Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

[zornwil]

We (ummmm, okay, I... ) bandy about a bunch of crazy notions here, sometimes, though, very seriously.

 

But what about how players actually FEEL about house rules and system changes? Many experiments I don't try because it's unfair to just muck about with a game people are playing in and thusly affecting them. And on occassion others I've tried seem to sort of "die on the vine" as people kind of ignore or sidestep them, clearly meaning that player adoption, for whatever reason, isn't happening.

 

And in general, are we gauging how players feel? I haven't been too diligent though I take an occasional checkpoint, not so much in specific house rules but just in general. But the real issue is, also, how do you feel about how they feel? Let's face reality - many rules changes never occur because of inertia and how people will take "change".

 

I'm rambling a bit (the Jack Daniels and cognac slowly working away) but I think this is an interesting topic, whatever form it takes.

 

For me, I try to avoid doing things which would alter the characteristic of a campaign in process or which seem they'd annoy the players. I eagerly tinker with things that seem to shape a current campaign in a direction the players are going in (a few rules on bashing people with other beings and people came out of this, though that phase of player fun has ended mostly). I also eagerly tinker where the players seem neutral but there seems to be no current campaign impact.

 

And of course new campaigns are opportunities, but I am pretty careful, still. I think some people think I do a lot of crazy stuff because of all the ideas I broach, but in reality only a fraction of ideas and suggestions I make or encounter will ever see the light of actual gameplay.

 

Or are the players fools - ignoring your brilliant insights?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Some of my house rules still cause fights, others are so ingrained that I and my players still have to triple check to make certain that the rules are written differently. In short House Rules need to have a sort of consensus, even if it is GM is right, to work. Additionally the Players need to be aware of those house rules from the get go so that confusion is minimized before, during and after the play session.

 

Hawksmoor

[RDU Neil]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

This is a very big deal for me, and I don't instate House Rules without a lot of thought and discussion. Now, one of my players, the famous Storn Cook, is a born tinkerer who would change the rules every session depending on what he thought was neat and I actually have to reign him in. I normally only change things when they clearly addres a "Play Experience" issue... like losing the Stun Multiple... losing the Speed Chart... adding the Luck Chits for flexibility... etc.

 

I've tried rules that "didn't take" in the past... mostly because we kinda forgot them... and I've lost House Rules (like after I kept the -1 for a Half Move rule for years) when players began ignoring it.

 

Play Experience is critical... not just seeing if it is "neat" in an intellectual way. In the end "Play Experience" is behind every concept I throw out here... because I'm trying to improve it, while keeping the core elements of Hero that do work very, very well.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

We (ummmm, okay, I... ) bandy about a bunch of crazy notions here, sometimes, though, very seriously.

 

But what about how players actually FEEL about house rules and system changes?

 

In the circles I play in, almost all of the house rules are those that have been agreed on by players in the past. In other words, the GMs know that the players have agreed to the house rules in advance. This prevents a lot of problems. Almost all of them, in fact.

 

There are a lot more ill feelings about things that are actually legal (or nearly legal), but just plain wrong.

[Warp9]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

We (ummmm, okay, I... ) bandy about a bunch of crazy notions here, sometimes, though, very seriously.

 

But what about how players actually FEEL about house rules and system changes? Many experiments I don't try because it's unfair to just muck about with a game people are playing in and thusly affecting them. And on occassion others I've tried seem to sort of "die on the vine" as people kind of ignore or sidestep them, clearly meaning that player adoption, for whatever reason, isn't happening.

 

And in general, are we gauging how players feel? I haven't been too diligent though I take an occasional checkpoint, not so much in specific house rules but just in general. But the real issue is, also, how do you feel about how they feel? Let's face reality - many rules changes never occur because of inertia and how people will take "change".

 

I'm rambling a bit (the Jack Daniels and cognac slowly working away) but I think this is an interesting topic, whatever form it takes.

