An Open Call to Action

[zornwil]

There are a lot of improvement efforts and suggestions, as always, going on. I think some of us see that there are things in the system that clearly work less well than others - Adjustment Powers are the best example. Frameworks may or may not qualify so much, I think ECs perhaps do in and of themselves.

 

I think many of us realize that while we can propose all sorts of house rules and good ideas, that the core book can only really change with serious playtesting and a critical mass of audience inertia towards a direction.

 

I think many of us realize that the resources for HERO Games to seriously develop the system are severely constrained. I think we also know that, frankly, the results that any relatively small group puts forth are always open to lots of criticism, and that the HERO Games owners will always face backlash and must therefore be necessarily conservative in approach.

 

I think many of us know, by now, that across these boards we sometimes actually can find common ground in approach, and that leveraging the experience of many divergent gaming groups is invaluable in finding out how much is "my" problem versus "everyone's" problem.

 

I think many of us are aware that however well-explicated, HERO has a core set of values from which the system proceeds, and that ultimately the care and handling of the system relies on attention to these core values and to deploying rules changes accordingly.

 

I propose something that is likely to fall apart, but I still want to try it. I propose that a group of us who agree to the comments I've made form a committee, an ongoing task force, a work group, call it what you will, but a group formally dedicated to pushing the boundaries and seriously developing approaches that we as a group first endorse and then we as a group playtest and we as a group promote depending on the results. We have an important strength as an independent group, not beholden to the corporate machinations of HERO, but sensitive to the reality of it, and informed by very different Play Experiences. Therefore I think we can, in the end, make a difference, doing a lot of work for HERO and helping the game develop with a more rigorous attention. We can transcend ownership changes (yes, we will change, too, but more as an evolution and without the singular mindset that corporate ownership often has).

 

Please have no illusions. The first order of business will be to simply agree on the core axioms and ensure we really are getting to the correct base to proceed from. Only then can we really jump into defining and eventually testing solutions. And we have to admit to ourselves this will take TIME, and we will often be frustrated as people don't have enough time. But if we are a sizable enough group and committed enough I'm sure we can continue to plug away and get results.

 

I see this group as having a fundamental charter to develop HERO by properly streamlining the system and ensuring its internal integrity/consistency. Our goal is to find solutions which honor this development, and to test those solutions rigorously. Then our deiverable is to provide disciplined, useful feedback to both DOJ/whoever owns HERO and the HERO community at large.

 

I stress this won't be overnight. This is not a sprint, it isn't even a marathon. It's an ongoing concern. The only way such a group can be successful is to admit time limitations and, once convened, create an effective work structure and be realistic about time to deliver and not be frustrated that any initial burst of energy will wind down into a slow grind, probably even occasional stasis.

 

I suggest that the value of forming and working in such a group as opposed to the free-form exchange of the boards is that we will have the advantage of focus, and we will have the advantage as well of working within a specific charter without distraction such as "it ain't broke, don't fix it" arguments. I also suggest that we will have the advantage of using a formalized work structure, with solid playtesting and reporting methodology, and with varied input, to make this something that is really useful to all, and as such we can deliver what we cannot as loose collections of individuals exchanging ideas sporadically and without discipline.

 

I am not suggesting this is "the one and only way" or any such thing. Nor am I suggesting our group, if we make one, would be without its core prejudices or the like. But I am suggesting we can be a primary agent of sensible change and moreover fill a particular void here, performing a service no group can or does now.

 

Please either respond here, PM me, or e-mail me regarding this.

[MitchellS]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

It's an interesting idea and has great merit but ultimately I think the effort is pointless for a number of reasons:

 

#1: DOJ has no true desire to change the system or make waves with existing fans. If they had the desire it could have been done when the company was purchased. DOJ made a exclusive effort to target existing fans over new fans. The current version of Hero would seem to be the one DOJ wants.

 

#2: Even if DOJ were willing to make changes to the system the company doesn't have the resources or manpower to do it. Everyone at DOJ is already stretched too far. Books are being thrown together and hastily edited just to get them out the door now. On top of that the fans, who have already tied up $90.00 in two core books, would rebel at the notion of needing to spend another $40.00+ on a 6E. I also get the impression, from reading the boards and talking with individuals, that DOJ might not be here in a year; or at least not be any more productive than someone like GOO is right now.

