General Rules Issues

[Jhaierr]

Am I wrong in reading that we wouldn't necessarily get rid of the "hex" per se but instead just using meters instead of "inches"?

[Jhamin]

I would also like to lobby for the "roll high" system for hero. There is no mathmatic difference in the systems I have seen proposed and it really helps new people keep things straight.

I recently brought a new gamer into a Pulp Hero game and her single biggest confusion was when she wanted to roll high and when she wanted to roll low.

(Ok, so I roll low to hit him, but roll high for damage, and roll either high or low but not average for hit locations?)

If she could have just always wanted to roll high it would have dramatically simplified the process of getting her head wrapped around the game. She was new to hero but not new to gaming. Every other system she had ever heard of (in the last 10 years) asked her to to roll high or low but not both.


When she asked why Hero had such a consistant set of character creation rules but such a schitzophrenic dice system the only answer I could give her was "tradition".

[Edsel]

As far as dice are concerned, I like the bell curve that using 3d6 provides. I am not saying that we need to stick with 3d6 if we want to increase the useful range of numbers. One of the things I like about Hero System is that you only need a single denomination of dice to play the game. This could be changed to the d10 if a larger number range is wanted, for instance 3d10 instead of 3d6. Another option might be to increase the 3d6 resolution to 4d6 that would give a useful range of 4 to 24 (or if you use 4d6-4 the range is 0 to 20).

In summary. I like the bell curve of multiple dice for OCV/DCV resolution and skill rolls. I like using only a single type of dice with the game system.

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

I really like these, but I seem to be in the minority of my gaming group on this issue.

Am I wrong in reading that we wouldn't necessarily get rid of the "hex" per se but instead just using meters instead of "inches"?

I am fine with changing the size of a hex to a single meter. I just prefer using hexes on my game maps to regulate movement, range determination, etc.

[CourtFool]

Another option might be to increase the 3d6 resolution to 4d6 that would give a useful range of 4 to 24 (or if you use 4d6-4 the range is 0 to 20).

3d6-7 FUDGE for the win!

[vincemcd]

Something that I would suggest is something else borrowed from Fuzion. Yes, I know it's heresy, but it's something that seemed to work well. I'm posting it here since it would affect a number of things across the system.

Have some clearly-delineated options for campaign-specific options. Fuzion refered to these as "dials." What Fuzion was lacking was a bit more of a description of the typical consequences of "switching" any one particular dial.

Obviously, there's some of this in the system. "High-fantasy Heroic" campaigns have different point levels than "Superheroic" campaigns. In this suggestion, I'm referring to a number of the things that some people prefer one way while others prefer another.

For instance, there's the whole STR 1:1 vs. 2:1 debate. This looks like a prime candidate for an option. A sidebar commenting about the typical consequences for using one option or the other, and typical suggestions for what to use in a particular type of campaign, should help a GM decide what to use for their campaign.

Of course, people always have these options anyway. That's what "house rules" are for. But when the options are examined by someone who's familiar with game design and the consequences of "tweaking" one thing or another, it's a great help for those of us who are familiar with neither.

[Stephen_H-G]

Whatever happens to measurement, the game must retain the ability to use miniatures easily. I think there is a reason D&D went backwards and started using squares instead of feet measurements. It's way easier than going the other way.

[ngross]

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).

The whole 'inch' thing, that is really a hex, that is actually 2 meters, really confused my players when I introduced them to Hero. I am very much in favor of turning movement into a 'real' distance. This way, a GM could use maps where they can scale the amount of meters per hex.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Please keep the measurements in metric. It is very easy to convert kilometers to meters. I always have to look up the number of yards or feet in a mile. I know... not a very good reason.

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

I do not like absolutes, but is there a way to make it an option?

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

I do not know how Pulp Hero uses it, but I currently use "Hero Points" in my current campaign. They act as luck points where the characters can modify a roll (one per point spent). I make it a new stat (every character starts with 5). I also use it as a way to reward players/characters for things that they have done. Especially, when I do not think that action is worth an experience point. My only question about this, should the GM get some points also to make sure that some things happen that is thought to be important to the adventure/campaign?

