Question: Do you have any "deal breakers" when it comes 6th edition? [Archive]

incrdbil

Mar 21st, '08, 08:29 AM

If the system becomes more restrictive vs cleaner, less specific genre oriented and more universal, and more flexible --- thats the deal breaker for me.

Thats pretty much it. I'll add, in a general way if it becomes more detailed, more cumbersome, that could be a sticking point. It certainly wouldn't be encouraging me to embrace a new edition, if mechanics grow more involved, more characteristics are added, rules or creation of characters becomes more involved in terms of effort.

Even then, uIt may be the quality of product released for 6th ediiton may overcome that, or may still merit purchasing then using either refitted for 5th edition, or house-ruled somewhat, though I hate having to house-rule a lot of details.

There's a breaking point on house rules use for me, but I can't say sight unseen what that point would be. If there's enough extra work I have to do to 6e to make it work as a basic engine to satisfy my requirements then I'll consider alternatives. but I'm going to certainyl give it a try--after so many versiosn of the game working well, and improving each time, I'm certainly not going to refuse to try the new game just because every change doesn't cater to my whim.

On the other hand, I do expect some changes for the better--if there is going to be a new ediiton, it better have enough changes to merit a re-purchase. I avoided that D&d 3.0 -3.5 scam, and I'd like to keep avoiding that experience.

So in a way, not having enough change could be a sort of deal breaker..or crucially undermine the trust that has ben earned.

I can't name any one specific rules change that would make me throw a hissy fit and take my ball and leave the playground. I can accept changes I wont like at all if they are accompanied (and outweighed) by ones that work well.

Killer Shrike

Mar 21st, '08, 08:47 AM

I think I'm misreading you, so may I ask you for clarification?

Sure, no problem, ill try saying it a different way. What I love about the HERO System is its flexibility and the ease with which I can use it to do anything I want, in any genre I feel like. Changes that reduce either or both would be deal breakers, while changes that improve either or both would be well received.

nexus

Mar 21st, '08, 08:59 AM

Sorry, I was misreading you. Thanks :)

CTaylor

Mar 21st, '08, 09:40 AM

Chris Goodwin

Mar 21st, '08, 09:56 AM

Mine is, if it sucks.

Ok, if I can't update my "Robot Warriors" document to 6th edition. :D

More generally, if I can't use my old stuff with the new game, I'm a lot less likely to buy it. Not saying I won't.

gojira

Mar 21st, '08, 10:34 AM

I have a bad feeling that there's some "change for change's sake" in 6e. That said I also don't see anything that's a deal breaker that's been discussed in the 6e forum.

One possibility is that if the changes don't actually achieve anything. I didn't care for GURPS 4e, and thinking about this I'd say that it's because SJ Games added a lot of changes, but didn't truly achieve the ease of play and reforms they were looking for. So what they ended up with was change for change's sake.

I think 6e needs to streamline everything possible. Then take a good hard look at and ask "Is this really worth it?" Don't release if the answer is "no." There's a motto in the software engineering field: "Build one to throw away." Hero should be prepared to throw away 6e if it isn't going to be very well received.

It's possible to get away with small changes, like from 4th Ed. to 5er, but again too much change could Fuzion things up. I'm honestly not sure where the line is between those two.

At this point I'm pretty much trusting that Steve and co. know what they are doing. They've been pretty much right on the money these past few years, and COMMO was a big break for them. I hope things turn out well.

BobGreenwade

Mar 21st, '08, 11:12 AM

Without being specific: if the new edition changes the game so much that it becomes a new game rather than a new edition of a game, I'll likely stay with 5th edition. If they pull a Fuzion with this edition, it's hasta la vista.
More generally, if I can't use my old stuff with the new game, I'm a lot less likely to buy it. Not saying I won't.This much pretty much sums up my view as well. It isn't really so much any single change that would break the deal for me, as the totality of what's done and how well I can translate 5th Ed stuff (and even some 4th Ed stuff) into the new edition.

The closest thing I can think of to a single change that would do that would be to remove the formulas for Figured Characteristics, and making them just Secondaries (or whatever) with flat base amounts. That would either throw things so off kilter as to skew balance, or require so many changes to steady the balance that it's hardly recognizable. (That debate's over in the 6th Edition forum, though.) I wouldn't necessarily dump 6th Edition on that basis alone, but it's the best candidate.

Silbeg

Mar 21st, '08, 12:49 PM

The closest thing I can think of to a single change that would do that would be to remove the formulas for Figured Characteristics, and making them just Secondaries (or whatever) with flat base amounts. That would either throw things so off kilter as to skew balance, or require so many changes to steady the balance that it's hardly recognizable. (That debate's over in the 6th Edition forum, though.) I wouldn't necessarily dump 6th Edition on that basis alone, but it's the best candidate.

That is pretty much where I am as well, Bob. From what Steve was saying he was thinking of removing the "figured" part of figured characteristics, without rebalancing the point costs of the primary characteristics.

Ok, I can see where DEX is probably still pretty much ok at 3 points per... mostly. However, CON at 2 points, when it pretty much only gives resistance to Stunning? That is a big beef of mine.

However, generally speaking, my gaming group has been slow to adopt new versions, even though we may purchase them early.

But, given the 3' of HERO 5E books I currently own, I really don't want to have to reinvest all of that. So, if the mechanics of the game change so much that you cannot use characters without major retrofits, and if the game no longer feels like HERO, but a pen and paper version of a MMO, then...

Lord Mhoram

Mar 21st, '08, 01:25 PM

Well obviously if it sucks, but I doubt that.

For me -
Removing the speed chart.
Removing any of the characteristics (including COM).
Dropping figured characteristics.
Major changes to the frameworks - I like my MP, VVP And ECs the way they are.
Changing the cost on characteristics.
Changing the formula for combat - by which I mean changing the formula itself, not just how it is presented; if the math is the same I'm all good.

Changing some specific powers, or adjusting them (as was done from 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th I don't mind).

archermoo

Mar 21st, '08, 01:53 PM

If there is anything that would in and of itself keep me from going to 6e it would be getting rid of the Speed Chart. Though even then I'd be willing to take a look and see if I liked what they replaced it with.

I feel confident that Steve won't be changing anything without what he considers to be a good reason to do it. Whether I or anyone else will agree with his reasons is another matter entirely, but I don't see him changing anything just for the sake of change. And in general I think I have more in similar with Steve's POV on Hero than not, so I'm not overly worried about what he'll be changing.

CTaylor

Mar 21st, '08, 02:03 PM

Yeah dumping the speed chart or some major change to the rules would make me stay with 5th edition. I mean, how many of us stayed with 4th edition and ignored the fact that Fuzion even existed? That's the kind of thing that the Hero team has to avoid: making something so different and obnoxious people just shrug and pretend it doesn't exist.

ghost-angel

Mar 21st, '08, 02:46 PM

It changes dice mechanics or types.

I like 3D6. I do not want to change to new dice. I do not want to relearn probabilities, appropriate adjustments for ease/difficulty and a million other modifiers. It is hardcoded into my gaming skull now.

Thia Halmades

Mar 21st, '08, 03:37 PM

There are a few things. If the game becomes more mechanical and less fun, that'll kill it for me. If it's clear in the final version Steve didn't actually listen to anyone, that'll nuke it from orbit. There are plenty of things I disagree with. For one, DEX is 3/1 because it confers a stupid number of benefits. If it STOPS doing that, then it stops being as useful, and should thusly be cheaper. INT should go up in cost, since it's one of the three "skill stats." I can go on like this for quite some time.

But at the end of the day.

If I have to change my sig, I will not buy 6th. No, I'm serious. If the rules changes are so severe that a simple construction like my HICCoS will need rewritten, I'll stick to 5ER.

Kenn

Mar 21st, '08, 03:52 PM

This much pretty much sums up my view as well. It isn't really so much any single change that would break the deal for me, as the totality of what's done and how well I can translate 5th Ed stuff (and even some 4th Ed stuff) into the new edition.

The closest thing I can think of to a single change that would do that would be to remove the formulas for Figured Characteristics, and making them just Secondaries (or whatever) with flat base amounts. That would either throw things so off kilter as to skew balance, or require so many changes to steady the balance that it's hardly recognizable. (That debate's over in the 6th Edition forum, though.) I wouldn't necessarily dump 6th Edition on that basis alone, but it's the best candidate.

What Bob said.

I'm still working on the conversion from 4th to 5th Edition for my gaming world. Thankfully, the changes between 4th and 5th weren't so extensive that this has been a problem.

Since I won't likely finish by the time there's a 6th edition out... The degee of backwards compatability would probably be the big deal breaker for me. But I'm a pessimist so I'm really waiting for a sign of a deal MAKER.

McCoy

Mar 21st, '08, 05:51 PM

Character classes and levels

"Hit Points" instead of seperate BODY & STUN pips

No Speed chart

In short, any change to make it more like d20.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 21st, '08, 08:07 PM

In short, any change to make it more like d20.

d20 sells very well. Presumably, you'd be OK if Hero 6e did as well, since higher sales would certainly be something one would expect Hero to aim for. ;)

McCoy

Mar 22nd, '08, 04:50 AM

Character classes and levels

"Hit Points" instead of seperate BODY & STUN pips

No Speed chart

In short, any change to make it more like d20.

d20 sells very well. Presumably, you'd be OK if Hero 6e did as well, since higher sales would certainly be something one would expect Hero to aim for. ;)
If I wanted to be playing d20, I can do that already. I don't work for and am not a stockholder of Hero Games, the sales do not affect me enough to be the overriding consideration. I've committed to buying the 6th edition core rules, if it has been "d20-ized" to the point it is no longer enjoyable to me I will wish Steve and Co, well, and start spending more time with my City of Heroes characters.

Trebuchet

Mar 22nd, '08, 05:05 AM

d20 sells very well. Presumably, you'd be OK if Hero 6e did as well, since higher sales would certainly be something one would expect Hero to aim for. ;)Hero is what I played to escape the death grip of TSR Games and Dungeon & Dragons; I have zero interest in falling back into the clutches of the D&D juggernaut. If I want fantasy gaming; Fantasy Hero is a far superior product - and one where my cross-genre reference books like The Hero System Bestiary and TUV are still useful.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 22nd, '08, 06:02 AM

If I wanted to be playing d20, I can do that already. I don't work for and am not a stockholder of Hero Games, the sales do not affect me enough to be the overriding consideration. I've committed to buying the 6th edition core rules, if it has been "d20-ized" to the point it is no longer enjoyable to me I will wish Steve and Co, well, and start spending more time with my City of Heroes characters.

