Streamlining the system

[Doc Democracy]

I've been thinking about streamlining the system. When I present it to people they look at the way the combat calculation is different from the skill calaculation and the normal damage is different from the killing damage and think it is all too complex.

 

Obviously this adds on from the reputation of the system being complex.

 

I was thinking of unifying the combat and skills to be simpler. I was thinking that they should both be based on the following

 

3D6 + stat/3 + skill levels - difficulty modifier >= 11

 

Thus for a skill you have skill levels encompass both skill levels and the two point adders within the skill and the difficulty modifier set by the GM.

 

For combat you have the difficulty modifier be the OCV of the opponent. In both cases you are looking to get a modifed total of 11 or greater.

 

For damage calculations I was thinking of simply retaining the normal damage calculation and using an advantage to say that the attack is 'killing' and thus only resistant defences would apply against it.

 

You could also purchase increased damage advantages by making a 5 or 6 be 2 BODY, or a 4,5, or 6 be 2 BODY.

 

Not decided what I'd charge for those yet. Just thought I'd run the ideas up the flagpole and see whether people think this would indeed streamline the system for non-Hero people.

 

 

Doc

[Killer Shrike]

Why not just write your own game at that point?

 

Actually, as a side note, combat and skills resolve in essentially the same fashion. Combat just happens to always be oppossed by the opponents DCV, so rather than do constant roll offs (which can get tiresome) the HERO System just works the DCV as a static penalty into the to-hit roll.

[Doc Democracy]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Why not just write your own game at that point?

 

Bacause I wouldn't want to go through the rest of the powers etc as I'm quite happy with the point system. I like the 3D6 and I like the stats and on the whole I like the power balance.

 

I just wanted to make it a bit more coherent for my players.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Why not just write your own game at that point?

 

Actually, as a side note, combat and skills resolve in essentially the same fashion. Combat just happens to always be oppossed by the opponents DCV, so rather than do constant roll offs (which can get tiresome) the HERO System just works the DCV as a static penalty into the to-hit roll.

 

No, combat is resolved differently from skills. Skill numbers are assigned when the skill is bought and are 9+STAT/5. Combat numbers are never assigned but are always calculated on the fly, and are always 11+STAT/3-STAT/3. The similarity is that in both cases you roll 3d6 less than or equal to that number, but it ends there.

 

If they were the same, you'd buy combat skills based on 9+STAT/5. Or all skills would be based on 11+STAT/3-STAT/3.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

No, combat is resolved differently from skills. Skill numbers are assigned when the skill is bought and are 9+STAT/5. Combat numbers are never assigned but are always calculated on the fly, and are always 11+STAT/3-STAT/3. The similarity is that in both cases you roll 3d6 less than or equal to that number, but it ends there.

 

If they were the same, you'd buy combat skills based on 9+STAT/5. Or all skills would be based on 11+STAT/3-STAT/3.

9+ base STAT of 10/5 = 11 (without modifier).

 

OCV (10 DEX/3 = 3 w/o modifer) +11 - DCV (10 DEX/3 w/o modifier) = 11 (without modifier).

 

They are both 11- rolls on a 3d6 without modification. They are resolve in "essentially the same fashion", which is to say you roll 3d6 and hope to get under a certain number.

 

They diverge from there, but the same basic idea is at the root of both.

[Snarf]

I don't see any reason why this couldn't work. You could forget about CSLs entirely and just by skills with individual weapons like GURPS. I don't even think you'd need an advantage to represent killing damage, you could just eliminate resistant defenses and make all weapons and armor deal and protect against normal damage. Once people get more used to the system you could start reintroducing rules and making things more complex and strategic.

 

Somewhere in the Fifth Edition combat section, it recommended dropping the speed table and endurance costs if complexity and speed of play is a problem. That's another thing you could try.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

9+ base STAT of 10/5 = 11 (without modifier).

 

OCV (10 DEX/3 = 3 w/o modifer) +11 - DCV (10 DEX/3 w/o modifier) = 11 (without modifier).

 

They are both 11- rolls on a 3d6 without modification. They are resolve in "essentially the same fashion", which is to say you roll 3d6 and hope to get under a certain number.

