Is Hero still your "go-to" rpg system?

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

😂 OK, that's hilarious. Are you sure you weren't a humor columnist in another life?

 

I am not entirely certain I could _read_ in another life else I would have learned about the possibility of reincarnation, and taken steps to prevent it. 

 

Unless, of course, my goal was to do better the second time around, and if I did manage to pull that off, then I am positively _jubilant_ that I can't remember the first go. 

 

Realistically, I think finding the lighter side habitually is just part and parcel of extreme extroversion, which I suffer from quite happily. 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

Glad to meet you.

 

Hail, and well-met, good fellow.   I neither wear a trilby nor confuse them with fedoras, so that's about as cringe as I am able to get; I hope you're not disappointed. 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

I'll try to remember your proclivities,

 

 

I shouldn't take the trouble, Sir, knowing what I know.  In fact, you can know what I know in just a few short moments:

 

It is neither terribly interesting nor exciting, and most of our discussions here are about a game we both play.   The only pertinent piece of information from that entire list that I would bother to remember is that of all the people on this board, I am the least likely to know anything about comic books or any particular superhero, save the Iron Man and Spiderman movies (all eight of the modern ones, and the ultra-cool made for TV ones from the seventies). 

 

Oh- I also know that the Thor that starred alongside Ferigno's Hulk in the 80s looked considerably less-cool than the one that starred in the Marvel movies. 

 

Oh, and thanks to the Traveller's Tales video games, I can recognize Lego Stan Lee from up to two feet away.  I feel that this counts for something. 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

I'll undoubtedly embarrass myself at least a few more times.

 

You want embarrassing?  You should see the look my wife gives me when I am scrolling down threads and come across your name.  Much like the inability not to moo at passing cows, I have to revive the 80s jingle from the tou commercials and sing out " Gee Emm Joooeee!" 

 

I have tried fighting it; my wife has tried avoidance therapy on my behalf (whereby she avoids noticing any attempt to get her attention for the next few hours), but thus far, I am completely unable to not do it. 

 

There.  Now we are even. 

 

 

Now I am even with _all_ of you, dammit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

Your view of Traveller sounds very similar to mine (I run mixes of the editions put out before Mega,

 

Dead on.  I really preferred Miller's meager stuff to DGP's stuff, and from Mega forward, it was pretty much all DGP. For what it's worth, even though I prefer the LBBs and vectored movement, The Traveller Book- also published in a traditional-at-that-tme three-booklets-and-a-map, all inside a box version as the "Beginner's Set-- seems to be a real sweet spot compromise of what I like and what my players like.  That is to say, it has struck perfect compromise, observable by how equal our "generally cool with it but still slightly disappointed" is spread amongst us. 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

I was part of the crew brought in to try to save T4 from the mess it initially was,

 

OH MY GOD, _SPILL_!  SPILL! 

 

Okay:  my Classic Traveller collection is far from complete, but I have only recently begun to re-collect what I chunked out years ago (that being 2300, Mega, and TNE, all of which I hated, but Fire, Fusion, and Steel was the single greatest accessory ever published for any RPG, ever, period, even though it was a DGP manuscript, and that irritates like an unsanded seam on a butt plug. (I assume.  At least, it sounds like it would irritate.)

 

I completely missed T4, and didn't even hear of T5 until it, too, was out of print.  I have yet to get my hands on either (it kills me that I don't have either of those, but I _do_ have T-20: the version I am least-likely to ever play.  Gurps Traveller was pretty good, and I am delighted that Wiseman undid the assassination, though I have only the core rules (which is all I am interested in from any of the newer versions- it's a matter. Both money and time left on earth; under the circumstances, that makes me happy enough). 

 

I have heard that T4 had problems, but I do not know what they were (yet) and I am dying to hear from anyone involved in any sort of Traveller project!  I don't care if it is a sentence, a PM, or an e-mail, asir; just _spill_! 

 

Oh, I also missed Mongoose Traveller, and from what I hear about it, all I had to do was add "and he died! " (/Nicholas Cage) back in and I would have loved it.  As it stands, I do own a hardback of the Crowded Hours adventures anthology, and three of the four are _amazing_; totally worth the four bucks plus shipping I spent on it.  :). 

 

I guess I could go the GURPS Traveller route: after creating your character, roll a single die.  If it comes up 6, throw the character away and make another one, " but it doesn't have that same 'press your luck' element of danger to it. 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

none of the post-Classic editions have been long-term favorites of mine).

 

I have hated the three I have read, but I suspect that was because of the hard push to make us choke on the DGP- developed house system GDW was moving toward.  (weirdly, it worked in both Twilight 2000 (though I didn't really like it) and Cadilacs and Dinosaurs (which presented a more polished, more fun-to-use version of it) but it just didn't capture that feeling of simplicity that somehow amplified the 'tiny speck in an endless universe' feeling that Miller's original barebones system brought forward. 

 

And of course, the "Kafers are just the bad guys; that's just how it works" that, because there will never be a better word, is overt permission to be racist.  That did't fly well with me _at all_.  Tell me _whi_ they are, like you do with all the other races, and not _what_ they are. 

 

 

But I think I can still see the topic from here; better head back towards it before I get completely turned around... 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 (long live the artifact system --

 

 

So many stories...  So many horrible, tragic, _hillarious_ stories.... 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

, I liked the Shadowrun flavor best,

 

More embarrassment:  fans of Shadow run talk about how awful the first edition was. 

 

It was the only edition I really liked.   even then, though, the fantasy trappings were not exactly to my taste.  If I want your chocolate in my peanut butter, I will arrange an innocent accident at an aerobics class involving two people making weird snack decisions during their workout; that you very much. 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

 

but R. Talsorian's game was fine too.

 

He absolutely nailed the 80s anesthetic for cyberpunk, I think., and that tends to be the way I like my cyberpunk. 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

(Yet somehow the "rocker" thing always made me cringe.)

Yeah, ditto.  Once you start thinking of it slang of the era, it gets better. 

 

Probably. 

 

One day. 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

Before that I'd only had a brief childhood fascination with reruns of the 1960s Batman show.

 

Really?   You'd think you would have picked up on that "priceless collection of ancient Etruscan snoods" thing a ways back up. 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 you could end up with the superpower of cutting lawns perfectly evenly and then die an hour after you got that power. C'est la vie!

 

It's be just my luck that my superpower would be "immortality, except for the side effect'

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 😅 (TSR's Marvel Super Heroes helped a lot when it came out in '84;

 

Oh yeah; those helped me develop a comic book feel more than anything else did, I think.  I cribbed so many plot twists and locations from them early on.... 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on okra. I ate a lot of fried okra growing up,

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

. (Fried green tomatoes, too --

 

 

 

It' a just elephants all the way down with you, isn't it? 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

But that's kinda the problem with modifying an existing system, as we all know. Even stuff that looks like a simple change will have unexpected effects down the line. 🤷‍♂️

 

 

Technically, I didn't modify it.  I threw it out completely. 

