Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

[zornwil]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Here is something silly I came up with a while back. I am not trying to fan the flames' date=' just give everyone something to laugh about (unless you happen to be a baseball fan )[/quote']

Ah, now I see where you posted this.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

 

I always thought HERO was a game only for GMs who have a very clear mental image of the genre and game they want to run, and don't mind having a lot of work. Because it's up to you to select and build everything to make it "fit". If you don't have a clear enough mental image, you probably will end up with a "supers in some other setting" thing.

I agree. My experience leads me to believe you really do need to build from the ground up to fit your genre. This is what gets me when i see HERo guys who seem to get really bent over people thinking about changing it to suit their needs, like changing characteristic and powers costs.

 

towards the end of my last hero game, as i was designing what would be the basis for my grecian HERo game, i was finally tackling the nuts and bolts for fixing the supers-with-swords feel... dealing with the stun issues and such (changing how stun was calculated by doubling the body adder and cutting its base cost by 50%) and such.

 

So much of the base core of HERo really needs to be looked at and rethought or even revalued to meet the genre needs.

When I first met HERO, I thought it was too much trouble, much better to play D&D if I wanted fantasy, for instance. Then I grew older, and read more and more fantasy literature, and saw D&D wasn't doing it for me anymore, because it was too different from what I read. Then I turned to HERO and saw that, though it wasn't by no means effortless, in HERO I could do the worlds and characters I read about.

 

For me, it really depends on the game i want to run. i have managed to find a number of decent systems that cover more of the basics without me reinventing the wheel. For me, the older i get, i place much more value on the characters and their stories than my notion of "see how cool my world is". As such, the stories are much more about them than about me and i don't need to spend a lot of time building from scratch "my perfect vison of a world".

 

I really just need a system they can draw their characters in to their satisfaction, to provide both of use with an understanding of capabilities and expectations and the rest is easy enough for me to handle. This means i focus my efforts on what i enjoy... their stories.

[zornwil]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I'm cool with "GENREic" games, they can be quite impressive. My favorite, perhaps at this point of ever, is Deadlands, quite innovative and very flavorful. I bought M&M out of interest in a GENREic superhero game.

 

But I also like GENERic games like HERO, obviously. Though I've always run just supers in HERO in the past. This year will branch out into running space opera-ish sci-fi with the game lemming and I are creating.

 

For me, though, in general there's no benefit from a GENREic world setting for me when I GM. Simply by nature, I choose to change most any setting/am never happy with published settings "as is". I take a similar approach even to rules, I like to tweak. So that aspect doesn't really provide any intrinsic reason to get an "all in one" package most of the time, even if genREic games come with such.

 

Moreso is the issue that players, as Lord Mhoram mentions re himself, don't generally have the time to learn a new system too often these days. So at this point it's often more practical to introduce a version of something "done HERO" than to get a whole different game. Not that we don't do different systems, myself and others have run non-HERO, but it just takes more effort. And I can see why a d20 or other group that has members who've never played HERO won't want to make the switch for the same reason.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

For me, though, in general there's no benefit from a GENREic world setting for me when I GM. Simply by nature, I choose to change most any setting/am never happy with published settings "as is". I take a similar approach even to rules, I like to tweak. So that aspect doesn't really provide any intrinsic reason to get an "all in one" package most of the time, even if genREic games come with such.

 

I get you... i too have never run a game where i did not tweak the rules, to some small or sometimes major extent. My second MnM game (starting in July) will be a substantial revision... practically an overhaul of the powers section. For my stargate d20 game, i replaced the whole damage system.

[zornwil]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I get you... i too have never run a game where i did not tweak the rules' date=' to some small or sometimes major extent. My second MnM game (starting in July) will be a substantial revision... practically an overhaul of the powers section. For my stargate d20 game, i replaced the whole damage system.[/quote']

Are your house rules for the next M&M game to be posted? If so, or if you can just send them on to me, I'd appreciate it.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Are your house rules for the next M&M game to be posted? If so' date=' or if you can just send them on to me, I'd appreciate it.[/quote']

 

they will be, but not until the time of the game. I am having my players build 50 pt humans to start the campaign (in a typically super-rich environment) and will then, after a run or two, have "something happen" which will move us into PC supers. However, they do not get any real hints as to what the something is, other than the promise of "traumatic".

