General Rules Issues

[Netzilla]

Unified Damage Mechanic

Related to changing dice mechanics is the Effect Roll mechanic. Currently we have a relatively uniform success mechanic (3d6 under a target number). However, we have multiple Effect Roll mechanics:
* Roll dice, total for stun then count Body.
* Roll dice, total for Body then roll for a Stun Multiplier.
* Roll dice and only count Body (Flash).
* Roll dice and only count Total (Adjustment Powers).

Perhaps we should look at unifying the Effect Rolls mechanic. I've toyed around with this idea and have thought of a few ways of handling this.

One would be to change things so that you use different dice to roll Stun and Body. For example, with a 12 DC Normal attack, you roll 4d6 for Body then add another 8d6 for Stun. On a killing attack it would be 6d6 for Body plus another 6d6 for Stun. This would require major changes to the cost structure of both attacks and defenses.

Another would be that Body is always a percentage of the Stun rolled, what that percentage is varies by attack type. So a Normal attack might be Stun/3, while a Killing Attack might be Stun/2.

Go the other way and have Stun always be a multiplier of Body. On a Normal Attack you could have a Stun Multiplier of x3, while a Killing attack might be only x2.

All of these mechanics get rid of the Stun Lotto effect that many people are not fond of. However, this would require a significant re-tooling of Hit Locations.

The second two allow for you to build a single Attack power with Normal, Killing, Flash, etc being Advantage/Limitation style modifiers. For example, various 12 DC attacks:
* Normal: 4d6 Body, x3 Stun
* Killing: 4d6 Body, x2 Stun, only Resistant Defenses apply.
* Flash: 4d6 / 2 = Segments of Effect
* Mind Control: 4d6 x3 vs targets Ego + Mental Defense.
* Mind Blast: 4d6 vs Mental Defense.

This reduces the "hand full of dice" perception that turns some people off to Hero. The mechanic is always xd6 * y multiplier, no matter what kind of effect you're rolling.

Obviously this needs more rigorous mathematical analysis than I've given it and a lot of play-testing to make sure it balances right.

[Susano]

I wasn't disputing that.

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

I really doubt the French origin had anything to do with it. I'm more inclined to think Americans are a stubborn bunch and there's no more sure-fire way to get an American's hackles up than to have the Feds try and push something on them.

[steamteck]

I'


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.

I agree completely. I strongly support the current system. I've loved low roll since The Fantasy Trip first came out.

Again I like Sean Walter's idea that the amount you make your roll by effects damage but it would have to be carefully balanced.

[Doc Shadow]

I really doubt the French origin had anything to do with it. I'm more inclined to think Americans are a stubborn bunch and there's no more sure-fire way to get an American's hackles up than to have the Feds try and push something on them.

Could be.

But consider this - Metric came out during the French Revolution. That revolution didn't sit too well with most Americans at the time. Something about chopping off people's heads for the pleasure of the riff-raff just seemed a bit too exessive. As a result America rejected a lot of what was coming out of France at the time. Even got into a short war with them.

Anyway, this pretty much soured Americans on stuff coming out of France for a good long while. One of the things that got a bad rep among Yanks was the metric system. Most of us don't even remember why it was originally considered bad. In addition for most people the Imperial system works fine in their everyday lives, so why should they change? They just don't see any benefit from it. The closest thing to acceptance that I've seen has been the liter, I assume because it's so similar to a quart, but even that's not accepted for milk or gasoline which still use the imperial system.

[Remjin]

Metrics are fine, 1 hex = 1 meter better. Gets rid of extra factors, makes more sense. Powers being defined in distances won't make as big a change that way. This will change overall scaling, though.

Never liked hexes or squares. Hexes lack proper facings. Squares do it more so. Hexes have no sides, squares have no angles. I've always been a proponent of character facings defined as octagons with a cleae front, back, left, right, and intermediate angles. For using miniatures, measurements work great and don't have that weird feel that hexes or squares give in movement. Its a 3-D world we play in, and maps are all originated in wargames. Most every wargame has progressed to simple measurements, if we keep with wargaming mechanics we may as well do so for movement as well. Expressing movement in inches is part of that. Even if it is imperial measurement.

While increasing granularity is nice for heroic games, it may detract from dramatic realism. An optional system may be called for here, or at least a separate scale for those genres. I don't think its that important, honestly.

High roll is just a small formula change. Give it as an optional formula for those stuck on that idea. It doesn't actually change anything.

