creating a HERO game

[steriaca]

10 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Another thought is mental powers. If heroes and villains don’t buy up MD then a mentalist can really rule the game. However depending on points buying up really high MD when it wont come into play is a character tax.  

Golden Age mental powers tends, on the heroes part, more gimmicky than modern mentalist. Sure Mento The Master of the Mind can "mind control" someone, but it is set up as "Super Hypnosis" (stair deeply into victim's eyes, must talk to give one command, doesn't work on people with a high EGO stat [let's say 25 or more], can't hide control from victim). Mostly it is just moving things with his mind, setting minor fire with his mind, ect.

 

Like mystics, a mentalist hero is basically a four color brawler with a mind based power or two.

 

Special note: many heroes possess the Power skill, to simulate a friendly script writer who gives the hero a single use power which they use once (of course), then forget that they even did that (continuity wasn't that important during the Golden Age).

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, steriaca said:

Golden Age mental powers tends, on the heroes part, more gimmicky than modern mentalist. Sure Mento The Master of the Mind can "mind control" someone, but it is set up as "Super Hypnosis" (stair deeply into victim's eyes, must talk to give one command, doesn't work on people with a high EGO stat [let's say 25 or more], can't hide control from victim). Mostly it is just moving things with his mind, setting minor fire with his mind, ect.

 

Like mystics, a mentalist hero is basically a four color brawler with a mind based power or two.

 

Special note: many heroes possess the Power skill, to simulate a friendly script writer who gives the hero a single use power which they use once (of course), then forget that they even did that (continuity wasn't that important during the Golden Age).

Good point. However I don’t know how much Doc is going to be faithful to Golden Age.  This is still a game after all.

[batguy]

On 8/28/2022 at 8:41 AM, Doc Democracy said:

My lockdown proposal to myself was that I would use HERO to create a game.  I wanted to do a powered by HERO type thing that I could share with friends and possibly, if it was good enough, offer here.

 

My God, it was hard.  It was hard to sit down and really put the necessary thought into it.

 

It was hard to do writing.

 

It was hard to balance things up.

 

It was hard to decide how much of the system to cover up and how much flex to leave in there.

 

It was so hard, I am starting again for the fourth time.  All that effort will inform this next one but it has shown me something.  It has shown that I need to hide virtually all of the flexibility.  To have something people can pick up and play, the character creation needs to be almost 95% done already.  The previous three have floundered on me trying to make decisions easy for complete newbies and it branches out so far that I end up with something possibly more complex than fill HERO but with less agency. 😕

 

I plan to have a bunch of cookie cutter superhero templates that players can add SFX to and accessorise with secret identity stuff, colour abilities and perhaps a signature move/ability.  Each template will have at least one fully formed character derived from the template to demo what can be done.

 

It will be a UK based WWII game with a Campaign premise and three or four scenarios (I have run these scenarios with my home group so they are in playable form for me - lots of derail needed for others).  I will outline all my design decisions as a document,  the whys rather than the whats of what I did).

 

I plan to bounce things on here as I do this.  Big broad issues rather than the build details etc.

 

My first consideration has been archetypes for the templates.  As this will be Golden Age focused, my current list is

 

Masked adventurer (e.g., Batman, Sandman, Plastic Man)

Gadgeteer (e.g.,  Iron Man, Blue beetle, Mr Terrific, Green Arrow)

Super-soldier/flagsuit (e.g., Captain America, Hourman, Uncle Sam)

Alien being (e.g., Superman, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman)

Bearer of occult/mythological artefact (e.g., Hawkman, Dr Fate, Zatara)

Speedster  (e.g., Flash, Johnny Quick) 

 

I plan to have three basic builds (these builds will modify CV, defences, and base damage scores) that I build out to each Archetype, possibly offering a build per Archetype (which would push this out to 18 templates with associated characters).

 

Is there anything I am missing that is a MUST HAVE?

