odds it'll come towards you, calculate the odds that if it gets to you, it'll sting you, remember how much it hurt all those times you've been stung, and based on all that information decide to avoid the bee. You avoid them because you've formed a "trigger" that goes "bee? avoid!". I believe most people have formed similar attitudes towards scores in games (and probably to a lesser degree, to rolls in dice, certainly depending on their background), that go "high? good! low? bad.".

And nope, I can't cite any studies. Hehe! =)

[Opal]

Golf must be an insurmountable obstacle for some people.If it wasn't for having to hit this *@&#%! white ball, this game would be a walk in the park!

[Susano]

If it wasn't for having to hit this *@&#%! white ball, this game would be a walk in the park!

Well, as Bubba Smith said, it's a lot easier to hit a little white quarterback than a little white ball. :D

[BobGreenwade]

Well, as Bubba Smith said, it's a lot easier to hit a little white quarterback than a little white ball. :DWhich, I guess, leads us over to the "DCV Modifiers for Size" debate over in (IIRC) the Combat thread. ;)

[James Gillen]

The whole "roll high" argument seems to be based on "that's what the other kids are doing" and I don't see that as particularly compelling.

The other kids are doing it because it makes intuitive sense.

JG

[Doc Democracy]

Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet - too many posts to trawl through now. I think it belongs in general though obviously has combat implications.

I would appreciate the new edition of the rules providing a good discussion of how to balance characters. I was reminded as Keyes_Bill asked about the Rule of X. Right now there is a small table that has suggested point levels and there is mention of AP caps on abilities but not a huge discussion on this.

I think that this is one of the key tasks of the GM (something that would make a nice series of boxes throughout the rules - Key Tasks of a Hero GM) as it has implications from design all the way through to gameplay and player satisfaction.

DC Heroes did nothing to provide this and I keenly felt the lack, Hero is better but there could be so much more discussion on the variety of ways in which the GM can apply a framework to ensure characters are balanced relative to each other (not much else matters as IME other PCs are the benchmark for players)

Doc

[BobGreenwade]

Okay, I had a thought last night on the roll high/roll low issue that I think makes a whole lot more sense than "intuitive sense" or "what the other games are doing" or "history" or any of the rest.

How the success roll is presented in combat should, essentially, be the simplest thing for the player to figure out. It shouldn't matter whether it "seems" intuitive, or whether any other game is doing it the same way, or whether it's the way we've been doing it either in print or in practice. It should simply be whatever's easiest to present and to grasp, and it should be made to fit the Hero System.

Whatever formula is used should make the opponent's DCV invisible. If the player is the defender, then it should also enable the GM to hide the attacker's OCV.

And the thought I had was to make the attacker need OCV + 3d6, versus the opponent's DCV + 10.

Of all the mathematical functions, addition is the easiest -- that's why it's the first one we learn. So asking a player to add 3d6 to OCV is the easiest way to go.

Yes, that means it becomes a roll-high system, even though I've previously supported it remaining a roll-low system. I'd still rather keep a "roll low for success" system on general principles, but for greatest simplicity the attack-roll system simply works best as OCV + 3d6 > DCV + 10.

I can't really say whether it would be easier or more confusing to leave the Skill system on the existing roll-low system, or convert to a roll-high system for consistency. But if we're trying to target new players and make the system easier, the above formula would, I think be preferred.

[Vondy]

Of all the mathematical functions, addition is the easiest -- that's why it's the first one we learn.

Yes, but to be fruitful, you must multiply.

[CTaylor]

Bob, that's pretty well presented, and it wouldn't result in any fundamental changes in the present game. See, my primary opposition to "roll high" is the concern that this meant changing more than roll mechanics, but changing combat values.

Since my group does (OCV+11) - 3D6=DCV hit, the roll high/roll low argument is not as significant, it would just become OCV-11 +3D6=DCV hit, which is really not much different.

[Opal]

Whatever formula is used should make the opponent's DCV invisible. If the player is the defender, then it should also enable the GM to hide the attacker's OCV.True. I find 'call out the DCV you hit' to be good for that. For a roll-low system, that's take the difference of your roll from 11 and add to or subtract from your OCV. For a roll-high system, that's take the difference of your roll from 10 and subtract from or add to your OCV.

Talk about no difference.

[ajackson]

Since my group does (OCV+11) - 3D6=DCV hit, the roll high/roll low argument is not as significant, it would just become OCV-11 +3D6=DCV hit, which is really not much different.
Actually, OCV-10+3d6. However, it's even simpler to just list DCV on the character sheet with a +10 built in (i.e. a dex 23 character would be listed as: OCV 8, DCV 18). That screws up half DCV, but being at half CV is already odd in a number of cases.

