Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I did a quick search to see if this had been discussed before, but didn't find anything (my search-fu may be weak today)

 

I'm currently running a game with a table full of folks who have little or no Hero System experience, which has caused me to look at the rules a little bit different;y myself.  I've been toying with an idea to flip the number for dice rolls as a way to possibly make things easier (for some reason, subtractions slows people down more than addition).

 

What to change when creating a character

 

After character creation, add 11 to DCV and MDCV.  Subtract 11 from all Skill Rolls, Stat Rolls, PER Rolls, etc to get the new Skill Value.

 

What's different in game play

 

When making Skills checks and smilier actions, roll 3d6 and add skill value.  11 is the target for a base success (modify target up or down to reflect difficulty modifier)

 

For combat rolls, roll 3d6 and OCV (or MOCV).  If it exceeds the target's DCV or MDCV, you hit.

 

 

Thoughts?  Better for newbies? Worse?  Potential problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have any dice rolling RPG experience, I honestly would simply say, "Roll low to hit or perform a skill... roll high for damage!" and leave it at that. Let them ask about the rule and get an explanation if they want, but usually I can just glance at the roll and tell whether they hit or not/make the skill check or not... and in fact in engenders a "close enough" kind of deal that makes the game go faster. I did this for folks who were basically newbies to RPGs as well as some just new to Hero... those who cared about the rules, we had side converations, those that didn't, it didn't matter.

 

Now, this was a group who basically described the kinds of characters they wanted, based on the world concept, and I built the characters for them. I find most "newbies" are happy with this, and honestly, if you take the "I wanna make my own character and force 'em into your game" mentality out of it, and build the characters specifically for the game, it gets much better all around, anyway.

 

Just my experience, but those that care to know about the rules will easily figure out the quirks of Hero die rolls... those that don't, won't, and happier for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find it much a problem for skills.  It always seems to be the to hit rolls that slow things down even though they probably do that more.  I try to teach the roll 11+ OCV -3d6 method but that seldom helps.  As noted, something about subtraction causes a problems in people minds.

 

If they are used to games like D&D and Pathfinder, you might switch from a 3d6 to a 1d20.  Damage doesn't seem to be as problematic.  11+DCV  as AC is easier to those who first game is a d20.  OCV becomes their bonus to hit.  For skills, you set a difficulty level of 11 + modifiers.  They roll 1d20 + CHA/5 + levels in skills.  Its not exactly the same.  First, the 1d20 removes the bell curve a 3d6 roll has.  Second, the slightly higher CVs/skill levels don't amount to as much in a d20 usage because the bell curve is gone.  A 3d6 game a +2 can mean slightly over a 20% bonus when the odds are near 50% while using a d20 its always 10% no matter what the odds.  (Note: I believe this was mentioned in 5e in one of the appendices.)

 

I've always wanted to try the d20 approach, but most of the players I know are fairly fluent in HERO so would rather play with the 3d6.  If you do go the d20 route, let me know how it goes either through private mail or this thread.  In either case, good luck with the game and players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would strongly advise against using a house rule like that, because you are actually doing your players a disservice.  What happens when if they end up playing in another campaign run by someone else?   By changing things around you are making any future gaming they do more difficult.

 

A better way to handle the subtraction is to subtract the targets DCV from your OCV and add that to 11.  For example if the player has an OCV of 5 and the target has an 8 DCV, subtract 8 from 5 to get -3.  Then add -3 to 11 to get a 8 or less.  Where most people seem to have problems is when dealing with large numbers.  Since a lot of times the values for OCV and DCV are not that far off using this method avoids having to work with large number.  11+12-10 will confuse people more than 11+2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has definitely been discussed before.

Switching the system round to 3d6+ "skill"+"factors" vs "target number" is probabilisticly identical*, and (YMMV) can end up being more elegant. 

Ultimately it's an example of path dependence.

I cannot imagine anyone would suggest the current system if HERO were to be designed now, any more than anyone would believe a QWERTY keyboard was the optimal layout.

But due to backwards compatibility and transferable skills between games it ain't going to change officially, though there are several examples of groups that use systems similar to what you advise.

 

*3d6 vs 1d20 actually changes the probability curve - makes skill levels less important etc etc. So, this is a bigger change than the original suggestion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, PS - looking at your suggestion, it appears that if you have a skill of 14- that would translate to a +3. If you use 11 as the target that means you would need to roll an 8 on 3d6.

To get the same odds of success as rolling a 14 or less on 3d6, you would need to roll a 7 or more.

To get the same probability you should subtract 11 and have a target number of 10. Or subtract 10 and have a target number of 11 :-)

 

Hero defaults to an 11- being a success  (this is the skill level of someone with a stat of 10, or the target number when OCV and DCV are equal).