 

Well no; technically, I didn't do that, either.  I opted not to back port it into my games except for very rare occasions, and decided that Skill Levels-a thing that already existed and already did what skills do- were the way to go. 

 

As an ezample: PS Archery becomes +2 with bows. 

 

KS: Engineering becomes +2 to INT rolls for engineering problems. 

 

Two weapon fighting becomes +4 with off-hand weapon, not to exceed the off-hand penalty. 

 

Area Knowledge becomes +3 to INT rolls about area X. 

 

Skill levels already have costing and mechanics in place for 'everything' to 'large, related groups,' to 'small, closely-related groups' to 'this one thing and no other thing.' 

 

A quick house rule that Skill Leves as Skills can't be allocated to something else-such as CV or extra damage-and it has worked pretty well since 4e came out a few days ago.  Maybe some extensive okay testing will show me why it' s a bad idea. 

 

For Supers and pulp, build straight off the Characteristic roll.  For more 'normal' heroic games, start with 9+ instead of 11+, and for grim, ultra-realistic stuff, start with 7+ Char. 

 

For something screwy, consider averaging 2 or more characteristics and deriving you 'bonus' (the thing after the plus) from that instead of one single characteristic. 

 

It really solves the 'points auck' problem, and retains the option for broad or narrow skills (buy then as 'one single thing, small closely - related group, or large related group, so pricing is' in line' with utility for those to whom that bit matters. 

 

If you are concerned about what else they might spend their 150 points on, the don't give them 150 points.  If you are concerned about what they might spend their XP on, have a talk before hand and say 'look, I am going to try something with this campaign, but it involves reducing awarded XP along the way.  That may or may not change after we have tried it a bit, but for now, we are going to kind of ease into this. 

 

 

Most importantly, if you are concerned about either of those, you should admit that you have been using skills as a points suck all this time, and let go of that. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

This comes back to Duke's point, really.  How will those skills be used in-game?  

 

 

Thank you, Hugh. 

 

Thank you deeply. 

 

I was beginning to think I had wasted a lot of words not getting my point across:

 

The skills section works as-is if you are a Hero player from way back.  If you are new, and looking for some guidance, you aren't going to find it in the books. 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

@Spence, that was a more in depth explanation of 2d20 than I was expecting. I saw the John Carter books and they look lovely. Sadly I don’t think I could get any local gamers to play.

[Joe Walsh]

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

You want embarrassing?  You should see the look my wife gives me when I am scrolling down threads and come across your name.  Much like the inability not to moo at passing cows, I have to revive the 80s jingle from the tou commercials and sing out " Gee Emm Joooeee!" 

 

I have tried fighting it; my wife has tried avoidance therapy on my behalf (whereby she avoids noticing any attempt to get her attention for the next few hours), but thus far, I am completely unable to not do it. 

 

There.  Now we are even.

 

🤣

 

Sorry about that! I'd used "Ransom" for decades because Out of the Silent Planet was the first sci-fi novel I read. As a kid, though, I hadn't realized what the protagonist's name really meant. I kept using that because I was known by it even long after I belatedly realized the meaning, only changing it more recently. On RPG boards I went with GM Joe, since I'm usually the GM and also because I was a big fan of GI Joe as a kid (back when they were 12" 'action figures' who could plausibly make out with Barbie).

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

OH MY GOD, _SPILL_!  SPILL! 

 

I doubt many are interested in this, and it's definitely off-topic, so I'll spoiler-hide it:

Spoiler

When "Marc Miller's Traveller" (T4) was released at GenCon, I was one of the first in line, money in one hand and my wife Carole's hand in the other. I went through the little tests that T4 line editor Ken Whitman was running to estimate your UPP and got a dogtag with my UPP on it. Next up was shaking hands with Marc Miller and buying my copy of the core rules. Such a great experience!

 

But when I took a break from the show floor and started reading through the rules, not only had they changed the basic system, the presentation was a mess. Editing appeared to be nonexistent. More importantly, the rules clearly needed work.

 

At that time I was pretty active on the Traveller mailing lists (mostly X-Boat, being a CT fan) and in the UseNET newsgroups. And as all us fans went through T4 page by page people were pretty concerned. Angry? Yeah, some were. But mostly sad and disappointed.

 

At some point I decided to reach out to Ken Whitman to see what could be done. We started talking on the phone regularly. Over time that evolved into acting as community liaison, presenting our concerns and suggested solutions to Ken -- rules changes, and even a full errata document the community produced  -- and then letting the community know what Ken was saying Imperium Games would do to make things better.

 

But Ken and his crew didn't seem to be making any moves to actually improve things. They didn't even make an official release of the community-compiled errata, just sticking with their one-pager that ignored most of the issues. From what Ken said, the problem may have been funding, or the attention of Marc Miller, or any number of other things Ken attributed the lack of action to over time.

 

In desperation and despite being busy with my own life, I offered my services to try to get things moving in the right direction again as a freelancer. Ken accepted my offer as well as that of the CORE Group (Andy Lilly and Jo Grant, based in the UK -- you can get their version of the history here: https://www.bitsuk.net/About/CORE/CORE.html ). Turns out they had offered their services as freelancers at the same time I did. Ken decided to put us together (along with my friend Stu Dollar who was foolish enough to go along with me on this, with his wife Suz generously editing our output).

 

Right after that, Ken exited stage left and Tim Brown took over managing the line. It was obvious to me right away that Tim had a much steadier hand than Ken did, and of course his background at GDW didn't hurt. My wife and I had a great meeting with Tim at a restaurant in Lake Geneva, WI and I loved hearing his stories from his days at GDW. Tim was a true gentleman the entire time I knew him and was always kind and thoughtful, always happy to share his hard-won industry wisdom.

 

Tim leaned on us for a lot of T4's planned content (even paying Carole for some graphic work, and agreeing when I expanded the group by inviting Michael Barry (of Australia), one of our most trenchant and merciless critics, to join the group since he happened to have a really good head on his shoulders), and we all worked hard to produce the best content we could. But most of us were putting in 8-10 hours a day at our day jobs and then going home and spending another 4-6 hours every night writing for Traveller, and then spending our weekends on it as well, week after week, project after project. All for the very paltry pay that freelancers get in the RPG field. But Traveller was important to us, and it was exciting to be a part of it, so we gave it everything we had.

