General Rules Issues

[Kdansky]

Even though you agree on the problem, I think your (Cancer) solution does not work:

- Even more book keeping, and the speed chart is one of the most complicated things that sees use. Not a good thing.
- Very high numbers and lots of remembering things.

But speedster archetypes have already gone through quite some changes. They don't work on SPD alone, but also on Autofire and Sweep, so I don't see that much of a problem there. I'm still for just upping the granularity of SPD by increasing base values drastically.

[The Monster]

I think it might be fine idea to get rid of post-12 recovery altogether. If you want to recover, then you have to take time to do it. It feels artificial. And with the general emphasis on removing "Championisms" it would fit with other ideas that have been floated.

On the other hand, I don't think that the varying impact of SPD at different levels is really a problem (it's not a bug, it's a feature!). I've found it a very good tool to use at low power levels, where it is easy to make a difference between heroes and mooks simply by making one SPD 3 and the other SPD 2. For supers, the SPD range is a lot wider, but you want that granularity for supers; also, the impact of Spd 4 vs SPD 5 is not nearly as great.

The problem I have with the SPD chart is that it is too predictable. It's such a key mechanic that people game to the chart, planning the timing of actions and recoveries, etc., based not on what makes sense in the situation as much as what's coming up on the SPD chart. I'd like to see some kind of variation, some random element built in, if not as core canon, then as official option. I know there are some good ideas out there (I've been thinking about implementing some in my own games). The predictability of the SPD chart also exacerbates the impact of low versus high SPD, as the high-SPD person can always predit exactly when he needs to hold an action in order to counter whatever the slow one might do. With so many mechanics in Hero working with limits and probabilities as opposed to absolutes, SPD as is stands out as being dangerously close to an absolute.

[Chris Goodwin]

If you take out post-12 recovery, then you can delete the SPD chart altogether and go with X actions per round. A round is over when everyone at that SPD has gone. So, for instance, say the highest SPD in a combat is 6. The GM says, "Okay, everyone SPD 6 go now," and proceeds to call off DEX. When everyone there has gone, then it's "Okay, everyone SPD 5 or more go now," and call of DEX. Repeat the process for SPD 4 or more, SPD 3 or more, etc. Aborting means you do something out of SPD order, and give up your next action to do it.

The SPD chart is there to mark off time between post-12 Recoveries.

[BobGreenwade]

I'd leave Post-12 Recoveries in, but make an explicit note that not all GMs like them and they may be removed from the game.

[M-3]

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

Sounds like a big change with no readily apparent benefit. Also, the existing critical hit system (crit when you roll equal to or less than 1/2 score) won't work easily with roll high.

Perhaps a system of bonus/penalty dice could be implemented so that if you had, say, 2 bonus dice you'd roll 5 dice and keep the three lowest and if you had a penalty die you'd roll 4 and keep the three highest?

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

Change it to 1m and I'll be happy.

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

There's always GURPS for when we're feeling imperial.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

I think there might be some justification to changing them so that .5 always rounds up rather than rounding in favor of the character.

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

I'd rather have the distinction removed between base points and Active Points - I think that would make things easier.

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

I think there should be an option for them. A strictly optional kind of an option. But they may appear in our settings and ideas and I think the settings and ideas should control the system rather than the other way around.

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

I haven't read Pulp Hero but I do think the game could use some kind of option like that.

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

I think it would make more sense to just get rid of it altogether and stipulate that you only have to pay for "special stuff" just like in Heroic games. I see no reason to charge MegatronicMan or LightningLass points for owning an ordinary .45 or a Corvette. If they want the .45 or Corvette to be special and/or have plot protection, then it might be worth charging them points for them.

On the other hand, I think background skills are cheap enough as it is. It's always hard to know in advance which skills a creative player will turn into something useful. I've been amazed at the many interesting uses a player in my Justice Inc. game has gotten out of KS: Mystic Mumbo-Jumbo and KS: Darkest Africa*.

*Not an Area Knowledge as it represents "knowledge" gleaned from adventure fiction.

[futant]

I am in favor of changing to a Roll High style.