Alternately, one way to increase the range of reasonable combat values, which Steve mentioned as a possible objective, is to have hitting be a quick contest -- you'd be rolling 3d6+OCV vs 3d6+DCV.

[steamteck]

The other kids are doing it because it makes intuitive sense.

JG


Not to me , my accountant wife or my group roll under clicked with us so perfectly the first time we saw it on the fantasy trip we've always used it since ,even with homebrew stuff.. The reason the other kids are doing it is because original D&D started it.

[Tonio]

Not to me , my accountant wife or my group roll under clicked with us so perfectly the first time we saw it on the fantasy trip we've always used it since ,even with homebrew stuff.. The reason the other kids are doing it is because original D&D started it.

I doubt the only reason is because the original D&D started it. I wouldn't even say it's the major reason (although I'm not confident on that, so I won't argue it, either).

Mathematically speaking, roll under and roll over are equivalent. I'm pretty sure everybody agrees on this.

So it's only an issue of perception and intuitiveness (is that a word?). Some people insist roll-under is more intuitive. Others insist roll-ver is more intuitive. Others insist neither is more intuitive. Others insist its intuitiveness (=/) is personal, not inherent or universal.

I believe roll-over is more intuitive, although I don't believe roll-under is too unintuitive that it's difficult to get used to. I'd love to run an experiment: get a bunch of random people, tell them they're playing a new RPG with new rules, tell them they're rolling to hit, and record their reactions to what they rolled, all without telling them the system's roll-high or roll-low. =/

[Opal]

I doubt the only reason is because the original D&D started it. I wouldn't even say it's the major reason (although I'm not confident on that, so I won't argue it, either).D&D did have a profound and far-reaching influence. But, it used both roll-high and roll-under mechanics. Roll high for attacks and saves. Roll under for percentile checks, surprise, inititiative and (later) characteristic rolls and skills.

So it's only an issue of perception and intuitiveness (is that a word?). Yes, it's a word. I also find, IMX, that GMs are more willing to set high target numbers in a roll-high stystem, than to assign mathematically identical penalties in a roll-under system and that, similarly, players are more likely to persue very high bonuses in a roll-high system. 'Roll high' gives a psychological skys-the-limit sort of feel. Roll-under seems not to.

I believe roll-over is more intuitive, although I don't believe roll-under is too unintuitive that it's difficult to get used to. I'd love to run an experiment: get a bunch of random people, tell them they're playing a new RPG with new rules, tell them they're rolling to hit, and record their reactions to what they rolled, all without telling them the system's roll-high or roll-low. =/That would be interesting. My reaction would be to ask about the resolution mechanic before making the roll...

[CTaylor]

I do agree that the "roll high" method can tend to lead to inflation: it's infinite and thus doesn't have a closed sense. That's a genuine concern (particularly in Champions).

However, I have a question: I'm an artist, not a mathematician. How does roll low's 11 become 10 when you roll high? What's the mechanic that causes this shift? If it works, that's a point in favor of the high, because 10 is more intuitive and comfortable for humans than 11. Unless you're a boy, but that's another issue.

[Tonio]

I do agree that the "roll high" method can tend to lead to inflation: it's infinite and thus doesn't have a closed sense. That's a genuine concern (particularly in Champions).

However, I have a question: I'm an artist, not a mathematician. How does roll low's 11 become 10 when you roll high? What's the mechanic that causes this shift? If it works, that's a point in favor of the high, because 10 is more intuitive and comfortable for humans than 11. Unless you're a boy, but that's another issue.

Rolling 11 or less = 9 (3 thru 11) results out of 16 (3 thru 18).
Rolling 10 or more = 9 (10 thru 18) results out of 16 (3 thru 18).

That's sorta like the reason. =)

[BobGreenwade]

Rolling 11 or less = 9 (3 thru 11) results out of 16 (3 thru 18).
Rolling 10 or more = 9 (10 thru 18) results out of 16 (3 thru 18).

That's sorta like the reason. =)No, it's not sorta like the reason. It is the reason. :)

[CTaylor]

How does it work on the curve, is the chance for each result the same?

[The Main Man]

I support Heroic Action Points because they are intuitive to game play and, as they currently are, just as easily removed if not wanted.

Luck could maybe even be turned into a HAP generator, while Unluck suppresses them.

[BobGreenwade]

How does it work on the curve, is the chance for each result the same?You'd have to flip the curve over, since we're going from roll-low to roll-high, but otherwise yes, it's functionally identical.

[CTaylor]

OK I only have one basic problem with the roll high to hit concept: it makes skill rolls the opposite and it's better to be consistent. If you can come up with a way to get skill rolls work to be roll high without messing things up or making significant changes, I'd be willing to consider it, but as it stands, I'm uncomfortable with the concept.

