General Rules Issues

[Sean Waters]

Absolutes:

'Absolute invulnerability' in not something I'd like to see introduced to Hero, but I would like to see a scaling form of invulnerability: say 10 points makes you invulnerable to 1 DC of physical or energy damage (that's just a number out of the air, nothing I've researched) OR damage from a particular sfx however it is built: so you could buy 6DC immumity to fire, whether it be from EN, RKA, Flash, Adjustment powers - whatever. it is really justa shorthand, but it could be a useful one.

It would be nice to look at exsiting absolutes to see if they can be scaled more: for instance desolidification could allow you to pass through a certain BODY/DEF a bit like tunneling does.

[Sean Waters]

I'm rather fond of the 3d6 roll, but there is no reason that we could not, for those who wanted it, include the possibility of using 4d6 instead. Mechanically it would be the same, but with a different 'break point' (14 or 15 instead of 11).

I'm keen on using the roll to hit as part of the damage roll. For example a 10d6 EB that hit with a roll of 9 would do7d6+9 damage. This relates how well you hit to how much damage you do without an overt critical system (which I think we should generally avoid). Might make a useful optional rule.

I'd like to see 'average damage' rather than 'standard damage' as a +0 'advanatge. You can still use standard damage, but as a -1/4 limitation. Also like ot see an increase in granularity for standard/average damage so that you can increase the value by 1 point at a time, so you can get precisely the figure you want.

[L. Marcus]

Rolling 15- on a 4d6 is about the same odds as 11- on 3d6. The problem would be backwards compatibility -- two steps difference on a 3d6 roll would be about three steps on 4d6.

That said, I am not adverse to a 4d6 roll mechanic, as it adds more differentiation in skills and char rolls.

[Jagged]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?.

Absolutely not. Funny dice are a pointless distraction that limits the usability of a system (because not everyone can get hold of them). They are also entirely unnecessary since you can achieve the desired result with the appropriate combination of D6s.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I don't see any benefits in changing. Low for to-hit and high for damage is not hard to get your head around. Plus it has benefits for people that wish to pre-roll for speed (only tried it once but some people do it I believe).

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

I have never used the hex but I have made extensive use of the inch. The inch is the most suitable unit for table top/miniatures

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

As a referee I have introduced "absolutes" into my game at times. While they can be useful tools for a story I don't see the need for a player character so I would be against.

[Susano]

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.

I don't see any reason to either. using d6s for everything makes die rolling simple. You have one set of dice for all your rolls -- skill, to hit, damage, and so on. I'drather not see D&D with 6 different types of dice just to get different ranges. I ould like to see more use of +1, -1, and +1/2d6.

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.

Broadening the bell curve is good, but I think the bell curve is very important to HERO. 3d6 gives ones a useful average, and allows you to get a good idea for what you can and cannot due. I was very frustrated with D20 in a few sessions as a d20 is a simple 1-20 with not weighted set to values. So, no matter how good the character was, I had no average to depend on, and my die rolls were all over the place, so my character ended up feeling useless. With 3d6 (or any multiple die roll), you have an average result, and thus, you have a certain expectation of what your character can do. I think a single die ssytem removes that.

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 say stick with hexes for maps and movement. Hexes are better for movement, facing, and so on.

The game scale needs to be adjusted. having 2 meter hexes is actually a tad confusing, as people forget you can squeeze two people in a hex, and +1" range on a weapon results in some odd tactics. 1 hex = 1 meter would mean maps would look better, weapon lengths would be more inline with the real world, and character interaction on the battlemap would be a little easier to visualize.

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 see no reason to.

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.

I agree. It's simple -- round in the PCs favor.

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.

I agree here.

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.

Personally, I think it would be nice to be able to simulate certain absoulte effects from fiction and other games. "Immune to Fire" or "Immune to Blades" for example. There is one form of absolute on the books already -- Life Support's "Immunity to Disease" and poisons, while Automatons are immune to mental powers.

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.

