Didn't you know? I'm a Dark Lord of the Sith, not a Jedi. And I say Bring On The Excitement And Adventure!Originally Posted by PhilFleischmann
Oh, no! There goes Tokyo!
Senior Member
Didn't you know? I'm a Dark Lord of the Sith, not a Jedi. And I say Bring On The Excitement And Adventure!
SteveZilla
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan
"It is impossible for a government to spend its country into prosperity because it is impossible for it to tax its country into prosperity."
"Ooohhh no! There goes my die roll / Go, go SteveZilla!" - FireTiger
"Pardon me boy / Is this the lair of Great Cthulhu?
In the city of slime / Where its night all the time."
New Member
New Member
Gonna try to limit my posts to single subjects.
Some background: I've been playing RPGs since 1979, and HERO since 1984. I've been not playing HERO for a while now, because of player, um, unrest about the system. At any rate, I figured I'd throw some pennies into the discussion.
Okay. Here is the deal with this. You CANNOT broaden the curve without changing the dice and/or number of dice (even by going to a half-point system [as proposed by Klaus Morgensen], you must roll an extra die). It is simply not possible. And, changing the granularity requires changing the number or type of dice.
After thinking about this a bit, I decided to post an examination of some of the gains and losses from going to a 4d6 roll instead of 3d6.
You can create your own probability tables at this site:
http://www.ogmiosproject.org/articles/stattables.html
The standard deviations on a normal curve occur at these percentiles:
0 50%
1 84.13%
2 97.72%
3 99.87%
The problem with changing the dice is this: the more dice you use, the more central the roll is going to tend. This doesn't show up so much at low numbers of dice, but: the chance of rolling 18-24 on 6d6 is about 59%. The chance of rolling 9-12 on 3d6 is about 50%. The chance of rolling 36-48 on 12d6 is about 74%. So you can see that by doubling the number of dice, you increase the centrality by quite a bit. On 3d6, 9-12 is 25% of the possible range of results. On 6d6, 18-24 is about 25% of the possible range of results; and on 12d6, 36-48 is about 23% of the range of results. But by doubling the number of dice, we increased the chance that a result would fall within that (approximately the same) range.
On 3d6, the standard deviations appear (in "result or less" terms) at 10, 13, 16, and 17. These are unevenly spaced. While this is acceptable (as long as you know it's happening), it does make that 3rd standard deviation much less accessible and usable. This is one reason why that extra level means so much once you're up in those stratospheric heights of probability.
Now, lest the following be taken wrongly - I am NOT advocating shifting to 4d6 (although I've thought about the idea). I am presenting some ideas about the whole idea of shifting dice numbers.
On 4d6, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd standard deviations are within .5%, and they occur at 17 (84.10%, compared to normal curve of 84.13%), 20 (97.3%, compared to normal curve of 97.72%), 23 (99.54%, compared to normal curve of 99.87%). The standard deviations are evenly spaced (except for the 0, which doesn't actually exist). That's generally a good thing when you're talking about die rolls. There is no roll that is 50%, though, unlike the 3d6 roll (10- on 3d6 is a 50% probability).
Would switching to 4d6 be a good thing or a bad thing? There's a lot of adjusting to do, but it could be good. For example, while on 3d6, there's a 1-point granularity between the 97.7% and 99.9% marks, on 4d6, there's a 3-point granularity between those marks. Is gaining these additional points of granularity worth such a change?
Some few adjustments to the system would be necessary if one did this.
The advantages of shifting to 4d6 instead of 3d6 would be:
1: changing the exact odds. For example, if 14-/4d6 became the standard for normal success instead of 11-/3d6, the chance of success would shift from 62.5% to about 56%. However, the rest of the odds wouldn't change a lot until you get to the upper ranges.
2. granularizing the extreme ranges. While the central range really doesn't do much more than shift by 3-4 points, the extreme ranges spread. So, 11/3d6 becomes 14-/4d6; 13-/3d6 becomes 17-/4d6; 14-/3d6 becomes 18-/4d6; 16-/3d6 becomes 20-/4d6; 17-/3d6 becomes 22-/4d6. As mentioned, the range spreads.
3. Spreading the range of possible results, from 16 values to 21.
4. Increasing the cost of higher skill levels, mostly at the upper range. Currently, +5/3d6 on an 11- gets you to 16-, a 98% probability. +5/4d6 on a 14- gets you to 19-, a 95% probability. This would tend to extend the growth of characters.
