General Rules Issues

[nexus]

I'd like to bring up the possibility of unifying the mechanics for objects. The current interaction betweenbjects, vehicles, automatons and foci can lead to some strange situations. A really radical change could be change Foci from a Limitation to a Perk purchased with 1 per 5 rules.

[Lizard]

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.

Just go to 4d6? Problem with that is that the bell curve get nastily severe the more dice you roll, and 'extreme' results are part of the fun.

How about scaling the cost, so that +1 CV is 1 point, +2 CV is 2 more points (3 total), +3 CV is 3 more, and so on?

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 actually prefer the abstraction of the hex to 'real world' measurements. I don't want to use string and tape measures in play.

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.

If you're changing things with an eye towards accessibility, going imperial might be worth doing. Metric was invented by the French, so what's it doing in the HERO system? Now, if you ever write the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey system, go for it! (I kid!) (But I do like the idea of ditching metrics.)

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

The problem is, in much source material, absolutes do exist, or at least as so close as makes no never mind. Even in non-super genres, you have spells like Magic Missile which "never" miss. Steal a page from GURPS and have a "Cosmic" advantage, which makes the power immune to all "lesser" defenses or attacks, but which can be countered by similar "Cosmic" powers. So pre-Crsis Superman is invulnerable -- really, totally, invulnerable -- to all things of Earthly make, but when he faces a Kryptonian weapon, which is also Cosmic, it effects him normally.

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

Having played in D20 modern and M&M, and compared to bog-standard D&D, I heartily support such concepts, however so-called.

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?

I'd like this to be controlled somehow, to prevent the problem of someone writing down every KS they can think of. Perhaps X 'freebie' knowledge or profession skills?

[BlueBuddha]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

I vote no. d6s are east to acquire, and the bell-curve seems fine to me. Alternate options would be fine, but I doubt I'd use them.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I'm a big fan of simple mechanics. The Storyteller system and Shadowrun 4th edition rules are personal favorites, but it's obviously too dramatic a change for HERO, and not really what I want. However, a high-roll only system would be a very good idea. Turning skill rolls into a 3d6+bonus (the bonus could equal Char/5 + levels bought) vs. a simple difficulty number, and attacks could be 3d6+OCV (difficulty in this case would likely be 11+DCV, or simply call DCV equal to 11+DEX/3).

Damage and effect rolls are pretty solid, IMO. Maybe a simplification, such as rolling KA-style for all attacks might work, but I'd have to try it out.

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

As an official unit of measurement, sure. As many have already pointed out, it doesn't mean that hexes, or inches, equaling 2 meters is still usable as a method of playing on a mat or with minis.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No.

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

Not as a general rule. I think some guidelines for how to limit each separately or to ignore AP in certain situations would be good, but I find AP very useful.

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

Allowing for absolutes, with a Stop Sign would be fine with me.

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

All games should have such rules, even if they're only optional.

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

I think Steve and I are on the same page here.

[Enforcer84]

Why is Shadowrun 4th a simpler mechanic? It seems needlessly heavy to me.

[caris]

Why is Shadowrun 4th a simpler mechanic? It seems needlessly heavy to me.

I think he means roll a pool of dice vs. a target number and count success seems simpler to him than roll 3D6 under a target number.

[Peregrine]

I think he means roll a pool of dice vs. a target number and count success seems simpler to him than roll 3D6 under a target number.

That indeed seems to be what was intended.

And I personally detest dice-pool mechanics. My limited grasp of probability fails when trying to get a feel for dice pools and success chances.

[misterdeath]

[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536935]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Depends. Going to a 4d6 system or a 3d10, and twigging the numbers to work might make for an interesting thing.

FWIW, it took one session for my current group of D&D players to twig to "roll low" to do stuff, roll high for damage. And, well, my players as a rule, are not mathematical superstars.

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

Yes. Express things in Meters. My newbies are having way more trouble getting "hexes" of movement, and how far that is really.

Still use the hex maps, just put things on the character sheet in Meters.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

No.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

Is it one, or two decimal points where we're supposed to round? Pick one, stick with it, done.

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

I think you'd have to change the system completely (going to a fractional add subtract system, or somesuch) to make this work.

Sure, Active vs. Real points are a bit hard for new people to understand. I don't know that this would be the way to fix it.

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

The few we've got, and the ways around them, are enough.

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

Yes please.

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

Not just yeah, but hell yeah.

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.”

Rock on.

D

[Certified]

What I would like to see is more unified mechanics. It seems that in several places there are unique systems that have similarities to others and could easily be brought in line with one another. This adds confusion and time to both character generation and game play.

