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

[C.R.Ryan]

Pretty sure I voted in that Reddit thread.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think Champions has everything it needs in place it just needs more adventures and promotion.

[C.R.Ryan]

30 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think Champions has everything it needs in place it just needs more adventures and promotion.

I really think an intro campaign of Champions (Champions One is this type of thing I believe) and one for a Hero game would be great. Even a Champaign version built more like a non-universal system, where powers and ability exist and are described and costed. Teach people how to play, and then say, "hey, if you like this, we can show you how to do this and so much more!" 

[Duke Bushido]

Okay, folks- back in action.  Sorry; the phone had to go to the doctor, where I again had to listen to all the spiel about why I want a new phone.  The problem here is that.. Well, I don't.  The worst part is it is always the same,spiel: acvording to phone people. The onky phones that exist are iphones (fooey) nd Samsung, who will never get abother dollar from me again anyway (though I love listening to my J the older swear at his every time he wants it to something relatively simple).

 

It is quite late here, and as promised, I just don't have it in me to Perdue every question raised by my post, etc, except Thais one:

 

Yes; Scott.  You signed up for a master's class.  Remember that last con you went to, and that game your name disnt get pulled for?  This was the consolation prize.  There was also a ticket for the community swimming pool, but it didn't have that "reserved for the no peeing section" stamp on it, so we didn't think you'd want it. 

 

 

Okay, the thing that seems,to have met with the most resistsnce was the comment that the rules are a complete mess.

 

I stand by that.  I should also note that _they always have been_.  This has not stopped me from enjoying the game, not one bit.  There are two kinds of "normal" damage, then there are special damages like mental powers, and there are drains which can damage normally-not-manageable characteristics, and there is transformation 'damage' and undefendable damage and cumulative damage-  and probably some others.  Then players can choose to self-limit or upgrade their powers, etc, on and on, and that is just damage!

 

I dont think there is any need to go into the problems with the skill systems, at least not with this group.

 

There are lots of things contributing to over-complication and confusion, but just like with the expansion of power modifiers and its almost-now-necessary list of will can't must absolutes, I have a favorite example here, too.

 

There is a rule that says the most expensive way to do the thing is the right way.  But we have punch damage and martial damage.  For a couple of points I can pick a martial maneuver and increase my STR damage- cheaper than buying +5STR.  Thus, the martial maneuver violates that rule.

 

We have Minor Transform and Major Transform.  Minor Transform violates the rule.  Moreover, it grew from just one power: Transform.  In keepong with the most expensive rule, whoever split that power was in violation of the rule.

 

In fact, Transform should be the only power that does Damage: it is far less expensive to deal 5 BODY to the bad guy in a single phase via a 12d6 Energy Blast than it is to Transform: health bad guy to bad guy who has suffered 5 BODY.  Now that the STUN lotto has been "fixed" on killing attack (I agree that this power was _semantically_ broken-- it was clearly _stunning_ attack-- was it really broken mechanically?  Just the mechanics, I mean.  Or was this "repair" yet another attempt to force yet another mathematical equality into a game that doesnt seem,to have ever wanted to have one?)-

 

Anyway, now that Killing Attack has been 'fixed,' it seems more apparent that it, too, shoukd be replaced by Transform.  VPP is the least expensive way to buy every power in rhe game. it has got to go; it is in violation of the cost rule.  Power Frameworks- even power limitations- are in violation, because it costs more to not use them.  Multiform I discussed before: buildba charcter with a -1/4 or a -4......   One of those is foing toncost a lot more....

 

I am going to quit right there, because hopefully I have sufficiently belabored the point.  If you want mathematical equality, you are going to have to fold all offenses into a single power and all defenses into a single power, then roll to hit.  11 Or less?  No.  10.5 or less (though the rules do say round in the character's favor, so..)

 

Anyway, you should have two abilities, and they should be called "Affect Universe" and "Resist Universe."  They should have the same cost, and equal amounts should be equally effective against each other.  If you roll your affect universe roll successfully, I deduct my resist universe from your affect universe, and record the damage by removing it from my resist universe.

