Why add a rule?

[zornwil]

So...under what conditions is it worth adding a rule?

 

I was thinking of this just a second ago, hence the thread, when the issue of comparing Breakout (mental) to Casual Strength came up (I won't get into all that of course here, and I use the word "compare" rather broadly), and of course one could add a point to the system regarding Casual Mental/EGO.

 

But would that be worthwhile? It would be consistent. It would be interesting. It would of some use, even, I could argue.

 

But how much use? What is the level at which we are willing to add rules for situations? What is the bar? How common must a situation be, or how critical must it be? Another factor, I'll bring up in a moment...

 

Just fishing for thoughts, really. Certainly I think commonality matters, as does criticality. I would add, though, that if we think of it in terms of a system built on Axioms which informs and regulates Mechanics which in turn are used to create specific Rules which then interacts with Play Experience, I think we have to think more philosphically, as in:

 

Does the Rule enhance Play Experience?

Is the Rule needed to ensure correct functioning of Mechanics?

Does the Rule enforce the Axioms more clearly in the system?

 

One of the Axioms of HERO is its role as a "toolkit" for a GM. Another, at least I would argue, is uniformity of mechanics, of consistency in application, limiting relearning of new subsystems by creating regularity among them where it makes sense. These two can clash as we get into "enabling" GMs with more and more situational, circumstantial rulings, because in the granularity is also where occurs this lack of streamlining, this increase in Rules which then become something to (at least by many's perceptions) be learned.

 

I would say that the minimum bar for a Rule is that it must be necessary to the regular functioning of the system or enhance Play Experience where the GM cannot otherwise "easily" do so. I think with the logical building blocks, the Axioms will get addressed via this, although another corollary here is that a Rule should never violate an Axiom unless it consciously, deliberately "breaks" one by design, and in that case there must be a mitigating cause, either being essential to Mechanics or fundamental Play Experience (i.e., functionality - in which case the Axiom shoulid be revisited, at least, because it should be very rare for an Axiom to contravene these) or if there are competing Axioms in which case choices must be made.

 

I think there's a real importance to the phrase "must be necessary...where the GM cannot otherwise "easily"" do so," because while it is tempting and certainly to many even interesting to embed rules for all sorts of situations and nuance, doing so where GMs can easily rule with the use of a good, consistent system harms the system in three ways: it stifles GM creativity in my opinion by suggesting there is one correct way when anything so nuanced should be considered holistically as no doubt there are many variables; it threatens Play Experience by calling into question GM judgement against "standard" rules and play groups too often fall prey to "these are the rules" in a manner which suddenly violates common sense or other specifics of the situation (this is related, yes, to the preceding point but not identical); and it simply makes the system harder to learn, or, at least, creates that perception, by having more and more variables to read and consider and (ideally) resort to the book for.

 

In point of fact, while I am not suggesting this is a HERO Axiom (I'm unclear either way), I would like to think that this system promotes the mentality where GMs should feel very free to make judgements with ease because they are well-grounded in an ultimately consistent and streamlined system. The more we violate that premise, the more we fall prey to being precisely the system that we are accused of being, unwieldy and too difficult to learn.

 

Now, I am not suggesting that nuanced, conditional rulings should not be published in some format, but I would reserve them for genre or adventure books where they are more likely, as well as reserve them for DH or a "HERO almanac" or whatever, where they become more clearly targetted to the more interested parties and do not clutter the essential rule system.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

when the old mechanics are clearly not working or doing a suboptimal job, then you make up your own, like the new bleeding rules my GM came up with, because we were dissatisfied with the book's rules

[zornwil]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

Let me be a little clearer, though - I'm interested really in the actual official system rules.

 

House rules are a different story serving different criteria - though to your post that would make a good thread, too, but I'm threaded out at the moment!

[Eosin]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

We use a boatload of the optional rules when running in one of the genres (DC or FH). A strait up champs game (rare in at my table) is an out of the box experience for us....IIRC.

[Vondy]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

My criteria for adding a new rule is that the rule must:

 

more accurately simulate an aspect of a specific genre (a genre specific rule)

alter the way a mechanic works in game to suit personal tastes (a general rule)

 

An example of the former is my house rule that a hero who sets and braces (essentially takes a full phase) with a super-power may do maximum body damage to a mundane inanimate object (for instance, a vault door or tank).

 

An example of the latter would my house rule allowing the use of organization contacts for characters who have a broad specturm of contacts of a particular type (they pay for the most useful possible contact, but not all contacts may have those qualities. Its up to me, the GM, to decide how the contact in question can forward the plot): "Various Sundry Underworld Contacts, Very Useful Skills or Resources, Has Extensive Contacts of their Own, Very Good Relationship With Contact, Organization Contact..."

[zornwil]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

I should have phrased this better originally - though it's interesting to hear the rationale re house rules as well. I'm more interested in what would it take to add a rule to the actual HERO game.

[Fox1]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

I should have phrased this better originally - though it's interesting to hear the rationale re house rules as well. I'm more interested in what would it take to add a rule to the actual HERO game.

 

That question is best put to Steve Long (but he won't answer it), why ask others to speculate on his requirements?

[zornwil]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

My criteria for adding a new rule is that the rule must:

 

more accurately simulate an aspect of a specific genre (a genre specific rule)

alter the way a mechanic works in game to suit personal tastes (a general rule)

 

An example of the former is my house rule that a hero who sets and braces (essentially takes a full phase) with a super-power may do maximum body damage to a mundane inanimate object (for instance, a vault door or tank).

