Some observations...

[Kenn]

1) There are too many "What can we get rid of" changes being bandied about. Options are good. Restrictions are bad.

If the dramatic simulation logic of Figured Characterisics works for you, use them. If they aren't realistic enough for your tastes, don't.

If you don't like the Unified Power Construct (the Construct still known as Elemental Control), don't use it. But it shouldn't be taken away from those of us who do.

2) Why is there so much hate towards the Hero System's super heroic roots?

There have been space heroes who are super heroes. There have been cowboys who are super heroes. There are mideval warriors that have been super heroes. There have been vampire super heroes and magician super heroes, and masked urban crimefighter super heroes.

The super heroic genre is so broad and so encompassing that to make a game that truly covered the expanse of the super heroic genre required a game that can represent any other genre. It was by building a game that represented a genre that, by its nature, could include characters from any other genre, that the original founders built a game that could truly represent any genre.

The Hero Systems' Champions roots should be celebrated not shunned.

[Balok]

I don't believe it's hate so much as a desire select terminology that decouples the core rules from the superheroic rules. Champions will appear at GenCon right alongside of H6.

[Sean Waters]

Yes, well, sod terminology. We could easily re-brand every ability in the Hero Rules as Attack Power #1, Defence Power #3 and so on. Personally I don't feel that would make the system any more attractive - quite the opposite. Of course I'm a dyed in the wool superheroist, although, for some reason, I seem to rarely run or play superhero games any more.

Weird, eh?

[Akiva]

I don't think the terminology should be made blandly generic. Even Steve has pointed out that this would be detrimental. However, a system that purports to be generic and universal, that is supposed to be as great for superheroes as it is for gritty street cyberpunk, is effectively hobbled by relying on terminology that is biased toward superheroes.

I hate superheroes. Even so, I wouldn't want to see HERO alienate Superheroic players anymore than it currently alienates Heroic players. Neither side should be shunned; in a generic, universal RPG, they should both be celebrated.

[nexus]

1) There are too many "What can we get rid of" changes being bandied about. Options are good. Restrictions are bad.

If the dramatic simulation logic of Figured Characterisics works for you, use them. If they aren't realistic enough for your tastes, don't.

If you don't like the Unified Power Construct (the Construct still known as Elemental Control), don't use it. But it shouldn't be taken away from those of us who do.

I agree here. There is too much talk about just trashing things completely. I think that should be reserved for true problems not matters of subjective taste. No one speaks for the entirety of Hero fandom. And I can practically guarantee that anything one group finds "unfun, unrealistic or whatever" another group finds its just the opposite. More options, not less.

[ajackson]

1) There are too many "What can we get rid of" changes being bandied about. Options are good. Restrictions are bad.

I believe there is a general perception that Hero has become excessively cluttered and complex. The logical response to this is to simplify by removing things. Personally, I think much of the problem has to do with excessive focus on details of modeling (paragraph writeups for simple powers), which is a style/presentation issue more than a rules issue, but some simplification by removing peculiar constructs is worthwhile.

[ghost-angel]

2) Why is there so much hate towards the Hero System's super heroic roots?

I personally don't have anything against it's Superheroic Roots.

But they're just that - roots. We're now way up in the branches and those very roots have allowed a broad and robust system to grow and expand.

I think we've not so much moved on past Superheroes as Expanded to be more all encompassing.

In that vein, I also think it's time to shed some of the baggage those roots have brought with it - like a lot of the naming conventions - to be more open, less restrictive and to remove implied SFX.

Yes - it has Superhero roots that we want to celebrate. But it has so much more too.

[Opal]

Generic is OK. Boring, unevocative or counter-intuitive is not.

"Ranged Normal Attack" - what does this mean to someone who's never seen Hero rules before? Ranged and Attack are OK, but 'normal?' Does that mean non-magical? Does it mean 'typical?' You could see newbies building bows or firearms as Ranged Normal Attacks.

[ghost-angel]

Generic is OK. Boring, unevocative or counter-intuitive is not.

"Ranged Normal Attack" - what does this mean to someone who's never seen Hero rules before? Ranged and Attack are OK, but 'normal?' Does that mean non-magical? Does it mean 'typical?' You could see newbies building bows or firearms as Ranged Normal Attacks.

Well, when you get to the part about Killing Attack, Ranged it will make sense.

Remember - it's a universal Toolkit. The Power is supposed to tell you what to do. I remember making heavy use of the Powers List at the beginning of the Powers section. Having generic but usefully descriptive names would have been helpful.

At some point you will have to LEARN the rules and know that there are Normal and Killing Attacks.

I've actually had the following discussion:
"I want to throw rocks at someone."
"Use Energy Blast."
"What? Not energy. I want rocks."
"Right... ignore the name, it's a ranged attack."
"Oh."

And we can turn it into this:
"I want to throw rocks at people."
"You want a Ranged Attack, are they lethal or just hurt?"
"They just hurt, yeah, just like normal rocks."
"Ok, Ranged Normal Attack."
"Cool."

Naming conventions without SFX are, IMO, inherently superior.

[The Monster]

Speaking as someone who really prefers to play heroic over superheroic, I've got to say that I do celebrate the superhero roots - in fact, that's the first Hero thing I ever played. One of the things that impressed me about Hero even then was the ability of the system to do just about anything, and have ti work well and consistently. I realized quickly that a good superhero system, if properly built, should be able to bring everything else without a problem - guns, swords, magic, big and small characters, FTL travel, etc. etc. So a good supers system, to me, should also be a good everything else system.

So I'm a heroic-preference player who really wants to see the superherics work well! Just remember that to me, "working well" includes enough granularity that the normals and heroics work well also!

[Chris Goodwin]

And we can turn it into this:
"I want to throw rocks at people."
"You want a Ranged Attack, are they lethal or just hurt?"
"They just hurt, yeah, just like normal rocks."
"Ok, Ranged Normal Attack."
"Cool."

Naming conventions without SFX are, IMO, inherently superior.

How about:

Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing)
Hand-to-hand Attack (Normal)

Ranged Attack (Killing)
Ranged Attack (Normal)

Bonus: Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing) has the acronym HAK!

[Mesa Virga]

To be honest, in the previous example I'd like to lose "normal" and instead use "stunning" along with "lethal" or "killing".

What the heck is "normal"? These powers should do what it says on the tin.

[Susano]

How about:

Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing)
Hand-to-hand Attack (Normal)

Ranged Attack (Killing)
Ranged Attack (Normal)

Bonus: Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing) has the acronym HAK!

I HAK the Darkness!

[ghost-angel]

How about:

Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing)
Hand-to-hand Attack (Normal)

Ranged Attack (Killing)
Ranged Attack (Normal)

Bonus: Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing) has the acronym HAK!

That's good.

The advantage to one is you have Killing Attacks and Normal Attacks listed together. The advantage to the other is you have Hand-To-Hand and then Ranged Attacks listed together.

Either way, you've unified the descriptions and you tell people exactly which one models what effects.

[rjcurrie]

How about:

Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing)
Hand-to-hand Attack (Normal)

Ranged Attack (Killing)
Ranged Attack (Normal)

Bonus: Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing) has the acronym HAK!

Perhaps

Hand-to-hand Attack
Hand-to-hand Attack (Killing)

Ranged Attack
Ranged Attack (Killing)

if people don't like the term "normal" in there.