 

Or we could do a Tri Stat thing and have "affected by universe" for tracking damage, with healing determined by your own affect universe, since you are part of that universe.

 

There: the only builds availabke are the most expensive ones, the costs are truly mathematically balanced, and everyone is happy.  Well, everyone except for me and Scott, who are not foing to be happy with the hours of narration on how I affected and resisted the universe.

 

Or you just save a fortune and record xoin flips all afternoon.  It is also mathematically balanced, and if everyone brings their own nickel, it should cost the same, too.

 

The second thing I want to adress is some confusion- in spite of my significant disclaimer- that I was blaming Steve for the problems with the game.  No; I was using him as an,example of us because-  well, because, even though it has been around since at least 4e that I know of, he wrote the last couple of sets of rules, meaning he was both the ultimate rules official and the last guy to write "the most expensive is correct rule," and violates it anyway.

 

Tunne)inf to break down walls?  Enough STR and advantages to do it is more expensive, generally,  in the past, he hs used Desolid to simulate invulnerabilities to things when a few hundred points of resistant hardened defenses is clearly more expensive.  What SPD would you say the Flash has?  I have seen TV episodes where he lives out. What seems like _days_ just wandering around, doing his angst stuff, then snapoing back and making us realize he has been superspeeding to make time to,squeeze a few hours of angst into his schedule.  It has only been seconds for,the normal world.

 

So does he have SPD1200 or so?  Or was it considerably cheaper to buy EDM and "enter the speedzone?"

 

And again, that are more examples, but let me,be clear: this is not commentary against Steve!  Out of all the possible examples,that could,be chosen for "the most expensive is the most correct," though, seeinf _the guy who wrote the rules_ violate them the same way that the rest of us do is simply the best possible example anyone could select, I think.

 

At any rate, I propose a far more accurate rule;

 

Make sure that your players are paying a reasonable amount for extremely powerful abilities.  With practice and familiarity, it becomes easy to make overwhelming abikities for very little points.  Never forget that this can steal the thunder- and thr dun- from other players less familiar with the system.

 

It can go right next to "some people will get a bit more than they pay for; some people will get a bit less.  However, no one gets anything that they do not pay for, unless the GM rukes it to be a unique, in-the-moment perk of their SFX. 

 

There.

 

Going to bed now, bur havinf been gone for a couple of days, I wanted to comment my appreciation for how civil this thread has remained.

 

Well done, all of you, and thank you!

 

 

[Joe Walsh]

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Make sure that your players are paying a reasonable amount for extremely powerful abilities.  With practice and familiarity, it becomes easy to make overwhelming abikities for very little points.  Never forget that this can steal the thunder- and thr dun- from other players less familiar with the system.

 

It can go right next to "some people will get a bit more than they pay for; some people will get a bit less.  However, no one gets anything that they do not pay for, unless the GM rukes it to be a unique, in-the-moment perk of their SFX. 

 

There.

 

Yes!

 

Sure, Champions needs adventures and promotion, but it also needs more support for GMs and players new to the system. The game would benefit from less specificity and more guidelines, advice, and examples of play, IMO.

 

Champions Begins is a good start that deserves to be built upon with more about what I'd call the "philosophy of play" and a broader examination of successful strategies for running HERO in different ways to support specific campaign types, playstyles, etc.

 

I wonder if we could pull some of the great stuff from Champions Now, Strikeforce, old issues of AC/Haymaker/Digital Hero, the existing advice in the various core rulesets, etc. and assemble a reasonable guide for running the game that would help out those new to it.

 

How to make a gritty street campaign feel like a gritty street campaign. How to do the same for golden age, silver age, bronze age, underground, indie, etc. campaigns.

 

"How I learned to stop wearing out the rulebook at the table and rediscovered the joy of running a great session for my friends."

 

"One weird trick to shrink those unsightly two-page character statblocks down to a georgeous index card that's ready for sun and fun at the beach!"

Or, for a more modern take, "One weird trick that lets you slim your character down to a single phone screen, ready to adventure anywhere!"

