7th Edition thoughts

[Tasha]

I thought Cryptic bought it and HeroDOJ has the license for the PnP?

Yes, but I seem to remember that Cryptic(now Perfect World) has veto rights over anything that Hero produces for the Champions IP.

 

Also what do you expect Hero to call this new Universe? Cryptic owns the rights to "Champions".

 

I think what people want to see is a Superhero campaign that feels like more than an afterthought.

[Baalbamoth]

Ok, I just cant take it anymore. 

 

People talk about "modern game design" I'm not sure what in the heck that means. If I'm looking at "current popular game design" that means FATE and disassociated mechanics, player narrative control, bennys/fate/action points, and a bunch of other stuff (dumbed down creation mechanics and resolution systems) that I feel actually kills the immersion you get from a nice crunchy simulationist RPG. 

 

Does that mean "I dont like it so nobody should have the option" no, but dammit Hero System is one of the last bastions of crunch RPG. If you want popular storytelling game design (I don't really consider storytelling games RPGs) then by all means, go play one of those but please don't try to get HGS to become a storytelling game. I personally don't feel action points (or other dissassociatve mechanics) have any purpose being in a simulationist game.

 

I don't care how popular M&M is, or how much a new FATE based system is making in sales, or what other systems you think might be kicking champions's ass. HGS is as far as I am concerned is as near to perfect as a simulationist game can ever get and I don't see any reason to change that.

 

I'll admit, when I take new school players and introduce them to champs, most of their eyes gloss over and they cant wait to get away from numbers and back to 15 minute "no imagination required" character design, but then there's always one or two guys in a group that suddenly fall head over heels in love with ultra crunchy. Mostly because, I think, all that they've ever seen before is lite or lazy game design. I make a group of those more rare people and they absolutely love HGS. Is it really that bad to be different than the common place?  

 

and yeah I guess I'm a hardcore grognard, but can't I, the rest of the grogs, and the bored new school gamers just have one game system that does not cater to the dumbed down "math and complex rules are bad" new school of game design? Does the goal of every game on the market really have to be "MOAR NOOBS! MOAR SUPS! MOAR MONIES!" 

 

Really?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Ok, I just cant take it anymore. 

 

People talk about "modern game design" I'm not sure what in the heck that means. If I'm looking at "current popular game design" that means FATE and disassociated mechanics, player narrative control, bennys/fate/action points, and a bunch of other stuff (dumbed down creation mechanics and resolution systems) that I feel actually kills the immersion you get from a nice crunchy simulationist RPG. 

 

Does that mean "I dont like it so nobody should have the option" no, but dammit Hero System is one of the last bastions of crunch RPG. If you want popular storytelling game design (I don't really consider storytelling games RPGs) then by all means, go play one of those but please don't try to get HGS to become a storytelling game. I personally don't feel action points (or other dissassociatve mechanics) have any purpose being in a simulationist game.

 

I don't care how popular M&M is, or how much a new FATE based system is making in sales, or what other systems you think might be kicking champions's ass. HGS is as far as I am concerned is as near to perfect as a simulationist game can ever get and I don't see any reason to change that.

 

I'll admit, when I take new school players and introduce them to champs, most of their eyes gloss over and they cant wait to get away from numbers and back to 15 minute "no imagination required" character design, but then there's always one or two guys in a group that suddenly fall head over heels in love with ultra crunchy. Mostly because, I think, all that they've ever seen before is lite or lazy game design. I make a group of those more rare people and they absolutely love HGS. Is it really that bad to be different than the common place?  

 

and yeah I guess I'm a hardcore grognard, but can't I, the rest of the grogs, and the bored new school gamers just have one game system that does not cater to the dumbed down "math and complex rules are bad" new school of game design? Does the goal of every game on the market really have to be "MOAR NOOBS! MOAR SUPS! MOAR MONIES!" 

 

Really?

[Teflon Billy]

This would be a radical departure (obviously) but:

 

Move to a 3d12 mechanic to open up more granularity in the system at the low end.

 

At the street level, or lower (normal or barely competent normal) I feel that there are too few points and the granularity is too course (you're really only working with 6-12 point spread on characteristics.)

 

Using d12s because the A. roll nicely, and B. Are divisible by 6 so converting old stats/penalties/etc... would be fairly simple (double it)

 

TB

[mhd]

And what do you do about damage rolls? People don't really have 10d12 at home (nor do you want to wait until they all stop rolling). Although I did recently encounter a d12 dice pool system...