 

By the next GenCon, Imperium Games had published several books by our group. Stu, Carole and I had a breakfast meeting with Marc Miller one morning at GenCon where I finally got to really meet the guy, if only for a short while. I admit I was awestruck and although it's been about 25 years now I'm pretty sure I alternated between babbling and being very quiet (especially when Gary Gygax spent some time at our table (wearing a t-shirt that simply read, "Porn Star" in small text) -- I felt like a little kid at Thanksgiving who was somehow mistakenly seated at the adult table). Oh, well! I was young and awestruck to spend time with one of the people whose work I respected most and who had a big impact on me as a teenager. Marc gifted me with a signed copy of the Spanish edition The Traveller Book, which was a beautiful edition of the game and came in hardbound with a slipcover. A very nice gesture on his part, but to me it was overwhelming. I'm pretty sure a fuse burned out in my brain at that point and I became totally useless for the rest of the morning.

 

(As I recall, that was the GenCon when Marc Miller made the deal with Steve Jackson for the GURPS Traveller line. It may have also been the one where HERO announced the end of their agreement with ICE and/or their plans for Fuzion? Hard to remember what order these things happened in back then, especially with me trying to attend GenCon while also working it.)

 

Anyway, it was a wild ride for a while there. I'm afraid to re-read any of that stuff, but I'm still proud of the effort we put into it. Sometimes the editing process let us down (not Suz Dollar, rather IG's editing) and sometimes we let ourselves down, but I think we did OK for the most part given the conditions. Milieu 0 and Psionic Institutes were the ones I most enjoyed working on. Imperial Squadrons and Pocket Empires weren't really my cups of tea, but I think we did OK-ish?

 

And long story short, Imperium Games never did produce an errata-fixed edition of the core rules. We kept pushing for it, but Courtney Solomon (the guy who owned Imperium Games, and a film production company, and the rights to make D&D films) lost a lot of money in the Asian fanancial crisis and had to pull the plug on Imperium Games before they could republish the core rules. As for us, we never did get all of the money we'd been promised, and some of us who'd worked on all those books were very bitter about Imperium Games' refusal to pay the amounts agreed upon. I was disappointed about the pay issues and the fact that some of our work would never be published due to the shutdown of Imperium Games, but mostly I was just burned out by the end. The pace of doing all that work and liaisoning with the community wasn't really sustainable. I retreated from RPGs for many years not long after IG's collapse, only returning when I briefly ventured to the HERO discussion board back in 2004.

 

(I've never seen the D&D movies and don't really know Courtney Solomon, but I can say the couple of times we spoke on the phone he seemed like a great guy who was very interested in making T4 the best it could be. I think his attention was just too divided among his other ventures to give the tiny Imperium Games the attention it needed.)

 

The others have their own stories, but I enjoyed working with everyone involved and am proud to have briefly been a part of Traveller history, albeit with what's probably the least-loved version.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Okay:  my Classic Traveller collection is far from complete, but I have only recently begun to re-collect what I chunked out years ago (that being 2300, Mega, and TNE, all of which I hated, but Fire, Fusion, and Steel was the single greatest accessory ever published for any RPG, ever, period, even though it was a DGP manuscript, and that irritates like an unsanded seam on a butt plug. (I assume.  At least, it sounds like it would irritate.)

 

CT stuff is so expensive now! I gave my copy of the Atlas of the Imperium to someone who needed it to produce T4 stuff and never did get it back. Now it would cost an arm and a leg to get a copy in good condition. Not that it's worth anything in play, of course. We have it all on a website now, errata-free. What I wouldn't have given for that back in the early 80s!

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

More embarrassment:  fans of Shadow run talk about how awful the first edition was. 

 

It was the only edition I really liked.   even then, though, the fantasy trappings were not exactly to my taste.  If I want your chocolate in my peanut butter, I will arrange an innocent accident at an aerobics class involving two people making weird snack decisions during their workout; that you very much. 

 

That first edition was pretty great. We did what we'd always done and fixed the problems we found. It was worth it. 2e worked for us, too. Then I waited in line at GenCon to get a signed hardcover copy of 3e the day it was released (it was so great when GenCon was in Milwaukee which is about an hour's drive from my home) and never used it. Eventually I sold it off, but I still have 1e and 2e!

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Really?   You'd think you would have picked up on that "priceless collection of ancient Etruscan snoods" thing a ways back up. 

 

Well, it's been a long time.

 

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Technically, I didn't modify it.  I threw it out completely. 

 

Well no; technically, I didn't do that, either.  I opted not to back port it into my games except for very rare occasions, and decided that Skill Levels-a thing that already existed and already did what skills do- were the way to go. 

 

As an ezample: PS Archery becomes +2 with bows. 

 

KS: Engineering becomes +2 to INT rolls for engineering problems. 

 

Two weapon fighting becomes +4 with off-hand weapon, not to exceed the off-hand penalty. 

 

Area Knowledge becomes +3 to INT rolls about area X. 

 

Skill levels already have costing and mechanics in place for 'everything' to 'large, related groups,' to 'small, closely-related groups' to 'this one thing and no other thing.' 

 

A quick house rule that Skill Leves as Skills can't be allocated to something else-such as CV or extra damage-and it has worked pretty well since 4e came out a few days ago.  Maybe some extensive okay testing will show me why it' s a bad idea. 

 

For Supers and pulp, build straight off the Characteristic roll.  For more 'normal' heroic games, start with 9+ instead of 11+, and for grim, ultra-realistic stuff, start with 7+ Char. 

 

For something screwy, consider averaging 2 or more characteristics and deriving you 'bonus' (the thing after the plus) from that instead of one single characteristic. 

 

It really solves the 'points auck' problem, and retains the option for broad or narrow skills (buy then as 'one single thing, small closely - related group, or large related group, so pricing is' in line' with utility for those to whom that bit matters. 

 

If you are concerned about what else they might spend their 150 points on, the don't give them 150 points.  If you are concerned about what they might spend their XP on, have a talk before hand and say 'look, I am going to try something with this campaign, but it involves reducing awarded XP along the way.  That may or may not change after we have tried it a bit, but for now, we are going to kind of ease into this. 

 

Most importantly, if you are concerned about either of those, you should admit that you have been using skills as a points suck all this time, and let go of that.

 

Great stuff! Just one question: when are you going to get the time to write up Duke's HERO System for publication by our hosts? It really should be shared. 🙏

 

[Spence]

7 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

@Spence, that was a more in depth explanation of 2d20 than I was expecting. I saw the John Carter books and they look lovely. Sadly I don’t think I could get any local gamers to play.

Yep, JC is a hard sell.  Very few people have heard of let alone read the books.  The movie, while having a few good points, was "improved" into a disjointed mess. 

 

I used the Conan game to bring in players.  I personally think the Star Trek game is better executed, but most of players these days have never seen Trek.  Worse, they think the grim dark murder blood fest of Disco and Pukehard are Trek.  Sad but it is what it is. 

[Duke Bushido]

33 minutes ago, GM Joe said:

Great stuff! Just one question: when are you going to get the time to write up Duke's HERO System for publication by our hosts? It really should be shared. 