 

[Ninja-Bear]

16 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 In fairness, this is as much a GM issue as a system issue.  "No, Tarzan does not need to roll a climbing skill check to safely shimmy down the drainpipe to the street below" or "roll in case it is an 18" is a GM's decision.

 

One can decide that ElectroMan can, indeed, boost a car battery, or one can require a Power Skill Roll to convert a Blast into an Aid: Battery END.

 

One can require a roll (at your 8- skill) for mundane use of a Familiariity, or accept that, since the character can work in the field, that 8- roll is good enough to perform routine tasks under low-stress conditions.

 

A "game powered by Hero" would do well to include some in-play examples (e.g. "The GM rules that this is a reasonable use of SpiderGuy's webshooters and does not require the player to roll for success of this action"). Part of the problem is that 5e and 6e have moved Hero from "a game" - where benchmarks for these elements could be set - to "a system" where those are more benchmarks for the GM to choose to build into the game under consideration.

Personally I don’t know where I picked up the “everything has to be bought” idea. I know thought that idea seems to be prevalent since 4th ed. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Sure, Champions needs adventures and promotion, but it also needs more support for GMs and players new to the system.

 

I agree, and I hope to maybe get to at least one further step in that in coming years with a project to give GMs and players a whole campaign with info on how to build characters, etc.  The tentative name is Champions One (for the beginning), and would be a followup to Champions Begins. 

[Opal]

Wasn't there a lot if discussion of eliminating "cost breaks" in the lead-up to 6th?

 

I can see how "must use most expensive way," yet another round of skill &c bloat, and 1000 point characters could come out of that. 

 

IDK, I look at 5th & 4th (and GMs folding together JI, Fantasy Hero & Star Hero with Champions before that), and I see enough skill bloat and new powers ignoring the actual effect/special effect line, to be very concerned.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I can see how "must use most expensive way," yet another round of skill &c bloat, and 1000 point characters could come out of that. 

 

Well that isn't a rule that you have to not use cost breaks, its a way of deciding between different builds or ideas.  So instead of "no you shouldn't buy for cost breaks" its "if you have a choice between Transform and Entangle to do the same thing, use the more expensive of the two options"

 

Basically its a way of making sure people aren't making super cheap cheaty builds

[Steve]

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I agree, and I hope to maybe get to at least one further step in that in coming years with a project to give GMs and players a whole campaign with info on how to build characters, etc.  The tentative name is Champions One (for the beginning), and would be a followup to Champions Begins. 

Maybe call it Champions: Year One to make it reminiscent of some comic titles that came out with that naming scheme.

[Scott Ruggels]

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think Champions has everything it needs in place it just needs more adventures and promotion.

 In a previous thread, there was some discussion that Champions Complete was "complete" , but needed a serious re-organization of sections, and some rewriting/editing, to make it easier to pick up.  That might be true, but it would be work, and work needs to get paid for.

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well that isn't a rule that you have to not use cost breaks, its a way of deciding between different builds or ideas.  So instead of "no you shouldn't buy for cost breaks" its "if you have a choice between Transform and Entangle to do the same thing, use the more expensive of the two options"

 

Basically its a way of making sure people aren't making super cheap cheaty builds

 

But the cheaty builds were part of the fun in the beginning of Champions, It showed mastery of the system. Besides it's always up to the GM to allow or deny, so the point should be moot.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 In a previous thread, there was some discussion that Champions Complete was "complete" , but needed a serious re-organization of sections, and some rewriting/editing, to make it easier to pick up.  

 

No disrespect to Derek Heimforth and I love Champions Complete, but I would have laid it out a bit differently, pushing the important "lets just get into the game" rules to the front.

 

Remember the old AD*&D player's handbook?  The first page was stats, page 1, the Strength chart.  That's what a rule book needs to be, with maybe 1-2 pages of quick intro and bang into the game.

[Duke Bushido]

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Personally I don’t know where I picked up the “everything has to be bought” idea.

 

 

Honestly? 

 

Quite possibly right here on this board. Browse around some old threads and see how many times some build or other is disagreed with because it doesn't include Chemical X, which it must have, because it can potentially do a thing that is entirely of the wheelhouse of Chemical X. 