5. One could get closer to the utility percentages of the various limits than one can using 3d6. For example, 12-/4d6 is really close to 1/3. and 15-/4d6 is really close to 2/3.
The disadvantages to shifting to 4d6 would be:
1. Probabilities would shift.
2. Players might rebel. The very idea of adding an extra die. It's counterintuitive. ;-)
3. New breakpoints for advantages, disadvantages, and limitations would have to be calculated.
4. Charts regarding roll results would need to be rebuilt.
To sum up, then, it is not at all certain whether a shift to 4d6 would be good or bad. Some of the effects would be good. But what would the overall effect on the system be? It wouldn't necessarily complicate it, but it would change traditional breakpoints and the like.
I also looked at the idea of different types of dice, and while it does make things even more granular, there are other issues. For one, d6es seem to lend themselves to counting (not sure why, but it takes the D&D group I play with longer to count 4d10 than to count 8d6). And, for another, the ranges between the standard deviations aren't as even. So I think that if one were to to shift to a different set of dice for the basic roll, 4d6 would be the best choice.
I do think that "low number wins" is the best idea.
New Member
New Member
If you're going to use 1 die, then go to a d20, so there's RANGE. If going with multiple dice, use 4 of them. Because 2 dice do not create a bell curve. They create an inverted "V". 3 dice approximate a bell curve, but 4 dice do the best job of that. And, specifically, 4d6 do the best job of that. I looked.I propose changing the entire system to d10, and making the mechanics decimal based. Challenge/combat value [CV] rolls could be made using a 1d10 + skill/attribute vs. a difficulty/defence value [DV]
If a bell curve system resembling the 3d6 [3-18] system is more desirable, then 2d10 [2-20] could be used.
At the least, Challenge/combat dice roll should be changed to a d20 high-roll better system. This is a more intuitive system for new players and allows for an open-ended difficulty system.
"High-roll wins" is neither more intuitive nor less intuitive than "low-roll wins." After all, isn't First place better than 20th place?
Open-ended difficulty systems make more difficult the task of gauging the party's ability to engage the problem or encounter. For example, in the D&D campaign I'm currently playing, one character has an AC of 40+. Another (not the mage) has an AC of 24 or so. The monster that can barely hit the first will walk all over the second. This happens all the time in the "open-ended difficulty system" that is D&D. Scaling the encounter so that all involved are challenged but none is over-challenged or under-challenged is much more difficult with such a system. With a SET (not open-ended) difficulty system, with essentially open-ended MODIFIERS, this problem is reduced, especially given a points-based system for approximately gauging overall effect. There are other reasons for this difficulty of gauging party ability, but the open-ended system is one of them.
Skilled Normal
Junior Member
Lets see here what I think in general
1. Should dice be change thats a big no
2. should we change how dice are rolled no I dont think thats a good idea either.
3. yes changing a hex to 1 meter makes more sense.
SETAC Gadfly
Obsessed Member
1d20 creates a very different system. The die roll becomes considerably more important than the character's skill. If I have a +5 attack bonus, hitting a target with AC 20 is far more a matter of lucky dice than skillful character. Because the 3d6 curve reduces the typical range of rolls, skill becomes much more important in determining success or failure. Which approach is "better" is a subjective opinion, of course. I think that Hero should stick with the range it currently has, and remain a system where skill matters greatly.
Similarly, I don't think it reasonable to argue that golf or Hearts are counterintuitive games, but in both the lower score is the superior score.
This is very true,and an issue that the 4e designers tried to grapple with. When the fighter has an attack bonus of +20 and the wizard has +10, what AC does a challenging encounter possess? Give it an AC of 26, and the fighter still hits pretty much all the time where the wizard gets frustrated only connecting 25% of the time. Bump that AC up to 31 so the fighter only hits half the time (still meaningful frequency) and the wizard is screwed, connecting only 5% of the time. So we have to give the wizard other advantages, like spells that ignore armor, or ignore to hit rolls entirely.
But then we get to saving throws - one character has a +10 reflex save, and another has +3, so making a challenge to one equates to either frustration or a cakewalk (depending who we made it challenging for) for the other.
Oh, no! There goes Tokyo!
Senior Member
I believe that Roll High is easier for beginning gamers (or those who come from other games) to pick up. For many*, I think simple terms/ideas get absorbed much quicker than others.
Like this simple idea: More is Better. Put into use like these examples:
Rolling to hit in other games: More (skill) + More (roll) = Better!
Rolling to hit in Hero System: More (skill) + Less (roll) = Better?