The 3d6 curve is nice, as already told. Changing the dice mechanic may be too drastic and will make all previous material obsolete, change the cost structure significantly, and require recosting of skills and otherwise. It's not really worth it.

Hero Points are a good idea, used in many other games. Simply: losing dramatic effect for a poor die roll is disappointing and detracts from the game.

Rwgarding mundane items and points, its easily covered by wealth or lifestyle perks that define what you could have. If you chose poverty, having a car is points. If you chose wealthy, having a rolex is no big deal. Seems like overthinking the concept. Leave mundane to flavor or money, the exotic or personal to points. A pistol is resource pool or cash, a Death Dealer v2.0 is points.

[gregghelmberger]

Steve, could you clarify what you meant by "strongly in favor of doing away with the hex"? Are you just referring to the current idea of a 2 meter hex, or doing away with hexes on all maps published by Hero, or what? I couldn't care less whether a hex is 1 or 2 meters or some other measurement entirely, but using hexes to figure movement is a lot easier than dragging out a tape measure at the gaming table every time someone wants to walk across a room.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

I like the good old d6. If it must change, perhaps a d10 would be okay, but please keep the d6.

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.

I too like the bell curve. In a way it is more granular than a boring old linear system. 3d6 gives only 15 possible results (3-18). 4d6 would give you 20 possibilities (4-24) which you could make 0 to 20 by using 4d6-4 but that adds extra math and doesn't help streamline anything. 3d10 would give you 27 possible results (3-30). However, I think that the 3d6 mechanic is good enough that changing it is not worth it.

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

I am in favor of keeping the hexagon map for regulating things like movement, ranges, LOS and such. Changing the area that a hex represents might be okay.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

I am an advocate of the Metric system. In my job I have used the metric system extensively and I like its base-10 math system much better than the odd-ball Imperial system. Hell, I which the US would hurry up and go metric.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

I see no reason to.

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

No I like the AP/RP system as it is.

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

I don't like absolutes. Perhaps in very rare circumstances it might be okay but such a rule would certainly require a Stop Sign and would need to be restrictive in scope. For instance I can see a Fire Elemental in a Fantasy Hero game being immune to fire and heat but in a case like that there ought to be a trade-off (for example, vulnerability to water).

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

Yes, I like them. Of course I seem to be in the minority as far as my gaming group is concerned on this issue. To me "Hero Points" are just plain heroic and fit well into the game. Besides any GM or campaign can simply disallow them if they don't fit into the genre being played.

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 generally agree with this line of reasoning and can't think of anything constructive to add.

[Xotl]

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Oh god yes. I really focus on trying to introduce new players to Hero, and roll-low is always annoying in a system, especially in Hero, where's there's plenty of roll-high stuff too. It's simply counterintuitive. I think if the only reason to keep something that hinders adoption of the system is because that's the way it's currently done, then there isn't really a reason. This would be a really easy change to implement that would help the system grow. What possible argument is there to keep things the way they are? Please.

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

Please move to meters for the standard unit, which leads to...

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

Please stick with the current system that the rest of the world uses. I really don't want to have to find out how many hogheads of damage a stone of UNTIL agents can take

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

Strongly in favour of this. I think there's a very good reason why multiple very solid systems have featured some element of this in their core rules over the years. It's a fun, yet simple mechanic that allows simulation of things Hero currently doesn't, and involves players more.

[Chris Goodwin]

My opinions: Metric, yes. Hexes, yes. Scalable hexes (a la Robot Warriors), yes! Size Class and Ground Scales and bigness, oh my! We don't have to call them inches, if that's confusing, but yes, keep hexes, please.

Keep 2 meter hexes as the default.

(Playing Hero taught me more metric than all of high school science class!)

Active Points vs. Real Points, keep.

[Susano]

Please stick with the current system that the rest of the world uses. I really don't want to have to find out how many hogheads of damage a stone of UNTIL agents can take .

Humbug: 17!!!

[SteveZilla]

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.

IMO I have seen no true reason to step away from a purely d6 system. They have worked quite well for many decades. There are already "different dice" being used currently -- the half d6 (or d3 to some) and the "Stun Multiple" die with (effectively) a second one in place of the six. My point is that even limiting it to just cubicle dice doesn't limit what can be done with those dice.

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.

It's not needed, though I do think it would be a slight improvement. Perhaps just a paragraph or two in a "How to Change the system" section of the book that details how to make it a Roll High system.

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.

If we don't introduce other kinds of dice into the system, there are (as I see it) two ways to reduce the "peak" of the 3d6 bell curve. Either change to 2d6 (a bad idea because of lack of spread), or use two dice for to-hit.

