Changing HERO - What are the limits?

[schir1964]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

...Mechanics can look at a Malibu and a Grand Am and understand that they're really the same basic car underneath all the cosmetics. Some other people are more surface oriented and think they're two different cars.

Except that if one is built with a A-Frame and has a 6-Cyllinder engine and the other is built with a C-Frame and has a 4-Cyllinder engine, then you'll get varying agreement/disagreement between mechanics as to whether they are the same basic thing underneath.

 

Analogies prove nothing. They are only a different way to express ones opinion. (8^D)

 

Which isn't a bad thing either.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

Except that if one is built with a A-Frame and has a 6-Cyllinder engine and the other is built with a C-Frame and has a 4-Cyllinder engine' date=' then you'll get varying agreement/disagreement between mechanics as to whether they are the same basic thing underneath.[/quote'] Just configurations on a basic framework. Superheroic vs Heroic, options vs no options, house rules vs no house rules.

 

 

Analogies prove nothing. They are only a different way to express ones opinion. (8^D)

Nothing proves anything when dealing with matters of opinion; that doesnt stop analogies as being an effective means of stating an opinion clearly.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

And by the way, anyone coming into my campaign with an existing character and expecting to play them as is without any changes to background or build are in for a rude awakening.

 

I don't care what game system, HERO or not, all characters coming into my games are subjected to rigorous review and will be tweaked to suit.

 

If you don't like it you can either make a new character abiding by the same design process all the other PC's went thru, or hit the road.

 

That's fair.

 

Of course, the line between bringing a Fantasy Hero character (regardless of setting and house rules) and a D&D character to your game is far from a fine line.

 

Also, drawing my own line where I do, I find all the Fantasy Hero setting fall on the Hero System side of it. Yes, there are some funky changes, but only a few, and those few apply only within a very narrow scope.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

To me that is the problem. When I play a sci-fi game I want the feel to be the fell I want for that game - I don't want it to feel like Hero in gameplay I want it to feel like my campaign.

 

I like the Hero system because it allows me to change the feel dependent upon which campaign I decide to run for my players.

 

I like this about the system as well, but I feel it's more of a GM talent than anything to do with the rules. When I want a campaign to have a certain "feel" to it, it's my job, not the rules, to accomplish it. I've run mainly Champions, but I've run Dark Champions recently and it takes some work to make the exposed mechanics (rolling dice) feel different. For example, in a Champions game, I want an attack roll to feel like a superheroic feat, something majestic, powerful and epic. In a Dark Champions game, I want an attack roll to feel like a gritty necessity, something desperate or calculated. In either case, it's just rolling 3 dice, but I want that roll to feel different in each campaign. The rules can't do that.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

I like this about the system as well' date=' but I feel it's more of a GM talent than anything to do with the rules. When I want a campaign to have a certain "feel" to it, it's my job, not the rules, to accomplish it. I've run mainly Champions, but I've run Dark Champions recently and it takes some work to make the exposed mechanics (rolling dice) feel different. For example, in a Champions game, I want an attack roll to feel like a superheroic feat, something majestic, powerful and epic. In a Dark Champions game, I want an attack roll to feel like a gritty necessity, something desperate or calculated. In either case, it's just rolling 3 dice, but I want that roll to feel different in each campaign. The rules can't do that.[/quote']

This is accomplished by both the GM and the rules working in tandem, IMO. The more fragile the characters in a relative sense the more dangerous failure and the more significance each die roll takes on. However, using that basic dynamic as part of the tapestry of a story is the GM's responsibility. Mismatches in either direction lead to failure to acheive the intended effect.

 

For instance, if the options and powerlevel in place ensure that characters are pretty durable and advantaged, but the GM is trying for a dark noirish feel there is going to be friction. Vice versa, if the characters are frail but the GM is trying for a over the top cinematic feel, there is going to be friction. And so on.

 

Again, it comes down to the skill of the craftsman and the quality of the raw materials they are working with -- its not the tools fault if the craftsman is unskilled and / or the raw materials are insufficient to the task at hand.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

You know what I find interesting is that our views on Hero come from different angles here...

 

My first experience with Hero was with a Fantasy Hero game, the Spells were all required to be in a Multipower Pool, not a divide/3 costing like is normal now. To me Hero was a Fantasy Game first, and I got a good feel of Fantasy not so much from the system but from the game we were running.