[James Gillen]

I would also like to lobby for the "roll high" system for hero. There is no mathmatic difference in the systems I have seen proposed and it really helps new people keep things straight.

I recently brought a new gamer into a Pulp Hero game and her single biggest confusion was when she wanted to roll high and when she wanted to roll low.

(Ok, so I roll low to hit him, but roll high for damage, and roll either high or low but not average for hit locations?)

If she could have just always wanted to roll high it would have dramatically simplified the process of getting her head wrapped around the game. She was new to hero but not new to gaming. Every other system she had ever heard of (in the last 10 years) asked her to to roll high or low but not both.


When she asked why Hero had such a consistant set of character creation rules but such a schitzophrenic dice system the only answer I could give her was "tradition".

TRA-DI-TIOOONN

Tradition!!

[Bismark]

Measurement system: please keep metric - it's bad enough having to work in archaic units over here for a lot of things (the Luddites [like my Dad, actually ] used 'doing business with the U.S.' as a reason for avoiding full adoption of metric here in the UK), without having to deal with awkward conversions issues 'in game', for things like fluid measurements, for instance:

gallons (which one? US or UK version?) [a litre is the same volume the world over - even if it is spelled differently in some places ]

A hex-based map for combat purposes is very handy, so I would like to keep that, but changing to 1 metre hexes would not cause me any grief and would make the system more unified.

[James Gillen]

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.

Agreed.

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 already voted for the "roll high" system (one of the few things I liked about Fuzion). As for changing the "bell curve" you already brought up the Pulp HAPs and that seems to be a good way to do it without messing with the 3d6 system which is a pretty good base.

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).

I like that.

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.

Everybody else besides the US uses metrics. This is one of the areas where HERO has always been ahead of the curve.

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

Umm... WHY? Isn't that how Limitations work?

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.

Agreed.

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

YES.

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.”

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10215.phtml

for play balance reasons, characters in a superhero game are obliged to buy ALL their effects, including equipment, as Powers, given that it's already fairly easy to buy effects similar or superior to the weapons and devices that exist in the real world. This has led to a lot of reductionism, which in turn leads to HERO-haters claiming that the game requires you to build stat blocks for things like bathroom towels. While that is a gross exaggeration

Towel : Transform 1d6 minor (10) wet object to dry, OAF (-1), Extra Time/ Full Phase (-1/2), 2 Recoverable Charges (before towel gets soaked, recover by wringing, -1), No Range (-1/2), Real Cost 2 points

it's still understandable.

[Vondy]

Should we change the way dice are rolled?

No. I like opposed skill tests for a lot of things, including combat, but I think it would be too radical a paradigm shift. The current system works well. One issue, however, is that a lot of people apply massive modifiers because 1) they are used to the superheroic genre and its natually high skill rolls, or 2) they don't understand how sensitive the bell curve is. I would recommend putting a chart with probabilities, including how modifiers of 1-4 can affect it. I think it would give better perspective.

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

Yes. The hex is a legacy item, confuses the issue when doing calculations, and is a "wargaming thang." I'm a hidebound traditionalist, but I haven't used a hex-map in years, nor have I used figures.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No. I know americans don't use metric (and it may be that's your audience and you should ignore what I'm saying), but most of the world runs on metric. Metric is also more intenally consistent once you get used to it. Hero is big on tables, just put a conversion reference in the back. At the same time, as a former heroite and american living abroad, I've grown accustomed to doing the conversions in my head. I grew up with imperial, but live with metric.


Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Too much work, too little gain.

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

No. I find the distinction useful in rough terms, and think eliminating it would create little benefit. I know some newbies find the distinction difficult. That's the case with many new concepts. Sometimes we have to live with it.

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

No. I mean, really no. There is way too much potential to inadvertantly break the system in absolutes.

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

Yes. Its a core idea for many genres. Its a necessary option, IMO.

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

Yes. Please.

And I agree with your premise. Pay for utility.

I would like to add a few personal thoughts.