Combat Values and Skill rolls: As mentioned earlier these mechanics are similar but not the same. I believe that these could be rolled together. Perhapses something like (Stat/5) + 10 = Roll. This would give an average of 12 for "average" rolls. It is a slight increase from the current norm for skills and a reduction from Combat Values. This would offer some fairly quick and clean math. For some reason I think dividing by 2, 5 and 10 are about the easiest numbers to work with and adding 10 is a no brainier. (Okay adding 9 or 11 isn't that hard either but 10 is just a clean even number.)

Additionally, this also addresses the argument of Dexterity and Combat Skill Levels adding more value to CSLs. This however brings me to another point.

Non-Conforming Skills: CSLs, Penalty Skill Levels, Defensive Maneuver I-IV, Weapons Familiarity, I don't have the book in front of me so I may have forgotten some. These Skills break from the normal format for Skill use. I understand why they are listed under skills, however, if possible I would like to see these exceptions moved into a different category or possibly their own category to avoid confusion with the other standard skills.

Other Rules: It seems that there are several places where something that could be resolved with a preexisting rule instead uses a unique system. Again, I don't have the book on hand but what comes to mind is rules for Grappling witch seems to be related to how Entangles work but each have separate entries and unique nuances to them both. It would be nice to have have a clearly defined set rule for Holds and then situational notes. Such as in a Grapple Targets may perform X, In an Entangle Targets may perform Y.


There are a couple of other points I may be missing but I think the biggest one I want to emphasize is simply streamlining the rules to remove overlap and unnecessary additions. On the subject of the Bell Curve and Dice Rolls, I agree that a 4d6 system would add additional range while tightening averages. I see both of those as a good thing as 4d6 as exceptional High (20+) and Low (8-) would be around a 5% chance with is small but still significant. On a side note the system for CV and Skills above would have a base of 12 or 13 instead of 10.

[Enforcer84]

I know I seem to be in full on Fuddy Duddy mode but I don't see how changing the Die type and the rolling mechanics to be anything more than change for the sake of change. Actually, beyond 1hex =1 meter, I don't see the need to change anything. Some of the changes have an appeal, some pique my interest and others make me lament we ever allowed non supers into the pool (I keed). When I read the threads in their entirety it seems like the game will become barely recognizable to me. That could be info overload though.

I'll take a look at 6th when it hits the stands. (and by that I mean buy it )
For now I'm gonna bow out and try to avoid the 6th ed threads.

[buzz]

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.

My opinion: Seconded.

My suggestion: Intent-relevant task resolution would be great.

[Cancer]

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 admit I loathe square probability distribution functions, so the 3d6 bell curve is one of HERO's best features IMO.

On one hand, adding more dice of the same flavor tightens up the distribution function in the sense of making the extreme values less probable. That seems to be the opposite of the change you indicate you want.

But going to a larger range, that is, rolling dice with more sides, has the effect of keeping the p.d.f. centrally peaked to the same extent as now, but lessening the influence of the 3-point difference in CVs that you mention. A 3d10 system is something I'd have to experiment with but might do what you want, "weakening" the CV differential you mention versus the dispersion of the random element.

[nexus]

My opinion: Seconded.

My suggestion: Intent-relevant task resolution would be great.

Explain?

[Toadmaster]

Ok, my first comment is not directed at Steve.

All you Imperial measurement haters, chill out. We live here you don't, we tried the Metric system in 1976 and it died a horrible death, it was the kid you pick after the fat kid with crutches when you are playing kick ball.

The Mars lander crashed because someone at NASA screwed up and mixed Metric with Imperial units, if NASA wasn't being all scientific and told the lander to fire the retro rockets 5000 Rods above the surface everything would have been just fine.

For the dude in Santa Clarita in favor of the US going to the metric system get out of SoCal the smog is damaging your brain.


Ok, Steve can uncover his ears

I am all in favor of the metric system in gaming, it is an easy system to use and scales well, small scale 1cm = 1m, large scale 1cm = 1km because you just divide movement and range by 10.

Realistically the measurements needed in a game are weight, distance and speed and the conversions are easy enough based on the accuracy needed (not much) 1 meter = 1 yard (or 3 feet), 1 kilogram = 2 lbs and a kilometer = 1/2 mile, sure these are off by about 10% but its just needed to help Americans put it into something they can get their head around.

You tell someone a guy weighs 150kg they will look at you like you have two heads, you tell them they guy weighs about 300 lbs they go oh, so he's big like a Football player (don't even go there Soccer fans ) it doesn't matter that he actually weighs 330 lbs. If I'm buying a liter of gas in real life you better give me my full 0.265 gallon, but if you say a liter is about a quart in the game you can keep the .015 difference.


