First Hero game

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Vorvodoss

During this most recent game, two of the PCs were trying to rescue the third PC (who didn't know the first two were trying to help him, no less). PC3 was in the back of a flying police car some three hundred feet above the ground while the other two were in an automated cab. Both vehicles were a mere three feet apart and PC1 decided to leap into the police car to attack the fakey police. One of the police get tossed and it was up to PC2 to stomp down on his fingers sending him plummeting to his doom. Then, PC2 tried to help PC3 who attacked PC2 thinking he was a bad guy. They begin to scuffle. PC1, meanwhile, has slammed the second fake police man into a forcefield separating the front seat from the back, cooking the faux cop to a crisp. He grabs the cop's gun and points it at PC3. "We're trying to help you escape this mess, you idiot...not into the cab." Combat over.

 

This combat could not have been run using miniatures.

 

I know when I'm playing with miniatures I'm thinking of my character as a piece on a board, and trying to optimize based on that. If the combat above had been presented with miniatures, I'd be thinking "Where's the tactical options? Where's the combat movement?"

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

This combat could not have been run using miniatures.

 

I know when I'm playing with miniatures I'm thinking of my character as a piece on a board, and trying to optimize based on that. If the combat above had been presented with miniatures, I'd be thinking "Where's the tactical options? Where's the combat movement?"

I dont really see why not, but to each his own.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Vorvodoss

How so?

The basic manuevers, the two-half phase/action, the concept of 0, Half, Full Phase actions, etc, the way AC works as compared to DCV. The behaviour of certain feats approximates some of the features of the HS such as Expertise compared to HtH levels assignable to OCV or DCV but not both, Power Attack basically behaving like trading CSLs for extra damage, and so on.

 

Basically take out the Attack of Opportunity thing and the Move->Attack or Attack->Move bit and combats in the two systems are very similar. Not suprising IMO considering Monte Cook briefly worked for Hero Games at one point. Im not saying anyone ripped anything off, and other games have some features similar, but it certainly seems HERO-flavored to me.

[Quasar]

Originally posted by archer

I know when I'm playing with miniatures I'm thinking of my character as a piece on a board, and trying to optimize based on that. If the combat above had been presented with miniatures, I'd be thinking "Where's the tactical options? Where's the combat movement?"

 

Therein lies the problem most opponents of miniatures have. You need to learn to think differently when looking at a battlemat IMHO.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[caris]

Originally posted by Quasar

Therein lies the problem most opponents of miniatures have. You need to learn to think differently when looking at a battlemat IMHO.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

 

Quasar, that sounds a little too severe for me. I think it might be better to say that it is possible to look at the minitures in a different light, and that no one has view their character as a piece on a board, just because they are using minitures. The corrolary is that not everyone who uses minitures view them as pieces on a board.

 

As for the example combat given, I've never really found anything works for me to create the kinds of feelings that Vorvodoss is after. My suspension of disbelief just doesn't work that way in a gaming situation, be it a narrative style or a minitures presentation, neither make me feel more than the other that my character is 300 feet in the air or in tight quarters. The catch isn't that any particular style is inherently better at doing such things than another, but that they may work better for any given group of players.

 

I've played with GM's that sketch the basic layout of a combat and than add in things like an unmentioned boulder when needed. I've also played with more narrative GM's who will respond to the question "Is there a tree/boulder/whatever that I can use?" with "Did I mention a tree/boulder/whatever when I described the scene? No. Than no there isn't one there."

[Vorvodoss]

You need to learn to think differently when looking at a battlemat IMHO.

Yes, but if you remove the mat, you wind up forcing the players to do that. Btw, things as far as distances and such do NOT have to be thrown to the side. I design my combat encounters for the characters so they each have a little something to do. If PC1 attacks the enemy that I had intended for PC2, I can easily switch them and no one is the wiser. It requires a little more work on the GM's side to keep things straight but I find that when I have a mat I feel more constricted. This is, of course, simply personal preference.

 

The basic manuevers, the two-half phase/action, the concept of 0, Half, Full Phase actions, etc, the way AC works as compared to DCV. The behaviour of certain feats approximates some of the features of the HS such as Expertise compared to HtH levels assignable to OCV or DCV but not both, Power Attack basically behaving like trading CSLs for extra damage, and so on.