 

When we switched to a CP Game it flowed nicely into that for me, Heroic game to Heroic game. It wasn't until my first Champions Game that I had to rethink what Hero was exactly because the Genre and Feel were radically different from my perspectives.

 

From where I sit HERO System got the Heroic genre types down in one for me, it was perfect and it does Supers really well - once I figured out the genre tropes (I'm not a comic book fan, the closest I come is Love & Rockets).

 

I think it all comes from how the Game is presented - I don't have the issue with Magic in Hero that RDU Neil expresses for instance - and less about how the System is presented.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

You know what I find interesting is that our views on Hero come from different angles here...

 

My first experience with Hero was with a Fantasy Hero game, the Spells were all required to be in a Multipower Pool, not a divide/3 costing like is normal now. To me Hero was a Fantasy Game first, and I got a good feel of Fantasy not so much from the system but from the game we were running.

 

When we switched to a CP Game it flowed nicely into that for me, Heroic game to Heroic game. It wasn't until my first Champions Game that I had to rethink what Hero was exactly because the Genre and Feel were radically different from my perspectives.

 

From where I sit HERO System got the Heroic genre types down in one for me, it was perfect and it does Supers really well - once I figured out the genre tropes (I'm not a comic book fan, the closest I come is Love & Rockets).

 

I think it all comes from how the Game is presented - I don't have the issue with Magic in Hero that RDU Neil expresses for instance - and less about how the System is presented.

Exactly. Its all in how the GM uses the tools to make the game they want. It is the GM's job to "skin" the framework of the system to look & feel the way they want it to and their skill at doing so is the prime determinate of how successful the game will be at acheiving their goal.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

Whilst it may be difficult to credit, I don't change the rules at all in my games most of the time; the exceptions almost always being with the way in which damage is applied, which I'm not sure ANY game has ever got quite to my liking.

 

Mind you I think I change the FEEL quite effectively - I tend to create characters for most of my players as they are not into the point juggling and so on, and I customise the character sheets. Basically I have the full character sheet and, depending on the player and genre, they may have anything from a full breakdown on a point for point basis, or a broad description of what the character can do with no numbers to be seen.

 

Some people like it better that way.

 

Mind you, whatever THEY think they are playing, I'm playing Hero. Some people just aren't into mechanical systems, and I try to cater for them: I have players who don't even like rolling dice (I use a pre-rolled crib sheet for such situations), and some who know a lot more about the game than me, but like I say, if you CAN make the mechanics invisible, that is cool. I don't think there is ANYTHING in Hero that is so spiky that it has to stick through the skin of the game.

 

Not sure what question I'm answering here, I might just be babbling, but there you go.

[Mentor]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

Bah! Don't pander to them! It's football' date=' man, football. A game where you kick a ball repeatedly with your foot, rather than pick it up and run around with it, which is surely Handball. Or Carryball. Or perhaps Majorimpactfollowedbyphysicaltraumaball.[/quote']

Dang. When the man is right he's right. Hmm, let's see, MIFBPTB. Need something with more vowels to create a nifty new name, but...Oops, derail.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

Very tired today from watching Majorimpactfollowedbyphysicaltraumaball late last night.

 

 

I can't wait for the new theme song.

 

"Are you ready for some Majorimpactfollowedbyphysicaltraumaball!?!?!? It's a Monday night bloodfest!"

 

I think the N-MIFBPTB-L is going to have some serious marketing issues.

 

I would like to see this played at the superhero level, though. That would be seriously sweet.

[Mentor]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

Exactly. Its all in how the GM uses the tools to make the game they want. It is the GM's job to "skin" the framework of the system to look & feel the way they want it to and their skill at doing so is the prime determinate of how successful the game will be at acheiving their goal.

The term "skin" definitely appeals to my sense of GM (and player) individuality or uniqueness for individual campaigns. Ideally, the rules system should sort of fade into the background as the role playing and setting determine pace and action.

[zornwil]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

To me there are three defining points.

 

The first is if you can simply give another hero player the character sheet and it makes sense to them: that means no really dramatic changes to the basic system

 

The second is if you can discuss your game without needing lots of extra clarification.

 

The third is if you can take a character from one game and move him to another GM's game without making major changes.

 

To take two examples: in my heroic level games I like combat to be chaotic and a little bit scary - so I randomise the SPD chart. That affects the way combat plays out, but it alters nothing on the character sheet: SPD costs the same, and works the same - SPD 4 gets twice as many actions as SPD2 and 2/3 as many as SPD6. It also doesn't affect rules discussions or the relative balance of powers. So a character from my game could move to another FH game without any changes and vice versa.