 

what i can give out now is what i have given them...

 

here is the intro i gave them for building the 50 pt human... it details some of the basic changes... this is intended to be a lower PL game... the first year will likely be at PL-6ish for the PCs.

 

a word of explanation on the flaws thing mentioned below... I am abandoning the loan shark flaws methodsology, where i give them points off for flaws in chargen (loaning them points) and have them get beat up by the flaws later as payback.

 

instead, flaws will not change power costs at all, but being hurt by your flaws (and SFX) will earn you "earned" hero points for later use. basically, its a hindsight flaw/weakness payback... instead oif a foresight loan.

 

******************

 

Next Generation Rules for my MNM Campaign

 

Hero Points

 

Free Hero Points

 

At the start of each session, each PC will get two free "use or lose"

hero points. If not used during the session, they will be lost. They

may not be accumulated or carried over between sessions.

 

You may not purchase extra hero points by any means.

 

Earned Hero Points

 

At the end of each session, any PC who had flaws significantly impede

his performance will gain bonus hero points. These earned hero points

can be kept between sessions and used when the player wants. A

character cannot have more earned hero points at any one time than

his character's level, but other than that he can accumulate them and

save them and they will not be forfeited at sessions' end.

 

Uses for Hero Points

 

There is no "1 hero point per round" rule. You may use as many hero

points as you wish in a round, but no more than one hero point may be

applied to any single roll.

 

Hero points can be used for the following things:

• To reroll any die roll you just made. No "minimum 10" rule,

take the better of the two rolls.

• To add +5 to any die roll you are about to make.

• To add +5 to your defense for one round.

• To increase the rank of an effect by +2 for the scene.

(Movement powers included.)

• To gain the use of a feat or power stunt for the scene.

• To gain the use of an extra for a single effect for a scene.

• To delay the effects of fatigued, stunned or unconscious

conditions for 1d6 rounds.

 

 

Buying Stuff in CharGen

 

Initial chargen will be done with 50 pp and at level 3.

 

Buying Attributes

 

Attributes start at a base 10.

Attributes cost 1 pp to raise by 1.

Attribute bonuses will not apply to any skill you do not have ranks

in.

 

Buying BAB and BDB

 

Ranged BAB costs 1 pp per rank, starts at 0 and is limited by level.

Melee BAB costs 1 pp per rank, starts at 0 and is limited by level.

Unarmed BAB costs 1 pp per rank, starts at 0 and is limited by level.

Mental BAB costs 1 pp per rank, starts at 0 and is limited by level.

 

Ranged BDB costs 1 pp per rank, starts at 0 and is limited by level.

Hand-to-hand BDB costs 1 pp per rank, starts at 0 and is limited by

level.

Mental BDB costs 1 pp per rank, starts at 0 and is limited by level.

 

Buying Skills

 

Important change: If you have no ranks in a given skill that can be

used untrained, you get no attribute bonuses to your skill rolls.

Your roll will be a flat d20 roll.

 

Skills cost 1 pp to raise 1 rank, start at 0, and are limited by

level+3.

 

Closely related skills may be bought for 2 pts at the same rank as a

skill bought at regular price. These are called skill stunts.

So for instance, a guy buying

Knowledge occult+6 for 6 pp could also buy Knowledge: Demonology+6

for 2 pp and knowledge: mystic wards+6 for 2 pp. A guy buying Hide+6

for 6 pp could also buy Move Silent+6 for 2 pp. A guy with spot+6 for

6 pp could also buy listen+6 for 2 pp and search+6 for 2 pp. Paying 2

pp for a closely related skill does count as having ranks in that

skill.