That is a bit above 50%, your model means people will tend to fail at skills and attacks a bit more frequently.

Apologies for geekiness, but that's why we're here, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grrr, I worry I have been insufficiently clear. Here is the system that we have used in the past:

 

Skills: You buy skills at (STAT/5) -2 [or just subtract 11 from standard stat blocks]. So, 11- = 0, DEX 18 gives Acrobatics +2.

Skill levels just add as you would expect.

We don't use Familiarity - if you don't have the skill but you can persuade the GM that your background deserves it you can always roll at -3.

Target number is usually 10. Easy might be 7-9. Tricky 11-13 Hard 14-16 Very Hard 17-19 Impossible 20+

This gives the same chance of success as the standard roll  up to and including the -10 modifier (target numbers getting higher as it gets more difficult, in the same way that penalties on standard rolls get higher)

[Acrobatics+2 would mean you need to roll an 8 or higher to succeed on a normal challenge, exactly the same chance as rolling a 13 or less; or need to roll an 18 on an impossible task, exactly the same as rolling a 13- at -10 to the roll]

 

Opposed skills (say Stealth vs PER) either both roll, add skill level and highest wins, or use a target number of defenders skill level +10

 

Combat: Roll OCV+3d6, target number is DCV+10.

 

So, absolutely no change in maths or chances of success, it just seems more elegant (IMveryHO, YMMalmostcertainlyV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, doccowie said:

 

 

Combat: Roll OCV+3d6, target number is DCV+10.

 

So, absolutely no change in maths or chances of success, it just seems more elegant (IMveryHO, YMMalmostcertainlyV)

Just a question about implementation of this and making it "more elegant" in some ways.

 

Is there any reason (I can't see one) where with this system, you just automatically make every DCV score just 10+ whatever you paid for? Just have DCV flat out 10 points higher than normal... so when you say, "Ok, I'll hit a DCV 18..." everyone has a DCV like that already written on their sheets.   Normal Man doesn't have a 3 DCV... he has a 13 DCV. Bouncey Spider doesn't have a 10 DCV... he has a 20 DCV. 

 

Basically take that calculation out of the combat roll, and put it during character construction. You could even program Hero Designer to list DCV that way, right?

 

Anyway, just wondering if I'm missing anything on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, of course you could do that!

It's just that when you calculate DCV or see it in previous supplements you will be adding 10 every time, it just seemed easier to us to clarify we'd be adding ten every time.  

On the other, that's us being path dependent again, we were using lots of previous stat blocks. And you're right, when we asked what DCV was we used to say either "6+10" or "16".

So actually writing 16 on the sheet makes sense :- )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:48 PM, RDU Neil said:

Just a question about implementation of this and making it "more elegant" in some ways.

 

Is there any reason (I can't see one) where with this system, you just automatically make every DCV score just 10+ whatever you paid for? Just have DCV flat out 10 points higher than normal... so when you say, "Ok, I'll hit a DCV 18..." everyone has a DCV like that already written on their sheets.   Normal Man doesn't have a 3 DCV... he has a 13 DCV. Bouncey Spider doesn't have a 10 DCV... he has a 20 DCV. 

 

Basically take that calculation out of the combat roll, and put it during character construction. You could even program Hero Designer to list DCV that way, right?

 

Anyway, just wondering if I'm missing anything on that.

 

I see a reason not to do that.

 

Sometimes, characters are at "half DCV."

 

Your proposal makes that a much bigger disadvantage than it would otherwise.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks half DCV is bad enough already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucius said:

 

I see a reason not to do that.

 

Sometimes, characters are at "half DCV."

 

Your proposal makes that a much bigger disadvantage than it would otherwise.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks half DCV is bad enough already

 

Good point. Any we did start to play around with this (have a slightly newer player in the group now) but it was nearly impossible for me to remember the new way... the standard "roll low to hit" is so ingrained, it was WAY more work to try and change it... and wasn't all that less confusing for the new person. I'm probably just too old to stop looking at "to hit" rolls and wanting low numbers at this point.

 

Edit: And your point goes to show that any attempts to get away from "roll low" don't really "simplify" the mechanics at all, since now you have all the subtle changes and exceptions you need to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll High makes much more sense for most new players.  It seems far more intuitive.

 

So combat would be OCV+Dice roll against a target of DCV + 10.

 

Skills would be Char/5 + Dice roll against a target of Difficulty + 10  (Difficulty is typically 0, but may be higher or lower in some situations: where there is an opposed roll, the Difficulty will be Char/5 of the opponent).

 

Obviously skills add as normal to OCV or Char/5.  Same odds as the other way round, way simpler to explain and understand.

 

This deals with halving DCV and such because you halve DCV before you add the 10.  Everyone can add 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×