I'm considering Hero...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

You pick what should be your most lethal example of combat in a Fantasy HERO game and only *one* player dies?

 

And you claim it's just as lethal as any other game seemingly including mine where has seen a number of total party *kills* and has a 40% of generated PC death rate?

 

I suppose from the death characters PoV that may be the case. But as far as a measure of how lethal the system it, it's a joke.

 

Frankly, I don't find high kill ratios to be indicative of a well-designed game whose purpose is to emulate heroic fiction. How many fantasy novels include scenes ending in "total party kills", or incorporate an overall death rate of 40% amongst the major characters?

 

In heroic fiction, the death of a significant character is virtually always very meaningful, and not something that just happens at random because "that's what the dice said". Hero sets out to emulate heroic fiction, not emulate a wargame. That's where its lethality levels default. They must, to meet the stated objective of emulating heroic/cinematic fiction.

[Markdoc]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

I suppose from the death characters PoV that may be the case. But as far as a measure of how lethal the system it' date=' it's a joke.[/quote']

 

Shrug. Lethality is a partly GM-style thing - GMs who let their players wander hither and yon buttoned up in the heaviest armour they can buy. I've run multiple hero system fantasy games in different settings over the last 20+ years and lack of lethality has never been a problem. The problem has been keeping the PCs alive! The same has been true in the FH games that I have played in, with one notable (high fantasy) exception.

 

It is true a starting FH character is a bit more durable than a starting D&D character (I think that's a good thing personally), but it's also true that they don't progress to PHE4RSOM L33TN3Z quite so startlingly fast as D&D characters, either.

 

Part of the problem also I think, is that a lot of GMs warp the system. They add in damage caps, CHA caps and so on, to keep damage potential low - and then they complain that lethality is low. Well, duh!

 

cheers, Mark

[Fox1]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

Part of the problem also I think, is that a lot of GMs warp the system. They add in damage caps, CHA caps and so on, to keep damage potential low - and then they complain that lethality is low. Well, duh!

 

As I noted in my post, the original Fantasy HERO designers suggested boosting STR and Combat Skill levels to bring the damage into line. They also added the critical hit rule that made it into the published copy.

 

However this solution is not acceptable to those such as myself who wanted to use the same system for different genres. The idea that the mundane sword wielder in fantasy is tossing damage dice equal to superheroes was unacceptable to me then and remains so now.

 

Just running up the damage doesn't work for everyone.

 

Even so, there are ways of adjusting the system to force it to function well enough in this matter. However the potential problem needs to be point out ahead of time.

 

The book itself says the exact same things I have in this thread, but its buried deep inside and is something that a potential buyer needs to be aware of going in.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

I'm sure the original poster has gotten more than he bargained for but I will offer my .02 to the pile of coin on the table. Many of the board heavies have already weighed in and offered sound counsel, so I will do my best.

 

I started playing GURPS in '88 and it was exactly what I was looking for. I played it as my primary game for about 10 years, ran convetion games, and did a lot of world building. I still love the game, especially 4th edition, but Hero (which I've played since 1st edition) accomodates a much greater cinematic feel than any other game that I've played.

 

I want action and I want larger than life heroes. This is a challenge for GURPS at times, in addition to essentially only have one magic system (a system I actually really enjoy). So while what GURPS has to offer is very well done, it is not as systematically flexible as Hero.

 

This comes at a price in that with options comes confusion with the sheer scope of options available. Distilling those options either requires a narrowly focused worldbook (which is missing from the lineup -- for now) or being so familiar with the system that it isn't necessary and a GM's crib notes are enough to guide character/campaign development.

 

Sidekick is helpful to a certain extent, but it really just reduces the scope of options available (a good thing, generally).

 

I find I enjoy Hero combat as much as GURPS but for different reasons. If I can draw a video game analogy, I find GURPS to be deeply 1st person while Hero is more 3rd person. Both systems allow puppet level control of action, but Hero feels more like I am watching the puppeted action unfold rather than experiencing it first hand. I don't know if I articulated that correctly. For perspective I would place d20 or RoleMaster, games I very much enjoy, as more of an Action Path style cut scene - you make choices and randomize the outcome but you are more of a spectator of the action than its director.

 

The point here is that Hero games feel larger than life, and many of the challenges you face can very easily become so. When a monster picks up a single-man, hanging prisoner cell and throws it at the players it is far cooler for the 20-25 STR barbarian to push his STR to catch the cage than it is for everyone scream and die horribly. I also really enjoy the Dive for Cover maneuver as it provides a nice simple mechanic for something we see in action movies all of the time.