Hero is what I played to escape the death grip of TSR Games and Dungeon & Dragons; I have zero interest in falling back into the clutches of the D&D juggernaut. If I want fantasy gaming; Fantasy Hero is a far superior product - and one where my cross-genre reference books like The Hero System Bestiary and TUV are still useful.

I suspect I'm being misread. My comment was intended to be facetious and simply say that I hoped the core Hero gamers wouldn't leave simply because a larger portion of the gaming community saw the light and started playing Hero, building up its sales.

I play some d20 games and some Hero games, and I have no desire to see them become more similar for the sake of being more similar. I'd love to see Hero sales (of a true Hero product) become more similar to d20 sales, though. hat means Hero has more resources for future products.

Trebuchet

Mar 22nd, '08, 06:14 AM

My comment was intended to be facetious and simply say that I hoped the core Hero gamers wouldn't leave simply because a larger portion of the gaming community saw the light and started playing Hero, building up its sales.Building up sales is good; but my experience with sudden popularity of something I already like is not good. It seems when something becomes the new fad it both dilutes what was good and brings in new people who don't enhance the experience. I remember playing the original boxed D&D when it was nothing but an outré hobby for college geeks, and compare that to the latter highly polished product put out when the system was re-targeted at 14-year-olds and shudder. Sure, a few of those new players eventually became good gamers but a lot of them were simply a detriment to the gaming community.

Hero already attracts a "higher class" of gamers IMO and I'm not sure that popularizing it to attract the unwashed masses is necessarily going to be an enhancement of my hobby. YMMV.

BobGreenwade

Mar 22nd, '08, 06:48 AM

Yes, there's one thing that we all would like to see Hero emulate from d20: the sales figures. :D

nexus

Mar 22nd, '08, 07:33 AM

Off topic...

Oddly, I have never played a d20 game and enjoyed it. The system just grates against me for some reason. I can love the setting, have a fun character and still the mechanics are like nails on a chalkboard that suck the fun out of the entire session. And I can play terrible systems and still have fun, even Palladium or Storytelling Adventure System. Maybe it's just Player Hatin' but I can't get over it.

McCoy

Mar 22nd, '08, 07:45 AM

I suspect I'm being misread. My comment was intended to be facetious and simply say that I hoped the core Hero gamers wouldn't leave simply because a larger portion of the gaming community saw the light and started playing Hero, building up its sales.

Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded!
I will not stop playing Hero because it gets a bigger following. I wll if it adapts the features of d20 I find annoying.

Off topic...

Oddly, I have never played a d20 game and enjoyed it. The system just grates against me for some reason. I can love the setting, have a fun character and still the mechanics are like nails on a chalkboard that suck the fun out of the entire session. And I can play terrible systems and still have fun, even Palladium or Storytelling Adventure System. Maybe it's just Player Hatin' but I can't get over it.
Exactly.

CTaylor

Mar 22nd, '08, 08:08 AM

Similar to what Kenn said, I write a lot of source material, I try to make money at it. That means I have thousands of pages of stats, materials, constructions, characters, and so on. Changing from previous editions was a real, but fairly minor concern; the basics stayed the same (combat value, rolls, stats, etc). If the changes become significant or major, that's going to make me have to do extensive work on all that material, which is even more likely to make me wash my hands of the whole affair.

Things like deleting stats or breaking figured characteristics away from their parent stats, rolling high on skills, rolling a different number of dice, rebuilding mental powers from the ground up: that's going to be such major changes I might decide they are too much to deal with.

Tom

Mar 22nd, '08, 09:04 AM

If I have to re-buy books I already own to 'upgrade', I'm gone. I game for fun, so if I have to bend over backwards to make my existing materials remain useful, I'll stick with 5er...

Trebuchet

Mar 22nd, '08, 09:21 AM

If I have to re-buy books I already own to 'upgrade', I'm gone. I game for fun, so if I have to bend over backwards to make my existing materials remain useful, I'll stick with 5er...Ditto. And now that I own almost every Hero book on PDF, I don't even have to worry about the spines wearing out.

Vondy

Mar 22nd, '08, 09:33 AM

If the system becomes more cumbersome and requires more work, as opposed to streamlining and cleaning it up, I will have a hard time justifying the upgrade. There is always some room for changes, but sometimes taking a concept to its extreme renders it ridiculous. If I have to model things I currently have a way of doing with minimal effort I'll be gone. One the other hand, most of steve's proposed changes have left me with a "wait and see," attitude. None of them are deal-breakers in of themselves. Its the implementation that counts. I want a toolkit I can easily model the genres I want to run with. If it provides that I'm happy. If not, not.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 22nd, '08, 10:36 AM

Building up sales is good; but my experience with sudden popularity of something I already like is not good.

Yes, there's one thing that we all would like to see Hero emulate from d20: the sales figures. :D

I'm going to conclude there is nothing that we can agree we would all like to see. :nonp: I think the bottom line is no one would be unhappy with sales figures going up as long as the quality of the game (from each of our subjective viewpoints) does not go down.

Akiva

Mar 22nd, '08, 11:05 AM

This isn't a deal-breaker but it's something I wouldn't mind seeing:

A limited special edition in a single volume with three colored ribbon bookmarks sewn into the binding.

I'd pay premium for a super nice edition.

This, however, is a deal-breaker for me:

The look and feel of the book: if the fonts and formatting don't maintain the current unassailable quality of the fifth edition, I'm going to ball up my fists and throw one hell of a temper tantrum.

Also, the new edition should smell as good, if not better than, the current book does now. OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trebuchet

Mar 22nd, '08, 11:39 AM

I'm going to conclude there is nothing that we can agree we would all like to see. :nonp: I think the bottom line is no one would be unhappy with sales figures going up as long as the quality of the game (from each of our subjective viewpoints) does not go down.The last thing on Earth I want to see is Hero: The Gathering, great sales numbers or not.

:fear:

jtelson

Mar 22nd, '08, 01:08 PM

The last thing on Earth I want to see is Hero: The Gathering, great sales numbers or not.

:fear:

Hmmm, The last thing on Earth I want see is my chidren, grand and great-grand children surrounding my bed. :)

There are no deal breakers for me. I'm picking it up. Once I see it, I'll start considering conversion. I've just started a very long term series of Supers campaigns, so we'll see.

Trebuchet

Mar 22nd, '08, 01:51 PM

Hmmm, The last thing on Earth I want see is my chidren, grand and great-grand children surrounding my bed. :)I can think of much worse ways to go. But I have no children and never will, so all of that's something I can't aspire to.

There are no deal breakers for me. I'm picking it up. Once I see it, I'll start considering conversion. I've just started a very long term series of Supers campaigns, so we'll see.While I'm growing increasingly skeptical that 6E will be a significant improvement over 5ER based on what I'm reading here, the fact remains that this is very early days in the process of creating it. I'll make my final decision when it comes out unless there is a deal breaker officially announced beforehand. Even if we don't switch to it in our campaign, it may have some good material worth back-porting into 5ER.

Vorsch

Mar 23rd, '08, 10:56 PM

Not so much dealbreakers but thing i would like.

shapeshift rebuilt so you can change shape in a understandable manner

regen reintroduced same with instant change,

megascale deleted

JmOz

Mar 24th, '08, 03:07 AM

Megascale is not right yet, but I think it really is needed, it needs to be tweeked, but it is something I find extremly useful (mostly for movement powers)

TheQuestionMan

Mar 24th, '08, 03:57 AM

Over Complicating Rules

Fuzion-izing

QM

Vann the Red

Mar 24th, '08, 05:41 AM

I'm just generally skeptical. I don't know that there's a single dealbreaker, but I have trouble believing that 6e could substantially improve on 5er. Steve has a huge sales pitch to make on that score. That said, I have little doubt in his ability to make that sales pitch.

VtR

steamteck

Mar 24th, '08, 05:48 AM

Decoupling figures is pretty high but could be offset by something really nice. I'm going to houserule back in COM, period. Lots of the ideas , including Steve's musing would make it harder to make the characters I like. So down to it, the dealbreakesr are if I feel it becomes less friendly to my style of character design and /or loses ease of use or flexibility which has a pretty good balance now.
I just don't feel anything I use is broken. So anything more than tweaks in the core areas( characteristics for example) are going to turn me off.

Sketchpad

Mar 24th, '08, 06:12 AM

The deal breakers for me are:

- Power issues being overly complex when they need not be. I agree with Shapeshifting and Instant Change being more about the powers instead of having to do elaborate builds. However doing Simplified Healing is one of the best options IMHO for a Champions game :)

- The Same Ole Design. If the books are coming out in color or even staying black and white, they really need to have a more cohesive design to them.

- Though not in Hero's hands entirely, a rehash of the 5e CU. Sorry for those who like it, I just don't. I like a sense of legacy and continuity in my games ... it'd be nice to see some more old faces along with the new. Even a new version of an old villain here and there.

- Rules Complexity. I don't think 5e needs to be more rules intensive.

gojira

Mar 24th, '08, 07:05 AM

- The Same Ole Design. If the books are coming out in color or even staying black and white, they really need to have a more cohesive design to them.

I agree with many things you say, although I don't understand this. Layout-wise, the books are pretty cohesive. I have no trouble finding stuff and looking through the table of contents. Everything looks like a Hero Games book.

- Though not in Hero's hands entirely, a rehash of the 5e CU. Sorry for those who like it, I just don't. I like a sense of legacy and continuity in my games ... it'd be nice to see some more old faces along with the new. Even a new version of an old villain here and there.

This I think was forced on DOJ by the IP they bough. They just didn't have access to all of the original IP. They could have left events the same and just changed the players, but this might have seemed even more incongruous.

So, yes, I agree in an ideal world they would have kept everything the same, but given the way things were, they DOJ/Hero Games did pretty well.

Kenn

Mar 24th, '08, 07:14 AM

Not so much dealbreakers but thing i would like.

shapeshift rebuilt so you can change shape in a understandable manner

regen reintroduced same with instant change,

megascale deleted

Dude, you want 4e.;)

archermoo

Mar 24th, '08, 07:16 AM

nexus

Mar 24th, '08, 08:34 AM

I'd have to agree with this. The thing I like best about the 5e books (after the actual content of the books) is the wonderful layout. Easy to use, easy to find things, well put together, and aesthetically pleasing, all in one. :)

I agree as well. Layout has never been an issue with Hero books.