 

 

 

Thank you, Joe; you are too kind. 

 

As for Duke's Hero System, that dream vanished in the 90s, when I first got on the internet. 

 

The first thing I did was spend some hours researching the status of Hero Games, became very sad, and then excited by the possible opportunities, gathered several potential backers, and learned that Steve and Company had acquired the rights already, and we're working on something, so I got all excited again-- to the point that when I heard there was a new edition in the works, I ran to my FLGS and demanded he keep an eye open, and that I wanted six copies.  

 

As to anything else-well, we all have House Rules, many of them not even "official options" in the big pale blue encyclopedia of options.   Mine are neither better nor more interesting than anyone else's, I wouldn't think; they have just grown out of the need to solve problems at our tables. 

 

But again: I do thank you for the kind words, and the behind-the-scenes look at DGP part 2.   

 

 

 

[Opal]

 

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

.  I ...decided that Skill Levels-a thing that already existed and already did what skills do- were the way to go. 

 

Skill levels already have costing and mechanics in place for 'everything' to 'large, related groups,' to 'small, closely-related groups' to 'this one thing and no other thing.' 

 

For Supers and pulp, build straight off the Characteristic roll.  For more 'normal' heroic games, start with 9+ instead of 11+, and for grim, ultra-realistic stuff, start with 7+ Char. 

 

If you are concerned about what else they might spend their 150 points on, the don't give them 150 points.  If you are concerned about what they might spend their XP on, ... reducing awarded XP along the way

 

So you've long since tried using skill levels in place of skills.  And with good results?

I like the idea of setting different base rolls, too.  Like, instead of just the standard 11- or 9+cha/5, also having 8- or 6+CHA/5 for checks requiring some training or familiarity (and 14- or 11+cha/3 for "everybody knows/can do that" but roll because there's a consequence for failure on the first try) or like 5+cha/5 or 2+cha/10 for "well, actually it is rocket surgery."  Not just to calibrate skill as level cost but as a more intuitive, less open ended principle than just penalties. 

 

I'd not thought of taking it that far before.  I'd always circle back to some kind of over-skills, where you just create some 5 point skills as broader, bundling together multiple 3-point skills, and some 10 point skill groups that bundle multiple 5-pt skills, ...And then have a limited number of those that encompass all possible skills.

 

I think part of it is that I calibrated my idea of point totals to the original Champions.  So 100+100Disads seems like a basic superhero, and 0 with maybe a disad and some points shifted around is a normal.

 

And, like, the cost of powers didn't change, and the typical 8-12 DC attack didn't change.... but point totals just kept inflating....

 

So if skills (or whatever) aren't priced to fit into 200-ish supers and 0-50 pt normals (and -25pt incompetent DNPCs) and 75-100 pt adventurers, I find it pretty off-putting.

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Spence said:

most of players these days have never seen Trek

 

Now I am sad.

[Spence]

11 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Now I am sad.

I know a young guy that games at my FLGS.  By young I mean in his 20's, in the Army and recently back from a stint in Poland.  He had never seen Star Trek or really heard of it more than in passing. He was blown away by later TNG and and later DS9.  Yes, the first few seasons of each were a little rocky.  And then I had a good laugh when he tried Disco and came back with a firm WTF happened?

 

 

[Joe Walsh]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

we all have House Rules, many of them not even "official options" in the big pale blue encyclopedia of options.   Mine are neither better nor more interesting than anyone else's, I wouldn't think; they have just grown out of the need to solve problems at our tables. 

 

Still, I appreciate the peeks you share. It's so fun to learn what other people do with the infinitely interesting (to a few of us anyway) HERO cyclopedia of rules. I have so many text files of saved posts (with attribution of course) that it's becoming unmanageable, yet I still get that thrill when I see someone's new-to-me take. It's a sickness.

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

As for Duke's Hero System, that dream vanished in the 90s, when I first got on the internet. 

 

The first thing I did was spend some hours researching the status of Hero Games, became very sad, and then excited by the possible opportunities, gathered several potential backers, and learned that Steve and Company had acquired the rights already, and we're working on something, so I got all excited again-- to the point that when I heard there was a new edition in the works, I ran to my FLGS and demanded he keep an eye open, and that I wanted six copies.  

 

Ah, the 90s: such a time for dreams to die.

 

But now I'll always wonder what could have been if things had worked out for your plan.

 

7 minutes ago, Spence said:

I know a young guy that games at my FLGS.  By young I mean in his 20's, in the Army and recently back from a stint in Poland.  He had never seen Star Trek or really heard of it more than in passing. He was blown away by later TNG and and later DS9.  Yes, the first few seasons of each were a little rocky.  And then I had a good laugh when he tried Disco and came back with a firm WTF happened?

 

Yeah, not exactly banner carrying stuff.

 

Did he get a chance to give SNW a try?

 

[Spence]

1 hour ago, GM Joe said:

Did he get a chance to give SNW a try?

 

I don't really know.  The people I know that have seen it aren't giving glowing reviews though.  I haven't seen it myself, but they say two things. 

 

1) It only resembles Trek when compared to STD and STP deep dark grimness. 

2) It is basically old TOS scripts given a slight rewrite and shot as "something new". 

 

I don't know personally because as I mentioned, I haven’t seen it.

[Spence]

I just figured out why so few people I know have watched SNW.  You can't stream it without subscribing to their service.  As bad as STD was, it is no wonder people are not subscribing.

[Old Man]

On 2/10/2023 at 6:47 AM, GM Joe said:

What do you think of solo adventures for HERO? SJG's The Fantasy Trip seems to be having good success with them, and there's continuing interest in solos for T&T and Monsters! Monsters!.

On Kickstarter, it seems like any tabletop game with a solo option or emphasis tends to get significantly more funding than one without, all else being equal. Unsurprisingly, I suppose.

 

Because you guys are a terrible influence, I sprang for three GURPS Conan solo adventures.  They're in a pretty straightforward choose-your-own-adventure format with around 300 separate entries apiece, most of which are one or two paragraphs.  Forks occur when the player makes a choice or a skill roll.  There is also a clever "plot word" mechanism that lets the game save state, which also affects how the player navigates the adventure.

 

What these solo adventures aren't  is introductory, because combat works like "fight the thing with the stat block on page X and if you survive turn to entry Y".  So the player would have to know how to conduct GURPS combat (and mass combat, for Moon of Blood).  (In fairness these adventures do assume you own a copy of GURPS Basic.)  So now I'm wondering how much Hero combat could be stripped down for introductory solo adventures.  It seems to me that the bare minimum (assuming a fantasy setting) are OCV/DCV, damage, armor, and then CON/BODY/STUN.  SPD isn't really necessary since there's only one PC, and the mental stats are likewise not needed in combat.  We'd put all the stats on the character sheet for educational purposes but the above should be all that are really necessary.