 

They diverge from there, but the same basic idea is at the root of both.

 

But they're not both "roll 11 or less". If they were then it would have been presented that way from the get go, and then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

The fact that you get the same number in both instances doesn't mean that they're the same method.

 

To go even further: with skills you buy your base skill for 3 points, buying it up by spending 2 points per +1. If you don't have the skill, you don't get to roll, except under extremely special circumstances. With combat, you roll 11-, plus your CV, minus your opponent's CV. If you don't have any skill at all you can still roll, at a penalty. These are not, mechanically or conceptually, the same.

 

To come at it from the other direction: you can buy skill levels with multiple skills (as opposed to combat) as well, but probably no one thinks they're the same thing as buying +1 to a skill.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

But they're not both "roll 11 or less". If they were then it would have been presented that way from the get go, and then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

The fact that you get the same number in both instances doesn't mean that they're the same method.

 

To go even further: with skills you buy your base skill for 3 points, buying it up by spending 2 points per +1. With combat, you get your "base skill" at -3 for no points. You buy your base skill for a variable number of points (usually 1-2 depending on the combat form) and buy it up for any amount from 1-10 points per +1 depending on how useful the bonus is. Note that combat levels are different both mechanically and conceptually than buying up a skill roll. To come at it from the other direction: you can buy skill levels with multiple skills as well, but probably no one thinks they're the same thing as buying +1 to a skill.

 

There is nothing untrue in my statement. On a base character with 10s in every characteristic both skill rolls and a to hit roll resolve as roll 3d6, get an 11 or less.

 

This is the essential mechanic of the HERO System: roll 3d6 under a target number.

 

How that target number is generated and modified diverge, but at their lowest common denominator start off at the same point, with the same kind of roll, and with the same chance of success.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

This is the essential mechanic of the HERO System: roll 3d6 under a target number.

 

This is Hero's basic mechanic, but it is not a unified mechanic, nor technically a core mechanic.

 

How that target number is generated and modified diverge, but at their lowest common denominator start off at the same point, with the same kind of roll, and with the same chance of success.

 

Note that your post crossed my editing flurry just now so you may want to go back and see if there's anything else you want to address.

 

There is a mechanical and conceptual difference in the way target numbers are derived for combat versus the way they are derived for noncombat, and this takes away from the "roll 3d6 under a target number" as the core mechanic, essentially turning it into two different, non-unified, core mechanics. As Snarf pointed out, GURPS does have a unified mechanic, handling combat and noncombat skill usage in exactly the same way.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

There is a mechanical and conceptual difference in the way target numbers are derived for combat versus the way they are derived for noncombat, and this takes away from the "roll 3d6 under a target number" as the core mechanic, essentially turning it into two different, non-unified, core mechanics.

 

You will always roll 3d6 and you will always want to roll under a given target number.

 

That is a unified and core mechanic in my book. YMMV.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

You will always roll 3d6 and you will always want to roll under a given target number.

 

That is a unified and core mechanic in my book. YMMV.

 

You were implying that the core mechanic of Hero was to roll 11 or less on 3d6, and that this was universal to skills and combat.

 

I'll agree that you always roll 3d6 under a target number, but that target number is generated in fundamentally different ways for noncombat skills and combat.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

You were implying that the core mechanic of Hero was to roll 11 or less on 3d6, and that this was universal to skills and combat.

I didnt imply it, you inferred it. What I said was that both to hit and skills start off at the same probablity and are resolved the same way. The fact that this is represented as an 11- roll doesnt imply that 'the core mechanic of Hero was to roll 11 or less on 3d6".

 

Originally posted by archer

I'll agree that you always roll 3d6 under a target number, but that target number is generated in fundamentally different ways for noncombat skills and combat.

And I never stated otherwise.

 

The essential, as in the distilled core, mechanic is the same (roll 3d6 under a given target number). This is what I stated and it is a true statement. They diverge from there in how the target number is determined, but "combat and skills resolve in essentially the same fashion", as I said.

 

This is in comparison to some systems where there is a completely seperate mechanic for skill resolution and combat resolution, sometimes going so far as to rolling different types of dice, or wanting to roll high for one and low for the other, and other strangeness.