Or maybe I'm just easy to please after White Wolf. Even a stale saltine is the tastiest food in the world to a starving man. ;)

Spence

Mar 24th, '08, 10:13 AM

I suspect I'm being misread. My comment was intended to be facetious .........

Smilies man! Smilies...... ;)

Lord Fyre

Mar 24th, '08, 10:21 AM

Over Complicating Rules

Fuzion-izing

QM

Champions: New Millenium (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2160) was the work of the Devil! :sick:

Vondy

Mar 24th, '08, 10:24 AM

Champions: New Millenium (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2160) was the work of the Devil! :sick:

I admit it: I stole "Team Defender."

JmOz

Mar 24th, '08, 10:35 AM

Champions: New Millenium (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2160) was the work of the Devil! :sick:

I always feel sorry for C:NM

The setting was not bad, if a bit on the Image Contious side, but it was introduced at the same time with Fuzion, something that was not Hero, but was intended to replace it, so C:NM gets alot of flak. I actualy would like to see all of the C:NM converted to 5th edition as a .pdf type thing and the books to be kept available as .pdf's

Hugh Neilson

Mar 24th, '08, 08:11 PM

d20 sells very well. Presumably, you'd be OK if Hero 6e did as well, since higher sales would certainly be something one would expect Hero to aim for. ;)

Smilies man! Smilies...... ;)

:rolleyes:

Sketchpad

Mar 24th, '08, 08:57 PM

I agree with many things you say, although I don't understand this. Layout-wise, the books are pretty cohesive. I have no trouble finding stuff and looking through the table of contents. Everything looks like a Hero Games book.

I'd have to agree with this. The thing I like best about the 5e books (after the actual content of the books) is the wonderful layout. Easy to use, easy to find things, well put together, and aesthetically pleasing, all in one. :)

I agree as well. Layout has never been an issue with Hero books.

Or maybe I'm just easy to please after White Wolf. Even a stale saltine is the tastiest food in the world to a starving man. ;)

For me, the layout is too "text bookish". When I look at a gaming book, especially these days, I like something with some pop and that's visually appealing. I love the indexes and think they're one of the best things of non-content that Hero offers, but I actually liked the page layouts better in C:NM then I do in 5th ed books. I guess I'm just picky :)

This I think was forced on DOJ by the IP they bough. They just didn't have access to all of the original IP. They could have left events the same and just changed the players, but this might have seemed even more incongruous.

So, yes, I agree in an ideal world they would have kept everything the same, but given the way things were, they DOJ/Hero Games did pretty well.

I dunno ... I think there were quite a few that came with the package and just weren't used. I've always been one of the torch-bearers for the 4th ed CU and I guess I just would like to see some continuation :)

Alibear

Mar 24th, '08, 11:35 PM

There are no deal breakers for me. I'll use what I like and drop what I don't. If there is more in 5e that I like than 6e I won't buy any new products or I'll be much more selective about which products I do buy.

archermoo

Mar 25th, '08, 07:02 AM

For me, the layout is too "text bookish". When I look at a gaming book, especially these days, I like something with some pop and that's visually appealing. I love the indexes and think they're one of the best things of non-content that Hero offers, but I actually liked the page layouts better in C:NM then I do in 5th ed books. I guess I'm just picky :)

Each to their own. I'm picky too, I just have different goals. :)

The last thing I want is fluff getting in my way when I'm trying to find information in a book. Adding "pop" to the layout of books is the quickest way to get me to put the book down. The job of a comic book is to entertain. The job of a rules book is to provide information in a clear and concise fashion. I personally find the 5e layout to be leaps and bounds beyond any of the previous editions.

Spence

Mar 25th, '08, 07:14 AM

pinecone

Apr 3rd, '08, 01:38 PM

Are there any changes that would make you pass completely on 6th edition if they do or not come to pass? If so what are they?

Yeah, If I have to learn a new system...call it the Fuzion effect....

Egyptoid

Apr 3rd, '08, 01:47 PM

Sure, lots of 'em.

actually what would sell me on 6th ed. is if someone writes 2 programs.

1. convert all old hero files into 6th ed compatible hero designer files

2. have an OCR scanner scan all text character sheets and also
do the above conversion into 6ed compatible files.

Log-Man

Apr 3rd, '08, 01:50 PM

If it is printed on bologna.

Lord Fyre

Apr 3rd, '08, 02:37 PM

If it is printed on bologna.

Depending on the Meats used, for me that could be a selling point! :winkgrin:

GeekySpaz

Apr 3rd, '08, 03:27 PM

I probably don't have any true dealbreakers unless they really break the system and turn it into something unrecognizable. If they can streamline the rules a bit and make things a bit easier but maintain the overall flexibility and power of the system I'll be pretty happy. I would love to be able to do all the math for character creation in my head but as long as it doesn't get any more complicated than it is now I'll be satisfied (and i really hope they don't try to simplify the math by replacing it with a bunch of charts. I've seen some suggestions to that effect over in the 6th edition discussion).

The one thing I REALLY want to see is the physical quality of the books improve. Nice thick paper with a sturdy binding. Keep at least the core books hardcover. If the core books physically resembled the books from Games Workshop or White Wolf (in physical appearance only, not in content) that would be truly awesome.

Derek Hiemforth

Apr 3rd, '08, 03:29 PM

If they hire Raven c. s. McCracken to write it... :winkgrin:

Derek Hiemforth

Apr 3rd, '08, 03:35 PM

Okay... seriously. :) Sure, there are lots of things that could theoretically be changed or introduced that would be total deal-breakers for me.

However, while I wouldn't say it's completely impossible for any of those things to make their way into H6E, I would definitely say that it's very nearly impossible. In other words, I'm 99.99999% certain that Steve won't include anything that would automatically break the deal for me. All my deal-breakers are things I'm virtually certain Steve isn't going to add/change/remove.

So could something break the deal? Sure.

Will it? No. :)

None of the additions/changes/removals I've seen or heard Steve propose as being likely to happen are anywhere near the level of a deal-breaker for me...

Vondy

Apr 4th, '08, 06:07 AM

Look guys, Steve is Hero Pope. He is infallible. You'll use 6E. You know you will. ;)

CTaylor

Apr 4th, '08, 06:22 AM

Just like we'd use Champions: The New Millennium?

Derek Hiemforth

Apr 4th, '08, 06:41 AM

Look guys, Steve is Hero Pope. He is infallible.I don't think he's infallible. I just don't think he's going to introduce anything that would be a deal-breaker for me. :)

archermoo

Apr 4th, '08, 06:50 AM

Just like we'd use Champions: The New Millennium?

Well, I'll point out that Steve had no hand in that one.

archermoo

Apr 4th, '08, 06:55 AM

Look guys, Steve is Hero Pope. He is infallible. You'll use 6E. You know you will. ;)

I've certainly never claimed infallibility for him. There just isn't anything that I've seen him mention on the boards as something he is likely to change that I have a problem with. From that and the conversations I've had with him, I think we agree on far more than we disagree about it. And since he has proven to at least my satisfaction that he is a talanted game designer, I'm not worried that he is biting off more than he can chew and have little doubt that he can do a good job pulling off the changes he is talking about making.

CTaylor

Apr 4th, '08, 11:41 AM

Well, I'll point out that Steve had no hand in that one.

I agree and I don't mean to malign Mr Long nor imply that he has anything like that in mind. I just wanted to point out that just because we love Hero and buy its products when we can doesn't mean we'll buy whatever comes out with the title regardless of content.

Kenn

Apr 4th, '08, 01:19 PM

Look guys, Steve is Hero Pope. He is infallible. You'll use 6E. You know you will. ;)

I'll be looking for the Hero "Martin Luther.":p

nexus

Apr 4th, '08, 01:41 PM

Look guys, Steve is Hero Pope. He is infallible. You'll use 6E. You know you will. ;)

I'm Hero Agnostic.

I've certainly never claimed infallibility for him. There just isn't anything that I've seen him mention on the boards as something he is likely to change that I have a problem with. From that and the conversations I've had with him, I think we agree on far more than we disagree about it. And since he has proven to at least my satisfaction that he is a talanted game designer, I'm not worried that he is biting off more than he can chew and have little doubt that he can do a good job pulling off the changes he is talking about making.

From where it stands now, Steve Long is taking the game in direction I'm not interested in going and that reflect my playstyle, perhaps won't even support it. In addition some of the topics he's dismissed are things I'd have liked to have seen done. This is far since it's not my personalized edition of Hero but, barring some sudden reversal or truly innovative and exciting design the odds of my adopting 6th is very low.

Alibear

Apr 4th, '08, 01:54 PM

Do you mind if I ask which things are not to your taste?

Spence

Apr 4th, '08, 02:11 PM

For myself I pretty much think this particular thread isn't answerable since nothing in 6th has even been established.....

That I know of. The 6th ed forum has exploded to the point I could read it if read it was my job and I put in 50 hours a week.

I had a suggestion but just figuring out which thread to put it in, let alone read the 52 million previous posts to see if it was already mentioned isn't going to happen. At least not while I actually have a job and need to eat ;)

Spence

*I'm not whining as much as completely befuddled :nonp:*

archermoo

Apr 4th, '08, 02:27 PM

From where it stands now, Steve Long is taking the game in direction I'm not interested in going and that reflect my playstyle, perhaps won't even support it. In addition some of the topics he's dismissed are things I'd have liked to have seen done. This is far since it's not my personalized edition of Hero but, barring some sudden reversal or truly innovative and exciting design the odds of my adopting 6th is very low.

Huh. What changes that Steve has proposed and stated he is likely to make do you see impacting play style?

nexus

Apr 4th, '08, 02:37 PM

Huh. What changes that Steve has proposed and stated he is likely to make do you see impacting play style?

The main one? Dropping Comeliness as a characteristic. Decoupling Figured is going to make character generation more of a hassle. There's a few others but I'd have to go surfing through the 6th forums. Overall, his design choices seem to be taking the game in a more mechanistic "wargame like" direction than I like to use. I noticed a bit of that in 5th edition as well but overall, I liked most of it so I brought in.

nexus

Apr 4th, '08, 02:41 PM

For myself I pretty much think this particular thread isn't answerable since nothing in 6th has even been established.....

Well the questions is "Are there any deal breakers?" IOW, is there any change that could made that would just turn you right off not in the sense "Are there any there anything that would turn you off?"