 

On the other hand, in a recent thread, Zornwill asked for input on a change to damage reduction and almost everyone reacted really negatively until he explained that he had also altered the way damage and defences interacted. At that point, most people responded that it was hard to say what the effect would be, because it was completely out of their experience. I think at that point you've moved to a game based on Hero system, rather than Hero system, because the changes, while not enormous in themselves are cumulative - no other GM could comment meaningfully on any one of them without knowing about the others. That's also going to change chargen - characters viable in that game would not play at all the same way if shifted to another game and vice versa.

 

In the same vein, I regard Turakian age as "based on hero system" rather than a hero system game because magic-using characters in that setting are so divergent from the core rules they would need to be completely altered to move to a non-Turakian game. Valdorian age by contrast is a Hero setting, because although there are many setting specific and chargen rules, all of them are compliant to the core rules or pretty close. The sorcery favour rules are a little divergent but can easily be made compliant to core rules without greatly affecting the way the character plays - indeed, I have done exactly that for my own FH game.

 

cheers, Mark

I think I would agree with this in general. I would qualify if a bit differently - there's a point at which you're playing the HERO "game", to the extent it exists, and there's another point at which you're playing the HERO "system" or "toolkit", then there's a point at which you've even "broken" that.

 

Lots of quotes, because all these things are ill-defined by their very nature.

 

To me, the HERO game can be said to be following the "this is the way" of the rulebook in a manner in which you have nothing significant added, such as no new characteristics and no new mechanics, although you might have some new powers, I'd say, that obey the metarules to the extent that can be seen to be clear. And you've taken nothing away that "breaks" the game, for example, you can ignore SPD because even in a game with SPD it's possible for all characters to have the same value. Of course, one could even debunk the notion that a HERO game in and of itself exists due to what's required to run a campaign, but I'll set that aside for the sake of this discussion.

 

I think you're still playing the HERO system/toolkit if your applying the fundamental mechanics. Naturally, a much greyer line exists as to where this leaves off and moves into not even playing the system. But I think that Phil's changes, at least in vast majority, as well as mine (less than his, but not for the damage/defenses issue) fit the HERO toolkit because the concepts of points assignment/rationalization, general damage methods, general offense methods, general characteristic interactions (even if some new ones exist and some aren't there or are recosted), and such all work. Conceptually, a HERO player can sit down and doesn't get lost. One might be surprised by some things, but reasoning them out doesn't take too much. My primary failure that Markdoc notes is that I hadn't qualified how damage works in my game exactly before proposing the DR change. For the most part, even without playing in my games, it isn't that hard to mathematically analyze the results of both changes, and conceptually the changes aren't great here. It was a badly introduced topic. (And on top of that, apparently at least a couple folk already allow DR to detract prior to defenses and it works fine in their games, anyway, though the different is that it's consistent instead of an elective advantage) And many of my "changes" are simply hold-overs, or adaptations of such, from earlier editions.

 

From what I've seen, even people who claim to run the HERO game "as is" really don't. They have listed unstated house rules when rules discussions have come up on the boards or have their few (or many) explicit, stated tweaks. Very often, these changes are quite minor and their games are close enough to the packaged game aspect of HERO that it's truly the game being used, to the extent it can be said to be a game. But I think it's fairly frequent that the variations are significant enough that a quite significant number, perhaps even roughly half, of "HERO games' are really "built using HERO" from the toolkit approach and tend to surprise people with their differences, even if those differences are usually entirely palatable and don't require any serious, extensive learning.

[archermoo]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

You just became one of my hero's' date=' I wish all GMs thought like that.[/quote']

 

You mean they aren't?

 

I can't think off the top of my head of any time that I've ever tried to play a character made for one campaign in a different one. I've gotten the basic chargen rules for the new campaign and re-created several characters for the new game, but I don't think I've ever just tried to play an existing character in a new campaign. One shot con-games being the exception, and I generally prefer playing a provided character in those.

 

While I would certainly let someone submit an existing character from a different campaign to one of mine, I'd look at it just like any other character being submitted. And require changes as necessary.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

You mean they aren't?

 

I can't think off the top of my head of any time that I've ever tried to play a character made for one campaign in a different one. I've gotten the basic chargen rules for the new campaign and re-created several characters for the new game, but I don't think I've ever just tried to play an existing character in a new campaign. One shot con-games being the exception, and I generally prefer playing a provided character in those.