 

In the HERO System you are either rolling 3d6 under a target number looking for low numbers, or rolling as many d6 as you can afford/manage for an effect roll and looking for high numbers.

 

Combat to-hit rolls and skill rolls and perception rolls and characteristic rolls are all of the first type of roll and all have the same essential resolution (roll 3d6 under TN); even though they diverge in how the TN is generated they have the same core mechanic.

[dugfromthearth]

I do just roll killing attacks like normal attacks (5pts per 1d6 killing), no stun multiplier.

 

modifying the die rolling is alot more complicated.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Let me start off by saying that I wouldn't change the existing mechanics. Although they may seem somewhat confusing at first, they're not that confusing when you get used to them. Also, any clarity gained by changing the mechanics would be offset by the fact that, if the players had a question about how something worked, they could no longer consult the rulebook for the answer (because the info in the rulebook would work differently).

 

Having said that, he's a thing I came up with, oh, ten years ago probably, for making Killing Attack a Power Advantage instead of a separate Power, and for changing how it worked. Take it for whatever it's worth.

 

Killing Attack

 

This Advantage transforms an Energy Blast into a Killing Attack. This Advantage can ONLY be applied to Energy Blast, not to Hand-to-Hand Attack (HA) or any other Power. An Energy Blast with this Advantage causes more BODY damage than a normal Energy Blast, and the damage it causes (both BODY and STUN) is applied against the target's Resistant Defenses only.

 

A Killing Attack's BODY damage is counted the same way as an Energy Blast's, except that 1 BODY is added to the BODY count on each die. In other words, a die roll of 1 counts as 1 BODY instead of 0, a roll of 2-5 counts as 2 BODY instead of 1, and a roll of 6 counts as 3 BODY instead of 2. The STUN damage is counted as it is for a normal Energy Blast -- by adding up the pips shown on the dice.

 

A Killing Attack must be defined as Ranged (RKA) or Hand-to-Hand (HKA). If it is defined as an RKA, it works as described above with a range of 5x the Character Points in inches. If it is defined as an HKA, it does not receive a No Range Limitation, but the user may add his STR to the attack at a ratio of 1d6 per 7.5 STR (or 7.5 STR above the STR Min in cases where that is applicable). The most that can be gained from additions for STR, Martial Arts, etc. (all of which function as the current KA rules, except that the ratio is 7.5 per 1d6 instead of 15 per 1d6) is equal to the original attack (for a total max of 2x the original attack).

 

Killing Attacks take a +1d6 penalty when rolling for Knockback.

 

* Killing Attack Cost Multiplier: +1/2

 

 

If you use Killing Attacks with this method, the usual net result is Killing Attacks that have less extreme swings in results, do a bit more BODY than traditional Killing Attacks, and do a bit less STUN than traditional Killing Attacks.

 

For example, let's compare them in a fairly typical Champions environment, with 60 Active Point attacks and average defenses of 25 (of which, say, 15 is Resistant).

 

The traditional Killing Attack will be 4d6, rolling an average of 14 BODY and 36 STUN. Subtracting the rDEF from the BODY and the total DEF from the STUN, that leaves 0 BODY and 21 STUN after defenses.

 

This newfangled Killing Attack will be 8d6, rolling an average of 16 BODY and 28 STUN. Subtracting the rDEF from both the BODY and the STUN, that leaves 1 BODY and 13 STUN after defenses.

 

As you can probably guess, the basic goal of this mechanism is to turn Killing Attack into something you use to kill/destroy things... not something you hope to use to knock things out by hitting the STUN lotto. However, it is not wildly different in its results from the existing Killing Attack results, so it doesn't change play balance tremendously.

[Killer Shrike]

My house rule on Killing Attacks is that the STUN Multiple applies to the BODY that gets thru defenses, but the target just takes the STUN w/o applying defenses. Damage Reduction applies normally to the STUN.

 

Thus if a 3d6 HKA hits a guy with 3 PD and 9 rPD, if the BODY roll is 11 and the STUN Multile is 3 then the target takes 11-9 = 2 BODY Taken * 3 = 6 STUN Taken rather than 33 - 12 = 21 STUN Taken.