[ajackson]

OK I only have one basic problem with the roll high to hit concept: it makes skill rolls the opposite and it's better to be consistent. If you can come up with a way to get skill rolls work to be roll high without messing things up or making significant changes.
Well, I'd want to cut the skill numbers, probably to something like:
3 points: gain Skill at (Stat/5).

Thus, a skill that's now 11- would be a skill at +2. A normal task (one that would be a straight skill check under the old rules) is TN 12.

This generally puts psychological barriers at 10 (skill) and 20 (TN)

[Opal]

However, I have a question: I'm an artist, not a mathematician. How does roll low's 11 become 10 when you roll high? What's the mechanic that causes this shift? The average of 3d6 is 10.5, that means exactly half the results are 10 or less, and exactly 11 or more. 11- equates to ~62% (half the possible results of 10 or less, plus the single most common result above 10). 10+ gives the identical ~62% chance, the 50% of results of 11 or more, plus the single most common result below 11.

Hero gamers tend to think of 11- as 50/50, but it's not, it's ~62/38. 10- would be 50/50.

[James Gillen]

Not to me , my accountant wife or my group roll under clicked with us so perfectly the first time we saw it on the fantasy trip we've always used it since ,even with homebrew stuff.. The reason the other kids are doing it is because original D&D started it.

No, 3rd Edition D&D did it after flipping the "low AC is GOOD" paradigm.

JG

[Kenn]

How does it work on the curve, is the chance for each result the same?

The mathematical average on 1d6 is 3.5, not 3 and not 4. (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21; 21 / 6 = 3.5.) But obviously, one can never roll a 3.5. But this is why craps/hazard which, uses 2d6, has 7 as the target number.

The mathematical average on 3d6 is actually 10.5 (3.5 * 3). So the traditional 11 or less roll means that slightly more than half the time you'll roll a hit, because slightly more than half the time you'll roll avaerage or less.

In going to a roll high system, to maintain the hitting slightly more than half the time, you need to include everything greater than 10.5 and the one whole number that's slightly less so 10 or better.

[Kenn]

Yes, but to be fruitful, you must multiply.

So how do some snakes reproduce, since they're only adders?


Someone has to cut down some trees and then use the freshly cut logs to build furniture.

Because even adders can multiply using log tables.

[SteveZilla]

I would appreciate the new edition of the rules providing a good discussion of how to balance characters. I was reminded as Keyes_Bill asked about the Rule of X. Right now there is a small table that has suggested point levels and there is mention of AP caps on abilities but not a huge discussion on this.

I think that this is one of the key tasks of the GM (something that would make a nice series of boxes throughout the rules - Key Tasks of a Hero GM) as it has implications from design all the way through to gameplay and player satisfaction.

I agree that this would really help people new to the Hero System -- both players and GMs alike. Character imbalance is IMO one of the top reasons why a game fails.

DC Heroes did nothing to provide this and I keenly felt the lack, Hero is better but there could be so much more discussion on the variety of ways in which the GM can apply a framework to ensure characters are balanced relative to each other (not much else matters as IME other PCs are the benchmark for players)

Well, if all the characters are walking tin-armored howitzers, are they balanced relative to each other? ;)

[ajackson]

Well, if all the characters are walking tin-armored howitzers, are they balanced relative to each other? ;)
A serious offense to defense imbalance doesn't make for the most interesting combats, but I see no reason to think it's actually unbalanced.

[Doc Democracy]

Well, if all the characters are walking tin-armored howitzers, are they balanced relative to each other? ;)

Yup. If they meet someone with a good attack then they will all fall over - no whining about whether Bob is always the one standing and gets all the plaudits coz he's got those high defences that we weren't allowed to have! :)

I leave tactics to the players - if they are all tin-armoured howitzers then I know that my villains can simply be steel plated pistol wielders to be competitive.

That is my concern as a GM - I can modify everything about the villains to accomodate the party strengths and target their weaknesses but want to have something that provides for the players to exercise their creativity within particular bounds.

Those tin-plated howitzers will have to use particular tactics to be effective in some situations but people in my group used to get a kick out of playing D&D with all rogues or all wizards. It plays against the grain but gives you a deliberately different experience.


Doc

[CTaylor]

Character imbalance is only a significant issue if there's no GM there to handle the game. This isn't a MMOG, we don't need balance to make the game fun. We need flexibility to let the GM build anything he wants.

[BobGreenwade]

Character imbalance is only a significant issue if there's no GM there to handle the game. This isn't a MMOG, we don't need balance to make the game fun. We need flexibility to let the GM build anything he wants.This is mostly true... except that character imbalance can be a truly significant issue if it's extreme. The GM can only ameliorate the difference, not take it away altogether. If the characters are imbalanced but only to a mild to moderate degree, the GM can adjust to fit, but it's not like regularly teaming up Superman and Merryman.