 

#3: This 6E council would never agree on anything. Every change would need to be voted on and those who lost the vote would eventually become resentful and drop out of the project because it was not fitting their vision of what Hero should be. Quasi-intellectuals have a way of not agreeing on anything. This board clearly shows that in it's threads.

 

#4: The Hero community is resistant to change. It takes too much effort to convince fans that a change is worthwhile [and in many cases no convincing will ever work, the damage shield costs rebellion proves that]. I have seen too many "cost of strength" arguments to believe otherwise. There are people still complaining that the old Champions Universe is gone, 3+ years later.

 

I'd love to be involved with such a project. I do think the Hero System needs to be streamlined and made more playable, and more enticing for newer gamers. Unfortunately I think such a project would just be a waste of time and energy. It would go nowhere and only lead to more frustration for those involved.

[Fox1]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I'll have to agree with MitchellS. He summed up just about every thought I had on the subject, but took more time doing so than I would have spent.

 

Well, not every thought. Here's a couple more but they are rather self-centered ones.

 

 

1. I'm a old fan. The type of fan MitchellS say they made 5th for.

 

I don't want that many changes for the simple reason that I consider most of them to be ill advised. Many of the House Rules I have now for 5th edition were needed *because* of changes made in 5th edition. More changes would likely result in me abandoning any new HERO products in favor of using the current book.

 

 

2. There are things I would like to see change. Much of that could be found on my website, more is coming. HERO can use or ignore any of it as it wishes.

 

Since it can be found on my website, I'm already running the perfect version of HERO. I'm done.

 

 

3. MitchellS already said this, I'll repeat it. Design by committee sucks.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

There's strong evidence the first couple iterations of Champions were very much design by committee. And in fact the history of HERO, I believe, is very much this. Yes, it's responsible for mistakes, but also for the advancements made. I think it's no mistake that many of the early creators of HERO have been known to run very different games from each other and very different games from what we know as Champions or HERO. It's the coming together of influences that creates synergies.

 

I run the perfect version of HERO, too, btw, so yours must be flawed, Fox1. My problem is not everyone seems to get it, so I"ll have to compromise.

 

I don't disagree that it may have no effect on HERO as such. That's the risk. But I don't think it is so great a probability. We've already witnessed that the fanbase has contributed HEAVILY to changes over the years. So a concentrated effort may not have a great pay-off, but would have some.

 

I do NOT suggest that this become a "v6" or "v7" committee. In fact, I propose a bit of the opposite; I propose concentrating on very specific issues, leaving it at that. Of course others may or may not want to go for this approach. But I want to avoid proposing entire new versions or sub-versions, even.

 

Will some people get annoyed and leave? Sure, it always happens. But suggesting that's an excuse to do nothing, well then, nothing would ever get done in life, period. I've seen and been directly or indirectly a party to too many things that would have seemed to have collapsed similarly yet instead produced brilliant results.

 

MitchellS, I think your input would be of value and interest. I see no reason for people not to contribute on a consultative or advisory basis and leave it at that. But I don't want to pressure, just state that.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I would like to get in on this, i may not be very insightful, but i have a large group of playtesters back when college starts so i can tell you what we thought and found out.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I would like to get in on this' date=' i may not be very insightful, but i have a large group of playtesters back when college starts so i can tell you what we thought and found out.[/quote']

I think it's developing the best way for us to communicate initially is via simple e-mail, soon to probably be a dedicated listserv. Please email me via the boards or PM me your address and I'll gladly involve you in the early communication. I see some distinct roles for people more interested in just sharing opinions/advising and for those more keen to test.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Oh my, Ben is watching, I see his name there, lurking! Run, hide!

 

Uh, Ben, nothing going on here...

[Fox1]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

There's strong evidence the first couple iterations of Champions were very much design by committee.

 

Having done game design myself, there is a significant difference between a committee with similar approaches led by someone with final say- and what you are putting forth.

 

What is your ideal committe? Give names. Are you in charge? Is someone else in charge? Is no one in charge? Does it only include people you want on it? Does it include those with ideas you dislike? Would it include anyone who defends the current system? How likely will it be that your group represents even 51% of HERO players? How likely is it that DoJ will give this group the time of day?

 

Play with those questions for any length of time, and some of the problems should become clear.

 

 

HERO belongs to DoJ, it is that ownership that will determine the course of future HERO products. This is as it should be.

 

For you and me, we don't have money invested in this horserace nor an invitation from DoJ to comment. It's best therefore just to toss our 'improvements' up on our websites and then brag about how cool we are as a result.