I think this would be a great addition. Hero Points strike me as somehting that could be used in all sorts of settings, not just Pulp.

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.”

This would be very useful. I've seen some stupid arguments over this in which things as simple as a small flashlight needed to be bought as part of a utility belt.

[Querysphinx]

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Steve’s Thoughts:

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.

Ooh! Ooh! This is one of those problems that bugged me forever especially when I went forth and did the math on the distribution of points across the bell curve. The difference between rolling a 2 and a 4 on 3d6 is only like 0.5% while the difference between rolling a 10 or less and an 11 or less is about 12%.

So going from an 11- to hit to a 14- takes your chances from 62% to 90%. That's a huge jump. So I set about figuring out how to flatten the curve, and this is the rule I've been playtesting in my own games recently.

THE PLAYTEST RULE:
Instead of buying skills with a fixed roll (i.e. acrobatics 14-) and then applying a circumstance modifier to determine the characters chance of success, characters instead buy a receive a skill Value.

For example: Lockmaster the thief wants the lockpicking skill. Lockpicking costs 3 cp and gets him a base Lockpicking skill value of DEX/3. Lockmaster has an 18 Dex so his base skill value (SV) is 6. It would be notated like this.

Cost Skill Skill Value
3 Lockpicking 6

(Yes, I'm breaking this down into very small steps, but it's a pretty radical change from the way things are in the R.A.W. so I want to be as clear as possible.)

When Lockmaster wants to pick a lock, the GM assigns him a target value (TV) representing the difficulty of performing the action. A simple handcuff lock gets a low target value and a more complex lock gets a higher target value.

Lockmaster gets handcuffed and wants to pick the locks to escape. The GM assigns the Handcuffs a lockpicking target value of 2.

Handcuffs: Lockpicking TV 2

Making it work: Lockmaster subtracts the target value of his task from his skill value, and gets his difficulty number DN. SV-TV=DN.

Lockpicking 6 - Hancuffs 2 = Difficulty 4

(Note: the difficulty number may be a negative number.)

The higher the difficulty number, the EASIER the task.

Compare the difficulty number to the following chart to determine what number on 3D6 the character needs to succeed.

DN -13-| -12 | -11,10 | -9,8 | -7,6 | -5,4,3 | -2,1,0 | 1,2,3 | 4,5,6 | 7,8 | 9,10 | 11 | 12 |13+
3d6 4-...| 5-..| 6-..... | 7-..... | 8-....| 9-..... | 10- ... | 11-...| 12-...|13-...|14-...| 15-..| 16 -|17-

So Lockmaster has a difficulty number of 4 which means he needs to roll 12 or less on 3D6 to break out of the handcuffs.

Summary: That Skill Value (SV) - Target Value (TV) = Difficulty number (DN) which is compared on the chart.

The Math: Observant readers will note that it requires a bigger increase in SV to go from a 10 or less roll to an 11 or less roll that it does to go from a 14 or less roll to a 15 or less roll. This is because the bell curve has been flattened. The difference between successfully rolling 10- and 11- is roughly 12% The difference between 14- and 15- , conversely, is only about 4%.

Using this system, every +1 Skill Value a character possesses increases his chance of success by roughly 4%. Of course this gets skewed at the very edges of the curve but it flattens out the middle nicely.

The same basic procedure is also used in making combat rolls. OCV-DCV=DN and compare to chart.

It also works for perception rolls. Base Perception Value= INT/3.
PV-TV=DN and compare to chart

I have been play testing this method and have found that it has several advantages.

First: It allows a much broader range of combat values in a fight. A thug with an OCV of 3 actually has a chance of hitting a martial artist with a DCV of 10. Ironically, this allows characters to be more extravagant in their builds without upsetting game balance. That OCV 20 character actually has a chance of missing once in a while.

Second: Very similar to number 1. It provides a greater degree of gradation in ordinary skills. It makes the system harder to tilt or break.

Third: it means that almost all of the pass/fail rolls in the game are made with exactly the same rules. It helps unify the system

It also has a few potential sticking points.