 

Doc

 

PS: this has a big potential to be a pipedream and never realised, I can see my biggest opportunity to have gotten it done was in the past two years, the next best time will be when I retire.  But until then, gonna keep tinkering and writing as if it is real life thing.

Sounds like a plan,go for it

 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Good point. However I don’t know how much Doc is going to be faithful to Golden Age.  This is still a game after all.

 

I want a pretty four-colour game, though pre CCA as I want to learn into the WWII aspect.  I think the UK setting needs to be significantly different from US superheroes, more directly involved much earlier in the conflict.

 

However, am digging into the three Golden Age supplements I have to take what I can.

 

Simpler builds, more one-dimensional powers are what I am looking at.

 

Should also have a more detailed focus on UK politics of the time (am considering a bit of a rehabilitation of Neville Chamberlain).

[Hugh Neilson]

5 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

I want a pretty four-colour game, though pre CCA as I want to learn into the WWII aspect.  I think the UK setting needs to be significantly different from US superheroes, more directly involved much earlier in the conflict.

 

There are numerous discussions of the decision to keep the US Supers out of the direct war effort.  The decision mainly surrounded not having the fictional superheroes easily accomplishing what the real heroes were struggling and, in many cases, losing their lives to achieve.

 

80 years later, a game where Supers are directly involved (even if Invaders-style just countering the enemies' Supers) seems much more acceptable.

[Steve]

In a WWII game, you could set it up like how the first MCU Captain America movie did. Cap wasn’t directly fighting Nazi Germany’s main forces but the HYDRA organization they funded. His fight against the Red Skull was a subset of the greater war raging around them.

 

You could do a campaign the same way. There are supervillains, monsters and mad scientists working for the Nazis, and the heroes are focused on fighting them. While they aren’t easily trouncing Nazi soldiers in the various battlefields, their efforts are keeping the mad scientists and supervillains occupied, or _they_ will trounce Allied soldiers.

[steriaca]

The big questions are: why are superheroes/super soldiers not on the front lines of the war effort? In Marvel the answer is, they were but the adventures were top secret ("The Invaders"). DC's reason is The Spear Of Destiny, which kept superheroes away from Germany. Champions history is that darn spell which kept allied superheroes from axis occupied areas.

 

My reason is that the superheroes are great propaganda pieces and are much too valuable to risk their lives in the front lines. That doesn't mean they didn't risk their lives in important activities during WW2. It is just they were deliberately kept from the front lines unless an operation absolutely needed their skills. (Note: properganda agents won't work in a campaign where superheroes are supposed to be a hidden thing.)

 

Besides, it's easier to vary adventures when they have a home base and not moving with an infantry or such.

[Doc Democracy]

My intention is to include at least three or four adventures from what was my last campaign with my home group, one that explains the dynamics, sets up superherodom in Europe at this time, suggests the origins of superpowers in this world and how they will interface with the war, ancient magic and modern science.  (No lack of ambition, just the talent and willpower to deliver on it! 😉)

[assault]

13 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

(No lack of ambition, just the talent and willpower to deliver on it! 😉)

I just wrote something about Elves and their origins as Satyrs. And the origin of Satyrs, which is a little bit vulgar, but involves Pan.

Good fun for about ten minutes. That's pretty much my attention span. As for talent: I can't write an entire paragraph of prose without the sentences starting to stab each other.

[Doc Democracy]

My work goes slowly but I intend to deliver some GM help.  I want encounters to be more than just fighting.  Spectaculars sets up a scene with things to do, both for the heroes and the villains. It means there is more to do than just whale on the villains (and vice versa) and it puts boundaries on how long a fight will go on.

 

So, what are secondary aims? Secure items, rescue bystanders, stabilise the environment, protect secret ID, deal with environmental issues.  What else?

 

And what does this mean and how does it work?

 

Well,I am thinking that I will make heavy use of change environment.  I will use distraction style secondary aims to reduce chances to hit until it is dealt with.  I am hoping that I can encourage encounters that demand wider use of skills or minor powers, a little bit mire narrative.