The two biggest differences between the systems are also the ones that make it a new process almost entirely. I agree that there are similarities. However, CV works a lot like THAC0 which has never been a system I've loved due to its inherent restrictions. HERO battles that by making it ever-changing (some may disagree with me). The other difference is the approach to combat time. In d20, all combatants are operating in turn (Initiative) in the span of six seconds. In HERO, as we know, there are twice as many seconds and for me it seems as if there are 12 little rounds to keep track of. However, there are times when there is no one moving that round so I have to remember to skip them. These two differences make combat hugely different.

[Vorvodoss]

I've also played with more narrative GM's who will respond to the question "Is there a tree/boulder/whatever that I can use?" with "Did I mention a tree/boulder/whatever when I described the scene? No. Than no there isn't one there."

I've had this happen as well...in fact, it's one of the reasons I became a GM and stopped enjoying the player-side experience.

 

The trick for me, when conveying the surroundings and mood I'm trying to create, is to constantly remind the players what they're dealing with. With the above example in mind, I would do something like this:

 

PC1 says he attacks and rolls a successful hit. I describe the scene like so:

"You strike your opponent in the chest for "x amount of damage" but he kicks at you which causes you to move to the side. Your foot slips and you feel the emptiness beneath you like a palpable presence, eager to claim you. Wind whips by you and you remember that there is no second place if you lose this fight."

 

The NPC may never have actually attacked. I included the missed kick for flavor so I could justify having the PC loose his footing. I make sure not to penalize the PC if he decides to ignore the lost footing because there was no roll that said he did indeed deserve a penalty, etc. However, I also throw the lost footing challenge to him that he can use if he wants, making the game a little more dynamic and constantly in flux--a greater challenge for the player and more fun for all.

[caris]

Originally posted by Vorvodoss

In HERO, as we know, there are twice as many seconds and for me it seems as if there are 12 little rounds to keep track of. However, there are times when there is no one moving that round so I have to remember to skip them. These two differences make combat hugely different.

 

I wouldn't try visualizing it that way, personally. It would drive me a little buggy, but if it is working for you, go for it.

 

Here is an idea that I will be experimenting with in my new campaign that I'm starting up. Rather than using a chart, I'm going to use something more like a deck almost. I'm cutting some 3x5 cards into some strips, maybe about 1x3 or so. For each character, I'll be taking a number of strips equal to the character's SPD. At the top of each strip I'll put the character's name. Under that I'll mark one strip for the segment of each of the character phase (eg SPD 3 would have a strip numbered 12, a strip numbered 4, and a strip numbered 8). Than I'll list the characters DEX, EGO, and SPD (and any other char I use to determine Init.) on each strip. Do that for each character (will probably put agents/mooks/etc all on the same strips). Than for a combat, I'll arrange all the strips in the appropriate order. I'll just turn over the strips as each action comes. If a person takes a held action, I'll just turn the slip to be out of line until the action is taken or it expires on the character's next phase.

 

Obviously, this is an untested idea, so I'd appreciate any feedback on it, anyone cares to share.

[Vorvodoss]

Sounds like a pretty involved system, Caris. Let me know if it works out for you. ^.^

 

Personally, I just use a piece of paper as scratch and quickly write everyone's name, DEX and SPD on it. As each person takes an action, I put a check by their name. There's more to it than that but it's a simple system and I'm sure most people use variations on it; it's probably not important to go into detail here.

[Quasar]

Vorvodoss,

 

I think you and caris misunderstood me. What I was driving at is that there should be no difference in your mind whether the battlemat is present or not. I don't see how having the mat there suddenly makes people think of their character as a chess piece unless they think that way regardless.

 

In your example I could clearly see the combat in my mind, because I have a vivid and active imagination. Some people will not be able to imagine the same detail...no matter what you do to inspire that kind of experience.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[caris]

Originally posted by Vorvodoss

I've had this happen as well...in fact, it's one of the reasons I became a GM and stopped enjoying the player-side experience.

 

The trick for me, when conveying the surroundings and mood I'm trying to create, is to constantly remind the players what they're dealing with. With the above example in mind, I would do something like this:

 

PC1 says he attacks and rolls a successful hit. I describe the scene like so:

"You strike your opponent in the chest for "x amount of damage" but he kicks at you which causes you to move to the side. Your foot slips and you feel the emptiness beneath you like a palpable presence, eager to claim you. Wind whips by you and you remember that there is no second place if you lose this fight."

 

The NPC may never have actually attacked. I included the missed kick for flavor so I could justify having the PC loose his footing. I make sure not to penalize the PC if he decides to ignore the lost footing because there was no roll that said he did indeed deserve a penalty, etc. However, I also throw the lost footing challenge to him that he can use if he wants, making the game a little more dynamic and constantly in flux--a greater challenge for the player and more fun for all.