[CourtFool]

I'm still considering ignoring...

 

That reads like one death' date=' one conscious PCs, and a bunch of unconscious PCs to me.[/quote']

 

I read it as only one PC lived. My mistake. I apologize.

[Markdoc]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

As I noted in my post, the original Fantasy HERO designers suggested boosting STR and Combat Skill levels to bring the damage into line. They also added the critical hit rule that made it into the published copy.

 

However this solution is not acceptable to those such as myself who wanted to use the same system for different genres. The idea that the mundane sword wielder in fantasy is tossing damage dice equal to superheroes was unacceptable to me then and remains so now.

 

Yeah, I never understood the need for those optional rules and don't use 'em. The worst thing about Fantasy Hero is haxxies that have been introduced which don't fit into the system - if you use the Turakian system for magic for exaple, it's not surprising that you have uber-mages who are really, really hard to kill. But that reflects a deviation from the normal rules set, not the rules-set itself.

 

But just using the standard rules, it's never been a problem (for me or my gaming groups). I wouldn't want to see fantasy characters dealing out truly superheroic heroic damage, but a "who would win: Batman or Conan?" type poll isn't too far off the radar.

 

As noted, I have had PCs (only a few, but still) dishing out 4d6 HKA with a combination of two handed sword, martial arts and big muscles. That's plenty lethal - but then it's also a character who is optimised for one thing and one thing only: killing things with swords. That may be too much for your taste, I dunno: the character still fit snugly within a low fantasy game setting and didn't dominate the action.

 

cheers, Mark

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

the biggest attacks we've seen in our low fantasy game (where we do have people running around in plate mail), two people who bought their STR up above the NCM into super heroic regions (i think a 21 and 23), and the other two players have a 20 and a 19 str (including the mage), the reason why? you need STR to use the big swords to play with the big boys.

 

Normally we will pretty much own anyone in HtH unless we're facing another arkim (we're not sure what they are, but they have magic powers), and then we all have to fight our hardest, and teamwork and basically play very very well, and we get out of it with our heads, by running away usually. We will abort to dive for cover on someone else if they are down etc, and because of that, we survive much more lethal encounters than if we didn't work well together.

 

The Berserker can throw down 4d6, and the mage can (if he uses all his powers to boost sword damage), and that's about it. One guy has a 2d6+1 whirlwind attack, the other a 3d6 (after raging). Finally the scariest is the guy with variable advantage on his sword, and enough PSLs to make head area shots with no penalty (the autofiring head area sword is scary, i'm glad i'm not on the reciveing end).

 

There is lots of lethality, we've nearly died quite a number of times, and mostly survive based on the fact they want to take us alive (they want the mage and don't know which one he is).

 

If One of us dies in combat, it's gonna be a big thing, frankly i'm glad the system works the way it does.

[ZenStorm]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

If One of us dies in combat' date=' it's gonna be a big thing, frankly i'm glad the system works the way it does.[/quote']

 

Exactly.

 

If a GM finds himself, on his way home from a disappointing game session, whispering lamentations to him/herself to the tune of...

"Dammit, I only killed me a scant handful of PCs tonight..."

 

 

...Then maybe you should be using D&D. Or perhaps drop the RP and just run a good miniatures game.

 

...Like DnD.

 

--------------------------

 

"Remember, the reason it was called "TSR" was that it originated from the military's Tactical Simulation Rules (T. S. R.) for developing new battle strategies."

 

-ZS

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

i've gotta say, fireg0lem, my GM, is amazing.

 

Now despite all this, it doesn't stop me from trying to slay a PC or two the day before in my DnD farce.

 

(i've only killed one player, while they themselves have killed two players)

[Fox1]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

As noted, I have had PCs (only a few, but still) dishing out 4d6 HKA with a combination of two handed sword, martial arts and big muscles. That's plenty lethal - but then it's also a character who is optimised for one thing and one thing only: killing things with swords. That may be too much for your taste, I dunno: the character still fit snugly within a low fantasy game setting and didn't dominate the action.

 

Yes, 4d6K is way too much for my taste.

 

In HERO terms he's doing damage equal to 20mm cannon fire or (using the default lift chart) punching as hard as someone who lifts 100 tons, i.e. major Marvel Bricks.