 

I am also thinking about setting up everyman-style contacts and reputation. Dealing with these secondary issues should make changes to these things, hopefully driving greater engagement with the setting and NPCs and to drive heroic play.

 

Doc

 

 

[Steve]

An example of something with more to do than smash villains would be a plot by The Tremor, activating his new earthquake machine near Campaign City. The heroes will need to rescue people from damaged buildings and stop the damage from getting worse.

 

Imagine if this plot happens while a Senator or the President was visiting Campaign City.

 

The villain need not be very tough, and might only employ some goons.

[Hugh Neilson]

56 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

So, what are secondary aims? Secure items, rescue bystanders, stabilise the environment, protect secret ID, deal with environmental issues.  What else?

 

Secure items is really two possible aims - protect an item from the enemy (don't let them get away with the Snopes Ruby or the encryption codes!) or secure an item we need (we have to get those plans to the Rebellion, whatever the cost!). What are the characters' goals and psychs?  If we are fighting it out in view of a neutral force, do we need to do so in a manner that shows we are more consistent with their ideals than the enemy is?  The Atlanteans value honour, so if we beat the Nazi villains using deception and sneak attacks, we win the battle and lose the war.

 

56 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Well,I am thinking that I will make heavy use of change environment.  I will use distraction style secondary aims to reduce chances to hit until it is dealt with.  I am hoping that I can encourage encounters that demand wider use of skills or minor powers, a little bit mire narrative.

 

I like these ideas.  In some cases, the objectives may play themselves out.  "I'd love to pursue the Green Death, but it's more important to ensure the safety of the Princess, and there could be more Nazis lurking!"  Having the character who needs to act against his Psychs take penalties, instead of Ego rolls, seems like an excellent mechanic to try out.

 

56 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

I am also thinking about setting up everyman-style contacts and reputation. Dealing with these secondary issues should make changes to these things, hopefully driving greater engagement with the setting and NPCs and to drive heroic play.

 

I like the idea of a Reputation-style system in the background.  The public sees how you really behave in public battles, but not on secret missions.  The President and the Prime Minister, however, get reports from many missions the public will never be aware of, and information circulates through the military even if the public are unaware.

[Ninja-Bear]

What if someone sets off an air raid siren? The heroes need to comfort the panicked populace. Could someone be stealing food rations? It could be a desperate family. How do you help? Someone is littering secretly the city with propaganda papers or perhaps hijacking the local air waves. How do you stop that?

[Steve]

45 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

What if someone sets off an air raid siren? The heroes need to comfort the panicked populace. Could someone be stealing food rations? It could be a desperate family. How do you help? Someone is littering secretly the city with propaganda papers or perhaps hijacking the local air waves. How do you stop that?

During the war years, selling counterfeit ration books could be a profitable business.

 

A Nazi spy ring might do this to fund their operations. It could be an opportunity for Golden Age moralizing along with fighting.

[Doc Democracy]

OK.  Am still putting together bits and thinking about this.  I know I want a HERO player to recognise it's bones, but a novice would only see a game.

 

One element of Golden Age that is not inherent in HERO is two-gisted heroism.  This is not the 1970s comics code authority goody two shoes but that feeling of fighting for want is right.

 

I am thinking of adding a new characteristic called Heroism.  It would be a dynamic thing.  You can gain Heroism by suffering bad things for heroic reasons (taking a hit to save an innocent, intervening when it would be sensible to stay hidden, leaving an opponent alive when it would be more convenient to kill them).  You can spend Heroism much like you spend Hero points.  In the meantime it provides help in being heroic, when resisting mind control to do something evil or bad, you add your Heroism to your EGO. When resisting presence attacks, or succumbing to fear attacks when protecting the weak and/or innocent, Heroism can add to Presence.  Anything, essentially, that makes a Hero a HERO.  🙂

 

I think I see it very much trying to make Hero points much more fundamentally part of the character (they have always felt a bit added on).  I also wanted them to have a passive effect that would drive heroic play (putting a bit of narrative in the game).