 

Yes, but we come back to what I was getting at is that not everyone respondes to the same tools in the same way. If I were playing in your game, the first time you resolved a single combat action with that much verbage (particularly, if it was the first combat action that I've ever seen you GM), I'd be bracing myself for a very long and boring combat session. If that were typical of how you described the resolution of each and every combat action, it would also be my last game session. I just would see our play styles as being too incompatible for it to be a pleasant experience for me to keep playing with you. I really can't say for sure if my more simplified and direct dealing with combat would annoy you, the way detailed description of combat action resolution would annoy me.

 

Most of the time you said was for the purpose of enhancing the scene or the "immersion" if you will. None of it really furthered the stories plot, and only a little of it could really further anyone's character development or expression. The one bit where you get into character development, "you remember that there is no second place if you lose this fight", is something that I would have found to be innappropriate. The GM shouldn't be telling me what my character thinks about at anytime my character isn't being mind controlled, and even when mc is in effect, I find that subtle hints from the GM that he lets me take off with are more enjoyable for me.

 

To be honest, my reaction to your description is that you don't role-play, but instead engage in a verbal version of a creative writing exercise in scene description. Of course, that only goes to show my biases, priorities, and prejudices. That same attitude generally comes through in my preferences in my reading. I'll forgive an author almost any amount of slopy writing if they create characters that capture my imagination and entertain me (Hamilton, Lackey and Eddings come to mind of people who I read mainly for their characters and nothing else), but if they spend more than an undefined amount of time describing a room and it's contents I'll not make it very far (Dickens, Rice, and some of Tolkien's books).

 

My mentioning of the person that said that if they don't mention something when they described the scene than the item doesn't exist, wasn't to say that the person was wrong. They weren't really. They just had a certain style of play. I mentioned it to show that neither the presence or the lack of minitures are what creates a free form gaming environment, but the attitudes of the players and the game master.

[Killer Shrike]

Very well said caris

 

{tips hat}

 

{realizes not wearing hat}

 

{feels stupid, but leaves knowing the point was gotten across}

 

[Vorvodoss]

I think you and caris misunderstood me. What I was driving at is that there should be no difference in your mind whether the battlemat is present or not. I don't see how having the mat there suddenly makes people think of their character as a chess piece unless they think that way regardless.

I did misunderstand you and I agree but I would also point out that there are some players who, no matter what, just want to roll dice and there are others who barely remember the dice are there. The same division exists between people who can play with figs and those who just don't like them. Neither side is better but it's always a learning experience for the GM with a new group.

 

Caris, I'm not going to quote chunks of your post because I'm tired and there's a lot I'd like to comment on but can do so in a general sense. Based on just what I've posted about my game, I completely agree with you and you have some great points. However...and a big one at that...I forgot to point out something major. You see, that was really the first major combat action in the scene. I try to balance. For the most part, I will establish the feel as quick as I can then fade to the more standard speed of a combat. Usually, I resolve actions quickly to keep the pace up. There are those moments when I can work in the description.

 

You made a comment about the GM telling you what the PC thinks. I really should clarify. When the players know the world and the parameters they are playing in I don't ever really tell them what they think. If they ask what an appropriate response might be, I hand it to them. But when they are playing in a new world/genre I've created I tell them the proper reactions their archtype(sp?) would have so they help me create the right milieu. My players know this because they've been playing eagerly in my games for years now. I'm an average GM but a decent storyteller so they know they are going to get an interactive novel more than a strategy game. So yes, you probably wouldn't like my game style that much but I'm pretty sure you would like the story.

 

Hey, has anyone ever put together an IRC HERO game? If we could find the right tools/add-ins/dice bots I would be willing to run some games and would love to play in them to learn the system more.

[zornwil]

In any combat with 3 or more characters, I really like having a map to orient myself on. Otherwise I can't really picture the scene as well. However, certainly, for many small-scale or foregone-conclusion battles, imagination works as well for me.

 

Vorvodoss, the only thing I'd recommend is to think about your players. If they're happy "as is", great, and if you don't like to use maps, okay. I'm surprised it's so easy for your whole group, but that's good, then, for you. I do think many people like to see at least a visual representation of the area, and you don't have to hex it out or use figures on it.