CTaylor

Apr 4th, '08, 03:01 PM

I'm just hoping is initial statement "there were things I wanted to change that the original designers of this fantastically successful and popular game vetoed" doesn't mean what I fear it means.

archermoo

Apr 4th, '08, 03:03 PM

The main one? Dropping Comeliness as a characteristic. Decoupling Figured is going to make character generation more of a hassle. There's a few others but I'd have to go surfing through the 6th forums. Overall, his design choices seem to be taking the game in a more mechanistic "wargame like" direction than I like to use. I noticed a bit of that in 5th edition as well but overall, I liked most of it so I brought in.

Yeah, I'm not fond of the idea of getting rid of COM. Though for me at least decoupling Figureds will just simplify chargen.

And, again to me, the changes seem less wargame like than just nailing the rules down more so that it is easier to get them out of the way of the roleplaying.

archermoo

Apr 4th, '08, 03:13 PM

I'm just hoping is initial statement "there were things I wanted to change that the original designers of this fantastically successful and popular game vetoed" doesn't mean what I fear it means.

Well, he's been very open about the things that he is currently thinking about, how he feels about them, and why. If you are fearing particular changes, checking out the first post in the appropriate thread(s) should give you a good idea what he feels about it.

Though I'll point out that unless I'm mistaken the same people that vetoed his 5th edition changes were the ones who put out Champions: New Millennium.

And I stand corrected: Steve does have credit for "Additional Writing" for C:NM...

incrdbil

Apr 6th, '08, 09:56 AM

The main one? Dropping Comeliness as a characteristic.

I really find this biarre,. Lets say Com just moves from being a Characteristic to a talent/perk. It gets a better definition of effects in the rules, and the point cost actually becomes justified more than it is now. You still can easily define the relative attarctiveness of your character, on the chartersheep using points--just in a different location.

That's a deal breaker?

nexus

Apr 6th, '08, 10:11 AM

I really find this biarre,. Lets say Com just moves from being a Characteristic to a talent/perk. It gets a better definition of effects in the rules, and the point cost actually becomes justified more than it is now.

*sigh*

Not in my opinion. For me, it works just fine as it is now. I've gone over this many times already in the relevant threads.

You still can easily define the relative attarctiveness of your character, on the chartersheet using points--just in a different location.

With what I find to be a less satisfactory mechanic, at least as has been proposed so far. I didn't like GURPS "Attractive" Talent or whatever it was called, why should I like basically the same thing in Hero?

That's a deal breaker?

I didn't say that alone would prevent me from being interested in 6th Edition. I'd have to house rule Comeliness back in which would be a pain in the *** That is one of the (thus far) proposed changes I am not pleased with. In and off itself, it is not a deal breaker.

Archermoo's question was what changes were being made that would directly impact my play style. Dropping Com is the biggie since I use it frequently and enjoy it functions as is.

Lord Liaden

Apr 6th, '08, 10:54 AM

Boll Weevil

Apr 6th, '08, 11:30 AM

I would stick with 5th ed if the non-core rules books I have become obsolete. I'd buy the 6th ed rules but I would not support a new CU. I have not had a FTF gaming group in years but I still buy the Champions Universe series for the story line(s). I bought Stronghold as much to find out who was in it and how it affects the CU continuity as the prison itself.

nexus

Apr 6th, '08, 12:21 PM

Looking over this thread, it appears that the one "dealbreaker" most people agree on is "backwards compatibility." Individual details vary from person to person, but overall people want to be able to use their (often vast) collections of older HERO stuff with the new ruleset without a major hassle converting.

I can sympathize with that position. I have a lot of 5E stuff, but probably even more from 4E and earlier. I've had little trouble using the 4E material with the current rules, and even 3E and earlier stuff is readily portable to 5E if you're familiar with those earlier rules. OTOH Fuzion was too different from HERO for me to use without employing conversion formulae (and subjective judgement in some cases), and the setting wasn't "Wow!" enough to make me want to put in the effort.

For me, if the amount of change from 5E to 6E is comparable to that from 3E to 4E, I'll probably go for it. If it's comparable to the change from 4E to Fuzion, I'll probably pass. I also intend to pick up the 6E Basic book before investing in the full rules, to get an idea of how radical the changes are.

Backwards compatibility is an issue for me. Frankly, I don't have the money to buy "everything' again, the time to learn it (one of the reason I love Hero is because I can usually try new things without learning a new system) or to convert the many PCs and NPCs I have created.

Fortunately, I am pretty certain Steve Long is taking that into account in his decision making process and some of the more radical suggestions ("Tear the whole thing down and start from scratch!") won't sway him too much in that direction.

nexus

Apr 6th, '08, 12:33 PM

I received an email notification containing a post from someone I have on Ignore. I felt I should respond to it to avoid confusion. I'm not going into the whys behind my preference for Comeliness in thread and I've largely stopped talking about it in others after being pretty active about it, even trying to suggest a compromise viewpoint. The responses to Com discussions tend to be of the :rolleyes: variety, snarky or even borderline hostile and its just not worth the stress over an opinion.

CTaylor

Apr 6th, '08, 04:01 PM

They can acknowledge the market is the new player or they can continue add layers of complication and listen to the drum beat of the "old guard" who refuse to acknowledge they could be wrong and their 25 years experience with the system actually disqualifies them on the subject of new players, not enhances it.

That's the approach that gave us Fuzion.

I believe it's pretty obvious, given the 6th edition message board and Steve directly asking for input that this is not a philosophy he shares.

Spence

Apr 6th, '08, 04:17 PM

That's the approach that gave us Fuzion.

I believe it's pretty obvious, given the 6th edition message board and Steve directly asking for input that this is not a philosophy he shares.

clarification: by "old guard" I mean some of the long term players.

I don't want to imply I am talking about the actual company or anything. Even though it seems I did just that. Sorry about that, once again my BBS-fu fails....

As far as I have read DOJ hasn't firmly decided that much yet and all of my personal concerns, backwards compatibility, etc are still up there in the good. Of course the volume of material on the 6th ed board has just completely left me behind.

Trebuchet

Apr 6th, '08, 04:43 PM

Right now I think Hero is at the precipice. They can acknowledge the market is the new player or they can continue add layers of complication and listen to the drum beat of the "old guard" who refuse to acknowledge they could be wrong and their 25 years experience with the system actually disqualifies them on the subject of new players, not enhances it. I don't think any of the long time layers/old timers have advocated no changes whatsoever in 6E. I, and I suspect a lot of us other dinosaurs, are simply against arbitrary changes or ones which do nothing to actually improve the Hero System. There's a reason we've stayed loyal to the system for 20+ years: It works; and works pretty damn well.

As for being disqualified on the subject of new players, we've brought a number of new players into our campaign since our campaign started in 1993. In fact, three of our Champions campaign's current group of eight players came to role-playing through our campaign. The asteroid hasn't quite hit yet. :winkgrin:

Toadmaster

Apr 6th, '08, 05:44 PM

Right now I think Hero is at the precipice. They can acknowledge the market is the new player or they can continue add layers of complication and listen to the drum beat of the "old guard" who refuse to acknowledge they could be wrong and their 25 years experience with the system actually disqualifies them on the subject of new players, not enhances it.

I don't really think that is a fair comment, I've seen quite a few "old guard" players who are advocating a smaller HERO. Many point to earlier editions and ask why has HERO bloated. Personally I'd like to see a return to a book the size of 4th ed, it was complete without being scary to new players.

Yes some are clamoring for two tomes HERO for 6th but I don't think they really represent the majority of long time players.

Spence

Apr 6th, '08, 07:09 PM

Actually I don't think I came across as I intended. I am not trying to say anyone did anything wrong or intentionally wrong.

Well, I have gone down this road before and have had everyone simply miss my intent altogether and shoebox my position into one of the other ongoing debates.

So I'll just apologize to Trebuchet, Toadmaster and any others that may have taken offense and withdraw my comment. One day I will have to sit down and see if I can articulate what I actually mean in a manner that everyone will understand. I have a pretty solid feeling that the fault lies with me and not everyone else.

Toadmaster

Apr 6th, '08, 09:00 PM

No offense taken from me. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Spence

Apr 6th, '08, 09:10 PM

No offense taken from me. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Nope. It is all me. I have been not able to get this particular concept across for a long time.

There was a time I thought people were being deliberately obtuse. But after a while one has to realize if no one follows your line of reasoning, then the problem may lie closer to home.

Gadodel

Apr 6th, '08, 10:39 PM

Honestly?

It's out of my hands.

My players have already said that once D&D 4E comes out, they'll be busy converting their various D&D worlds to it. They obviously will want to play D&D for quite awhile. They are essentially going to drop all of the other games they are playing to do this-even the Mutants and Masterminds campaign I've talked them into playing in. In short, they won't be too interested in even playing HERO 5E after June.

6E is a ways off, but I don't see any of my players getting tired of D&D for atleast awhile...two or three years maybe. If or when that happens, two of my players have said that they will definitely check out HERO 6E...

The 'deal-breaker' for HERO 6E is D&D 4E. For now. Though, I might be able to bring some of them back into the fold. Essentially, the timing of all this has been problematic.

Trebuchet

Apr 7th, '08, 03:23 AM

So I'll just apologize to Trebuchet, Toadmaster and any others that may have taken offense and withdraw my comment. One day I will have to sit down and see if I can articulate what I actually mean in a manner that everyone will understand. I have a pretty solid feeling that the fault lies with me and not everyone else.I didn't take it as an offense at all. I figured you were making a valid observation and responded with my own observation. I'm sure there are players out there who oppose any changes; heck I know Hero players out there still using 4th Edition because they were unhappy with changes in 5th or didn't want to redesign their 14,000 4th Edition characters. All I was saying is that it's not a good idea to lump everyone opposed to changes in one category; there undoubtedly numerous valid and/or invalid reasons to oppose changes in 6E.

nexus

Apr 7th, '08, 05:46 AM

Personally, I’m not opposed to any changes in 6th edition I’m just not fond of the ones I’ve seen proposed so far. If that makes me one of the “old guard” then so be it. But frankly, I don’t think disregarding the “old guard” is a good idea. Right now, I’d argue the old guard makes up the majority of Hero System players. They’re ones that have been supporting the system for years.

This doesn’t give them any sort of entitlement; any commercial product has to attract new customers but the “old guard” as Trebuchet observed have also been the one recruiting new players for their years. They might not be quite as clueless regarding what new players find daunting or attractive about the system as some may think. In my experience, one of the best ways to learn a new system is to play with people that understand it particularly a system like Hero which, while not as complicated as it made out to be, isn’t “Rules lite” by any stretch of the imagination.