 

************

 

NEW FEAT: Unlocked potential

 

Requirements: 1+ skill ranks in the selected skill & 15+ inthe

attribute commonly applied to that skill

 

Benefit: raise the max ranks limit (normally PL+3) by +5 (to PL+8)

for one skill. Skill stunts under that skill are still limited to

PL+3. So for example, a character could take at level 3 this feat for

science (physics) and spend up to 11 ranks in science (PL3+8=11.) if

he had a skill stunt of chemistry under physics... chemistry would

only have the usual max and be at +6.

 

Normal: A skill can only have PL+3 ranks, so a 3rd level character is

limited to 6 ranks.

 

Special: This feat may be taken as often as you want but applies to a

different skill each time.

[zornwil]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Thanks, Tesuji, if you think of it over here when you release the new version of rules, let us know, I'd be interested. But I'll try to ask later, I realize the MnM stuff isn't relevant here.

[Gary]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Tesuji, I'm not terribly familiar with M&M, but aren't attribute points much more valuable than skill points in general with d20? Yet they have the same cost in your system.

[Snarf]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

In my experience, Hero works better than many other systems for genre mixing games. Games that introduce new rules for each genre require a lot of changes and end up with balance problems, when you try to kludge sourcebooks together that were never intended to be combined.

[zornwil]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Tesuji' date=' I'm not terribly familiar with M&M, but aren't attribute points much more valuable than skill points in general with d20? Yet they have the same cost in your system.[/quote']

There's controversy on this. There's a semi-commonly-accepted and official alternative of costing skills at 2:1 or 3:1 to encourage their purchase and presumably reflect value. Some however would argue those skill points can be just as powerful at 1:1. Anyhow, I know Tesuji will comment better/more.

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Tesuji' date=' I'm not terribly familiar with M&M, but aren't attribute points much more valuable than skill points in general with d20? Yet they have the same cost in your system.[/quote']

 

As zornwil said, this is an issue of some debate in MnM circles with alternative rules abounding. I have found 1-1 to work well, for its purpose, specific bonuses to a few skills.

 

The 1-1 skill cost is the way skills are bought when you want to emphasize one skill or at best a few skills. If your character is intended to be a guy very skilled in many areas, there are ways to buy "lots of skills ranks across a wide swath". (To put it in HERo think, its just like say buying skill enhancers makes it cheaper but its not worth it if you only have a few skills, or its like buying up INT or DEX instead of buying multiple 2 pts per +1 for several different skills or even buying skill levels which cover "all dex skills".) MnM is like HERO in that it provides multiple ways to buy skills, with scaling to make large numbers of skills cheaper "per rank" than jusy buying a few good skills.

 

In my games, and this next game will be even more so, skills have a very significant impact, and thus are in practice quite valuable. So, i do not use any of the official OPTIONAL reductions in skill cost. (For example, 3-1 makes +9 spot or +9 sense motive or +9 bluff or even +3 to all three cost the same as +1 BAB in the core system, and for my games thats way out of whack. +9 spot is big, +1 BAB is not so big. My games do see combat but not all the time.)

 

My first MnM game went for a year and closed well. The attribute vs skill cost issue was a non-issue altogether. I have added the skill stunts idea myself to provide a little more detail to the "highly skilled" character archetypes.

 

On attribute cost specifically...

 

The way attribute work in MnM is very much like how it works in primary characteristics in HERO. The base attributes are at a "bargain price" if you consider the "figured characteristics." Buying the initial characteristics earns you a variety of benefits which are, taken as a whole, valuable but at the same time, wide spread. Smaller bonuses over a wider scope than you could buy with specific spends.

 

However, looking at any one aspect, its more expensive. Skills at 1-1 are cheaper than buying the attribute for the skill bonus. Save bonuses bought as amazing save are also cheaper than buying attributes for the save bonus. But, if you want a wider sweep of lower bonuses, buy attributes.

 

EXAMPLE: MNM... spend 10 pts on CON. gain +5 to damage save, +5 to fortitude save, and +5 to all con based skill checks. All three of these would have costed about 15-20 pp bought individually. But, for the same 10 pts, you could have bought +10 to damage save OR +10 to fortitude save or +10 to any skill.