 

GURPS does well enough with a 3d6 core resolution mechanic, and the various d20-based games aren't much more granular. It's not just the die size, it's what you do with it. The problem you'll get with some HERO variations is that you reach the peak pretty easily, where additional points are just there to offset further penalties and make really impressive actions doable. Easily enough to fix without changing the system at all. For combat, just really limit OCV/DCV, and the CSLs start to matter more. For skills, either change the skill base/adds or just set the difficulties higher.

 

The real granularity issue isn't the core resolution mechanism, but damage. And that's hard to really fix, as its a symptom of the range of a generic system. You'll have to make your sacrifices somewhere. In HERO's case, you'll still have a manageable number of dice for superheroes, but that puts every fantasy weapon into a very narrow range. Compare that with GURPS, where you get a wide range of mundane weaponry (esp. combined with damage types), but in the Marvel/DC spectrum you'd have to cope with triple digit defenses and 6dx30 damage rolls.

[Tom2405]

Also a problem to keep in mind with dices is the adding together part. 

As strange as it is adding 3d6 together is no hassle for anybody and is fast, but if you take 3d10 instead ppl take way longer already and with 3d12+ it only gets worse.

(no clue WHY that is so, but I have seen it a few times in the past with different groups. If you have a success based system D10s are nice but if you add dice results together d6- are what ppl

are fastest with and the difference between d6- and d8+ is quite huge  [more than between d5 and d6 by quite a margin). Thus ppl are slower there and also need more concentration which

normally reduces the fun they have with playing.

 

Like I said at least my impression so far testing a f ew systems with different groups. 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

On another note should we have 2 threads maybe? From what I see we have quite a bit of system discussion AND in addition to that a separate background worlds/settings discussion maybe better to split those two discussions up so that it is better readable?

[NuSoardGraphite]

This would be a radical departure (obviously) but:

 

Move to a 3d12 mechanic to open up more granularity in the system at the low end.

 

At the street level, or lower (normal or barely competent normal) I feel that there are too few points and the granularity is too course (you're really only working with 6-12 point spread on characteristics.)

 

Using d12s because the A. roll nicely, and B. Are divisible by 6 so converting old stats/penalties/etc... would be fairly simple (double it)

 

TB

The granularity in hero is fine. the bell curve is perfect. i love the fact that +1 to a skill roll means something in this system.

[Stacie.Winters]

I think if Hero System was split into two rules sets... one for your Heroic level settings and the other for your Superheroic level settings and within each of these rules sets than the rules could be really customized for them it could maybe work. Then again, just having the rules be setting specific would probably work even better.

 

I also think that this game could be simplified and keep all it's crunchy charm while doing a facelift and appearing to be a much more fun game... and no matter what we have 6 editions of this game and nobody will ever say you can't play any of them nor deny you your crunch.

 

I'll only mention the skills section right now and this is part of what I feel is a problem with the game... in that the skills in this game are not cohesive and not all of them use the same system.

~ We have normal skills (and even here they are split into different categories with different point costs), which require skill rolls and are linked to a characteristic.

~ We have combat skill levels skills, which do not have skill rolls and are not really linked to any primary characteristic, but they might modify them or something else related to combat or give you martial art maneuvers or might give you versatility in combat that mimics a very miniscule VPP.

~ We have skill levels skills which kinda do the same thing for skills that combat skill levels do for combat ratings and these are more like mini-powers in and of themselves than they are actual skills.

~ We have skills that just give you a Knowledge and have no skill rolls.

~ We have skills that have such narrow and esoteric uses that they might as well not even exist, or would make for better Talents.

 

This was probably how a lot of games might have been made back in the 80s and 90s (I honestly don't know), but now it's just way to cumbersome. All skills in a game, to me at least, should all follow the same mechanisms. If it's not a normal skill that requires a die roll than it should be put somewhere else, or put into its own category. That's what I mean by 'modern game design' in that all the mechanisms within the structure/category/label of definition as regards to what they are should follow the same game mechanism. All these different skills in this game do not do that.

 

Also, a great many of those skills could be combined into one skill, yet keeping all the options for them available. Instead of having Shadowing and Tracking as two separate skills, you can just have a Tracking Skill that allows a person to do both. Skills like Cramming, Lip Reading, Ventriloquism, and so on are definitely more like Talents in that you can either do them, or you can't, and if people absolutely must have these as skills then they can make them up for their own campaign and the GM section should obviously have really good advice on creating your own skills and how to do that in ways where it would make sense, and guidelines for different genres.