First: There's this extra table involved. Champions players don't like tables. On the other hand, my players got the table memorized very quickly out of sheer repetition and it quickly became invisible to them. (i.e. after the second session, nobody had to refer to the table to know what it said.)

Second: All that extra gradation means that it's more costly to build a character who is really good at what he does. You have to spend a lot more points on things (stealth comes to mind) to ensure they are reasonably reliable and even more to guarantee effectiveness. To my mind this is a good thing as guarantees should be hard to come by, but some people may not agree.

Third: Lots of things have to be changed to reflect the new reality. But that is the point of 6th ed.

More to follow...

[Doc Shadow]

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".

Then tell her it's to discourage cheating. Unless you're going to bring 3 different sets of them and only roll them each for specific rolls - a dead give-away for even the most dense GM - then loaded dice are useless.



And just for the record, metric is French.

Need I say more?

[Susano]

Then tell her it's to discourage cheating. Unless you're going to bring 3 different sets of them and only roll them each for specific rolls - a dead give-away for even the most dense GM - then loaded dice are useless.



And just for the record, metric is French.

Need I say more?

Yeah, well, virtually everyone else in the world uses it.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

I think we should stick to the base core mechanic, but consider options. I would suggest such options go beyond the core rules, and belong in a future "optional rules" supplement.

On a broader base, the rules are big. That is offered as an intimidation factor that deters new players. It's a poor reason for not playing - the alternative games tend to have more rules, if anything, spread around several dozen books. However, I thin 6e Core Rules should focus on the actual core rules, and significant optional rules, and leave more tangential options for books focusing on specific rule areas.

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).

OK, reading the replies, I think the question is misinterpreted. I don't think Steve is saying "burn your hex maps". I think the question is "should we have a base unit of measure which does not require translation". The present unit is 1" = 1 hex = 2 meters. The proposal is to change the base to 1 meter. If you want to use hex maps, square maps, rulers, tape measures, calipers, string with knots in it or whatever to measure, fine.

The only consideration I would offer is that, while +1 meter Flight = 1 point sounds good, more half point abilities like +1 meter for swimming, swinging, gliding and leaping do not sound so good. I do favour the change, with the caveat that knockback should be the same rolls equaling number of meters (I don't want knockback to spread out combat any more than it does now).

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No. Put them in charts - that is useful - but leave the base units alone. [ASIDE: I've never been able to figure out why the only country that still bases its measurements on the length of some dead monarch's appendage is the one that annually celebrates its war, well over 200 years ago, to separate from that specific monarchy.]

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.

The Hero system has also always contained absolutes. Area Effect changes DCV to an absolute of 3, and NND eliminates defenses. Life support makes one absolutely immune to certain effects, while Desolid makes you absolutely unhittable by attacks that do not Affect Desolid.

A better question might be should we change the way we deal with "absolutes", or are there "absolutes" which should be reflected and currently are not.

I believe we should have some system (heavily caveated for GM's to consider balance issues) for absolute immunity to damage from a specific SFX. The other existing absolutes are fine as is.

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

I think it's a good rule that crosses genres and should appear in the base rules. It's optional either way - anyone who does not like it will simply not use it.

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.”

I agree with the above. We harp regularly that limitations that don't limit and disadvantages that don't disadvantage save no points. The corollary should be equally fundamental - if it grants no benefit, it costs nothing. In 1940, a cell phone is a power. In 2008, it's part of the environment.

Moving a step further to the radical, should the "superheroic" rules be in the core book, or in the Supers genre book? Perhaps the base rules should provide only the base rule - if you want equipment that is standard for the campaign world, you pay for the skills to use it, but not for the equipment itself, in points. Such equipment is easily destroyed, and may not be quickly or easily replaced, at the G<'s discretion.

If you want customized equipment, like a Super's Freeze Gun, a wizard's magic wand or a space smuggler's tricked-out hypership, you pay for this special equipment. If you want equipment that is always replaced fairly easily, you also need to buy that with points, if the GM will permit such.