 

At this point I feel like a flowchart would be helpful for total newbs--attack, roll to hit, if you hit then roll damage, here's how you read the dice, here's how you figure BODY and STUN.  I'd want to include some maneuvers, though, like Block, Dodge, and maybe Trip--enough to make combat more than an exercise in dice rolling.  Thoughts?

[archer]

6 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

As for Duke's Hero System, that dream vanished in the 90s, when I first got on the internet. 

 

The first thing I did was spend some hours researching the status of Hero Games, became very sad, and then excited by the possible opportunities, gathered several potential backers, and learned that Steve and Company had acquired the rights already

 

 

Now I am sad....

[rravenwood]

20 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I completely missed T4, and didn't even hear of T5 until it, too, was out of print.  I have yet to get my hands on either

 

I picked up PDFs of T5 when they had a Bundle of Holding deal a while ago.  I can't say I've actually read through it all, but between reading some, doing a lot of browsing through, and then taking the ever-growing and not-uncommonly astounding errata reports on the CotI forums into consideration, I'm left with the impression that T5 is a bit of a hot mess.  I suspect it's probably best as a source of ideas for tinkerers and house rulings.

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

 

So you've long since tried using skill levels in place of skills.  And with good results?

 

 

Very much so; that is why I suggested it up-thread a bit.  It plays with the very basic rules from the  inception of the game, so there is no new mechanic or thing to wonder about.  The biggest number of skills, at least originally, we're "pay X to gain a characteristic roll that simulates success or failure at this skill.  Pay an additional point to increase that roll by 1."

 

What do you do if someone doesn't have a skill, generally?  "Blastro has disintegrated the observation deck out from beneath your feet!  Do you have Acrobatics?  No?  Do you have Breakfall?  No?   Okay, gimme a DEX roll...." 

 

"can I remember anything more about the mysterious man who handed off this old bottle to me?" 

 

Do you have Eidetic Memory?  No?  Okay, give me an Intelligence roll.... "

 

We studied this a lot when 4e hit. Well, shortly after 4e hit, because at first we were just enamored of this ground-breaking new skills system,  but it didn't take too many campaigns to see lots of the problems with it, chief among them being skills as points sucks.  The three of us that GM'ed in our group were slowly creeping toward mandating that your character didn't know it if you didn't buy it, and we were doing that simply because _it was possible_ to do it.  Every possible knowledge, every possible hobby or trade, could be turned into a skill, for Pete's sake!  And because we could, we too often _did_. 

 

I am sure you have heard me taking the position that just because your Inferno Blast _can_ set things on fire or your Freeze gun _can_ be used to chill a soft drink or your force field _could_ be played so as to serve as a ramp does _not_ automatically mean that a mechanic for this aspect must be paid for in addition to the base power. 

 

This Skills thing, way back when--  that was our own version of that.  The point at which I finally got it to click was when it occurred to me that "I am going to ask for a DEX roll whether he has the Skill or not." Since then, I have been pretty vigilant about watching for instances of pointlessly charging for something. 

 

Getting back on topic, 

 

Anyway, you want a very tight, very specific skill?  An in depth knowledge of the history, spread, and culture of variegated nasturtiums?  Go for it.  It costs one point, and gives you the lower of Characteristic roll or 8 or less.

 

Not only that, but since any book left unattended for more than two weeks through the 1990s turned into a copy of Aaron Alton's Ninja Hero, we were all _very_ familiar with the idea that Skill Levels could be used to _simulate_ something specific, beyond just raw ability. 

 

(don't believe me about that Ninja Hero crack?  Over the years, I have given away well over a dozen copies.  I currently own 2 copies.  I have never bought a copy, nor have I ever received one as a gift, so you tell me....) 

 

So why couldn't we use them as the skills themselves? 

 

Let me take a moment to point out to anyone not familiar with the old editions (pre-4 e) that the three magic numbers were 8, 11, and 14.  They still show up on various things-berserk recoveries, etc, but that is why the skills system we use works this way.

 

Skill points: the bare minimum cost of a skill level was 3pts for just one thing.

 

This worked out great for us, because we decided for that three points, you would get the lower of 14- or Characteristic roll.

 

That left two more of those magic numbers, so for a mere 2 pts, you could get the lower of Characteristic roll (no plus one, because you hadn't actually bought a full skill level).  Similarly, for a mere 1 pt, you could have a field of knowledge on any one thing at  the lower of Characteristics roll or 8 or less. 

 

 

Over the years, I have considered bringing those numbers more in line with the 6 9 11 thing, but at 8 or less, you have roughly a 25-ish percent chance on 3 dice, with 11 or less, call it 63 percent, and with 14 or less, you bump up to something like 90 percent, and I find this feels really 'right' for supers and for pulp. 

 

Given these results, I find it works particularly well for supers and pulp, where those who are good at something are very good at it. 

 

For most Heroic stuff, I drop the numbers down to a more modern 6, 9, or 11.  Most player Characters will at worst match that 11 or less with their characteristics rolls, and a good number of them will beat it. 

 

Skills that don't tie well to a characteristics roll Start at 11 or less for a 3-pt skill level.  If the skill is excessively narrow or non-utilitarian, then maybe two points, and often just one.  Let's face it: while it may come in handy once during a long running campaign, certain overly-obscure and excessively narrow knowledge skills are more quirks of the character than anything actually worth paying a point for. 

 

Right off the bat, improving from a one pt skill to a two pt skill costs 1 point, and adds _up to_ e3 to your roll.  Going from a 2 to a 3 costs one point, and adds _up to_ 3 to your roll.  After that, improve with skill levels as one would improve them via skill levels in the actual written rules.

 

 

A five-point Skill  group is a small group of tightly-related Skills.  Typically, I break the builds down as I would for the 1,2,3, pt skills described above:

 

You have 5 points; buy any combination of tightly-related skills that spends those 5 points.  All done?  Good.  Pick one more tightly-related Skill and take it at the 2 point level. 

 

Why?  Because otherwise you are just buying more of the previous kinds of skills, with the unnecessary requirement that they be related.  This is your reward for working within that limition.

 

These skills may be improved as per the previous category, one at a time, or all at once with another 5 pt skill level.  All skills are improved with a 10 pt skill level. 

 

At the 8 PT level, you may either take the eight points and spend them on tightly-related skills, then take two additional tightly-related skills at the two pt level.  Alternatively, the eight point skill group can take eight points of loosely-related skills and one more loosely-related skill at the one pt level.

 

Because of the way skills are built for one-at-a-time skills, there are no ten-point skill groups; ten point skill levels, as always, can advance all skill rolls by 1.

 

 

 

8 pt skill levels can advance all skills in any one 8-pt group or less by 1, or all loosely-related skills (such as if someone took an 8 pt group and a five pt group for a slew of science skills).   Note that the related skills need not be in the same group. 