 

Thoughts?

[Scott Ruggels]

I am always wary about point that skew results,especially in a Hero based game, but I think your idea avoids my objections, by stacking with stats as necessary, and having them earned through actions in game that are “Heroic”. So long as they don’t allow dice re-rolls or change outcomes after rolls, I would be fine with them. One could maybe use earned but unspent points as EXP, per session, maybe? 

[Hugh Neilson]

One question that comes up routinely in Hero and other games is the frustration of some players with certain genre tropes, or alternatively the frustration of some GMs with players who will not play to genre.

 

The players are frustrated because their characters are expected to make sub-optimal decisions (when did you last see a Champions Super fire off an attack at less than full power because they aren't sure how well-defended that unknown villain is?), and the GM is frustrated because the game does not feel like the genre.  Peel back the layers and the problem is typically that the PCs are punished for following those tropes.  That first attack, at limited power, bounces off the villain's defenses, and the wasted action puts the heroes at a disadvantage that results in losing the combat.

 

This system will reward playing to the genre tropes, so the player feels like they are winning, rather than losing, when the PCs play to genre tropes.

 

Then we get to nit-picky details.  What can Hero Points be spent for?  This old thread set out many possibilities, most pretty significant (probably more significant than Scott would like to see). They have to be significant enough to merit taking those sub-optimal actions, though. 

 

If they can have a significant impact, it seems like having enough saved up to have a significant impact on Ego or PRE as you describe would mean the character could spend a lot in succession and waltz through an otherwise-impossible scenario. Assuming that's not the goal, maybe they need to be multiplied by some factor to get to their impact on those situations.  The passive use situations also need to be common enough to incent saving Hero Points for that purpose rather than spending them as fast as they are obtained.

 

I would vote against trading them for xp. I dislike the idea of trading off a permanent improvement to my character for a temporary in-game benefit. Balancing the benefits of Hero Points against the value of xp would also be challenging - would you rather have 5 HP or +5 PRE or STR?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

The players are frustrated because their characters are expected to make sub-optimal decisions (when did you last see a Champions Super fire off an attack at less than full power because they aren't sure how well-defended that unknown villain is?), and the GM is frustrated because the game does not feel like the genre.  Peel back the layers and the problem is typically that the PCs are punished for following those tropes.  That first attack, at limited power, bounces off the villain's defenses, and the wasted action puts the heroes at a disadvantage that results in losing the combat.

 

I have a mechanism I came up with that I have never playtested to address the first part: reverse 'pulling a punch'.  Instead of taking a penalty to try to do less damage, you take a penalty when you try to do more damage.

 

So, you take a -1 OCV per 5d6 damage penalty and deal full damage.  If you do not, you take no penalty to OCV and deal half body damage.  SO the default is four color "I don't kill" superhero stuff.

 

But yes, I agree that player mentality is "I built a powerful character to be powerful and I don't want to feel like a wuss."  And it feels like a failure if you take your phase and do nothing.  GMs can really be bad about trying to "win" or at least challenge the party that they fail to carry out one important task for GMs: give them cannon fodder.

 

A lot of computer games and movies etc do this where they give the hero a huge challenge right away, barely able to defeat the enemy.  You have to give the heroes regular yard trash to mop up on to help them feel powerful.  Then the real challenge by contrast feels impressive.  Give them weak, easy to hit bad guys to just mow down and feel triumphant about.  Regularly help them remember how powerful they are compared to just regular folks.  Then you can give them the big guns, but always with at least some trash around to mop up on because that helps them remember their power.

[Duke Bushido]

On 12/11/2022 at 6:18 AM, Doc Democracy said:

  I know I want a HERO player to recognise it's bones, but a novice would only see a game.

 

 

 

Dude, as soon as you grab 3d6 and ask for DCV, we'll recognize it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

On 12/13/2022 at 2:58 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

One question that comes up routinely in Hero and other games is the frustration of some players with certain genre tropes, or alternatively the frustration of some GMs with players who will not play to genre.

 

 

I think it is the job of the system to encourage genre play, I don't think there should be a serious tension between playing the game and emulating the genre.  That is why I want a mechanism rewarding heroic behaviour baked right into the game.

 

Quote

Then we get to nit-picky details.  What can Hero Points be spent for?  This old thread set out many possibilities, most pretty significant (probably more significant than Scott would like to see). They have to be significant enough to merit taking those sub-optimal actions, though.

 

I reckon you slightly underestimate the tendency of players to want more of stuff.  If I use heroism as a measure in the game, enough will be seeking to accumulate the "good thing".  🙂

 

Quote

If they can have a significant impact, it seems like having enough saved up to have a significant impact on Ego or PRE as you describe would mean the character could spend a lot in succession and waltz through an otherwise-impossible scenario. Assuming that's not the goal, maybe they need to be multiplied by some factor to get to their impact on those situations. 

 

I want them to have a significant effect and, should a player, or group, want to spend their heroism, then I think they should find it aids them to waltz through a difficult/impossible scenario.  That would fix the value of heroism in the game and, hopefully, further incentivise heroic action (to accumulate more points).

 

Quote

The passive use situations also need to be common enough to incent saving Hero Points for that purpose rather than spending them as fast as they are obtained.

 

Yeah, this is probably also key.  I think that I need to ensure that there is lots of narrative use, where social interactions with NPCs becomes easier the higher the heroism of a character is.

 

When Captain Whitebread, with heroism of over 20 asks the general to trust him with the nuclear missiles needed to defeat BigBadGuy he should be significantly more likely to say yes than when StreetSlasher whose heroism bumps along in single figures asks the same.  Every interaction should promote high heroism.  Even bad guys will preferentially attack low heroism characters (you put down the most dangerous opponent first).  Players should be getting a clear message from the game.

 

A key consideration for me would be what bad actions do to heroism.  I am not inclined to take things away from players, that is not fun.  What I might need is a tally of bad actions (I need a good name for this), but when you actively act in selfish or dangerous manners, you begin to build up a karmic debt (which might actually be a good name).  Future heroic action would pay off that debt before it once again begins to add to the Heroism characteristic.

 

I think there might also be a need for the game to alert players when they should be accumulating and when they should be spending.  In TORG, the GM declares certain scenes to be standard and others to be dramatic. In a standard scene players would know they are safer to risk less optimal actions to build Heroism and in dramatic scenes they may want to consider the use of Heroism as outcomes are more critically important to the adventure.

 

Quote

I would vote against trading them for xp. I dislike the idea of trading off a permanent improvement to my character for a temporary in-game benefit. Balancing the benefits of Hero Points against the value of xp would also be challenging - would you rather have 5 HP or +5 PRE or STR?

 

Going back to TORG, I got disillusioned with that kind of thing.  If I used my points to "win" the scenario, and another player did not, then my character progressed less quickly.  It was a perverse outcome.

 

However, I like the idea that spent Heroism become experience points.  If you simply hoard it, you get passive benefits; if you spend it, you get temporary in-game benefit and potential character growth.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I reckon you slightly underestimate the tendency of players to want more of stuff.  If I use heroism as a measure in the game, enough will be seeking to accumulate the "good thing".  🙂

 

I also see a lot of players look at abilities that are "not powerful enough for what they cost". That's just the overall balance, though.

 

12 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I want them to have a significant effect and, should a player, or group, want to spend their heroism, then I think they should find it aids them to waltz through a difficult/impossible scenario.  That would fix the value of heroism in the game and, hopefully, further incentivise heroic action (to accumulate more points).

 

Yeah, this is probably also key.  I think that I need to ensure that there is lots of narrative use, where social interactions with NPCs becomes easier the higher the heroism of a character is.

 

When Captain Whitebread, with heroism of over 20 asks the general to trust him with the nuclear missiles needed to defeat BigBadGuy he should be significantly more likely to say yes than when StreetSlasher whose heroism bumps along in single figures asks the same.  Every interaction should promote high heroism.  Even bad guys will preferentially attack low heroism characters (you put down the most dangerous opponent first).  Players should be getting a clear message from the game.

 

Linking the two together, why does Captain Whitebreak burning off 15 of his 20 Heroism to single-handedly prevent BigBadGuy from destroying the world result in a huge loss of public trust? It would be a perverse result if players felt incented to hoard Hero Points at the cost of failing to achieve Heroic deeds.

 

12 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

A key consideration for me would be what bad actions do to heroism.  I am not inclined to take things away from players, that is not fun.  What I might need is a tally of bad actions (I need a good name for this), but when you actively act in selfish or dangerous manners, you begin to build up a karmic debt (which might actually be a good name).  Future heroic action would pay off that debt before it once again begins to add to the Heroism characteristic.

 

Ideally, failure to accumulate Heroism would be enough incentive to avoid unheroic actions. Maybe Heroism is awarded (in part, rather than in whole?) at scenario breakpoints where the overall Heroism displayed throughout the scene, scenario or story arc can be taken together - so "heroic once and selfish most of the time" might get a point or two for that one act, but the hero who stayed true to Heroic ideals throughout gets a lot more.

 

One risk is a rather unheroic gaming of Hero Points.  "Well, I can't afford to save the innocent guy now - the opponents are too powerful.  I'll go out and find a bunch of low-risk innocents to save later."

 

If you're only heroic when there's no serious risk or cost, you're not really heroic, are you?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think that mechanics which encourage a certain behavior are more effective than those which punish unwanted behavior.  HAP's in exchange for things which benefit the campaign, the tone, and the genre (or role play well) is an example of what I have in mind here.

[Doc Democracy]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Linking the two together, why does Captain Whitebreak burning off 15 of his 20 Heroism to single-handedly prevent BigBadGuy from destroying the world result in a huge loss of public trust? It would be a perverse result if players felt incented to hoard Hero Points at the cost of failing to achieve Heroic deeds.

 

I see this, I guess that I forget that I use reputation as an evreyman quite heavily in my games, where you might burn Heroism and the results of that boost your reputation. But that feels like double dipping. 

 

As I said, I like the idea of used Heroism becoming experience Points, if you burn a lot of heroism on a massive victory, perhaps some of those points should be used to bolster reputation until you have time to build your Heroism again.

 

It is kind of the opposite of the points you make below, is it really heroic to bully your way using Heroism to win? 🙂 Circular argument, I know, and I will need to put some thought into this.

 

Quote

Ideally, failure to accumulate Heroism would be enough incentive to avoid unheroic actions. Maybe Heroism is awarded (in part, rather than in whole?) at scenario breakpoints where the overall Heroism displayed throughout the scene, scenario or story arc can be taken together - so "heroic once and selfish most of the time" might get a point or two for that one act, but the hero who stayed true to Heroic ideals throughout gets a lot more.

 

Ideally, I agree with you.  I think I like the instant gratification of stuff though.

 

Quote

One risk is a rather unheroic gaming of Hero Points.  "Well, I can't afford to save the innocent guy now - the opponents are too powerful.  I'll go out and find a bunch of low-risk innocents to save later."

 

If you're only heroic when there's no serious risk or cost, you're not really heroic, are you?

 

I don't think that is what I am saying, if you are at no risk, then you are obviously not heroic but I think players welcome signposts from the GM of just how much risk they are taking.   Will think more on what I am talking about though.  I can see the risk you highlight.

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think that mechanics which encourage a certain behavior are more effective than those which punish unwanted behavior.  HAP's in exchange for things which benefit the campaign, the tone, and the genre (or role play well) is an example of what I have in mind here.

 

I agree, positive reinforcement instead of punishment beatings...