 

EXAMPLE HERO: Pay 20 cp for +10 con. gain the extra con stun thing, +2 ED, +2 recovery, +5 stun and +20 endurance. These bought individually would cost 21 cp plus whatever you count the con stun thing at. However, you could have spent the 20 cp on 20 ed or 10 recovery etc.

 

So, its pretty similar to how HERO does figured characteristics, attributes give you a wider set of traits at a lower rank but at a discount.

 

About the biggest difference is that in MnM this discount only applies to the "normal level" attributes. The equivalent in HERo would be to say that attributes over "normal human max" do not provide figured characteristics. This limits the amount of "attribute discount" to be pretty even among the characters. You dont have the bricks racking up loads of cheap extra stats, while the guy who builds his mutant blaster with moderate strength and con gets overcharged.

 

EXAMPLE: if HERo characteristics only provided fig characteristics up to say 20's. theb the "free points difference" between a brick with a 60 strength and a 12 d6 punch (50cp) and a blaster with 10 strength and 12d6 EB (60 cp) would only be +2 PD, +2 rec and +5 stun (the bricks 20 strength figs minus the blaster 10 strength figs) and not +10 POD, +10 rec, and +25 stun.

 

That type of house rule might be to the liking of the HERO guys who find the free figs troublesome (see any number of strength too cheap threads" for examples.)

 

****************

 

I hope this explains it.

 

EDIT: The MnM Nocturnals setting, lower level campaign, has 2-1 set as its skill cost ratio. I am halfway expecting that to be eventually adopted into MnM core... but its not something i agree with. I keep finding the argument "in this setting, skills are more important so they are cheaper..." to be flawed! :-)

[Rene]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Tesuji' date=' I'm not terribly familiar with M&M, but aren't attribute points much more valuable than skill points in general with d20? Yet they have the same cost in your system.[/quote']

 

Basically, if you want to simulate Batman or Reed Richards, the best way to do it is buy a lot of INT and Super-INT, and buy only enough skill ranks to qualify as "trained" and let your obscene attribute bonus do the rest.

 

It's not a big deal, though I find it would be a bit more elegant conceptually if skills were cheaper. HERO suffers from the exact same problem. The only superhero game that seems to get this right is Silver Age Sentinels, IMO.

[Rene]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

For me, it really depends on the game i want to run. i have managed to find a number of decent systems that cover more of the basics without me reinventing the wheel. For me, the older i get, i place much more value on the characters and their stories than my notion of "see how cool my world is". As such, the stories are much more about them than about me and i don't need to spend a lot of time building from scratch "my perfect vison of a world".

 

I really just need a system they can draw their characters in to their satisfaction, to provide both of use with an understanding of capabilities and expectations and the rest is easy enough for me to handle. This means i focus my efforts on what i enjoy... their stories.

 

 

I get a thrill of playing around in worlds and sub-genres taken from novels, comics, and movies I enjoy. The published GENREic systems cover some of the most popular settings, but they only scratch the surface of possible adaptations, IMO.

 

For instance, I think Vampire: the Masquerade is good enough if you want to play in something like the Vampire Chronicles from Anne Rice. But there are a lot of vampire novels out there where the undead work in very different ways.

 

GENREic systems are well and good and you can tell infinite kinds of stories with them. But only because you can have a infinite number of apples don't mean you have a single orange in the bunch.

 

And not to mention the times a GENREic system, for whatever reason, fails to live up to your expectations of how they should treat your beloved novel/movie/comic/sub-genre. Sometimes it's possible simply to home rule the GENREic system into doing what you want. Other times it's just too much trouble. So much trouble that you could as well use a GENERic system in the first place.

 

But I admit it, I think HERO *is* hard. If there is a GENREic system out there that does the job for the game I want, I don't see any reason to convert to HERO (apart from the pure pleasure of flexing your HERO-nerd muscles to see if you can build whatever).

[tesuji]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

 

And not to mention the times a GENREic system, for whatever reason, fails to live up to your expectations of how they should treat your beloved novel/movie/comic/sub-genre.