 

Same 3d6 HKA hits the same guy with 3 PD and 9 rPD, Max damage is 18 BODY with a STUN Multiple of 5, and the target takes 18-9 = 9 BODY Taken * 5 = 45 STUN Taken rather than 55 - 12 = 43 STUN Taken.

 

By comparison a 9d6N attack hits the same guy with 3 PD and 9 rPD. The attack does 9 BODY and 25 STUN on average, and results in 0 BODY Taken and 13 STUN Taken.

 

Same 9d6N attack hits the same guy with 3 PD and 9 rPD. Max damage, the attack does 18 BODY and 54 STUN, and results in 6 BODY Taken and 42 STUN Taken.

 

Reduces the STUN Lotto heavily.

[nHammer]

Re: Streamlining the system

 

Originally posted by Doc Democracy

I've been thinking about streamlining the system. When I present it to people they look at the way the combat calculation is different from the skill calaculation and the normal damage is different from the killing damage and think it is all too complex.

 

Doc

 

Originally posted by Doc Democracy

I just wanted to make it a bit more coherent for my players.

 

What is the education level of your players? It's easily understood basic math.

 

I was 16 and in high school when I started playing Champions and it didn't take me long to understand the system. Nobody had to make it less complex or coherent.

 

I truly do not understand why people think the system is complex. Maybe you just need to teach the system in a different way.

[Mark Taylor]

Originally posted by archer

As Snarf pointed out, GURPS does have a unified mechanic, handling combat and noncombat skill usage in exactly the same way.

 

That's not quite true, as combat in GURPS involves making a defense roll for (almost) every attack, and the defense roll is quite different to any other type of success roll.

 

If GURPS were consistent in this area the defense roll should be a standard resistance roll, in which the aim is to roll under a modified whole skill or stat and succeed by a margin greater than or equal to that by which your opponent succeeded.

 

Instead it uniquely involves rolling under a modified fraction of a skill or stat where every other type of success roll involves rolling under a modified whole skill or stat, and unlike any other type of opposed roll, the margin of success is not significant unless a critical is scored.

[Southern Cross]

Tat's certainly true.And let's not forget that armor PD adds to all active defenses in GURPs.While this may work fine for blocks or parries,it is ludicrous to apply this mechanism to Dodges.

[Intrope]

I for one intend to use a 3d6+ system; IMExperience, adding is much easier (and faster) than subtracting for most people, especially after 10pm (or after the 8th hour of playing). And for people being converted from d20, it's much easier to explain.

 

My system in a nutshell:

Standard Skills: 3d6 + STAT/5 + Levels

Background Skills: 3d6 + (Active points in skill) + Levels

Familiarity: 3d6 - 1

In each case, the target is 12.

 

For Combat, it's 3d6 + OCV + Levels, and the target is DCV + 10.

 

Naturally, the bonus (for skill rolls) and DCV + 10 would be pre-computed.

 

[Note that all of this is mathematically the same as the usual way]

 

Derek: I like this KA-as-advantage very much, and will be using that, as well...

[Mark Taylor]

Originally posted by Southern Cross

Tat's certainly true.And let's not forget that armor PD adds to all active defenses in GURPs.While this may work fine for blocks or parries,it is ludicrous to apply this mechanism to Dodges.

 

I didn't mention PD specifically because I don't see it as being significantly different from the way in which any other skill roll is modified. It's certainly far from the only instance in which a roll gains a fixed bonus or penalty from a piece of equipment. Lockpicking, for example, gains a fixed +1 bonus from the use of fine lockpicks. In high-tech or high-magic game worlds there are many other examples.

[GrimJesta]

I truly do not understand why people think the system is complex. Maybe you just need to teach the system in a different way.

 

Well to people who are used to the newer, really watered-down systems like D&D 3.5 and the Storyteller System, the Hero System does look complex. It involves a serious character generation, detailed movement, and lots of cool variables like Power Frameworks and Disadvantages. So most people take a look at the book, see it all involves some brainwork as opposed to die-rolling or coloring some dots, and they dismiss the game as unneccessarily complex.