 

While I would certainly let someone submit an existing character from a different campaign to one of mine, I'd look at it just like any other character being submitted. And require changes as necessary.

I've met several GMs who insist that he has to be "universally acceptable" and refuse to fix even things they find broken under the flag of "I don't want some other GM or Gamer to look at my characters and go 'Oh, that's not right.' "

[zornwil]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

I've met several GMs who insist that he has to be "universally acceptable" and refuse to fix even things they find broken under the flag of "I don't want some other GM or Gamer to look at my characters and go 'Oh' date=' that's not right.' "[/quote']

I detest that viewpoint.

 

PS - guess I should say more than just post that...I find it is a cop-out in that it is a GM's role to, with his players, develop a game which caters to their desried play experience in cooperation with whatever the system provides. Note I do say "in cooperation with," as I acknowledge the importance of plumbing the depths of a system's guidance/nudging in play experience, but that also needs to suit the individual group, and groups each have their own prejudices. On top of that, the whole argument of interoperability among games is ludicrous, aside from tournaments (which, for RPGs, I find a rather icky concept, personally, anyway), as it's not merely a matter of book-correctness but how the characters interact and what is efficient, what is unused, what the standards of behavior are and how that influences power sets, and so on.

[archermoo]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

I've met several GMs who insist that he has to be "universally acceptable" and refuse to fix even things they find broken under the flag of "I don't want some other GM or Gamer to look at my characters and go 'Oh' date=' that's not right.' "[/quote']

 

Ick. I guess I should just remain happy that I've never run into that attitude before.

 

Characters need to fit into the world. Something that is perfectly reasonable in one game could be totally outragous in another. Heck I've played games in which being a Mutant was a disad, and I've played in games that it was a perk you had to pay for. Characters going from one to the other would have to be tweaked at a minimum, and probably greatly reworked. Not requiring changes that are warranted just because you want to be able to do the same to someone else is lame.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

Just tacking on a note to say that the reason these boards rock is 'cuz we're all pretty much on the same page here regarding how a System and how a Game should interact and work.

 

(and I never played more than a session with the afformentioed "by the book" GMs - they also tend to suck eggs in enjoyment provision factor of the game as well)

[Lemurion]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

I think what makes a game Hero is the same thing that sets it apart from other games: How it handles characters and their abilities.

 

First let's look at characters: Hero is the game that introduced Disads, possibly one of the most important things imaginable for RPGs. They provide the flaws in a character, giving us the ability to move from wish-fullfilment to role-playing. Take away the idea of Disads, and you move out of Hero, away from where a character is defined by what they will not do as much as what they cannot do.

 

The second is their abilities: Hero reasons from effect to cause, not from cause to effect. Fiery breath and lightning bolts are both energy blasts, or alternatively RKAs. They are handled the same way, and defined by the same rules. Make them fundamentally different because one is fire and the other is lightning, with special cases for each (rather than modifiers to reflect the individual SFX) and you have left the pale of Hero.

 

There, my 2 cents (Canadian.)

[Trebuchet]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

I've met several GMs who insist that he has to be "universally acceptable" and refuse to fix even things they find broken under the flag of "I don't want some other GM or Gamer to look at my characters and go 'Oh' date=' that's not right.' "[/quote']I find that kind of restriction absolutely mind-blowing.

 

Nothing is going to be "100% Universal" from campaign to campaign; even an unremarkable 50 STR/23 DEX brick in a Champions campaign might exceed campaign limits in some games. Requiring PCs to be fully transferable to other campaigns merely amounts to an extremely restrictive set of caps. It's been my experience that the most interesting (and fun!) characters often push the edges of the envelope. If you get too restrictive, you cut off otherwise interesting characters. And that's less fun for both players and GMs.

[CBikle]

Re: Changing HERO - What are the limits?

 

I find that kind of restriction absolutely mind-blowing.

 

Nothing is going to be "100% Universal" from campaign to campaign; even an unremarkable 50 STR/23 DEX brick in a Champions campaign might exceed campaign limits in some games. Requiring PCs to be fully transferable to other campaigns merely amounts to an extremely restrictive set of caps. It's been my experience that the most interesting (and fun!) characters often push the edges of the envelope. If you get too restrictive, you cut off otherwise interesting characters. And that's less fun for both players and GMs.

 

See, that wouldn't bother me as much.

 

Ghost Walker's GM sounds like he started clamping down after a few too many

characters with "unorthodox" designs.