General Rules Issues [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Steve Long

Feb 11th, '08, 05:48 AM

Hi folx! Here are some general issues about the HERO System that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the general issues that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

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

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

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nexus

Feb 17th, '08, 05:20 PM

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

I'm a little leery about this. It seems open to abuse (players will find a way) and there's no way to really predict the future so it almost puts a limiter on things in the sense if you've given a character skills for free they "can't" become too useful. I mean true. It's hard to imagine where KS: Classical Italian Literature would be a problem, but I'm hesitant.

If that makes any sense.

CourtFool

Feb 17th, '08, 05:22 PM

I suggest not changing the dice used, but offering options for other types of dice. I believe you could broaden the appeal for more gamers and isn't that what you want after all?

I feel the same for the way dice are used. Offer options. A lot of people prefer a flat range (D20 D100), so giving them that options puts one less barrier to bringing them into the light.

There are a lot of good resources out there that use square grids. I prefer the hex, but I use square grids in my games due to their ubiquity. Why not take advantage of available resources?

Why not have options for absolutes as well? I generally agree with you. One of the things I always liked about Hero was that there were no absolutes. Then again, why not allow them for people who want them?

The big change I would like to see is to take the 'reason from effect' taken even further. Do we really need four different (more if you use some creative uses of powers) attacks and a myriad of defenses? One attack power with different modifiers to make it work the way you want it to. One defense power that is cheaper for the more things it does not defend against. Hell, one movement power that has different modifiers for the way it works.

You could take this concept and break down the differences between Perks, Powers, Skills and Talents. Maybe even Characteristics...but I see a lot of people crying foul there. Even if 5th you started to break the wall between Powers and Talents, so I think you already agree with me in the back of your mind.

This could make things really complicated. For example, something like Piloting is essentially flight with the limitation that you need a vehicle and your speed and mobility is limited to the particular vehicle being used.

JmOz

Feb 17th, '08, 05:35 PM

Maybe in a sidebar on the dice issue something like

If you want modifiers to have a lesser effect you can add an extra dice to the rolling (or more), add +3 (or 4) to each base for skills and skill like effects

pawsplay

Feb 17th, '08, 05:37 PM

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m strongly in favor of doing this. There’s absolutely no reason to keep the hex.

Unless you like hex maps! I would consider this a huge step backwards. While there are some cases where the map isn't useful (very mobile combatants, etc), in general, a game map is your friend. It's easier to generalize from a hex-based system to be mapless than it is to create a map for a system that doesn't define things on a map. And what would you do about reach and Stretching?

What would switching to meters do, apart from turning everything that is now a hex into half-a-hex?

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

This mystifies me. People all over the world use the metric system, and it makes sense. There is no reason I can think of why it would be annoying other than a lack of familiarity, which can be easily remedied.

SAVeira

Feb 17th, '08, 05:43 PM

Theron

Feb 17th, '08, 06:02 PM

I'm sure I'll have more to say in the coming weeks and months, but right off the bat, I have to agree with PawsPlay (which might also be a first. :)).

Hex maps are, to me, part of the Hero System experience, along with cardboard heroes and character sheets with blank silhouettes that I can modify for costumes. Granted, my primary experience with the game system was always with Champions, but I consider such things nearly sacrosanct.

That having been said, I could certainly see the logic in dropping the scale down to 1 hex = 1 meter.

gojira

Feb 17th, '08, 06:09 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

I pretty much agree with you. However, I'd like to mention, in the spirit of increasing granularity, that a d20 gives about twice the useful range of 3d6. The useful range of 3d6 is about 5 to 15, a spread of about 10 points. For a single d20, the spread is the full 20 points. (And while d100 is the ultimate in granularity, I think it's also the ultimate in crunch too, and it turns people off.)

In some very speculative conversion notes I have, I in fact just doubled Hero System's bonus and penalties to match them up to rolling a d20 instead of 3d6. +1 OCV becomes +2 on a d20 scale, and -3 DCV becomes -6. The probability match up is almost uncanny.

In summary, my gut feeling is: at least consider switching to d20 to get more granularity. If you do go to d20, switch to roll-high. If you decide to stick to 3d6, stick to roll-low.

(Note: d20 is not D20. "Death to Wizards of the Coast!!" and 10,000 masked Hero hoards echo "Death to Wizards of the Coast!" ;))

Balok

Feb 17th, '08, 06:16 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

Have you considered increasing either the number of dice (for example, 4d6) or the type (for example, 3d8) to broaden that curve? Some kind of statistical analysis would be necessary to see whether the effect of this would be significant enough to meet your goal at the possible cost of irritating people who expect subtle changes but not blatant ones. There's also the real concern that you'd break something by making a change this fundamental. But you did say nothing was off the table. (Please note: phrasing this as a question is not a plea for directed answer, just a rhetorical device.)

wayneligon

Feb 17th, '08, 06:24 PM

I think that some form of 'Hero Point' implementation is needed; these last few years in fact I find myself less and less willing to play in a game that does not include some form of ability for me to mitigate bad die rolls in dramatic occassions.

I think that the point cost of 'mundane' equipment should be done away with. The balance issues are just inconsequential and it prevents some of the more derisive comments I've heard directed against the system.

I like the idea of not charging for skills that are, basically, character development tools. In fact, I think that of all aspects of the system the skill system requires the most overhaul. Simply put: I feel that skills are too expensive, period. Some supers won't require much in the way of skills; indeed in the early days of the game it wasn't uncommon for some characters to get by with just their defaults. Others would need a half-page of skills to feel they were adequately covering all the bases; they looked like something out of GURPS Special Ops, where it wasn't uncommon for a character to have something like fifty of more fine-grained skills.

Broader catagories might address this. A new means of using skills might be used, such as 1pt = Skill at 11-, 2 pt = Skill at 14-, 3 pt = Skill at 18-. I don't know.

archermoo

Feb 17th, '08, 06:30 PM

Have you considered increasing either the number of dice (for example, 4d6) or the type (for example, 3d8) to broaden that curve? Some kind of statistical analysis would be necessary to see whether the effect of this would be significant enough to meet your goal at the possible cost of irritating people who expect subtle changes but not blatant ones. There's also the real concern that you'd break something by making a change this fundamental. But you did say nothing was off the table. (Please note: phrasing this as a question is not a plea for directed answer, just a rhetorical device.)

I've personally used 3d10 in several games, and in my opinion it works quite well.

Wombatman

Feb 17th, '08, 06:32 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

I actually like the 3d6 model that is used now. It provides a nice bell curve that gives a more reliable distribution than a 1d20 or % roll that some other games have.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

In my experience in attempting to get my gaming group to try HERO, this has been one of the deal breakers. I know it doesn't sound like it should be a big deal...but it is. I have 7 people in my gaming group. I am the only one that has played HERO (since Champions 2nd edition). Five of them are what would be termed "casual gamers" and learned how to role play using a system that rolls high (d20). The remaining one has gamed for years and, when I talk to him about starting up a supers campaign, the first thing out of his mouth was regarding the "roll low" system and how he felt the others would have a hard time with it. In fact, when I spoke with him about various superhero game systems that we could use he actually preferred a competing system based on d20 because of the "roll high" factor...it is just easier for the group to transition to (in fact, my attempts to run a one shot Basic DnD game based on the old Moldvay set ran into a similar problem...Armor Class goes down instead of up...this tells me that it isn't the genre nor the HERO system that is giving them trouble, it is the actual mix and match of roll high for some things and low for others.)

We can discuss the pro's and con's of this all we want, but I feel that it would be beneficial to at least include the option. I believe that this subject isn't something that is going to go away, as this "roll high" mechanic is at the foundation of other popular systems. By not providing for the option we may be limiting the growth of the game to only those who are willing to take the "plunge" and removing the game from consideration for the casual gamer.

The casual gamer group is one that does need to be understood, catered to, and courted...especially if the rumors about Monday's announcement are correct.

gojira

Feb 17th, '08, 06:39 PM

Chris Goodwin

Feb 17th, '08, 09:06 PM

Steve, if you got rid of the hex, what would Hero Games' emblem be? :hex:

Edsel

Feb 17th, '08, 09:48 PM

Jhaierr

Feb 17th, '08, 09:51 PM

Am I wrong in reading that we wouldn't necessarily get rid of the "hex" per se but instead just using meters instead of "inches"?

Jhamin

Feb 17th, '08, 09:52 PM

I would also like to lobby for the "roll high" system for hero. There is no mathmatic difference in the systems I have seen proposed and it really helps new people keep things straight.

I recently brought a new gamer into a Pulp Hero game and her single biggest confusion was when she wanted to roll high and when she wanted to roll low.

(Ok, so I roll low to hit him, but roll high for damage, and roll either high or low but not average for hit locations?)

If she could have just always wanted to roll high it would have dramatically simplified the process of getting her head wrapped around the game. She was new to hero but not new to gaming. Every other system she had ever heard of (in the last 10 years) asked her to to roll high or low but not both.

When she asked why Hero had such a consistant set of character creation rules but such a schitzophrenic dice system the only answer I could give her was "tradition".

Edsel

Feb 17th, '08, 09:54 PM

As far as dice are concerned, I like the bell curve that using 3d6 provides. I am not saying that we need to stick with 3d6 if we want to increase the useful range of numbers. One of the things I like about Hero System is that you only need a single denomination of dice to play the game. This could be changed to the d10 if a larger number range is wanted, for instance 3d10 instead of 3d6. Another option might be to increase the 3d6 resolution to 4d6 that would give a useful range of 4 to 24 (or if you use 4d6-4 the range is 0 to 20).

In summary. I like the bell curve of multiple dice for OCV/DCV resolution and skill rolls. I like using only a single type of dice with the game system.

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?I really like these, but I seem to be in the minority of my gaming group on this issue.

Am I wrong in reading that we wouldn't necessarily get rid of the "hex" per se but instead just using meters instead of "inches"?I am fine with changing the size of a hex to a single meter. I just prefer using hexes on my game maps to regulate movement, range determination, etc.

CourtFool

Feb 17th, '08, 09:58 PM

Another option might be to increase the 3d6 resolution to 4d6 that would give a useful range of 4 to 24 (or if you use 4d6-4 the range is 0 to 20).

3d6-7 FUDGE for the win!

vincemcd

Feb 17th, '08, 10:38 PM

Something that I would suggest is something else borrowed from Fuzion. Yes, I know it's heresy, but it's something that seemed to work well. I'm posting it here since it would affect a number of things across the system.

Have some clearly-delineated options for campaign-specific options. Fuzion refered to these as "dials." What Fuzion was lacking was a bit more of a description of the typical consequences of "switching" any one particular dial.

Obviously, there's some of this in the system. "High-fantasy Heroic" campaigns have different point levels than "Superheroic" campaigns. In this suggestion, I'm referring to a number of the things that some people prefer one way while others prefer another.

For instance, there's the whole STR 1:1 vs. 2:1 debate. This looks like a prime candidate for an option. A sidebar commenting about the typical consequences for using one option or the other, and typical suggestions for what to use in a particular type of campaign, should help a GM decide what to use for their campaign.

Of course, people always have these options anyway. That's what "house rules" are for. But when the options are examined by someone who's familiar with game design and the consequences of "tweaking" one thing or another, it's a great help for those of us who are familiar with neither.

Stephen_H-G

Feb 17th, '08, 10:48 PM

Whatever happens to measurement, the game must retain the ability to use miniatures easily. I think there is a reason D&D went backwards and started using squares instead of feet measurements. It's way easier than going the other way.

ngross

Feb 17th, '08, 10:57 PM

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m strongly in favor of doing this. There’s absolutely no reason to keep the hex. The HERO System shouldn’t require you to use an entirely separate form of measuring things; it’s an impediment to learning the game. It also leads to annoying confusion on some issues (“I can attack anywhere in an adjacent hex... so in theory I have a reach of 13 feet?”). It would make a lot more sense to measure things in meters. That would also allow characters to buy Movement Powers more granularly (e.g., 1 meter of Flight for 1 Character Point).
The whole 'inch' thing, that is really a hex, that is actually 2 meters, really confused my players when I introduced them to Hero. I am very much in favor of turning movement into a 'real' distance. This way, a GM could use maps where they can scale the amount of meters per hex.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
Please keep the measurements in metric. It is very easy to convert kilometers to meters. I always have to look up the number of yards or feet in a mile. I know... not a very good reason.

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?
I do not like absolutes, but is there a way to make it an option?

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?
I do not know how Pulp Hero uses it, but I currently use "Hero Points" in my current campaign. They act as luck points where the characters can modify a roll (one per point spent). I make it a new stat (every character starts with 5). I also use it as a way to reward players/characters for things that they have done. Especially, when I do not think that action is worth an experience point. My only question about this, should the GM get some points also to make sure that some things happen that is thought to be important to the adventure/campaign?

James Gillen

Feb 17th, '08, 11:10 PM

Bismark

Feb 17th, '08, 11:14 PM

Measurement system: please keep metric - it's bad enough having to work in archaic units over here for a lot of things (the Luddites [like my Dad, actually ;)] used 'doing business with the U.S.' :confused: as a reason for avoiding full adoption of metric here in the UK), without having to deal with awkward conversions issues 'in game', for things like fluid measurements, for instance:

gallons (which one? US or UK version?) [a litre is the same volume the world over - even if it is spelled differently in some places :D]

A hex-based map for combat purposes is very handy, so I would like to keep that, but changing to 1 metre hexes would not cause me any grief and would make the system more unified.

James Gillen

Feb 17th, '08, 11:16 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Agreed.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

I already voted for the "roll high" system (one of the few things I liked about Fuzion). As for changing the "bell curve" you already brought up the Pulp HAPs and that seems to be a good way to do it without messing with the 3d6 system which is a pretty good base.

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

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

I like that.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

Everybody else besides the US uses metrics. This is one of the areas where HERO has always been ahead of the curve.

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

Umm... WHY? Isn't that how Limitations work?

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

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

Agreed.

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

YES. :D

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

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

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10215.phtml

for play balance reasons, characters in a superhero game are obliged to buy ALL their effects, including equipment, as Powers, given that it's already fairly easy to buy effects similar or superior to the weapons and devices that exist in the real world. This has led to a lot of reductionism, which in turn leads to HERO-haters claiming that the game requires you to build stat blocks for things like bathroom towels. While that is a gross exaggeration

Towel : Transform 1d6 minor (10) wet object to dry, OAF (-1), Extra Time/ Full Phase (-1/2), 2 Recoverable Charges (before towel gets soaked, recover by wringing, -1), No Range (-1/2), Real Cost 2 points

it's still understandable.

Vondy

Feb 17th, '08, 11:39 PM

Should we change the way dice are rolled?

No. I like opposed skill tests for a lot of things, including combat, but I think it would be too radical a paradigm shift. The current system works well. One issue, however, is that a lot of people apply massive modifiers because 1) they are used to the superheroic genre and its natually high skill rolls, or 2) they don't understand how sensitive the bell curve is. I would recommend putting a chart with probabilities, including how modifiers of 1-4 can affect it. I think it would give better perspective.

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

Yes. The hex is a legacy item, confuses the issue when doing calculations, and is a "wargaming thang." I'm a hidebound traditionalist, but I haven't used a hex-map in years, nor have I used figures.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No. I know americans don't use metric (and it may be that's your audience and you should ignore what I'm saying), but most of the world runs on metric. Metric is also more intenally consistent once you get used to it. Hero is big on tables, just put a conversion reference in the back. At the same time, as a former heroite and american living abroad, I've grown accustomed to doing the conversions in my head. I grew up with imperial, but live with metric.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Too much work, too little gain.

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

No. I find the distinction useful in rough terms, and think eliminating it would create little benefit. I know some newbies find the distinction difficult. That's the case with many new concepts. Sometimes we have to live with it.

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

No. I mean, really no. There is way too much potential to inadvertantly break the system in absolutes.

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

Yes. Its a core idea for many genres. Its a necessary option, IMO.

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

Yes. Please.

And I agree with your premise. Pay for utility.

I would like to add a few personal thoughts.

1) Not every genre can be modelled using the "one scale to rule them all" hero currently uses. I don't think continuing to push hero as "universal" is useful, nor do I believe universal is a good thing. I think pushing it as a modular toolbox is better.

2) In terms of mechanics, everything should be in one book. You've added some really useful ideas and created some good new ways of doing things (i.e., hero point, piercing, expanded skills) in 5th edition, but I have a peeve about needing more than one book to get at the rules. Which is not to say ultimate books (my other favorites) or genre books won't get my dollar/sheqel whatever. They will.

Gideon

Feb 17th, '08, 11:51 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I happen to like the bell curve and the dice system as it stands.
Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?Like a lot of people have already posted in favor the hex. I play a great deal of D20 games, and I can't stand square grid movement. A hex is more realistic when you consider distances (because of shape not size).

Basicly in order to measure properly on a square map you need to use a rule from D20 3.5 which is that "when moving, every two horizontal squares counts as 10 feet and every two diagonal squares counts as 15 feet". The reason for this is because if you move two squares diagonally you move the equivilant of two squares forward and one square to the side.

Thus if you "count in squares", and "moving any number of squares in any given direction counts as the same amount of movement" moving diagonally gets you farther along the map than moving in a straight line.

This is something I consider highly non granular.

On a hex map, because of the shape of a hex, no matter what direction you move in: 4 hexes of movement is the same distance. This is why I like hexes.

Now if you want to change how "big" a hex is, 1 hex=1 meter, I have no objection to this at all. I just ask that the hexes themselves stay.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?While I don't like converting from Metric to imperial mesurments for a game, I do like how metric works better.

Even though (living in the US as I do) I don't use the metric system in every day life, for game I prefer it. The metric system is easy. Everything works in multiples of 10. The imperial system is more difficult and (at least IMO) less intuitive because it has no standardization to it.

Metric system:
100 centimeters = 1 meter
100 meters = 1 kilometer
1000 grams = 1 kilogram
1000 kilograms = 1 metric ton

Imperial system:
12 inches = 1 foot
3 feet = 1 yard
1760 yards = 1 mile (non-nautical)
16 ounces = 1 pound
2000 pounds = 1 short (imperial) ton
Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?I love the rules for rounding in Hero. I have never liked the idea of always round down, or always round up.
Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?I have never liked the idea of "absolutes" in anything.

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?I have never played in a game with "hero points", so I can't judge. But it may be nice as an optional rule.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I think gaming and gamers have matured to the point where we can safely explain that even in Superheroic games, it’s probably OK to have minor items (like ordinary flashlights and cellular phones) without paying for them. Combat-effective items like weapons and armor should always require points, but I don’t think it’s going to unbalance anyone’s campaign if characters have ordinary cars to drive around in “for free.”For the most part I totally agree with this. As one of my GMs told me the other day: "Your character is considered to own lock-picks and use them when picking a lock. It is part of the skill. You don't need to pay points for them."

For most characters a flashlight, a cell phone (or even a disposable cell phone) should cost no points and be a gimme. The same goes for any "normal" vehicle.
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. This I don't agree with so much. I have characters with skills that a great deal of people would think of as a waste. KS: extreme atheleats, Analyse: medical techniques, KS: Denver Power Grid, PS: con artist, KS: Operas. All of them have come in useful at least once (if not several times) in games. There have actually been times where I have said: "I have a skill for that." and my GM has said: "Yes I know, thats why i set things up this way. I want you to get a chance to use that skill."

EX: One of my characters has PS: Makeup Artist 11-. My GM has told me that it is a complimentary skill roll for when the character uses her disguise skill, and it allows her access to realistic wigs and proper tools of the trade. I roll the skill an average of once per game session, because (like old school Black Canary) she wears a wig as part of her costume.

Thanks for listening, I realize I may have rambled a bit. :)

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 12:00 AM

I don't mind the hexes one way or another, but I do like the 1 pt/1 meter for movement. and please keep it metric, it's easier that way.

Alibear

Feb 18th, '08, 01:07 AM

What Enforcer said.

Acid_Crash

Feb 18th, '08, 01:41 AM

I'm all for keeping the hex maps as is, but switching to a 1 hex = 1 meter system.

I think for dice, I always liked the idea of rolling 2d10 for a 2 to 20 curve, while not as severe as 3d6, but much much better than a straight up 1d20 curve. In this particular case I'd have a sidebar explaining the options of using different kinds of dice for rolling and impacts it could have on the game.

Keep it low roll for skills and combat, roll high for damage. Personally I think rolling low is more intuitive than rolling high for basic checks.

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 03:35 AM

Absolutes:

'Absolute invulnerability' in not something I'd like to see introduced to Hero, but I would like to see a scaling form of invulnerability: say 10 points makes you invulnerable to 1 DC of physical or energy damage (that's just a number out of the air, nothing I've researched) OR damage from a particular sfx however it is built: so you could buy 6DC immumity to fire, whether it be from EN, RKA, Flash, Adjustment powers - whatever. it is really justa shorthand, but it could be a useful one.

It would be nice to look at exsiting absolutes to see if they can be scaled more: for instance desolidification could allow you to pass through a certain BODY/DEF a bit like tunneling does.

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 04:18 AM

I'm rather fond of the 3d6 roll, but there is no reason that we could not, for those who wanted it, include the possibility of using 4d6 instead. Mechanically it would be the same, but with a different 'break point' (14 or 15 instead of 11).

I'm keen on using the roll to hit as part of the damage roll. For example a 10d6 EB that hit with a roll of 9 would do7d6+9 damage. This relates how well you hit to how much damage you do without an overt critical system (which I think we should generally avoid). Might make a useful optional rule.

I'd like to see 'average damage' rather than 'standard damage' as a +0 'advanatge. You can still use standard damage, but as a -1/4 limitation. Also like ot see an increase in granularity for standard/average damage so that you can increase the value by 1 point at a time, so you can get precisely the figure you want.

L. Marcus

Feb 18th, '08, 04:34 AM

Rolling 15- on a 4d6 is about the same odds as 11- on 3d6. The problem would be backwards compatibility -- two steps difference on a 3d6 roll would be about three steps on 4d6.

That said, I am not adverse to a 4d6 roll mechanic, as it adds more differentiation in skills and char rolls.

Jagged

Feb 18th, '08, 05:56 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?.

Absolutely not. Funny dice are a pointless distraction that limits the usability of a system (because not everyone can get hold of them). They are also entirely unnecessary since you can achieve the desired result with the appropriate combination of D6s.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I don't see any benefits in changing. Low for to-hit and high for damage is not hard to get your head around. Plus it has benefits for people that wish to pre-roll for speed (only tried it once but some people do it I believe).

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

I have never used the hex but I have made extensive use of the inch. The inch is the most suitable unit for table top/miniatures

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

As a referee I have introduced "absolutes" into my game at times. While they can be useful tools for a story I don't see the need for a player character so I would be against.

Susano

Feb 18th, '08, 06:05 AM

Hi folx! Here are some general issues about the HERO System that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the general issues that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

I don't see any reason to either. using d6s for everything makes die rolling simple. You have one set of dice for all your rolls -- skill, to hit, damage, and so on. I'drather not see D&D with 6 different types of dice just to get different ranges. I ould like to see more use of +1, -1, and +1/2d6.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

Broadening the bell curve is good, but I think the bell curve is very important to HERO. 3d6 gives ones a useful average, and allows you to get a good idea for what you can and cannot due. I was very frustrated with D20 in a few sessions as a d20 is a simple 1-20 with not weighted set to values. So, no matter how good the character was, I had no average to depend on, and my die rolls were all over the place, so my character ended up feeling useless. With 3d6 (or any multiple die roll), you have an average result, and thus, you have a certain expectation of what your character can do. I think a single die ssytem removes that.

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

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

I say stick with hexes for maps and movement. Hexes are better for movement, facing, and so on.

The game scale needs to be adjusted. having 2 meter hexes is actually a tad confusing, as people forget you can squeeze two people in a hex, and +1" range on a weapon results in some odd tactics. 1 hex = 1 meter would mean maps would look better, weapon lengths would be more inline with the real world, and character interaction on the battlemap would be a little easier to visualize.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

I see no reason to.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

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

I agree. It's simple -- round in the PCs favor.

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

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

I agree here.

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

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

Personally, I think it would be nice to be able to simulate certain absoulte effects from fiction and other games. "Immune to Fire" or "Immune to Blades" for example. There is one form of absolute on the books already -- Life Support's "Immunity to Disease" and poisons, while Automatons are immune to mental powers.

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

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

I think this would be a great addition. Hero Points strike me as somehting that could be used in all sorts of settings, not just Pulp.

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

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

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

This would be very useful. I've seen some stupid arguments over this in which things as simple as a small flashlight needed to be bought as part of a utility belt.

Querysphinx

Feb 18th, '08, 06:32 AM

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Steve’s Thoughts:

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.

Ooh! Ooh! This is one of those problems that bugged me forever especially when I went forth and did the math on the distribution of points across the bell curve. The difference between rolling a 2 and a 4 on 3d6 is only like 0.5% while the difference between rolling a 10 or less and an 11 or less is about 12%.

So going from an 11- to hit to a 14- takes your chances from 62% to 90%. That's a huge jump. So I set about figuring out how to flatten the curve, and this is the rule I've been playtesting in my own games recently.

THE PLAYTEST RULE:
Instead of buying skills with a fixed roll (i.e. acrobatics 14-) and then applying a circumstance modifier to determine the characters chance of success, characters instead buy a receive a skill Value.

For example: Lockmaster the thief wants the lockpicking skill. Lockpicking costs 3 cp and gets him a base Lockpicking skill value of DEX/3. Lockmaster has an 18 Dex so his base skill value (SV) is 6. It would be notated like this.

Cost Skill Skill Value
3 Lockpicking 6

(Yes, I'm breaking this down into very small steps, but it's a pretty radical change from the way things are in the R.A.W. so I want to be as clear as possible.)

When Lockmaster wants to pick a lock, the GM assigns him a target value (TV) representing the difficulty of performing the action. A simple handcuff lock gets a low target value and a more complex lock gets a higher target value.

Lockmaster gets handcuffed and wants to pick the locks to escape. The GM assigns the Handcuffs a lockpicking target value of 2.

Handcuffs: Lockpicking TV 2

Making it work: Lockmaster subtracts the target value of his task from his skill value, and gets his difficulty number DN. SV-TV=DN.

Lockpicking 6 - Hancuffs 2 = Difficulty 4

(Note: the difficulty number may be a negative number.)

The higher the difficulty number, the EASIER the task.

Compare the difficulty number to the following chart to determine what number on 3D6 the character needs to succeed.