[Balabanto]

By this standard being a min-maxing, argumentative, rules-lawyer is fine for what you yourself call a "social activity", but a mutually agreed upon mechanic which can add resource management as an extra dimension of strategy and which is currently popular and used in literally dozens of systems is not.  Yeah, that's totally objective and makes perfect sense.  All games (or gamers) that use any type of resource points are obviously having badwrongfun and the GM is supposed try to "win". 

 

You're confusing knowing the rules and knowing how to use them without being a minmaxing powergamer, with a single specific mechanic. Most often, what I find is that people who use heroic action points frequently don't actually know the rules as well as people who don't. There's usually simple ways to get the same results as long as you keep your wits about you and don't screw up. In games where I have to put up with Heroic Action Points, I never use them for raw combat, damage dealing, etc. If I'm playing a superhero game, that's where I spend them to save innocents, hold up collapsing buildings, and the like. Most often, what I find is that there is no strategy to heroic action points. People alpha strike everything and the right of way goes to whoever didn't get to negatives on phase 12.

 

The problem is you're looking at this backwards, Bigby. People have forgotten that in the superhero genre, usually, unless you're playing a gritty iron age game, that it's okay to lose! It's not about the GM trying to win. The GM just puts a situation in front of the players and throws out a challenge. He then plays the villains according to their intelligence scores and their complications. But if the PC's DO lose, players have to get over the fact that in Champions, most of the time, losing isn't permanent. Heroic action points are typically used by most groups as the most severe form of D+Dism you can possibly imagine. I've never been in a game where they were actually necessary. There were always other solutions that didn't necessarily have the same result, but still solved whatever problem was on the table. That's why I say that they promote bad sportsmanship. People have upped the stakes, as a society, so much over winning that we actively treat losing as super-negative, rather than simply a consequence. Into that culture, somewhere around the development of the Eberron campaign setting, came action points/heroic action points, etc.

 

The GM has to be a good sport, too, Bigby. Or the concept of sportsmanship doesn't function.

[Ndreare]

I completely disagree with you. The argument you are presently feels very emotionally charged likely related to some bad experiences.

 

Our groups experience with these meta mechanics has been very well and we have incorporated them into every game.

 

The players still lose, their characters get captured and they still win. It is simply another resource that we feel allows the players more narrative control and occasionally the ability to reroll a critical failure.

[Greywind]

Critical failures can define characters by how they come back from them.

[bigbywolfe]

You're confusing knowing the rules and knowing how to use them without being a minmaxing powergamer, with a single specific mechanic. Most often, what I find is that people who use heroic action points frequently don't actually know the rules as well as people who don't. There's usually simple ways to get the same results as long as you keep your wits about you and don't screw up. In games where I have to put up with Heroic Action Points, I never use them for raw combat, damage dealing, etc. If I'm playing a superhero game, that's where I spend them to save innocents, hold up collapsing buildings, and the like. Most often, what I find is that there is no strategy to heroic action points. People alpha strike everything and the right of way goes to whoever didn't get to negatives on phase 12.

 

The problem is you're looking at this backwards, Bigby. People have forgotten that in the superhero genre, usually, unless you're playing a gritty iron age game, that it's okay to lose! It's not about the GM trying to win. The GM just puts a situation in front of the players and throws out a challenge. He then plays the villains according to their intelligence scores and their complications. But if the PC's DO lose, players have to get over the fact that in Champions, most of the time, losing isn't permanent. Heroic action points are typically used by most groups as the most severe form of D+Dism you can possibly imagine. I've never been in a game where they were actually necessary. There were always other solutions that didn't necessarily have the same result, but still solved whatever problem was on the table. That's why I say that they promote bad sportsmanship. People have upped the stakes, as a society, so much over winning that we actively treat losing as super-negative, rather than simply a consequence. Into that culture, somewhere around the development of the Eberron campaign setting, came action points/heroic action points, etc.

 

The GM has to be a good sport, too, Bigby. Or the concept of sportsmanship doesn't function.

The problem is, Balabanto, you think Hero is only good for supers and think that your opinion is "right", even when dealing with issues of preference. 

 

While I've only played one Hero game with HAPs, is was not at all like you say "most" groups are.  I doubt most groups are remotely like you claim, but I would love to be given evidence to the contrary.  I have played a ton of Cinematic Unisystem, Savage Worlds, and Fate (not my favorite), all of which have resource points of some sort (Drama Points, Bennies, Fate Points) and they have always been used strategically.  They add a level of strategy in the form of resource management.  