[Korvar]

An interesting thing about battlemats etc. is that it's kind of like rolling all your dice out in the open. Harder for the GM to fudge things when needed But also makes it less necessary to fudge, and generally means the players accept the results more easily... Swings and roundabouts

 

Basically, if you have a character surrounded, say, if you're not using a battlemat you can simply claim that a way out exists (if you want one). If you're using one, it's generally obvious if there's a way out - or if there's not.

 

I like using battlemants & wipe-off pens. That way I can quickly sketch in stuff at the start, and accomodate the "is there a tree nearby I can use?" thing...

 

But then, I also tend to not bother overmuch with the stats of my NPCs - they tend to be "1-hit" "2-hit" "3-hit" etc. beasties...

[Vorvodoss]

the only thing I'd recommend is to think about your players.

This is great advice all the way around. The problem I faced at the beginning of this game is that two of the three players in this group hate battlemats (I'm really kind of ambivalent with enough of a slight preference towards not using them that I don't care...HA! dismantle THAT...hehe) while one really likes them. Well, it became simple majority rule.

 

But then, I also tend to not bother overmuch with the stats of my NPCs - they tend to be "1-hit" "2-hit" "3-hit" etc. beasties...

I so do the same thing! In fact, I'll admit I haven't really bothered with my NPCs' hp (or BODY and STUN in HERO) for quite a while. When it's a big boss or something of the like, I'll have a detailed battle block but I've usually already decided if I'm going to let a PC die and how many. I don't decided which PC will die, just how many. I hate it when the whole group dies because I've made an NPC just too hard.

 

Harder for the GM to fudge things when needed But also makes it less necessary to fudge, and generally means the players accept the results more easily

I fudge all the time. I really never got comfortable rolling dice in the open and my players have never really minded because I have a habit of fudging in their favor.

[rayoman]

Look real close.

 

One of the designers of DnD 3E, Monte Cook, used to work for I.C.E. or HERO during the fourth edition days.

 

Standard Action + Move relates nicely to HERO's 1/2 Move and Attack actions.

 

Also, look real close at the STR chart in DnD 3E and Hero. Notice anything? Every 5 pts the lift capactiy doubles.

 

20 STR in DnD gives a character a heavy load of 400 lbs. The DnD character can lift of the ground 2x Max Load which is 800 lbs WHICH coincidentally is the same amount a Hero System character can lift (400 kg which is approx. 800 lbs).

 

Originally posted by Vorvodoss

How so?

[rayoman]

I guess I should have read more posts before responding.

 

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

The basic manuevers, the two-half phase/action, the concept of 0, Half, Full Phase actions, etc, the way AC works as compared to DCV. The behaviour of certain feats approximates some of the features of the HS such as Expertise compared to HtH levels assignable to OCV or DCV but not both, Power Attack basically behaving like trading CSLs for extra damage, and so on.

 

Basically take out the Attack of Opportunity thing and the Move->Attack or Attack->Move bit and combats in the two systems are very similar. Not suprising IMO considering Monte Cook briefly worked for Hero Games at one point. Im not saying anyone ripped anything off, and other games have some features similar, but it certainly seems HERO-flavored to me.

[Vorvodoss]

I was specifically talking about how combat works. In other words, if d20 and HERO are that alike, why couldn't a simple "roll die, add bonuses, check against armor class" work? Now, before I get flamed I want to clarify that I like the HERO way of combat now that I'm getting used to it. I just wanted someone to explain how combat in HERO is like combat in d20 (besides things like half-move, etc.).

[devlin1]

Originally posted by Vorvodoss

I was specifically talking about how combat works. In other words, if d20 and HERO are that alike, why couldn't a simple "roll die, add bonuses, check against armor class" work? Now, before I get flamed I want to clarify that I like the HERO way of combat now that I'm getting used to it. I just wanted someone to explain how combat in HERO is like combat in d20 (besides things like half-move, etc.).

 

Well, it's late, but....

 

In D20, to determine how hard someone is to hit, you take into account several factors:

 

*Dex Bonus

*Armor bonus (in D&D, anyway)

*Class/profession bonus (if applicable)

*Expertise/Feat bonus(es) (if applicable)

*Terrain/environment (if applicable, and if you want to bother with that)

*Special/magical bonuses, if any

 

Add all those to a base 10 AC, and you have the target number you're trying to hit on d20.

 

In Hero, it's a similar process:

 

*Base DCV (derived from DEX)

*CSLs (if applicable)

*Terrain/environment

*Special

 

Add all to 11. Subtract the attacker's OCV. Roll that number or less on 3d6 and you hit.