[Doc Democracy]

Character imbalance is only a significant issue if there's no GM there to handle the game. This isn't a MMOG, we don't need balance to make the game fun. We need flexibility to let the GM build anything he wants.

A good game system will have guidance to the GM on how to balance things - it should not expect every GM to be, or to have had the guiding hand of, an experienced player of the game and so have ready access to that sort of knowledge.


Doc

[Opal]

Advice on balancing characters would be a good thing to include. I personally found RoX to be inadequate. On the defense side it tended to encourage either heavily armored barns that anyone could hit and no one could hurt, or glass dragonflys that were untouchable but would cumple if anything ever connected. Offense was the opposite, because it took your best OCV and highest damage, having attacks of varying power or levels that might aply to only some hurt you - you wanted to go with one solid attack at a compromise level.

None of it worked well, and it really failed to take into account active defenses, like dodge, missle deflection or going desolid.

Guidelines shouldn't be that stiff. More like:


a character with only one attack can do a little more damage or have a higher OCV than those with several attack choices.
a character with an excessively powerful attack shouldn't have as high a spd or DEX, so he can't whipe out opponents before they get to act.
a charcter dependent on an active defense should have a higher spd
a character with campaign max defenses should have spd in the lower range, since he'll rarely have to dodge, dive for cover, or take recoveries in combat.
a character with levels that can go to OCV or DCV can have higher peak totals in them than one that simply has a high CV from DEX
etc...

[Klaus Mogensen]

This is mostly true... except that character imbalance can be a truly significant issue if it's extreme. The GM can only ameliorate the difference, not take it away altogether. If the characters are imbalanced but only to a mild to moderate degree, the GM can adjust to fit, but it's not like regularly teaming up Superman and Merryman.
Also, I prefer a system to make it hard for players to be abusive, since that cuts down on how often the GM has to be the evil nay-sayer.

[BobGreenwade]

Also, I prefer a system to make it hard for players to be abusive, since that cuts down on how often the GM has to be the evil nay-sayer.As do I -- though, as others have pointed out, it's quite possible for the rulebook to be too heavy-handed, and forbid things that are otherwise logical or potentially desireable by the GM. It's an often difficult balancing act, and I think the ideal is to create an essentially balanced basic structure and give the GM the tools he needs to make the system work for the game he wants to run.

[CTaylor]

The problem with most "here's how to balance characters" rules such as Rule of X is that they're combat-focused. Yes, Batman and Superman are uneven in combat, but Batman is more useful out of combat than Superman and ideally a role playing game is going to be more than beating up an endless array of differently shaped targets.

[ajackson]

The problem with most "here's how to balance characters" rules such as Rule of X is that they're combat-focused.
Valid point, though you've got it slightly backwards. For good balance, PCs should have something useful they can do in any sort of scene. Because combat scenes take longer to resolve than many other scene types, combat balance is an important thing to focus on, but really, it is worth having a discussion of non-combat balance as well. When the JLA go out to investigate some problem, everyone has something to do. It isn't just 'Batman goes out and figures out the problem' -- everyone goes out and does something related to the investigation.

[BobGreenwade]

The problem with most "here's how to balance characters" rules such as Rule of X is that they're combat-focused. Yes, Batman and Superman are uneven in combat, but Batman is more useful out of combat than Superman and ideally a role playing game is going to be more than beating up an endless array of differently shaped targets.To an extent, that's true. That's a big part of why my example earlier was not Superman and Batman, but Superman and Merryman. :)

But the guidelines can also include advice on giving the spotlight to characters not oriented on combat, or who at least aren't quite the combat monsters their colleagues might be. It's an important consideration and shouldn't be glossed over.

And even in Batman-Superman type team-ups, the Batman types can clear a path through the minions (not always an easy task for the ubertanks, whatever one might assume) while the Superman types go in after the big guns.

[dsatow]

I was just thinking (a dangerous thing) that I think the experience system is a little broken due to the low numbers. I don't know how to fix it, but I'd like to just state the problem in my eyes.

Depending on the GM, the amount of experience goes really fast or really slow. I have played under GMs who dole out up to 5 experience in each game session, creating a massive power inflation.

I've been under a GM who gave out 5 exp. after 10 weeks of gaming. leading to effectively stagnating characters.

Personally, I change the amount of XP I give based on how characters are doing rather than set on my GM style. If the PCs are doing poorly against agents, I become more Monty Hall-ish. If the PCs are doing great, the XP goes down to a trickle.

One of the things that bothers me though is that due to amount of XP you are supposed to get for a session, a 1 point bonus is a very big bonus ranging anywhere from 25% to 100% depending on GMs style of play.