 

I for example is mega-ultra-cool

 

 

 

Note: If you want to play design committee for your own personal campaigns- go for it. Your membership however should be by invite only IMO.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

The basics, as I see them:

 

1) It's your game; have fun with it. (That is always Rule Number One; when it stops being so, everything else is moot.)

 

2) RESPECT EACH OTHER. See Rule #1.

 

3) In any business endeavor, the most difficult balancing act when advancing something new that's based on something established is to keep those familiar with the established order happy while appealing to a new audience. This comes up in entertainment media: Sherlock Holmes (is Brett or Rathbone better?), James Bond (Connery, Moore, or Brosnan? Or even Laszenby or Dalton?), Doctor Who (I won't even bother listing the ten "official" actors in the role, let alone folks like Peter Cushing or Trevor Martin), Hamlet (just compare Olivier, Jacobi, Branaugh, Hawke, and Costner, to name the most familiar movie portrayers), and many others, any one of which could lead to a lengthy NGD thread. In this case, the already-existing discussion of established rules and keeping veteran campaigns flowing versus making the system inviting to new players is the perfect case in point; 5ER and Sidekick should work together for both sides of the audience.

 

4) Use the KISS principle. [For the uninitiated: Keep It Simple, Stupid!] The more any given new rule can be extended logically from existing rules, the more easily-understood the system will be. Through both FREd and 5ER Steve's been slowly drawing the game into a balanced, streamlined system with very clear rules (at least, clear enough to avoid things like the Great Linked Debate of 4th Ed).

 

EDIT: I wrote the above, understanding that I may have been misunderstanding the original post, and I ask that people reading hold the same understanding as well.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Having done game design myself, there is a significant difference between a committee with similar approaches led by someone with final say- and what you are putting forth.

 

What is your ideal committe? Give names. Are you in charge? Is someone else in charge? Is no one in charge? Does it only include people you want on it? Does it include those with ideas you dislike? Would it include anyone who defends the current system? How likely will it be that your group represents even 51% of HERO players? How likely is it that DoJ will give this group the time of day?

 

Play with those questions for any length of time, and some of the problems should become clear.

 

 

HERO belongs to DoJ, it is that ownership that will determine the course of future HERO products. This is as it should be.

 

For you and me, we don't have money invested in this horserace nor an invitation from DoJ to comment. It's best therefore just to toss our 'improvements' up on our websites and then brag about how cool we are as a result.

 

I for example is mega-ultra-cool

 

 

 

Note: If you want to play design committee for your own personal campaigns- go for it. Your membership however should be by invite only IMO.

I manage projects and resources ongoing as my job. I'm pretty familiar with the issues. I am suggesting that the membership have a common/similar approach and de facto it will have to in order to function; I have spelt out several prejudices and thoughts on that in the initial post. Not the least of which is obeissance to a core set of HERO metarules/axioms. The group that coalesces will have to agree to such, or it cannot proceed furher. Or at least I could not proceed without such.

 

There will have to be administrative, task, and governance leadership. The first two can and should, in my opinion, be generally individually driven. The third in my view requires some sort of democratic process on at least a substantial level (releasing a POC into playtest, certifying playtest results).

 

For my own campaign, of course, it's a benevolent dictatorship.

 

I have no illusion that a likely result is that some specific perceived (by the group and one hopes some number of others) improvements are made, employed generally by the group (I don't expect all group members to adopt all changes, why would we?), but ignored by DOJ. That by no means lessens the value of such changes, and also doesn't mean that over time, if good enough, such changes won't make their way into the product in some fashion.

 

In the end, it may be no more than what many of us have done as individuals, but at least represents a more common and tested set of opinions. I think that's pretty darn worthwhile!

[Fox1]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Through both FREd and 5ER Steve's been slowly drawing the game into a balanced' date=' streamlined system with very clear rules [/quote']

 

[Fox1]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

In the end' date=' it may be no more than what many of us have done as individuals, but at least represents a more common and tested set of opinions. I think that's pretty darn worthwhile![/quote']

 

Have fun.

[RDU Neil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I kind of thought that is what we were doing here, anyway. I see my comments on these boards to be putting forth interpretations of Hero... seeing who picks up on them, who disagrees, who likes them... expaning and altering them... all based on some core assumptions I sum up in my sig line.