As i have said, i have always felt the "need" or maybe the preference to make tweaks... so i suppose i would be in the "no one has ever done it just right" camp. Then again, i don't expect a game produced without knowledg of "my game", my players and my characters to get it just right. i expect i will need to make changes.

Sometimes it's possible simply to home rule the GENREic system into doing what you want.

usually, i find that is the case.

Other times it's just too much trouble. So much trouble that you could as well use a GENERic system in the first place.

perhaps for some but i have never found a generic system that required me to do less work than GENREic ones.

(apart from the pure pleasure of flexing your HERO-nerd muscles to see if you can build whatever).

 

and for those who find the enjoyment in the build, as contrasted to "in the design" which i think most everyone GMing enjoys, this is very much a gaol in its own right. i still find myself on occasion for the heck of it crunching an idea into HERO stats. i should not miss the joy of the character numbers build just because i no longer use the system for an RPG, right!? :-)

[Rene]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

perhaps for some but i have never found a generic system that required me to do less work than GENREic ones.

 

Well, I wouldn't say "less work". More like about the same amount. For instance, I know of several kinds of fantasy worlds with paradigms that are so different from D&D that you can just about throw out anything in the Player's Handbook but for the basic hit-roll and skill roll rules.

 

I'd say you'd have a lot of work making such worlds work, wheter you use D&D or HERO. Then it becomes a question of what system you're more used to, what system you most enjoy using for creating new stuff. For me, it would be HERO.

[ChuckB]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

In the old days (before the various character generation software like Hero Designer) I could see people being intimidated by the math.

 

Combat wise, some people REALLY don't like the speed chart and feel that Hero combat is too long and involved.

[ChuckB]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

GURPS however, is hard. Big mess of a system; not as much a set of rules as a very sketchy framework with hundreds of house rules.

 

Generally good sourcebooks though.

[badger3k]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

As such, when i ran HERo for novices, i ended up spending a LOT of time and effort "reimaging" it to not look so complex, to hide the steep learning curve... turning all movement powers into feet, not inches, devising more campaign specific archtypes and such, packages, a magic system that is fairly componentized, etc etc etc...

 

After doing all that work, i managed to reduce the steepness a bit...

 

later tho, when using not as complex chargen systems, ones with built in structure for chargen (classes), i found it was much much easier to get their "idea for character" into play without me needing to be there all over every stage. Amazingly, i found that the new players were not as "gotta be exectly so so"... they never envisioned their character in specific game terms, but in general capability concepts and VERY SPECIFIC history and personality concepts. So, usually, they were fine with a classed character, sometimes asking for a minor tweak (which i am fine with doing) and they were up and playing very very quickly... much quicker and much more enthusiastically than the same or similar people trying it under HERO.

 

This reminded me of my FH game. I spend weeks (literally) designing races, class substitutions, class abilities, skill packages, some spells, and feats (from D&D). Then did all the crosschecking and redesigning things that didn't work right (or had two separate ways for the same thing in different packages). I made it easy for my players (who at this point were coming out of D&D after several years), and the funniest thing happened.

 

They made up their characters on their own, using the races and a few feats, and then just picking and choosing the rest. I had to review them, and found a few discrepencies, but not any more than any other system. Now, after (IIRC) 3 sessions, they are applying the experience while still not using my prebuilts. I had a lot of fun (and headaches) creating those things, and they don't get used. Granted, the experienced role-players helped the new players, but it still amusing to me.

 

Granted, what I did is basically what comes with most game systems, but it wasn't a lot more than the premades in the FH book (or the new Turakian Age book). To me that's why some people view it as hard - there is more work that a GM needs to do if he lacks the supporting genre book (or if he wants to make the game world his own, something that many GMs will do for any game/campaign world). That and the book is freakin' huge compared to other systems, unless you add together all the books you need to buy to play the game, but most people compare one book with another, not all the books to Hero's one (or more if you really want the genre books).

