General Rules Issues

[Xotl]

And I disagree completely that either one is "more intuitive" than the other.

Well, as they are the same thing in effect I'm not exactly going to be heartbroken if roll-high doesn't make it in, but do you honestly not think that people naturally tend to aquaint high numbers with "good", and if given no other background will instinctively assume high is desirable? I'm only concerned with improving the ability to teach new people the system, so making a change that doesn't alter mechanics but eases people into the system better is a plus in my book.

[nexus]

If people are naturally oriented to associate high with good it seems reasonable that would realize that high skill numbers and CVs are good things pretty quickly, like high Characteristics.

[TSandman]

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

I guess that the 12 segment was because at first it was Champion with only a few character with SPD 2 and most well over it...

If Joe Average has SPD 2 for a 12 segment turn, it could have SPD 1 for a 6 segment turn. Slower ones could have SPD .5 ?? (1 phase/2 turns... yet another fraction

[TSandman]

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

I'd say "more used in RPGs"...

That'll settle the "intuitive/genetic/whatever" question...

Let's call a duck a duck.. most of the currently successfull RPGs are using "High = Good" for almost everything. These days, new players don't really want to turn their heads inside out to understand that "Low = Good", so if "we" switch around to a roll-over system that is mathematically the same as the roll-under presently in use, there is more chance of getting "new player".

HERO just want to be able to tap that part of the gaming population more easily

Old players either have put a Roll-Over scheme of their own or like the Roll-Under. This change is not for them.

The basis for changing it would be to get more of the RPG players out there that is presently possible because they thik "Geez, Roll-Under is sooooo different from D&D... That's too weird for me!".

They want to have the Highest stats possible... (Even if they still want to be Number One

THIS is what it's all about..

[archermoo]

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

No, roll-high is more comfortable for some people.

[Xotl]

No, roll-high is more comfortable for some people.

Ask the average fellow if high is better than low. What do you think the answer will be?

[archermoo]

I'd say "more used in RPGs"...

That'll settle the "intuitive/genetic/whatever" question...

Let's call a duck a duck.. most of the currently successfull RPGs are using "High = Good" for almost everything. These days, new players don't really want to turn their heads inside out to understand that "Low = Good", so if "we" switch around to a roll-over system that is mathematically the same as the roll-under presently in use, there is more chance of getting "new player".

HERO just want to be able to tap that part of the gaming population more easily

Old players either have put a Roll-Over scheme of their own or like the Roll-Under. This change is not for them.

The basis for changing it would be to get more of the RPG players out there that is presently possible because they thik "Geez, Roll-Under is sooooo different from D&D... That's too weird for me!".

They want to have the Highest stats possible... (Even if they still want to be Number One

THIS is what it's all about..

I fear for the hobby if there really are people out there who want to game but find the idea that rolling low is good as unfathomable. Heck, I fear for the species.

I'll just note that if "roll high=good" is required for a game to be understandable for people, then no one would play craps.

[Xotl]

I fear for the hobby if there really are people out there who want to game but find the idea that rolling low is good as unfathomable. Heck, I fear for the species.

I'll just note that if "roll high=good" is required for a game to be understandable for people, then no one would play craps.

Taking things a bit too far here.

I understand roll-low. Everyone understands roll-low. I play it just fine. No one claimed it was unfathomable. All roll-high proponents are saying is that it makes adoption of the game easier. I want more people to adopt Hero, and this is one change that would help in that area. That's it. People naturally assume high is good, so why not go with that? What do we gain by keeping roll-low? I think these are reasonable questions.

[BobGreenwade]

Ask the average fellow if high is better than low. What do you think the answer will be?

"High or low what? Cholesterol, or salary?"

[KawangaKid]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

I believe that one of the strengths of the Hero System is the exclusive use of d6s. While I'm okay with having "alternative dice rolling" rules for combat and skill resolution (especially with the 'toolkit' angle), I'd prefer the core to remain d6.

This is because it's actually not that easy to get other polyhedrals everywhere in the U.S. and it's worse elsewhere in the world. I'd rather eliminate this one barrier to choosing Hero.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I like the "roll low for task resolution, roll high for effect" mechanism, especially if used consistently. In games I've run, I've differentiated the STR roll (9+STR/5 or less) from the STR Effect roll (STR/5)d6 rolled when I wanted to reflect skillful use of strength (the former) vs. raw strength use (the latter).

Further refinements to the 3d6 Combat and Skill rolls are welcome;
Further refinements to the Xd6 Damage and Effect rolls are welcome;

Suggestion: Please make more use of the "Count the BODY" rule. It may prove an interesting alternative to some of the effects currently covered by XD6 damage. I like the more predictable distribution in some cases, particulary when there's a 'battle of wills' (roll EGO dice vs. EGO dice and count the 'BODY').

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

Steve, it's because of your statement here that I'm getting a better sense of what you mean about granularity, though I wish you'd expound on that a bit more for the yea'ers and nay'ers in the crowd.

I understand what you mean about hexes and inches, though I've found that there's less confusion when I use the term 'hexes' rather than always saying 'game inches' or 'inches' to newbies. Shades of Spinal Tap when I use inches, I tell you.

I'm in favor of dropping the hex terminology, but don't drop it visually. It's part of the visual identity of HERO - hexes vs. squares, man. Hexes are cooler.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Uh, no. I like meters for HERO, but that's a personal opinion.

Now, one of the strengths of HERO for me is this subtle bit of intellectual snobbery. We HERO gamers may have our preferences (hexes, game inches, Imperial, Metric, etc.), but if there's one thing we know, it's units of measure, conversions from force to time to velocity to mass, and so on.