 

For me, I try to avoid doing things which would alter the characteristic of a campaign in process or which seem they'd annoy the players. I eagerly tinker with things that seem to shape a current campaign in a direction the players are going in (a few rules on bashing people with other beings and people came out of this, though that phase of player fun has ended mostly). I also eagerly tinker where the players seem neutral but there seems to be no current campaign impact.

 

And of course new campaigns are opportunities, but I am pretty careful, still. I think some people think I do a lot of crazy stuff because of all the ideas I broach, but in reality only a fraction of ideas and suggestions I make or encounter will ever see the light of actual gameplay.

 

Or are the players fools - ignoring your brilliant insights?

Generally having all the PCs quit is bad for a game; I definitely see running a game as a somewhat political process, and one where the feelings of the players are important.

 

That includes all sorts of decisions made by the GM.

 

I personally try to limit any big changes to the start of the game, and am very reluctant to spring such things on players in the middle of the campaign.

 

Ideally the GM would make his decisions about the game, including rule changes and general game style before starting a new game. Then he could hopefully attract a group of players who are of like minds at the beginning of the campaign. And if the GM comes up with some radical new way to do things, he can always start a new campaign with new ground rules.

 

One of the advantages of PBEM/PBP/Chat style game is that there is a better chance to meet a group of Players who can agree with your way of doing things. Depending on the location, face-to-face games are limited to the group of players in a given area, and more compromises may become necessary.

[Vondy]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Feelings? What kind of modernist wimpy thinking is that?!

 

More seriously, my players don't care. Some of the house rules were proposed by them (like our fixed stunX rule).

[tesuji]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

I have to divide this into two categories...

 

BEFORE CAMPAIGN STARTS, rules are set by the GM to suit his campaign and the characters and the stories they provide. These are all presented in the intro to the campaign and serve to spotlight the specific elements in demand. These are rarely IMX up for debate or anything like that. However, if a player asks for something, its frequently able to be changed if it suits. By joining the campaign, the player is understood to be fine with these rules.

 

AFTER A GAME IS IN PROGRESS, almost no rules change. if they do, its usually due to a problem of a rather significant nature that needs fixing. Sometimes the problem may be one of player preference, as a character takes a different direction or something. usually tho, these game in progress changes are rare.

[Blue]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

If the campaign is underway, I mostly run rules changes by the players. If I'm still setting up the campaign, it's all up to me, but I'm willing to take feedback on my decisions. And I've pretty much bent most of the campaign rules to some degree to make the players happy.

 

I'm not running the game just to have fun myself. I want everyone else enjoying themselves. I've had pretty good feedback from people so far, and a lot of "When are you running again?" requests, though I'm currently waiting in queue behnd 2 other campaigns.

[austenandrews]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

I almost always tinker with some house rules when I start a campaign. Nothing too drastic, though. My usual group are all longtime Hero vets. It's nice to be able to draw on our common knowledge base without a hundred exceptions. But I generally make a couple of house rules to fit the conventions or smooth over mechanical bumps for the given genre.

 

I don't often change mid-stream, though. Maybe after a longish break.

[OddHat]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

I always try to take how my players will feel into account, with house rules as much as any other part of the game. If players don't like a house rule, it will likely be changed; OTOH, I only play with adult gamers I like and trust. A player complaiing about a rule because it limits his or her power trip is something I haven't had to deal with much. In that case, depending on how valid I thought the complaint was, I might ask the player to leave.

[Mentor]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Most of our house rules are the result of player input, although five of the players in the campaign have rotated as GM, so we take their(our?) feelings seriously.

 

Some players have been known to get upset at not having concepts allowed that are clearly dangerous ground, balance wise. One situation recently discussed, from another campaign, was a PC who wanted a character who could be desolid with an attack that affects the solid world, although it was only 4D6 normal. Some of us expressed concern at the need to have a balancer for this PC in all scenarios as this changed the paradigm of most campaigns. Another person brought up the point that the same applies to Ego powers, which is correct.