[caris]

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.”

I think this should be taken a bit further. I think some space near the beginning of the rules needs to be spent just discussing the concept that the GM/play group may need to customize the rules for a given campaign and at least a non-comprehensive list of ways that can be done. The list could include but not be limited to: common game mechanics that have no point values (e.g. if the GM wants to run a campaign where every player is a member of a specific organization that all PCs get the FB: Membership for free, and at the GM option those who do not want to be a member may or may not get back points for not being a member depending on how severely the GM wants to discourage this action), changing the costs of mechanics depending on the over all utility of the mechanic in the campaign or desired frequency of the mechanic in the campaign (including making trivial abilities free), changing costs based on special effect and its utility or desired frequency in the game, required pre-requisits for some abilities (e.g. the optional requirement of KS: Martial Art Style before buying Martial Manuevers), required/standardized builds for some elements (e.g. all magic must be built with a required "Not vs. cold iron" Limitation), etc.

[Doc Shadow]

Yeah, well, virtually everyone else in the world uses it.

I wasn't disputing that.

Merely explaining why it really hasn't caught on in the US.

[Netzilla]

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.

First a few tables of actual die roll percentages from the various mechanics suggested thus far:

3d6 that we're all familiar with:

Range: 3-18
Number of Outcomes: 15
Pros: Way it's always been.
Cons: Some folks have trouble estimating odds on a bell curve, +/- 1 at the middle of the curve is far more significant than at either end

1d20 (for the sake of completeness)

Range: 1-20
Number of Outcomes: 20
Pros: Familiar to almost every existing gamer out there; linear odds are very easy to estimate; more outcomes than 3d6
Cons: Some folks (any many Hero vets) dislike linear dice mechanics; eliminates aestetic of keeping to a single well-known die type.

4d6

Range: 4-24
Number of Outcomes: 20
Pros: Larger number of outcomes than 3d6; modifiers have a less dramatic effect on the center of the curve (+/- 10-11% rather than 12-13%)
Cons: Larger handful of dice; Extremes are even less likely than they are now (less than 1/1000 rather than around 1/200).

3d8

Range: 3-24
Number of Outcomes: 21
Pros: Larger number of possible outcomes; mid-curve modifiers only equate to around 9%; extrems occur roughly 1/500
Cons: Extremes still less likely than 3d6; non-standard die type.

3d10

Range: 3-30
Number of Outcomes: 27
Pros: Largest number of possible outcomes so far; mid-curve modifiers equate to only 7.5%;
Cons: Extremes are only slightly more likely than with 4d6; non-standard die type

I really don't think the existing Hero Community at large will accept a change to a d20 or any other linear dice mechanic. Personally, I too like the "reliability" of the bell curve. As to the other types of bell curves, I'm not sure I see significant enough differences to make the change really worth it. You'll broaden the center of the curve but not significantly change the value of +/- 1. No matter what you do, +/- 1 will be far more valuable in the center of the curve than it will be at the ends.

Realistically, the only that you can balance this kind of thing with points, is to make changes away from the norm have a cost that is based on how far from the norm you are. Thus, a difference of 1 point "costs" when you're close to average but not when you're already near the extremes. After all, a +10% chance to hit should be more valuable than a +1%, right? However, the pricing structure would end up so counter-intuitive and complex that nobody would accept it.

So, I guess this really is just a long-winded way of saying that I'm for keeping the current 3d6 system as it is. As for roll-low vs roll-high, I don't see much difference in practical terms. Those who find roll-low to be confusing will find so much of character creation confusing that I'm not sure changing to a roll-high system will really make things more accessible. Not to mention that people manage to figure out what is good and bad with far more complex random mechanics like craps and poker that I feel it's not as big a deal as folks think.

[eavatar]

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.

Keep D6, they are easy to find dices

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.

Don't try fix what is working 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.