For example:
"Alex, how much strength does it take to deflect a planet thrown at you?"
"Well, what's the mass of the particular universe? You only need half the strength needed to lift it, right?"

This is a round-about way of saying: keep metric, add Imperial as an option, allow the handwaving of 1m is roughly 1yard, and have lots of reference conversion tables for units of measure.

HERO rules RULE, man.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Don't care either way. Although based on my prior response, maybe we should go the standard mathematical / scientific method of rounding numbers so we can sell HERO as the best RPG to teach math in.

We can turn a criticism into a strength!

"You don't need math to learn HERO. You LEARN math when you learn HERO. Fifth Grade math."

Sorry, there's that intellectual snobbery again.

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

No. There's a reason why they're there - understanding the raw power of an ability and a rough understanding how limited that power has become based on limitations.

Still, if some of the math teachers / wizards out there can find a clean way of calculating or presenting them, it may solve the whole complexity issue.

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

I agree with you here, especially with the 'Absolute Effects' rule from FH.

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

I like these rules, and 'borrowing' from the use of similar mechanics from other games would be welcome too. I'd prefer that the current stance of separating them as a 'meta-game' mechanic rather than something that all characters can buy should remain.

[TSandman]

I fear for the hobby if there really are people out there who want to game but find the idea that rolling low is good as unfathomable. Heck, I fear for the species.

I'll just note that if "roll high=good" is required for a game to be understandable for people, then no one would play craps.

Unfortunately....

It's been 10 years since I've finished college but even at that time, when Magic TG came out, we lost many gamers to it's "quick and easy" games...

Now we have to compete with MMORPG, miscellaneous computer games including but not limited to Very Eye-Candied Games where you can get through most of the main quests in a few days, the Internet, etc... Too many thing vying for their attention which get shorter and shorter (why buy a 500 page book, spend days reading it, get a calculator, pen, paper and 4 friends sitting on a coach for hours generating character then many other hours playing with them, when you can Log-In and blast away at some Orcs thinking you're a Night Elf Mohawk?

All classic "Gamer Hobbies" are suffering... I like Wargames and Miniatures, there are less and less players for those too (at least, less and less serious gamers)

There is fast-and-easy-gratification out there to get us in trouble if we're not at least taking notice. Just look at the glimpses we have of D&D 4th, where the "how we did it" book is heavy with MMORPG terminology (A thief is a Striker... a Warrior is a Tank... etc).

Edit: I forgot my main idea ;p People are creature of habits... the more you try to change their habits, the less you'll end changing.... Today's gamer are USED to "Roll-High" games etc...

[archermoo]

Taking things a bit too far here.

I understand roll-low. Everyone understands roll-ow. I play it just fine. No one claimed it was unfathomable. All roll-high proponents are saying is that it makes adoption of the game easier. I want more people to adopt Hero, and this is one change that would help in that area. That's it. People naturally assume high is good, so why not go with that? What do we gain by keeping roll-low? I think these are reasonable questions.

What I object to is the idea that because you think roll-high is better/easier/whatever that everyone else does too. That isn't the case. I realize that it is easy to just assume that most people agree with you, and that everyone can fall into that trap. But after 25+ years of introducing people to the HERO System, I'd never ONCE heard anyone even bring up the idea that there was any sort of difficulty with roll-low. Never. Not until I got to these boards. And I've yet to meet anyone unaffiliated with these boards that has had a problem with it.

And my use of the term unfathomable was in specific response to another poster's claim that understanding roll-low would require that people "turn their heads inside out".

All I've ever seen to indicate that roll-high would make it easier for people to pick up HERO is other people's anecdotal evidence. Which is countered by my anecdotal evidence and the anecdotal evidence of pretty much everyone I've ever gamed with that says roll-low isn't a barrier at all.

Simply stating over and over that roll-high is better doesn't make it true.

[ghost-angel]

Well, as they are the same thing in effect I'm not exactly going to be heartbroken if roll-high doesn't make it in, but do you honestly not think that people naturally tend to aquaint high numbers with "good", and if given no other background will instinctively assume high is desirable? I'm only concerned with improving the ability to teach new people the system, so making a change that doesn't alter mechanics but eases people into the system better is a plus in my book.

My dad taught me how to play Backgammon when I was 5.

I have never once ever thoguht "High is good" inherently. I have always thought "What do I need here."

And if you're really into Backgammon, you'll know that double 6s is not all that awesome.

Personally, I think you're not giving "people" enough credit. "High is good" is not inherent to the species.

[Xotl]

What I object to is the idea that because you think roll-high is better/easier/whatever that everyone else does too. That isn't the case. I realize that it is easy to just assume that most people agree with you, and that everyone can fall into that trap. But after 25+ years of introducing people to the HERO System, I'd never ONCE heard anyone even bring up the idea that there was any sort of difficulty with roll-low. Never. Not until I got to these boards. And I've yet to meet anyone unaffiliated with these boards that has had a problem with it.

Simply stating over and over that roll-high is better doesn't make it true.

Equally true, stating over and over that low is better doesn't really win either. I've never believed that just because I assume it to be true that everyone does, and I don't think it's polite or fair that you assume I have some sort of psychological blind spot rather than a reasonable point. As I've already said, I had no problem with roll-low. If you disagree that's fine. I'm only working off the assumption that people assume high values to be good ones. I feel we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I think the debate is pretty much covered and I really don't attach that much importance to it for the space it's taking. I don't wish to bog down valuable proceedings in a pointless argument.

Thanks for the discussion all.

[Enforcer84]

Ask the average fellow if high is better than low. What do you think the answer will be?

"Are we bowling or golfing?"?