General Rules Issues

[Steve Long]

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

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

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



Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

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


Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

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


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

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


Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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


Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

[nexus]

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

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

If that makes any sense.

[CourtFool]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JmOz]

Maybe in a sidebar on the dice issue something like

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

[pawsplay]

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

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

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

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


Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

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

[SAVeira]

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

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

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

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


Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

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

Repped. I agree with you, 100%. I have a ton of hex maps and as Canadian I am much more familar with Metric then Imperial.

[Theron]

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

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

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

[gojira]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

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


Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

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

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

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

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

[Balok]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

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


Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

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

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

[wayneligon]

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

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

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

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

[archermoo]

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

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

[Wombatman]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

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

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

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

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

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

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

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

[gojira]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I think gaming and gamers have matured to the point where we can safely explain that even in Superheroic games, it’s probably OK to have minor items (like ordinary flashlights and cellular phones) without paying for them.

Similarly, I want to emphasize early in the 6E rulebook that GMs shouldn’t stress about making characters pay points for things that don’t really have any impact on the campaign. If you want your character to be an expert on Italian literature, just write down KS: Italian Literature 17- for 0 points — when is that ever likely to have any effect on the game? ...”

I TOTALLY agree. I think this is a major hurdle for some folks and a more "Don't sweat the small stuff" attitude in more books would improve some people's enjoyment of the game.

You may wish to consider shorts lists of "free stuff" that characters would typically get in genre books, maybe by wealth level (and there aren't that many wealth levels in the game.)

On 0 point skills, while I also agree whole-heartedly, I think a limit on the number of 0 point skills a character can have with out GM approval would be good to prevent some folks from trying to give themselves every KS in the book (literally). Say a default limit of 5-10 in the main rule book, and some expanded limits in genre books where appropriate.

[Chris Goodwin]

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

[Edsel]

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

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

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

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


Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

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

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

I too agree with these lines of reasoning. I am an American but I much prefer the metric system for just about everything. In my workplace I have used the metric system extensively and really prefer it. I have lots of hex maps and see no good reason for changing this.

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

I do not like absolutes.