 

Nearly every game system relies on a system similar to the above examples to resolve combat. It's all just adding some stuff, subtracting other stuff, and rolling dice, not necessarily in that order. And while I appreciate that there are game systems out there that rely on wildly different mechanics (or none at all), the majority are still a lot like these.

 

One big (and good, IMO) difference between D&D and Hero is that in Hero, real armor doesn't make you harder to hit-- it just helps you avoid damage. That's the way it oughtta work, if you ask me, and that's more or less the way D20 Modern works, so good on them for fixing it eventually.

 

Apologies if, at 1:30 am, I got any of this wrong. I do know how it works, I promise, but without a constant stream of Coke and the chatter of gamers around me, 1:30 am is not my prime game-mechanics time.

[Korvar]

I prefer:

 

Roll three dice. Low is good, high is bad. If you roll 11, you hit the same DCV as your OCV. Each one above 11 on the roll subtracts 1 from the DCV you hit. Each one below 11 on the roll adds one to the DCV you hit.

 

So roll, and tell me what DCV you hit.

[devlin1]

Originally posted by Korvar

I prefer:

 

Roll three dice. Low is good, high is bad. If you roll 11, you hit the same DCV as your OCV. Each one above 11 on the roll subtracts 1 from the DCV you hit. Each one below 11 on the roll adds one to the DCV you hit.

 

So roll, and tell me what DCV you hit.

 

Yeah, that too. Maybe what throws people is that in Hero, there's more than one way to think it through. The way you described it makes total sense to me; I just wanted to present in a way that was as close to D20 as possible, for this particular instance.

 

Almost all of my Hero experience has been through PBeMs, so I practically never have to think the mechanics through all that much. As a GM in a Hero PBeM, I have yet to run a combat, oddly enough.

[Vorvodoss]

Yeah, you got it pretty much right, except...

 

Add all to 11. Subtract the attacker's OCV. Roll that number or less on 3d6 and you hit.

Look carefully...this is actually THAC0. The concept behind d20 is that everything goes up. It's all based on bonuses. It's a very subtle difference but it has impacted the gaming community. To further explain, in d20 you roll your die and add a single bonus to it (figured once). If there ARE any penalties, the DM handles it and it only affects the target difficulty number. It's pretty rare for a player to have to worry about it (unless a spell is cast, there shouldn't be a reason the bonuses should change). In HERO, things can (and I've noticed often do) change a lot. This is the charm and power of the system. My players are getting used to it but they are still getting the hang of rolling dice and knowing what they were trying to roll. I tell them the DCV of their opponent but that actually widens the gap. I HAVE noticed that if I simply ask them to tell me what they hit (a la the optional roll system of 11+OCV-3d6) they have a much easier time...but this is even closer to THAC0. When d20 came out...they wanted an escape from THAC0 and its tendency for unrealistic constraints. HERO doesn't seem to have those constraints because the CV ranges aren't fixed and can be affected by a lot of different things.

 

OK...that was a whole lot of what was in my head and I'm not sure if I even made my point. Let me know if I didn't and I'll try to explain my thought process better.

 

*edit: I saw this after I posted:

Roll three dice. Low is good, high is bad. If you roll 11, you hit the same DCV as your OCV. Each one above 11 on the roll subtracts 1 from the DCV you hit. Each one below 11 on the roll adds one to the DCV you hit.

This is THAC0 almost exactly the way it is run in 2e D&D.

[devlin1]

Originally posted by Vorvodoss

OK...that was a whole lot of what was in my head and I'm not sure if I even made my point. Let me know if I didn't and I'll try to explain my thought process better.

 

If your point was that the mechanics are similar but Hero is designed to take more variables (and variety) into account, then yes, point made.

 

D&D 3E (and 3.5E, I'm assuming) really does give the option for different variables on a round-by-round basis thanks to feats like Power Attack and Expertise (and even standard combat options like Bull Rush and Trip), but it's not nearly as widespread as in Hero. IMO, if those complexities in Hero are proving to be a problem, the simple fix is to disallow CSLs, or restrict their use (e.g., only allow 8-point CSLs).

[Vorvodoss]

the simple fix is to disallow CSLs, or restrict their use

This wouldn't make things that much easier. The challenge when learning HERO combat is the roll system and the flow of combat (the issue this thread orginally addressed). Bonuses and penalties are easy to pick up because virtually every system out there has them in some form or another.