 

Now... if there were to be a concerted effort to try and define the Core Axioms... and playtest to see if a defined Axiom was really true... then, yeah, I'd love to be in on that. Time will be a factor, but the intellectual exercise would be fascinating.

 

The focus on Core Axioms fits the KISS model, in my mind... so that works out as well.

[Ben Seeman]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Oh my, Ben is watching, I see his name there, lurking! Run, hide!

 

Uh, Ben, nothing going on here...

Relax, I'm only reading this thread so we can steal your ideas and reprint them in our books claiming them as our own.

 

That, by the way, was a joke and to take it any other way would be sillier than the joke itself.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Having done game design myself, there is a significant difference between a committee with similar approaches led by someone with final say- and what you are putting forth.

 

What is your ideal committe? Give names. Are you in charge? Is someone else in charge? Is no one in charge? Does it only include people you want on it? Does it include those with ideas you dislike? Would it include anyone who defends the current system? How likely will it be that your group represents even 51% of HERO players? How likely is it that DoJ will give this group the time of day?

 

Play with those questions for any length of time, and some of the problems should become clear.

 

 

HERO belongs to DoJ, it is that ownership that will determine the course of future HERO products. This is as it should be.

 

For you and me, we don't have money invested in this horserace nor an invitation from DoJ to comment. It's best therefore just to toss our 'improvements' up on our websites and then brag about how cool we are as a result.

 

I for example is mega-ultra-cool

 

 

 

Note: If you want to play design committee for your own personal campaigns- go for it. Your membership however should be by invite only IMO.

 

Whoa there, Kemosabe. You're wrong or mistaken on almost all counts, and I'll tell you why, in no uncertain terms.

 

1.) It doesn't matter how committee members are selected, as long as it is done in a non-discriminatory matter -- merit-based, in other words. If someone has the drive to join the committee,and asks to join the committee, and is then, upon being accepted for a trial run, observed by the other committee members to be creative, productive team member, the fact that no one had to deal with any beureaucratic s*** to get him on the committee is all the better. As for who should be in charge, once you have an initial body of committee members -- say, 10 - 20 -- it gets put to a vote.

 

2.) How likely is it DoJ would give this group the time of day? EXTREMELY likely. They give INDIVIDUAL FANS the time of day RIGHT HERE ON THE BOARDS. In fact, DoJ listens to its players more often than not. And obviously, a committee of players would have a much greater voice than an individual. So, I think DoJ would pay plenty of attention.

 

3.) The future of HERO is not going to be determined by the owners. On the contrary, I find that to be arroigant in the extreme, and I wonder just where you designed games, as you claim you did. The future of HERO will, as always, be determined by the players, for they are the ones who purchase the books and pay the owners their salary. In addition, I don't see how the opinions of three game writers outweigh the opinions of thousands of fans, and i don't think Steve and crew see it that way, either.

 

In short, Fox1, I think you think you know what you are talking about... but in fact, do not. I'm sorry if that's flaming, but I had to do something to counteract the negative, arrogant, and just plain mistaken attitude you revealed by making this post.

[Vondy]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Relax, I'm only reading this thread so we can steal your ideas and reprint them in our books claiming them as our own.

 

 

Recognizing our genius is a sign of good breeding.

2100

[Fox1]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

On the contrary' date=' I find that to be arroigant in the extreme, and I wonder just where you designed games, as you claim you did. [/quote']

 

You'd be surprised.

 

But that's really besides the point, we're not going to agree on this so I'm not going to debate it further. Whatever the outcome I'm sure some people will have fun.

 

Just a friendly warning- go into it expecting nothing but the fun of playing with the concepts. You'll be happier in the end.

[Vondy]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I'm willing to examine and comment on new ideas, and may, as I see it progress, suggest a few ideas of my own. It may not change how I actually play my game, and I don't really expect DoJ will pay it too much heed, but the exploration of ideas is what the boards are all about, and I like new concepts. They keep me fresh.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I don't have much to say at the moment as I'm still brainburned, insufficently caffinated and scrambling to finish a project I'm delivering today...

 

But I wanted to pitch in my support to Zorn's idea.

 

Heck..if we want to do this and don't want to be threatening to folk who are leary of a 6th edition(I know I am...I'm still working with Fred because I can't justify 5er in my budget right now) the conclusions we reach could always be submitted as DH articles.

 

If I have time I'd be happy to contribute.