As pointed out before changing the dice roll from low to high has no effect on the current system resolution. The math works out the same. It also opens a solution to the limit on the number spread in the Bell Curve with 3d6. This solution easily integrates with a Unified Resolution Mechanic as proposed in earlier posts and Hero points, Exploding Dice.

Exploding Dice, as the term is now known in the hobby is a dice mechanic where if a certain number is rolled it allows the dice to be re-rolled and added the pervious total. This goes hand and hand with a switch to Roll High and target numbers. No new tables needed, or different math to take away from the flow the game.

You can even limit the number of dice re-rolled based in the point creation of the game. Superhero and above, all 3d6, over the top action only 2d6, gritty, grim stuff only 1d6.

Changing the type of dice used in Hero.

Absolutely not.

All game systems have a flavor, a feel inherit to them. One thing which clearly defines this to me are the dice used in the system. When, I sit at a table to play Hero system, DnD or Exalted the dice used in those systems help set the tone for the night. Let's face it, if there is one thing we all look at when we stop in at any game store it is the dice display. If there is anything we gamers are the most superstitious, obsess, and protect its our dice. D6s are the Hero System, to alter this is to destroy the nature the game.

[rjcurrie]

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'm not sure that you buy that much by changing the type of dice used and I think a move away from using six-sided dice will create more problems than it is worth. And for some silly reason, while buying new gamebooks doesn't bother me, replacing all my six-siders does bother me.

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 could live with a roll high change. I don't see a need but since it's mainly a cosmetic change and may make the game easier for some (and probably won't seriously impact those who like roll-low but I could be wrong).

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.

No thoughts on this right now.

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).

As a convention GM, I occasionally get players who are new to Hero and the hex/inch thing is one of the more confusing parts to them. Seeing Fllight 15" on their sheet makes them think that they can fly a foot and a quarter every action. I'm in agreement with Steve almost completely on this point. The biggest problem will be adjusting how things like Area Effect and Spreading would work.

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.

Keep metric. Switching to Imperial really gains nothing and is just likely to annoy your non-American customers.

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.

Probably not.

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 really don't see what would be gained by such a move.

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.

Incorporating the Absolute Effects Rule (or some version of it) would probably be sufficient.

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.

For some reason, I have never liked most "Hero Points" type systems. But that is lilkely due to my own cynicism. That is, the universe is a cold, random, unforgiving place and sometimes, you're just going to get screwed by it. That being said, from a design point of view, I can see why some people like them and I think the Hero Action Point system works reasonably well.

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.”

Not much more to say than "I agree".

[GamePhil]

Had to skim again, I'm sorry if I'm only repeating.

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

If you were to unify the systems for Skill Rolls and To Hit Rolls, it would not bother me, I'd most likely prefer it, but I hardly think it's essential.

As for the steep bell-curve problem, some of that might be helped by instituting the Heroic Action Points. That changes the odds a little both for and against the PCs. I'm not sure.

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

If it makes it easier to new players without hurting the old ones, absolutely. It's easy enough for me to just say that my hex map is measured in 2m/hex.

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

Absolutely. I am very much in favor of having randomization, I think it helps prevent you from getting in a rut, but sometimes the dice give randomly undramatic results. The GM can just fudge if that happens, but it's also good to give the players some limited control over the random chance, too.

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

Sure. However, I have personally never cared much for the change between Heroic and Superheroic in this area, if the two types of character are in the same campaign. A 150 point character with 200 points of equipment is a 350 point character, so the fact that he can take down Defender doesn't bother me. Mainly, it just makes it easier to see how powerful a character really is to have to buy his gear.

Also, it's not just a matter of impact on the game, it's also a matter of advantage. Everyone can have a handgun or a car in a Heroic game, so it is not worth points even though it has impact, but if they have a special handgun or car that does X, X must be paid for.