 

An example of the latter would my house rule allowing the use of organization contacts for characters who have a broad specturm of contacts of a particular type (they pay for the most useful possible contact, but not all contacts may have those qualities. Its up to me, the GM, to decide how the contact in question can forward the plot): "Various Sundry Underworld Contacts, Very Useful Skills or Resources, Has Extensive Contacts of their Own, Very Good Relationship With Contact, Organization Contact..."

Re Contacts, I think a lot of us are doing something like that. I tend to feel that the commonality and the utility as well as the importance to Play Experience makes it worthwhile to have a sentence or two in the rulebook that a Contact "may be a set of Contacts with the conditions..." (GM control, yada yada). I also think there is in fact a current mechanical problem without such a condition, as the current rules suggest that the utility of Contacts does not scale up as do other things - perhaps, upon reflection, the simplest and best thing is to apply the +5 x2 rule! Simply indicate that "Contacts of an Identical Nature or a Group of Similar Contacts" can be bought at a certain level for +5 points for x2 Contacts or the like. This makes it consistent with other constructs, keeping the system highly logical, while giving a theoretically balanced method.

 

Even if I might not use that method myself, it gives an orthodox method and makes a clear suggestion as to the idea that increasing contacts in a single area really isn't a straight additive value.

[zornwil]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

That question is best put to Steve Long (but he won't answer it)' date=' why ask others to speculate on his requirements?[/quote']

That's irrelevant, I'm asking for people's own opinions, not for them to answer to Steve's opinions.

 

Do you believe the game's only life is via DOJ?

 

Do you believe that all HERO changes have been driven in a complete and utter vaccuum with no exposure to any other ideas?

 

Do you believe that, even if those were true, that it's uninteresting as an intellectual exercise?

 

Do you beileve that these lessons can't and won't ever be applied to others' game designs in the future?

 

If so, then, it's also equally silly for you to bother to reply to such a useless thread.

[schir1964]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

Since I seem to be seen as the "New Power" master around here, I guess I should give my opinion here. (8^D)

 

Generally, what triggers my "New Power/Mechanic Needed" mode is when someone trys to simulate something and the current rules just don't seem to handle it or handle it horribly (jumping through a dozen hoops).

 

The "Protean Form" mechanic (for fluid/malleable characters), that can be used separately or merged into the Hero 5th Edition Shapeshift rules.

 

The "Adjustment Pool" mechanic to handle "AP Pool For Boosting Powers" concept.

 

It's rare, but sometimes certain concepts can't be handled effectively with the current mechanics, that's when a new rule/mechanic should be added. Sometimes this leads to reevaluating the certains mechanics as whole to better handle things in general (such as the whole adjustment powers method).

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Fox1]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

That's irrelevant' date=' I'm asking for people's own opinions, not for them to answer to Steve's opinions.[/quote']

 

Then you phrase the question very poorly because that exactly what you seemed to be asking to me.

[zornwil]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

Then you phrase the question very poorly because that exactly what you seemed to be asking to me.

I already said it wasn't asked well. But I don't see how the question could be construed as you stated it. If someone wants to know Steve's opinions, I would think they would ask him. if that's what I was asking I may as well be posting a thread saying "What is Fox1's reasoning for house rules? Everybody but Fox1 please answer."

[Fox1]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

I already said it wasn't asked well. But I don't see how the question could be construed as you stated it.

 

I'm not responsible for that.

[Warp9]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

The first problem with making any change is that it may make old stuff invalid.

 

While this may be an issue for some people, it is not an issue for me.

 

Show me a better way to do things, and I'll throw the old junk in the trash and redo everything.

 

I don't have any problem with "going back to the drawing board," but it can be hard to get very far if you keep starting over.

 

If we put the "resistance to change" thing aside, IMO we are left with one question: "does it make the system better?" If it does, then add the rule or make the change.

 

The real answer to "what makes the system better," is complex, and depends on what the main motivations behind the design of the system are.

 

For example: How important is realism? How much complexity are you willing for the users to endure? Is the game designed for a Narativist Approach? Gamist Approach? Simulationist? (I'm not saying that a system can't make both Simulationists and Gamists happy, but it is not a bad idea to know what your focus is)

 

 

My simple answer to your question is: "Add a rule when it makes the system better." The trick is knowing what makes the system better.

 

On the other hand I believe that making any changes to the system will be a big issue for many gamers. Most people don't like change that much. If you don't like change, then adding a new rule comes down to showing that this change will result in great personal benefit.

[MitchellS]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

Generally the only reason we ever add a rule is because an existing rule is not working. I don't believe there are very many situations which arise ub a game that the current rules do not cover [though the rule might cover it poorly].

 

As for what it would take to add an "official" rule into the HERO System: an act of Steve Long [he adds several new rules in various books]. You would need to convince Steve the rule is needed. Anything not in the book or FAQ would just be considered a house rule.

 

As I said above though, 5Er covers most of the rules people will encounter [i would certainly hope a 600 page book would do that], even if they are not how you might want them to operate.

[zornwil]

Re: Why add a rule?

 

I'm not responsible for that.

Actually, yes, you are, communication is a two-way process including reception and interpretation. The listener/receiver has as important, if perhaps not more important, job to review carefully and react. At least according to some classes I took.

 

Now how's that for really beating this to death?