Ok, next tangent roll high? If this is actually an issue I think you have the wrong game, its a pretty easy concept. Certainly not a deal breaker for me if Steve decides to go that way because I can figure it out (so my 14- would be a 7+?) but I don't believe its even worth the time it took me to type this let alone a rule change and we will just hear from people who say roll under is more intuitive.

I don't think there is anything wrong with 3d6 that any of the other solutions mentioned would make worthwhile. Interesting discussion, but that is about all. Any use of a dice pool system in Hero and the green man in the hex gets two in the ear and a set of concrete slippers (unless of course you mean a kiddie pool full of dice, that is ok).

I think a better explaination of using points to buy equiment is definately worthwhile. Allowing the use of mundane items on occasion in a Champions style supers campaign is fine, although it sould be paid for if used a lot. Batman should be able to stop at the hardware store to buy a maglight before delving into the sewers, but if he wants to permanently attach it to his utility belt so he has it when the power suddenly goes out he should pay something for it because that is pretty useful.

I think rather than letting characters take mundane items for free it would be worth discussing simple powers. There is a justifiable argument against making people spec out a rope or a flashlight. I think there should be discussion and encouragement for players / GM's to say, its a rope, it lets you climb, hoist and tie stuff up and leave it at that. Provide some discussion of how to determine its cost for supers, maybe create a "power" mundane item with a usefulness chart (ball of string, roll of duct tape, really sticky McGiver brand chewing gum - 0-1 pt, rope, flash light, pocket knife / Leatherman tool 1-2 pts, etc). If you want a whiz bang flashlight that fits into a pen but can illuminate a football field, build it, otherwise for off the shelf items give an approximate cost / value and move on to something fun.

If Batman choose to drive a Cadillac instead of a Batmobile that is ok, but unless he pays for it there will times it has a flat, a dead battery or he'll lock the keys in it. Free stuff shouldn't exactly be free.

This leads into a related subject, spec-ing everything, many items are intuitive and trying to build them just confuses stuff.

A gun is a killing attack, it has a recoil, it can be taken away, most people know it is a gun, it holds x number of bullets. I would encourage the use of this is how guns work, this is how much damage this particular gun does, if you want to use a telescopic sight here is how it works. Not so much a change in rules as a change in implimentation.

It is pretty silly that people would have to write up something like climbing, obvious accessable item, must attach end to the high point etc vs rope 50 meters, 100 kg load and that is what people react to when they say you have to spec out a ball point pen. Again, save building items for something wierd like an umbrella bazooka. Show a GM how to use the rules to "build it" within the rules if it is unclear how to use it in the game but show that it is fine to describe it in real terms and move onto something that actually matters in the game.

I think this is something that was lost between 3rd ed and 4th ed, in Fantasy HERO, Danger Intl etc there was no issue of "building" a Ferrari or a Spas 12, you just looked at a similar car or weapon and made it faster / slower do more or less damage. The "tool kit" aspect of 4th ed got emphasized a bit too much, and all of a sudden you started seeing mundane items spec'd out.

One thing that I think was missed and actually went the wrong way is genre specific stuff. It seems like 5th took the path of an item is the same regardless of genre and this really takes one of HERO's strengths and makes it a liability. There is absolutely no reason an M16 in a Vietnam campaign should be the same as an M16 in an A-Team campaign or an M16 in a Champions game. In the first a 2d6 RKA makes perfect sense, 1-2 shots in the head or chest should be fatal in that genre, 4d6 stun only energy blast might be more appropiate for the A-Team game, they never killed anybody in the show, you rarely even saw serious injuries. In the Champions game it might make since to make it a 1d6 RKA, still dangerous to normals and normal like supers, but easy to make Superman and Hulk clones immune to gun fire.

[pawsplay]

To the people saying "4d6 or 3d10": these choices are the opposite of each other. 4d6 has more central tendency, 3d10 has less.

[TSandman]

The Imperial system is used by USA and Canada (I guess)

As a Canadian, I confirm this...

It is used mainly by those "used" to it or doing mostly their business with the US. Officially, Canada is Metric, but the imperial system can be used besides it.

I'm 33 and I use Metric everyday but must know the basics of Imperial to understand our southern neighbors and our parents... I know about how long is a Mile a foot and an inch, about how heavy is a pound. But please, don't ask me more or I'll have to go check up on the internet!


As an aside, regarding the 3D6 Bell Curve, one thing that I like about it is that it IS a curve. I mean, with a D20, there is nothing exceptionnal about rolling a 20 or a 1, while rolling an 18 or a 3 with 3D6 is. There is no curve for a D20, only a straight line.