I don't mind about the hexes because it is hard to get any hex grid map on my country, but if you are going to change hero back to Imperial system it is going to be a real set back. The Imperial system is used by USA and Canada (I guess), even UK is abandoning it and going to metric like the rest of the world. BTW I still remember how the Imperial system is clear and easy to use...so simple to use which people at NASA applied it to one of billions worth Mars probes and it simply crashed against the red planet.

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.

Please, the active vs real points is one of the most confusing issues for new players.

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.
[/QUOTE]

That could be a nice optional rule, not a real core rule, because I really would't apply this for a supers or a gritter game, but at other hand this rules fit like a glove at Pulp, Space Opera and Fantasy genres

[rreay]

I haven't posted much but I'll add my 2 cents.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I used think don't bother changing to a roll high system until D&D moved the 3rd edition and everything became roll high. It's awfully nice to not have to think about high or low desired for this roll. Also on d6's more spots is simply more dramatic.

As for flattening the bell curve, I like the idea but I would not go to a single d20 and make it completly flat. On this Susano gets my feelings exactly right so I'll just quote him and you can pretend I said it as well.

Broadening the bell curve is good, but I think the bell curve is very important to HERO. 3d6 gives ones a useful average, and allows you to get a good idea for what you can and cannot due. I was very frustrated with D20 in a few sessions as a d20 is a simple 1-20 with not weighted set to values. So, no matter how good the character was, I had no average to depend on, and my die rolls were all over the place, so my character ended up feeling useless. With 3d6 (or any multiple die roll), you have an average result, and thus, you have a certain expectation of what your character can do. I think a single die ssytem removes that.

In this thread there have been suggestions to move to 3 larger dice d8's or d10s or moving to more dice 4d6. I have no qualms about either of those ideas. In one campaign I built I actually moved to 3d8-3. The minus 3 was to keep the center of the curve the same, I never ran that campaign so I can't comment on how well it works in practice.

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

I like hex maps hexes a bit better than square maps which I like better than unmarked maps with a measurement systems, which in turn I like better than mapless. People have brought up the good point that there are a ton of square maps available commercially, particularly for fantasy. That availability is probably your strongest incentive to move to squares.

My preference here is to default everything to hexes but have a side bar talking about how to use square maps. But I wouldn't have much problem if you moved to squares.

I do strongly like the idea of recasting hexes as 1 meter each. It becomes so much easier to think about movement without all the internal multiply or divide by 2.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

For distances I'd say stick with the metric system. For players I've had that had a problem with meters I just told them a yard and a meter are close enough together that they can be used interchangeably in a game like this. Larger units like mile are generally not gamed on the table, and when they are we have to convert from hexes either way.

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

That's a tough one. I do like the idea of stuffing a huge heavily limited "Nova" power into a framework with more pedestrian powers.

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

Yes please.

[Netzilla]

Now, on a note related to the die mechanics is the unification of mechanics. Currently, when it comes to Success Rolls (as opposed to Effect Rolls) we have 2 ways to calculate target numbers:

To Hit = 11 + OCV - DCV + Modifiers

Skill Target = 9 + (STAT/5) + Skill + Modifiers

Perhaps we should look at unifying the method that target numbers are arrived at. Personally, I'm in favor of changing the skill mechanic rather than the to hit. So, the skill formula would be:

Target = 11 + (STAT/3) + Skill + Modifiers

Pros:
* You have one way of calculating values which makes it much easier to determine the effects of Characteristic Adjustments on the fly. You know that every 3 points is significant.
* Difficulty values can have a wider range as the stat component will be larger.
* If we went to 0-average stats (I believe this is being discussed in another thread), it would keep the average trained skill roll at 11-.
* Both formulas are easily re-arranged to hide the "Difficulty/DCV" Modifiers (STAT/3 + Skill + 11 - 3d6 = Difficulty/DCV beaten).

Cons:
* Increases the value of putting your stats on "3s" even more.
* An average person (8 CHAR) has an unmodified skill roll of 14- if there are no difficulty modifiers. I actually don't see this as a problem as this just causes you to assume that trivially easy tasks (what would normally be a +3 bonus) is the norm.