 

Ive also found that alot of people that gripe about the game play in a campaign, but dont own the book. They whine that its too complex, meanwhile they expect to learn the rules by other people telling it to them.

 

It all boils down to laziness. I used to not get the system either, a long time ago. Then I decided to actually *reeeeeaaad* the book and it made sense in one sitting.

 

Thats just my 2 coppers...

 

Ive heard the same gripes about Runequest, Hackmaster, and other games that have detailed combat and character generation. It happens I guess.

 

-=Grim=-

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by GrimJesta

Well to people who are used to the newer, really watered-down systems like D&D 3.5 and the Storyteller System, the Hero System does look complex. It involves a serious character generation, detailed movement, and lots of cool variables like Power Frameworks and Disadvantages. So most people take a look at the book, see it all involves some brainwork as opposed to die-rolling or coloring some dots, and they dismiss the game as unneccessarily complex.

 

Guess they never saw a Fantasy Games Unlimited (FGU) game. Most of those required serious math!

 

Granted Hero character creation takes some getting used to, and it helps to have some experienced folks around to help you get started - but I don't think the other mechanics (combat, skill rolls, etc.) are any more 'complex' than any other system out there right now.

 

Aroooo

[Snarf]

Originally posted by Realms of Chaos

That's not quite true, as combat in GURPS involves making a defense roll for (almost) every attack, and the defense roll is quite different to any other type of success roll.

 

If GURPS were consistent in this area the defense roll should be a standard resistance roll, in which the aim is to roll under a modified whole skill or stat and succeed by a margin greater than or equal to that by which your opponent succeeded.

 

Instead it uniquely involves rolling under a modified fraction of a skill or stat where every other type of success roll involves rolling under a modified whole skill or stat, and unlike any other type of opposed roll, the margin of success is not significant unless a critical is scored.

And since active defense is a standalone roll instead of resisted, buying a few levels makes you invincible to everything but surprise attacks. That's just one way GURPS gets broken when you try to do superhero level games. It would have been way better if they had kept it consistent.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by GrimJesta

Well to people who are used to the newer, really watered-down systems like D&D 3.5 and the Storyteller System, the Hero System does look complex. It involves a serious character generation, detailed movement, and lots of cool variables like Power Frameworks and Disadvantages. So most people take a look at the book, see it all involves some brainwork as opposed to die-rolling or coloring some dots, and they dismiss the game as unneccessarily complex.

 

I dunno. I created a D&D3 character a couple of years ago, choosing one that was deliberately a little complex (fighter 4/sorceror 3 or something similar) and it was every bit as much brainwork as a Hero character.

 

I don't think that it's necessarily too complex, but it's a lot of work to learn a new system. While I own the D&D3 books, the system is every bit as meaty and complex as Hero, and I probably won't be playing a game of it (with the possible exception of pickup games where someone hands me a character sheet) because I really don't have the time to spend learning the system to the depth it would take for me to really enjoy doing it.

[Doc Democracy]

Originally posted by nHammer

What is the education level of your players? It's easily understood basic math.

[...]

I truly do not understand why people think the system is complex. Maybe you just need to teach the system in a different way.

 

Believe me, the way I teach the system is as simple as it gets. My players are well capable of understanding the system, just resistant to playing something they feel is complicated.

 

The problem, as in many facets of life, is that Champions is believed to be a complex system. Whether that is or isn't true factually it is definitely the perception _out there_. There isn't a lot you can do about that.

 

Originally posted by archer

I dunno. I created a D&D3 character a couple of years ago, choosing one that was deliberately a little complex (fighter 4/sorceror 3 or something similar) and it was every bit as much brainwork as a Hero character.

 

I don't think that it's necessarily too complex, but it's a lot of work to learn a new system.

 

I also think that D&D is just as, if not more, complex than Hero but there's not many non-Hero people that'd agree with you. They see it simply as D20 which they take to be simple maybe because its mass market.

 

I wanted a core mechanic to present to the players - it makes everything 'feel' more coherent. Its true that if they want to go to the rulebook they'd find something different but then that's what comes of house rules in all shapes and sizes.

 

Derek's killing attack option seems similar to mine but far more considered and worked out. I think I might steal that.

 

 

Doc