 

I think the biggest issue is that you are looking at this backwards.  HAPs are optional.  Arguing they shouldn't be included because you don't like them is as ridiculous as arguing Hit Locations or Long Term Endurance  shouldn't be included because you only play supers and don't use it.  

 

Having said that, I am completely against the idea some have put forth of putting more focus on Heroic Action Points.  I like them just where they are, an option in the toolbox.  I think tying them to Complications is a terrible idea, but there are whole other threads discussing that.

 

EDIT: I have no problem "losing" in a game.  But usually when such wording is used it is by those who have an adversarial play style of GM versus Player, and when you compare an RPG to a sport that sounds like what you are endorsing.  

[Lucius]

Lip Reading, Ventriloquism, and so on are definitely more like Talents in that you can either do them, or you can't,

Unless someone changed them when I wasn't looking, Lip Reading and Ventriloquism are bought like any other Skill and work like any other Skill. I have no idea what you mean by "you can either do them, or you can't."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Unless someone changed it while I wasn't looking, this is a palindromedary tagline like many other palindromedary taglines.

[Tom2405]

Unless someone changed them when I wasn't looking, Lip Reading and Ventriloquism are bought like any other Skill and work like any other Skill. I have no idea what you mean by "you can either do them, or you can't."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Unless someone chanted it while I wasn't looking, this is a palindromedary tagline like many other palindromedary taglines.

Probably Stacie meant that without a lvl in lip reading you are unable to do so at all. While without a lvl in acrobatics you are still able to do a bit (although with everymanskills involved acrobatics is clear that its possible anyway, but other things like research could be defaulted to a characteristic only roll if no skill level given. I myself would not allow a nonskilled lipreader to make any roll on lip reading though so my guess Stacie means that there) 

[Stacie.Winters]

I guess with some of those skills... I just see them as so obscure and so very very specific... that they would probably just be better off as a Talent that a person can do. This game has skills that I've never seen in other rpgs before and I've read a ton of rpgs over the years. I would never make a character in Hero that has those super obscure skills because they are just that obscure. It could just be me, but that's how they come across and I could be letting that have an affect on how I see certain parts of this game.

 

Sure in the grand sense they would technically be skills, but I'd never use them and I'd never call on them to be rolled in any game of Hero I'd run. To me Cramming is just an act of Intelligence and I'd roll it into that or make it a Talent that have a knack for, same for Lip Reading and Ventriloquism as far as making them Talents.

 

To me, they just seem like examples of things that certain people have that special knack for and the ability to do, or people can't do them but that's been my own observations. I hope this made sense.

[Greywind]

It does, to an extent, but look at this way, as a Skill and requiring a roll, there is always a chance that the character will flub it up under pressure.

 

I've seen Lip Reading used. In a game, in a movie, in a TV show. Same with ventriloquism. And Hero seeks to emulate cinematic.

[Tasha]

I guess with some of those skills... I just see them as so obscure and so very very specific... that they would probably just be better off as a Talent that a person can do. This game has skills that I've never seen in other rpgs before and I've read a ton of rpgs over the years. I would never make a character in Hero that has those super obscure skills because they are just that obscure. It could just be me, but that's how they come across and I could be letting that have an affect on how I see certain parts of this game.

 

Sure in the grand sense they would technically be skills, but I'd never use them and I'd never call on them to be rolled in any game of Hero I'd run. To me Cramming is just an act of Intelligence and I'd roll it into that or make it a Talent that have a knack for, same for Lip Reading and Ventriloquism as far as making them Talents.

 

To me, they just seem like examples of things that certain people have that special knack for and the ability to do, or people can't do them but that's been my own observations. I hope this made sense.

Cramming, Lip Reading and Ventroloquism used to BE Talents.  Somewhere along the line someone decided that those were skills that anyone could buy and not quasi-powers (which is what Talents currently are)

[Hyper-Man]

re: Talents

 

I've always viewed Talents as something that any character could take in a game barring a campaign level ruling of the GM.  Their use should follow the basic rules of schtick preservation (typically only 1 character in a group will have a particular Talent).  They should represent an ability a character was essentially born with.  If the ability is something that can be learned then it really shouldn't be a Talent. 

 

- Eidetic Memory is arguably on the cusp of being a Talent and a Skill as there are proven memory enhancing methods that can be learned.

- Deadly Blow is really a Skill but is built as a Power and defined as a Talent so it can be used in Heroic level games.  I personally never liked this design direction in HERO.