 

If one character has a five-point groups of skills with archaic weapons that includes javelins, discus, and darts in the group and another five point (or even an eight point) group that includes bolos and hammers (the stone-on-a-rope kind), they are all nicely related under a skill level for "thrown weapons.". Tightly or loosely will vary from table to table, of course. 

 

Five point skill levels advance any five point group by 1, or all skills in a tightly-related group (which, again, does not have to be contained entirely within one Skill Group, though they generally will be). 

 

Three point skill levels work as described above, save when the current roll exceeds the lower of Characteristic roll or 14-, at which point they will advance one skill by 1.

 

 

Additional notes on Skills: all characters are assumed to have professional skills.  For this reason, I allow up to three no-charge professional skills, one at each level of 8, 11, and 14.

 

All characters are assumed to have background skills, and again: up to three, as above, for no charge. 

 

Everyman skills are still free, and I have a slightly higher tier scammed 'every adventurer skills' that varies from game to game.  Generally, when I notice that either everyone in the game has bought the same skill (hunting, for example) that is not on the everyman list, that skill becomes an every-adventurer skill, and they all get it at the 1 PT level for no charge. 

 

Literacy is determined through disadvantolications, and not skill point spending.  No matter how ignorant the typical person in the campaign is, lacking the ability to read is a disadvantage.  Maybe not much of one, but it is indeed one. 

 

Additional languages are three-point skills as above, with 1, 2, and 3 PT levels.  Mastery is assumed at 14 or less (at the very worst, you come across as low-brow or insulting or uneducated or something, but your point is completely made and understood. Accents are optional after 11-, and literacy is determined more by your background than any points spent. Conan could be literate (and eventually was) if he can explain it. 

Any 'Professional Skill' type skill is assumed to come with a sufficient knowledge base to perform that profession, allowing the roll for PS or KS to be on the same skill. 

 

Any purely academic KS- the character has the education, but no actual experience or perhaps even no idea how to physically do the thing- is 11 or less for three points. If it is a particularly broad field, then it is 8 or less for three points. If it is a narrow or obscure field, then it is 14 or less for one skill level. 

 

Any character who does not have a particular chracterisitcs-based skill may still attempt the skill using a characteristic roll.  In most cases, a GM has already assigned a difficulty penalty to a task.  Increase that penalty up to double (add no more than 4 additional penalties).  A successful INT roll can be a complimentary roll to a physical task, because sometimes you have to stop and think about it) 

 

Why?  Because these are superheroes, where even the impossible has a pretty good chance. 

 

This has allowed characters from all genres to have as many skills as they wanted, not have to pay for mundane things like foraging berries while marching, and with the various skill level options for increasing the characteristics, allows differences in skill levels to grow in ans the character moves through his story. 

 

It also really helps prevent skills becoming points-sucks. 

 

I think.  That may just be a side effect of having done it for a couple of years making me extra-sensitive to it now. 

 

 

Now it is slightly more refined that it sounds-no more complex than martial arts or any other skill level usage, really, but as I am working on a phone, I can't really go back and see what I have or have not said thus far, so I am assuming I screwed it all up. 

 

 

Optional:

 

For pulp, we use 5 point skill levels for very broad skills, and eight point skill levels for stupidly-broad skills, such as "Science!". (exclamation point not optional) 

 

Those are advance with additional skill levels, though the character may break out individual skills to advan e by one point per. 

 

Almost forgot! 

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Opal said:

" but roll because there's a consequence for failure

 

Yep.  Always check for eighteens. 

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Opal said:

.  So 100+100Disads seems like a basic superhero, and 0 with maybe a disad and some points shifted around is a normal.

 

 

Yeah, the way we do it, supers can still buy most of the powers they want and still have a nice assortment of skills.   Heroic characters don't have to be built on what we used to use for supers, either. 

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

And, like, the cost of powers didn't change, and the typical 8-12 DC attack didn't change.... but point totals just kept inflating....

 

So if skills (or whatever) aren't priced to fit into 200-ish supers and 0-50 pt normals (and -25pt incompetent DNPCs) and 75-100 pt adventurers, I find it pretty off-putting.

 

 

Well, we didn't do it so much for the pricing (that was just a happy accident) as much as we just had too many arguments about the "new" system and how it worked, _but_ we liked the idea of being able to make anything into a skill. 

 

 

5 hours ago, GM Joe said:

It's so fun to learn what other people do with the infinitely interesting (to a few of us anyway) HERO cyclopedia of rules.

 

Agreed.  I just kind of got tired of the 'you know this is wrong, right?' responses the few things I posted in the past generated.  You can only say "ni; this is _difgerenr_" so many times before you figure out that for some people, it is much more important to point out what isn't rules-legal, in spite of the fact that they are pointing it out to the guy who said 'these rules aren't working for us" then sat down with his group to figure out something different that did work.  Wierd, I know, but there it is. 

 

5 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

I have so many text files of saved posts (with attribution of course) that it's becoming unmanageable, yet I still get that thrill when I see someone's new-to-me take. It's a sickness.

 

I used to as well, but I have lost them over the years.  Besides, the ones I tried and liked I continued to use, so I think I'm good. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, GM Joe said:

Ah, the 90s: such a time for dreams to die.

Well, it is when I met my wife, so you might be on to something there... 

 

 

5 hours ago, GM Joe said:

But now I'll always wonder what could have been if things had worked out for your plan.

 

Well, considering how many people loved 5e and still love 6e, I am going to guess it would have bombed horribly, so it is probably just as well DOJ beat me to it. 

 

Also, I would have had little budget after the initial rules run, because I would have withered up and blown away before I sold the rights to the flagship title. 

 

Though honestly, I have been posting here long enough that I think you can reasonably infer what it would have been like, perhaps not perfectly (because we will never know),  UT I am sure you could get a reasonable picture. 

 

 

5 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I forgot to remove that box early on, and now I cant

... 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

Now I am sad....

 

 

Don't be.  While I disagree with a lot of the changes, ultimately, Steve and DOJ did a _great_ job as both revivalists and stewards of the game.  There is no way I could assure you that I would have done nearly as well. 

 

In fact, I encourage you to be as happy as I am that it _didnt_ happen.   

 

 

48 minutes ago, rravenwood said:

 

I picked up PDFs of T5 when they had a Bundle of Holding deal a while ago.  I can't say I've actually read through it all, but between reading some, doing a lot of browsing through, and then taking the ever-growing and not-uncommonly astounding errata reports on the CotI forums into consideration, I'm left with the impression that T5 is a bit of a hot mess.  I suspect it's probably best as a source of ideas for tinkerers and house rulings.

 

 

Well, that's a shame. 

 

I appreciate the insight, though, and yes: I will probably buy it anyway when I can find an affordable paper copy.  I have seen it as one book and as three books.  Does anyone know if there is a difference? 