 

Ultimately, we agreed that all successful ave to be interactive, with the GM taking the feelings and desires of the players and the design of the characters into account when creating and running a scenario. OTOH, some players just don't take it well when you point out that either their character concept or character build is either unbalanced, useless or boring and thus inappropriate for the game.

[BcAugust]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Hmm.

 

Well, house rules we have tend to be stuff to enforce genre. For instance, KAs have a Standerd Effect on the Stun Lottery, real weapon applies to gun, if the Body of the attack on a real weapon doesn't get through, neither does stun. No KAs for Code versus Killing characters.

 

Frankly, the gms usually put something up for consideration before they make a final choice. Then again, most of the group being Hero newbies, it helps us learn the system as well.

[Kristopher]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

As a side note on the "does no STUN if it does no BODY" rule, something to consider is the first-person accounts of people who have been shot while wearing a bullet-proof vest, even with the insert plates. Bullet impacts that wouldn't be considered BODY-inflicting in HERO can still easily knock the wind out of the person wearing the vest.

[nexus]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

As a side note on the "does no STUN if it does no BODY" rule' date=' something to consider is the first-person accounts of people who have been shot while wearing a bullet-proof vest, even with the insert plates. Bullet impacts that wouldn't be considered BODY-inflicting in HERO can still easily knock the wind out of the person wearing the vest.[/quote']

 

True, but its more a "genre" thing if you are going for four color you can build truly "Bullet Proof" bricks without resorting to work arounds (like invisble self only Force Walls) or Defenses in the mid 60s at a minimum. In a DC style supers game I wouldn't use it.

 

Yes, I know how you feel about genre rules.

 

Edit: To actually answer the question, I've never had much trouble with House rules. I've always tried to maintain a policy of discussion and ususally mine sort of favor the PCs anyway. I have had some players balk when I shut down their favorite abuse, but they were genernally problem players anyway.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

As a side note on the "does no STUN if it does no BODY" rule' date=' something to consider is the first-person accounts of people who have been shot while wearing a bullet-proof vest, even with the insert plates. Bullet impacts that wouldn't be considered BODY-inflicting in HERO can still easily knock the wind out of the person wearing the vest.[/quote']

 

really? a dozen or more such shots could not kill someone?

 

a big nasty bruise, especially in a realistic game (i.e. real life ), is almost certainly 1 BODY.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

As a side note on the "does no STUN if it does no BODY" rule' date=' something to consider is the first-person accounts of people who have been shot while wearing a bullet-proof vest, even with the insert plates. Bullet impacts that wouldn't be considered BODY-inflicting in HERO can still easily knock the wind out of the person wearing the vest.[/quote']

 

The best house rule I have ever seen for Hero, bar none, applies to this. (It's not mine, so I can't take credit for it, but I don't remember who came up with it.)

 

If the weapon has Real Weapon, and the rDEF does not have Real Armor, then it does no (edit) STUN if it does no (edit) BODY.

 

Real Weapon vs. Real Armor, or no Real Weapon vs. no Real Armor, everything works the way it normally does.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

soapbox on:

RP +G+. Players are just that =players=. They are in the campaign to =play a game=.

 

If players are not having fun, GMs are not doing their job.

 

Systems, Mechanics, Rules, etc all come second and are in service to this primary goal:

ALL OF THIS IS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE FUN PLAYING A GAME.

 

If it doesn't help people have fun, it should not be a consideration

 

soapbox off.

[Kristopher]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

The best house rule I have ever seen for Hero, bar none, applies to this. (It's not mine, so I can't take credit for it, but I don't remember who came up with it.)

 

If the weapon has Real Weapon, and the rDEF does not have Real Armor, then it does no BODY if it does no STUN.

 

Real Weapon vs. Real Armor, or no Real Weapon vs. no Real Armor, everything works the way it normally does.

 

Personally, I can't see any reason to do that kind of thing.