 

No, that is not an acceptable solution for me. I run HERO in other settings and they all have to fit into the same range.

[Fox1]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

...Then maybe you should be using D&D. Or perhaps drop the RP and just run a good miniatures game.

 

...Like DnD.

 

I for one seek to recreate epic adventure fantasy in my games. That means people can and should die.

 

And yes, if I'm going home afterwards and the whole party pulled some brain-dead stunt that should have got them all killed and only one died- yep, that's something to be disappointed about.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

what sorce are you using to determine "epic fantasy" fox1?

[Fox1]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

what sorce are you using to determine "epic fantasy" fox1?

 

The ones I like

 

Chronicles of Prydain, The first Conan Movie, Lord of the Rings, etc.

 

None of course have TPKs (few books are written about heroes who completely fail and all die, but they do exist), but all have losses along the way.

 

In three of the five Prydain books, one of the characters (what I would have called a PC) dies. In Conan, a quarter of the Heroes bite the dust. LotR sees the lost of two (althought one is sent back) out of 9.

 

Break those into adventure sessions (two for each of the five Prydain books, one for Conan, 6 for LotRs) and you get a loss rate of 30% around after 17 adventures.

 

That doesn't compare badly with the lost rate I have of 40% after ~30 adventures And they tend to go in the same way. One here, one there.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

ok, that seems reasonable. From your post above i was thinking you were like slaughtering PCs and i was like, hmmm seems out of genre

 

but a good death every now and again keeps it dramatic

[CSgeekHero]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

I have to partially agree with Fox1 when it comes to the combat. The system is less lethal than some other systems on the market. Chalk it up to the legacy aspect of Hero coming from a four color supers system, Champions.

 

I only partially agree because I personally don't see it as a "major problem" though. I see it as a feature of the system doing something a little different from what others are on the market. Posters have noted several easy tweaks to make the combat become more lethal without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

The way I look at it is, are you having fun?

If the answer is yes, then keep using the system for that particular genre.*

If the answer is not for this particualr genre, then for that genre use something else.**

*Note: This is what most people on the boards are doing right now.

**Note 2: This is what Fox1 has done.

 

To quoteHunter Gordon over at QLI:

"It's your game folks, play it however YOU want to play it."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

Chronicles of Prydain, The first Conan Movie, Lord of the Rings, etc.

 

None of course have TPKs (few books are written about heroes who completely fail and all die, but they do exist), but all have losses along the way.

 

In three of the five Prydain books, one of the characters (what I would have called a PC) dies. In Conan, a quarter of the Heroes bite the dust. LotR sees the lost of two (althought one is sent back) out of 9.

 

Break those into adventure sessions (two for each of the five Prydain books, one for Conan, 6 for LotRs) and you get a loss rate of 30% around after 17 adventures.

 

That doesn't compare badly with the lost rate I have of 40% after ~30 adventures And they tend to go in the same way. One here, one there.

 

And yet you were chastising the other poster for considering "One dead, all but one unconscious" to have indicated an approporiate level of lethality. If you're only losing one at a time (and I agree that is appropriate to the genre), how is that different?

[MitchellS]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

I have to partially agree with Fox1 when it comes to the combat. The system is less lethal than some other systems on the market. Chalk it up to the legacy aspect of Hero coming from a four color supers system, Champions.

 

I only partially agree because I personally don't see it as a "major problem" though. I see it as a feature of the system doing something a little different from what others are on the market. Posters have noted several easy tweaks to make the combat become more lethal without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

The way I look at it is, are you having fun?

If the answer is yes, then keep using the system for that particular genre.*

If the answer is not for this particualr genre, then for that genre use something else.**

*Note: This is what most people on the boards are doing right now.

**Note 2: This is what Fox1 has done.

 

To quoteHunter Gordon over at QLI:

"It's your game folks, play it however YOU want to play it."

I GMed in a 6 year FH Greyhawk game and I never saw it as being non-lethal. The average damage was probably around 2d6k. The average defenses of the characters were around 5r. So basically the characters took 1-4 body from every hit [depending upon hit location]. Over time as the defenses increased [dragonscale armor, magic, etc.] so did the damage [magic-wielding foes, more powerful critters, etc.] they took. The PCs still found themselves 4-5 hits away from dying.