 

Remember the old Swinging power, before it got folded into a more annoying version of Flight?  Remember how it said 'character is assumed to have an appropriate swingline'?  Not on this board, but way back when chat rooms were still a thing, I watched a five-way argument amongst GMs as one GM was recounting something a particularly quick-witted player had done.  I don't remember all the details (just that I found the detractors really annoying), but rather than focus on the clever thing, they siezed on the part where the character cut his swingline to drop onto a trio of mooks, finished them off with some knuckles, and then proceeded to use the cut length of the swingline to tie up the mooks as he radioed his teammates. 

 

These guys argued for over an hour before I got sick of it and left- if any of those guys was one of you guys, please do tell me how it ended. 

 

The argument was that it was impossible for this character to do that because he did not have entangle. 

 

It was impossible to use a bit of rope to tie up mooks because that would be entangle, and he did not buy entangle. 

 

I believe we have all seen similar stuff here on this very board.  This is exactly the mindset that lead to the creation of the Power Skill, when you get down to it.  "well, it makes sense that his inferno cone _would_ set the hay bales on fire, but dang it, that's a Transform, and he didn't buy that.  I've got to make sure he pays _something_ to do things like this...." 

 

When you look for official answers, you are often referred to specific skills or powers-- let's face it, you can't go wrong by the book if you can find something in the book that you can specifically point towards, right? 

 

All of that reinforces the idea that every ability must be paid for, and that off-label useage is completely forbidden.  

 

In the long run, this is hurting the game: it is leading to more and more hyper-specificity and more and more "can't must never only always" in the rules. 

 

Worst of all, it is just another thing to point out from the outside as more 'proof' that this game is too complex, to precision, too demanding to be worth picking up. 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

Yes, exactly. Thank you for this, Duke. This illustrates the problem of that legalistic mind set. Why going past 4th or even 3rd edition is getting pointless. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

they siezed on the part where the character cut his swingline to drop onto a trio of mooks, finished them off with some knuckles, and then proceeded to use the cut length of the swingline to tie up the mooks as he radioed his teammates. 

 

I would definitely allow a character to do that, out of combat.  Its not a display of power, its a plot element: you caught the bad guys and defeated them, its just a matter of narrative what happens after that.  Its "between panels."  But I do understand the complaint, 6th is so detailed and granular that one begins to feel as if you have to have it all written down and built

[BNakagawa]

Coming up with loopholes and abusive tweaks may have seemed pretty clever at the time, but frankly these days it's mostly a way to make yourself unwelcome at most tables. GMing Champions is enough work as it is, and having to audit every damn line on THAT GUY's character sheet is getting close to camel's back territory.

[C.R.Ryan]

24 minutes ago, BNakagawa said:

Coming up with loopholes and abusive tweaks may have seemed pretty clever at the time, but frankly these days it's mostly a way to make yourself unwelcome at most tables. GMing Champions is enough work as it is, and having to audit every damn line on THAT GUY's character sheet is getting close to camel's back territory.

I tend to doost of the writing of characters in my games. I love building and writing up characters, so it's all pretty collaborative. Some of my most experienced players come to me with starts and I tend to finish. Also I love to build system on Hero, I use variations on the skill system and a full Jedi Arts/Force Powers system built with hero. So sometimes I have to have a heavy hand I. Character creation since it's new(ish). 

 

Years with my group though really helps this feel less laborious for me me. I even help other GMs on our group since it can feel encumbering for them. They just decide if they like my writeup or if they'd like to go a different direction.

 

All that to say, luckily my group has decades since shed the urge to take advantage of rules and loop holes.

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Yes, exactly. Thank you for this, Duke. This illustrates the problem of that legalistic mind set. Why going past 4th or even 3rd edition is getting pointless. 

I never really "got" this logical train.  Every time I bought a new edition, I saw it as new suggestions on how to play.  I guess my approach to the game was never to know/master/follow the rules but to play the game. 

 

As such each new edition was additional possibility, not an increasingly heavy blanket on my creativity.

 

I have never talked about whether I play 2nd edition, or 4th edition or 6th edition, simply that I play Champions. 

 

As a player I would comply with all the rules of the table (I would tell the GM I intended to be book legal but they would need to check because I make so many assumptions in my head) and be content to adjust my character as the GM wanted.

 

Ultimately I will play my powers not the game mechanics.  If the GM focusses too heavily on the mechanics (of whatever edition) then we might not be a great match.

 

Doc

[C.R.Ryan]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I never really "got" this logical train.  Every time I bought a new edition, I saw it as new suggestions on how to play.  I guess my approach to the game was never to know/master/follow the rules but to play the game. 

 

As such each new edition was additional possibility, not an increasingly heavy blanket on my creativity.

 

I have never talked about whether I play 2nd edition, or 4th edition or 6th edition, simply that I play Champions. 

 

As a player I would comply with all the rules of the table (I would tell the GM I intended to be book legal but they would need to check because I make so many assumptions in my head) and be content to adjust my character as the GM wanted.

 

Ultimately I will play my powers not the game mechanics.  If the GM focusses too heavily on the mechanics (of whatever edition) then we might not be a great match.

 

Doc

I'm with you, here.

[Scott Ruggels]

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I never really "got" this logical train.  Every time I bought a new edition, I saw it as new suggestions on how to play.  I guess my approach to the game was never to know/master/follow the rules but to play the game. 

 

As such each new edition was additional possibility, not an increasingly heavy blanket on my creativity.

 

I have never talked about whether I play 2nd edition, or 4th edition or 6th edition, simply that I play Champions. 

 

As a player I would comply with all the rules of the table (I would tell the GM I intended to be book legal but they would need to check because I make so many assumptions in my head) and be content to adjust my character as the GM wanted.

 

Ultimately I will play my powers not the game mechanics.  If the GM focusses too heavily on the mechanics (of whatever edition) then we might not be a great match.

 

Doc

I did play champions, but I mostly GM heroic level games, and this usually had me ignoring powers, but paying close attention to stats and point totals. I saw it as my job as GM to present problems for the players to solve. Granularity of skills in later editions looked like inflation and a legalistic point sink. 

[Doc Democracy]

56 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I did play champions, but I mostly GM heroic level games, and this usually had me ignoring powers, but paying close attention to stats and point totals. I saw it as my job as GM to present problems for the players to solve. Granularity of skills in later editions looked like inflation and a legalistic point sink. 

 

Yeah - the granularity of the skill system is something I have mostly body-swerved.  I liked the simple PS: policeman from the earliest editions.  I dont mind being more specific for some things as long as they make the character stand out but it is impossible to buy all the things that make a scientist a scientist in any kind of detail.  I think it might be cool to have lots of charts like the language chart that shows that 5 points in Medicine give 4 points in pharmacology, 3 in a variety of biological sciences, 2 in social work and 1 in a bunch of related stuff.  🙂

[Scott Ruggels]

11 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Yeah - the granularity of the skill system is something I have mostly body-swerved.  I liked the simple PS: policeman from the earliest editions.  I dont mind being more specific for some things as long as they make the character stand out but it is impossible to buy all the things that make a scientist a scientist in any kind of detail.  I think it might be cool to have lots of charts like the language chart that shows that 5 points in Medicine give 4 points in pharmacology, 3 in a variety of biological sciences, 2 in social work and 1 in a bunch of related stuff.  🙂

Sadly, that sort of chart would be an editorial and reset headache for the writer/publisher.  

[Joe Walsh]

The "you have to pay for everything" approach is what kept me away from online HERO discussions for years. It was just so far removed from my way of doing things, and would make the game into such a chore to me, that I just stayed out of online HERO discussions entirely. Showing up with my minimalist designs just didn't seem worthwhile in the face of giant, detailed character postings that seemed to be the standard everyone adhered to. (Whereas with Traveller I just needed to stay away from the gearheads and their starship design discussions. 😦 )

 

Some of that did come in with 4th Edition, and then more with the later 4e products when character statblocks started getting bigger and more detailed, but to me it really showed itself with the removal of Package Bonuses with the release of 5e, and then it accelerated into 6e with the removal of Elemental Controls. The system moved steadily away from trusting the GM and players and toward trusting the official rules as The Final Word which could only be altered with great care by your local professional Authorized HERO System Service Technician. (I kid, but sometimes the fans' discussions and many of the questions to Steve Long sure seemed to spring from that viewpoint even moreso than the rules changes.)