Also, say if I have 4 players, assuming the standard XP for a session is
1 - Attending and participating
2 - Concluding a plot line
Then the 4 players are
#1) The good role player get 1 xtra xp for his good role playing
#2) The strategist really helped get the team to work together and defeat the villain. She gets 1 xtra xp here.
#3) Does about average (an ok but not great player) and gets no bonus xp.
#4) While not as good as 1 and 2, does really well also in those categories, to the point of helping move the plot, keeping game flow moving, keeping the people in spirit. I'd give him 2 but that might make people jealous so I give him 1.

After 10 games, this is what I found happens
#1 and #2 stay in line and continue to get their bonus XP. They are now 50% ahead of #3.
#3 may try to work harder but just can't seem to cut it, compared to #1 and #2.
#4 starts to slouch off. He's only getting 1 extra xp, so doesn't try as hard. The problem is if I reward him, he'll be even further out of line than #1 and #2 vs #3.

Note I am not saying #3 is a bad player, he's just doesn't have that star quality. This assumes equal chances at air time.

Now 10 xp isn't much but given another 10-20 games, he's going to be really down. I can force players to buy nonsense stuff but some players resent that. I can make them buy more varied powers, but it ends up being harder to confound them when they have more options, further dragging #3 down in the game. I can give pity points but that just sucks when you receive them.

The only two ideas I've battered around is instead give 1/10 of a points and more of them but that just slows the game down.

The other is give xp for the group to divy out, but I am afraid that might lead to "treasure divy fights" I've seen in D&D.

What do people think?

[SteveZilla]

Note I am not saying #3 is a bad player, he's just doesn't have that star quality. This assumes equal chances at air time.

Now 10 xp isn't much but given another 10-20 games, he's going to be really down. I can force players to buy nonsense stuff but some players resent that. I can make them buy more varied powers, but it ends up being harder to confound them when they have more options, further dragging #3 down in the game. I can give pity points but that just sucks when you receive them.

The only two ideas I've battered around is instead give 1/10 of a points and more of them but that just slows the game down.

The other is give xp for the group to divy out, but I am afraid that might lead to "treasure divy fights" I've seen in D&D.

What do people think?

Set up some solo adventures where it's just you and player #3. That way he has the opportunity to earn additional XP to keep him on part with the others, and at the same time, he's not competing with the other players for "top spot". They don't even have to be full solo adventures, just things the character might do while the others aren't around. This can be done if he arrives before the other players (or stays later than them) for even just an hour.

[BobGreenwade]

Since early on I've given out experience for when someone gives a good effort at something and fails. Usually that means coming up with good ideas but rolling badly, but sometimes it means coming up with an idea doomed to failure but going ahead with it anyway, or meeting with failure just because the plot demanded it. Since we tend to learn from mistakes and failures, and a true hero becomes motivated to improve in their face, I like to give out an extra point (occasionally two) when it happens.

[Hugh Neilson]

I haven't looked at the Hero xp chart in some time. However, doesn't it provide for an extra xp when the opposition defeated was more powerful? This, to me, provides a built-in check. "Well, that guy was less powerful than Character 3, who got 2 bonus xp a session, as powerful as Characters 1 and 2, and more powerful than Character 4. So, all other things being equal, Character 3 gets 0 base xp, Characters 1 and 2 get 1 and Character 4 gets 2."

Or we could just not make earning xp a competition between the players.

[CTaylor]

Yeah I think that's a part of the way GM's can "balance" the game.

What I meant earlier by Superman/Batman and GMs is that if this is a MMOG you have to tailor the adventures to the average character and balance the characters to some theoretical mean. If you have GM, he can tailor the adventures to the characters he has rather than to theoretical average characters.

Say you have bob the detective who is a martial artist but not much of a combat monster - he's mister role play and investigation; you have Joe the speedster who has almost no non combat build but is incredible in combat against most villains and has some street skills; and you have Fred the Brick who is a heavy bruiser who can go toe to toe with most super villains, the big boss guys.

In a MMOG, these characters all would need to be balanced to Joe's level, good at combat, good at street, not great at either. In a real RPG, the GM finds stuff for everyone to do, so everyone is involved, part of the game, and useful. All of them are about the same points, they go from almost no combat to basically all combat. The GM is the key to making balance mean less, the GM is what makes the game work, and makes it an Role Playing Game.

So much of the discussion here about balance and fixing things seems to be about ways to make the GM superfluous or make their job simple.

[ajackson]

So much of the discussion here about balance and fixing things seems to be about ways to make the GM superfluous or make their job simple.
The job of a rules set is to make things easier for the GM and players. Otherwise, there's no reason to use rules at all.

[CTaylor]

Right I don't mean make the job uncomplicated, I mean make the job brainless, not require effort, not need a GM at all except to roll dice. Simple as perjorative, not as descriptive.

[ajackson]

Right I don't mean make the job uncomplicated, I mean make the job brainless, not require effort, not need a GM at all except to roll dice. Simple as perjorative, not as descriptive.
That's (a) an exaggeration (a GM will certainly still be needed), and (b) I still don't see how there's anything bad about it .