And to be blunt, lets face facts. Hero System is never going to be d20. As much as we, ,the fans, might love to see that happen, I seriously doubt it ever will. It doesn’t have a major company backing it and, honestly, it’s facing years of accumulated disdain and bad word of mouth press. Can Hero System be more popular? Most certainly but again the “old guard” doesn’t exist in a vacuum, most of them have been playing rpgs and more than just Hero for years. They may just have some idea what the young’uns are doing these days ;)

But if Hero loses its old guard players it’s unlikely that it’s going to attract new players fast enough to replace them, even if it undergoes the radical transformation that would probable require. So brushing off the fanbase as stubborn old grognards is probably not a good idea from a business perspective. Tradition should not be a straight jacket but it’s something to be considered. Some of these people have been involved as players with Hero for as long as Steve Long, perhaps even longer, tinkering with it, selling it to new players and examining its rough spots and their input shouldn’t be ignored. After all, Hero System must have doing something right all these years to have such a dedicated old guard to begin with. I don’t think that should be taken lightly or ignored.

incrdbil

Apr 7th, '08, 07:22 AM

There's always a fine balance in transitions. Veteran players can be important, just for the reason Nexus pointed out--word of mouth, recruiting new players. The balance lies in finding that point where appeasing old guard doesn't change from being a plus into a minus if it means maintaining a game in a state that isn't good at recruiting new players no matter how many veterans are trying.

It's not easy to nail everyone down into easy categories..which might make an entire 'deal breaker' thread sort of futile We really don't even know if our stated 'deal-breakers' will break that deal because we haven't seen the total package. I really doubt just one certain change will make people abandon HERO, or refuse to move on. It's going to be a cumulative effect, an equation of gains versus percieved losses for each individual who makes that call. we won't know those gains ourselves till we've all curled up with 6e for a bit.

Still I think this thread has been good--, some points of vew and explanations just seemed to come across better than on other threads. I think many POV's that just didn't make sense to me make more sense now, now that I see the frameworks of thoughts and feelings behind them.

I also see that the traditional internet problem of assuming of a common frame of rference has been undoing many of these 6e threads, because in our feelings on changes, impacts, and ultiate impact of change, many of us have some very important differences in perception that make us misunderstand the scale of importance of certain issues to each person. At one point I thought continued discussion was useless, but now I see genuine discussion isn't useless, but sometimes it takes a lot of time before talking at each other is done, and we start talking with each other. I've been guilty of the talking at portion at times, and hope to improve in the future.

archermoo

Apr 7th, '08, 08:18 AM

At one point I thought continued discussion was useless, but now I see genuine discussion isn't useless, but sometimes it takes a lot of time before talking at each other is done, and we start talking with each other. I've been guilty of the talking at portion at times, and hope to improve in the future.

I gave up on the 6e threads when I realized that there were too many people who at least seem unable (or possibly just unwilling) to separate their personal POV/opinions from objective fact. "I find this point to be very important" I don't have any problem with, whether I agree or not. "My point is objectively more important than yours" I do object to when the issues are opinion rather than fact.

Well, that and I had made my points on the issues that I care about. :) The fact that there are still other posters who disagree with my points doesn't particularly concern me. They aren't the ones that I need to convince. Steve is. :)

Lord Mhoram

Apr 7th, '08, 10:10 AM

archermoo

Apr 7th, '08, 11:25 AM

I listed specifics earlier in the thread, but I realized the general - and it does have to do with backwards compatibility.

I want to see the basic game unchanged - jiggering around with points, or the definition of the odd power or advantage (much like Flash or Aid moving from 4th to 5th) is just fine. But I want to be able to play a 5th character in 6th without much more than a cursory ready of the rules (again much like 4th to 5th).

Removing characteristics, severely changing or removing frameworks, changing/removing the speed chart - those are the things that would kill it for me.

I want to see 6th as an Upgrade (like a really cool universal Ultimate book) than a big change.

Based on Steve's original posts about what he is interested in changing, it looks like I will be out of luck*.

*Drain luck 10d6, ranged, Focus 6th Ed rulebook-1

Well, for what it is worth, of the three changes you mentioned that are the type of things that would kill it for you, only one of them did Steve say he was planning on doing in his initial posts. Which is to say removing a characteristic, specifically COM. He brought up the idea of making changes to frameworks and reworking the Speed Chart, but also stated that he didn't think either of them was a good idea.

Lord Liaden

Apr 7th, '08, 12:00 PM

To be honest, the impression I got from Steve Long's initial remarks on the 6E forums is that he personally doesn't feel a need to change HERO System in radical ways. Nothing he himself brought up seems to me to be more of a fundamental shift than what was done to unify the HERO System for Fourth Edition. It's to Steve's credit that he's willing to entertain suggestions on just about any element of the rules, but we shouldn't assume that any of the opinions put forth on those threads by other people will actually make it into 6E.

If Steve confined the new edition's modifications just to those he himself proposed, I'll probably be able to work with it well enough.

Lord Mhoram

Apr 7th, '08, 12:28 PM

Well, for what it is worth, of the three changes you mentioned that are the type of things that would kill it for you, only one of them did Steve say he was planning on doing in his initial posts. Which is to say removing a characteristic, specifically COM. He brought up the idea of making changes to frameworks and reworking the Speed Chart, but also stated that he didn't think either of them was a good idea.

Yeah.

I also really don't like the meters for movement, I prefer my inches. But if that and some power changes are the extent of it, I'll be good. I still don't like the idea of divorcing figured characteristics, but that is just a cost/points issue. I'll keep them in my game, but whatever.

As long as a character sheet (minus the costs) can be used cross editions with no headache, I'm all for that.

3rd to 4th was a radical change because they moved from a game Engine with each game having it's own rules to a game system that was universal. That change was large, and I didn't have a lot invested (in time, writeups and whatnot) in 3rd. 4th to 5th was a bugfix. If the 5th to 6th is as great as 3rd to 4th, I'll stay fifth. If it is a bugfix, but a relatively major one, I'll stay onboard.

We'll see.

I collect superhero RPGs for conversion, so even if 6th is too different, I can use it that way.

pinecone

Apr 7th, '08, 02:06 PM

Spence

Apr 7th, '08, 02:38 PM

Don't get scared by the size, most of the threads are about 50% the same 3 people saying the same three things at each other, several times...;)

I can't believe that....not here....on the Hero boards ;)

The same 4 people maybe.......:sneaky:

Vondy

Apr 8th, '08, 09:13 AM

Don't get scared by the size, most of the threads are about 50% the same 3 people saying the same three things at each other, several times...;)

There are only two people with multiple user names.

nexus

Apr 8th, '08, 09:38 AM

I gave up on the 6e threads when I realized that there were too many people who at least seem unable (or possibly just unwilling) to separate their personal POV/opinions from objective fact. "I find this point to be very important" I don't have any problem with, whether I agree or not. "My point is objectively more important than yours" I do object to when the issues are opinion rather than fact.

That is a very frustrating aspect of the discussion and another ties into is is "My anecdotal evidence is far more important and certain than your anecdotal evidence" :rolleyes:

Vondy

Apr 8th, '08, 09:41 AM

That is a very frustrating aspect of the discussion and another ties into is is "My anecdotal evidence is far more important and certain than your anecdotal evidence" :rolleyes:

In my experience, this is not the case. :D

nexus

Apr 8th, '08, 09:44 AM

I collect superhero RPGs for conversion, so even if 6th is too different, I can use it that way.

So do I but you know what's weird? I can imagine converting from a disappointing 6th will be more annoying on a emotional level simply because its -this- close to not needing it.

If that makes any sense.

nexus

Apr 8th, '08, 09:45 AM

In my experience, this is not the case. :D

Pardon?

archermoo

Apr 8th, '08, 10:18 AM

That is a very frustrating aspect of the discussion and another ties into is is "My anecdotal evidence is far more important and certain than your anecdotal evidence" :rolleyes:

There is that too. :)

Spence

Apr 8th, '08, 12:42 PM

So do I but you know what's weird? I can imagine converting from a disappointing 6th will be more annoying on a emotional level simply because its -this- close to not needing it.

If that makes any sense.

That actually makes perfect sense.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 8th, '08, 02:54 PM

ghost-angel

Apr 8th, '08, 03:08 PM

If Steve does that one thing.. you know... it's all over.

nexus

Apr 8th, '08, 03:17 PM

I still say, give it a chance. The book's not out. None of us knows which changes will be made. Despite what you say now, you could take a look at it and find that one of your deal-breakers isn't so bad after all.

Going from 3e to 4e, if someone had said to me that they were going to change Range Modifiers from -1/3" to -2 per doubling, and END from 1 per 5 to 1 per 10, and Disadvantages to a max per category... some of them very nearly were deal-breakers for me, until I gave them a chance. In fact I gave away the first copy of 4e I bought, because I was that willing to give up on the game.

And yet... here I am.

Speaking for myself, I haven't said I won't take a look at 6th edition and the tone of the thread is hypothetical. I can say with 100 percent certainty that I'll be Houseruling Comeliness back in at unless that "alternative" is essentially moving Com to some where else on the sheet...would be pretty odd.

Hypothetically, Steve Long could put in character classes, hit points and convert to a dice pool system. Of course, that'si very very unlikely but it's also too early to say "I'll definitely be converting."

As stands now, the majority of the changes don't thrill me and I don't think it's being alarmist, negative or a "Chicken Little" to express that opinion. Its' not the end of the world if I or anyone else doesn't move onto 6th as long as enough people do or come to the knew rules for DOJ to at least break even.

assault

Apr 8th, '08, 03:30 PM

In my case the "deal breaker" thing is quite serious. My RPG buying has been gradually tapering off - I've effectively stopped buying stuff for any system other than HERO, and I'm becoming a bit more selective about HERO. In other words, unless there's some good reason for me to buy 6E products, I'm likely to stop buying RPG products of any kind!

I won't stop playing of course - I've got decades worth of stuff sitting in my cupboards. I also play historical wargames, though, and I'm beginning to spend more time on them than on RPGs.

The truth is that I would rather not buy the 6E rules at all, and just buy a 6E equivalent of Sidekick for conversion purposes. Then I could just keep buying stuff that interested me, and ignore anything that didn't.

And then buy 7E, when it comes out. :rolleyes:

Vondy

Apr 8th, '08, 09:59 PM

Pardon?

It was humor in the form of irony.

Vondy

Apr 8th, '08, 10:19 PM

Speaking for myself, I haven't said I won't take a look at 6th edition and the tone of the thread is hypothetical. I can say with 100 percent certainty that I'll be Houseruling Comeliness back in at unless that "alternative" is essentially moving Com to some where else on the sheet...would be pretty odd.

