How Much Of A Tinkerer Are You?

[schir1964]

Scale

• 10 : Steve Long has a lot of opinions about how the rules should work when he wrote my book (Hero 5th Edition Revised), I might actually use some of his suggestions.
• 09
• 08
• 07
• 06
• 05 : I create Advantages/Talents/Skills/Powers only when it's needed and/or convenient.
• 04
• 03
• 02
• 01 : Who needs new Advantages/Talents/Skills/Powers? I'll make it work with what's there, some how, some way, no matter what.

Obviously, 1 and 10 are the extremes.
Where do you fall on the scale from 1 to 10?

Feel free to fill in the description that you think would fit best at the number you select. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

6-8, I think (sorry I can't be more specific), and I've described it a lot recently, so I think I'll forgo that part.

[ghost-angel]

I go from 3-5, usually closer to 3, but occasionaly up to 5 to get a certain genre's flavor.

On rare occassions I spike up to 7. Usually to give my GM a hard time.

[TheEmerged]

I'm dangerously close to a 10 here. 9.5 at minimum.

I've tested a *lot* of the house rules I've seen on the boards, and tried to create things I'm the type that I can't resist the need to correct any imbalance I see -- it's just that there are some things I don't see as a problem (insert crack about the "unrealistic" firearm rules here).

[Fox1]

Hard to say.

I don't make up new powers as a rule. I've only added one limit that I can think of. I'm not recosting STR. Heck, the points don't matter to me.

However my construction methods are vastly different from standard HERO. I've changed the STR lift progression and thus the growth progression as well. I've completely re-done firearms and made a number of house rule changes to process mechanics. However these are changes of long standing (back to original blue box) or take backs of 5E changes.

I give no thought to how Steve Long thinks the game should run. What thought I do give him in that respect is hardly positive.

So I guess I'd come in at an 8.

[Supreme Serpent]

3-5.

[Hyper-Man]

Since I have only GM'd a couple of very short lived games several years ago my "GM-Hat" self tends to want to stick to the book as much as possible to ease my workload. My "Player-Hat" self sees gaps in what the rules allow and what seems logically possible*. I probably fluctuate anywhere from 1-5 depending on my mood.

*One of my personal favorites is the suggestion in The Ultimate Brick for performing a Fastball Special on a character with Teleport+Position Shift to alter the direction of his attack at the last moment (sounds like an Indirect Attack to me!) to possibly gain a Suprise Move bonus. This is a great effect that is virtually impossible for one character to accomplish on his own without some sort of house rule.

HM

edit: replaced completely with virtually

[Lord Mhoram]

Anywhere from a 3 to a 7. I generally don't replace rules or change costs of things, but I build new talents and use skills as I see approriate. I tend to ignore the "no end cost powers in frameworks" rule, and use the 4th ed versions of Regen and Damage Shield.
In my FH game I really tweaked some stuff to get the feel I was after, but nothing that really isn't in FRED, other than a small house rule about costs of spells.

[Log-Man]

Well, it depends on whether I'm GMing or playing. As a GM, I really like to experiment and throw in house rules that fit my conceptions better. When creating characters for play, though, I try to make them as straight by the book as possible. I want to minimize the possibility of controversy when I present the characters as I don't actually have a regular GM right now and who knows if and when someone will see the character?

[rjcurrie]

As a GM, I'm probably about a 2. This is mainly because I primarily run convention games and thus like to stick to the rules as published.

As a player, I don't really have an opinion. In most of the games I've played in, the ruels are up to the GM so whatever he decides, goes.

[Vondy]

I'm considering removing CV and implementing a skill based combat system. I'm also considering implementing an alternative method for buying skills (i.e., all skills can be purchased as general skills (2/1 cost structure, 11- base roll), or as stat based skills (3/2 cost structure, 9+(stat/5) base roll). I'm also toying with the idea of making all primary stats 2/1, removing speed (all characters are speed 4, actions can still be held), and decoupling the figured characteristics (making them primary stats, essentially). I use strength contests to adjudicate grabs. And presence contests to adjudicate presence attacks. Where does that put me?

[CourtFool]

3

I put most of my energy into creating the world, NPCs and adventures. If a better wheel comes along, I will use it but I do not want to invent it myself.

[tancred]

Prior to 5th Edition, I would say I was a 5 or 6. I was willing to tinker if it was needed, although I wasn't completely comfortable with it.

These days? 2 at most. Especially since Hero Designer came out, I am almost totally unwilling to play with the system at all. (I want to do everything in HD, and I don't want to have to struggle to do it, so I tend to do everything book-legal.)
I will create new Skills if it's absolutely required, but otherwise increasingly hate the idea of house rules.

And as I get more books, with more published characters, I find new and better ways to do things that I once thought required tinkering. This in turn makes me less and less willing to tinker.

[austenandrews]

I'm a "toolkit" GM. I like to construct campaign rules using Hero as the base. While I'm not into wholesale changes, I regularly blow off various details. I'd say that puts me around a 9.

[Sean Waters]

I don't use all the rules (hit location, for example as I mainly run Champions), but I don't have very much by way of house rules at all. i don't feel the need to over-rule or substantially add to anything in the rules, although I have a beef with quite a few things in the FAQ.

So, probably around a 2 if we ignore the FAQ.