One die generates a 1-6 number, and the second for "Low/Medium(+6)/High(+12)". This produces a 1-18 spread that has a flat probability distribution.

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).

Without a hexagonal grid, I don't see how we could keep turn modes. Dee-an-Dee oversimplifies movement by equating a 45 degree move of ~7' to that of a N-S or E-W move of 5`. We could go "free range" without any grid by measuring angles and distances directly. That would allow the greatest freedom of movement down to 1m increments, but at the expense of slowing and complicating combats IMO.

Or just have a rule that barring extra reach distance, to engage in HtH combat, you have to enter your target's hex, making the separation (loosely) 1m.

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.

No. Despite being stuck in the Imperial Measurement System, I *like* that Hero System uses Metric. IMO using metric gives it greater uniformity. And more of the world uses metric than Imperial, IIRC. Switching might hurt non-US sales.

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.

No. But I would add that in a point-based system, there shouldn't be half-point costs. I would suggest doubling the point values of everything for a two-fold benefit. One, it gets rid of half-point costs, and two, it gives more "breathing room" at the bottom where there are complaints of "not enough granularity in the system".

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.

IMO there is no better way to initially gauge power builds against each other than the AP/RP methodology.

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.

I love that, with a few exceptions that Hero System is not based upon absolutes like I had found constantly in Dee-an-Dee. In the same way the system (to me) is a fusion of geometric and linear progressions, I think there is room for both absolutes and non-absolutes (within reason -- no 100% rDR! ).

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 believe they can add flair to a game, but I believe they aren't universally appropriate across all genres of games. Thus I would suggest they not be made a "hard" 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.”

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 the superheroic version of "having to pay for everything" is best summed up by: If it significantly affects the game and/or combat, it has to be paid for. Like spoons.

I am uncomfortable with giving characters something for free without a methodology. A system I would favor would give each player a uniform number of "free" background skills of their choice -- or perhaps a detailed as a specific number of points to buy only background skills.

[Kdansky]

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?
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 suggest 2d12 or 2d10. Gives bell (well, triangle) curve, but it's a lot broader. I like the 12 sided dice, they are cool. Also, it is a lot easier to roll 10d6 + 2d12 in one roll and then figure out which one does which. I always mess up colours and regularily don't have enough same coloured dice to do that with 3d6 + 10d6.

[quote]Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?
[quote]
You are my hero. Meters all the way!

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

I would actually consider not using it if you did that, and there is not much else you can do to drive me off that badly. Because imperial is
A: not familiar to me (and with that I mean: I know more about the Theory of Relativity than about the Imperial System, there's a world outside of America too)
B: a pain in the ass (and that was a nice way of saying it) to do physics in. Sometimes I want to know how fast something falls. Did I mention that some very expensive rocket/mars robot recently failed because that got messed up?

<rant>Imperial system is one of the worst things on the planet, really. Just right there with Fundamental Religion, Nazis, Cancer, Calories (it's Joule!) and whatcanyouname </rant>
I think I just failed my enrage roll... badly.


Rest will be commented on tomorrow. It's 03:30! DAMN! :/ YES, in the morning!

[Chris Goodwin]

If we don't introduce other kinds of dice into the system, there are (as I see it) two ways to reduce the "peak" of the 3d6 bell curve. Either change to 2d6 (a bad idea because of lack of spread), or use two dice for to-hit.

One die generates a 1-6 number, and the second for "Low/Medium(+6)/High(+12)". This produces a 1-18 spread that has a flat probability distribution.

This is actually not a bad idea. Definitely consider it, even if you don't use it.

Second die: 1-2, add 0; 3-4, add 6, 5-6, add 12.

[Enforcer84]

Personally, I think changing the dice and dice mechanics changes the game to the point of you might as well write a new one and call it something else.

[MorpheousXO]

I think we should use HERO Points

I think it should stay metric, but don't use inches, use meters.

I think you should provide rules for both hexes and squares, thereby helping the D20 converts out. This would basically amount to explaining how to figure the aoe's in square form, and explaining how to move diagonally in squares.

I think that both roll high and roll low could be used and explained as they work exactly the same, but having it actually officially in the books makes things much easier for people to swallow. For what it's worth, if we can only have one I vote roll high across the board.

for flattening the bell curve, I'd think increasing the die size rather than the amount of dice would be better, as someone said d10's earlier. Big change, but could have big payoff!

Now all I can hope for is that America here gets it's butt into gear and goes metric. Makes too much sense not to, honestly!