Hypothetically, Steve Long could put in character classes, hit points and convert to a dice pool system. Of course, that'si very very unlikely but it's also too early to say "I'll definitely be converting."

As stands now, the majority of the changes don't thrill me and I don't think it's being alarmist, negative or a "Chicken Little" to express that opinion. Its' not the end of the world if I or anyone else doesn't move onto 6th as long as enough people do or come to the knew rules for DOJ to at least break even.

I don't think its a "chicken little" reaction to post an opinion. In fact, I dislike milquetoast people who don't have them. And that's what Steve started the whole 6E forum for - to get our opinions. At the same time, I think a lot of mountains in this discussion are really molehills. I think people have latched on to a lot of small to moderate issues and gone ape. Not you, per se, but overall. There's a lack of perspective in the discussion as a whole.

When you get down to the guts of the system, few of the proposed changes are substantive. Most of them are method more than critical mechanics. And even some of the mechanical changes aren't as dramatic as they first appear. For instance, houseruling comeliness as a stat if it goes the way of the dodo is really trival to do. The most dramatic proposed changes include the notion of decoupling figured characteristics and/or skills. And even that, while looking significant on the surface and being asbestos suit required material for discussion, really only amounts to a cosmetic transormation: it affects costs.

Skill rolls still function on a curve and have a base roll with a cost to increase; figured characteristics still do the same things, they just don't have a forumla attached. We already have the forumlas and suggested character points allotments so it amounts to saying do X instead of Y! I'm not sayig I want these changes, or that I wouldn't be house-ruling them, either. I probably will, but at the same time, they won't dramatically impact the implicit structure of hero or how I run my games. I have this edition. I can take the next one, look for good ideas, and run the game I want to run.

I still have things about 5E I don't like and houseruled to work like 4th (regeneration and damage shield come immediately to mind), and some of the cost increased and granulairity caused me to customize things that I'd never considered touching before, but it introduced some great ideas that have improved my game and caterered to my playstyle. I don't doubt 6E will follow much the same pattern. I'll cull it for ideas. Its a toolkit. I take what I want and leave what I don't.

tomd1969

Apr 9th, '08, 10:20 PM

There are two things for me that would be deal-breakers for me when it comes to 6th edition:

1) If they did away with the point allocation system and went to a system wherein PCs were randomly rolled;

2) If they went to a class-and-level system.

Everything else is minor. I want to be able to create the character *I* want to play: if I want a character that shoots lightening bolts out of his arse, then I don't want the rules telling me I can't. If I want a hot-mama kick-butt martial artist who runs around in a red-white-and-blue costume, I don't want the dice and some retarded table telling me that instead I have Monstrous Darkness Control, Monstrous Radio Control, and Feeble Telekinesis (as actually happened to me once in an old FASERIP MSHRPG--I nearly threw the book across the room).

These are the reasons I'm a Hero fan. Once you take those two things away, it ceases to be Hero and becomes D20. Since the odds of Steve taking these two concepts out of the game are very slim (he being a fan for the same reasons as I am), the chances that I'll reach "Deal Broken" state will be similarly slim.

DavidToomey

Apr 10th, '08, 09:24 PM

There are only two people with multiple user names.
Is one of them a pair of hot lesbians...?

...or is that particular poster long gone?

Vondy

Apr 13th, '08, 08:24 AM

Is one of them a pair of hot lesbians...?

...or is that particular poster long gone?

We don't know. Fred Bittick was the infamous Kararachel, but he could be using some other user-name and it would be virtually impossible for us to find out. Dan banned both user accounts, and may have banned the IP address, too, but one can always get a new IP address and create a new sock puppet. Creepy, eh?

Trebuchet

Apr 13th, '08, 08:26 AM

We don't know. Fred Bittick was the infamous Kararachel, but he could be using some other user-name and it would be virtually impossible for us to find out. Dan banned both user accounts, and may have banned the IP address, too, but one can always get a new IP address and create a new sock puppet. Creepy, eh?I can't help noticing that we've never seen you and Fred Bittick in the same room. Mere coincidence? :winkgrin:

Vondy

Apr 13th, '08, 08:28 AM

I can't help noticing that we've never seen you and Fred Bittick in the same room. Mere coincidence? :winkgrin:

Well, neither of us are lesbians... so there is another striking coincidence. The evidence mounts. :cool:

Kenn

Apr 14th, '08, 09:42 AM

I've never seen Barbara Bush and the Quaker Oats Man together either.

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 07:36 AM

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 08:28 AM

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 08:45 AM

Re: decoupling figureds... it's an easy thing to playtest, if you really want to see how it works. I say, give it a chance. You're in the position of saying you don't like something without having ever tried it. If you playtest it, and can go to Steve with actual playtest data saying "We've tried it and it doesn't work; here's why," I'd imagine you've probably got a much better chance of changing his mind than all of the 115+ pages on the 6e Characteristics thread.

Honestly, I don't need to playtest it; I've seen other systems that did the same, and I didn't like it there either. I dislike it on a sufficiently basic conceptual level that no execution is going to be able to make me like it. Its not got anything to do with costs, but the simple idea of making certain things independent that I don't think should be completely independent. It could create no game balance or actual game play problems and it would still bother me.

incrdbil

Apr 15th, '08, 09:03 AM

Honestly, I don't need to playtest it

not to be harsh, but honestly, I can't think of any faster way to having ones input disregarded than saying this.

I dislike it on a sufficiently basic conceptual level that no execution is going to be able to make me like it.

.....except maybe that.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 09:14 AM

Honestly, I don't need to playtest it; I've seen other systems that did the same, and I didn't like it there either.

Name one?

I dislike it on a sufficiently basic conceptual level that no execution is going to be able to make me like it. Its not got anything to do with costs, but the simple idea of making certain things independent that I don't think should be completely independent. It could create no game balance or actual game play problems and it would still bother me.

But everything you have to say about is based on not trying it. If you tried it, sure, you might still not like it, but then you'd have a basis from which to convince Steve. You could say, "I've tried it, and here's why it doesn't work." At the moment, you're saying "I won't like it, I know I won't, even though I haven't tried it."

I can't and won't speak for Steve, but if I were in his position, I'd put a lot more stock in statements from people who have tried it and found it wanting, than from a hundred yahoos on either side who haven't. (I say this as one of those yahoos, but then I'm not in the position of trying to change his mind.)

nexus

Apr 15th, '08, 09:17 AM

Edit: Not my place to speak for Paragon

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 09:24 AM

Name one?

Though not to the same extent, M&M's disconnect of Dexterity from combat capability comes to immediate mind.

But everything you have to say about is based on not trying it. If you tried it, sure, you might still not like it, but then you'd have a basis from which to convince Steve. You could say, "I've tried it, and here's why it doesn't work." At the moment, you're saying "I won't like it, I know I won't, even though I haven't tried it."

The problem is that it doesn't work for me on a sufficiently basic grounds that I don't think its possible to explain why; certainly playing it won't change that, because as I said, its a fundamental conceptual level. It simply disconnects things I think should be connected.

Let me give a broad analogy: you could have a system where your primary unarmed damage bonus was based on Appearance. In the end, it wouldn't matter how much or little this really mattered in play, the basic idea would put me off. The same is true here.

I can't and won't speak for Steve, but if I were in his position, I'd put a lot more stock in statements from people who have tried it and found it wanting, than from a hundred yahoos on either side who haven't. (I say this as one of those yahoos, but then I'm not in the position of trying to change his mind.)

I don't actually expect Steve to change his position on this, so that's pretty much a nonstarter. I don't actually expect anyone who doesn't have a problem with this from the outset to have their mind changed, because I think this is a fundamental enough issue that it either bothers you or it doesn't.

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 09:26 AM

not to be harsh, but honestly, I can't think of any faster way to having ones input disregarded than saying this.

.....except maybe that.

As noted, I don't expect my input on this matter to have any impact. It doesn't change my feelings about it, but there's no connection between the two; my ability to express why I have a problem with it, and my having a problem with it have no relationship.

That's why in the latter parts of the Characteristics thread I've limited my comments to appropriate costs of characterstics with or without decoupling, rather than about the decoupling itself; I think feelings about the latter are such a vast gulf that there's literally no point in arguing about them.

steamteck

Apr 15th, '08, 09:26 AM

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 09:26 AM

I think you can make a reasonable assessment about a personal taste issue without trying it first. There are several things I know wouldn't like without experiencing them. Decoupling figured characteristics is going to have several impacts on character generation. For some these are a positive, for other they are a negative and most of them are fairly obvious.

It sounds like Paragon just doesn't like the concept in and of itself. It's like not like certain flavors of food, a matter of taste.

I know for a fact that there were similar issues between 3e and 4e that very nearly had me giving up the system. Until I gave them a chance and, y'know, tried them.

Decoupling figured characteristics is going to have several impacts on character generation.

All right. What are they? I'm asking you, tell me what those impacts are. However, until you've actually playtested the thing, your opinions are just that, opinions, and meaningless without data.

If you can't tell me, yes, I have tried them, and they don't work, and here's why, your opinions on the issue don't mean diddly. They're uninformed, armchair judgements without one speck of experience. Why in the world should I give them any credence? They're no better or worse than anyone else's uninformed opinions.

steamteck

Apr 15th, '08, 09:30 AM

All right. What are they? I'm asking you, tell me what those impacts are. However, until you've actually playtested the thing, your opinions are just that, opinions, and meaningless without data.

If you can't tell me, yes, I have tried them, and they don't work, and here's why, your opinions on the issue don't mean diddly. They're uninformed, armchair judgements without one speck of experience. Why in the world should I give them any credence? They're no better or worse than anyone else's uninformed opinions.

That's nonsense if it creates an extra step and requires an extra judgment call it makes a difference. By that logic no one could ever figure anything out using their intellect.

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 09:30 AM

If you can't tell me, yes, I have tried them, and they don't work, and here's why, your opinions on the issue don't mean diddly. They're uninformed, armchair judgements without one speck of experience. Why in the world should I give them any credence? They're no better or worse than anyone else's uninformed opinions.

This assumes that I expect anyone to give them credence. As noted, I really don't. That just means I'm fatalistic about the issue.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 09:45 AM

That's nonsense if it creates an extra step and requires an extra judgment call it makes a difference. By that logic no one could ever figure anything out using their intellect.

People figure things out using their intellect all the time. Until they actually try them, however, they're called "guesses" or "opinions".