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

In the old days (before the various character generation software like Hero Designer) I could see people being intimidated by the math.

 

Call me elitist if you will, but personally I don't want to associate with gamers who can't handle basic 6th grade math. I mean, its not like we're talking differential equations here... its just multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

Call me elitist if you will' date=' but personally I don't want to associate with gamers who can't handle basic 6th grade math. I mean, its not like we're talking differential equations here... its just multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction.[/quote']If there's anything I've discovered in 26½ years of RPG gaming, it's that mere ability to follow the rules and design characters doesn't guarantee good role-playing. Some of the best role players I've known were lousy at the rules; and some of the worst munchkins were technical rules lawyers. On the whole, I'd much rather game with a good role player than a rules rapist.

 

I'm not disputing your point, Jack, just observing that mere technical expertise with the rules system and whatever arithmetic calculations are necessary is no harbinger of good gamers.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I'm not disputing your point' date=' Jack, just observing that mere technical expertise with the rules system and whatever arithmetic calculations are necessary is no harbinger of good gamers.[/quote']

 

I agree with you. I wasn't asking for technical expertise... I was asking for the ability to do 6th grade math. If your fantastic roleplayer is too lazy to do the math involved, or even worse is unable to do the math involved, then I don't want him in my game. This does not, I should point out, mean that I will take the lousy-roleplayer math expert in his stead. I'd reject that guy as well.

 

In my current group, I've got a band of people who are all fantastic roleplayers and are able to do the calculations for character construction in their head. Call me satisfied.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

If there's anything I've discovered in 26½ years of RPG gaming' date=' it's that mere ability to follow the rules and design characters doesn't guarantee good role-playing. Some of the best role players I've known were lousy at the rules; and some of the worst munchkins were technical rules lawyers. On the whole, I'd much rather game with a good role player than a rules rapist.[/quote']

 

This is an excellent point. Sometimes, the guy who knows nothing about the rules plays a far better character than someone who is a rules expert. The former considers options not facilitated by, or even contemplated by, the rules. The latter commonly falls into the "standard way" of doing things under whatever the game system is, and never innovates. [Tends to be less an issue in Hero than in many more structured systems.]

 

Too often, we assess whether someone is "good at the game" based on their rules knowledge rather than their ability as a player. Speaking for myself, I'd much rather have a good player who has to have the rules explained, and maybe even has to have his character designed for him, than a rules mechanic who doesn't role play so much as wargame and min/max.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

I agree with you. I wasn't asking for technical expertise... I was asking for the ability to do 6th grade math. If your fantastic roleplayer is too lazy to do the math involved' date=' or even worse is unable to do the math involved, then I don't want him in my game. This does not, I should point out, mean that I will take the lousy-roleplayer math expert in his stead. I'd reject that guy as well.[/quote']As a rule role playing as a hobby does not tend to attract stupid people. That does not mean that there are not plenty of good intelligent RPGers who view math as a chore (I count myself among them). Nonetheless, I successfully designed characters and GM'd Champions/HERO with paper and calculator for 20 years before Hero Designer came along. (Choir: "Hallelujah!")

 

While the arithmetic involved in HERO character design is simple, there can be a daunting bit of it in designing a character from scratch. Recognizing this fact is not portraying it as a flaw of the system; just as an aspect of it that's going to make it less attractive to some potential gamers. Figuring out ways to minimize that negative aspect for some prospective HERO gamers is the first step towards attracting new players to our system.

[zornwil]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

As a rule role playing as a hobby does not tend to attract stupid people. That does not mean that there are not plenty of good intelligent RPGers who view math as a chore (I count myself among them). Nonetheless' date=' I successfully designed characters and GM'd Champions/HERO with paper and calculator for 20 years before Hero Designer came along. (Choir: [i']"Hallelujah!"[/i])

 

While the arithmetic involved in HERO character design is simple, there can be a daunting bit of it in designing a character from scratch. Recognizing this fact is not portraying it as a flaw of the system; just as an aspect of it that's going to make it less attractive to some potential gamers. Figuring out ways to minimize that negative aspect for some prospective HERO gamers is the first step towards attracting new players to our system.