 

The category currently named Talents should be treated as Powers that anyone in a particular campaign world has access to.  Call them Exceptionalman abilities (in the same theme as Everyman Skills) They aren't Super, some are learned and some are innate but they are NOT a separate class of abilities from Skills and Powers. 

[Ndreare]

Critical failures can define characters by how they come back from them.

 

I would disagree semantically with this statement.

Yes, how a character reacts to their success and failure can define them.

No, success and failure itself should not define them.

 

Archon The Arch Mage, who accidentally shot an innocent bystander, that died from the hit may be changed. In trial he pleas guilty and serves his time forever being intimidated by his own power. So in the future they are more reserved and afraid to use their powers casually against a villain in a crowd or perhaps even retiring from hero work altogether.

 

Redeemer the Zealot, who accidentally shot an innocent bystander, that died from the hit may blame the villain. He avoids arrest as the fools in the government are too blinded to see the real threat that Dr. Tyrannosaur represented. Now he tries even hard to hunt down those selfish enough to use their power for personal gain.

 

Both character had a critical failure (and in my game received a HAP for it). But neither is defined by it. Instead they are defined by their reactions.

[Greywind]

You're putting the stress on the first half of the statement. My intention put the stress on the back half. "...how they come back from them."

[Balabanto]

I completely disagree with you. The argument you are presently feels very emotionally charged likely related to some bad experiences.

Our groups experience with these meta mechanics has been very well and we have incorporated them into every game.

The players still lose, their characters get captured and they still win. It is simply another resource that we feel allows the players more narrative control and occasionally the ability to reroll a critical failure.

I would argue that if you find something distasteful, that it is already a bad experience.

 

This might boil down to a different question. Why do you play role playing games? I play them to participate in the GM'S vision. That's what gives me the most fun. Narrative control is determined by the actions you take, not by the dice you roll.

 

Far too often, I see people use these to take actions that are genuinely foolish and/or disruptive to group play. They make me think things like "why did I come to the table?" Hero was never meant to be about one guy. It was meant to be about teams and teamwork.

 

Heroic action points encourage grandstanding and take away from group play in favor of individualism.

[Ndreare]

That simply has not been my experience when one of my players doors something awesome the others are happy with him.

[Balabanto]

My experience is that I want the team to do well. Doing something awesome should make you feel like part of the group, not like you took an awesome single action. For me, the best moments aren't when one guy does something amazing that defeats his or her personal archenemy. My best moments are always coordinated attacks and the like when the group does something that takes down a tough bad guy together.

[Tasha]

This might boil down to a different question. Why do you play role playing games? I play them to participate in the GM'S vision. That's what gives me the most fun. Narrative control is determined by the actions you take, not by the dice you roll.

 

Far too often, I see people use these to take actions that are genuinely foolish and/or disruptive to group play. They make me think things like "why did I come to the table?" Hero was never meant to be about one guy. It was meant to be about teams and teamwork.

 

Heroic action points encourage grandstanding and take away from group play in favor of individualism.

 

I don't just want to see the GM's vision. If I want to see just one person's vision, I would read a book and be less annoyed. I love when the players and GM mesh their vision of the game. It's that give and take which IMHO make the best Roleplaying experience. So Action Points allow the Players to take a more active role in the game's narrative. It potentially allows them to call out when certain NPC's, Objects, etc occurs. Sometimes it allows the Players to add something to the game to make something more difficult or to change something in a minor way to make the game even better. I am really sorry that you don't have good players who you can trust to help make your vision even better. I do and Action points are one tool they can use to make stuff more fun.

 

BTW just because YOU don't find a rule fun doesn't mean that it shouldn't appear in a version of the rules. Hero is chock full of optional rules that a gaming group can use to tailor a campaign to fit that group's playstyle better. It also allows adventurous groups to try new things to see what does and doesn't work for them. Action Points like Hit Location, Bleeding, Knockback and many other options rules belong in the Rules and they deserve good balanced rules for implementing them.

[Balabanto]

Yes, I understand that they are optional rules, but the new version, Champions Complete, doesn't list them as optional rules. Optional rules should always be separated out under a section titled "Optional Rules." Most new gamers tend to play the ball where it lies. Whatever's written in the book without a clear heading over it that says "Optional Rules", they use.

 

Plus, I have a secret reason for loathing things like Heroic Action Points and Damage Negation (Especially when more than one PC has damage negation). Hero System Combat takes a long, long time. It doesn't need to take longer.