CTaylor

Apr 15th, '08, 09:59 AM

I should think it's obvious that if some stats don't affect figured characteristics that will change how they are purchased, if figured characteristics are stand alone, costs for all stats will have to be changed, and possibly the entire process will become more expensive.

All of this objectively has impacts on character creation. Come on Chris, he's not postulating the unknowable here.

nexus

Apr 15th, '08, 10:01 AM

I know for a fact that there were similar issues between 3e and 4e that very nearly had me giving up the system. Until I gave them a chance and, y'know, tried them.

That's all well and good. That doesn't mean all changes are like that. For example, I don't like Level based systems. I just don't, it's not logical there is not objectively wrong with them I simply don't like that. No implementation is going to suddenly make me reverse my that feeling. I don't have to play test a level based to system to avoid it.

Yes, they're opinions. When have I claimed otherwise? I don't think my opinions are objective facts but they are mine. They might be "meaningless" to you but they're not to me.

There is no objective "data" about taste. I don't licorice, it makes nauseous just to smell it. I don't have to eat licorice flavored ice cream to know I won't like it.

If you can't tell me, yes, I have tried them, and they don't work, and here's why, your opinions on the issue don't mean diddly. They're uninformed, armchair judgments without one speck of experience. Why in the world should I give them any credence? They're no better or worse than anyone else's uninformed opinions.

You're being unnecessarily obnoxious. We're talking about a game here not religion, morality or even politics so I'll ask you to please refrain being quite so insulting in the future. I've edited my response accordingly.

I'll put this as simply as I can.

I didn't say the idea doesn't work I said I don't LIKE it. There is a difference.

Conceptually, thematically and what it will require as far as character generation goes. Yes there will be additional steps added for me especially when it comes to Heroic characters where I normally leave figured pretty much alone.

You might find it to be a feature but I find it to be a bug. Objectively, it's a change, that's it but sense I do not care for that change it will be a reason for me not to invest money in 6th Edition.

There isn't any reason you should give my feelings on the matter any credence but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It would foolish to try as it would be for you to try and "convince" me to eat licorice.

steamteck

Apr 15th, '08, 10:05 AM

People figure things out using their intellect all the time. Until they actually try them, however, they're called "guesses" or "opinions".

Not if it proposed method is more complicated without gain or gives less product for the effort or excludes useful information the other gives which all is relevant here.

Well we fundamentally disagree here. I think that knowing it takes extra steps and not having an automatic template is worse. I did frustrate my self by making up a few characters but it just confirmed what I knew.
I completely agree with Paragon here. If you saw a combat system basing the "to hit" on appearance and maybe the damage on seduction skill I guess you'd have to try it from your position.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind but I would prefer a less condescending attitude here.

Vondy

Apr 15th, '08, 10:29 AM

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 10:36 AM

I should think it's obvious that if some stats don't affect figured characteristics that will change how they are purchased, if figured characteristics are stand alone, costs for all stats will have to be changed, and possibly the entire process will become more expensive.

You should think it's obvious. Possibly the process will become more expensive. You haven't tried it, and that's my point. You're stating it as if it were a fact, and it's not.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 10:38 AM

There is no objective "data" about taste. I don't licorice, it makes nauseous just to smell it. I don't have to eat licorice flavored ice cream to know I won't like it.

That is a reasonable statement. You have experience with not liking licorice.

There isn't any reason you should give my feelings on the matter any credence but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It would foolish to try as it would be for you to try and "convince" me to eat licorice.

I'm not trying to convince you to try something you've had experience with. I'm trying to convince you to try something you haven't had experience with, and to refrain from making statements about how bad it will be if you haven't tried it.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 10:38 AM

If you saw a combat system basing the "to hit" on appearance and maybe the damage on seduction skill I guess you'd have to try it from your position.

If I were going to make statements that it were the best thing ever, or that it were the worst thing ever, I would damned well make sure I've tried it first.

steamteck

Apr 15th, '08, 10:43 AM

If I were going to make statements that it were the best thing ever, or that it were the worst thing ever, I would damned well make sure I've tried it first.

I'll not be the one to bail you out for the drug charges then. :D Cheers, I think we're done here. All we're doing is getting on each others nerves.

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 10:50 AM

Personally, I'm generally against anything that leads to point bloat. I like the figured characteristics. I will be using them even if 6th edition makes them straight buys with no derivations. I already have the formulas and point totals. Its literally two minutes worth of work to put them back in. Thus, it doesn't constitute a deal breaker.

I think the loss of potential use of too much published material that would be ignoring them is enough of an off-putting process for me that I can't be so blaise.

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 10:55 AM

If I were going to make statements that it were the best thing ever, or that it were the worst thing ever, I would damned well make sure I've tried it first.

I don't think I made such a statement. Saying something is a dealbreaker for me says nothing whatsoever about its general application. I can have opinions about the latter, but they can't be anything but opinions.

I can, however, say that its essentially impossible for someone to truly decouple anything like the current figured characteristic set from the base set and have me like it, because the very concept puts me off, and no execution is going to fix that.

Maybe you go through your life trying things you have every reason to expect you'll dislike, Chris, but bluntly, I have better things to do with my time. If I have an overwhelming reason to believe I won't like it (as compared to just being dubious) I don't bother. If that annoys you, honestly, that's your problem far as I'm concerned.

Kenn

Apr 15th, '08, 11:02 AM

I have experience building characters in the Hero System, and the Figured Characteristics have been a valuable tool to me.

I have experience at learning new systems; I know how long they take me to learn.

I have experience at performing mathematics; I know how well I do things that involve math. (Or as my Mom put it "We won't tell Dad how long it took you to do your taxes.")

This proposed change, to lose figured characteristics, I do not need to try to know I won't like it. I know that under the new system, something I am familiar with and that favours one of my strengths will be missing. I know that a new system will take time to learn, I will not be familiar with it, and it is extremely unlikely that it will be as easy for ME to use as basic mathematics.

It doesn't take experience to know that replacing "Familiar, Useful, and Simple" with "New, Different, and Complex" isn't going to sit well with me.

nexus

Apr 15th, '08, 11:03 AM

I'm not trying to convince you to try something you've had experience with. I'm trying to convince you to try something you haven't had experience with, and to refrain from making statements about how bad it will be if you haven't tried it.

Actually, I've never eaten licorice I don't like the smell. Many people love licorice; because I say I don't like it doesn't equate to me declaring it the worst thing EVAR.

But it does mean I'm not willingly going to buy licorice flavored anything.

I haven't said how bad it will except for me. I don't like it. Someone else might love it. There is no objective statement here. You don't have to try every experience or way of doing something to extrapolate that it's not to your taste. As a gamer I do this every day when I go my FLGS, browse the shelves, look over rule sets and setting and decide if i want them or not. I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't said it "the best or worse thing ever" just that it is not for me.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 11:21 AM

Maybe you go through your life trying things you have every reason to expect you'll dislike, Chris, but bluntly, I have better things to do with my time.

I make it a practice to avoid making statements about things I have no experience with. If I care enough about something to make a statement about it, I'll try it first.

I've never tried durian fruit. I've heard from many people that it smells rank but tastes like heaven. Great. I'm not going to tell people I don't like durian fruit. I'll generally avoid discussions about it.

There are many things I think I might dislike, without actually having tried them. I don't pretend that my feelings that I might dislike the thing are in any way rational. I will allow for the possibility that I might like the thing in question. If I'm in a position to try the thing, then I might give it a try, assuming no opportunity cost. Above all, I'll avoid expressing an opinion on the thing without first having tried it.

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 11:28 AM

I make it a practice to avoid making statements about things I have no experience with. If I care enough about something to make a statement about it, I'll try it first.

Whereas I'm quite comfortable extrapolating from the similar in regard to evaluating my tastes, and will not hesitate to do so.

I think we're all clear on our positions now.

CTaylor

Apr 15th, '08, 02:19 PM

Possibly the process will become more expensive. You haven't tried it, and that's my point. You're stating it as if it were a fact

No I stated it in plain English very clearly and obviously as a postulate, you even quoted the statement before you said this: "and possibly the entire process will become more expensive."

That's not a statement of fact in any sane portion of the world, it is obviously and inescapably a statement of speculation. As in not factual.

lemming

Apr 15th, '08, 02:21 PM

Hmm: Deal Breakers for me.

The sacrifice of puppies and kittens for every book published. I think that would stop me from buying a copy.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 15th, '08, 02:46 PM

No I stated it in plain English very clearly and obviously as a postulate, you even quoted the statement before you said this: "and possibly the entire process will become more expensive."

That's not a statement of fact in any sane portion of the world, it is obviously and inescapably a statement of speculation. As in not factual.

You are correct. I withdraw my statement that you were stating it as fact.

archermoo

Apr 15th, '08, 03:03 PM

The problem with that is if you know exactly what the problems are going to be why playtest it. I use the figures as the finals in most stats for most characters. It doesn't take playtesting to know that without figures at the very minimum I'd be having to make up and reference some chart to make things connect correctly again.
Like paragon, The decoupling destroys one of the basic great interconnections that makes character generation just so right. Losing it annoys me on a really fundamental level.
The best I can come is trying to make characters without using it and it IS way more of a pain in the neck. you have one more thing to figure out to get to a proper baseline. its like every bloody character is a special case or you get people modeled incorrectly by Brute man having the same durability as Aunt MAY. ( ICK!)
Way too much of fixing things that aren't broken in these discussions.

Understood, and reasonable. For me, I make up characters by determining what I was all of the stats to be, rather than letting the system decide for me. So Figureds being coupled to Primaries doesn't save me anything, as I'm already making a determination for each one as to what I want them to be. For me all Figureds do is make the determination of cost more difficult, especially if I'm playing around with the values of my Characteristics. Rather than just determining the cost of each characteristic by itself I have to take into account how changing one has an effect on another. Annoying and pointless to me. Decoupling Figureds removes that extra unnecessary complication.

It would be easy to keep the current figured formulas and use them as suggested starting points for those that rely on them. The only other thing that would be effected would be cost, which as far as I'm concerned is an entirely different discussion, and one I don't have any interest in. Steve is a highly skilled game designer with a lot of Hero experience under his belt. I have no doubt that he'll be able to handle any point cost issues that decoupling figureds will create.

steamteck

Apr 15th, '08, 04:11 PM

It would be easy to keep the current figured formulas and use them as suggested starting points for those that rely on them.

Not a bad idea there. Maybe not ideal but not a bad compromise.

Toadmaster

Apr 15th, '08, 04:18 PM

I'm in the ironic position of having very few things Steve's indicated as likely changes that bother me, and several I think are quite good ideas--but one of the very few (the decoupled figureds) bother me enough that I probably would be done over it. Go figure.