 

I'm not even certain that I care for the "real weapon" and "real armor" Limitations. Within the setting of the game, within the reality in which the things exist, everything is real (with a few rare and esoteric SFX-based exceptions).

[Nevenall]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

I plan to stick with the book as much as possible until my players and I are more familiar with the rules as printed.

I used to spend a lot of times playing with various cool house rules but then my players had ABSOLUTELY no idea what was going on.

[zornwil]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

I plan to stick with the book as much as possible until my players and I are more familiar with the rules as printed.

I used to spend a lot of times playing with various cool house rules but then my players had ABSOLUTELY no idea what was going on.

But that's the idea, keep 'em confused!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Your players have feelings? Weird, why did you allow that?

 

I learned my tinkering lesson with an example that has been given. IMO bricks should be able to be bulletproof. If you have 25 rPD battlesuit, 5pd and 20 CON with increased density and added KB Resistance I can see no good reason why a 2d6 RKA handgun should be able to stun you (albeit on a 17 or less, in effect). Seems daft and genre inappropriate to me, but let's not argue, that's not the point of the thread.

 

What IS to the point is that I tinkered. I used the 'No BODY, no STUN' modification, but gave a basic STUN multiplier of 4: I figured if you are actually tearing flesh then it should take it out of you and hurt. If the bullet is bouncing off your rigid external armour, all you'll notice is the 'pinging' sound.

 

I was playing with a group of experienced role-players but they were not very familiar with Champions. One of them had a character with a spiffy killing attack, about 5d6 or so. Unfortunately he went after the enemy brick and had absolutely no effect: they guy had about 35rPD. Ever since then the group has thought of killing attacks as useless and the campaign didn't last that long. In fact all that was needed was a change in tactics, but that's not the point: the point is that their perception of the rules and their application was damaged. The character with the killing attack (who I'd considered toning down because I thought him so potentially dangerous) was considered a wimp.

 

Now we could have wound up with the same problem if I hadn't tinkered, but at least then it would be obvious it was all as a result of unlucky rolls.

 

I hadn't consulted the group before making the change because they didn't know a lot about the application of the rules in any event. I was addressing a concern of my own and hadn't thought that the problem that DID arise would do (well, you never think that stuff you don't think of is going to be a problem, do you?). I handled it by trying to encourage the player to go after another target - but by then it was a matter of pride! I didn't just want to abandon the rule change mid-fight as I didn't feel it was broken, just not favourable in this situation, but, like I say, the game ended up damaged, so I could obvioulsy have handled it better. In fact I should probably have avoided a high DEF brick for the first session or two. This could have been a good learning-curve experience but it diodn't work out that way, and as GM that is my fault.

 

In answer to the question posed: my players didn't like it.

 

If you have an experienced HERO group, talking through changes and being ready to make further changes if necessary could be good. I got burned though so now I tend not to tinker: the core rules are good enough, even if they are not perfect to my mind.

 

I suppose the guiding principle must be enjoyment though. If people are not enjoying the scenario you are presenting, whether it be because of the situations, the plot or changes to the rules, then it is you that needs to change, not everything else :;

 

I like tinkering (well, you've read some of my posts) BUT I like tinkering hypothetically more than in practice. HERO may have some rough edged but it is not broken. I'll probably have another go at killing attacks at some stage but not for a while and not before a three stage consultation process...

 

NB there are, of course, (at least) two categories of tinkering - ones that make a difference in application (like the killing attack thing) and ones that just tinker with the mechanics (like rolling high good/and low bad). Interestingly the more experienced the group, the more the problems with tinkering shift from category ONE to category TWO - an experienced group may well like tinkering witht he rules but not the familiar old mechcnics: an inexperinced group can not evaluate application changes but may find mechanics changes advantagous if they then mirror the way they've done it in other games. Weird.