DN -13-| -12 | -11,10 | -9,8 | -7,6 | -5,4,3 | -2,1,0 | 1,2,3 | 4,5,6 | 7,8 | 9,10 | 11 | 12 |13+
3d6 4-...| 5-..| 6-..... | 7-..... | 8-....| 9-..... | 10- ... | 11-...| 12-...|13-...|14-...| 15-..| 16 -|17-

So Lockmaster has a difficulty number of 4 which means he needs to roll 12 or less on 3D6 to break out of the handcuffs.

Summary: That Skill Value (SV) - Target Value (TV) = Difficulty number (DN) which is compared on the chart.

The Math: Observant readers will note that it requires a bigger increase in SV to go from a 10 or less roll to an 11 or less roll that it does to go from a 14 or less roll to a 15 or less roll. This is because the bell curve has been flattened. The difference between successfully rolling 10- and 11- is roughly 12% The difference between 14- and 15- , conversely, is only about 4%.

Using this system, every +1 Skill Value a character possesses increases his chance of success by roughly 4%. Of course this gets skewed at the very edges of the curve but it flattens out the middle nicely.

The same basic procedure is also used in making combat rolls. OCV-DCV=DN and compare to chart.

It also works for perception rolls. Base Perception Value= INT/3.
PV-TV=DN and compare to chart

I have been play testing this method and have found that it has several advantages.

First: It allows a much broader range of combat values in a fight. A thug with an OCV of 3 actually has a chance of hitting a martial artist with a DCV of 10. Ironically, this allows characters to be more extravagant in their builds without upsetting game balance. That OCV 20 character actually has a chance of missing once in a while.

Second: Very similar to number 1. It provides a greater degree of gradation in ordinary skills. It makes the system harder to tilt or break.

Third: it means that almost all of the pass/fail rolls in the game are made with exactly the same rules. It helps unify the system

It also has a few potential sticking points.

First: There's this extra table involved. Champions players don't like tables. On the other hand, my players got the table memorized very quickly out of sheer repetition and it quickly became invisible to them. (i.e. after the second session, nobody had to refer to the table to know what it said.)

Second: All that extra gradation means that it's more costly to build a character who is really good at what he does. You have to spend a lot more points on things (stealth comes to mind) to ensure they are reasonably reliable and even more to guarantee effectiveness. To my mind this is a good thing as guarantees should be hard to come by, but some people may not agree.

Third: Lots of things have to be changed to reflect the new reality. But that is the point of 6th ed.

More to follow...

Doc Shadow

Feb 18th, '08, 06:32 AM

Susano

Feb 18th, '08, 06:40 AM

Then tell her it's to discourage cheating. Unless you're going to bring 3 different sets of them and only roll them each for specific rolls - a dead give-away for even the most dense GM - then loaded dice are useless.

And just for the record, metric is French. :sick:

Need I say more? ;)

Yeah, well, virtually everyone else in the world uses it.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 18th, '08, 06:55 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

I think we should stick to the base core mechanic, but consider options. I would suggest such options go beyond the core rules, and belong in a future "optional rules" supplement.

On a broader base, the rules are big. That is offered as an intimidation factor that deters new players. It's a poor reason for not playing - the alternative games tend to have more rules, if anything, spread around several dozen books. However, I thin 6e Core Rules should focus on the actual core rules, and significant optional rules, and leave more tangential options for books focusing on specific rule areas.

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

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

OK, reading the replies, I think the question is misinterpreted. I don't think Steve is saying "burn your hex maps". I think the question is "should we have a base unit of measure which does not require translation". The present unit is 1" = 1 hex = 2 meters. The proposal is to change the base to 1 meter. If you want to use hex maps, square maps, rulers, tape measures, calipers, string with knots in it or whatever to measure, fine.

The only consideration I would offer is that, while +1 meter Flight = 1 point sounds good, more half point abilities like +1 meter for swimming, swinging, gliding and leaping do not sound so good. I do favour the change, with the caveat that knockback should be the same rolls equaling number of meters (I don't want knockback to spread out combat any more than it does now).

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No. Put them in charts - that is useful - but leave the base units alone. [ASIDE: I've never been able to figure out why the only country that still bases its measurements on the length of some dead monarch's appendage is the one that annually celebrates its war, well over 200 years ago, to separate from that specific monarchy.]

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

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

The Hero system has also always contained absolutes. Area Effect changes DCV to an absolute of 3, and NND eliminates defenses. Life support makes one absolutely immune to certain effects, while Desolid makes you absolutely unhittable by attacks that do not Affect Desolid.

A better question might be should we change the way we deal with "absolutes", or are there "absolutes" which should be reflected and currently are not.

I believe we should have some system (heavily caveated for GM's to consider balance issues) for absolute immunity to damage from a specific SFX. The other existing absolutes are fine as is.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m in favor of doing this, even if I only make them optional

I think it's a good rule that crosses genres and should appear in the base rules. It's optional either way - anyone who does not like it will simply not use it.

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

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

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

I agree with the above. We harp regularly that limitations that don't limit and disadvantages that don't disadvantage save no points. The corollary should be equally fundamental - if it grants no benefit, it costs nothing. In 1940, a cell phone is a power. In 2008, it's part of the environment.

Moving a step further to the radical, should the "superheroic" rules be in the core book, or in the Supers genre book? Perhaps the base rules should provide only the base rule - if you want equipment that is standard for the campaign world, you pay for the skills to use it, but not for the equipment itself, in points. Such equipment is easily destroyed, and may not be quickly or easily replaced, at the G<'s discretion.

If you want customized equipment, like a Super's Freeze Gun, a wizard's magic wand or a space smuggler's tricked-out hypership, you pay for this special equipment. If you want equipment that is always replaced fairly easily, you also need to buy that with points, if the GM will permit such.

caris

Feb 18th, '08, 07:22 AM

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

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

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

I think this should be taken a bit further. I think some space near the beginning of the rules needs to be spent just discussing the concept that the GM/play group may need to customize the rules for a given campaign and at least a non-comprehensive list of ways that can be done. The list could include but not be limited to: common game mechanics that have no point values (e.g. if the GM wants to run a campaign where every player is a member of a specific organization that all PCs get the FB: Membership for free, and at the GM option those who do not want to be a member may or may not get back points for not being a member depending on how severely the GM wants to discourage this action), changing the costs of mechanics depending on the over all utility of the mechanic in the campaign or desired frequency of the mechanic in the campaign (including making trivial abilities free), changing costs based on special effect and its utility or desired frequency in the game, required pre-requisits for some abilities (e.g. the optional requirement of KS: Martial Art Style before buying Martial Manuevers), required/standardized builds for some elements (e.g. all magic must be built with a required "Not vs. cold iron" Limitation), etc.

Doc Shadow

Feb 18th, '08, 07:23 AM

Yeah, well, virtually everyone else in the world uses it.

I wasn't disputing that.

Merely explaining why it really hasn't caught on in the US. ;)

Netzilla

Feb 18th, '08, 07:25 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

First a few tables of actual die roll percentages from the various mechanics suggested thus far:

3d6 that we're all familiar with:
http://users.cablemo.net/~dericpage/H6_Discussion/3d6.bmp
Range: 3-18
Number of Outcomes: 15
Pros: Way it's always been.
Cons: Some folks have trouble estimating odds on a bell curve, +/- 1 at the middle of the curve is far more significant than at either end

1d20 (for the sake of completeness)
http://users.cablemo.net/~dericpage/H6_Discussion/1d20.bmp
Range: 1-20
Number of Outcomes: 20
Pros: Familiar to almost every existing gamer out there; linear odds are very easy to estimate; more outcomes than 3d6
Cons: Some folks (any many Hero vets) dislike linear dice mechanics; eliminates aestetic of keeping to a single well-known die type.

4d6
http://users.cablemo.net/~dericpage/H6_Discussion/4d6.bmp
Range: 4-24
Number of Outcomes: 20
Pros: Larger number of outcomes than 3d6; modifiers have a less dramatic effect on the center of the curve (+/- 10-11% rather than 12-13%)
Cons: Larger handful of dice; Extremes are even less likely than they are now (less than 1/1000 rather than around 1/200).

3d8
http://users.cablemo.net/~dericpage/H6_Discussion/3d8.bmp
Range: 3-24
Number of Outcomes: 21
Pros: Larger number of possible outcomes; mid-curve modifiers only equate to around 9%; extrems occur roughly 1/500
Cons: Extremes still less likely than 3d6; non-standard die type.

3d10
http://users.cablemo.net/~dericpage/H6_Discussion/3d10.bmp
Range: 3-30
Number of Outcomes: 27
Pros: Largest number of possible outcomes so far; mid-curve modifiers equate to only 7.5%;
Cons: Extremes are only slightly more likely than with 4d6; non-standard die type

I really don't think the existing Hero Community at large will accept a change to a d20 or any other linear dice mechanic. Personally, I too like the "reliability" of the bell curve. As to the other types of bell curves, I'm not sure I see significant enough differences to make the change really worth it. You'll broaden the center of the curve but not significantly change the value of +/- 1. No matter what you do, +/- 1 will be far more valuable in the center of the curve than it will be at the ends.

Realistically, the only that you can balance this kind of thing with points, is to make changes away from the norm have a cost that is based on how far from the norm you are. Thus, a difference of 1 point "costs" when you're close to average but not when you're already near the extremes. After all, a +10% chance to hit should be more valuable than a +1%, right? However, the pricing structure would end up so counter-intuitive and complex that nobody would accept it.

So, I guess this really is just a long-winded way of saying that I'm for keeping the current 3d6 system as it is. As for roll-low vs roll-high, I don't see much difference in practical terms. Those who find roll-low to be confusing will find so much of character creation confusing that I'm not sure changing to a roll-high system will really make things more accessible. Not to mention that people manage to figure out what is good and bad with far more complex random mechanics like craps and poker that I feel it's not as big a deal as folks think.

eavatar

Feb 18th, '08, 07:30 AM

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Keep D6, they are easy to find dices

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

Don't try fix what is working properly

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

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

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

I don't mind about the hexes because it is hard to get any hex grid map on my country, but if you are going to change hero back to Imperial system it is going to be a real set back. The Imperial system is used by USA and Canada (I guess), even UK is abandoning it and going to metric like the rest of the world. BTW I still remember how the Imperial system is clear and easy to use...so simple to use which people at NASA applied it to one of billions worth Mars probes and it simply crashed against the red planet.

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

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

Please, the active vs real points is one of the most confusing issues for new players.

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

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

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

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

That could be a nice optional rule, not a real core rule, because I really would't apply this for a supers or a gritter game, but at other hand this rules fit like a glove at Pulp, Space Opera and Fantasy genres

rreay

Feb 18th, '08, 07:36 AM

I haven't posted much but I'll add my 2 cents.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I used think don't bother changing to a roll high system until D&D moved the 3rd edition and everything became roll high. It's awfully nice to not have to think about high or low desired for this roll. Also on d6's more spots is simply more dramatic.

As for flattening the bell curve, I like the idea but I would not go to a single d20 and make it completly flat. On this Susano gets my feelings exactly right so I'll just quote him and you can pretend I said it as well.

Broadening the bell curve is good, but I think the bell curve is very important to HERO. 3d6 gives ones a useful average, and allows you to get a good idea for what you can and cannot due. I was very frustrated with D20 in a few sessions as a d20 is a simple 1-20 with not weighted set to values. So, no matter how good the character was, I had no average to depend on, and my die rolls were all over the place, so my character ended up feeling useless. With 3d6 (or any multiple die roll), you have an average result, and thus, you have a certain expectation of what your character can do. I think a single die ssytem removes that.

In this thread there have been suggestions to move to 3 larger dice d8's or d10s or moving to more dice 4d6. I have no qualms about either of those ideas. In one campaign I built I actually moved to 3d8-3. The minus 3 was to keep the center of the curve the same, I never ran that campaign so I can't comment on how well it works in practice.

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

I like hex maps hexes a bit better than square maps which I like better than unmarked maps with a measurement systems, which in turn I like better than mapless. People have brought up the good point that there are a ton of square maps available commercially, particularly for fantasy. That availability is probably your strongest incentive to move to squares.

My preference here is to default everything to hexes but have a side bar talking about how to use square maps. But I wouldn't have much problem if you moved to squares.

I do strongly like the idea of recasting hexes as 1 meter each. It becomes so much easier to think about movement without all the internal multiply or divide by 2.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

For distances I'd say stick with the metric system. For players I've had that had a problem with meters I just told them a yard and a meter are close enough together that they can be used interchangeably in a game like this. Larger units like mile are generally not gamed on the table, and when they are we have to convert from hexes either way.

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

That's a tough one. I do like the idea of stuffing a huge heavily limited "Nova" power into a framework with more pedestrian powers.

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

Yes please.

Netzilla

Feb 18th, '08, 08:04 AM

Now, on a note related to the die mechanics is the unification of mechanics. Currently, when it comes to Success Rolls (as opposed to Effect Rolls) we have 2 ways to calculate target numbers:

To Hit = 11 + OCV - DCV + Modifiers

Skill Target = 9 + (STAT/5) + Skill + Modifiers

Perhaps we should look at unifying the method that target numbers are arrived at. Personally, I'm in favor of changing the skill mechanic rather than the to hit. So, the skill formula would be:

Target = 11 + (STAT/3) + Skill + Modifiers

Pros:
* You have one way of calculating values which makes it much easier to determine the effects of Characteristic Adjustments on the fly. You know that every 3 points is significant.
* Difficulty values can have a wider range as the stat component will be larger.
* If we went to 0-average stats (I believe this is being discussed in another thread), it would keep the average trained skill roll at 11-.
* Both formulas are easily re-arranged to hide the "Difficulty/DCV" Modifiers (STAT/3 + Skill + 11 - 3d6 = Difficulty/DCV beaten).

Cons:
* Increases the value of putting your stats on "3s" even more.
* An average person (8 CHAR) has an unmodified skill roll of 14- if there are no difficulty modifiers. I actually don't see this as a problem as this just causes you to assume that trivially easy tasks (what would normally be a +3 bonus) is the norm.

Netzilla

Feb 18th, '08, 08:09 AM

Unified Damage Mechanic

Related to changing dice mechanics is the Effect Roll mechanic. Currently we have a relatively uniform success mechanic (3d6 under a target number). However, we have multiple Effect Roll mechanics:
* Roll dice, total for stun then count Body.
* Roll dice, total for Body then roll for a Stun Multiplier.
* Roll dice and only count Body (Flash).
* Roll dice and only count Total (Adjustment Powers).

Perhaps we should look at unifying the Effect Rolls mechanic. I've toyed around with this idea and have thought of a few ways of handling this.

One would be to change things so that you use different dice to roll Stun and Body. For example, with a 12 DC Normal attack, you roll 4d6 for Body then add another 8d6 for Stun. On a killing attack it would be 6d6 for Body plus another 6d6 for Stun. This would require major changes to the cost structure of both attacks and defenses.

Another would be that Body is always a percentage of the Stun rolled, what that percentage is varies by attack type. So a Normal attack might be Stun/3, while a Killing Attack might be Stun/2.

Go the other way and have Stun always be a multiplier of Body. On a Normal Attack you could have a Stun Multiplier of x3, while a Killing attack might be only x2.

All of these mechanics get rid of the Stun Lotto effect that many people are not fond of. However, this would require a significant re-tooling of Hit Locations.

The second two allow for you to build a single Attack power with Normal, Killing, Flash, etc being Advantage/Limitation style modifiers. For example, various 12 DC attacks:
* Normal: 4d6 Body, x3 Stun
* Killing: 4d6 Body, x2 Stun, only Resistant Defenses apply.
* Flash: 4d6 / 2 = Segments of Effect
* Mind Control: 4d6 x3 vs targets Ego + Mental Defense.
* Mind Blast: 4d6 vs Mental Defense.

This reduces the "hand full of dice" perception that turns some people off to Hero. The mechanic is always xd6 * y multiplier, no matter what kind of effect you're rolling.

Obviously this needs more rigorous mathematical analysis than I've given it and a lot of play-testing to make sure it balances right.

Susano

Feb 18th, '08, 08:10 AM

I wasn't disputing that.

Merely explaining why it really hasn't caught on in the US. ;)

I really doubt the French origin had anything to do with it. I'm more inclined to think Americans are a stubborn bunch and there's no more sure-fire way to get an American's hackles up than to have the Feds try and push something on them.

steamteck

Feb 18th, '08, 08:25 AM

I'

Keep it low roll for skills and combat, roll high for damage. Personally I think rolling low is more intuitive than rolling high for basic checks.

I agree completely. I strongly support the current system. I've loved low roll since The Fantasy Trip first came out.

Again I like Sean Walter's idea that the amount you make your roll by effects damage but it would have to be carefully balanced.

Doc Shadow

Feb 18th, '08, 08:56 AM

I really doubt the French origin had anything to do with it. I'm more inclined to think Americans are a stubborn bunch and there's no more sure-fire way to get an American's hackles up than to have the Feds try and push something on them.

Could be.

But consider this - Metric came out during the French Revolution. That revolution didn't sit too well with most Americans at the time. Something about chopping off people's heads for the pleasure of the riff-raff just seemed a bit too exessive. As a result America rejected a lot of what was coming out of France at the time. Even got into a short war with them.

Anyway, this pretty much soured Americans on stuff coming out of France for a good long while. One of the things that got a bad rep among Yanks was the metric system. Most of us don't even remember why it was originally considered bad. In addition for most people the Imperial system works fine in their everyday lives, so why should they change? They just don't see any benefit from it. The closest thing to acceptance that I've seen has been the liter, I assume because it's so similar to a quart, but even that's not accepted for milk or gasoline which still use the imperial system.

Remjin

Feb 18th, '08, 08:58 AM

Metrics are fine, 1 hex = 1 meter better. Gets rid of extra factors, makes more sense. Powers being defined in distances won't make as big a change that way. This will change overall scaling, though.

Never liked hexes or squares. Hexes lack proper facings. Squares do it more so. Hexes have no sides, squares have no angles. I've always been a proponent of character facings defined as octagons with a cleae front, back, left, right, and intermediate angles. For using miniatures, measurements work great and don't have that weird feel that hexes or squares give in movement. Its a 3-D world we play in, and maps are all originated in wargames. Most every wargame has progressed to simple measurements, if we keep with wargaming mechanics we may as well do so for movement as well. Expressing movement in inches is part of that. Even if it is imperial measurement. :D

While increasing granularity is nice for heroic games, it may detract from dramatic realism. An optional system may be called for here, or at least a separate scale for those genres. I don't think its that important, honestly.

High roll is just a small formula change. Give it as an optional formula for those stuck on that idea. It doesn't actually change anything.

The 3d6 curve is nice, as already told. Changing the dice mechanic may be too drastic and will make all previous material obsolete, change the cost structure significantly, and require recosting of skills and otherwise. It's not really worth it.

Hero Points are a good idea, used in many other games. Simply: losing dramatic effect for a poor die roll is disappointing and detracts from the game.

Rwgarding mundane items and points, its easily covered by wealth or lifestyle perks that define what you could have. If you chose poverty, having a car is points. If you chose wealthy, having a rolex is no big deal. Seems like overthinking the concept. Leave mundane to flavor or money, the exotic or personal to points. A pistol is resource pool or cash, a Death Dealer v2.0 is points.

gregghelmberger

Feb 18th, '08, 09:33 AM

Edsel

Feb 18th, '08, 09:40 AM

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?
I like the good old d6. If it must change, perhaps a d10 would be okay, but please keep the d6.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Steve’s Thoughts: What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

I too like the bell curve. In a way it is more granular than a boring old linear system. 3d6 gives only 15 possible results (3-18). 4d6 would give you 20 possibilities (4-24) which you could make 0 to 20 by using 4d6-4 but that adds extra math and doesn't help streamline anything. 3d10 would give you 27 possible results (3-30). However, I think that the 3d6 mechanic is good enough that changing it is not worth it.

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

I am in favor of keeping the hexagon map for regulating things like movement, ranges, LOS and such. Changing the area that a hex represents might be okay.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
I am an advocate of the Metric system. In my job I have used the metric system extensively and I like its base-10 math system much better than the odd-ball Imperial system. Hell, I which the US would hurry up and go metric.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?
I see no reason to.

Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?
No I like the AP/RP system as it is.

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for "absolutes”?
I don't like absolutes. Perhaps in very rare circumstances it might be okay but such a rule would certainly require a Stop Sign and would need to be restrictive in scope. For instance I can see a Fire Elemental in a Fantasy Hero game being immune to fire and heat but in a case like that there ought to be a trade-off (for example, vulnerability to water).

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?Yes, I like them. Of course I seem to be in the minority as far as my gaming group is concerned on this issue. To me "Hero Points" are just plain heroic and fit well into the game. Besides any GM or campaign can simply disallow them if they don't fit into the genre being played.

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

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

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

Xotl

Feb 18th, '08, 10:07 AM

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Oh god yes. I really focus on trying to introduce new players to Hero, and roll-low is always annoying in a system, especially in Hero, where's there's plenty of roll-high stuff too. It's simply counterintuitive. I think if the only reason to keep something that hinders adoption of the system is because that's the way it's currently done, then there isn't really a reason. This would be a really easy change to implement that would help the system grow. What possible argument is there to keep things the way they are? Please.

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

Please move to meters for the standard unit, which leads to...

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Please stick with the current system that the rest of the world uses. I really don't want to have to find out how many hogheads of damage a stone of UNTIL agents can take :)

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

Strongly in favour of this. I think there's a very good reason why multiple very solid systems have featured some element of this in their core rules over the years. It's a fun, yet simple mechanic that allows simulation of things Hero currently doesn't, and involves players more.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 18th, '08, 10:11 AM

My opinions: Metric, yes. Hexes, yes. Scalable hexes (a la Robot Warriors), yes! Size Class and Ground Scales and bigness, oh my! We don't have to call them inches, if that's confusing, but yes, keep hexes, please.

Keep 2 meter hexes as the default.

(Playing Hero taught me more metric than all of high school science class!)

Active Points vs. Real Points, keep.

Susano

Feb 18th, '08, 10:11 AM

Please stick with the current system that the rest of the world uses. I really don't want to have to find out how many hogheads of damage a stone of UNTIL agents can take :).

Humbug: 17!!!

SteveZilla

Feb 18th, '08, 10:29 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

IMO I have seen no true reason to step away from a purely d6 system. They have worked quite well for many decades. There are already "different dice" being used currently -- the half d6 (or d3 to some) and the "Stun Multiple" die with (effectively) a second one in place of the six. My point is that even limiting it to just cubicle dice doesn't limit what can be done with those dice.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

It's not needed, though I do think it would be a slight improvement. Perhaps just a paragraph or two in a "How to Change the system" section of the book that details how to make it a Roll High system.

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.

If we don't introduce other kinds of dice into the system, there are (as I see it) two ways to reduce the "peak" of the 3d6 bell curve. Either change to 2d6 (a bad idea because of lack of spread), or use two dice for to-hit.

One die generates a 1-6 number, and the second for "Low/Medium(+6)/High(+12)". This produces a 1-18 spread that has a flat probability distribution.

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

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

Without a hexagonal grid, I don't see how we could keep turn modes. Dee-an-Dee oversimplifies movement by equating a 45 degree move of ~7' to that of a N-S or E-W move of 5`. We could go "free range" without any grid by measuring angles and distances directly. That would allow the greatest freedom of movement down to 1m increments, but at the expense of slowing and complicating combats IMO.

Or just have a rule that barring extra reach distance, to engage in HtH combat, you have to enter your target's hex, making the separation (loosely) 1m.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

No. Despite being stuck in the Imperial Measurement System, I *like* that Hero System uses Metric. IMO using metric gives it greater uniformity. And more of the world uses metric than Imperial, IIRC. Switching might hurt non-US sales.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

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

No. But I would add that in a point-based system, there shouldn't be half-point costs. I would suggest doubling the point values of everything for a two-fold benefit. One, it gets rid of half-point costs, and two, it gives more "breathing room" at the bottom where there are complaints of "not enough granularity in the system".

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

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

IMO there is no better way to initially gauge power builds against each other than the AP/RP methodology.

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

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

I love that, with a few exceptions that Hero System is not based upon absolutes like I had found constantly in Dee-an-Dee. In the same way the system (to me) is a fusion of geometric and linear progressions, I think there is room for both absolutes and non-absolutes (within reason -- no 100% rDR! :D).

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

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

I believe they can add flair to a game, but I believe they aren't universally appropriate across all genres of games. Thus I would suggest they not be made a "hard" rule.

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

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

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

I think the superheroic version of "having to pay for everything" is best summed up by: If it significantly affects the game and/or combat, it has to be paid for. Like spoons. :D

I am uncomfortable with giving characters something for free without a methodology. A system I would favor would give each player a uniform number of "free" background skills of their choice -- or perhaps a detailed as a specific number of points to buy only background skills.

Kdansky

Feb 18th, '08, 10:34 AM

Chris Goodwin

Feb 18th, '08, 10:43 AM

If we don't introduce other kinds of dice into the system, there are (as I see it) two ways to reduce the "peak" of the 3d6 bell curve. Either change to 2d6 (a bad idea because of lack of spread), or use two dice for to-hit.

One die generates a 1-6 number, and the second for "Low/Medium(+6)/High(+12)". This produces a 1-18 spread that has a flat probability distribution.

This is actually not a bad idea. Definitely consider it, even if you don't use it.

Second die: 1-2, add 0; 3-4, add 6, 5-6, add 12.

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 10:54 AM

Personally, I think changing the dice and dice mechanics changes the game to the point of you might as well write a new one and call it something else.

MorpheousXO

Feb 18th, '08, 11:00 AM

I think we should use HERO Points

I think it should stay metric, but don't use inches, use meters.

I think you should provide rules for both hexes and squares, thereby helping the D20 converts out. This would basically amount to explaining how to figure the aoe's in square form, and explaining how to move diagonally in squares.

I think that both roll high and roll low could be used and explained as they work exactly the same, but having it actually officially in the books makes things much easier for people to swallow. For what it's worth, if we can only have one I vote roll high across the board.

for flattening the bell curve, I'd think increasing the die size rather than the amount of dice would be better, as someone said d10's earlier. Big change, but could have big payoff!

Now all I can hope for is that America here gets it's butt into gear and goes metric. Makes too much sense not to, honestly! :hush:

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 11:17 AM

I'd like to bring up the possibility of unifying the mechanics for objects. The current interaction between:objects, vehicles, automatons and foci can lead to some strange situations. A really radical change could be change Foci from a Limitation to a Perk purchased with 1 per 5 rules.

Lizard

Feb 18th, '08, 11:27 AM

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

Just go to 4d6? Problem with that is that the bell curve get nastily severe the more dice you roll, and 'extreme' results are part of the fun.

How about scaling the cost, so that +1 CV is 1 point, +2 CV is 2 more points (3 total), +3 CV is 3 more, and so on?

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

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

I actually prefer the abstraction of the hex to 'real world' measurements. I don't want to use string and tape measures in play.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

If you're changing things with an eye towards accessibility, going imperial might be worth doing. Metric was invented by the French, so what's it doing in the HERO system? Now, if you ever write the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey system, go for it! (I kid!) (But I do like the idea of ditching metrics.)

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

The problem is, in much source material, absolutes do exist, or at least as so close as makes no never mind. Even in non-super genres, you have spells like Magic Missile which "never" miss. Steal a page from GURPS and have a "Cosmic" advantage, which makes the power immune to all "lesser" defenses or attacks, but which can be countered by similar "Cosmic" powers. So pre-Crsis Superman is invulnerable -- really, totally, invulnerable -- to all things of Earthly make, but when he faces a Kryptonian weapon, which is also Cosmic, it effects him normally.

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

Having played in D20 modern and M&M, and compared to bog-standard D&D, I heartily support such concepts, however so-called.

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?

I'd like this to be controlled somehow, to prevent the problem of someone writing down every KS they can think of. Perhaps X 'freebie' knowledge or profession skills?

BlueBuddha

Feb 18th, '08, 12:15 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

I vote no. d6s are east to acquire, and the bell-curve seems fine to me. Alternate options would be fine, but I doubt I'd use them.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I'm a big fan of simple mechanics. The Storyteller system and Shadowrun 4th edition rules are personal favorites, but it's obviously too dramatic a change for HERO, and not really what I want. However, a high-roll only system would be a very good idea. Turning skill rolls into a 3d6+bonus (the bonus could equal Char/5 + levels bought) vs. a simple difficulty number, and attacks could be 3d6+OCV (difficulty in this case would likely be 11+DCV, or simply call DCV equal to 11+DEX/3).

Damage and effect rolls are pretty solid, IMO. Maybe a simplification, such as rolling KA-style for all attacks might work, but I'd have to try it out.

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

As an official unit of measurement, sure. As many have already pointed out, it doesn't mean that hexes, or inches, equaling 2 meters is still usable as a method of playing on a mat or with minis.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No.

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

Not as a general rule. I think some guidelines for how to limit each separately or to ignore AP in certain situations would be good, but I find AP very useful.

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

Allowing for absolutes, with a Stop Sign would be fine with me.

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

All games should have such rules, even if they're only optional.

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

I think Steve and I are on the same page here.

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 12:43 PM

Why is Shadowrun 4th a simpler mechanic? It seems needlessly heavy to me.

caris

Feb 18th, '08, 01:10 PM

Why is Shadowrun 4th a simpler mechanic? It seems needlessly heavy to me.

I think he means roll a pool of dice vs. a target number and count success seems simpler to him than roll 3D6 under a target number.

Peregrine

Feb 18th, '08, 01:18 PM

I think he means roll a pool of dice vs. a target number and count success seems simpler to him than roll 3D6 under a target number.

That indeed seems to be what was intended.

And I personally detest dice-pool mechanics. My limited grasp of probability fails when trying to get a feel for dice pools and success chances.

misterdeath

Feb 18th, '08, 01:20 PM

[quote]Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Depends. Going to a 4d6 system or a 3d10, and twigging the numbers to work might make for an interesting thing.

FWIW, it took one session for my current group of D&D players to twig to "roll low" to do stuff, roll high for damage. And, well, my players as a rule, are not mathematical superstars.

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

Yes. Express things in Meters. My newbies are having way more trouble getting "hexes" of movement, and how far that is really.

Still use the hex maps, just put things on the character sheet in Meters.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding? Is it one, or two decimal points where we're supposed to round? Pick one, stick with it, done.

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

I think you'd have to change the system completely (going to a fractional add subtract system, or somesuch) to make this work.

Sure, Active vs. Real points are a bit hard for new people to understand. I don't know that this would be the way to fix it.

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?
The few we've got, and the ways around them, are enough.

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

Yes please.

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

Not just yeah, but hell yeah.

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.”

:hail::hail::hail:

Rock on.

D

Certified

Feb 18th, '08, 01:49 PM

What I would like to see is more unified mechanics. It seems that in several places there are unique systems that have similarities to others and could easily be brought in line with one another. This adds confusion and time to both character generation and game play.

Combat Values and Skill rolls: As mentioned earlier these mechanics are similar but not the same. I believe that these could be rolled together. Perhapses something like (Stat/5) + 10 = Roll. This would give an average of 12 for "average" rolls. It is a slight increase from the current norm for skills and a reduction from Combat Values. This would offer some fairly quick and clean math. For some reason I think dividing by 2, 5 and 10 are about the easiest numbers to work with and adding 10 is a no brainier. (Okay adding 9 or 11 isn't that hard either but 10 is just a clean even number.)

Additionally, this also addresses the argument of Dexterity and Combat Skill Levels adding more value to CSLs. This however brings me to another point.

Non-Conforming Skills: CSLs, Penalty Skill Levels, Defensive Maneuver I-IV, Weapons Familiarity, I don't have the book in front of me so I may have forgotten some. These Skills break from the normal format for Skill use. I understand why they are listed under skills, however, if possible I would like to see these exceptions moved into a different category or possibly their own category to avoid confusion with the other standard skills.

Other Rules: It seems that there are several places where something that could be resolved with a preexisting rule instead uses a unique system. Again, I don't have the book on hand but what comes to mind is rules for Grappling witch seems to be related to how Entangles work but each have separate entries and unique nuances to them both. It would be nice to have have a clearly defined set rule for Holds and then situational notes. Such as in a Grapple Targets may perform X, In an Entangle Targets may perform Y.

There are a couple of other points I may be missing but I think the biggest one I want to emphasize is simply streamlining the rules to remove overlap and unnecessary additions. On the subject of the Bell Curve and Dice Rolls, I agree that a 4d6 system would add additional range while tightening averages. I see both of those as a good thing as 4d6 as exceptional High (20+) and Low (8-) would be around a 5% chance with is small but still significant. On a side note the system for CV and Skills above would have a base of 12 or 13 instead of 10.

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 01:58 PM

I know I seem to be in full on Fuddy Duddy mode but I don't see how changing the Die type and the rolling mechanics to be anything more than change for the sake of change. Actually, beyond 1hex =1 meter, I don't see the need to change anything. Some of the changes have an appeal, some pique my interest and others make me lament we ever allowed non supers into the pool (I keed). When I read the threads in their entirety it seems like the game will become barely recognizable to me. That could be info overload though.

I'll take a look at 6th when it hits the stands. (and by that I mean buy it ;) )
For now I'm gonna bow out and try to avoid the 6th ed threads.

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 02:06 PM

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m strongly in favor of doing this.
My opinion: Seconded.

My suggestion: Intent-relevant task resolution would be great.

Cancer

Feb 18th, '08, 02:16 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

I admit I loathe square probability distribution functions, so the 3d6 bell curve is one of HERO's best features IMO.

On one hand, adding more dice of the same flavor tightens up the distribution function in the sense of making the extreme values less probable. That seems to be the opposite of the change you indicate you want.

But going to a larger range, that is, rolling dice with more sides, has the effect of keeping the p.d.f. centrally peaked to the same extent as now, but lessening the influence of the 3-point difference in CVs that you mention. A 3d10 system is something I'd have to experiment with but might do what you want, "weakening" the CV differential you mention versus the dispersion of the random element.

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 02:43 PM

My opinion: Seconded.

My suggestion: Intent-relevant task resolution would be great.

Explain?

Toadmaster

Feb 18th, '08, 03:52 PM

Ok, my first comment is not directed at Steve.

All you Imperial measurement haters, chill out. We live here you don't, we tried the Metric system in 1976 and it died a horrible death, it was the kid you pick after the fat kid with crutches when you are playing kick ball.

The Mars lander crashed because someone at NASA screwed up and mixed Metric with Imperial units, if NASA wasn't being all scientific and told the lander to fire the retro rockets 5000 Rods above the surface everything would have been just fine.

For the dude in Santa Clarita in favor of the US going to the metric system get out of SoCal the smog is damaging your brain. :D

Ok, Steve can uncover his ears

I am all in favor of the metric system in gaming, it is an easy system to use and scales well, small scale 1cm = 1m, large scale 1cm = 1km because you just divide movement and range by 10.

Realistically the measurements needed in a game are weight, distance and speed and the conversions are easy enough based on the accuracy needed (not much) 1 meter = 1 yard (or 3 feet), 1 kilogram = 2 lbs and a kilometer = 1/2 mile, sure these are off by about 10% but its just needed to help Americans put it into something they can get their head around.

You tell someone a guy weighs 150kg they will look at you like you have two heads, you tell them they guy weighs about 300 lbs they go oh, so he's big like a Football player (don't even go there Soccer fans :p ) it doesn't matter that he actually weighs 330 lbs. If I'm buying a liter of gas in real life you better give me my full 0.265 gallon, but if you say a liter is about a quart in the game you can keep the .015 difference.

Ok, next tangent roll high? If this is actually an issue I think you have the wrong game, its a pretty easy concept. Certainly not a deal breaker for me if Steve decides to go that way because I can figure it out (so my 14- would be a 7+?) but I don't believe its even worth the time it took me to type this let alone a rule change and we will just hear from people who say roll under is more intuitive.

I don't think there is anything wrong with 3d6 that any of the other solutions mentioned would make worthwhile. Interesting discussion, but that is about all. Any use of a dice pool system in Hero and the green man in the hex gets two in the ear and a set of concrete slippers (unless of course you mean a kiddie pool full of dice, that is ok).

I think a better explaination of using points to buy equiment is definately worthwhile. Allowing the use of mundane items on occasion in a Champions style supers campaign is fine, although it sould be paid for if used a lot. Batman should be able to stop at the hardware store to buy a maglight before delving into the sewers, but if he wants to permanently attach it to his utility belt so he has it when the power suddenly goes out he should pay something for it because that is pretty useful.

I think rather than letting characters take mundane items for free it would be worth discussing simple powers. There is a justifiable argument against making people spec out a rope or a flashlight. I think there should be discussion and encouragement for players / GM's to say, its a rope, it lets you climb, hoist and tie stuff up and leave it at that. Provide some discussion of how to determine its cost for supers, maybe create a "power" mundane item with a usefulness chart (ball of string, roll of duct tape, really sticky McGiver brand chewing gum - 0-1 pt, rope, flash light, pocket knife / Leatherman tool 1-2 pts, etc). If you want a whiz bang flashlight that fits into a pen but can illuminate a football field, build it, otherwise for off the shelf items give an approximate cost / value and move on to something fun.

If Batman choose to drive a Cadillac instead of a Batmobile that is ok, but unless he pays for it there will times it has a flat, a dead battery or he'll lock the keys in it. Free stuff shouldn't exactly be free. :eg:

This leads into a related subject, spec-ing everything, many items are intuitive and trying to build them just confuses stuff.

A gun is a killing attack, it has a recoil, it can be taken away, most people know it is a gun, it holds x number of bullets. I would encourage the use of this is how guns work, this is how much damage this particular gun does, if you want to use a telescopic sight here is how it works. Not so much a change in rules as a change in implimentation.

It is pretty silly that people would have to write up something like climbing, obvious accessable item, must attach end to the high point etc vs rope 50 meters, 100 kg load and that is what people react to when they say you have to spec out a ball point pen. Again, save building items for something wierd like an umbrella bazooka. Show a GM how to use the rules to "build it" within the rules if it is unclear how to use it in the game but show that it is fine to describe it in real terms and move onto something that actually matters in the game.

I think this is something that was lost between 3rd ed and 4th ed, in Fantasy HERO, Danger Intl etc there was no issue of "building" a Ferrari or a Spas 12, you just looked at a similar car or weapon and made it faster / slower do more or less damage. The "tool kit" aspect of 4th ed got emphasized a bit too much, and all of a sudden you started seeing mundane items spec'd out.

One thing that I think was missed and actually went the wrong way is genre specific stuff. It seems like 5th took the path of an item is the same regardless of genre and this really takes one of HERO's strengths and makes it a liability. There is absolutely no reason an M16 in a Vietnam campaign should be the same as an M16 in an A-Team campaign or an M16 in a Champions game. In the first a 2d6 RKA makes perfect sense, 1-2 shots in the head or chest should be fatal in that genre, 4d6 stun only energy blast might be more appropiate for the A-Team game, they never killed anybody in the show, you rarely even saw serious injuries. In the Champions game it might make since to make it a 1d6 RKA, still dangerous to normals and normal like supers, but easy to make Superman and Hulk clones immune to gun fire.

pawsplay

Feb 18th, '08, 04:06 PM

To the people saying "4d6 or 3d10": these choices are the opposite of each other. 4d6 has more central tendency, 3d10 has less.

TSandman

Feb 18th, '08, 04:19 PM

The Imperial system is used by USA and Canada (I guess)

As a Canadian, I confirm this...

It is used mainly by those "used" to it or doing mostly their business with the US. Officially, Canada is Metric, but the imperial system can be used besides it.

I'm 33 and I use Metric everyday but must know the basics of Imperial to understand our southern neighbors and our parents... I know about how long is a Mile a foot and an inch, about how heavy is a pound. But please, don't ask me more or I'll have to go check up on the internet!

As an aside, regarding the 3D6 Bell Curve, one thing that I like about it is that it IS a curve. I mean, with a D20, there is nothing exceptionnal about rolling a 20 or a 1, while rolling an 18 or a 3 with 3D6 is. There is no curve for a D20, only a straight line.

BobGreenwade

Feb 18th, '08, 04:35 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.I'm with you here 100%. A passing mention about using alternative dice, and how the idea could be implemented, might be worthwhile in an appendix, but the default should remain d6.
Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?I'm kind of the reverse from your position here, but not strongly so. Rolling high for success is a staple of other RPG systems; but on the other hand, rolling low for success and high for damage kind of makes "cheating dice" less attractive.

On the other hand I feel fairly comfortable with the bell curve as it is. That said, I think you could solve a host of issues by switching to 5d6, and narrowing the gaps for Skill rolls to, say, 14 + CHA/3, or 12 + CHA/2. That would give greater granularity to Skill Rolls and the usefulness of Characteristics, and possibly give different ways of dividing up the Characteristics so they have more variety.
Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?It's not quite true that "there's absolutely no reason to keep the hex." The 2m hex is instantly usable for standup miniatures, whether metal or cardboard. I'm not saying don't do it, but just consider that consequence if you do, and provide a good solution to miniatures users.
Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?I agree with you on this one.
Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?Not as a blanket statement. As I mentioned with Characteristics, it may be useful to have some things always round down (like all Figured Characteristics calculations and the "Spell Slot" issue I mention there), but on the whole keep it as is.
Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?I think, as you do, that this would cause more trouble than it's worth.
Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?Despite the history to the contrary, I'd make an allowance for it. Perhaps the cost for Invulnerability (100% Damage Reduction), Absolute Hitting, and so forth could be tied to the campaign level, and certainly these should be "Stop Sign" abilities, but there's enough call for it (IMO) that it should be included.
Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?I'd want it. It contributes a lot, potentially applies to any genre, and could be included in "watered-down" form for the core book.
Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?I'm pretty close to where you are on this, but I'd also allow for some kind of Cost Multiplier based on commonality, usefulness, and other factors. And some things, like wristwatches and cell phones, could be thought of as "Everyman Equipment."

Steve Long

Feb 18th, '08, 05:12 PM

Steve, if you got rid of the hex, what would Hero Games' emblem be?

Still the hex. It's a d6 looked at angle-on.

Steve Long

Feb 18th, '08, 05:20 PM

OK, reading the replies, I think the question is misinterpreted. I don't think Steve is saying "burn your hex maps". I think the question is "should we have a base unit of measure which does not require translation". The present unit is 1" = 1 hex = 2 meters. The proposal is to change the base to 1 meter. If you want to use hex maps, square maps, rulers, tape measures, calipers, string with knots in it or whatever to measure, fine.

Yes, exactly so. How maps are marked or laid out is irrelevant. The issue here is whether the HERO System should use its own unique unit of measurement, and I think the answer is, "No." ;)

Nightshade

Feb 18th, '08, 05:22 PM

I have long wanted to use 3d8 or 3d12 for HERO if for no other reason as to make there be a more available range of skills. You have to admit, there isn't a lot of room for bonuses or penalties for skill rolls, attack rolls, etc. with the bell curve quite so sharp. When 11- is about 50% success and 14- is over 75%, +3 becomes a huge factor, and it is only +3!

If you go to 3-36 (3d12) you keep the nice features of a bell curve, but eliminate the "I keep rolling the same number" effect from having too many dice, as well as keeping the gross randomness of a single die roll at bay. With 3d12, the "average" roll is 20-, but you can go +/- 16 instead of 11 +/- 8. You get a lot more room for modifiers that way.

In addition, 3d12 would allow you get more granularity with regard to your statistic rolls. No more would every character have a bunch of 13s and 18s in heroic games. We could use something like 10+statistic or 15+statistic/2, so there is an actual difference between someone who has an INT of 12 and 13. To me, this kills two birds with one stone.

I also agree that STR needs to be increased in cost, but I would say that regardless of genre. Either that, or make STR not affect as many figured statistics (if any at all). One thing I would suggest is making jumping a movement ability with a set starting point, like swimming or running. While you do tend to see strong people jumping further in comic books, it really doesn't make a lot of sense that it is the ONLY figured movement type.

Thanks for listening (errr reading)

Nightshade

Steve Long

Feb 18th, '08, 05:25 PM

Steve, could you clarify what you meant by "strongly in favor of doing away with the hex"? Are you just referring to the current idea of a 2 meter hex, or doing away with hexes on all maps published by Hero, or what? I couldn't care less whether a hex is 1 or 2 meters or some other measurement entirely, but using hexes to figure movement is a lot easier than dragging out a tape measure at the gaming table every time someone wants to walk across a room.

I'm referring to the hex as a unique unit of measurement. Whether we go on marking our maps with hexes is completely beside the point. Putting a hex on a map as an aid to play and visualization is a separate matter from "you must learn a special way of measuring things to play this game," which is what I want to eliminate.

But in fact, many (if not most) of the maps we've published in 5E haven't had a hex grid on them and I don't recall getting any complaints. What's important is making sure that the scale's marked on the map so everyone know's what's what. ;)

Yansuf

Feb 18th, '08, 05:27 PM

[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536935]
Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

No, using only the common d6 is one of HERO's strengths

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

No, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The current system also makes "loaded dice" unlikely. That can be given as a reason for it.

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

I agree that the "inch" should go, but I have no trouble with hexes. Perhaps a sidebar explaining how to convert to squares would be good.
A hex=1 meter would be fine.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

No to both, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

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

I can see some usefulness to this, but it probably would be a too much trouble.

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

I don't think so; while Superman was once "Invulnerable", in the animated series type setting he never was. Anyway, how do you do "Invulnerable" and still allow some entities to cause damage? Yes, Superman was vulnerable to kryptonite and magic, but also to cosmic entities (like Darsaid.) I think having to rate some things as "Cosmic" is too much trouble.

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

Seems like a good idea.

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

Absolutely! I recall a GM (in Champions) who was going to rule that a PC who had taken "filthy rich" as a perk, had to pay points for his sportscar, even though he would never use it as a hero (he could fly faster.) Fortunately, we talked him out of that.
Similarly, if a Superhero is a police officer in his (or her) secret ID, I believe that they shouldn't have to pay for their standard police equipment, unless they habitually take them on adventures in costume. If a burgler breaks into officer Friendly's apartment, I see no problem with his pulling out his service weapon, and still not paying points for it, as long as he doesn't carry it when adventuring as Heroman.

On a related note, I feel that the costs of skills should be handled somewhat differently between heroic and superheroic games. A Dark Champions Police Procedural where the PC's are detectives and/or CSIs needs detailed breakdown of skills; but most superhero PC's shouldn't have to pay loads of points for the skills they should have, unless they will often be significant in game. Yes, some superheroes are largely skill based, but should Superman have to take 50 or 60 points in skills that he has used sometimes (as Clark or not?) As I recall (and it has been a long time since I read a Superman comic) Clark should have PS:Journalist at 16- or so (multiple pulitzer prize winner), PS: Writer; PS:Investigator; Acting, Bribery, Bureaucratics, Concealment, Conversation, Criminology (low level), Deduction, Disguise, High Society, Lipreading, Persuasion, Shadowing, Stealth, Streetwise, Research and numerous knowledge skills; plus Superman has used Mimicry, Ventriloquism, and Navigation (space at least).
That's over 60 points, without the KS and AKS!

CourtFool

Feb 18th, '08, 05:28 PM

Psha, yeah. Good bye, hex. Hello metre.

CourtFool

Feb 18th, '08, 05:31 PM

If it ain't broke, don't fix it = tradition = the world is flat. Challenge everything! Evolve or die. Wait...this is not NGD...

TSandman

Feb 18th, '08, 05:53 PM

I wanted to say something on the Active/Real cost of powers earlier but couldn't get my mind around WHAT I liked about it...

As a new player/future GM, I like the way I can measure a power with it's "Maximum Effect" (what you can do with the best conditions on your side) and the "Average Effect" (what you can do normally). I personally want to know that because we (our group) have some issues with min/maxers and players having poking holes and finding loopholes as a hobby... You can limit the Maximum effect easily, or you can let the player get MetaGalactic Heroes throw the M31 galaxy at each other for 10 real points (of two phonebooks of limitation requirements are met).

At least, that's how I understood it the first time I read about it last december ;)

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 06:18 PM

ghost-angel

Feb 18th, '08, 06:33 PM

archermoo

Feb 18th, '08, 06:35 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

I like keeping d6 for effects, but I think the rules should at least mention the idea of using different dice for resolution. As others have noted, the more sides you add to a die the less impact a single +/-1 has, and the more options are available. I've found that 3d10 works very well, and gives more granularity to skills and combat levels.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Please no. :) In fact, changing the type of dice used for resolution would give an easy way to explain to those gamers that have a problem with some rolls being high and some low. Just tell 'em that if you're rolling d10 you want low, if you're rolling d6 you want to roll high. :D

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

Please do!

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Bleh. I LIKE the metric system. In a lot of cases I'm much more comfortable with it than Imperial measurements. And I don't see changing it adding anything to the game.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Don't see anything wrong with them.

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

Another one of those things that defines what HERO is to me.

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

Another one I dislike. If anything a discussion on how to create "absolute" type effects for specific games might be useful.

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

Been using a Hero Point system for more than a decade. :)

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

Yes, please!

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 06:44 PM

Explain?
http://drivingblind.livejournal.com/213262.html

HERO currently lives in the upper-left quadrant of the above-linked diagram. I'd like to see it move to the right, though it's welcome to stay in the upper half.

Fedifensor

Feb 18th, '08, 06:50 PM

Dice: Changing from 3d6 makes it a different system. The two extremes are roughly 1 in 200 each, which is more variety than D&D while occurring less often than the "natural 20" or "natural 1". The bell curve avoids the problem of D&D where even a skilled user has a larger failure chance than would be expected (and an unskilled user has a higher success chance). I say keep it as is. At best, you could refine the mechanic to focus more on levels of success or failure, rather than just throwing modifiers at the roll and having a binary pass/fail.

Measurements and Maps: I say go to a straight metric measurement (converting on factors of 10 is easier in a game system), and let people choose squares or maps. Personally, I dislike the fact that I can't do both North/South and East/West movement on a hex mat...I'm zigging and zagging on one of the axis because of the 60 degree angles. Plus, drawing buildings and other 'square' features is harder on a hex map. I think Gygax realized this in the original D&D when hexes were used outdoors and squares were used inside...

Rounding: That really depends on what other changes are made in the rules. If everything else stays as is, I don't see a reason to change.

Absolutes: You already have Desolidification, and there have been suggestions on how to create absolutes in the current rules (via buying enough attack/defense via standard effect to overcome the maximums in the campaign). Let absolutes be an option, not part of the core rules.

Hero Points: Absolutely! You've stated the system should reflect the "dramatic realism" of the movies. If you want people doing what they see in the movies, they need a way to adjust their chances of success at critical points in the story. Hero points would also diminish the problem of the die roll range issues with 3d6. Maybe a character has a vanishing small chance to hit his foe normally, but has a number of replenishing Hero points that he uses to adjust the roll at a critical moment. I am strongly in favor of being able to buy extra Hero points (similar to some of the Luck variant systems), and having the points rejuvenate by scene rather than session or adventure.

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 07:14 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?
Nope.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?
Nope. Last thing I need is to be rolling more dice in HERO. :)

Whatever issues there are with HERO, the use of d6s and 3d6-roll-under are not among them.

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 07:15 PM

http://drivingblind.livejournal.com/213262.html

HERO currently lives in the upper-left quadrant of the above-linked diagram. I'd like to see it move to the right, though it's welcome to stay in the upper half.

I see. Thank you.

Definitely don't agree though.

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 07:18 PM

I see. Thank you.

Definitely don't agree though.
I didn't think most HERO players would, but I have to try. IMO, it's dramatically improve the game w/o really touching much of the system as a whole.

ghost-angel

Feb 18th, '08, 07:37 PM

I didn't think most HERO players would, but I have to try. IMO, it's dramatically improve the game w/o really touching much of the system as a whole.

I don't actually agree with where you placed Hero on that chart. I'd put them in the middle.

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 07:55 PM

I don't actually agree with where you placed Hero on that chart. I'd put them in the middle.
Oh, I'm good with any rightward movement. I didn't mean to say HERO has to move all the way right. I'd be happy with even a little shift. :cool:

cturnitsa

Feb 18th, '08, 08:13 PM

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

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

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

Okay, Steve, you've got me in agreement with most of your points here, but the two quoted above (one on Hexes/Inches, and one on Metric basis) have seriously got me scratching my head.

First, almost all tactical aspects of the game are based on the inch - it works, its easy, there are tons of support materials that support it (combat maps, etc). Why change it? The movement rules work REALLY WELL (turning radius, etc) with the way things are, and powers/range mods/etc all work very well.

Second, the metric system works just fine, thanks, and leads to all sorts of simple conversions and multiplications for figuring scale, etc.

The thing that has me scratching my head here is this - you state that the reason you are willing to stick with the metric system is "the HERO System has used it for over 25 years I don’t see any good reason to change now". Agreed. But doesn't that hold true (in a much more practical and useful way to actually running the game) for hexes/inches?

I hope you'll take this into consideration.

Chuck

ps- I think that 5red is a very good system. In fact, the changes from 4ed->5ed and 5ed->5red to actual rules never really excited me much. Tighter definition of powers is good, and so much got accomplished with 5ed (and then 5red) that it was a Good Thing. Changing fundamentals? Radically changing fundamentals? Well, I'll wait and see.....

ghost-angel

Feb 18th, '08, 08:15 PM

Oh, I'm good with any rightward movement. I didn't mean to say HERO has to move all the way right. I'd be happy with even a little shift. :cool:

No - I mean it's already further to the right than you say it is.

Zeropoint

Feb 18th, '08, 08:36 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

I don't see any real reason to do that.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I'd like to see a switch to a "roll-high" system. It's mathematically equivalent, it's not any harder, and there ARE accounts of new players being confused or put off by the roll-low system. I don't see any reason to keep the roll-low beyond "we've always done it that way", and there is a clear reason to switch to roll-high, even if it doesn't seem like a very strong reason. I can't see any way that switching to roll-high would hurt anything, and it would provide at least some real benefit.

But, for the love of all that is good and decent, PLEASE keep the bell curve! I hate the linear curve of the d20, and never being able to depend on any of my abilities. I GREATLY appreciate that in Hero, I can count on extreme results being unlikely.

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

I think it would make a lot more sense to just have everything given in meters. Keep the hex for maps, but definitely get rid of the inch that's really a hex that's really two meters.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Heck no. I'd rather see the US switch to Metric.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

I'd kind of like to see "round normally" be the rule everywhere, because I'm used to it from my math and science background.

BobGreenwade

Feb 18th, '08, 08:59 PM

Yes, exactly so. How maps are marked or laid out is irrelevant. The issue here is whether the HERO System should use its own unique unit of measurement, and I think the answer is, "No." ;)The problem with this is, how will this affect how we lay out our hex maps? Will we have rules for moving on a 2m/hex map that makes, say, moving 7m distinct from moving 6m or 8m?

If changing to straight meters (or yards) makes these rules a headache, then we're better off leaving it as-is.

Mind you, that's my only reservation about this, but it's a big one.

ghost-angel

Feb 18th, '08, 09:09 PM

The problem with this is, how will this affect how we lay out our hex maps? Will we have rules for moving on a 2m/hex map that makes, say, moving 7m distinct from moving 6m or 8m?

If changing to straight meters (or yards) makes these rules a headache, then we're better off leaving it as-is.

Mind you, that's my only reservation about this, but it's a big one.

From my perspective... looking at a Hex Grid Map... the Hexes themselves are sized to fit various miniatures and don't really care how much "distance" each one is.

Making 1" = 1 Meter is convenient in that you can now take a tape measure and easily mark out 6m, 7m or Xmeters.
Or you could alternately use your handy hex-grid map and say "I have 6 Meters of Running, that's 6 Hexes"

Essentially the same thing. We're just getting rid of the oddly sized 2m Hex and saying 1" (however you measure that inch be it a Tape Measure, a Square Grid, a Hex Grid or a Dodecahedron Grid) is now 1 Meter.

JmOz

Feb 18th, '08, 09:28 PM

2 odd thoughts

first regarding metric lifting capability, can we please have the strength table have an extra columm, one imperial one metric

as for the mapping, how would turn mode work?

ghost-angel

Feb 18th, '08, 09:34 PM

as for the mapping, how would turn mode work?

You can still use 60 degrees, or 45 degrees if that's simply easier to deal with.

There's no reason 1" = 1 Meter has to alter the Turn Mode.

When I was a miniature gamer I had a little block of wood that measured ticks at commonly used increments (10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120, 160 and 180 IIRC, been years).

Catseye

Feb 18th, '08, 09:49 PM

A general comment....

I've been studying in detail why, even though I like building HERO characters mreo then TORG characters, I like *running* TORG a lot more then HERO. I've come to a number of conclusions, many of which are likely to be controversial.

The biggest one is a difference between strategy focus and story focus. I find HERO's detail overwhelming and honestly, it does not add to the fun for me. HERO in many ways still shows the origin of RPGs in miniatures games. The strategic detail is very precise... and a large burden to run. If thats what you are interested in then its marvelous, but for my games its the wrong emphasis.

The detail of the rules also turns out to be an issue. HERO skills are pretty detailed and precise and there is quite a catalog of them. TORG skills are much more general and then the system is used on the fly to tailor their use to the action attempted. I am surprised to find that I prefer the latter. As an example... in a HERO game a player might make a PER roll to sopt a trap, a security systems roll to attempt to disarm it, and then a lock picking roll to open the lock. In TORG all that becomes a single roll and the results are determined by success level of that roll.

Ofcourse the whole TORG card-based combat model which encourages roleplay in combat and rewards that with tactical advantage works beautifully for the kind of game I like to run.

I'm still studying what else leads me the direction I find myself going, but that is at least somethings to think about.

James Gillen

Feb 18th, '08, 10:57 PM

My only thoughts and contributions, because I agree with Steve on most things...

I don't like Hero Points at all, not one bit. Didn't like Fate Chips in Deadlands, don't like 'em however you dress it up anywhere, anyway, anyhow. To me they are nothing but a meta-gaming tactic to prevent creative gaming.

Make them an optional rule because more options are always better (even if we don't like the options - having them is cool). But as a core rule - I hates them I do.

I loathed them in DC (MEGS) and Marvel (FASERIP) because they basically ended up as "bidding wars" and the game basically became haggling at the bazaar. The Pulp HERO model is specifically based on the alternate rules for Luck and implicitly based on the Adventure! rules for "Dramatic Editing" which were pretty much the best aspect of that game.

JG

James Gillen

Feb 18th, '08, 10:59 PM

A general comment....

I've been studying in detail why, even though I like building HERO characters mreo then TORG characters, I like *running* TORG a lot more then HERO. I've come to a number of conclusions, many of which are likely to be controversial.

The biggest one is a difference between strategy focus and story focus. I find HERO's detail overwhelming and honestly, it does not add to the fun for me. HERO in many ways still shows the origin of RPGs in miniatures games. The strategic detail is very precise... and a large burden to run. If thats what you are interested in then its marvelous, but for my games its the wrong emphasis.

This is what I dislike about the releases on D&D 4th... it seems to be going backward towards wargaming, not roleplaying.

The detail of the rules also turns out to be an issue. HERO skills are pretty detailed and precise and there is quite a catalog of them. TORG skills are much more general and then the system is used on the fly to tailor their use to the action attempted. I am surprised to find that I prefer the latter. As an example... in a HERO game a player might make a PER roll to sopt a trap, a security systems roll to attempt to disarm it, and then a lock picking roll to open the lock. In TORG all that becomes a single roll and the results are determined by success level of that roll.

Ofcourse the whole TORG card-based combat model which encourages roleplay in combat and rewards that with tactical advantage works beautifully for the kind of game I like to run.

The Drama Deck is one of the greatest game innovations of all time.

jg

Lucius

Feb 18th, '08, 11:23 PM

One thing I think we desperately need:

Something on the front of the book on the Really, Really, Really Basic Stuff.

I remember at one point looking for the part of the book that explains, for example, what a Role Playing Game is – and it WASN’T THERE. :nonp: I think it needs to be there. Unless Hero intends to survive purely by siphoning off players who are already playing some OTHER roleplaying system, it needs to introduce totally new people to the basic concepts –what a roleplaying game is, what a character is, etc.

You may remember when I asked this question in your forum for rules questions:

Mr. Long:

We’ve been discussing some things in the “Assumptions within Hero” thread and some rules I thought were clear turn out never to have been clearly expressed in FREd (that I can find, at least.) So I’m going to the Source, so to speak.

1a. Is it the case that a player is the “sole proprietor” of their own character, that the player (not ANOTHER player, (unless they have Mind Control) and not the GM (unless there are Psych Lims or the like involved)) determines what choices the character makes and what actions the character attempts?
1b. And in particular, that (subject to GM veto) the player determines the nature and special effects of any powers the character has, and (subject to any Limitations, and up to the possible level of effect that was paid for ; also of course excepting any Drain, Suppress, and the like that comes into play) the player controls when and how those powers function?
1c. Including using a power on OTHER characters; i.e. another player or the GM (for an NPC) can’t say “no, you don’t get to use your Stellar Photonic Blast on me” or “You MUST use your Bestow Strength on me?”
1d. And if I AM describing how the game works generally, that the exceptions – things like Mind Control, Berserk, powers with No Conscious Control, every instance where the player cedes some degree of control – are all clearly marked as such, and carefully described precisely because they ARE exceptions?

2a. Is it the case that anything in the game world that is not a player character or somehow controlled by or intimately associated with them – like a vehicle, or focus, or even (within limits) a follower – is by default the responsibility of the GM?
2b. That it is the GM and not any nor all of the other players who decide what the weather is like, whether there’s a blacksmith in this village and if so can he fix your armor, how many planets are in the star system you’re charting, whether BigName Department Store in Campaign City is having a sale right now….?

Can you point me to someplace in the rules these questions are answered? I expected a chapter right at the beginning for people who are completely new to roleplaying games where these concepts would be explained, and was surprised to find it missing. (I’d never looked for it before because, obviously, I’m not new to roleplaying.)

Now, granted, I think this is as I already said Very Very Basic, but it’s also true that there are still people out there who have only the vaguest ideas about roleplaying games, or even :eek: NO familiarity with the concept at all – and the question above was prompted by a discussion with someone who IS familiar with roleplaying games but was STILL somehow, for some reason, calling these fundamentals into question.

In the absence of any rules to the contrary, the Palindromedary declares ownership and control of absolutely everything. And no one gets any experience points until the Palindromedary gets some alphabet soup!

Mr. Long, Please! The Palindromedary must be stopped! Even I can’t always control it…and I’m running out of alphabet soup and scrabble eggs. Only an explicit definition of fundamental role playing concepts can stand between our games and this bicephalous megalomaniac!

The Monster

Feb 19th, '08, 12:04 AM

I loathed them in DC (MEGS) and Marvel (FASERIP) because they basically ended up as "bidding wars" and the game basically became haggling at the bazaar. The Pulp HERO model is specifically based on the alternate rules for Luck and implicitly based on the Adventure! rules for "Dramatic Editing" which were pretty much the best aspect of that game.

JG

I'd be willing to do hero points in Hero.

The big problem with the chips in Deadlands (and some other systems that use hero points) is that they can be used to directly absorb damage. What this means is that you can't win a fight until one side runs out of chips - no matter what: you can shove your gun in his mouth, stuff dynamite down his pants, whatever, and if he's got enough chips, he's still there next round blazing away. Leads to incredible frustration on the part of the players, and there's no incentive to put out your best effort (either your biggest weapon or your cleverest idea) until you've forced him to spend some chips. If set up properly, hero points can add a lot of fun to a game, since it allows a player to add an extra 'oomph' for the dramatic action at just the right time. The Dramatic Editing rules in Adventure is a pretty good example of how to handle them.

That said, I do think that they need to be optional, so that more 'gritty realism' type campaigns can be run without feeling like you're warping the system (I shudder to think of trying to play the old 007 game without hero points, they were that integral to the system).

Lucius

Feb 19th, '08, 12:22 AM

The Hero system has also always contained absolutes. Area Effect changes DCV to an absolute of 3, and NND eliminates defenses. Life support makes one absolutely immune to certain effects, while Desolid makes you absolutely unhittable by attacks that do not Affect Desolid..

Just a quibble: Desolid doesn’t make you “unhittable” (unless it has that specific special effect, i.e. "superdodge") it makes you “undamagable” or “unaffectable” by most attacks/powers/phenomena. I can still HIT Doctor Desolid just fine, in fact if he’s amused enough to stick around I can stand there and punch/ kick/ stab/ shoot him all day with great accuracy (since he’s not bothering to duck) it just won’t have any noticeable effect on him.
But I agree with your basic point, Desolid is an example of an absolute that has always been in the game.

Lucius Alexander

Okay, Dr. Desolid, let's see if you can take an Armor Piercing No Normal Defense Megascale Double Knockback Palindromedary!
BOOM!
Guess so!

Kdansky

Feb 19th, '08, 02:03 AM

Ok, I've written quite some long text (I estimate 20 pages or more) on multiple topics. Yes, I revel in this :) I will start my posts here.
I will also post all of my stuff somewhere central and then link from my signature...

Hero Points
I would like to see some form of rewarding system for good RP, like Exalted has (and Pulp Hero too, I hear). Basically you get Hero Points for good rp, and you can use these like luck (either add/subtract to/from dice, or reroll, or somesuch). I am not sure whether they should be persistent over sessions or campaigns to make them get used quickly and often and not saved up until someone has 7403 and dominates the final encounter vs the BBEG completely because he only "rolls" less than 5 on 3d6 and 50+ on 10d6. Possibly some sort of Decay? Can only keep them for x sessions? Can not have more than X? Lose x every session? People should want to have a couple in reserve, but spend them freely even on not so important rolls. Another way of doing it: Make them highly granular (meaning 1 point is not worth much, you need to spend 10 (or 20) to reroll, or spend 2 (or 3) per point of roll-adjustment). Then you don't give out single points, but rather bunches of 10 (10 = normal reason, 20 = extraordinary, 30 = you are my hero).
But for every 10 you already have, you get one less. So if you have 20, you only get 8. If you have 50, you only get 5. If you have 0, you get the full 0. A system like that is easy to remember (honestly, taking 10% of a value of 10 should be easy enough for Hero players, even newbies) and most people won't go above 20-40 points because you just get so much less return value, but they still have those 3 rerolls in backup.

The reason that is important to me: I'm one of these people who never use Scrolls/Potions in Pc-games. Then *if* I spend them, I am basically unstoppable for one or two fights, even if heavily outnumbered and/or outleveled. Or I just sell them to NPCs, because I know I will never use them.

It's also interesting if you can get both rerolls (costs 10), or guaranteed better rerolls (same cost I wonder(?), but you roll until you get a better result) AND +1 / -1 on a roll (costs 2). So if you fail your 9- by 1, you only spend 2 points, but if you fail it with an 18, you reroll. I'm not sure on this, I would probably go the safe route everytime. And rerolling and getting something worse than before is horribly unfun.

And what about the "Players trade them". If a player wants to give the other player some points because he thinks that was a great action, he can do so, and there is no toll or tax on that (because he already received them taxed). But if the GM agrees, he can say: "I agree on that, here's some reward" and give the giving player (!) some amount of points again. So gifts are rewarded and nobody loses. If players want to collect ridiculous amounts of point that way (player A has 100+, player B has 0 and gives all his points to A), the GM can just stop giving them to B, that's perfectly valid.

This is a pretty big change, but it is such a neat system, I want to play Exalted just because it has this feature.

Speed Chart
The speed chart works well, BUT it has one drawback. On the low end scale, 1 point of difference is too big. From 2 to 4 you double your actions, that's sooo huge. I would like to see it reworked this way: Base speed is 5, Base turn time is 20 seconds (new time chart would be 20 seconds, 2 minutes, 10 minutes, 1 hour, ... works well from here on). So going from 5 speed to 6 is only 20% increase (still a major advantage for a lousy 10 points), and speed 10 is twice as many actions (and costs 50 points, I consider that balanced). Obviously, recovery starts to get worse, so you just take it twice as often to compensate, or make the stat a bit cheaper. Or get slightly different fight feel. It's not worse, it's only different. So I would stick to the concept, but play around with the numbers.

Dice
3d6 works fine. If you think the peak is too strong (I think so), then you have to reduce the number of dice. And then you get the problem that there are so few results possible (2-12), so I would suggest replacing the dice with d10 or d12. d10 has another interesting property: People could chose to run with 2d10 or 1d20. The former giving a more realistic feeling, the latter a more chaotic. It depends on your campaign setting which one you like (post apocalyptic would definitely use 2d10, but Champions or Ninja Hero might work better with 1d20). I still like 2d10, 2d12 or 3d6, 1d20 is just way too unpredictable to me, I don't so much like the "everything is possible" feeling it gives (5% change to succeed at jumping 20 meters, 5% chance to fail at eating your own breakfast). But we have played a hero game with that, and it worked without any problems, it just gives a less simulation, more high fantasy feel. Makes sense that DnD (high magic, high fantasy, action game, crazy dragon slaying) uses it and GURPS (high realism, real world games, simulation, sci-fi) does not.
The 1d20 vs 2d10 is really interesting to me because it serves both crowds at the same time. And it is even 3d6 compatible for hard-core simulationists.

Standard Effect Dice
Why is this 3? It's already a disadvantage because if you have 2d6 and your opponent has 7 def he's immune, although if you rolled, you could get past his defenses nearly half the time. It should definitely be 3.5, or 7 per two dice, round down if necessary. I had a summon build once which produced 8 rather weak summons, and I was forced to roll all dice all the time (taking a huge amount of time) because my GM enforced the standard effect rule. And if they only do 9 body per 3d6 KA (fixed stun x3= 27 stun), they will NEVER get past any defenses. If I roll, I have a decent chance, even if it is not good. But it's so much more complicated. If I had gotten 10 or 11, that would have made a differnence. Or even better: semi-standard. 10d6 becomes 4d6 + 21. Less rolling, less math, more interesting spread. But 3d6 + 18 is just sad. I just lost a full dice and my (realistic) maximum decreased by at least 5-8 points.
I would actually like to see standard Effect = 4. That way, you lose spread, but you gain average. 10d6 or 4d6 + 24. that's +3 in average, but about -3 in realistic good (rare) roll.
Or something else: Ability to replace a part of your dice by DoubleDice (or TrippleDice etc). You lose one die, but another one (colour-coded) is doubled. Resolves the terrible "my 20d6 EB does 69 to 71 stun" problem, which makes everything extremly easy to predict after about 10 DC. Always try to roll between 3 to 7 dice, and double some and/or add some static values to make it interesting. This topic is so deep and so underrated in Hero.

Flame 12d6: roll 7d6 and double five of them (the red ones)
Ice 12d6: roll 6d6, and tripple three of them (the blue ones, obviously)

You cannot make hard rules for this (or can you?!), but guidelines work well too I think. Gives us something to play with and differentiate our characters a bit more :) Obviously, more multiplication is good, so either that has to cost points, or (and that I prefer) you get some rolling disadvantage. Like if you roll x or more of the same number with your Crit Dice, you screw up and do less damage. I'm open for ideas here.
What also would work: Use the doubling or trippling rules for KA, or whatever becomes the new KA.

Call it "Normal Attack" and "Critical Attack".

Layout of the book:
I'm not sure if you really need a talent section. Just put some of them into skills and the others into powers. Cleaner layout. I got asked more than once by a new player: "so what exactly is the borderline between talents and skills / talents and powers?" Powers and Skills are extremly easy to understand, but Talents...

Ablative
Put this somewhere else. Sucks to have it where it is. One of the very, very few layout mistakes in 5ER.

jtelson

Feb 19th, '08, 03:16 AM

Leads to incredible frustration on the part of the players, and there's no incentive to put out your best effort (either your biggest weapon or your cleverest idea) until you've forced him to spend some chips.

That's an interesting point, to go it one further - there's almost a disincentive to open with your biggest blasts or best plans. Presuming limited resources.

The biggest diconnect between RPG combat and Fictional combat is that everyone tends to open with their biggest/most effective attack. There's no sparring, no build to the scene. I've spent some time toying with ways to make Hero Combat a bit more 'Fictionally' in that regard. As a GM you can just control the Villians but that's not going to prevent the players from ending their Monologue with the only bundle of dynamite. Now, that's frustration.

Disposable damage mitigation might be the easiest way simulate that style of combat, it might encourage a slow build systemically on both sides. So thank you even though I completely disagree with your conclusion. Definately giving this some thought, and running it by my power gamers.

Markdoc

Feb 19th, '08, 04:07 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

I can't see any reason to.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

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

I really couldn't care too much about this. The only caveat, I would add is that if you do so change the range increments to 5 metres, 10, metres, 20 metres etc - it'd make the math for range modifiers easier to remember

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No. There really isn't any good reason for this and I really don't want to deal with calculating from feet to miles or from pounds to tons or vice versa.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

No.

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

No. I honestly can't see any good reasons for adding a change which would clearly increase the GM's policing workload

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

No. Absolutes absolutely lead to conflict. I don't want to deal with someone whose attacks "always hits" shooting at someone whose special dodge "always prevents him getting hit". We've lived without absolutes thus far and I'd like to keep it that way.

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

No strong opinion, though I think they should beoptional.

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

Yes. the idea that you have to buy your apartment as a base and similar hilarity proves that common sense is less common than the name would suggest

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?

Here on the other hand, I differ - very, very strongly.
1. It's impossible to predict accurately what's valuable and what's not far in advance. I've had games where the possession of the poetry skill by one player turned out to be crucial.
2. It utterly devalues knowledge skills, if anyone can have a vast array for nothing. Skills are already cheap and we have skill modifiers to make them cheaper. As it seem likely that the points granted to starting characters will increase, relatively they'll get cheaper.
3. It flies exactly in the face of the hero system idea that you get what you pay for.

I think players are smart enough to appreciate the difference between paying for things your character has and things they can do compared to paying for your environment.

Cheers, Mark

JmOz

Feb 19th, '08, 05:01 AM

Just a quibble: Desolid doesn’t make you “unhittable” (unless it has that specific special effect, i.e. "superdodge") it makes you “undamagable” or “unaffectable” by most attacks/powers/phenomena. I can still HIT Doctor Desolid just fine, in fact if he’s amused enough to stick around I can stand there and punch/ kick/ stab/ shoot him all day with great accuracy (since he’s not bothering to duck) it just won’t have any noticeable effect on him.
But I agree with your basic point, Desolid is an example of an absolute that has always been in the game.

Lucius Alexander

Okay, Dr. Desolid, let's see if you can take an Armor Piercing No Normal Defense Megascale Double Knockback Palindromedary!
BOOM!
Guess so!

Actualy Desolid in 3rd edition was not quite so absolute, I wonder if we could make Desolid a bit more open ended, for instance, every 5 points of desolid lets you walt through 1 def, and provides 1/1 absolute protection (Similar to how force wall does things)

nexus

Feb 19th, '08, 05:40 AM

No. Absolutes absolutely lead to conflict. I don't want to deal with someone whose attacks "always hits" shooting at someone whose special dodge "always prevents him getting hit". We've lived without absolutes thus far and I'd like to keep it that way.

From dealing with this in Exalted I can speak from experience that it does lead to trouble. Then there is the problem it can make combat boring or essentially impossible if it becomes commonplace (probably not as much of an issue with Hero but worth mentioning).

Here on the other hand, I differ - very, very strongly.
1. It's impossible to predict accurately what's valuable and what's not far in advance. I've had games where the possession of the poetry skill by one player turned out to be crucial.
2. It utterly devalues knowledge skills, if anyone can have a vast array for nothing. Skills are already cheap and we have skill modifiers to make them cheaper. As it seem likely that the points granted to starting characters will increase, relatively they'll get cheaper.
3. It flies exactly in the face of the hero system idea that you get what you pay for.

I think players are smart enough to appreciate the difference between paying for things your character has and things they can do compared to paying for your environment.

I agree with Markdoc on this one.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 19th, '08, 05:46 AM

Here on the other hand, I differ - very, very strongly.
1. It's impossible to predict accurately what's valuable and what's not far in advance. I've had games where the possession of the poetry skill by one player turned out to be crucial.
2. It utterly devalues knowledge skills, if anyone can have a vast array for nothing. Skills are already cheap and we have skill modifiers to make them cheaper. As it seem likely that the points granted to starting characters will increase, relatively they'll get cheaper.
3. It flies exactly in the face of the hero system idea that you get what you pay for.

I think players are smart enough to appreciate the difference between paying for things your character has and things they can do compared to paying for your environment.

I think, perhaps, the rules should suggest two approaches. First, that by charging points for an ability, the GM is committing it will be useful in the game. Second, that where an ability will not be useful in the game, the character need not pay for it. If KS: Poetry will be crucial once in the campaign, why does it carry a cost greater than any other background element (like having red hair) that is crucial once in the campaign because the GM writes it in (the isolated jungle tribe believes red hair is a sign of godhood).

Kdansky

Feb 19th, '08, 05:54 AM

I usually don't go as far as "write down stuff for zero points", but I decree the

Completely Pointless Power Limitation sometimes. It's (-infinite), so the powerconstruct in question becomes exactly one point (after rounding up).

But a lot has to happen for that. One player once said: "I'm an intergalactic being in search of knowledge. In case I die, I will instead fly into space and not die, I will just leave this human hull behind. I will never come back." FTL, Lifesupport, whatever. 1 point. It's a special effect that will happen when you die. Not so much use, is it?

CourtFool

Feb 19th, '08, 07:10 AM

Second, that where an ability will not be useful in the game, the character need not pay for it.

Fantastic idea. How in the world do you implement it?

gregghelmberger

Feb 19th, '08, 07:25 AM

I'm referring to the hex as a unique unit of measurement. Whether we go on marking our maps with hexes is completely beside the point. Putting a hex on a map as an aid to play and visualization is a separate matter from "you must learn a special way of measuring things to play this game," which is what I want to eliminate.

But in fact, many (if not most) of the maps we've published in 5E haven't had a hex grid on them and I don't recall getting any complaints. What's important is making sure that the scale's marked on the map so everyone know's what's what. ;)

In that case I'm behind you 100% on this one. I've known the "hex" measurement to be an impediment for new people learning the game, so if you just standardize everything as meters or some other measurement and refer to it as that, I think it will help new people integrate. :thumbup:

Chris Goodwin

Feb 19th, '08, 07:31 AM

One thing standardizing on meters rather than two-meter hexes can do is make it much easier to MegaScale. You can turn it into a straight +1/4 per x10. MegaScale now becomes, "For every level of MegaScale purchased, multiply one distance-related measurement by 10."

On the other hand, some of our Area of Effect modifiers are based on hexes, mainly One Hex, Line, and Any Area. I'm curious to see how those will be done.

Karmakaze

Feb 19th, '08, 07:49 AM

I don't think so; while Superman was once "Invulnerable", in the animated series type setting he never was. Anyway, how do you do "Invulnerable" and still allow some entities to cause damage? Yes, Superman was vulnerable to kryptonite and magic, but also to cosmic entities (like Darsaid.) I think having to rate some things as "Cosmic" is too much trouble.

I could see "Cosmic" being built in a similar mode to MegaScale. I might want to reserve it as a optional rule, though. It's appropriate for Fantasy Hero games that involve direct interactions with gods, for example, or for Super Hero games with "cosmic" beings, but not for every campaign.

Cancer

Feb 19th, '08, 10:27 AM

Speed Chart
The speed chart works well, BUT it has one drawback. On the low end scale, 1 point of difference is too big. From 2 to 4 you double your actions, that's sooo huge. I would like to see it reworked this way: Base speed is 5, Base turn time is 20 seconds (new time chart would be 20 seconds, 2 minutes, 10 minutes, 1 hour, ... works well from here on). So going from 5 speed to 6 is only 20% increase (still a major advantage for a lousy 10 points), and speed 10 is twice as many actions (and costs 50 points, I consider that balanced). Obviously, recovery starts to get worse, so you just take it twice as often to compensate, or make the stat a bit cheaper. Or get slightly different fight feel. It's not worse, it's only different. So I would stick to the concept, but play around with the numbers.

I agree here: the real problem is that the quantum of SPD is largest at the low-power end, where small differences should matter most.

Time is already handled qualitatively differently from the other HERO system attributes (i.e., the +5 pts <--> double doesn't apply). So let's get revolutionary and alter the mechanic for time sequence completely.

I think the only real solution is to do away with the "Turn" entirely. Keep a running track of clock ticks. Instead of SPD, characters buy down Reaction Interval (or some better label). Reaction interval starts at 100 at DEX 0. Each point of DEX counts as 10 points spent to reduce RI. But the cost of RI reduction is triangular. To go from 100 to 99 costs 1. 99 to 98 costs 2 more. 98 to 97 costs 3 more. 97 to 96 costs 4 more (so DEX 1 starts at RI 96). If you want, put a concrete label (like "10 milliseconds") on the RI.

[COMMENT: that starting value of 100 might not work due to granularity. Maybe it should be 60, or 500, instead. Maybe that base RI, and the RI-to-time conversion factor, should be a function of genre. That remains to be hammered out in detail, detail I admit I've not explored.]

This drastically increases the granularity of the action system, of course, which is (IMO) a crying need at the low-power end. Small differences in character reaction speed matter in a way that isn't quite the "I'm SPD 3, you're SPD 2, you lose" way that exists now. It also does away with some of the metagaming aspects of SPD differences in the Speed Table. If you want to hold an action, you can. Maybe there should be a minimum time (some fraction of the character RI, like 1/5) between when the player says "Pull the trigger!" to when a prepared held action happens.

One downside happens at the high-power end: the Speedster archetype might be priced out of existence. Might not be, too.

Also (and this won't be popular) I think you have to abandon the idea that PRE Attacks are always instantaneous. If there's a soliloquy involved (and not just blast through a wall and Being Awesomely Cool just in your entrance) then you need to apply the time needed to deliver the soliloquy in some way.

Another downside is that at the tabletop the bookkeeping for time gets messier. Every character (including NPCs) needs a 3-digit "goes next on" dial in front of them, and then you roll through the time. The old "post-12 free recovery" happens every 300 intervals (3 seconds), and the character gains their REC in END and STUN for every RI they do nothing else (and that includes holding an action; you don't relax while keeping the 'scope on the doorway). And with an eye toward the MMORPG, this type of mechanic is no issue at all in a computer-mediated on-line game, of course.

Blue

Feb 19th, '08, 10:34 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

No. I love my big handful of D6's.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I see no reason to change something that works. This again would be a "just for the sake of it" change.

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

Actually, that's a very good thought. I think having one less number set through which to convert is always a good idea.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

I'm ok either way. I think losing the arbitrary "hex" is a good enough gesture, but since I convert everything to to Imperial measurements for my own logic anyway ("How many MPH is that again?") then this might be a nice additional step.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

No. Can't think of a single reason to.

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

I can't even picture how this would work when I'm handicaping a PC or his foe. This only works if you eliminate limitations altogether. And that I wouldn't like at all.

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

No, no, no. I think it's important that there's always something more badass waiting around the corner.

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

Optional is good.

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

Heh. I was going to say you'll need to start off with the sentence "First off, you do NOT need to spend character points on creal bowls!" But it sounds like you have that covered.

Kdansky

Feb 19th, '08, 10:35 AM

Even though you agree on the problem, I think your (Cancer) solution does not work:

- Even more book keeping, and the speed chart is one of the most complicated things that sees use. Not a good thing.
- Very high numbers and lots of remembering things.

But speedster archetypes have already gone through quite some changes. They don't work on SPD alone, but also on Autofire and Sweep, so I don't see that much of a problem there. I'm still for just upping the granularity of SPD by increasing base values drastically.

The Monster

Feb 19th, '08, 11:00 AM

I think it might be fine idea to get rid of post-12 recovery altogether. If you want to recover, then you have to take time to do it. It feels artificial. And with the general emphasis on removing "Championisms" it would fit with other ideas that have been floated.

On the other hand, I don't think that the varying impact of SPD at different levels is really a problem (it's not a bug, it's a feature!). I've found it a very good tool to use at low power levels, where it is easy to make a difference between heroes and mooks simply by making one SPD 3 and the other SPD 2. For supers, the SPD range is a lot wider, but you want that granularity for supers; also, the impact of Spd 4 vs SPD 5 is not nearly as great.

The problem I have with the SPD chart is that it is too predictable. It's such a key mechanic that people game to the chart, planning the timing of actions and recoveries, etc., based not on what makes sense in the situation as much as what's coming up on the SPD chart. I'd like to see some kind of variation, some random element built in, if not as core canon, then as official option. I know there are some good ideas out there (I've been thinking about implementing some in my own games). The predictability of the SPD chart also exacerbates the impact of low versus high SPD, as the high-SPD person can always predit exactly when he needs to hold an action in order to counter whatever the slow one might do. With so many mechanics in Hero working with limits and probabilities as opposed to absolutes, SPD as is stands out as being dangerously close to an absolute.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 19th, '08, 11:24 AM

If you take out post-12 recovery, then you can delete the SPD chart altogether and go with X actions per round. A round is over when everyone at that SPD has gone. So, for instance, say the highest SPD in a combat is 6. The GM says, "Okay, everyone SPD 6 go now," and proceeds to call off DEX. When everyone there has gone, then it's "Okay, everyone SPD 5 or more go now," and call of DEX. Repeat the process for SPD 4 or more, SPD 3 or more, etc. Aborting means you do something out of SPD order, and give up your next action to do it.

The SPD chart is there to mark off time between post-12 Recoveries.

BobGreenwade

Feb 19th, '08, 11:25 AM

I'd leave Post-12 Recoveries in, but make an explicit note that not all GMs like them and they may be removed from the game.

M-3

Feb 19th, '08, 11:54 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Sounds like a big change with no readily apparent benefit. Also, the existing critical hit system (crit when you roll equal to or less than 1/2 score) won't work easily with roll high.

Perhaps a system of bonus/penalty dice could be implemented so that if you had, say, 2 bonus dice you'd roll 5 dice and keep the three lowest and if you had a penalty die you'd roll 4 and keep the three highest?

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

Change it to 1m and I'll be happy.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

There's always GURPS for when we're feeling imperial. ;)

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

I think there might be some justification to changing them so that .5 always rounds up rather than rounding in favor of the character.

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

I'd rather have the distinction removed between base points and Active Points - I think that would make things easier.

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

I think there should be an option for them. A strictly optional kind of an option. But they may appear in our settings and ideas and I think the settings and ideas should control the system rather than the other way around.

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

I haven't read Pulp Hero but I do think the game could use some kind of option like that.

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

I think it would make more sense to just get rid of it altogether and stipulate that you only have to pay for "special stuff" just like in Heroic games. I see no reason to charge MegatronicMan or LightningLass points for owning an ordinary .45 or a Corvette. If they want the .45 or Corvette to be special and/or have plot protection, then it might be worth charging them points for them.

On the other hand, I think background skills are cheap enough as it is. It's always hard to know in advance which skills a creative player will turn into something useful. I've been amazed at the many interesting uses a player in my Justice Inc. game has gotten out of KS: Mystic Mumbo-Jumbo and KS: Darkest Africa*.

*Not an Area Knowledge as it represents "knowledge" gleaned from adventure fiction. :D

futant

Feb 19th, '08, 12:03 PM

I am in favor of changing to a Roll High style.

As pointed out before changing the dice roll from low to high has no effect on the current system resolution. The math works out the same. It also opens a solution to the limit on the number spread in the Bell Curve with 3d6. This solution easily integrates with a Unified Resolution Mechanic as proposed in earlier posts and Hero points, Exploding Dice.

Exploding Dice, as the term is now known in the hobby is a dice mechanic where if a certain number is rolled it allows the dice to be re-rolled and added the pervious total. This goes hand and hand with a switch to Roll High and target numbers. No new tables needed, or different math to take away from the flow the game.

You can even limit the number of dice re-rolled based in the point creation of the game. Superhero and above, all 3d6, over the top action only 2d6, gritty, grim stuff only 1d6.

Changing the type of dice used in Hero.

Absolutely not.

All game systems have a flavor, a feel inherit to them. One thing which clearly defines this to me are the dice used in the system. When, I sit at a table to play Hero system, DnD or Exalted the dice used in those systems help set the tone for the night. Let's face it, if there is one thing we all look at when we stop in at any game store it is the dice display. If there is anything we gamers are the most superstitious, obsess, and protect its our dice. D6s are the Hero System, to alter this is to destroy the nature the game.

rjcurrie

Feb 19th, '08, 12:32 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

I'm not sure that you buy that much by changing the type of dice used and I think a move away from using six-sided dice will create more problems than it is worth. And for some silly reason, while buying new gamebooks doesn't bother me, replacing all my six-siders does bother me.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

I could live with a roll high change. I don't see a need but since it's mainly a cosmetic change and may make the game easier for some (and probably won't seriously impact those who like roll-low but I could be wrong).

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.

No thoughts on this right now.

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

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

As a convention GM, I occasionally get players who are new to Hero and the hex/inch thing is one of the more confusing parts to them. Seeing Fllight 15" on their sheet makes them think that they can fly a foot and a quarter every action. I'm in agreement with Steve almost completely on this point. The biggest problem will be adjusting how things like Area Effect and Spreading would work.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

Keep metric. Switching to Imperial really gains nothing and is just likely to annoy your non-American customers.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

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

Probably not.

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

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

I really don't see what would be gained by such a move.

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

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

Incorporating the Absolute Effects Rule (or some version of it) would probably be sufficient.

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

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

For some reason, I have never liked most "Hero Points" type systems. But that is lilkely due to my own cynicism. That is, the universe is a cold, random, unforgiving place and sometimes, you're just going to get screwed by it. That being said, from a design point of view, I can see why some people like them and I think the Hero Action Point system works reasonably well.

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

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

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

Not much more to say than "I agree".

GamePhil

Feb 19th, '08, 12:49 PM

Had to skim again, I'm sorry if I'm only repeating.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

If you were to unify the systems for Skill Rolls and To Hit Rolls, it would not bother me, I'd most likely prefer it, but I hardly think it's essential.

As for the steep bell-curve problem, some of that might be helped by instituting the Heroic Action Points. That changes the odds a little both for and against the PCs. I'm not sure.

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

If it makes it easier to new players without hurting the old ones, absolutely. It's easy enough for me to just say that my hex map is measured in 2m/hex.

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

Absolutely. I am very much in favor of having randomization, I think it helps prevent you from getting in a rut, but sometimes the dice give randomly undramatic results. The GM can just fudge if that happens, but it's also good to give the players some limited control over the random chance, too.

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

Sure. However, I have personally never cared much for the change between Heroic and Superheroic in this area, if the two types of character are in the same campaign. A 150 point character with 200 points of equipment is a 350 point character, so the fact that he can take down Defender doesn't bother me. Mainly, it just makes it easier to see how powerful a character really is to have to buy his gear.

Also, it's not just a matter of impact on the game, it's also a matter of advantage. Everyone can have a handgun or a car in a Heroic game, so it is not worth points even though it has impact, but if they have a special handgun or car that does X, X must be paid for.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 19th, '08, 01:27 PM

In bullet points:

Keep d6's
I'm ok with rolling high, ok with keeping current. Don't know how to broaden bell curve.
I like hexes, I really like scalable hexes, and wonder how we're going to handle AOE without hex measurements. But if they go away, I'll live.
Keep metric. I feel strongly about this.
Maintain rounding rules.
Active/Real points: If we end up doing Advantages and Limitations differently, they may fall away. Otherwise, keep.
Allow for absolutes. They may be needed to build otherwise valid effects. (I think we should have a new metarule: if you can conceive of something, there may be many valid reasons why you shouldn't be able to build it -- but "the system won't let you" should never be one of them.)
Yes, include Hero Points.
Ok with ditching superheroic "pay for everything," but think that weapons and combat items should always cost.

ajackson

Feb 19th, '08, 01:58 PM

On the topic of hero points and equipment:

One way to handle stuff like equipment is to have miscellaneous equipment be free to carry about, but if you want to take advantage of it in a game, you spend some hero points. Thus, you don't have to pay for your 1d6+1 RKA pistol unless for some odd reason you actually need to use it in a game.

This is actually a somewhat credible way to handle a wide variety of abilities that rarely come up: make them fairly cheap, but then have them cost hero points to activate. This means you can have various sorts of 'color' abilities that are useless 99% of the time, and if for some reason they become actually important, you can burn a hero point to turn them on.

Polaris

Feb 19th, '08, 02:02 PM

Opal

Feb 19th, '08, 02:18 PM

ghost-angel

Feb 19th, '08, 02:22 PM

I like the Roll Low mechanic.

I've used the If you're asked to try and succeed at something (Skill, Ability, Reputation, etc.) Roll Low and if you're asked to effect something (Attack, Mental Effect, etc) Roll High to great effect at convention games and teaching new people the rules.

It neatly separates what is going on and what is trying to be achieved.

I don't think any one method is more intuitive than any other - but I do think that Hero's method can be used to easily explain what you're trying to DO in the game and help people to play.

The Monster

Feb 19th, '08, 02:25 PM

On measurment and scale:
One thing to consider is the visual and practical tabletop impact of game scale. Miniatures for RPs (lead and clix) have pretty much been 25-28mm since, well, ever, which corresponds fairly nicely to a 1"=2m scale. While I wouldn't hold Hero hostage to external stuff that's out there, I think it's something worth considering. There are a lot of game props made for that scale, and it would be a shame to throw their usefulness to one side. So I'm in favor of keeping the scale, at least in some regard.

Now, I do run a lot without hex grids (or square ones - brrr); I've found just setting stuff on the table and getting out the tape measure works fine. Parsing area effects and movement can be little loose, but when I run Hero, it's not primarily a miniatures game, it's a role-playing game, and the differences which occur have been minor enough to ignore.

The upshot? I like the 1" scale, but hexes are strictly a game artifact as far as I can see. They're very useful for certain things (e.g., wargames), but are not necessary. For building powers and such, I don't much care if everything is rewritten in meters, as long as costs are refigured to match (for example, it would really be annoying to have to refigure everything like an old 3-hex-radius fireball so that it isn't suddenly nerfed into a 3-meter-radius fireball).

Super Squirrel

Feb 19th, '08, 03:03 PM

Regarding Absolutes:
I agree that there should be no absolutes.

Now if you are wondering why I state this when I do believe that Damage Reduction should go up to 100%, I'd just like to state that I think Damage Reduction should get the same -0 Limitation that Resurrection gets. There must be at least one common set of situations where Damage Reduction does not apply.

But I'm very much set that absolutes are not needed.

ajackson

Feb 19th, '08, 03:10 PM

Hero doesn't currently have the problem that D&D did when it switched to a 'roll high' system (in AD&D attack rolls and saves rolled high to succeed, while skill and characteristic checks rolled low to succeed). You roll low for all resolution in Hero - attacks, skills, activation rolls, characteristic checks, etc. Reversing it would add no value.
Well, no, it adds some value. Whether that value is worth worrying about is a separate issue.

The basic reason for 'roll high' vs 'roll low' is that the human brain is generally better at addition than subtraction. In order to get margin of success under the current rules, you need to add up your skill and any applicable levels, then subtract your roll. In a roll high system, you just add up skill, applicable levels, and your roll. This is not a huge difference, but it's not zero either.

Also, we are somewhat hardwired to think 'high number = good'.

Ockham's Spoon

Feb 19th, '08, 03:11 PM

First let me say I am really jazzed about the prospect of 6E, I can't wait!

The bell curve that the current dice system creates is important to the feel and reliability of the game. I can't think of any change to it that would be worth it.

That said, there is a problem with the fact that +3 to a roll can make a huge difference. My suggestion is this: make skill levels more expensive the more of them you have, so that the guy who bought +3 really had to pay for it. Realistically that is how learning works anyway. Learning how to play chess is simple. Becoming good at playing chess requires a fair amount of time. Becoming a chess master is a full-time occupation.

And on a related topic, I think that most scalable powers should increase in cost the more of them you buy. If you want the STR to lift twice the weight, you should pay for it with twice the cost. That would fix problems with overly efficient characteristic prices for starters.

The bigger advantage in my mind is that it would allow an easier transition between heroic and superheroic genres. Right now there are a lot of powers (Life Support, Desolidification, etc.) that have a fixed cost for a fixed effect. That makes it either too expensive for a fantasy wizard to buy full Life Support or too cheap for a superhero relative to the cost of their attacks and defenses. By increasing the cost of scalable powers as you scale them up, you prevent that problem.

Finally, even though this would be a major change in the amount of points you might have to pay for something, it is fully backward compatible with previous hero systems as far as running a character is concerned (sure his point totals will change, but he could still be played).

GamePhil

Feb 19th, '08, 03:21 PM

The basic reason for 'roll high' vs 'roll low' is that the human brain is generally better at addition than subtraction.

Roll high also has the systemic advantage of allowing you to distance skill rolls from specific Characteristics. Rather than having a Skill of 16- that includes the base INT Roll of 11- and a +5 to the Skill, you'd get an INT 10 giving a +1 and the Skill giving a +5 for +6. Then, if the GM wanted you to use Ego instead, for whatever reason, you'd just replace the bonus from Ego when making the roll.

Seldom used, and shades of Fuzion, but it could come up. I'm certain that there is a way of getting a mathematical equivalent rolling low (without re-figuring the roll), but it's just not coming to me right now. Time for bed.

TSandman

Feb 19th, '08, 03:22 PM

The SPD chart is there to mark off time between post-12 Recoveries.

I might be wrong, but to my "newbie" eyes, it also spreads or rather interleave the actions evenly so that character with more action have all their extra action in one go. To me, this makes for fairer fights, since you know that even if the enemy has SPD 5 to your SPD4, he won't have 5 actions back-to-back...

archermoo

Feb 19th, '08, 04:07 PM

Well, no, it adds some value. Whether that value is worth worrying about is a separate issue.

The basic reason for 'roll high' vs 'roll low' is that the human brain is generally better at addition than subtraction. In order to get margin of success under the current rules, you need to add up your skill and any applicable levels, then subtract your roll. In a roll high system, you just add up skill, applicable levels, and your roll. This is not a huge difference, but it's not zero either.

Also, we are somewhat hardwired to think 'high number = good'.

Learned reaction, not genetic. It isn't hardwired. I'm sure it is soft-wired so to speak into some percentage of the population.

And I disagree that it adds value. From my point of view it is simply change for the sake of making change. It adds nothing positive to the system, and alienates at least some percentage of the existing userbase.

steamteck

Feb 19th, '08, 04:09 PM

I might be wrong, but to my "newbie" eyes, it also spreads or rather interleave the actions evenly so that character with more action have all their extra action in one go. To me, this makes for fairer fights, since you know that even if the enemy has SPD 5 to your SPD4, he won't have 5 actions back-to-back...

Exactly. it makes the action flow better and more controlled by spacing the actions and not clumping them so one guy gets his 4-5 shots before the other acts. definitely a keeper but some form of streamlining might be good. I personally use 6 segments per turn in my games.

Lucius

Feb 19th, '08, 04:40 PM

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

I’m inclined to agree with keeping the “roll low” mechanic, but I think there’s room to include a “roll high” variation as well. I personally find it hard to “wrap my head around” the math of doing it the other way, but I intellectually understand that it’s basically the same thing.

As for which is “more intuitive” well for skills at least I think it’s pretty freakin’ intuitive to say “High skill number = Good!” and “I have a 16 in that skill, woo hoo, I’m pretty good! Uh oh, I have an 8 in that one, if it’s critical it succeed we better get someone else to do it….or I should spend more points to bring that number up”

If we change it around, that becomes, um, lemme think, “I have a 5 in that skill, great! But I have a 14 in that one, I better spend more points to bring that number down.” THAT seems counterintuitive to me.

The basic reason for 'roll high' vs 'roll low' is that the human brain is generally better at addition than subtraction. In order to get margin of success under the current rules, you need to add up your skill and any applicable levels, then subtract your roll. In a roll high system, you just add up skill, applicable levels, and your roll. This is not a huge difference, but it's not zero either.

Also, we are somewhat hardwired to think 'high number = good'.

You know, I think I just completely do NOT understand what people are talking about with this proposal for a “roll high” system.

“you just add up skill, applicable levels, and your roll” - umm, and then do what with it??

“The human brain is generally better at addition than subtraction” and “we are somewhat hardwired to think ‘high number = good’” are arguments to KEEP the system the way it is now, not to change it – see my comments above.

Under the current rules, you add up skill and applicable levels, then add up the numbers on the dice, and compare one total to the other. You would have us add up the base skill roll, any levels being applied, and the roll of (How many? What kind? ) dice and – do what with that number, exactly??

I thought we were simply turning the system on its head – so that low skill numbers = good, because you’re rolling 3d6 trying to EXCEED that number. But that’s not what you’re describing here. If what you’re suggesting is supposed to so much simpler, why is it that I still haven’t even figured out what it is you “roll high” proponents ARE suggesting?

Then tell her it's to discourage cheating. Unless you're going to bring 3 different sets of them and only roll them each for specific rolls - a dead give-away for even the most dense GM - then loaded dice are useless.
Another good reason.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

Yes, but sir, you’re a lawyer. Perhaps that predisposes you to LIKE needlessly complicated and archaic things like the Imperial (so called) system?

No, wait – if that were true, you wouldn’t be playing Hero, let alone being practically the Avatar of Hero: you’d probably be playing D&D in fact….

So okay, I have no explanation. I can’t imagine why you would be annoyed at the Metric system.

Keep metric. Switching to Imperial really gains nothing and is just likely to annoy your non-American customers.

And not just non-American customers. I’m American.

And just for the record, metric is French. :sick:

Yeah, well, virtually everyone else in the world uses it.
And those who don’t, wish we could.

I am all in favor of the metric system in everything, it is an easy system to use and scales well, small scale 1cm = 1m, large scale 1cm = 1km because you just divide movement and range by 10.
.
Fixed that for you. ;)

I think he means roll a pool of dice vs. a target number and count success seems simpler to him than roll 3D6 under a target number.
?? Uh, that’s crazy. That’s like trying to argue that something royally complex and screwy like the Imperial System (or is that imperially complex and screwy like the Royal System? Whatever) is simpler than something that can be understood by anyone who doesn’t have to use their fingers to count (and anyone who DOES have to use their fingers to count, assuming they have the normal complement of ten fingers.)

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

Maybe it’s a failure of imagination on my part but I can’t grasp how this could even be done.

The big change I would like to see is to take the 'reason from effect' taken even further. Do we really need four different (more if you use some creative uses of powers) attacks and a myriad of defenses? One attack power with different modifiers to make it work the way you want it to. One defense power that is cheaper for the more things it does not defend against. Hell, one movement power that has different modifiers for the way it works.
* * * (Edited for space) * * *
This could make things really complicated. For example, something like Piloting is essentially flight with the limitation that you need a vehicle and your speed and mobility is limited to the particular vehicle being used.
It could make things really complicated, but why should it? Just choose to make things simpler, and refrain from making them more complicated. That’s not complicated.
Unifying certain powers is likely to make things simpler. Trying to redefine every skill as some kind of power is likely to make things complicated.

It would be nice to look at exsiting absolutes to see if they can be scaled more: for instance desolidification could allow you to pass through a certain BODY/DEF a bit like tunneling does.
Or a someone – Zornwill, I think? Once suggested, redefine Darkness as a minus to perception rolls…..not sure I agree, but perhaps it should be discussed.

Personally, I think it would be nice to be able to simulate certain absoulte effects from fiction and other games. "Immune to Fire" or "Immune to Blades" for example. There is one form of absolute on the books already -- Life Support's "Immunity to Disease" and poisons, while Automatons are immune to mental powers.
And Automatons can be made immune to STUN. And then there’s Desolid.
The question is – what absolutes do we have, do we want to keep them or change them, do we want to make more of them? I have an idea pertaining to this I’ve been simmering for a long time, I may bring it to a boil and serve it up soon….

In bullet points:
Allow for absolutes. They may be needed to build otherwise valid effects. (I think we should have a new metarule: if you can conceive of something, there may be many valid reasons why you shouldn't be able to build it -- but "the system won't let you" should never be one of them.)

I owe you rep.

Regarding Absolutes:
I agree that there should be no absolutes.

Now if you are wondering why I state this when I do believe that Damage Reduction should go up to 100%, I'd just like to state that I think Damage Reduction should get the same -0 Limitation that Resurrection gets. There must be at least one common set of situations where Damage Reduction does not apply.

But I'm very much set that absolutes are not needed.
Or like the way Desolid must define something that still effects the character.
I think we may agree on what we want, but disagree on the meaning of the word “Absolute.” I’d consider 100% Damage Reduction (which is basically what Desolid gives you) to be an “absolute.”

Lucius Alexander

Restraining a power-mad palindromedary

ajackson

Feb 19th, '08, 04:57 PM

“you just add up skill, applicable levels, and your roll” - umm, and then do what with it??
....
If what you’re suggesting is supposed to so much simpler, why is it that I still haven’t even figured out what it is you “roll high” proponents ARE suggesting?
Because most commentators assume that people are already familiar with roll high systems, such as d20.

The basic way a 'roll high' system works is very simple: roll 3d6+Skill. If your result is X or better, you succeed. X is a number chosen by the GM, in exactly the same way that skill penalties or bonuses for tasks are chosen by the GM. In the specific case where you're resisted by someone else's skill, X is usually either their skill roll, or their skill +10.

ghost-angel

Feb 19th, '08, 05:15 PM

Roll High is a system where you attempt to achieve a Target Number Or Greater.

The biggest problem I have with it is the escalating arms race of bonuses.

In the current system the GM can assign a Made By Number for tasks:
Routine - Roll your Skill on 3D6
Easy - Roll 3 Less than your Skill
Difficult - Roll 5 Less than your Skill
Very Hard - Roll 7 Less than your Skill
Nearly Impossible - Roll 10 Less than your Skill

it's clean and never needs to be altered, the GM merely decides exactly how hard a task is. Most Skills fall into the 11-16 range, making Routine to Difficult tasks (with no outside modifiers) within grasp of a Character.

Every Roll Over System (and the worst is D20 games I've found) is that the Players just keep taking on bonuses and bonuses and the GM has to keep increasing the target level and increasing the target level.

If most of your tasks are Routine to Easy (looking to roll 3 Less) then success is easy, and Good Success is possible (yielding cool information, or the GM moves the Time Required down the chart).

While it's possible to easily do all of that with a Roll Over System I've not found that it is actually done that way.

And for the record, I played several card games and board games over the weekend, almost all of them were some kind of Roll Under Mechanic. And I really don't buy the "humans are better at adding" argument. I've seen tests that prove either way.

Another aspect I like about the current system is you look at a Character with a 14- Skill and you immediately have an idea of how good they are at that Skill. A Character with a +5 Bonus to the Roll - not so much.

caris

Feb 19th, '08, 05:17 PM

Under the current rules, you add up skill and applicable levels, then add up the numbers on the dice, and compare one total to the other. You would have us add up the base skill roll, any levels being applied, and the roll of (How many? What kind? ) dice and – do what with that number, exactly??

I thought we were simply turning the system on its head – so that low skill numbers = good, because you’re rolling 3d6 trying to EXCEED that number. But that’s not what you’re describing here. If what you’re suggesting is supposed to so much simpler, why is it that I still haven’t even figured out what it is you “roll high” proponents ARE suggesting?

Because you've never tried to play Fuzion?

or you did and are repressing the memories. Lucky palindromedary, I wish I could repress my memories of Fuzion.

It works like this the GM determines the difficulty of the task to be performed this he uses to to assigns a target number. Then the modifiers are added together and added to the die roll. This number is than compared to the target number. If the result is equal to or larger than the target number the character succeeds.

Exampe: in combat target number to hit is DCV+10. Attacking character has an OCV of 6. Defending character has a DCV of 8. The attacking character rolls 3D6 and adds 6 to the result if the result is 18 or better the Attacker hits. I'm told that this particular situation uses the same probability curve that the current system uses.

So in this a large skill number is still a good thing. A larger die roll is also a good thing. A larger target number is a bad thing. The number and type of die only matters for setting your table for target numbers and determining how you want to calculate the number that you add to the roll.

ajackson

Feb 19th, '08, 05:24 PM

Roll High is a system where you attempt to achieve a Target Number Or Greater.

The biggest problem I have with it is the escalating arms race of bonuses.
Having seen games where people had 30- skills, I would say that escalation is perfectly possible with the existing rules.

In the current system the GM can assign a Made By Number for tasks:
Routine - Roll your Skill on 3D6
Easy - Roll 3 Less than your Skill
Difficult - Roll 5 Less than your Skill
Very Hard - Roll 7 Less than your Skill
Nearly Impossible - Roll 10 Less than your Skill
If we assume that Skill 11 -> Skill +3 (i.e. Skill 8 = +0), and use your values (which I disagree with; Routine should be skill at a bonus of 3-5), we get:
Routine: DC 13 (btw, routine should probably be about DC 10)
Easy: DC 16
Difficult: DC 18
Very Hard: DC 20
Nearly Impossible: DC 23

it's clean and never needs to be altered, the GM merely decides exactly how hard a task is.
That's no different from roll high.

Every Roll Over System (and the worst is D20 games I've found) is that the Players just keep taking on bonuses and bonuses and the GM has to keep increasing the target level and increasing the target level.
Like I said, I've seen skills of 30+ in Hero, and characters with multiple skills at above 20. Escalation occurs if the players care about being awesome at skills, it's not related to roll over/under.

Xotl

Feb 19th, '08, 05:30 PM

Like I said, I've seen skills of 30+ in Hero, and characters with multiple skills at above 20. Escalation occurs if the players care about being awesome at skills, it's not related to roll over/under.

Exactly. The single difference between roll-low and roll-high is that roll-high is more intuitive. Otherwise they're the same thing.

dsatow

Feb 19th, '08, 05:39 PM

Sorry too many replies to read through them all and still have a life on this forum. I'll respond to you questions though.

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.
[dsatow]: No. One of the advantages of HERO was that you didn't have to buy 200 different dice for every occasion like in D&D.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.
[dsatow]: I agree that currently due to the spread on the bell curve you have a problem. However, the 3d6 bell curve is a very ingrained tradition in HERO. Like many who have replied, I've tried to make my own game system for personal use with out "borrowing" too much from HERO. The best solution I came up is with the challenge system.

The challenge system works as opposed rolls for everything. Say you want to hit someone in combat. You do a martial punch, they do a martial dodge. You have a base CV 4, they have a base CV of 4. You throw a punch and roll 4d6 for your base CV and +2d6 for your bonus (avg hit 21). If you exceed thier dodge 4d6+5d6 (31.5), you hit. The advantage is the defending player is actually doing something against the attack rather than passively sitting there with a number.

Problem: At really low scores, the system breaks down due to the wild variance again. Possible fix would be to start with at least 3d6 no matter what the end result DCV or OCV. So in the above scenario, it would be a martial punch rolling 9d6 (31.5) against 12d6 (42), but do people really want to roll that many dice to hit?

Problem: Reduce it to challenge 3d6+OCV vs 3d6+DCV. This lessens the effect above you describe but does not eliminate it.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m strongly in favor of doing this. There’s absolutely no reason to keep the hex. The HERO System shouldn’t require you to use an entirely separate form of measuring things; it’s an impediment to learning the game. It also leads to annoying confusion on some issues (“I can attack anywhere in an adjacent hex... so in theory I have a reach of 13 feet?”). It would make a lot more sense to measure things in meters. That would also allow characters to buy Movement Powers more granularly (e.g., 1 meter of Flight for 1 Character Point).
[dsatow]: I agree but for different reasons. While the hex allows for more movement options, the square is easier to find in stores and also easier to understand. It's also easier to draw square buildings on. The square unit also allows for quicker resolution of movement without the expensive need for miniatures. Making 1 square equal to 1 meter you can also get by with a architect's trick and use thier 1"= 4' stencils which is close enough to 1"=1m to quickly draw nice battlemats.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Steve’s Thoughts: If I were designing the game from the get-go I probably wouldn’t use the metric system; it’s generally annoying. But since the HERO System has used it for over 25 years I don’t see any good reason to change now. If nothing else it’s helped me learn that a kilogram is 2.2 pounds. ;)
[dsatow]: I wouldn't. I doubt that over the seas HERO has a lot of buyers but I have heard of some. Also, metric is more exact than imperial. 1m = 1/1000 km vs 1" = 1/12 foot = 1/36 yard = 1/63360 mile.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any reason to, but since it’s an important part of the system the question needs to be asked.
[dsatow]: I don't think its a problem.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: This would be a really radical change and would require changing how a lot of other aspects of the system work (e.g., Adjustment Powers, Power Frameworks). While it would simplify some things, it strikes me as upsetting the apple cart to an extreme degree — the AP/RP distinction is firmly ingrained in both the rules and the minds of gamers. I don’t think eliminating the concept is worth the difficulties it would cause — but as always I’m willing to listen to discussion. ;)
[dsatow]: I think its too radical of a change also. A sidenote, AP used to be a good measure of power. Having a 60 active point game used to define the power level but its been getting harder to say that any more. A 60 active point damage shield is useless in a 12d6 game. Can we fix that?

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

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

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m in favor of doing this, even if I only make them optional, because I think it’s a valuable mechanic that can add a lot to many campaigns. Players seem to like having just a bit of control over things, and Hero Points gives that to them without running roughshod over the GM. I think they enhance the “dramatic realism” aspect of the HERO System.
[dsatow]: I don't know. Personally, as long as its optional, I think its fine.

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

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

Similarly, I want to emphasize early in the 6E rulebook that GMs shouldn’t stress about making characters pay points for things that don’t really have any impact on the campaign. If you want your character to be an expert on Italian literature, just write down KS: Italian Literature 17- for 0 points — when is that ever likely to have any effect on the game? Even some standard Skills, like Navigation, probably only need to be paid for in certain types of campaigns. Bringing this issue to everyone’s attention early on should effectively counteract the idiotic and ignorant arguments we sometimes see about “you have to buy chairs with Character Points.”
[dsatow]: ...excuse me... Bwahahahaha! Can I convert the points into a table? ...errm... Personally I would agree but then you get into a sticky situation where a player who gets a car for free ends up driving it into every combat, using it for cover, throwing it at the villain, and making it explode. Worse, with wealthy man, I can just buy a new car or even bribe the villain not to do crime. You could say, well, the GM can handle this by forcing the character to get points for it if they want to use it that way. I could say the GM could just give the points for it for free. A never ending debate.

Also, some campaigns run with more than one GM. What skill isn't useful by one GM and thus possibly free, may be very useful by the other. One GM runs adventures only in Hero City and navigation is near useless, while another has them traipsing cross the world.

Finally, to help ease the pain you get from how many power points is a normal chair vs a super chair? Some veteran players get a kick trying to figure out how to do these things. Some really experienced players just don't want to store up hundreds of XP on thier character sheet because thier character build is at Nirvana. They do fun things that don't affect play just to spend points. (why yes, I bought an orbital base! No I can't get to it, but when I retire...)

ghost-angel

Feb 19th, '08, 05:48 PM

That's no different from roll high.

Which is why I said:

While it's possible to easily do all of that with a Roll Over System I've not found that it is actually done that way.

They are theoretically the exact same thing.

I've just found that a Roll Over system encourages escalation, and a Roll Under doesn't (at least not to the same extent).

Since they are fundamentally the exact same thing... I see no reason to change how HERO's system works.

And I disagree completely that either one is "more intuitive" than the other.

The Monster

Feb 19th, '08, 05:50 PM

Re: high-roll versus low-roll.
M opinion: roll-low has worked for decades, and there isn't enough wrong with it to change it. This is another of of those things that, for me, it wouldn't be Hero without a 3d6 roll-low mechanism. I like the bell curve, I like the handful of basic dice.
And, while this may seem trivial, I even like the idea that you need to roll low to succeed, but you want to roll high for damage and effects. I see it as kind of a poke in the eye to people who get obsessive about their special dice, because while you can find dice that at least seem to roll high more often than not, you just can't find dice that will roll high or low as needed on demand.

Xotl

Feb 19th, '08, 06:02 PM

And I disagree completely that either one is "more intuitive" than the other.

Well, as they are the same thing in effect I'm not exactly going to be heartbroken if roll-high doesn't make it in, but do you honestly not think that people naturally tend to aquaint high numbers with "good", and if given no other background will instinctively assume high is desirable? I'm only concerned with improving the ability to teach new people the system, so making a change that doesn't alter mechanics but eases people into the system better is a plus in my book.

nexus

Feb 19th, '08, 06:09 PM

If people are naturally oriented to associate high with good it seems reasonable that would realize that high skill numbers and CVs are good things pretty quickly, like high Characteristics.

TSandman

Feb 19th, '08, 06:20 PM

Exactly. it makes the action flow better and more controlled by spacing the actions and not clumping them so one guy gets his 4-5 shots before the other acts. definitely a keeper but some form of streamlining might be good. I personally use 6 segments per turn in my games.

I guess that the 12 segment was because at first it was Champion with only a few character with SPD 2 and most well over it...

If Joe Average has SPD 2 for a 12 segment turn, it could have SPD 1 for a 6 segment turn. Slower ones could have SPD .5 ?? (1 phase/2 turns... yet another fraction

TSandman

Feb 19th, '08, 06:38 PM

Exactly. The single difference between roll-low and roll-high is that roll-high is more intuitive. Otherwise they're the same thing.

I'd say "more used in RPGs"...

That'll settle the "intuitive/genetic/whatever" question...

Let's call a duck a duck.. most of the currently successfull RPGs are using "High = Good" for almost everything. These days, new players don't really want to turn their heads inside out to understand that "Low = Good", so if "we" switch around to a roll-over system that is mathematically the same as the roll-under presently in use, there is more chance of getting "new player".

HERO just want to be able to tap that part of the gaming population more easily

Old players either have put a Roll-Over scheme of their own or like the Roll-Under. This change is not for them.

The basis for changing it would be to get more of the RPG players out there that is presently possible because they thik "Geez, Roll-Under is sooooo different from D&D... That's too weird for me!".

They want to have the Highest stats possible... (Even if they still want to be Number One ;)

THIS is what it's all about..

archermoo

Feb 19th, '08, 06:45 PM

Exactly. The single difference between roll-low and roll-high is that roll-high is more intuitive. Otherwise they're the same thing.

No, roll-high is more comfortable for some people.

Xotl

Feb 19th, '08, 06:46 PM

No, roll-high is more comfortable for some people.

Ask the average fellow if high is better than low. What do you think the answer will be?

archermoo

Feb 19th, '08, 06:48 PM

I'd say "more used in RPGs"...

That'll settle the "intuitive/genetic/whatever" question...

Let's call a duck a duck.. most of the currently successfull RPGs are using "High = Good" for almost everything. These days, new players don't really want to turn their heads inside out to understand that "Low = Good", so if "we" switch around to a roll-over system that is mathematically the same as the roll-under presently in use, there is more chance of getting "new player".

HERO just want to be able to tap that part of the gaming population more easily

Old players either have put a Roll-Over scheme of their own or like the Roll-Under. This change is not for them.

The basis for changing it would be to get more of the RPG players out there that is presently possible because they thik "Geez, Roll-Under is sooooo different from D&D... That's too weird for me!".

They want to have the Highest stats possible... (Even if they still want to be Number One ;)

THIS is what it's all about..

I fear for the hobby if there really are people out there who want to game but find the idea that rolling low is good as unfathomable. Heck, I fear for the species.

I'll just note that if "roll high=good" is required for a game to be understandable for people, then no one would play craps.

Xotl

Feb 19th, '08, 06:53 PM

BobGreenwade

Feb 19th, '08, 06:56 PM

Ask the average fellow if high is better than low. What do you think the answer will be?

"High or low what? Cholesterol, or salary?"

KawangaKid

Feb 19th, '08, 06:58 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

I believe that one of the strengths of the Hero System is the exclusive use of d6s. While I'm okay with having "alternative dice rolling" rules for combat and skill resolution (especially with the 'toolkit' angle), I'd prefer the core to remain d6.

This is because it's actually not that easy to get other polyhedrals everywhere in the U.S. and it's worse elsewhere in the world. I'd rather eliminate this one barrier to choosing Hero.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I like the "roll low for task resolution, roll high for effect" mechanism, especially if used consistently. In games I've run, I've differentiated the STR roll (9+STR/5 or less) from the STR Effect roll (STR/5)d6 rolled when I wanted to reflect skillful use of strength (the former) vs. raw strength use (the latter).

Further refinements to the 3d6 Combat and Skill rolls are welcome;
Further refinements to the Xd6 Damage and Effect rolls are welcome;

Suggestion: Please make more use of the "Count the BODY" rule. It may prove an interesting alternative to some of the effects currently covered by XD6 damage. I like the more predictable distribution in some cases, particulary when there's a 'battle of wills' (roll EGO dice vs. EGO dice and count the 'BODY').

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

Steve, it's because of your statement here that I'm getting a better sense of what you mean about granularity, though I wish you'd expound on that a bit more for the yea'ers and nay'ers in the crowd.

I understand what you mean about hexes and inches, though I've found that there's less confusion when I use the term 'hexes' rather than always saying 'game inches' or 'inches' to newbies. Shades of Spinal Tap when I use inches, I tell you.

I'm in favor of dropping the hex terminology, but don't drop it visually. It's part of the visual identity of HERO - hexes vs. squares, man. Hexes are cooler.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Uh, no. I like meters for HERO, but that's a personal opinion.

Now, one of the strengths of HERO for me is this subtle bit of intellectual snobbery. We HERO gamers may have our preferences (hexes, game inches, Imperial, Metric, etc.), but if there's one thing we know, it's units of measure, conversions from force to time to velocity to mass, and so on.

For example:
"Alex, how much strength does it take to deflect a planet thrown at you?"
"Well, what's the mass of the particular universe? You only need half the strength needed to lift it, right?"

This is a round-about way of saying: keep metric, add Imperial as an option, allow the handwaving of 1m is roughly 1yard, and have lots of reference conversion tables for units of measure.

HERO rules RULE, man.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Don't care either way. Although based on my prior response, maybe we should go the standard mathematical / scientific method of rounding numbers so we can sell HERO as the best RPG to teach math in.

We can turn a criticism into a strength!

"You don't need math to learn HERO. You LEARN math when you learn HERO. Fifth Grade math."

Sorry, there's that intellectual snobbery again.

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

No. There's a reason why they're there - understanding the raw power of an ability and a rough understanding how limited that power has become based on limitations.

Still, if some of the math teachers / wizards out there can find a clean way of calculating or presenting them, it may solve the whole complexity issue.

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

I agree with you here, especially with the 'Absolute Effects' rule from FH.

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

I like these rules, and 'borrowing' from the use of similar mechanics from other games would be welcome too. I'd prefer that the current stance of separating them as a 'meta-game' mechanic rather than something that all characters can buy should remain.

TSandman

Feb 19th, '08, 07:02 PM

I fear for the hobby if there really are people out there who want to game but find the idea that rolling low is good as unfathomable. Heck, I fear for the species.

I'll just note that if "roll high=good" is required for a game to be understandable for people, then no one would play craps.

Unfortunately....

It's been 10 years since I've finished college but even at that time, when Magic TG came out, we lost many gamers to it's "quick and easy" games...

Now we have to compete with MMORPG, miscellaneous computer games including but not limited to Very Eye-Candied Games where you can get through most of the main quests in a few days, the Internet, etc... Too many thing vying for their attention which get shorter and shorter (why buy a 500 page book, spend days reading it, get a calculator, pen, paper and 4 friends sitting on a coach for hours generating character then many other hours playing with them, when you can Log-In and blast away at some Orcs thinking you're a Night Elf Mohawk?

All classic "Gamer Hobbies" are suffering... I like Wargames and Miniatures, there are less and less players for those too (at least, less and less serious gamers)

There is fast-and-easy-gratification out there to get us in trouble if we're not at least taking notice. Just look at the glimpses we have of D&D 4th, where the "how we did it" book is heavy with MMORPG terminology (A thief is a Striker... a Warrior is a Tank... etc).

Edit: I forgot my main idea ;p People are creature of habits... the more you try to change their habits, the less you'll end changing.... Today's gamer are USED to "Roll-High" games etc...

archermoo

Feb 19th, '08, 07:02 PM

Taking things a bit too far here.

I understand roll-low. Everyone understands roll-ow. I play it just fine. No one claimed it was unfathomable. All roll-high proponents are saying is that it makes adoption of the game easier. I want more people to adopt Hero, and this is one change that would help in that area. That's it. People naturally assume high is good, so why not go with that? What do we gain by keeping roll-low? I think these are reasonable questions.

What I object to is the idea that because you think roll-high is better/easier/whatever that everyone else does too. That isn't the case. I realize that it is easy to just assume that most people agree with you, and that everyone can fall into that trap. But after 25+ years of introducing people to the HERO System, I'd never ONCE heard anyone even bring up the idea that there was any sort of difficulty with roll-low. Never. Not until I got to these boards. And I've yet to meet anyone unaffiliated with these boards that has had a problem with it.

And my use of the term unfathomable was in specific response to another poster's claim that understanding roll-low would require that people "turn their heads inside out".

All I've ever seen to indicate that roll-high would make it easier for people to pick up HERO is other people's anecdotal evidence. Which is countered by my anecdotal evidence and the anecdotal evidence of pretty much everyone I've ever gamed with that says roll-low isn't a barrier at all.

Simply stating over and over that roll-high is better doesn't make it true.

ghost-angel

Feb 19th, '08, 07:03 PM

Well, as they are the same thing in effect I'm not exactly going to be heartbroken if roll-high doesn't make it in, but do you honestly not think that people naturally tend to aquaint high numbers with "good", and if given no other background will instinctively assume high is desirable? I'm only concerned with improving the ability to teach new people the system, so making a change that doesn't alter mechanics but eases people into the system better is a plus in my book.

My dad taught me how to play Backgammon when I was 5.

I have never once ever thoguht "High is good" inherently. I have always thought "What do I need here."

And if you're really into Backgammon, you'll know that double 6s is not all that awesome.

Personally, I think you're not giving "people" enough credit. "High is good" is not inherent to the species.

Xotl

Feb 19th, '08, 07:09 PM

What I object to is the idea that because you think roll-high is better/easier/whatever that everyone else does too. That isn't the case. I realize that it is easy to just assume that most people agree with you, and that everyone can fall into that trap. But after 25+ years of introducing people to the HERO System, I'd never ONCE heard anyone even bring up the idea that there was any sort of difficulty with roll-low. Never. Not until I got to these boards. And I've yet to meet anyone unaffiliated with these boards that has had a problem with it.

Simply stating over and over that roll-high is better doesn't make it true.

Equally true, stating over and over that low is better doesn't really win either. I've never believed that just because I assume it to be true that everyone does, and I don't think it's polite or fair that you assume I have some sort of psychological blind spot rather than a reasonable point. As I've already said, I had no problem with roll-low. If you disagree that's fine. I'm only working off the assumption that people assume high values to be good ones. I feel we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I think the debate is pretty much covered and I really don't attach that much importance to it for the space it's taking. I don't wish to bog down valuable proceedings in a pointless argument.

Thanks for the discussion all.

Enforcer84

Feb 19th, '08, 07:38 PM

Ask the average fellow if high is better than low. What do you think the answer will be?
"Are we bowling or golfing?"?

caris

Feb 19th, '08, 07:58 PM

"Are we bowling or golfing?"?

Spades or Hearts?

steamteck

Feb 19th, '08, 08:04 PM

I guess that the 12 segment was because at first it was Champion with only a few character with SPD 2 and most well over it...

If Joe Average has SPD 2 for a 12 segment turn, it could have SPD 1 for a 6 segment turn. Slower ones could have SPD .5 ?? (1 phase/2 turns... yet another fraction

Actually I do SPD 2 is two actions in a 6 segment turn worked for use fine for 15 years.:thumbup:

Hugh Neilson

Feb 19th, '08, 08:12 PM

Fantastic idea. How in the world do you implement it?

["It" being abilities with no in game benefit cost no points.] You rely on GM judgment. The same judgment that assesses when a Disad or limitation is so meaningless that it has no point benefit.

This is Hero. The GM must make judgment calls. The system does not make your judgment calls for you.

BobGreenwade

Feb 19th, '08, 08:17 PM

Personally, I think you're not giving "people" enough credit. "High is good" is not inherent to the species.I think that actually started in the 1920s, and had its peak in 1968 or '69.... ;)

Lucius

Feb 19th, '08, 08:33 PM

Because most commentators assume that people are already familiar with roll high systems, such as d20.

The basic way a 'roll high' system works is very simple: roll 3d6+Skill. If your result is X or better, you succeed. X is a number chosen by the GM, in exactly the same way that skill penalties or bonuses for tasks are chosen by the GM. In the specific case where you're resisted by someone else's skill, X is usually either their skill roll, or their skill +10.

Thank you. Wow, that might actually BE simpler, in that the “defender” does not have to roll. But that may be a problem. The defender may WANT to have a roll that affects the outcome.

And by the way, I started with D&D, but that was a LONG time ago. I'm 44 and started playign D&D at 12.

Exactly. The single difference between roll-low and roll-high is that roll-high is more intuitive. Otherwise they're the same thing.

If it were the case that “roll high is more intuitive” then you’d be right. I think it’s pretty obvious it’s not – not for a lot of us.
But it probably is more familiar to a lot of people who have played other systems. I don’t think Hero should try to live solely by scavenging players from other games, but I don’t think it can afford to NOT try to draw off such players either.

Lucius Alexander

Why did the palindromedary cross the road?

archermoo

Feb 19th, '08, 09:45 PM

Equally true, stating over and over that low is better doesn't really win either. I've never believed that just because I assume it to be true that everyone does, and I don't think it's polite or fair that you assume I have some sort of psychological blind spot rather than a reasonable point. As I've already said, I had no problem with roll-low. If you disagree that's fine. I'm only working off the assumption that people assume high values to be good ones. I feel we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I think the debate is pretty much covered and I really don't attach that much importance to it for the space it's taking. I don't wish to bog down valuable proceedings in a pointless argument.

Thanks for the discussion all.

Very true. I've never said that roll-low is better. I just don't see any need to change it.

I wasn't trying to say you have a psychological blind spot. I was just trying to point out that your assumption that most people think roll-high is better is just that: An assumption. To the best of my knowledge it has no more foundation in fact than if someone were to assert that most people thing that roll-low is better. You kept framing it as if it were a fact that had already been proven, implicit in such questions as "People naturally assume high is good, so why not go with that?" That is only a valid question if I accept that the assumption that you have provided no foundation for is valid. I have no reason to assume that people do naturally assume high is good outside of your assertion that it is true. I certainly don't, and the existance of games like craps and backgammon seem to contradict you.

Thia Halmades

Feb 19th, '08, 09:49 PM

Why did the palindromedary cross the road?

To meet itself on the other side.

Duh.

Agreed, that HERO can't live by scavenging others, but the current system (roll low) I consider to be rather defining. Some things you roll low, some you roll high. It breaks up the monotony. I like the roll low mechanic for skills (and hitting people is a skill) and high for damage. Works for me.

Acid_Crash

Feb 19th, '08, 09:52 PM

I already commented earlier on the topic of changing how the dice are used in the game, and before I stated that I prefer a low-roll mechanic for most things...

both sides argue, of sorts, that changing how the dice are used would be "for the sake of changing."... and people argue that not changing how dice are used would be "for the sake of changing."

So both sides are making the same comment that whether or not it gets changed, it would be "for the sake of changing."

I totally disagree.

He wants to make 6th edition as great as it can be, and nothing should be changed or not changed "just for the sake of changing." If it stays the same there has to be a better reason for it not changing, as well as it changing to a roll high.

One example of a low roll game that went roll high is BESM 3rd edition. I liked the first two editions, great games, and it worked. Low roll game systems, and it was fluid. Then I played 3rd edition, and it was even more fluit with its roll high mechanic. Damage was easier to calculate and the game was even more fun.

This is one example of a game changing with the times of roleplaying. Roll high is becoming the standard, and for most people it's becoming the expected. I'm not saying that if 6th edition goes roll high it conformed...

But it will make it a whole lot easier for non HERO gamers to get into the game and make it an easier adjustment overall, and if getting new gamers into the HERO fold is the end result, then going roll high just might be what has to happen.

There are no sacred cows, no traditions in this discussion. I prefer roll low, but for the benefit of the greater whole, and with the ease of getting new people into the game, going roll high is probably the best way to go about it.

Thia Halmades

Feb 19th, '08, 10:01 PM

This is one example of a game changing with the times of roleplaying. Roll high is becoming the standard, and for most people it's becoming the expected. I'm not saying that if 6th edition goes roll high it conformed...

Here's where you can hear my teeth grinding, because your post seems to contradict itself; you say you don't want change for the sake of change, and go on to cite that "roll high" is conformist. Okie doke.

However, the HERO skill system is built on "man vs. himself" -- with any requisite penalties or situational modifiers. It's pretty much automatic to me and all my players. I agree, there are no Sacred Cows, but having read through this one, I just don't see a need to change it. I came from a roll-high world, and having done that for umpteen years, I can say that I for one see no benefit. By the time you pick up the book, whether or not you roll low for skills won't be the deciding factor in whether the game is worth buying, if you see what I'm getting at.

Toadmaster

Feb 19th, '08, 10:31 PM

Ask the average fellow if high is better than low. What do you think the answer will be?

I think that depends a lot, 85 degrees on a nice summer day is a lot better than 140 degrees. 2 zombies outside my door is a lot better than 100. I'll grant you though I'd rather have $1000 in my pocket than $5.

Sorry I don't buy your logic about high vs low.

What am I doing in here again?!!!!! This is like Heroin, I know its bad for me but I can't stop. :eek:

Balabanto

Feb 19th, '08, 10:46 PM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

My own: I have to agree here, I don't think that changing from six sided dice to some other type, or multiple types, makes for easy conversion of characters.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

What I would like to do, if I could, is find a way to broaden the HERO System bell curve so that it retains its “dramatic simulation” benefits but allows for roll modifiers that have a lesser overall effect but are still effective. Right now with a 3d6 bell curve, even a single +1/-1 is a significant change; a 3-point difference in CVs virtually guarantees an attacker will hit/miss his target. However, in all my thinking about this over the years I’ve never come up with a way to do this that worked properly.

My own: The solution here is not to change the bell curve, but to change the modifiers, and to change "What surprise maneuver bonus means." According to the rules as written, no matter how hard you try, you cannot sucker punch anyone who buys Defense Maneuver IV no matter how hard you try, because they aren't surprised by it. What you should do, I think, is even if they buy defense maneuver IV, coming up with a really clever trick maneuver to hit a high OCV target should be worth a bonus regardless of what Defense Maneuver IV says. As an addendum here, I'd like to suggest that "The Way Dice Are Rolled" includes power levels of various NPC's in the game who are in published sourcebooks. Realistically, when I opened a sourcebook in 4th edition, I could use 75-90 percent of the published material without making a yarking noise. In 5th, I could barely use ten.
I like a game where I don't have to sit there and count out how many dice Doctor Destroyer should roll. I should be able to pick up the dice in one hand and roll them, and not have them fly all over the place, lose a few under the table, and have to chase down the cat for the last one. Dice SHOULD be rolled, it's part of the game, but I don't want to spend all that time counting when 14-16 has worked for master villains in my game for 20+ years of roleplaying.

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

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

My own: I think that this is both a good idea (Because it lets 1=1) and a bad idea. (Not everyone has a 16 foot round table to play Champions on, and the space a character fits onto is a certain size.) If a hex equals one meter, than you're going to run into situations where, more than ever, the characters can't fit on the map.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

My own: It's easy math which is easily divisible, you can already do it, and you'll lose every foreign player if you do. On the other hand, you could eliminate meters too, and call everything a Movement Unit, or MU. Then you can simulate realistic genres realistically, where 1 MU=1 meter, and people can call it whatever they like based on the dramatic needs of the scenario, which fulfills your cinematic roleplay needs. This also eliminates the need for the megascale advantage, which was swiftly breaking 5th edition into limitless cheddar.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

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

My Own: I think that all results should stay the same except one. All rounding of defenses ONLY should round in favor of the DEFENDER. Otherwise, certain things like Armor Piercing (A very popular and common advantage) are slightly more effective than they should be. A character with 25 points of defense takes 13 points of damage rules as written, but is it really so bad if they take 12? This will deemphasize numbercrunchiness, even if it's only slightly, and keeps people up just a little bit longer, allowing for more dramatic resolutions some of the time.

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

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

My Own: This takes the apple cart and launches it into space. It means that all Power Limitations under the current system would have to be bought as disadvantages. However, it also means that the complaints that many people have about focus based characters go away to some extent, which means that you would have to do a lot of work on that section of the book. Personally, I think that the labor vs. reward is small on this, and unless you had a year to do JUST THIS, balancing this is a potential nightmare.

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

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

My Own: There are "Design" ways to do this for individual games, and this effect is no exception. Your GM should be able to tell you how to do this in your game, and the ostensible notion that Hero is a toolkit shouldn't be forgotten.

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

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

My Own: I think they should be optional, because realistically, villains should get them too. I don't believe in the idea of NPCs, so if I let the heroes have them, I have to let the villains have them, and that will lead to a lot of bickering and design issues I really don't want to get into.

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

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

My Own: Flaw: A cellphone is slightly more effective in many situations than a high range radio, which is 6-12 points depending on whether you buy it through a device or not. My suggestion is actually that some superheroic equipment comes with the "Must Buy This off Right Now" limitation at the start of the game. Your team has radios, but your XP goes right in before you blink. Sometimes, even in a starting game, a few points can radically jump the level of power and suddenly the characters aren't starting characters anymore. It takes a lot of the pleasure out of the game for some people.

futant

Feb 19th, '08, 10:51 PM

Oddly enough Hero system has absolutes already in the rules, Life Support. If you look at it, for a handful of points a character can be immune to a huge range of things. Yes, none of them are what people generally think of as combat important. (Unless you are trying to avoid a gas attack or fighting underwater.) But, they are in the system.

Just thought I would throw this out there.

James Gillen

Feb 19th, '08, 11:27 PM

James Gillen

Feb 19th, '08, 11:46 PM

We can turn a criticism into a strength!

"You don't need math to learn HERO. You LEARN math when you learn HERO. Fifth Grade math."

Sorry, there's that intellectual snobbery again.

:rockon:

Secret Master

Feb 20th, '08, 01:10 AM

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

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

My Thoughts: I'm strongly in favor of using Hero Points.

If I am not mistaken, Heroic Action Points (Pulp Hero, pgs. 360-364) provide a character with the option of either spending points to buy die rolls up or down, or spending them at the GM’s option to influence events in whatever manner he feels to be appropriate. There are several different methods for generating these points discussed in Pulp Hero, including the extremely genre appropriate use of Luck rolls at the beginning of the game. These sound like fun and dynamic things to do, but I have a slightly different suggestion

I’m in favor of rewarding players with Experience Points that can be spent dynamically in a wide variety of ways. Most gamers like options when it comes to their characters, and everyone gets pleasure from a good reward mechanic in any case. Providing them with multiple ways to spend their EP’s could offer an additional source of enjoyment. As an Optional Rule, allow the GM to reward his PCs with “dynamic” Heroic Points instead of Experience Points, with the understanding that the player can spend his HPs (permanently) on his character one-for-one exactly as if they were EPs or spend them (permanently) in other ways to influence the outcome of an adventure. One Heroic Point doesn’t necessarily have to equal one point of effect, either. In the Post Apocalyptic Hero scenario I crafted (Destinations, PAH pgs. 195-200), I suggested that during a combat my optional reward/punishment mechanism of “Hope Points” could be spent to create a temporary effect that lasts as long as that unique combat does. If he chooses to do this, the character receives five temporary Character Points for each Heroic Point he permanently spends to be used in the manner of his choice until the end of combat. For example, he might spend two dynamic HPs to temporarily buy up his STR by 10 points. That’s just one example of what you could potentially do with HPs.

In my opinion, the best way to handle this would be to give the GM a bunch of optional ways that he could use dynamic HPs instead of fixed EPs, then allow him to select those which he feels best benefit his individual campaign. GMs who don’t like the idea of giving that much potential power to their players could disregard the entire concept of “spendable” Heroic Points entirely, while others might choose to give their players a dozen different ways to spend the points they have earned. Some players will react with horror at the idea of spending their hard-earned Experience Points to produce temporary effects in the form of dynamic Heroic Points, others will hold a few “in reserve” just in case they get into trouble, while yet others will spend their HPs like water. But giving the players more options is a good thing in my book, and this could be one way to do it.

jtelson

Feb 20th, '08, 01:13 AM

Personally, I think you're not giving "people" enough credit. "High is good" is not inherent to the species.

Well technically it's inherent to western (and some other) culture(s) rather than to the species but it is true that western culture values high over low, top over bottom, over over under; bigger is after all better.

That being said, it's ridiculous to base the rolling mechanism of a game on a subconscious cultural preference. Particularly when it's a preference that expresses itself principally in initial (unreasoned/uninfluenced) assignation of importance/dominance and in decision making under situations of negligible, well, preference.

Markdoc

Feb 20th, '08, 05:31 AM

Agreed, that HERO can't live by scavenging others, but the current system (roll low) I consider to be rather defining. Some things you roll low, some you roll high. It breaks up the monotony. I like the roll low mechanic for skills (and hitting people is a skill) and high for damage. Works for me.

I've shifted to roll high for hitting in combat and explain it to players as - "In combat, you want to roll high. For other things you want to roll low". They have no problems with that.

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

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

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

There's the added advantage - if you are training n00bies - which is that many of them have D20 or MMORPG experience: in which case using the "roll-up" method for combat is already built in.

You simply explain your OCV is like your BAB, your CSLs operate like your other bonuses and you add your roll - same as in D20. At that point the only "new concept" you need to introduce is DCV and my standard patter is: "In D20, you get more hit points as you advance to model the fact that you are harder to hit in combat, plus you can modify your AC with feats or maneuvers to make you actually harder to hit. In this system, we model it .... by just making you harder to hit." It's dead simple.

I lobbied to have "roll-up" in combat included in 5th, and it did make it in, albeit as an optional note: but it should have been the standard, and I suspect it will be in 6th.

As for roll up vs roll low for skills .... meh. I see no advantage or disadvantage to either, and would therefore tend to stick with the status quo ... but I don't really care.

Cheers, Mark

Johnny Awesome

Feb 20th, '08, 05:31 AM

I think you should:

1. Change to D10 for greater granularity and ease of odds calculation
2. Keep rolling low for hitting/skill success (a charm of the system IMO)
3. Keep Hex based system, but change to 1 Hex = 1 Meter for greater granularity.
4. Keep metric system. This is the standard scientific measurement system for a reason.
5. I don't see any reason to change the rules for rounding.
6. Keep the distinction between AP and RP.
7. Do not introduce absolutes.
8. Included Hero Points in the core rules.
9. Explain the superheroic distinction about paying for things with points, but don't integrate free skills into the system. That's for a GM to decide.

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?
Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?
Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?
Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?
Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?
Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?
Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?
Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 05:54 AM

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

Just to make sure this oldster of oldsters understands:

OCV + Die Roll - 10 = DCV Hit?

steamteck

Feb 20th, '08, 05:55 AM

See I have have this explained to me a million times and I just don't get where the extra step is lost or removed its just figured at a different time. You still make as many calculations you just personally mental fold a few together. Its not a deal breaker but its not a better solution I calculate low pretty much how you describe high, I cannot for the life of me understand why people fell high or low intrinsically is calculated a more complex way than the other.::confused:

I've been convinced by all the math doubletalk and tryed high roll and my gamed has slowed down when I did because to me I had to make extra calculations in my head (just not easy and intuitive to me unlike you obviously I mentally fold stuff under , you do over)). ( far too long because I was sure i was just not used to it) I've shown it to my wife the accountant to see why I wasn't getting it and her opinion of the whole theory is pretty unprintable. ( maybe the part about inflexible thinking is usable) Rant moment: I really really wish you guys would just leave a bloody mechanic that works alone or at least not want to get rid of it so badly.:mad:.

Acid_Crash

Feb 20th, '08, 05:59 AM

Here's where you can hear my teeth grinding, because your post seems to contradict itself; you say you don't want change for the sake of change, and go on to cite that "roll high" is conformist. Okie doke.

However, the HERO skill system is built on "man vs. himself" -- with any requisite penalties or situational modifiers. It's pretty much automatic to me and all my players. I agree, there are no Sacred Cows, but having read through this one, I just don't see a need to change it. I came from a roll-high world, and having done that for umpteen years, I can say that I for one see no benefit. By the time you pick up the book, whether or not you roll low for skills won't be the deciding factor in whether the game is worth buying, if you see what I'm getting at.

Please read carefully... I never said that going roll high IS conformist... I was saying that by going high some people might complain that the game is conforming to the standard... two very different statements.

steamteck

Feb 20th, '08, 06:00 AM

Just to make sure this oldster of oldsters understands:

OCV + Die Roll - 10 = DCV Hit?

seems to me just loading the math in a different place. I just don't get the big difference.

Susano

Feb 20th, '08, 06:20 AM

Just to make sure this oldster of oldsters understands:

OCV + Die Roll - 10 = DCV Hit?

Thanks, I was going to ask how a 17 hits DCV 7 as well.

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 06:30 AM

I've been convinced by all the math doubletalk and tryed high roll and my gamed has slowed down ( far too long because I was sure i was just not used to it) I've shown it to my wife the accountant to see why I wasn't getting it and her opinion of the whole theory is pretty unprintable. ( maybe the part about inflexible thinking is usable) Rant moment: I really really wish you guys would just leave a bloody mechanic that works alone or at least not want to get rid of it so badly.:mad:.

Changing the formula doesn't actually change anything in this case. There's no reason both methods can't be printed in the book as "official" because the odds and results are identical. Then you can just pick the one you like better.

I've never had a problem with the traditional method, but I've known several gamers who couldn't wrap their heads around it and it slowed things down unless 1) I did the calculations in my head as they rolled, 2) they had a chart, or 3) the formula was expressed differently.

As a result, I think providing two methods that do the exact same thing is probably a good thing (since the roll high method worked for some of my players. In fact, I had players using both at the same table because they do the exact same thing.

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 06:32 AM

seems to me just loading the math in a different place. I just don't get the big difference.

A good teacher knows how to express the same idea in more than one way.

Some people get roll-high more easily.

I think the book should offer both.

caris

Feb 20th, '08, 06:45 AM

Just to make sure this oldster of oldsters understands:

OCV + Die Roll - 10 = DCV Hit?

I believe that they perfer the formual to read more like DCV + 10 = OCV + Die Roll. With the DCV + 10 portion of the calculation performed by the GM.

You see, what amuses is me how complicated MarkDoc made the current process.

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

The roll high method still has three steps (step one is the same, Step two is add 10 to DCV, and step three is add die roll to OCV and compare to DCV + 10) and I suspect most people are still going to have them as one addition step and one subtraction step (i.e. step two is add dice roll to OCV and Step three is subtract 10).

steamteck

Feb 20th, '08, 06:53 AM

A good teacher knows how to express the same idea in more than one way.

Some people get roll-high more easily.

I think the book should offer both.

Works for me. We both get our pie. I get my chocolate but aren't forced to swallow his caramel. He gets his caramel but can skip my chocolate.:drink:

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 06:54 AM

I believe that they perfer the formual to read more like DCV + 10 = OCV + Die Roll. With the DCV + 10 portion of the calculation performed by the GM.

Got it.

However, at this point, why not just calculate DCV as (DEX/3 + 10) and reduce the system to:

Roll OCV + 3d6
GM compares to new-fangled DCV.

It reduces the math to OCV + 3d6 = DCV.

And the only pitfall I can think of is the DCV halving that occurs with TWF, etc. But that is far from insurmountable. Just apply a negative modifier of (DEX/6).

caris

Feb 20th, '08, 07:01 AM

Got it.

However, at this point, why not just calculate DCV as (DEX/3 + 10) and reduce the system to:

Roll OCV + 3d6
GM compares to new-fangled DCV.

It reduces the math to a single case of addition, and the gm still doesn't have to state what dcv they are rolling against (which may change based on modifiers, skill levels, or the like, anyway)?

Or calculate OCV as (DEX/3+11)?

Plus, I should appologize. I should have expressed myself as "The people that I've known personally, seem to prefer to the calculation to look like..." It was inappropriate of me to imply that those who prefer the roll high method are that homogenous.

caris

Feb 20th, '08, 07:05 AM

Actually, most of the other GMs that I play with have the following steps to resolve an attack:

Player Calculates OCV and tells GM
Player Roll Dice and tells GM
GM consult chart to determine if attack succeeds or fails.

That is two pretty simple steps for the Player.

Derek Hiemforth

Feb 20th, '08, 09:02 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?
Nah. I think using all d6's is a trait HERO is known for, and works well enough.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?
I'd be opposed to this. I think the current model of "roll low to determine success/failure, roll high for effect" is clear enough. I think changing to a roll-high-all-the-time model would alienate many existing players out of proportion to how much it might help some new players.

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

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
I personally think better in Imperial measurements than Metric, but I don't think it's worth changing it. Especially with the "game inch" going away as a unit of measurement, it'll be easier to deal with material from pre-6E books if metric measure is kept (you can just double the inches and you've got the meters).

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?
Not significantly. I might prefer to do away with the bit about how many decimal places to round to, and just use normal math rules for rounding up or down. But otherwise no changes.

Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?
I very much see the appeal of this, as (IME) this distinction is one of the most confusing things for new HERO players to wrap their brains around. However, it is deeply ingrained in the system, and would disrupt too much to change it at this point, I think. Maybe just look at ways to present the concepts so that new players grasp them more easily.

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?
I think the Absolute Effect Rule is adequate.

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?
Sure. This concept has become widespread in the RPG world, and a great many HERO campaigns have long used something like this as a house rule already.

Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?
Yep. This is another one that new players sometimes seem to struggle with.

Similarly, I want to emphasize early in the 6E rulebook that GMs shouldn’t stress about making characters pay points for things that don’t really have any impact on the campaign. If you want your character to be an expert on Italian literature, just write down KS: Italian Literature 17- for 0 points — when is that ever likely to have any effect on the game? Even some standard Skills, like Navigation, probably only need to be paid for in certain types of campaigns. Bringing this issue to everyone’s attention early on should effectively counteract the idiotic and ignorant arguments we sometimes see about “you have to buy chairs with Character Points.”
I like introducing this concept of "Flavor Abilities." For any given campaign, any abilities (it needn't even be restricted to Skills, IMO) that the GM and player agree are unlikely to affect play significantly enough or often enough to be worth points, can be added simply for flavor at no cost.

Alternately, since it is possible they could be useful from time to time, maybe say that "flavor abilities" can be purchased for 1 point. This would make them similar to Familiarities. But where Familiarities have the utility of the ability remain the same while the chance of success decreases, Flavor things would have the chance of success remain the same while the utility of the ability decreases.

Derek Hiemforth

Feb 20th, '08, 09:08 AM

9. Explain the superheroic distinction about paying for things with points, but don't integrate free skills into the system. That's for a GM to decide.Well, granting skills "free" status would be for the GM to decide, even if the concept is integrated into the system. After all, the GM would have to agree that a skill was of sufficiently limited utility to qualify as a freebie. :)

Chris Goodwin

Feb 20th, '08, 09:15 AM

seems to me just loading the math in a different place. I just don't get the big difference.

Yeah, the math is loaded differently; I usually see it expressed as OCV + dice >= 10 + DCV. Addition is quicker than subtraction for most people, especially adding 10 to one number.

GamePhil

Feb 20th, '08, 09:23 AM

On the subject of Hero Points: It might be interesting to use them to help make Background or other Skills or abilities more useful. For instance, if some number of Skills aren't used in one game, a number of Hero Points could be added to the next so that the player can add elements to that game, especially elements that relate to or allow them to use the skills that didn't come up.

So, Holmes, walking around with his KS: Tobacco Ash, uses one or more Hero Points to add a small pile of such ash to the crime scene that then provides a crucial clue.

I also like simply saying that skills that are unlikely to come up simply don't cost anything, but sometimes you just don't know for sure ahead of time which those will be.

SSgt Baloo

Feb 20th, '08, 09:27 AM

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any good reason to. I suppose if I wanted to change the way dice are rolled, changing the type might make sense.

No way! One of the big advantages Champions/Hero System had from the beginning was that even if you lived a hundred miles from a real game store, there was always someplace local where you could buy dice when you needed more (like when a new player joins the group). D-sixes are almost universally available. Not having to buy specialty dice at a specialty store is a huge plus.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I'd like to see the "roll high" thing implemented. No more than four or five dice for skill rolls or to-hit. Most d6s come in packs of five.

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

Yes/No (or maybe no/yes?) Stop calling them "inches". Everything else in the game is metric. Call them "hexes" or something that clearly makes them an abstract unit of measure. You might suggest in a sidebar that you could use 1"=1m (or 2m or 5 or 6 ft., depending on how you wind up resolving the units of measure issue) when using miniatures. Perhaps a small section on using miniatures could clear up some misconceptions or avoid introducing them whatsoever.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

At first, I was annoyed that Hero used metrics only. Over the years, I developed some shorthand "rules of approximation" to resolve this for players who just couldn't grok metrics.
one "hex" = 80"
One meter = 10"
792 hexes = one mile (yeah, it's not a round number, but it is 800 feet-8 feet, and miles are weird anyway. :p)
1.5 hexes = 10 feet (and was the standard vertical distance between floors on most buildings.)
3 hexes = 20 feet
15 hexes = 100 feet
And so on.It worked pretty well. All game action took place in metrics, but if anyone wanted feet, inches, and miles, I could give them an approximation in short order, keeping in mind the action would still be resolved in the game's measurement system. Perhaps a section listing conversion tables and approximations should be included for those who just don't get metrics, and the option to substitute English (or Imperial) approximations should be mentioned.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

I studied engineering in College and it went against my grain (and training) to round the way Hero system does, but that's just me.:p It seems to me that half-points don't usually amount to a munchkinizing amount of points. I was always in favor of rounding up at exactly .5 and above, down at .4999...(etc.) and below. Let the breaks fall where they may. I don't see a problem with eliminating a little sore point while we're addressing bigger ones. Of course, I'll freely admit I may be in the minority on this one.

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

In the interests of flexibility you might include a sidebar explaining how to implement either method you suggested, making one method the Standard and making the other an optional rule. People do this anyway, but many don't. The game system is robust enough to not lose any sleep over who's doing it "right".

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

Sure, why not? :D

But seriously, this question is kind of vague. Please explain what kind of absolutes you're taklking about. Then I can give a meaningful answer.

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

I don't have a copy of Pulp Hero, but I have a vague idea what you're talking about. It sounds like a good optional rule (given my understanding). You might want to expand on it's use outside of the Pulp genre (if there is any) in case it might be useful elsewhere.

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

Yes. I've never made the characters pay points for anything they could walk into Wal-Mart and buy with Money. Since we were all military personnel, they could wrap their heads around the idea that mundane objects were subject to breakage, needed frequent maintenance, and would occasionally stop working for no d-mn good reason until an expert had a look at it and said "Well, here's your problem...". After all, we were experts outrselves and, being maintance troops (most of us, anyways) we were okay with the fact that stuff broke all the time. After all, we were the guys they called upon to fix it (whatever "IT" might be).

BobGreenwade

Feb 20th, '08, 09:38 AM

seems to me just loading the math in a different place. I just don't get the big difference.Unless I'm getting into a different part of the conversation than I think I am, the difference is that the GM doesn't telegraph (or, worse yet, outright tell) the player his opponent's DCV.

archermoo

Feb 20th, '08, 09:49 AM

watson

Feb 20th, '08, 09:50 AM

HI Steve,

I would like to add my voice to those advocating a roll high mechanic. The reason: I believe that anything that can be done to make the system easier to explain and pick up for new players, while not taking away anything is a good idea.

It is my opinion that:

Roll high is more intuitive and easier for new gamers to pick up
Roll high does not take anything away from the system
Anything that can make Hero easier for new players to pick up, while not taking anything away from the system is a good thing worthy of your consideration

I also like the idea of the 'exploding die' that some others have referred to. Allowing people to reroll dice and add the results (for a critical success) and possibly reroll and subtract (for a critical failure) can add a possibility of a very exceptional result.

Thank you for considering these ideas...:)

William

I'm going to echo Polaris here and say that changing the system to "Roll-high" would be in Hero's benefit. Ultimately, all gamers play games to have fun. Rolling low is counter-intuitive, in my experience, and while this change would not add a significant amount of fun to game, it would improve the overall "fun quotient," if by allowing more time to actually game rather than explain for the umpteenth time to a non-Champions-veteran why rolling low is good.

Also, I think susano's idea about altering hexes to 1" = 1 meter are very, very good. The 2-meter hex is simply too large and changing things to a 1-to-1 ratio would improve some visualization of effects. "I have a 100 meter range on my gun, that's 100 hexes!" (or inches, if not using a hex map).

Chris Goodwin

Feb 20th, '08, 09:57 AM

Also, I think susano's idea about altering hexes to 1" = 1 meter are very, very good. The 2-meter hex is simply too large and changing things to a 1-to-1 ratio would improve some visualization of effects. "I have a 100 meter range on my gun, that's 100 hexes!" (or inches, if not using a hex map).

Pros: it would let us use GURPS maps, which are scaled to 1 hex = 3 feet, which approximates well enough to 1 meter. Cons: we couldn't use any published Hero hex maps. Of which, prior to 5e, there are a lot.

I'll note in Fuzion everything was in "m/y" which translates as "meters or yards, whichever you prefer". Which is not a reason not to use it....

I think I gave my vote earlier, which was to keep the notion of hexes, but use the Robot Warriors method of scaling them.

rjcurrie

Feb 20th, '08, 10:42 AM

Pros: it would let us use GURPS maps, which are scaled to 1 hex = 3 feet, which approximates well enough to 1 meter. Cons: we couldn't use any published Hero hex maps. Of which, prior to 5e, there are a lot.

I'll note in Fuzion everything was in "m/y" which translates as "meters or yards, whichever you prefer". Which is not a reason not to use it....

I think I gave my vote earlier, which was to keep the notion of hexes, but use the Robot Warriors method of scaling them.

You could still use 2m maps from 5E and earlier, you just have to remember that a hex is 2m. Remember, all the game measurements would be in meters and you'd count off using that, just at 2m/hex.

BobGreenwade

Feb 20th, '08, 10:49 AM

Unless I'm getting into a different part of the conversation than I think I am, the difference is that the GM doesn't telegraph (or, worse yet, outright tell) the player his opponent's DCV.

Which is easily done by either roll high or roll low.Okay, then, I was catching the wrong part of the conversation.

I personally don't think that there's any "instinctive" preference one way or the other. I'd vote for keeping the "roll low" as a default just because it's the way it's been done for years and there's not really any compelling reason to change it. (Also for what I said earlier about "cheat dice," though that's a pretty obscure thing really.)

Susano

Feb 20th, '08, 11:35 AM

archermoo

Feb 20th, '08, 11:40 AM

Okay, then, I was catching the wrong part of the conversation.

I personally don't think that there's any "instinctive" preference one way or the other. I'd vote for keeping the "roll low" as a default just because it's the way it's been done for years and there's not really any compelling reason to change it. (Also for what I said earlier about "cheat dice," though that's a pretty obscure thing really.)

Then you and I are pretty much in agreement. :thumbup:

archermoo

Feb 20th, '08, 11:41 AM

Yes, but the scale on many of them is rather suspect (IMO).

You noticed that too? ;)

Opal

Feb 20th, '08, 11:49 AM

I also like simply saying that skills that are unlikely to come up simply don't cost anything, but sometimes you just don't know for sure ahead of time which those will be. One thing I've tried with this is to allow players to save a few points or exp and spend them on the spot when one of the infinite number of undefined background skills that is reasonable for thier concept actually comes up. It's a workaround for the skill inflation problem. Since there are an unulimitted number of potential skills, and the GM and Player might not agree (or even realize) which of them is actualy ever going to be worth even a single point, just pay for the ones you actually use at least once.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 20th, '08, 11:55 AM

JohnTaber

Feb 20th, '08, 12:03 PM

Susano

Feb 20th, '08, 12:07 PM

You noticed that too? ;)

Just a bit...

Well...

A lot really.

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 12:21 PM

I'd like to see a good hard look at costs of everything. I'd pretty much like to see, for instance, Martial Arts maneuvers costed appropriately, perhaps build them with Powers to the extent possible (not unlike Talents). If there's a maneuver that grants +3 OCV, -2 DCV, and +3d6 Strike, build it that way and make it cost appropriately. Otherwise, everyone buys Martial Arts.

Without the cost savings martial arts will become a less granular combination of talents and skill levels or will be tacked into multipowers as a matter of course. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the current martial arts system will become nothing more than a list of pregenerated powers using the power and skill level mechanics - in effect talents. At that point the "martial arts" section becomes redundant. Like I said, that may not be a bad thing, and it would be a good thing to have that list of pregens in the book, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it would be extremely unpopular with much of the current hero community. (I currently build martial arts as a set of "talents).

Toadmaster

Feb 20th, '08, 01:04 PM

One thing I'm seeing in a number of posts throughout the 6th forums are "fixes" to stop abuse of the rules. I'm sure there are one or two that are appropriate but please don't fall into the trap of trying to thwart the munchkins and rules lawyers with rules. It won't work, that is their gig and they will twist and turn rules in ways normal people would never consider. Only a strong GM can stop this behavior so I would much prefer to see some advice in stopping the plague of muckinism rather than attempts to stop the behavior with the rules.

Only the GM saying NO! will end the Dex 23, Speed 6, 5 levels in all combat, everything in a power framework accountants.

Good advice on character concepts, backgrounds and GM control will go much farther than trying to plug every loop hole.
Definately a solid explaination of if it doesn't cost anything its not worth anything, if it does cost anything it should be worth something is in order.

I have an issue with giving away skills for free because the GM should be trying to incorperate them into the game. If you do go that route then you need to take the time to fully explain the concept. James Bond is full of trivial knowledge, but it gets used so it shouldn't be free. If he only used it for the occasional bar bet to get free drinks then I guess it would be ok to be free. As a GM this would be hard to tell until the character was in play and that is an awkward time to start telling someone they need to pay for a free skill.
I see alot of room for abuse with this, if a skill is free it shouldn't come up in the game, if it doesn't come up in the game it should just be color in the characters background.

Being an expert in anything, even trivia should never be free. Cliff Claven should cost some points, even if most of his vast knowledge is pointless stuff.

If you are really into this concept then perhaps something like a backwards version of GURPS quirks would be appropriate, up to 5 colorful but minor utility skills may be taken for free.

This leads into my next comment, I think it would be a good time to look at everyman skills, personally I think these should go away and be replaced with a cultural package or a specified amount of points that can be spent that every character gets for free (skills chosen with GM approval of course). A character from the Sahara probably won't have swimming but could have survival or an extra 1" of running, since it is a harsh environment and those are useful traits that would be likely for someone who has spent their life living to find water and running from Jackyls. Similarly a character who grew up in royalty might have a bunch of KS relating to bloodlines, internal politics and which fork you eat with in the 4th course of a 9 course feast, but might have a hard time even dressing himself without a servant.

I realize there is nothing in the current system to prevent this but most people seem to take the generic example in the book as the "official" everyman skills which is bland and often inappropriate. Just a paragraph or three emphasizing the generic nature of the example and appropriate alternatives would go far to improving it.

Package "deals" need a little tweaking too, the #1 issue being the name. I never liked the "bonus" anyway but I have seen more arguments and complaints about the loss of a couple points and it all seems to revolve around the name. I don't think much actually needs to be done other than providing a good solid explaination of what packages are for, what is appropriate to put in or leave out and perhaps a name change.

To me packages are the essential elements of a profession or other group. It should only include perks and skills required to function in the group, along with recommendations of useful perks and skills common but not universally possesed by members of the group.

I think a good explaination of what packages are and how to build them would definately be worthwhile. They are a very useful tool that are often overlooked or inappropriately utilized.

Susano

Feb 20th, '08, 01:07 PM

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 01:09 PM

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."

Yes. In this edition I find my self scratching my head and asking "deal?"

Toadmaster

Feb 20th, '08, 01:24 PM

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."

Template works, it is a complete move away from the old "Package Deal" name but is still very descriptive of the intended purpose, it also doesn't sound like "Charater classes" a term likely to upset people. :)

Susano

Feb 20th, '08, 01:26 PM

Template works, it is a complete move away from the old "Package Deal" name but is still very descriptive of the intended purpose, it also doesn't sound like "Charater classes" a term likely to upset people. :)

Ya'think? :D

Chris Goodwin

Feb 20th, '08, 01:34 PM

Opal

Feb 20th, '08, 01:53 PM

BobGreenwade

Feb 20th, '08, 02:39 PM

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."I agree, leaning toward the term "Template" -- unless, of course, the Package Bonus is brought back. (That's a move I'd favor, though enough people dislike it that I won't bother trying to justify it unless asked.)

Susano

Feb 20th, '08, 02:41 PM

I agree, leaning toward the term "Template" -- unless, of course, the Package Bonus is brought back. (That's a move I'd favor, though enough people dislike it that I won't bother trying to justify it unless asked.)

Ahh... no. Package Bonuses serve no real useful purpose.

Opal

Feb 20th, '08, 02:41 PM

I think a package bonus makes perfect sense. You're getting a tiny point break, in return for voluntarily conforming your character more closely to the GM's campaign world. That's a win-win.

(But don't let players design packages, and don't let disadvantages 'hide' inside package deals like in 3rd. I speak with the authority of a reformed offender on this point.)

Susano

Feb 20th, '08, 02:42 PM

I think a package bonus makes perfect sense. You're getting a tiny point break, in return for voluntarily conforming your character more closely to the GM's campaign world. That's a win-win.

I don't see how. If I want to place a police officer, then I should just take the police officer template. I don't need a carrot dangled in front of me to decide what to play or create.

Opal

Feb 20th, '08, 02:50 PM

If your concept of what constitutes a concept and your GM's differ, a package deal is a good way to smooth it over. The GM gets the player to take the abiilties he feels are apropriate for that concept, in his campaign world, and the player gets small point break.

The Packages given in suplements are different - they're more a starting point for GMs and Players, a like. A Package Bonus should only aply to a GM-authored Package Deal. The current packages you see in suplements should probably be re-cast as 'typical' examples of skills held by certain types of NPCs.

Blue

Feb 20th, '08, 03:16 PM

While I was sad to see the "deal" go from "package deals" originally, I do agree that it's simply a matter of saying to players, "If you're playing a fantasy hero dwarf, then this is your basis! If you don't have the dwarf package then you aren't a dwarf." It's less easy with occupational packages, because we all know some people get jobs who really aren't equipped for them (Me, for example; I'd look nothing like the "I.T. Guy" package I'm supposed to have :D)

"Templates" is good. "Packages" would be fine.

Opal

Feb 20th, '08, 03:32 PM

Now that you mention dwarves, both a 'template' and a 'package deal' system would seem apropriate.

A 'template' would re-set the starting values of stats, and provide powers and disads universal to the species or whatever it represented. A 'template' could even be universal in a given campaign, if the GM just wanted to tweak the standard starting values for some reason. In the latter case, it wouldn't have to cost anything - it'd effectively be what's going on when the GM says "everyone has 'reluctant to kill' by default." In the former, templates would have to have values relative to eachother. In either case, they'd just be a starting point for the players to design thier characters.

A 'Package Deal,' OTOH, would represent a set of skills or abilities that the GM designates as modeling some particular role in the campaign setting. PCs could use them as mere guidelines, or conform to them and get the package bonus.

nexus

Feb 20th, '08, 03:51 PM

Toadmaster

Feb 20th, '08, 04:30 PM

Cost breaks of various kinds are pervasive in Hero System, always have been. They do encourage certain behaviors on the part of the players, including point shaving, buying stats at break points, and trying to sneak meaningless limitations and disads past thier DMs.

But, OTOH, they also - with a decent DM - give players the incentive to build characters who fit in the campaign, who's power sets make sense, and who combine both cool abilities /and/ interesting drawbacks, resulting in characters that are actually 'developed' to an extent. Certainly more developed and reasonable than you get in list-based games like D&D, where the player doesn't get any cost breaks - he just picks the set of abilities that give him the most unintended synergies.

I was going to lament my inability to give you rep for this

I think a package bonus makes perfect sense. You're getting a tiny point break, in return for voluntarily conforming your character more closely to the GM's campaign world. That's a win-win.

(But don't let players design packages, and don't let disadvantages 'hide' inside package deals like in 3rd. I speak with the authority of a reformed offender on this point.)

Then you said this and I don't feel so bad. :D

Opal

Feb 20th, '08, 04:45 PM

I did do some truely heinous things with 3rd ed Package Deals back in the 80s.
But I'm a better person, now. :angel: Honest.

Lucius

Feb 20th, '08, 06:21 PM

A good teacher knows how to express the same idea in more than one way.

Some people get roll-high more easily.

I think the book should offer both.

Despite the extra verbiage to have both, I'm in favor of including both.

Lucius Alexander

Looking at the palindromedary, can you doubt it?

Blue

Feb 20th, '08, 06:51 PM

I did do some truely heinous things with 3rd ed Package Deals back in the 80s.
But I'm a better person, now. :angel: Honest.
The package deals however are still in therapy.

rjcurrie

Feb 20th, '08, 07:43 PM

Despite the extra verbiage to have both, I'm in favor of including both.

Lucius Alexander

Looking at the palindromedary, can you doubt it?

I'm not in favor of including both -- you would need to find someway to express Skill Rolls and other rolls in a way that such they would easily work with either method and that might be more confusing than just stating the Roll explicitly. I could live with a change to "Roll High" and would rather see a switch to that than some convoluted method of trying to serve both crowds.

Toadmaster

Feb 20th, '08, 08:39 PM

casualplayer

Feb 20th, '08, 09:49 PM

I have to feel that offering up the six-sider to the Sixth ed altar was done to emphasize the "no sacred cows" statement, not to be taken too seriously. HERO gamers buy their dice in bricks and, in a pinch, can raid their Yahtzee sets if they need to get their game on. :thumbup: Whattaya trying to do, stick Chessex with a buncha useless inventory? :D

I would like to see consistency in the system as far as "all rolls should be blah." Either high or low would be fine as long as it was one or the other, and since damage pretty much has to stay "high is good" I think all rolls should skew that way, even things like Activation rolls. You should always be happy to see a 6 come up on the die.

People whinging about paying points for doodads are being needlessly pedantic, a scarce trait among gamers and internet denizens, I know. Just use the Week's Pay at the Mall Rule; if you could have purchased it with a week's pay at the Mall, you don't have to spend points for it.

Harakani

Feb 20th, '08, 10:19 PM

Dice:
Six sided dice are good. They're much cheaper than other dice and can be made out of folded paper.

Rolling:
I prefer high. See previous discussion on half\zero DCV problem.
I'd REALLY like to see more unified mechanics. Hero has several really good dice mechanics - and that (several) is a problem. This becomes more of a problem at the lower scale, specifically at the 3d6 level. Personally I favour going to a 'roll high' for skills and attacks, and 'body* and effect' multi-dice for everything else.
I ran a game for a while with JUST 'body and effect' and whilst it seemed simple, the players never really got it.

Metric/Imperial:
Metric

Get rid of hexes?:
I like the MU\scaled hex idea. But I have gotten rid of hexes in my games for years. I only use a hex for facings\turn mode.

Absolutes:
Absolutes exist (absolutely). Invisibility, Darkness, Desolid, Damaged Reduction, Life Support... The cost of these should scale depending on the game. I think they add a lot to the game though, and would like them to exist. If the rulebook has a tiny sidebar explaining *how* they are built, the rare absolute-on-absolute powers can be resolved back to actual mechanics.
eg 'Immovable Object' = 300"KB resist, 'Irresistable Force' = 200d6EB does knockback only. I also support the idea that generally only defensive powers should be absolute.

Standard Effect:
I like kdansky's proposal that standard effect be 4. Standard effect is to be encouraged IMHO.

Harakani

* Please rename 'body' to something else for things that don't do body damage though.

rmccarty4

Feb 20th, '08, 10:21 PM

Steve is thinking along my line of thinking in almost all these categories. So I say, "right on, brother!". A couple highlights:
* Normal dice. Yes, dice in shapes other than cubes are not normal.

* Hexes are a PITA for speedsters. Try running/flying down a hallway or wall with the hexes on the "wrong" bias -- you have to zig-zag down a straight hallway. I actually did away with hexes in a game and nobody died, although I used the tape measure a lot. Circular templates in a range of diameters to show AOE and to handle turn modes probably would have helped, although this may be unpopular with people that are less wargame-y than I am.

* Meters instead of hexes: right on.

*Lastly, should we change to Imperial measurements?
No. In fact, if we in the US could shift to metric paper, I'd be overjoyed. A3, A4, B5, A5, & A6 make way more sense than Ledger, Letter, Executive, Statement, and 3x5 cards.
Sorry, off-topic...:D

SteveZilla

Feb 20th, '08, 10:47 PM

I could see "Cosmic" being built in a similar mode to MegaScale. I might want to reserve it as a optional rule, though. It's appropriate for Fantasy Hero games that involve direct interactions with gods, for example, or for Super Hero games with "cosmic" beings, but not for every campaign.

Y'know this sounds very much like Rifts' Mega Damage Capacity. Which everybody I know has scoffed at it as severely broken. IMO we should stay far, far away from absolute affects in regards to hitting/avoiding hits, damage/resisting damage. Absolutes for senses like Darkness, Invisibility, and Shape Shift are fine.

rjcurrie

Feb 20th, '08, 11:08 PM

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

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

I really like this idea.

Vondy

Feb 21st, '08, 12:08 AM

I'm not in favor of including both -- you would need to find someway to express Skill Rolls and other rolls in a way that such they would easily work with either method and that might be more confusing than just stating the Roll explicitly. I could live with a change to "Roll High" and would rather see a switch to that than some convoluted method of trying to serve both crowds.

As I understand it, the roll high method would only be used as a "to hit" formula and could be included as a sidebar option. While I've had several players who had trouble with "to hit" rolls in hero, I've never had one who had a problem with skills rolls because its an old fashioned "roll against target." It could be that I misunderstand what people are suggesting and that they want a roll high skill method as well, but I'm specifically talking about "to hit" rolls and nothing more (and only as a sidebar option). I don't think we should change the skill roll method. First, its not necessary, and second, the roll high formula for "to hit" rolls doesn't actually change the mechanics, while a roll high skill roll system would necessitate such a change. I also fail to see whats convoluted about giving people a choice of two formulas that accomplish the exact same thing. Not even as an option, in a sidebar, when it would make their lives easier? It should be secret knowledge, hidden from the masses in order to keep the hero-way free from the infidel? I smell a mixed multitude.

ajackson

Feb 21st, '08, 12:28 AM

As I understand it, the roll high method would only be used as a "to hit" formula and could be included as a sidebar option.
No, if the roll high method is included at all, it should be used for skill rolls as well. Having different mechanics for attacking and skills is regrettable.

rjcurrie

Feb 21st, '08, 12:54 AM

As I understand it, the roll high method would only be used as a "to hit" formula and could be included as a sidebar option. While I've had several players who had trouble with "to hit" rolls in hero, I've never had one who had a problem with skills rolls because its an old fashioned "roll against target." It could be that I misunderstand what people are suggesting and that they want a roll high skill method as well, but I'm specifically talking about "to hit" rolls and nothing more (and only as a sidebar option). I don't think we should change the skill roll method. First, its not necessary, and second, the roll high formula for "to hit" rolls doesn't actually change the mechanics, while a roll high skill roll system would necessitate such a change. I also fail to see whats convoluted about giving people a choice of two formulas that accomplish the exact same thing. Are you so married to you way that they can't have their's?

My impression is that they want "roll high" for everything because rolling high is intuitively better than rolling low. And that wanting to roll low in some circumstances (when you rolling to succeed at something) and wanting to roll high in others (damage and effects) is confusing to players. So, unless I'm wrong, just switching the "to hit" roll but not the Skill and Characteristic Rolls would not remove the perceived confusion.

And as for being married to "roll low", I'm not. But I think there should be one method (either "roll high" or "roll low") for both skills and to hit. And as I say, if someone can come up with a way to express Rolls as a single number that can be used with either system. Because listing 2 different values on every Skill and other Roll would just make the character sheet even more confusing. Not to mention that you need to make sure you can express modifiers in a way that works for both methods.

Personally, I think about the best that can be done would be a sidebar explaining how to switch from the core mechanic (either "roll high" or "roll low") to the other including a table like this:

Roll High Roll Low
3+ 18-
4+ 17-
5+ 16-
and so on

There would also be notes on how to apply dice modifiers when using the optional method.

Kelvin

Feb 21st, '08, 01:38 AM

Some thoughts.

Hit/Skill Curve
Like several others, I too like the idea of broadening the bell curve just a bit. 2d10 seems about right. This allows a greater subtlety in distinguishing between skill levels. It sort of depends on the flavor of campaign you want though. How quickly should PCs eclipse the man on the street?

Damage Curve
Like Kdansky earlier in this thread, I'm also interested in changing the damage curve. I don't like the way that large numbers of damage dice dramatically reduce variability (or conversely few dice raise variability -- part of the reason I found Killing Attacks disproportionately effective in play).

Option 1
One idea I toyed with was never rolling more than 1/2 of your "dice", or more than 6d6. Remaining "dice" would be assigned a fixed standard effect. So your 10d6 EB would really be 18+5d6. When shoehorned into the existing system, this is just too complicated. But it might fit well in a system designed with it in mind. (e.g., somehow guarantee the fixed part was an easy number (10, 20, 30, etc.).

Option 2
Another approach would be to take a page from the opposed OCV/DCV, and compare "points of attack" vs "points of defense", and roll dice based on the delta. I'll consider just STUN damage for illustration purposes. Each "point" is worth 1d6. Points in defense reduce the number of damage dice rolled, instead of reducing damage after rolling.

This makes the variability proportional to the closeness of the attacker/defender. It also incidentally makes it straightforward to purchase enough defenses to be invulnerable to a given attack level.

Attacker: 10 pt attack
Defender: 8 pt defense
Attacker is "up 2", and gets to roll 2d6 of damage (e.g. straight to STUN -- the defense has already been subtracted).

Such a system should be designed with a natural cost bias in favoring attacks being higher than defenses.

Perhaps defense points simply cost more than attack points (this would make it more and more expensive to maintain defensive parity as power levels rose).

Perhaps attacks when purchased come with minimum base damage (e.g. +2d6, so that 2 points of attack is really 4d6 against 0 DEF). This would result in a matching increase in attack and defense points result in the same number of damage dice.

The first option is probably preferable when STUN (or other damage-soaking stats) can be expected to rise with character power level.

The second option would fit better in a system where STUN was not a figured stat, and had to be bought up from scratch, making it less likely to rise automatically.

Such a reworking would need to reconsider how BODY damage and killing damage were handled -- left as an exercise for the designer :). There would hopefully be some possibility of incidentally regularizing the different damage types.

Option X - a different angle entirely
Another damage mechanic I find interesting is the damage vs. armor concept from the Warcraft II RPG (if I remember correctly). Both attacks and defenses were rated with two numbers (low and high end) -- the lower end of the attack was only stopped by the lower end of the defense. Consider an attacker with 3-16 damage, against a defender with armor 2-10. The attacker does 16-10 = 6 for the upper end, plus 3-2 = 1 for the lower end, for a total of 7 damage. As deployed, this allowed "weaker" units to not be totally ineffectual against heavily armored units (armor upgrades that boosted the lower end were few and expensive; as were lower end damage upgrades).

This would also help simulate those superhero conventions were even "trained humans" can have some effect against tough villains that can go toe-to-toe with demigods, or when masses of weaker troops can overwhelm a stronger opponent. Its sort of like having all attacks having a variable amount of penetrating damage -- and all defenses having a small amount of hardening. It isn't easy to achieve a similar effect in Champions. (You can get close with judicious use of damage reduction; but it seems silly to build every opponent that way just to all the heroes can contribute to the fight. Its easier just to mandate that all the PCs have similar sized attacks, despite this being counter-genre).

Misc
Roll high/low
I found it easy to adapt to the roll-low-to-hit mechanism. Its easy to think of "low numbers" = "accurate" -- e.g. distance from the bulls-eye.

As has been pointed out in many past rehashings of this debate, the difference between OCV and DCV is typically small. It's easier work with small numbers than large ones. To me this outweighs the ease of adding vs. subtracting. I'd rather subtract 3 than add 13.

In short, I don't find the rolling high mechanic either more intuitive or easier to compute.

Imperial vs. Metric
I would stick with metric. It's not difficult to learn, and it's a game world anyway; the units are fundamentally arbitrary, we might as well use ones with simple factors of 10. Thanks to personal computers, lots of people have exposure to prefixes like "kilo" and "mega" (and even "giga" and "tera" (!)).

It almost doesn't matter what real-world distance the scale "inch" corresponds to. Knowing the real-world values is really just game flavor.

I grew up with the US Imperial units, but really learned to appreciate the metric approach when learning physics. I use Imperial units for everyday life, and I do find the smaller Imperial units more "intuitive" -- but I suspect its mostly because there's too big of a difference between a centimeter and a meter. Its too bad that the decimeter (10 cm) is basically never used. Maybe it just needs a catchy nickname :).

-- Scott

MPT

Feb 21st, '08, 05:33 AM

Bulleted version…

Dice: Keep as a 3d6 low roll. Make D20 optional.
Hex/Inch: Change from Hex to 1m. Keep diagrams showing how AOE works with hexes.
Imperial: Keep as metric.
Absolutes: Keep as is.
0 Point Skills: No.

Slightly longer version…

Dice: Whilst using 3d6 is core to the Hero System, I would suggest that an optional D20 system is included in the back of the book (together with other optional, but common, house rules) for those that have problems with it (CV, high skill success rate etc).

I like, however, the overall idea of rolling low. Rolling high only works for me where you are attempting to reach some target number, or rolling super-high gives you extra bonuses (e.g. Rolemaster combat).

Hex/Inch: I agree that changing the base distance unit from hexes to 1m is sensible. I assume, however, that the new rules would explain how AOE would work if you use a Hex map?

Imperial measurement: I am English and here everyone, except the very old, have been only taught metric in school. Most goods can only be bought in metric amounts. (Strangely all our road signs are in miles and our government has fought the EU to keep the pint).

Absolutes: All the existing absolutes (e.g. Resistance to Disease) can be easily negated with a cheap Drain or Suppress. If more expensive absolutes are included in the game then we may have unkillable monsters or similar.

0 point skills: As a GM, I have no problem with players using ‘Everyman’ skills which are not included as standard and which it is obvious that most people would have. Giving out free obscure skills seems to be a step too far.

My players naturally spend points on such background skills as ‘KS: Italian Literature’, however if your players don’t then why not give the characters some free points during character creation which they can only use for ‘flavour’ skills.

caris

Feb 21st, '08, 06:02 AM

Imperial measurement: I am English and here everyone, except the very old, have been only taught metric in school. Most goods can only be bought in metric amounts. (Strangely all our road signs are in miles and our government has fought the EU to keep the pint).

Probably has something to do with going to the pub to have a pint sounds better than going to the pub for a half litre.

Opal

Feb 21st, '08, 09:10 AM

IMX, 'roll high' systems, like d20 do tend to encourage just piling on bonuses with abandon.

Though there is no mathematical difference between rolling high to match a GM-assigned target number, and rolling low to stay under your skill less a GM-assigned penalty, there is something about the psychology of it that causes GMs to assign higher target numbers than they would penalties - and players to anticipate that and go for huge bonuses. I don't claim to understand it, I've just observed it.

gregghelmberger

Feb 21st, '08, 10:21 AM