Universality

[Markdoc]

My issue is that the current scaling in the system (a universal scale that was born for supers) means that you have a very narrow range to create heroic characters. I want more range. I can do that myself, and I have, but it does require me to hack the system to do it.

Yeah, I run heroic games mostly and I can see the point - but personally, I wouldn't trade universality for a more granular scale at the heroic end.

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

I think that's less an argument against universality and more an argument against the current design philosophy on vehicles. I figured this out a while ago when I looked over the Star HERO/Terran Empire starships and realized they couldn't damage each other. On the other hand, even Galactic Champions heroes can't get through their fields either, which depending on genre is also not accurate.

JG

Actually.. I built a spreadsheet that tracks damage in the Terran Empire setting.

They can very much damage each other. It does take 3-5 hits to break down the Ablative layers however. One thing to keep in mind is that all TE ships weapons have Armor Piercing on them and that 2 layers of TE Defenses are ablative. For most of the ships the Ablative FF will drop with a single Autofire Volley that hits with 3+ shots doing average or just over average damage.

I've run several dozen simulations. They are specifically designed to last several "broadsides" before you cause damage. There are no one-shot kills in Terran Empire.

I have not attempted to have a Galatic Champion face off against a Terran Empire ship.

[James Gillen]

My issue is that the current scaling in the system (a universal scale that was born for supers) means that you have a very narrow range to create heroic characters. I want more range. I can do that myself, and I have, but it does require me to hack the system to do it.

I find it a LOT easier to make heroics in HERO than in DC HEROES, and a lot easier to make supers in HERO than in GURPS.

jg

[James Gillen]

Actually.. I built a spreadsheet that tracks damage in the Terran Empire setting.

They can very much damage each other. It does take 3-5 hits to break down the Ablative layers however. One thing to keep in mind is that all TE ships weapons have Armor Piercing on them and that 2 layers of TE Defenses are ablative. For most of the ships the Ablative FF will drop with a single Autofire Volley that hits with 3+ shots doing average or just over average damage.

I've run several dozen simulations. They are specifically designed to last several "broadsides" before you cause damage. There are no one-shot kills in Terran Empire.

I have not attempted to have a Galatic Champion face off against a Terran Empire ship.

Well, yeah, the Ablative makes some difference, and I think is designed to simulate the Star Trek-style deflector shield. Of course the Ablative DEF includes some Armor/DEF, which technically violates rules in that all the Ablative defenses have to stack 'above' the regular DEF, so there's hull armor that will blow off before the (non-Ablative) Force Field is penetrated. I'd probably rewrite them with the hull DEF added to Force Field then make the entire FF Ablative.

A combat simulator/examples wouldn't hurt either.

JG

[Warp9]

See, you run into problems with supers in the source material being able to shred tanks and bounce tank gun shells, and those same tanks in a military setting either being unable to harm each other with their guns or being made of tinfoil.

I'd prefer a few optional damage/lethality rules, which can be put in one place, rather than having to deal with a number of different write ups for each and every gun.

[Warp9]

My issue is that the current scaling in the system (a universal scale that was born for supers) means that you have a very narrow range to create heroic characters. I want more range. I can do that myself, and I have, but it does require me to hack the system to do it.

I'm curious about how wide a range you want for heroic characters.

What do you think would be good?

[Vondy]

I'm curious about how wide a range you want for heroic characters.

What do you think would be good?

When I've done this in the past (by slapping on a new strength table) I ran primary characteristics to 30. The main issue, however, is this: heroic characters with the traditional range will have characteristic rolls of 11, 12, or 13. That is also the range of their skill rolls before points are dumped in. That's not very... granular. I would also like to see skills with more base range, but that's harder to deal with without breaking the system. This isn't a problem in superheroic or many cinematic genres, but in heroic genres, where characters are effectively defined by their skills and talents (and maybe one schtick stat) it becomes more readily apparent. Its not a deal breaker (and I've dealt with it in various ways over the years), but it is a drawback for the kinds of games I run.

[nexus]

Ideally (my ideal not everyone’s) is that Hero would be a like a sculptor’s block. You develop an idea for a setting or game, take Hero System and chip away everything that isn’t your idea and viola! Physically, I can understand this isn’t feasible. The book would be huge and send people screaming into the night.

I’d like to see it move as close to this goal as possible though, with more options than arbitrary limitations, more add-ons and modularity than restrictions. I might be an oddity but I run more home brew settings than published ones and, unlike some of others gamers, I don’t want to learn a totally new system every time I want to switch genres or settings. That’s why I came to and stick with Hero System. Basically, IME, with most generic systems (D20, GURPS, to a lesser extent BESM) you end up more adapting your setting to them instead of adapting them to the setting or if you do adapt the system (such in the case of Mutant and Masterminds) you end up basically redesigning the game from the ground up. I used (and still do to some extent) enjoy doing that but I don’t have the time anymore.

Right now, 5th edition (baring some places) is a pretty good fit for my style. I hope 6th moves more in that direction. Variable scaling (however it's implemented) would be go a good way in that direction as would increased granularity, particularly at the low end. I DON'T want to see Hero System divorced from its Superhero/comic roots and I think its' one of the genres it does best. I would like to see it's muscle made more applicable to other genres as well.