[casualplayer]

The job of a rules set is to make things easier for the GM and players. Otherwise, there's no reason to use rules at all.

It's all about entertainment, conflict resolution and plot advancement. Sometimes you have to settle for only two out of three, occasionally grit your teeth and manage only one but anything that hampers all three needs to be ran out of town on a rail.

[Trebuchet]

It's all about entertainment, conflict resolution and plot advancement. Sometimes you have to settle for only two out of three, occasionally grit your teeth and manage only one but anything that hampers all three needs to be ran out of town on a rail.QFT. :thumbup:

[James Gillen]

Right I don't mean make the job uncomplicated, I mean make the job brainless, not require effort, not need a GM at all except to roll dice. Simple as perjorative, not as descriptive.

This game generally cares more about balance than others. If you didn't care about balance at all, you'd have Palladium. :D

jg

[ajackson]

It's all about entertainment, conflict resolution and plot advancement.
That's the job of the GM. The job of the game system is to make those things easier for the GM.

[Klaus Mogensen]

In my work, I often deal with theories of design and innovation. I think that some of the things I have learned might be relevant to the process of designing 6e.

Design Cycles
Most successful design processes go through cycles alternating between adding features and streamlining: Add features - streamline - add features - streamline - etc.

The history of Hero System has more or less followed this pattern. 2e and 3e mainly added features, but 4e (probably the most succesful version) streamlined a lot by combining several books with similar rules into a single, coherent system. 5e and 5er have added more new features with little streamlining. For this reason, I think the main changes to 6e should be streamlining rather than adding new features - it's that place in the design cycle. Hero System now has rules for nearly everything, but the sheer size of the rule codex can be intimidating for those who haven't grown up with the simpler, earlier versions.

It seems that Steve Long has realized this, because his tentative ideas for changes mainly are in the streamlining camp.


Reactions to Change
My institute did a study a few years ago about reactions to change processes. This study was based in part on an extensive survey and in part on in-depth interviews. The result was that most people fall into one of four patterns of reaction to change: Keepers, Adapters, Navigators and Creators:

Keepers are happy with the way things are and resist change because they fear change will make things worse. Their main strength in change processes is that they are stewards of tradition; their main weakness is that they may resist change that actually will make things better for most people.
Adapters go with the flow. They may not care much about change, but they shrug and learn to live with it. Their main strength in change processes is that they don't resist change; their main weakness is that they don't contribute with anything.
Navigators see the opportunities in change. They are entrepreneurs that find the best in the new and ignore the rest. Like the Adapters, they neither resist change nor favor it, but they tend to be good implementors of change.
Creators actively seek out change. They are bothered with everything they think could be better and are full of ideas of how to improve things. Their main strength in change processes is that they are the innovators of change; their main weakness is that they often lose sight of tradition.


The people on this list seem mainly to be Keepers and Creators, perhaps with a slight surplus of Keepers (which fits the statistics). A very important point, however, is that both types are minorities in the general population (15-20% each). Two-thirds of people (likely including those that buy RPGs) are Adapters and Navigators (in about equal measure). These people will not be put off by even radical change, nor will they be attracted to change for the sake of change. What matters to them is whether changes are for the good or not.

The conclusion to this is IMO that we should stop debating whether a change is too radical or not radical enough. We should instead focus on making a game that works well. Both tradition and innovation can contribute to that. Tradition, because Hero is already a very good game; innovation, because it can become even better.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Netzilla]

<Snip thoughtful analysis of the change process.>

Well put and good advice about how to look at these things. Also, the point about being in the streamlining part of the cycle is well taken. My group has been discussing this over our last couple of games. We all agree that the main problem with 5 & 5ER has been "text bloat". So much stuff has been added that it gets hard to keep track of it all at this point. Changes that would increase the size of the rulebook would only make this worse.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?
Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?
I generally prefer the roll-high method, but it's not a big deal to me. I think it might be easier/more intuitive for new players.

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.
May I humbly suggest something I've suggested before the 6th-ED discussion started: Use 3d12 instead of 3d6. What results is a bell curve with exactly the same shape, but with twice the granularity. Instead of a 12.5% jump in probability going from 10- to 11-, you only have a 6.25% jump from 19- to 20- with 3d12 (19- being the 50% point). Let the "base" skill and attack roll be 20 or less (a nice round number to remember). And Activation rolls and Disad chances work out nicely at 15-, 20-, and 25-. A 3-point difference in CVs would no longer be a virtually guaranteed hit/miss. The only drawback to this is we'd have to go out and buy a few d12s.

Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?
Not a big deal if your going to describe everything in meters instead. Fine.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
Sure! And while we're at it, let's get rid of this website and have all these discussions via snail-mail! And get rid of HERO Designer and make everyone figure their characters' points out using an abacus! And let's have the rulebook printed on clay tablets!

Seriously, this is the 21st century. If someone can't handle the metric system (easiest measurement system ever devised, used almost everywhere in the world), then role-playing games are probably beyond their capacity. And it's not like you have to know about amperes and steradians, or even the kelvin scale. All you need to know is meters and kilograms.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?
I've occasionally seen problems with munchkins abusing the roundoff rules - making sure they have just the right amount of Advantages and Limitations so that every point calculation comes out to XX.5 or XX.47, so that it always rounds down, and they wind up getting a dozen or more points worth of power for free. It's similar to the old bank account rounding scheme (seen in Superman III and Office Space). And yes, I once did this kind of stuff myself. Mea culpa. :hail: My solution was to round to the nearest half-point instead, and keep track of the half-points. You can always buy one extra point of END or COM if they don't come out even.

Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?
Eliminate, probably not. Modify, perhaps.

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?
Is there some reason why that particular tool, which some people sometimes want to use, should be deliberately kept out of the toolkit?

[CTaylor]

I would offer that the complex/simplify process isn't a law or even a necessity, since the purpose of new editions is to put out a better product, not to follow an artificial structure imposed on business.

[Klaus Mogensen]

May I humbly suggest something I've suggested before the 6th-ED discussion started: Use 3d12 instead of 3d6. What results is a bell curve with exactly the same shape, but with twice the granularity. Instead of a 12.5% jump in probability going from 10- to 11-, you only have a 6.25% jump from 19- to 20- with 3d12 (19- being the 50% point). Let the "base" skill and attack roll be 20 or less (a nice round number to remember). And Activation rolls and Disad chances work out nicely at 15-, 20-, and 25-. A 3-point difference in CVs would no longer be a virtually guaranteed hit/miss. The only drawback to this is we'd have to go out and buy a few d12s.
In an earlier post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1560797&postcount=514) I have suggested 2d6+d20 as an alternative to 3d6. This has the advantage of having a 'flat' zone in the middle where each step is exactly +5%, but has tapering ends providing a greater range (3-32). But 3d12 is a good solution, too.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[splooger]

I'm highly in favor of changing the dice to 3d12 or some variation of a better spread.

[Doc Democracy]

Is there some reason why that particular tool, which some people sometimes want to use, should be deliberately kept out of the toolkit?

Maybe because, regardless of what is indicated in the source literature - absolutes are rarely absolute (most especially in superheroes but in other genres too).

Personally I would suggest that there is some text space used to show GMs how to introduce absolutes into their campaign. We acknowledge certain things in our games when we play them that are not rules as written but are certainly the rules as played in this group.

I reckon that GMs should be shown what they might use as an absolute defence or an absolute special effect immunity and then how to set the price (for that campaign world) so that their players can purchase those absolutes and write it on their character sheet - only the GM needs to know the mechanics behind it.


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

This is a follow to my last post - seperate because I wanted it made a point on its own.

I think that one of the strengths of Hero as a system is the toolkit aspect of it. The system allows a huge amount of flexibility and, to be used to its fullest extent, asks a lot of work from the GM in the set-up of a campaign. It isn't necessary to do this but when it is done well the system goes from being a good universal framework to the ultimate multi-genre gaming tool currently available.

To that end this is pretty much Hero's unique selling point (USP) and I would expect that USP to be highlighted in the rules - something should be there to explain to new GMs just what is possible and how their games could be enhanced to address issues that people will bring to them, such as absolutes and possession etc. We all know where Hero is weak - the GM advice in the book should allow them to prepare for those moments and lead them by the hand to the best possible uses of the system.

Its not as if we'll have a slim rulebook - use some of those pages for GM guidance. Sixth edition, to be a success, should grow the pool of Hero gamers and so will be falling into the hands of people who have never played the game. We should cater to that audience while providing standing Hero GMs with something interesting to read.


Doc

[casualplayer]

Absolutes can't be introduced into a system where power levels and genres are metered and measured in points. If you make it affordable and attainable for Pulp level then every Galactic supers character will have it. Case in point, Damage Reduction and Desolidification.

I defy anyone to come up with an example of an absolute that wasn't transcended within its own source material or proven to be hyperbole.

[BobGreenwade]

Absolutes can't be introduced into a system where power levels and genres are metered and measured in points. If you make it affordable and attainable for Pulp level then every Galactic supers character will have it. Case in point, Damage Reduction and Desolidification.

I defy anyone to come up with an example of an absolute that wasn't transcended within its own source material or proven to be hyperbole.One solution to that would be to base the cost on some campaign-specific value such as the characters' Base Points, the maximum Active Points for attacks, etc.