[zornwil]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Sean, that's very true in my experience re tinkering with many fundamental mechanics. My group is mostly veteran players of HERO, a couple real old-timers who gamed with some of the original Champions crew, and they are very stodgy about things that relate to the more tactile and "feeling" mechanics that are older, whereas one can (and I have) tinker with Adjustment Powers meanings and executions to one's heart's delight as far as they're concerned.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

The best house rule I have ever seen for Hero, bar none, applies to this. (It's not mine, so I can't take credit for it, but I don't remember who came up with it.)

 

If the weapon has Real Weapon, and the rDEF does not have Real Armor, then it does no BODY if it does no STUN.

 

Real Weapon vs. Real Armor, or no Real Weapon vs. no Real Armor, everything works the way it normally does.

 

I like this: it makes a lot of sense and differentiates between 'real' and non-real stuff, especially if you allow 'real' equipment to be picked up without spending XP. Looks a bit daft if you are using a 6d6 RKA 'real' explosive artillery shell against someone with a flak jacket they didn't buy with 'real' but there you go...it's pretty good for handguns and you might want to rule that it only applies if the BODY rolled doesn't exceed the unreal rDEF.

 

Killjoy Kristopher says everything is real in his games, which is fine, but this quite simple approach smooths out one of my biggest gripes in the game: not so much killing attacks, but normal guns built as killing attacks that can hurt characters that should (IMO, and in-genre) be invulnerable to them. Some people seem to believe that either handguns are far more powerful than they really are or that superheroes are far weaker than they (un)really are

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Personally, I can't see any reason to do that kind of thing.

 

Consider a superhero game.

 

Most bricks can bounce bullets without even thinking about them.

 

In order to fully bounce a 2d6 RKA, you need 12 resistant defense plus 48 normal defense.

 

I'm not even certain that I care for the "real weapon" and "real armor" Limitations. Within the setting of the game, within the reality in which the things exist, everything is real (with a few rare and esoteric SFX-based exceptions).

 

Up to you. But what's the difference between a fantasy character's shield and Captain America's shield? Full body Kevlar and Iron Man's armor? A normal sword and a magic sword?

 

There are genres where items that are better, tougher, etc. than the norm are common. Real Weapon and Real Armor are ways to simulate those.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Reality check time: so what about the players' feelings?

 

Consider a superhero game.

 

Most bricks can bounce bullets without even thinking about them.

 

In order to fully bounce a 2d6 RKA, you need 12 resistant defense plus 48 normal defense.

 

12r and 36 for a flat x3 multiple... at least how I play it... and I find that very balanced.

 

 

Up to you. But what's the difference between a fantasy character's shield and Captain America's shield? Full body Kevlar and Iron Man's armor? A normal sword and a magic sword?

 

There are genres where items that are better, tougher, etc. than the norm are common. Real Weapon and Real Armor are ways to simulate those.

 

More importantly... they are often tougher and better... JUST BECAUSE... without any "real world" explanation.

 

Bullets only graze the heroes... JUST BECAUSE...

 

The heroes always win in the end... JUST BECAUSE...

 

etc.

 

There are lots of examples of genre emulation that Hero must be tweaked to support. Combat Luck is a great example of a very crunchy mechanic to support a very common genre element.

 

While I don't use this real vs. non-real in my games, it does have a place... it is just a mechanism for supporting a genre aspect I'm not all that fond of, but to each their own. It's rather an elegant little Game Rule level bit.

 

The good aspect of Hero is that it has a core functionality that allows you to tweak it to meet your own game's balance.

 

The problem with Hero is that you HAVE to tweak it (with depth of understanding) to meet your own game's balance.

 

Other games are more limited, but often plug and play.

 

Now, Fox1 has been rather condescending (nothing new) in his tone about those of us who ask questions and wonder about tweaking and changing the game... but this doesn't mean we don't understand it... just that we play differently than he does. After 23 years or so, I think I understand Hero... I just don't choose to accept it as handed to me...

 

... If it ain't broke... break it! I'm that way about 50% of the time... the other 50%, leave it alone, it's fine.

 

Anyway... this isn't directed at you, Archer... I actually agree with your points... I'm just commenting in general.