This is an interesting exchange. In terms of WM's perspective, I agree in particular with his point that someone who wants to complain about doing 6th grade level-math - or finds it too difficult period - is likely somebody whom I don't want to play with.

 

HOWEVER, to Trebuchet's point, many people - including me - find math tedious. From a generic standpoint of someone saying, "There's a lot of math in HERO and I don't want to deal with it," well, as such I can see that statement.

 

This isn't a paradox. I can see that "too much math" argument "as such" in that a casual read of the rules leaves that impression. Given the emphasis in the early sections on not only math in terms of points but also radius/range, damage classes, skill rolls, etc., I think it's extremely easy to look at the book and go, "No way am I going to deal with that in a GAME!" What I think the issue here is that we have a failure to communicate. (I cribbed that from Thrak's recent post in NGD, it's stuck in my head) The failure is that HERO just "sounds" too technical and it isn't clear how rarely a lot of this comes up in gameplay. As a simple example, how often does the actual total range of a power come into play? It's nice to know the calculation for those rare times it matters, but 98% of the time in play we don't have to stop and say "is he in range." Now, you do have to count hexes for range mods, but that's no different than most RPGs. I think another difference is that most RPGs seem to "shield" people from the math by not divulging too much about it until the "appropriate" sections of the rules; that and, to be fair, most RPGs are generally simpler. But that simplicity is also easily realized in HERO, but people reading the book don't realize you can just throw out END or make other changes until rather deep in the book, if at all.

 

Some of this is the dry, technical style of HERO. While I think Steve Long's 5th edition actually worsens that, it's always been there. Whereas d20's dusty history is steeped in tomes that were arcane and left much to question, HERO's antiquity is rooted in that harsh typeface that looked like it should have been printed on greenbar and includes notes about "efficiency", along with extending the points systems being developed from other games into a bold new overall system. So perhaps it's not surprising that d20 now as a system is riddled with inconsistencies and one-off rules moreso than "our" system while ours reads rather like a tech-geek book more than an RPG book.

 

Anyway, I think Sidekick is a wonderful step forward. I think refinement of that formula, of building an introductory book that not only simplifies but presents a "friendlier" face, is key. I think additional up-front clarifications regarding when some formulas come into play would help, as would discussions of simplification right up front.

 

So the point is, I think the primary math barrier isn't that there's too many stupid RPGers (there are, just like in the rest of the human race, but that's another topic), rather, the text is intimidating on this front and an inexperienced GM/player can easily get flustered. I think (generally) someone playing in a group of experienced HERO players who take time to explain things would realize it's not significantly more in actual gameplay. Well, there's the # of d6 thing, but Standard Effect can make that go away as an issue. Anyway, I bolded the "take time" thing because I've seen a few HERO (and of course other system) players act almost disdainful of questions during a session. We should remember we're walking representatives of HERO - if someone is new to the system, we shouldn't treat them as dumb or second-class citizens or wave them off. They won't (necessarily) just condemn us or figure we don't want to take the time, often instead they will believe that it must mean the system is too complex to explain easily!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

 

As an example of the "explain it to them" approach, both of Mentor's sons participate in our campaign in valuable ways. They are aged 14 and 10 respectively, and neither seems to have much difficulty grasping the essentials of HERO. Both boys "built" their own characters by telling Mentor what their hero could do with his powers and Mentor just plugged that information into HD for the design. (Surprisingly, the 10 year old's character is more sophisticated in his concept.) While they both focus more on role-playing ("I dive down and blast him with my lightning bolt!") than on game mechanics ("I half move down 6" and target the villain with my 12d6 EB."), you're not going to convince me this isn't a better way to play in the first place. Ideally the framework of the game system should be totally invisible to the players. It never, is of course, but it's still better when it approaches that ideal IMO. Now Mentor has a copy of Sidekick for their use, and both kids are starting to learn the core rules. And I have to say that playing with kids has reminded me of why playing superheroes is cool.