 

Heck...I'm probably gonna work on some of these ideas regardless... it'd be nice to have a bunch of other HERO geniuses helping. Thats why I post new ideas to the board in the first place.

Virtual Brainstorming.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I kind of thought that is what we were doing here, anyway. I see my comments on these boards to be putting forth interpretations of Hero... seeing who picks up on them, who disagrees, who likes them... expaning and altering them... all based on some core assumptions I sum up in my sig line.

 

Now... if there were to be a concerted effort to try and define the Core Axioms... and playtest to see if a defined Axiom was really true... then, yeah, I'd love to be in on that. Time will be a factor, but the intellectual exercise would be fascinating.

 

The focus on Core Axioms fits the KISS model, in my mind... so that works out as well.

The difference I would like to see is a more formalized process by which we (whatever the grouping) create the firmament upon which to build and then proceed to "solve" some issue methodologically, through to thorough playtesting. I think there's different kinds of solutions...recommended house rules for situations, recommended ideas, and, finally, if we were to be lucky, formalized recommendations for rules changes. The difference/benefit would be doing so as a concerted effort with real deliverables and credibility.

 

It's pie in the sky, but to me it seems a next step that's somehow natural, taking off from where we are here in the forum.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Relax, I'm only reading this thread so we can steal your ideas and reprint them in our books claiming them as our own.

 

That, by the way, was a joke and to take it any other way would be sillier than the joke itself.

 

Nice save, Ben...if that's who you really are...

 

 

STEVE LONG CLONE #168!!!!!!

 

 

Actually, one of the things I'd like to do is get such a group to agree to free sharing, on a serious note, to prevent just such wrangling before such a thing could begin. That'd be, to me, a fundamental starting point. On the whole, all of this, an impossible dream? Maybe. But you have to start somewhere!

[Egyptoid]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

and then when the suggestions are compiled

we get 6th edition? no thank you.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

You'd be surprised.

 

But that's really besides the point, we're not going to agree on this so I'm not going to debate it further. Whatever the outcome I'm sure some people will have fun.

 

Just a friendly warning- go into it expecting nothing but the fun of playing with the concepts. You'll be happier in the end.

Actually, from a pragmatic standpoint, I really urge people to take it with the approach Fox1 advocates in the last paragraph. I think Black Lotus is more correct in some ways than Fox1 sees it, yet I think that really we should do it for the fun of what it is, recognize as part of it is some hard work, and to the extent that we can have any influence, that's a bonus (btw, also some hard work to attempt such, though I am very much in favor of doing that). I'm not going to be negative about it...heck, that wouldn't even make sense coming from me. But I want to be realistic. I hate to say it, but it's that trite "feet on the ground, reaching for starts" thing. Especially from the outset, DOJ has absolutely no reason to listen to this group any more than any poster here (perhaps even less!). To have influence, such a group has to build credibility. To build credibility....well that takes a lot of time and effort. So if we don't do it for the fun of what we can build, we're really going to implode for lack of a solid self-satisfying part of this endeavor. In other words, if we define our expectations according to external forces, at least initially we'll be rather disappointed as any influence we can possibly have is a long-term, not a short-term thing.

 

Heck, I think it will take considerable time for a group to agree on the real core HERO axioms that we are proceeding from and the charter under which we would explore changes. But that, in my mind, is a fun part by itself!

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

Relax, I'm only reading this thread so we can steal your ideas and reprint them in our books claiming them as our own.

 

That, by the way, was a joke and to take it any other way would be sillier than the joke itself.

PS - actually, Ben, involvement by a DOJ member would be most welcome, in fact highly prized. I would just ask they recognize the body as independent - just as I recognize that DOJ has zero reason to take it seriously and zero obligation.

[zornwil]

Re: An Open Call to Action

 

I'm willing to examine and comment on new ideas' date=' and may, as I see it progress, suggest a few ideas of my own. It may not change how I actually play my game, and I don't really expect DoJ will pay it too much heed, but the exploration of ideas is what the boards are all about, and I like new concepts. They keep me fresh.[/quote']

David, I"m not sure if I have your email address, I looked casually and if I do it's buried. Would you please email me via the boards? I'm building a mailing list to have initial discussions off the board.

 

BTW, anyone who's dropped a note here, unless you're as explicit as this I don't want to bother you - so Bob, Black Lotus, others, if this is your way of voicing interest, please explicitly say so and please email or PM me your email address so I can arrange next steps.

 

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts and comments!