 

I confess, it was only a few years ago that I heard of T4, and that it was out and gone a decade or two ago.  Shame what I hear about the content, though. 

 

 

I saw that title "Marc Miller's Travellers, and I was all excited, thinking" yeah!  Take _that_, Fugate!  This is Traveller the way _Miller_ intended! 

 

Then I noticed just how many more books there where, and I thought "oh, I bet it isn't...." 

 

I still want a nice printed copy of the core rules, though.  I can't help myself. 

 

Oh, Joe: as for collecting Classic Traveller, I'm good.  I have my memories built around what I actually did manage to pick up off the shelves way back in the day.  I would like to replace two or three things that have disappeared over the years, but I am at a point where if I didn't have it then, I don't want it now.  Those other things are not part of those memories.  I hope that makes sense. 

 

The core rules of later editions, though-those I will get eventually.  My inner Traveller won't rest until I have them.  Besides, something has to push T20 out of my long_term memory.  Dungeons and Vargrs, woo-hoo! 

 

 

[Sketchpad]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:54 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

I'm not so certain we run hugely different types of games.  I appreciate detail, all I am talking about is how that detail gets accounted for in the game.

 

So, say I gave players 350 points to build their characters and tell them that they can have two keywords each for skills (for free).

 

Each of those keywords contains the skills they need to "live" that keyword, like an extra two sets of everyman skills.

 

Batman takes Playboy and Detective.  Each of these come in at 11 or less. I am happy, on their character sheet to put as many skills as we agree fit underneath that keyword heading, skills that EveryPlayboy and EveryDetective "could" have.

 

I would allow them to individually raise skills within that for +1 per point spent.  I would allow 8 point skill levels for specific use in keywords and, if 10 skills are raised by 1 point, the whole keyword goes up by one.

 

I would also encourage the use of non-standard skills (not in the book) like "Make impressive entrance" to allow this to give colour and to add things on the fly, if we agree they fitted within the concept of the keyword.

 

I don't think this constrains a rich description of what the character can do.  I can see some players sticking with the two keywords, a few skill levels and possibly adding in a few free-standing skills that are obviously outside the keywords. I can see others wanting to list a vast number of sub-skills that both define and characterise the kind of Playboy, or Detective, their character is.

 

It means there is flexibility within the system for those that want it, and detail available without exorbitant cost.

 

Doc

 

Like I said, we play different styles of games. This isn't far from something like Fate, which is a great system on its own. Unfortunately it's not the right fit for me or my group. I enjoy the complexity a bit. 

 

On 2/20/2023 at 10:12 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

This comes back to Duke's point, really.  How will those skills be used in-game?  The Supers examples of Tony Stark, Hank Pym, Reed Richards, Bruce Banner, toss in Peter Parker illustrate this.  What was their actual specialty, drawn from what they did in the comics, not from what got retconned in later?

 

I suppose Tony Stark was more an engineer, in fairness.  He didn't seem to do much "pure science". Bruce Banner did not get a lot of opportunities to use his science skills, and when he did it tended to be weapons-related, if not fully GammaRay specific.

 

Reed Richards built incredible whatsits to aid the FF, and we know he was a rocket scientist since the FF got their powers using his rockets.  But he had pretty much any science skill needed by the story, right down to developing a serum to allow people to breathe underwater (and even to allow the Human Torch to use his flame powers).

 

Hank Pym was later "a biochemist" but whenever the Avengers needed a science solution, he'd generally provide it if we was on the team.  Stark would build things, though.

 

Peter Parker was able to check his own blood for radioactivity, build those webshooters and the adhesives they use, design a device that suppressed the Vulture's flight, modify his webbing to incorporate acids so strong they fused two of Dr. Octopus' tentacles (without damaging those web shooters) and prepare a serum to cure the Lizard.  And we're not up to Spider-Man #6 yet, are we?  All this on a budget that made rent and groceries hard to afford, and before even graduating high school.

 

If it's actually going to matter whether the characters are engineers, researchers or inventors; whether they know physics, chemistry or biology; whether that's astrophysics, quantum physics or geophysics; pharmacology, biochemistry or organic chemistry; botany, zoology or microbiology; then let's break the skills down. 

 

But that really presupposes a game so science-based that most or all characters will have skills in some branch of science.  Similarly, if the game will focus on medicine, go beyond simple "Medicine" as a skill, and if it will feature courtroom drama, KS: Law may no longer cut it.

 

But if we have a team of, say, Hank Pym (Scientist), Thor (Dr. Don Blake, MD), Daredevil (Lawyer) - why are their "one to a character" jobs so compelling that they need to spend significant points to flesh them out in minute detail?

 

In the Bat-Family example, everyone is a crimefighter, a normal human and an investigator.  One skill encompassing that will make everyone identical, rather than making a single criminologist/investigator unique and different from the other PCs.  Now we need multiple skills.

 

That's where the guidance Duke is suggesting is needed - GM, tailor the depths of skills and subskills to your game.  Maybe that means taking a skill we'd often assume is "one size fits all" (like Survival) and instead require another point invested for each sub-skill (6e Survival).

 

Sure. I get the need for guidance, but I'd rather have the choices in skills over the older editions of Champions/Hero. I dig the complexity and build possibilities. The examples above I think drive that home a bit. How did they use their respective science skills "in game"? Pym created Ultron and has tweaked his powers over time. Stark has tweaked armor in the field (stunts) and has kit-based items. Richards... well, he uses his skills in every other issue of Fantastic Four. Banner has created ways to suppress the Hulk and other creatures and has also worked other jobs needing such skills. And Parker... I would dare say some of his science skills are utilized to defeat specific foes, or to stunt certain powers (like his web shooters). 

 

I've played with broad skill systems in the past, and, while they serve a purpose in certain games, I prefer the narrow system that Hero has. I have no problems adjucating the rules as needed with my games, but your mileage may vary. 

[Chris Goodwin]

On 2/20/2023 at 4:33 PM, C.R.Ryan said:

Well they have 3PO for most languages other wise the common languages seems to be common (I call the Galactic Trade Tongue, in my game) and Hutt. Wookie and Binary is a bit rarer.

 

I've had a lot of fun with my recent group and the Jawa PC. Jawas have sort of a pigeon trade language they speak to non-Jawas. The occasional translation problem (especially when the Jawa player drops an 18, not on the language skill just him panicking after blowing a skill check badly, he is prone to that in this game) is always hilarious. 

 

I looked at the language stuff for my Star Wars game.  I out and out specified that I wasn't going to nitpick languages, and the way I was going to handle it was the Han & Chewie way.  Neither of them speaks the other's languages, but they both understand them.  So, I reasoned, if you want to be able to do that, you can pick it up just by exposure in game, without spending any points.  Or if your background includes, "Human Raised by Wookiees", you can understand them and they can understand you.  