[Chris Goodwin]

In bullet points:

• Keep d6's
• I'm ok with rolling high, ok with keeping current. Don't know how to broaden bell curve.
• I like hexes, I really like scalable hexes, and wonder how we're going to handle AOE without hex measurements. But if they go away, I'll live.
• Keep metric. I feel strongly about this.
• Maintain rounding rules.
• Active/Real points: If we end up doing Advantages and Limitations differently, they may fall away. Otherwise, keep.
• Allow for absolutes. They may be needed to build otherwise valid effects. (I think we should have a new metarule: if you can conceive of something, there may be many valid reasons why you shouldn't be able to build it -- but "the system won't let you" should never be one of them.)
• Yes, include Hero Points.
• Ok with ditching superheroic "pay for everything," but think that weapons and combat items should always cost.

[ajackson]

On the topic of hero points and equipment:

One way to handle stuff like equipment is to have miscellaneous equipment be free to carry about, but if you want to take advantage of it in a game, you spend some hero points. Thus, you don't have to pay for your 1d6+1 RKA pistol unless for some odd reason you actually need to use it in a game.

This is actually a somewhat credible way to handle a wide variety of abilities that rarely come up: make them fairly cheap, but then have them cost hero points to activate. This means you can have various sorts of 'color' abilities that are useless 99% of the time, and if for some reason they become actually important, you can burn a hero point to turn them on.

[Polaris]

HI Steve,

I would like to add my voice to those advocating a roll high mechanic. The reason: I believe that anything that can be done to make the system easier to explain and pick up for new players, while not taking away anything is a good idea.

It is my opinion that:

• Roll high is more intuitive and easier for new gamers to pick up
• Roll high does not take anything away from the system
• Anything that can make Hero easier for new players to pick up, while not taking anything away from the system is a good thing worthy of your consideration

I also like the idea of the 'exploding die' that some others have referred to. Allowing people to reroll dice and add the results (for a critical success) and possibly reroll and subtract (for a critical failure) can add a possibility of a very exceptional result.

Thank you for considering these ideas...

William

[Opal]

Hero doesn't currently have the problem that D&D did when it switched to a 'roll high' system (in AD&D attack rolls and saves rolled high to succeed, while skill and characteristic checks rolled low to succeed). You roll low for all resolution in Hero - attacks, skills, activation rolls, characteristic checks, etc. Reversing it would add no value.

[ghost-angel]

I like the Roll Low mechanic.

I've used the If you're asked to try and succeed at something (Skill, Ability, Reputation, etc.) Roll Low and if you're asked to effect something (Attack, Mental Effect, etc) Roll High to great effect at convention games and teaching new people the rules.

It neatly separates what is going on and what is trying to be achieved.

I don't think any one method is more intuitive than any other - but I do think that Hero's method can be used to easily explain what you're trying to DO in the game and help people to play.

[The Monster]

On measurment and scale:
One thing to consider is the visual and practical tabletop impact of game scale. Miniatures for RPs (lead and clix) have pretty much been 25-28mm since, well, ever, which corresponds fairly nicely to a 1"=2m scale. While I wouldn't hold Hero hostage to external stuff that's out there, I think it's something worth considering. There are a lot of game props made for that scale, and it would be a shame to throw their usefulness to one side. So I'm in favor of keeping the scale, at least in some regard.

Now, I do run a lot without hex grids (or square ones - brrr); I've found just setting stuff on the table and getting out the tape measure works fine. Parsing area effects and movement can be little loose, but when I run Hero, it's not primarily a miniatures game, it's a role-playing game, and the differences which occur have been minor enough to ignore.

The upshot? I like the 1" scale, but hexes are strictly a game artifact as far as I can see. They're very useful for certain things (e.g., wargames), but are not necessary. For building powers and such, I don't much care if everything is rewritten in meters, as long as costs are refigured to match (for example, it would really be annoying to have to refigure everything like an old 3-hex-radius fireball so that it isn't suddenly nerfed into a 3-meter-radius fireball).

[Super Squirrel]

Regarding Absolutes:
I agree that there should be no absolutes.

Now if you are wondering why I state this when I do believe that Damage Reduction should go up to 100%, I'd just like to state that I think Damage Reduction should get the same -0 Limitation that Resurrection gets. There must be at least one common set of situations where Damage Reduction does not apply.

But I'm very much set that absolutes are not needed.