Not that I'm much in favor of having a lot of Absolute Effects in the system (that's notwithstanding my support for 100% Damage Reduction).

[nexus]

I defy anyone to come up with an example of an absolute that wasn't transcended within its own source material or proven to be hyperbole.

Perfect Defenses in Exalted.

They cannot be breeched by any attack. The only way around them is to prevent the character from deploying them by some means. Of course this creates a few issues in the game system.

[James Gillen]

Perfect Defenses in Exalted.

They cannot be breeched by any attack. The only way around them is to prevent the character from deploying them by some means. Of course this creates a few issues in the game system.

That's why this isn't Exalted. :D

jg

[nexus]

That's why this isn't Exalted. :D

jg

Well, the challenge was to provide an example of a truly Absolute item in fiction, not a well implemented example or prove they are a good idea.

[palaskar]

Ye gods, this a long thread. Let me weigh in here:

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Only for partial armor like in Stormbringer (2d8+1, or somesuch); but this screws up called shots. Still, we need a way to represent multiple levels of armor on one character. (Batman’s body armor + bat symbol reinforcement being the most obvious of these. It really gets bad when you have a fantasy PC with greaves, full body chainmail, steel breastplate, leather gauntlets, and no helmet…not that I’ve ever seen it, but I bet some player would make one, if only make the GM scream. :mad: )

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I agree with Netzilla. I’d also like to incorporate Activation Roll, Ablative, and Side Effect into the roll. Personally, I’d go with:

15 points = 1d6 “body effect” x 2 “stun effect” for Supers, or x3 “stun effect” for Heroes. It’s always struck me as just plain wrong that Superman can be stunned by an 8d6 KA from a howitzer…but that’s probably for another thread, that I haven’t read yet.

Every below over the default base -- 11- in combat, 11- for Skills –- equals 15 points/1d6 “body effect”/ x2 or x3 “stun effect.”

This has the neat advantage of limiting how much those Reed Richards types can do when they, say, make some super gizmo out of an alien toaster and a ZPM. (Ok, never seen that, but still…it does help balance things, I think.)

For Activation Roll, Ablative and Side Effect…grr, I forgot. Probably use the same mechanism as Called Shots and above – every point below the default base equals 15 points/1d6 “body effect”/ x2 or x3 “stun effect.”

I think. Haven’t really thought that part through.

I’m in favor of Klaus’ “Unify Combat Skills with Other Skills.” Anything to make the system more consistent w/o a good reason not to should be done, IMHO.

I’m in favor of the “Take an 11” and the “Dude, he’s fricking Tarzan” rules by Susano. They really should be made canon; they make that much sense. “The Broad Side of the Barn” variant should not be used; when’s the last time you, say, saw Batman or Robin falling into traffic while jumping from car to car? Zero. (Omitting when they were being attacked, and then, rarely.)

Pinecon’es Unluck roll should be incorporated here, too.

On Unluck/Luck: These never seem to get enough use in play compared to the comics. I estimate Peter Parker has about 5d6 Unluck (pretty much everything goes wrong for him at some point) and 4d6 Luck (how does an average guy like him get Gwen Stacy, Black Cat, and MJ Watson all as romantic interests at some point?)

Hmm, this raises a use for COM…attracting romance? Just a thought…

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

No. I’m in favor of the 1” == 1 hex. Easier to remember than 2” == 1 hex.

Those who complain about having to zig-zag down corridors to stay in hexes can use the "Hex Spine" rule from Advanced Squad Leader -- 1 hex spine equals 1 hex. A hex spine is that funny little line that pokes out of a hex:

<_>--<_>

That thing in the middle of my poor drawing is the hex spine.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No. Metric makes thing so much easier, especially when you want to calculate x1000 (+50 points) and so on.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

For Heroic levels, definitely. I just don’t know how to do it. But when most people will have between 10 to 20 STR, it’s really important to be able to differentiate between characters. Perhaps allow Push to cost only 1 END so long as the character stays between his “rounding levels?” I.e., 13 STR can Push up to 2 points for 1 END?

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

No. But I’d like to see an easier way of calculating them, that also takes into account Advantages and Disadvantages. But that’s probably handled in another thread, also…

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

I’d keep the “absolutes” we have, and only add them as necessary. Frex, there’s no proper way to emulate Kitty Pride w/o Desolid. She’s just plain immune to most attacks – not attacks up to a certain level, like in MSH. The stuff she isn't immune to are special in some way; they don't just have a HUGE effect/amount of power. Frex, in the Teen Titans/X-men crossover, Darkseid trapped her in shackles "with fixed atomic valences."

Same goes for Pteryx’ Fire Elemental example – it should take special fire to hurt a fire elemental, because, well, it’s made of fire.

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

I’d make it a Perk, like Combat Luck, or optional in some other way. (Built use standar