*NOTE: I am not a slow person or one of reduced INT, yet it took me many, many... many games to get it through my D&D-addled brain that in Hero System Skills & Combat, Low = Better.
SteveZilla
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan
"It is impossible for a government to spend its country into prosperity because it is impossible for it to tax its country into prosperity."
"Ooohhh no! There goes my die roll / Go, go SteveZilla!" - FireTiger
"Pardon me boy / Is this the lair of Great Cthulhu?
In the city of slime / Where its night all the time."
Grey haired guardian
Member
Funny, Low is better is one of the things that really grabbed me about HERO. If it changes though and I use 6th I could just house rule it back in. Although at this point if I have to house rule back in low roll, Com, figures etc there becomes apoint of why not stick with something that works without so much houseruling.
" Its not that there are too many fools on the Earth, its that the lightning isn't distributed properly" Mark Twain
Agonizer
Member
Okies here is a new idea to wrassle with on the Char section there is mucho whining about Str getting changed to 2pts/ pip as a solution to
this brought up a differing thought from me how about changing the Dmage Classes concepts to 10 pts per die sure it would change a few things but then Str Could be valued at 10 points per die and we would have to change EB to 10 pts per die but then disads applied would be bigger (so would ads) and it Could even out the characters builds without decoupling figureds.
what does anyone else think of the idea?
Master of the 14th Millenium and more on Dollwizard!!!!!
I feel like the Steven Hawking of RPG's, Im brilliant but can't communicate my ideas worth a darn.
Among the "superheroes" that U.S. boys under the age of 10 in 1997 reported they most wanted to be, Catwoman rated number one. (The Harpers Index Book, Volume 3. Charis Conn & Lewis H. Lapham, Franklin Square Press, 2000)
-Glibly Skip!
Double Millennial Master
Member
Yes... but I think a simple concept will take care of it.Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?
"Pay for what is important."
This means, that if a player pays points for it, it is considered integral to the "story" the player wants to tell about his character. Without that power/skill/equipment... it wouldn't be the character and it wouldn't be the kind of story the player wants.
If the player doesn't pay points... it is flavor. 17- Italian Reneissance Art for zero points just lets the player flesh out some concepts. If it HAPPENS to come into play in one adventure in a hundred, great, but the player should never really expect it to be a direct part of the plot, or expect the GM to build a story with it in mind.
Basically change the quote to "Pay for everything that matters." If you want it to matter in the game/story... pay points.
Further explanation should go into the GM piece, saying "The more points a player pays for a skill/power/item... the more important that should be to the story/plot that you present them with."
Example: If I have a neat NND attack that is a special definer of my unique character... yet nearly every opponent of consequence seems to have the defense for it... that is basically denying me the value of the points I spent.
Points aren't just a measure of cost that implies (but never really works) a balance of effectiveness in a game... they should be clear "flags" to what kind of stories and adventures and scenes the players want to have happen in the game.
I think this is key advice to a GM for any system, but Hero allows the points based character creation to act as the "flags" for good stories.
Levels of RPG Development
(With special thanks to Zornwil)
Axioms: The sacrosanct core assumptions of the game.
Mechanics: The basic functional building blocks derived from the axioms.
Game Rules: The specific and variable application of Mechanics that define the play of the game.
Play Experience: The resulting behaviors of play and shared imaginary event unique to each group.
is Hero Games' No. 3 Heel
Member
Good idea.
The Main Man's Main Podcasts
Decuple Millennial Master
Obsessed Member
It's easy enough to turn the standard roll-low HERO formulas into roll-high with the same probabilities, e.g. 3D6 + OCV vs. 10 + DCV for combat, or 21-current Skill number giving a target number to be equalled or exceeded on 3d6. I suggest including such formulas as an optional method of rolling for these things, and then letting folks decide which method to use. As neither the Combat nor Skill formulas appear anywhere else than in the core rulebook, including alternative ones wouldn't change subsequent books one iota.
That is a tough one. Best approach I've seen so far is Erol K. Brayburt's conversion of HERO d6 probabilities to percentiles, which eliminates Characteristic break points and makes every point of a Characteristic valuable. In theory a percentile system would also allow for far more granular modifiers. Erol breaks down his system on this webpage. Perhaps something like this could be included as an option.