 

38 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Yeah - the granularity of the skill system is something I have mostly body-swerved.  I liked the simple PS: policeman from the earliest editions.  I dont mind being more specific for some things as long as they make the character stand out but it is impossible to buy all the things that make a scientist a scientist in any kind of detail.  I think it might be cool to have lots of charts like the language chart that shows that 5 points in Medicine give 4 points in pharmacology, 3 in a variety of biological sciences, 2 in social work and 1 in a bunch of related stuff.  🙂

 

Great example! Until I encountered the online HERO fanbase, I'd thought it was normal to use the bits of the HERO System that you felt were right for your game and leave the rest behind. So, if it made sense for your campaign not to use the Skills System in a detailed way, and instead rely mostly on PS:whatever that was fine and certainly in the spirit of Champions 1e-3e. 🤷‍♂️

 

Obviously, it's always been perfectly fine to me when a user of the rules takes a maximalist view of things and designs incredibly detailed character statblocks. I admire the thought and cleverness that goes into those designs. It's just nice to see a more relaxed approach make a return as a legitimate and accepted choice. It'd be great if someday the published materials made it clear that either way of doing things is equally good and equally supported.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

GMing Champions is enough work as it is, and having to audit every damn line on THAT GUY's character sheet is getting close to camel's back territory.

 

 

This is the flip side, where players are abusive and play the rules to make their uber character which is why, you know, all those rules came about.  Every player to some degree is a rules lawyer, but some take it to a professional level and make it miserable for everyone else.

[C.R.Ryan]

I just bash together rules systems from hero as I like. For instance in my 6th Ed star wars game to kinda imitate the way star wars characters have vague skill set defined more by drama then we'll defined skill trees I just have each player spend 10, 15, or 20 pts on one or two "professions"  or skill sets that covers the skills they could have. Examples A Doctor is 10 pts, a Spacer is 15 pts, and Jedi is 20 pts, based on how broad I think the profession will be. I usually allow 2 skill sets.

 

From there the character can use any skill that seems appropriate at the time for their character. This cover everything besides skill levels most skills are obvious some take a brief back and forth and then if I agree with the player I decide if it's an 8-, 11-, or a full skill with levels. There are some other granularity here but that less important right now. 

 

I have a player wanting to use sixth but wants to use ECs again, and I showed him how to fake it in Hero Designer even though I don't miss Elemental Controla. 

 

"Balance" doesn't mean much to me. The points give me a rough idea of how Powerful something will be, and that's all. I stopped capping active points in champions games at the tale end of 4th edition because I didn't like how samey everything always felt. I use a variety of magic systems that go way off the rails in terms of what players are actually "paying for". But the powers (spells/abilities) beneath those systems are built out of the various 6th edition tools.  

 

I enjoy using Hero as a means of building fun systems that lay over the underlying game rules. Especially since I don't run much champions anymore. I'd still probably run that mostly RAW. 

 

I have never felt terribly compelled to "buy everything" in any addition out side of champions, and even then only the core ideas of the character needed to be ironed out. I love for players to use powers creatively, I will get players to buy powers they clearly are trying to emulate but the one or two times, yeah use your swing line to tie people up, neat. If you want for that to be actually effective in a fight let's buy an entangle for you.

 

I also still call Complications Disads, and the PCs have inches on their sheets not meters. Those feel sort of arbitrary to me.

 

I feel less inhibited by hero's RAW then many others systems, which may be counter intuitive, but I think it's just decades of playing it through multiple editions.

 

PS crap now I'm writing essays on the topic.

Edited February 17, 2023 by C.R.Ryan
Adding P.S.