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) tonQ: 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

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.

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

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

I suggest 2d12 or 2d10. Gives bell (well, triangle) curve, but it's a lot broader. I like the 12 sided dice, they are cool. Also, it is a lot easier to roll 10d6 + 2d12 in one roll and then figure out which one does which. I always mess up colours and regularily don't have enough same coloured dice to do that with 3d6 + 10d6. :)

Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?
[quote]
You are my hero. Meters all the way!

[quote]Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
I would actually consider not using it if you did that, and there is not much else you can do to drive me off that badly. Because imperial is
A: not familiar to me (and with that I mean: I know more about the Theory of Relativity than about the Imperial System, there's a world outside of America too)
B: a pain in the ass (and that was a nice way of saying it) to do physics in. Sometimes I want to know how fast something falls. Did I mention that some very expensive rocket/mars robot recently failed because that got messed up?

<rant>Imperial system is one of the worst things on the planet, really. Just right there with Fundamental Religion, Nazis, Cancer, Calories (it's Joule!) and whatcanyouname </rant>
I think I just failed my enrage roll... badly.

Rest will be commented on tomorrow. It's 03:30! DAMN! :/ YES, in the morning!