It also works rather nicely for us HERO gamers in the rest of the (metric-using) world, assuming we count. (Get with the 21st Century, America!)Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
Steve’s Thoughts: If I were designing the game from the get-go I probably wouldn’t use the metric system; it’s generally annoying. But since the HERO System has used it for over 25 years I don’t see any good reason to change now. If nothing else it’s helped me learn that a kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
I also favor including Hero Points in the core rulebook for the above reasons, but I specifically put these two disparate issues together because I believe there's a balanced way to link them. Some time ago one of our board colleagues, Jesse Zwerling, devised his own "Action Points!" mechanic (his exclamation point, not mine)for his HERO pulp campaign. You can read about them here. Unlike HP which focusses on re-rolls, expending Action Points! allows for automatic successes in Combat and Skill Rolls, as well as maximum Damage rolls or taking minimum Damage from an opponent's attack. Because Action Points! are a finite resource, can only be used once per Turn, and must be declared before a roll is made, they have built-in game balance factors that mitigate their "infallibility factor."
I can think of other balancing factors for automatic successes through HP use. For example, you could expend one HP for each point you miss a Combat or Skill Roll by, esssentially "buying up" your roll on that one occasion. They could even be used as an alternative to the Power Skill for improvising new Power uses on the fly, e.g. using one HP for every ten Active Points in the Power you want to modify.
Speaking more generally, I think this is one example of how to approach absolutes in HERO, which I call the "except" clause. Take the classic D&D example of a Magic Missile spell. It always hits its target, except if that target has a Shield spell, which completely negates it. Several existing Powers in HERO have absolute effects, except for the circumstances in which they don't. For example, Desolidification prevents a character from taking any damage, except from mental attacks, Affects Desolidified attacks, and specified Special Effects. Damage Reduction cuts all STUN and BODY Damage by the specific amount, except for the minimum damage from a Penetrating attack which is unaffected.
IMO it would be acceptable to include some absolute effects in HERO at least as options, provided they have reasonable "except" clauses, and when necessary are priced appropriately. As one instance, I've experimented in my games with an "Always Hits" Advantage for attacks, priced at +2 after perhaps the most powerful Advantage in the official rules, "Affects Solid World" for Desolidified characters. A Power with this Advantage will always hit its target at any distance up to its maximum Range, regardless of the target's DCV and ignoring Range Modifiers. However, the target can still attempt to Dive For Cover to avoid it, and Missile Deflection can still stop it as that uses the target's OCV, not DCV.
Double Millennial Master
Member
Thanks.Good idea.
I should also go on record as saying that I play the superheroic level of Hero with the "free equipment" rule... and it hasn't changed a thing. Even at street level games where the guns and stuff matter more... the fact that they don't have to pay for every every clip on their bandolier meant they could flesh out other stuff that mattered more. Some characters would pay for the "cool gun" that they always wanted to have with them, but the general sense of "other guns and knives and such" really just came up as needed in the games. Players are much more comfortable with losing equipment and having it malfunction, and having it reflect "GM judgments" when it is free.
Ex: When you have paid for a .45 at your side, even with OAF, it sucks when the first blast from Aqua-villain washes it down the street. If you haven't paid for it, it becomes a cool scene of "Now I have to fight him with my barehands" and they don't think twice about losing the equipment.
It had ZERO effect on a 20 year campaign, to change and play by the "Heroic Level" rules of standard equipment is not point costed.
Levels of RPG Development
(With special thanks to Zornwil)
Axioms: The sacrosanct core assumptions of the game.
Mechanics: The basic functional building blocks derived from the axioms.
Game Rules: The specific and variable application of Mechanics that define the play of the game.
Play Experience: The resulting behaviors of play and shared imaginary event unique to each group.
Mad Scientist
Senior Member
What would be the point of that? What does it gain us? If you notice that the Deluxe Burger with chili, cheese, bacon, guacamole, and grilled onions costs the same as the Plain Burger with none of those things, so you decide to double the cost of both, you haven't really fixed anything.
"Sir, you're mad with power!"
"Of course I am. You ever try being mad *without* power? It's boring. Nobody listens to you."
Double Millennial Master
Member
Characters become 700 points to pay for the extra expense of powers, then skills are too cheap and need to be increased, along with all the other powers, characteristics, etc...
Nope. I don't think so.
Double Millennial Master
Member
I've known players who would likely make you reconsider - they're the ones who would make a beeline for a minigun or .50 cal. sniper rifle, or other 'way over the top' normal weapon (and to be fair, would buy the appropriate WF to use one, and contacts to get one), and would still complain when Aqua-villian washes it down the street.
To me, it sounds like you have a really good gaming group.Not everyone is so blessed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks