HDR HEROsystem

[Ermenegildo]

Premise 1: This House Rule was built based on the 5°ed but I think that can be used for any edition with small modifications.

Premise 2: I think that the majority of HEROsystem flexibility comes from its power-limitation-advantage systems (PLA-system), this means that the game allows for easy personalization of every character concept that heavily uses the mechanics of the PLA-system.

Premise 3: I think that details are one of the most important things in a GDR because they can create the story by themself and also they help the players to create a better story

Premise 4: I like to use software to manage the game and handle some of the bookkeeping or the dice rolling for example

Premise 5: I don't like automatic failure and success so I'll ignore them for now

 

Consequence 1: I don't like the 9+CAR/5 skill roll because it creates an artificial threshold in the CAR and reduces the overall level of details in the game

Consequence 2: I don't like the DES/3  in the calculation of the CV for the same exact reason

Objective: to increase the granularity of skill and calculation of the CV the HEROsystem

 

Skill

The idea is quite easy, instead of rolling under 9+CAR/5 with 3d6 one rolls under 41+CAR on 3d30 (the d30 exist also in physical form) and each skill level gives a +5 bonus instead of a +1. The same multiplicative factor (x5) should be used for each skill roll modifier.

In the figure the probability of success for a certain skill for the new system and the old one. On the vertical axis is the probability of success, and on the main horizontal axis is the CAR. On the upper horizontal axis is the older success threshold while on the lower horizontal axis is the new success threshold.

The new methods offer smoother curves without significant steps in the success probability.

If the +5 bonus for each skill level seems too high, and I think it is, the easiest solution is to multiply the point cost of all traits by five, then a +5 skill level will cost 10 pts, and a +1 skill level will cost 2 pts. This

 

Combat Values

The idea is similar but there are some difficulties. We will assume a defender DEX of 9

There are two methods

1) 33 + OCV - DCV <= 3d20

2) 31 + OCV - DCV <= 3d19

In both cases, all the bonus and malus to the roll should be multiplied by 3

 

 

The 3d20 roll provides a small advantage over the standard roll for really difficult and a small penalty for the easy task. the 3d19 roll is more faithful to the original roll but obviously finding a d19 is quite difficult.

Just as in the case of skills we have rescaled the skill levels here also we can multiply all the point costs by 3 to obtain the +1 combat skill level again.

 

If both HR are used at the same time all the pts. cost should be multiplied by 15. A new +1 skill levels cost 3pts and a new +1 Combat skill level with HTH combat will cost 25pts.

The Overall skill levels are quite troublesome and they should probably give +5 to all skill rolls and +3 at all combat rolls and cost 150 pts. Obviously, an old 200 pts hero became a 3000pts hero with this HR

 

I like this HR because it drastically increases the level of detail that I can insert in a game where the power aspect is not so central. It certainly needs some polishing for example on how it handles Overall skill level. Also, the decoupling of combat skill levels from DEX could help. I should also look at the rules for automatic success and failure.

 

Finally, I think that it's extremely interesting, from a general game design perspective, that using asymmetric roll bell curves one can "tune" the mood of a game making it easier or harder to succeed at particularly easy or difficult tasks. One can create a system that supports bold and risky moves by skewing the curve in favor of a difficult roll without significantly altering the success probability in the curve's belly where most of the rolls are rolled.

 

What do you think? How can I improve this HR?

[unclevlad]

I'm generally against most of what you're considering.  Some of these might work for a computer game, but not for a tabletop game.  They're too complex.

 

Have you looked at the ripple effects?  What's the cost for STR, how does that fit into the massively rescaled points?  More generally, what's the cost for 1d6 of normal damage, and how does that fit into your overall points/costing structure?  There are 4 principle characteristics that connect to skill rolls:  DEX, EGO, INT, and PRE.  What happens to their cost, how does this impact the costs for CON or BODY?

 

Perception is an important aspect.  Perception moves the game forward without needing the GM to play too many tricks, or make things seem too contrived.  14- PER succeeds 90% of the time, and that's pretty easy to reach at a reasonable cost.  With a huge "belly" where +1 to a roll doesn't really change things much...that super-granular approach...then how expensive will this become?

 

 

[LoneWolf]

I have to agree that this does not seem like a good idea.  This looks like a solution in search of a problem.  The Hero system is already complex enough without adding more granularity.  One of the biggest complaints people have about the Hero System is the math is to complex.  This makes that situation even worse.   All this is going to do is to slow down the game to a point you are going have to have a computer to play the game.   That is going to turn off a huge amount of players and make it unlikely anyone is going to want to play the game.

 

This is a bad idea that does nothing to improve the game.

[Ermenegildo]

The changes at the capability cost are just a linear rescaling so it does not affect the relative cost of the capability.

In the standard game, you pay 5 pts to get +5 in STR which give you +1 to all STR skill roll in which you are competent or you pay 2pts to get  +1 to a specific skill or 5 pts to get +1 to a group of similar skills.

In the new system without changing capability cost you pay 5 pts to get +5 in STR which give you +5 to all STR skill roll in which you are competent or you pay 2pts to get  +5 to a specific skill or 5 pts to get +5 to a group of similar skills.

In the new system whit changes in the capability cost you you pay 75 pts to get +5 in STR which give you +5 to all STR skill roll in which you are competent or you pay 30 pts to get  +5 to a specific skill or 75 pts to get +5 to a group of similar skills.

 

It is just a linear rescale so it does not affect the relative cost of the capability.

 

[Scott Ruggels]

Too much math for this artist. Also you need a glossary, especially for non standard abbreviations. 

[unclevlad]

Quote

In the new system whit changes in the capability cost you you pay 75 pts to get +5 in STR which give you +5 to all STR skill roll in which you are competent or you pay 30 pts to get  +5 to a specific skill or 75 pts to get +5 to a group of similar skills.

 

So base STR is 15 points per????  Because it affects skill rolls...that STR doesn't even have.  There are no default STR skills.  What about DEX or INT, which are skills-heavy?   

 

What about END costs, how do those change?   

 

And if STR is 15 points per, then what's HA?  What's Blast?  What's a martial arts DC?  Defenses.  Special purpose powers like Invis.  None of these have any connection to skills.  Worse, what's the cost of, say, Counterstrike, which has +2 OCV, +2 DCV? 

 

You have to work through the entire system to see what indirect balance effects you're creating.  I guarantee you'll screw it up.  No question.  I promise I would too;  it's too complex a problem NOT to mess it up.

 

And man...in the standard base cost with advantages and limitations...you're making the math that much harder because the numbers are suddenly MUCH bigger. Many people don't LIKE doing that much math;  they have a hard enough time with the scales in RAW, much less suddenly blowing things up to 7500 points...a 500 point character.  And as LW says...for what?  Even you're killing the granularity of the system you propose by just rescaling everything to fit.   

 

Scott:  I think the abbreviations are mostly standard...just not English standard.  Spanish, I presume?

 

Try something different.  2 ideas:

1.  skill rolls --> 7 + V / 3 rather than V / 5.

2.  skill rolls --> 9 + V / 3, or maybe 10 + V / 3....but on 3d8.  Skill costs don't need to change, and you're not changing combat calculations that much either.  The key there would be the change in the probability to hit given the delta between the attacker's OCV and defender's DCV.  It would change things but it wouldn't be that radical.  OR, alternately, roll skills and perceptions on 3d8 but leave the combat rolls alone.

[Ermenegildo]

Italian abbreviation, I did not notice that I switched to Italian for some abbreviation sorry, DES = DEX and CAR = characteristic.

 

Let's put aside the change in the points cost and let's focus on the change to the skill system.

 

The problem with your proposals is that both change significantly the probability of success for a given characteristic level as you may see in the following plot.

 

I also added some variations with respect to your proposal that should provide a success probability curve that is more similar to the original roll probability curve.

The probabilities reported in the plot are for unmodified skill rolls, in the presence of a modifier the success probability for the standard roll could be obtained transform the roll bonus/malus into a characteristic bonus/malus, for example, +/- 1 correspond to +/-5 to the characteristic and +/-3 correspond to +/- 15. I'm not sure what should happen in the modified roll in the presence of bonus/malus. The standard game assumes, for example, that a skill level corresponds to having 5 additional points in the relevant characteristic with your proposal this equivalence change because a +1 skill level corresponds to having 3 additional points in the relevant characteristic. In a sense, the skill level in your proposal has a higher cost compared with directly buying the relevant characteristic.

 

In both cases, there is a significant variation in the success probability, here measured in an absolute sense as the differences between the standard success probability minus the new probability for each characteristic value. A positive value means that the original success probability is higher than the new one, and a negative value means that the original success probability was lower

If we look a the ratio of the success probability (original/new) the differences between your suggestion and the original game mechanics are stronger (I can make the plots if you are interested), especially in the region of low characteristic value.

 

Even if I fine-tune the parameters of your proposals, I always end up making easy roll easier and hard roll harder.

 

My original proposal (red star in the plots) 41+CAR on 3d30 provides a success probability curve that is significantly closer to the original curve but which is also smoother. And it works even without changing any point cost the only thing that should be changed is that any bonus/malus to the skill roll should be multiplied by 5 to obtain the new bonus/malus. With the new system, a +1 skill level became a +5 skill level (for the same cost in points) and has the same effect on the skill roll that 5 additional points in the characteristic have. Therefore, is equivalent to the standard skill roll.

[LoneWolf]

The Hero System already has a bad reputation as being too complex and involving too much math.  This makes it even worse and if adopted would probably end up driving the majority of the people play it away.   Most people can add up 3d6 in their head fairly quickly and easily.   Doing that with 3d30 is a lot harder and will slow down the game considerably.  If people have had a few drinks it is going to be even worse.  This is exactly the opposite way the game needs to move.  If anything it would be better to simplify the game instead of making it more complex.  The only problem with trying to make it simpler is that doing so would probably end up destroying what makes the Hero System a great game.

 

I don’t doubt your math or that your suggestion does what you say it does.  What I object to is your objective.  This would be fine in a computer game but has no place in a tabletop game.  
 

[unclevlad]

Yep.

 

Explaining Hero's underlying skill mechanics is straightforward...at least, as long as you're not relying on the book explanation, which is horrible.  (That, IMO, is part of the problem.)  The modifiers are easy to grasp...a small mod is +1 or -1.  OK.  No problem.  

 

3d30?  41+CHAR?  HUH???  It will not click with the players.

 

A secondary appeal for Hero is you never need more than d6's,  which are trivial to buy even in quantity.  They're used in lots of games, so it doesn't feel like you need more special equipment or tokens.  Using them in other games like Monopoly, makes them familiar.  d30's violate all of that...BADLY.

[Ermenegildo]

Look, I may accept a lot of arguments but saying that Hero is a simple and easily explainable game seems a bit odd. Sure is not Phoenix Command but the easiness of play is not exactly what makes Herosystem interesting.

 

I understand that you may find my HR strange but it does not require more math skill than rolling 10d6 for stun and then counting BODY and maybe handling multiple defensive power (in 5ed you may have to subtract damage resistance and divide by damage reduction, but you could also have armour piercing or reduced penetration and if I have understood correctly in 6th edition there is also an additional power that directly reduces the number of dice rolled).

 

Again you may not like my house rule for whatever reason but I find it strange that the reason is the simplicity of the standard rule set. Because the standard rule set is not easy and will probably never be "easy "according to today's standard of RPG. There are plenty of complete games that are truly two pages.

 

While I recognise that the use of d6s is good in principle I do not think that buying any dice in any quantity is a problem in 2023, the success of D&D  is a testament that the dice shape is no longer a problem for the new player. Also, the vast number of kickstarts financed to produce dice sets probably means that players like to collect and buy strange dice. You may find a significant number of Kickstarter projects that collected more than 1.000.000€ for producing D&D dice sets, there is even a kickstart to produce d17 and other strange dice that raised 40k€. I think that for a significant number of players using only d6s is not a strong point in a game in 2023 and it was not a strong point in 2005 when I started to play D&D.

 

I would like to hear more about the mechanical problem in my HR than aesthetic problems is a more personal subject and my HR will probably be used only by my groups.

[DentArthurDent]

I agree with the coarse granularity of 3d6.
The problem becomes even greater for non-heroic level games, like Western Hero or Pulp Hero. If, Sam wraps tape around the grip of her .38, that should be worth something. Even a +1% is an acknowledgement of a player’s ingenuity and immersion.

 

I will need a week or so to look more closely at the 3d30 for skills. But I like the underlying reasoning.

[greypaladin_01]

I also agree about the granularity aspect, but I also am in the camp that finds 3d30 to be unduly cumbersome and clunky.   

 

1 - It would be the ONLY place in HERO that does not use d6s  (d3 is the same and d6, lets be fair)

2 - It creates the need for players to buy specialty dice that do not come in any standard dice packs.  I don't even recall the last time I saw a d30 at any local game shops.  

3 - I have personal experience using just 1d30 back in houserules from the AD&D days... and they were HORRIBLE.   Dice the size of golf balls that roll and roll.... over half the time they would go right off the table and people would have to hunt them down.   The readable face is a little hard to identify given the size of the dice.    I shudder even trying to imagine keeping 3 of them active and controlled at table play.   (Sure this is just anecdotal... but this was a 3 year long game that played twice a month with average of 5-7 players... so not an inconsequential sample size.   And for the record, it NEVER really got much better as far as using them at table)

[unclevlad]

The mechanical problem?

 

If all you're doing is going from 3d6 to 3d30, from +1 per level to +5 per level, then how has the granularity really changed?

 

The other mechanical problem is the mechanics of the character sheet.  If nothing else, it LOOKS much uglier, and you haven't yet convinced me about shifting balances between different parts of the system.  What's the cost for 1d6 of damage?  If that doesn't change, then the cost of a skill level relative to an attack power, changes dramatically.

[Ermenegildo]

@greypaladin_01 I will probably use software for dice rolling, it is faster and "cleaner". Also, I already have pc and tablet at the table because I have only PDFs of the books (Thanks to Bundle of holding).

 

Even without changing the point cost of anything the HR increase the differentiation between a character with similar characteristics. It modifies the success probability of the skill test, compared to the standard system, in a range from -5% to +5% providing a small but significant modification to the game.

In the characteristic range from 0 to 20, each characteristic point increases the success probability by 2%, while the standard system has an increased probability of success only at 3,8,13,18 with a 10% jump each time.

 

I do not really understand why the cost for 1d6 of damage should change. The HR essentially remove the jump in skill roll success probability due to the presence of rounding. The standard system does not consider this jump when it fixes the price of characteristics or skill level. Therefore, I'm just removing something that the system does not price properly. The rest of the game's math, in terms of success probability, remains almost equal. Every time that the characteristic is a multiple of 5 the difference between success probability in the standard game and the modified game is less than 0.5%.