 

Of course I never went out of my way to kill a PC unless the player told me he wanted to stop using the character and didn't mind if he had a heroic death. Making characters you like to play takes too much time in Hero and you invest too much emotional energy into them to just be killing them willy-nilly, IMO.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

yeah, i can see that. Generally we're taking little or no body from regular swords, but arbolests, coordinated attacks etc. can really bring the pain.

[ZenStorm]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

In three of the five Prydain books, one of the characters (what I would have called a PC) dies. In Conan, a quarter of the Heroes bite the dust. LotR sees the lost of two (althought one is sent back) out of 9.

 

Break those into adventure sessions (two for each of the five Prydain books, one for Conan, 6 for LotRs) and you get a loss rate of 30% around after 17 adventures.

 

That doesn't compare badly with the lost rate I have of 40% after ~30 adventures And they tend to go in the same way. One here, one there.

 

Ok, now I think you're just thinking about this way too much.

 

The question was, why did you believe that the 'kill ratio' wasn't epic enough. But, I think a better question would be... What, in the name of all that's holy, does anything called a "Kill Ratio" have to do with how "Epic" something is?

 

There is so much more to the scope and scale of a given scenario than how often a player has all of their efforts in char generation and roleplay cut off at the knees. There is nothing epic about a PC-death that doesn't mean anything and serves no purpose other than to polish the muscle-sheen of the Uber-cool NPCs.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

oops, it's been 7 sessions, time for someone to die...

 

 

nah i know you don't work like that, it's just a funny concept.

[Fox1]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

The question was, why did you believe that the 'kill ratio' wasn't epic enough. But, I think a better question would be... What, in the name of all that's holy, does anything called a "Kill Ratio" have to do with how "Epic" something is?

 

I used the term "Epic" for referencing the source material I base the game upon. LotRs and similar works (all containing a good amount of death) are called 'fantasy epics'.

 

The deaths in the source examples I cited were all important and meaningful, both in impact to the reader and to the heart of the storyline.

 

 

Now I play a rpg where the decisions of the players and their dice are the primary drivers of events. I don't have any real control over when and where PC die as a result.

 

Yet I want that same type of impact- an impact that doesn't happen in deathless gaming. I also want risk and downsides for poor decision making.

 

This means that I require a system that produces a death rate close to the source material.

 

I assure you, none of the players have ever complained. Most consider their character's deaths to be eventful and worthwhile. For some, they are in fact the highlight of their game life.

 

Even the total party kills are fondly remembered.

 

It may be a different way of playing from your PoV, but I see no reason for you to heap scorn upon it.

[Fox1]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

oops, it's been 7 sessions, time for someone to die...

 

 

nah i know you don't work like that, it's just a funny concept.

 

 

More seriously I don't have much control over it.

 

The system is dice based and heavily influenced by the tactics in each battle. So a death outcome is basically unpredictable, I can only influence the leaning so to speak.

 

I've had total party kills in what should have been minor encounters.

 

On the other hand, the last "end of a epic arc, fight to the finish against overwhelming odds" that I had *intended* to have a heavy chance of killing a number of PCs- only killed one, maimed one. And killed one NPC.

 

The average however comes out about right.

[Onyxclaw]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

we played a oneshot where we all died, up til then it was much fun. My death was even fun, I got beheaded ^^

 

In the game I am preparing death will be common only if characters do foolish things. If you insult something bigger than you he's going to have something to say about it. I don't protect PCs from death at all, but I will pull punches if I made something more powerful than I intended, (i.e. that little octopus really shouldn't be able to kill a fighter...why is he dieing? oh...right..he can't breathe...oops. ::make octopus release: I also wont gun for them. But I let them know that right off the bat.

 

I've warned my players to be ready if thier character dies, cause in all liekly hood it will happen eventually. But then they can build as many characters as they want to have waiting in the wings...so it's ok.

 

In a different setting than the current one though, I would probubly try to make sure they didn't die often, just because it would make the story too short...and I'm really in it for the stories

[ZenStorm]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

It may be a different way of playing from your PoV' date=' but I see no reason for you to heap scorn upon it.[/quote']

 

Hi, Pot. This is kettle calling.

 

 

--------------

[Fox1]

Re: I'm considering Hero...

 

Hi, Pot. This is kettle calling.

 

I have not stated anything negative about those who desire little or no PC death in their game even though a number of such have put forth their opinion.

 

I've simply stated my own opinion on the matter and on how HERO by default handles it.

 

Only you here have seen fit to attack someone's stated perference on this subject.