[Warp9]

When I've done this in the past (by slapping on a new strength table) I ran primary characteristics to 30. The main issue, however, is this: heroic characters with the traditional range will have characteristic rolls of 11, 12, or 13. That is also the range of their skill rolls before points are dumped in. That's not very... granular. I would also like to see skills with more base range, but that's harder to deal with without breaking the system. This isn't a problem in superheroic or many cinematic genres, but in heroic genres, where characters are effectively defined by their skills and talents (and maybe one schtick stat) it becomes more readily apparent. Its not a deal breaker (and I've dealt with it in various ways over the years), but it is a drawback for the kinds of games I run.

I agree with you about the cha rolls.

There are multiple ways to handle that matter. Of course, you could change the scale (and BTW, I wouldn't mind going to something where each doubling was based on +10 rather than +5, such a modification would put human max STR at 30) , but there are other ways the problem can be dealt with too.

For example, GURPS 3rd edition uses a stat set up based on 10, with normal human max at 20. However, you almost never see any characters with stats near to 20 (at least not in lower power games), in most heroic games, a very good DEX would be 15.

GURPS tends to have a lower stat range than Hero, but it avoids the problems you mention because it does not base rolls on 9 + stat / 5

Instead GURPS rolls are just based on the stat with no modifications. . . .

In GURPS, if you have an 8 DEX your DEX roll is 8-
In GURPS, if you have an 12 DEX your DEX roll is 12-
In GURPS, if you have an 15 DEX your DEX roll is 15-

I've never been a big fan of randomness, and I wouldn't mind seeing Hero move in a direction where each point makes a difference.

[Teflon Billy]

I agree with you about the cha rolls.

There are multiple ways to handle that matter. Of course, you could change the scale (and BTW, I wouldn't mind going to something where each doubling was based on +10 rather than +5, such a modification would put human max STR at 30) , but there are other ways the problem can be dealt with too.

For example, GURPS 3rd edition uses a stat set up based on 10, with normal human max at 20. However, you almost never see any characters with stats near to 20 (at least not in lower power games), in most heroic games, a very good DEX would be 15.

GURPS tends to have a lower stat range than Hero, but it avoids the problems you mention because it does not base rolls on 9 + stat / 5

Instead GURPS rolls are just based on the stat with no modifications. . . .

In GURPS, if you have an 8 DEX your DEX roll is 8-
In GURPS, if you have an 12 DEX your DEX roll is 12-
In GURPS, if you have an 15 DEX your DEX roll is 15-

I've never been a big fan of randomness, and I wouldn't mind seeing Hero move in a direction where each point makes a difference.

Except human max for the Hero system already is 30 for physical stats (and 50 for non-physicals, though I've never seen this level used for mundane humans), it's right there in the front of the Characteristics section.

My objection to granularity is completely focused on Skills, there is just not enough play in the numbers for Char based skills, Characters already start at 11- at the worst and likely 12-, if not 13-. Going beyond 15- and you start getting into the ridiculous "why bother rolling, you're going to succeed if you don't botch" or "pile on more and more penalties just to make the die roll mean something."

Which is why, only with regards to skill rolls, I wish hero used 3d10 and just left all published character's skill ratings (11-, CSLs, etc...) as is. Yes, it'd make most published characters a whole heck of a lot less competent, it'd force players to sink a lot more points into Skills or SLs etc..., but it'd make those Skill rolls more varied.

TB

[Vondy]

Except human max for the Hero system already is 30 for physical stats (and 50 for non-physicals, though I've never seen this level used for mundane humans), it's right there in the front of the Characteristics section.

You are missing part of the equation: the strength chart is a literal measure with lift ratios tailored to the superheroic genre. Lets say I'm running a gritty medieval fantasy game and I want a character with a 30 strength (the defined human maxima). He's not supposed to be beowulf or hurcules (who are superheroic in essence), but I want more range for this nasty, brutish, and short little genre I'm running. Go look at the strength chart and tell me I don't have a problem. I mean, its right there in the characteristics section, right?

(I'm sorry, when someone is snarky and implies the answer is obvious and proceeds to propose the problem is the solution in the process I get an urge to snark back).

This is why, above, I mentioned wanting the ability to rescale the system to different genres and proposed using a different strength chart for heroic level games. The other stats run to 30/50 as well, but they are completely abstract. I can define a 30/50 as anything I want for my genre. I can't do that with strength. Its literal and set in stone. I hit strength 22-23 and suspension of disbeleif goes on a bender and my genre breaks. I have to change the strength chart or settle for a smaller range and almost no variation in strength rolls to make it work.

This scale issue plays out with "universal builds" of various things that are theoretically cross-genre, but clearly work better for some than others, but that's much easier to deal with. Its just work, not system-editing. I think the ability to be universal is a good thing. Forcing every genre onto a universal scale, however, not so good.

[Steve Long]

To the extent there was any reason to start a separate thread on the issue of universality, this thread has clearly veered into subjects that should be posted on established threads. Please keep Characteristics-related issues in the Characteristics thread; if you have something to say about "universality," General Issues will do fine. Thank you for your input.