 

Every one of them bought either Wookiee or Binary with the -1 "Cannot Speak" Limitation.  🤣🤣🤣

[Chris Goodwin]

On 2/20/2023 at 8:01 PM, Duke Bushido said:

More embarrassment:  fans of Shadow run talk about how awful the first edition was. 

 

Shadowrun fans talk about how awful every Shadowrun edition is.  

 

They're like Star Wars fans, in that they both hate the things they are a fan of.  🤣

[Chris Goodwin]

On 2/17/2023 at 7:11 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Barely related note: has anyone seen Filksinger since Red October shut down?  I miss that guy. 

 

Used to be active on the Hero boards, into the early 'oughts, I want to say.  He was part of the Game Alliance of Salem that Christopher Taylor and I were both part of, and we gamed together a good bit back then (late 80's).  I can't remember his first name though... Tom, I think?  If so, I just looked on Facebook and saw him posting there as recently as January 1 of this year.  I have no idea if he's still involved with Hero and Champions at all though, but I kinda doubt it.  

[Scott Ruggels]

4 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

Like I said, we play different styles of games. This isn't far from something like Fate, which is a great system on its own. Unfortunately it's not the right fit for me or my group. I enjoy the complexity a bit. 

 

 

Sure. I get the need for guidance, but I'd rather have the choices in skills over the older editions of Champions/Hero. I dig the complexity and build possibilities. The examples above I think drive that home a bit. How did they use their respective science skills "in game"? Pym created Ultron and has tweaked his powers over time. Stark has tweaked armor in the field (stunts) and has kit-based items. Richards... well, he uses his skills in every other issue of Fantastic Four. Banner has created ways to suppress the Hulk and other creatures and has also worked other jobs needing such skills. And Parker... I would dare say some of his science skills are utilized to defeat specific foes, or to stunt certain powers (like his web shooters). 

 

I've played with broad skill systems in the past, and, while they serve a purpose in certain games, I prefer the narrow system that Hero has. I have no problems adjucating the rules as needed with my games, but your mileage may vary. 

Stunts?

[Joe Walsh]

16 hours ago, Old Man said:

I'm wondering how much Hero combat could be stripped down for introductory solo adventures.  It seems to me that the bare minimum (assuming a fantasy setting) are OCV/DCV, damage, armor, and then CON/BODY/STUN.  SPD isn't really necessary since there's only one PC, and the mental stats are likewise not needed in combat.  We'd put all the stats on the character sheet for educational purposes but the above should be all that are really necessary.

 

At this point I feel like a flowchart would be helpful for total newbs--attack, roll to hit, if you hit then roll damage, here's how you read the dice, here's how you figure BODY and STUN.  I'd want to include some maneuvers, though, like Block, Dodge, and maybe Trip--enough to make combat more than an exercise in dice rolling.  Thoughts?

 

Oooh, I'd love to have a translation sheet so I could easily use HERO with all the TFT and T&T solos. And, sure, the GURPS and D&D solos too while I'm dreaming.

 

I started down that path a few years ago, but got bogged down in the issue you've identified: making combat interesting without it being complex for someone new to the system.

 

The premise I landed on was that having tactically meaningful choices to trade off between chance of hitting, chance of being hit, and the amount of damage at risk was what powered many RPGs that had combat systems that were fun and engaging all by themselves over the long term.  There's obviously much more that can be on offer, but those seemed core to me at the time (going from my notes, which include capsule write-ups of a bunch of systems analyzed along those lines (why do I do that to myself?)).

 

Fortunately HERO has plenty of those three tactical options in the form of Combat Modifiers, Combat Maneuvers, and Hit Location rules. Not quite as clean as an intentionally designed combat simulator like Melee/Wizard and the related GURPS system, but still very good when compared to a lot of other systems out there.

 

It seemed to me at the time that it should be possible to go with select maneuvers (probably pulling in one or more maneuvers from Martial Arts while collapsing a lot of the standard maneuvers down to the generic attack at +0/+0), add some Combat Modifiers, and call it a day. But I never got further than that.

 

Whether that's helpful I don't know. Maybe I was way off base or maybe I'm misinterpreting my notes. But, for what it's worth.

 

14 hours ago, rravenwood said:

I picked up PDFs of T5 when they had a Bundle of Holding deal a while ago.  I can't say I've actually read through it all, but between reading some, doing a lot of browsing through, and then taking the ever-growing and not-uncommonly astounding errata reports on the CotI forums into consideration, I'm left with the impression that T5 is a bit of a hot mess.  I suspect it's probably best as a source of ideas for tinkerers and house rulings.

 

Undoubtedly!

 

 

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I appreciate the insight, though, and yes: I will probably buy it anyway when I can find an affordable paper copy.  I have seen it as one book and as three books.  Does anyone know if there is a difference?

 

The Kickstarter campaign page has a decent explanation, but the tl;dr is that the three-book version is the more recent and theoretically less errata-prone edition. I have the three-book version, but since I don't play T5 I haven't really looked into the errata issues.

[Sketchpad]

6 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Stunts?

 

Yup. A use of the Power skill to perform a power stunt or trick.   

 

Quote

Champions Complete (pg. 33) 

Under Power (varies) skill...

 

"When used for power “tricks,” it’s up to the GM exactly what it can allow. Factors to consider include how closely related the stunt is to the original power, how difficult the stunt is, how much the character makes the Power Skill roll by, and so on. Example stunts might include a super-strong character using his Brick Tricks Power Skill to etch a message into steel without breaking it, or squeezing a lump of coal so hard it turns into a diamond.
Power isn’t intended as a cheap substitute for Variable Power Pool, and the Core Concept of You Get What You Pay For (page 7) remains in effect. Using Power to perform a stunt once (or possibly even a handful of times) is acceptable, but if the stunt becomes something the character does regularly, he should pay CP for it."

 

[rravenwood]

7 hours ago, GM Joe said:

The Kickstarter campaign page has a decent explanation, but the tl;dr is that the three-book version is the more recent and theoretically less errata-prone edition. I have the three-book version, but since I don't play T5 I haven't really looked into the errata issues.

 

The last edition (5.10, if I recall correctly) appears to still be generating a lot of errata.  Unfortunately, as well, no one seems to have taken over on the validating and compiling of reported T5 errata since Don McKinney passed away.

[Joe Walsh]

14 hours ago, rravenwood said:

The last edition (5.10, if I recall correctly) appears to still be generating a lot of errata. 

 

Ugh! That's too bad. Thanks for letting me know; I don't get over to CotI much any more.

 

14 hours ago, rravenwood said:

Unfortunately, as well, no one seems to have taken over on the validating and compiling of reported T5 errata since Don McKinney passed away.

 

He was so dedicated, I'm not surprised no one's been able to step up.