1) Not every genre can be modelled using the "one scale to rule them all" hero currently uses. I don't think continuing to push hero as "universal" is useful, nor do I believe universal is a good thing. I think pushing it as a modular toolbox is better.

2) In terms of mechanics, everything should be in one book. You've added some really useful ideas and created some good new ways of doing things (i.e., hero point, piercing, expanded skills) in 5th edition, but I have a peeve about needing more than one book to get at the rules. Which is not to say ultimate books (my other favorites) or genre books won't get my dollar/sheqel whatever. They will.

[Gideon]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I happen to like the bell curve and the dice system as it stands.

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

Like a lot of people have already posted in favor the hex. I play a great deal of D20 games, and I can't stand square grid movement. A hex is more realistic when you consider distances (because of shape not size).

Basicly in order to measure properly on a square map you need to use a rule from D20 3.5 which is that "when moving, every two horizontal squares counts as 10 feet and every two diagonal squares counts as 15 feet". The reason for this is because if you move two squares diagonally you move the equivilant of two squares forward and one square to the side.

Thus if you "count in squares", and "moving any number of squares in any given direction counts as the same amount of movement" moving diagonally gets you farther along the map than moving in a straight line.

This is something I consider highly non granular.

On a hex map, because of the shape of a hex, no matter what direction you move in: 4 hexes of movement is the same distance. This is why I like hexes.

Now if you want to change how "big" a hex is, 1 hex=1 meter, I have no objection to this at all. I just ask that the hexes themselves stay.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

While I don't like converting from Metric to imperial mesurments for a game, I do like how metric works better.

Even though (living in the US as I do) I don't use the metric system in every day life, for game I prefer it. The metric system is easy. Everything works in multiples of 10. The imperial system is more difficult and (at least IMO) less intuitive because it has no standardization to it.

Metric system:
100 centimeters = 1 meter
100 meters = 1 kilometer
1000 grams = 1 kilogram
1000 kilograms = 1 metric ton

Imperial system:
12 inches = 1 foot
3 feet = 1 yard
1760 yards = 1 mile (non-nautical)
16 ounces = 1 pound
2000 pounds = 1 short (imperial) ton

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

I love the rules for rounding in Hero. I have never liked the idea of always round down, or always round up.

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

I have never liked the idea of "absolutes" in anything.

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

I have never played in a game with "hero points", so I can't judge. But it may be nice as an optional rule.

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.”

For the most part I totally agree with this. As one of my GMs told me the other day: "Your character is considered to own lock-picks and use them when picking a lock. It is part of the skill. You don't need to pay points for them."

For most characters a flashlight, a cell phone (or even a disposable cell phone) should cost no points and be a gimme. The same goes for any "normal" vehicle.

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.

This I don't agree with so much. I have characters with skills that a great deal of people would think of as a waste. KS: extreme atheleats, Analyse: medical techniques, KS: Denver Power Grid, PS: con artist, KS: Operas. All of them have come in useful at least once (if not several times) in games. There have actually been times where I have said: "I have a skill for that." and my GM has said: "Yes I know, thats why i set things up this way. I want you to get a chance to use that skill."

EX: One of my characters has PS: Makeup Artist 11-. My GM has told me that it is a complimentary skill roll for when the character uses her disguise skill, and it allows her access to realistic wigs and proper tools of the trade. I roll the skill an average of once per game session, because (like old school Black Canary) she wears a wig as part of her costume.


Thanks for listening, I realize I may have rambled a bit.

[Enforcer84]

I don't mind the hexes one way or another, but I do like the 1 pt/1 meter for movement. and please keep it metric, it's easier that way.

[Alibear]

What Enforcer said.

[Acid_Crash]

I'm all for keeping the hex maps as is, but switching to a 1 hex = 1 meter system.

I think for dice, I always liked the idea of rolling 2d10 for a 2 to 20 curve, while not as severe as 3d6, but much much better than a straight up 1d20 curve. In this particular case I'd have a sidebar explaining the options of using different kinds of dice for rolling and impacts it could have on the game.

Keep it low roll for skills and combat, roll high for damage. Personally I think rolling low is more intuitive than rolling high for basic checks.