Pretty much describes me, Characteristics are the only area in the 6th proposed changes that made me go, ugh, no thank you.

I feel the proposed COM is change without reason, easily fixed by giving COM a more solid description but I'd live if it became a perk, however decoupled figureds make me lose interest in 6th. I find figureds to be a very helpful tool and they are a distinctive difference from HERO's competition GURPS, one of the things that tips me towards HERO.

Trebuchet

Apr 15th, '08, 04:37 PM

A deal breaker? That it's going to become in essence "City of Heroes: The Roleplaying Game" - a mere appendage to the potentially vastly more profitable online end of the business. :help:

Marcus Impudite

Apr 15th, '08, 10:23 PM

Sir Ofeelya

Apr 16th, '08, 01:52 AM

Alibear

Apr 16th, '08, 02:33 AM

Not a need exactly but Steve wants to improve the game.

Whether the improvements proposed are to everyone's taste is the whole point of this and many other threads.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 16th, '08, 05:17 AM

All right. What are they? I'm asking you, tell me what those impacts are. However, until you've actually playtested the thing, your opinions are just that, opinions, and meaningless without data.

So your view, then, is that he should buy a game which he feels will not be to his liking so he can try the changes he thinks will not be to his liking. I note that we can't playtest it today - we don't actually know what the rules are. Neither can we reasonably playtest it without purchasing the new edition.

Chirs, there are new RPG's released regularly. Do you rush out and buy each and every one, then play it for six months to a year, to playtest it, or do you generally stick with the system you are happy with?

Have you playtested Mutants & Masterminds, Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 Ed and 3.5 Ed, the latest edition of GURPS, True20 and each other RPG system on the market? Where do you find the time?

Perhaps I came to this whole thing too late but what the hell is wrong with 5th edition? I have been using 4th edition since 1990 and only just today brought 5th edition. Is there a need to change things again?

Not a need exactly but Steve wants to improve the game.

Whether the improvements proposed are to everyone's taste is the whole point of this and many other threads.

There is, I expect, an economic issue here. The fact is that new editions sell, and new rules sell. That's the RPG money making model in today's market. Editions sell. Sourcebooks sell, but not as well. Modules don't sell enough to justify putting significant resources into them.

Steve has to make not only aesthetic (improve the game) decisions, but also economic (feed the employees and shareholders) decisions.

lemming

Apr 16th, '08, 05:45 AM

Perhaps I came to this whole thing too late but what the hell is wrong with 5th edition? I have been using 4th edition since 1990 and only just today brought 5th edition. Is there a need to change things again?

No need for you to buy the 6th edition. If it looks good, buy it, if not don't. You took long enough to buy 5th.

Hero is just working with 6th and putting in changes they think are wanted or needed. And they're accepting input.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 16th, '08, 06:37 AM

So your view, then, is that he should buy a game which he feels will not be to his liking so he can try the changes he thinks will not be to his liking. I note that we can't playtest it today - we don't actually know what the rules are. Neither can we reasonably playtest it without purchasing the new edition.

One can very easily playtest decoupling figured characteristics. One can build a character with figured characteristics decoupled. One can make whatever assumptions one likes about the stat block; the clues are there in the thread. I plan to do this myself when I have time.

Chirs, there are new RPG's released regularly. Do you rush out and buy each and every one, then play it for six months to a year, to playtest it, or do you generally stick with the system you are happy with?

Have you playtested Mutants & Masterminds, Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 Ed and 3.5 Ed, the latest edition of GURPS, True20 and each other RPG system on the market? Where do you find the time?

No, I don't, and I haven't. I also don't express opinions about them.

Lord Mhoram

Apr 16th, '08, 06:44 AM

No, I don't, and I haven't. I also don't express opinions about them.

Well, as the entire point of this thread is to express opinion about a game that isn't out yet, and can't play yet that particular point of detail does seem a bit moot in this discussion.

If you don't want to listen to people say that they don't like the idea of something upcoming, because they feel they won't like it by reading description (rather than playing it), which is the point of the thread after all, then..........

archermoo

Apr 16th, '08, 06:52 AM

Not a bad idea there. Maybe not ideal but not a bad compromise.

The best part is that it doesn't even require that the formula get written into the 6th edition rules. :)

archermoo

Apr 16th, '08, 06:58 AM

A deal breaker? That it's going to become in essence "City of Heroes: The Roleplaying Game" - a mere appendage to the potentially vastly more profitable online end of the business. :help:

Well, keep in mind that DoJ isn't in the online game business, and Cryptic isn't in the pen and paper RPG publishing business. The companies haven't merged; they aren't different ends of the same business. Cryptic bought the IP for Champions and Dark Champions. They didn't buy DoJ, they didn't buy the Hero System IP (though they did buy a license for it), and they didn't buy the IP for any of the other Genres. Additionally DoJ has a license in perpetuity to continue publishing RPG supplements using the Champions and Dark Champions IP.

archermoo

Apr 16th, '08, 07:06 AM

There is, I expect, an economic issue here. The fact is that new editions sell, and new rules sell. That's the RPG money making model in today's market. Editions sell. Sourcebooks sell, but not as well. Modules don't sell enough to justify putting significant resources into them.

Steve has to make not only aesthetic (improve the game) decisions, but also economic (feed the employees and shareholders) decisions.

There is undoubtedly an economic aspect involved. DoJ is after all a business. However I think a bigger factor is that Steve initially wrote the 5th edition rules for someone else, using their guidelines. And when DoJ formed and bought the Hero IP there wasn't sufficient time to go back and rewrite everything how Darren, Steve et al would have preferred it be written. At the point where 6th edition will be coming out, 5th will have been out for more than 7 years. Longer than any other version of the rules except 4th, and the main reason it took so long for 4th to be replaced was a lack of a company willing or able to publish a new version.

Paragon

Apr 16th, '08, 07:43 AM

There is undoubtedly an economic aspect involved. DoJ is after all a business. However I think a bigger factor is that Steve initially wrote the 5th edition rules for someone else, using their guidelines. And when DoJ formed and bought the Hero IP there wasn't sufficient time to go back and rewrite everything how Darren, Steve et al would have preferred it be written. At the point where 6th edition will be coming out, 5th will have been out for more than 7 years. Longer than any other version of the rules except 4th, and the main reason it took so long for 4th to be replaced was a lack of a company willing or able to publish a new version.

Yeah, honestly I have to say that six to seven years is pretty typical for edition cycle. And there's certainly an argument that Steve Long has that when he took over, 5e was already partly a fait accompli, so some things he thinks should have got done--didn't. Whether you agree with what all he wants to get done doesn't change the basic logic of that.

steamteck

Apr 16th, '08, 12:29 PM

The best part is that it doesn't even require that the formula get written into the 6th edition rules. :)

I'd prefer it to be though. Then again I use a number of the alternate rules he included in 5th also.

archermoo

Apr 16th, '08, 02:39 PM

I'd prefer it to be though. The again I use a number of the alternate rules he included in 5th also.

I'm ambivalent on it myself. It won't really effect me either way if they are there, other than them adding a small amount of space to the book. :)

I was just pointing out that even if they don't make it into the 6th edition rules, you already have the formula in hand. Just using that as a starting point for the Characteristics that (assuming he makes the change) are no longer Figured doesn't require space in the book. You can keep doing it whether it is in the book or not. Which at least to me qualifies as a bonus. :D

steamteck

Apr 16th, '08, 03:31 PM

I'm ambivalent on it myself. It won't really effect me either way if they are there, other than them adding a small amount of space to the book. :)

I was just pointing out that even if they don't make it into the 6th edition rules, you already have the formula in hand. Just using that as a starting point for the Characteristics that (assuming he makes the change) are no longer Figured doesn't require space in the book. You can keep doing it whether it is in the book or not. Which at least to me qualifies as a bonus. :D

Actually what I was pointing out was I like the inclusion of the alternate approaches in the book as I use several of them myself. I think it was a great idea.:D

Hugh Neilson

Apr 16th, '08, 04:15 PM

One can very easily playtest decoupling figured characteristics. One can build a character with figured characteristics decoupled. One can make whatever assumptions one likes about the stat block; the clues are there in the thread. I plan to do this myself when I have time.

One can very easily look to the start of the characteristics thread and realize the point disparity. I've suggested several times that evaluating "figured's are gone" is as simple as taking a group one feels is reasonably balanced, making them pay on the basis that they got no figured's and giving them all the same bonus points (be it 0, so you must sell things back, or the average loss, so some buy and some sell, or the highest number of added points so all but one can buy new things). But that assumes that:

- the base level for these stats will remain where it always has been.
- the price of the primary stats will be unchanged.
- no ancillary changes will be made (a lot of people have pointed to reducing the discounts for certain frameworks, or allowing characteristics in frameworks, for example)

You can't playtest it until you know what the new rules will be. You can only anticipate - and playtest your opinion of what those rules will or might be.

There is undoubtedly an economic aspect involved. DoJ is after all a business. However I think a bigger factor is that Steve initially wrote the 5th edition rules for someone else, using their guidelines. And when DoJ formed and bought the Hero IP there wasn't sufficient time to go back and rewrite everything how Darren, Steve et al would have preferred it be written. At the point where 6th edition will be coming out, 5th will have been out for more than 7 years. Longer than any other version of the rules except 4th, and the main reason it took so long for 4th to be replaced was a lack of a company willing or able to publish a new version.

To clarify, I believe there is an economic aspect. However, I do not believe the fact that this is economically motivated makes it somehow bad, wrong or immoral. Our economy is based on the concept that, if Steve writes something we want, we pay him for it. New editions sell. Steve and DoJ need to publish books that sell. If they don't, DoJ and Hero won't be around at all.

archermoo

Apr 17th, '08, 06:50 AM

To clarify, I believe there is an economic aspect. However, I do not believe the fact that this is economically motivated makes it somehow bad, wrong or immoral. Our economy is based on the concept that, if Steve writes something we want, we pay him for it. New editions sell. Steve and DoJ need to publish books that sell. If they don't, DoJ and Hero won't be around at all.

Oh I'll guarantee that there is an economic aspect to it. :) It certainly isn't the ONLY aspect, but it is without a doubt there.

I would also agee that it would be silly to accuse a business that took economic factors into account in their decisions of being bad, wrong or immoral. I'd be more tempted to say that a business that DIDN'T take economic factors into account is bad, wrong or immoral. Though I'd also say that those descriptions would apply to a business that ONLY took economic factors into account. :)