What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

[tesuji]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Fundamental change:

 

I would more or less yank pre-set values for most things.

 

Instead of seeing Armor piercing at +1/2 or water breathing at 5cp, you would see each with a list of example costs, possible grouped thematically, so the notion of "cost matches with benefit and benefit is very very much campaign dependent" would be an ingrained thing.

 

Limitations and disadvantages would be similarly "unlocked" and mostly defined by the core "frequency" + "severity" logic. heck, power limitations might become ONE big limited power kind of notion, with f+s being the rule and the notion being "at chargen Gm and player discuss how this limits" or maybe "player submits several examples of how this limits and such" as a part of the core rules. its entirel possible that "power lims" would dissappear and become "character disadvantages". you pay points for "everything at its best" and get disads for how far away from "everything at its best" you normally see.

 

I would make SFX bigger, probably dropping any advantage/limitation below 1/2 and letting all the way from 0 to "not quite +1/2" be a matter of SFX/power skill. This could expand even further to let power skill effectively gain you "a multipower slot" worth, enabling a very simple build to be versatile using the skill. So with a good enough power skill roll you could turn your 12d6 firebolt into a 6d6 fire cone, though that would likely be 8d6 under my scale.

 

Finally the most fundamental change would be to move from "our costs are right" to "you make the costs you choose for your game right" as the focus of where the system balance works and is derived from. The nonsense of "use hero to balance other games systems" kind of thinking would go away entirely.

[keithcurtis]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

In the Conan/Samson/Hercules examples above, I would make them all pay NCM on the extra strength, no matter howe it was purchased. Buying your STR as a power just to fulfill a SFX is rules raping.

 

I'm also heavily in favor of adjusting what is considered superhuman in any genre. Thundarr frequently does feats of impossible STR, mostly leaping and lifting. But he's human. Humans in Thundarr's world are pretty durn strong. Ditto a comic book world. For a pulp detective genre, not so much.

 

Keith "design to fit the world an genre" Curtis

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I would more or less yank pre-set values for most things.

 

Instead of seeing Armor piercing at +1/2 or water breathing at 5cp, you would see each with a list of example costs, possible grouped thematically, so the notion of "cost matches with benefit and benefit is very very much campaign dependent" would be an ingrained thing.

 

 

Part of the beauty of HERO for me is the cross campaign applicability. That a pulp HERO character can run in FH or SH or Champs without any change to his write up. He may not be as effictive, but he uses the same rules. To me, that is a core selling point for HERO, that it is a universal system, rather than a game engine as you describe.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'd argue it is' date=' though not as extreme as changing to a linear roll. It increases the role of random chance in determining success or falure, and reduces the role that skill (OCV, DCV, skill level) plays. the likelihood of failure when, for example, you currently need a 14- to succeed is significantly enhanced if you now need 23- on 3d12.[/quote']

Why did you pick 23-? Why not 28-? The 3d12 bell curve has exactly the same shape as the 3d6 bell curve, only bigger. The added granularity comes in when for example, if 10- and 11- on 3d6 are equivalent to 19- and 21- on 3d12, you can also have a middle value of 20-. (But I guess discussing specific changes is OT.)

 

As I read this, it doesn't say "Figure out every possible build, then pick the most expensive one", as many on these boards commonly suggest. It says "If two builds are equally simple, equally straightforward and equally complex, the tie is broken by selecting the most expensive one". Otherwise, you use the MORE valid way of creating the ability, and need never apply this metarule.

Fine, but that's your interpretation. It doesn't actually say anything about simplicity, complexity, or straightforwardness. It only says, "valid". It doesn't say anywhere that "simpler = more valid" or "more complexity = less validity." Perhaps only a clarification to this metarule is needed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Why did you pick 23-? Why not 28-?

 

Presently, an 11- is a base roll for success, and I assume 20 (average on 3d12, rounded up) would be the base roll under this new model. I then assume that the task in question is one where the charaxcter requires a 14- to hit due to difficulty, perhaps because he is OCV 10 and attacking a DCV 7 target. The roll with 3d12, with the same OCV and DCV, would presumably be 20 + 10 - 7 = 23.

 

My assumption was that the only change was to the dice rolled, not to the computation of OCV, DCV, bonuses to skill rolls, etc.

 

Fine' date=' but that's your interpretation. It doesn't actually say anything about simplicity, complexity, or straightforwardness. It only says, "valid". It doesn't say anywhere that "simpler = more valid" or "more complexity = less validity." Perhaps only a clarification to this metarule is needed.[/quote']

 

Perhaps. Perhaps it is left to the user to make this determination. Given you would wnat to change the metarule itself to effectively state the simpler construct is more valid, it apears you concur the simpler approach is to be preferred, and thus is more valid. However, given the confusion surrounding this metarule certainly justifies the belief it would benefit from clarification.

 

If I read the metarule to not state "simple generally = valid, however, I would have to ban Ego Attack since an EB, AVLD, Invisible, Custom Advantage to target ECV would be far more expensive. I don't believe the writers intended that a power they write up be banned entirely because there is a ore expensive way to build it, so I interpret the metarule in the context of the overall rules system, and conclude on the designer's intent.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Fundamental change:

 

I would more or less yank pre-set values for most things.

 

An interesting concept, and certainly fundamental. I suspect it would generally render the game virtually unplayable as every GM would have to create his own costing structure more or less from scratch.

[Kristopher]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Changing HERO so that it works differently for different genres or settings would utterly ruin it.

 

Removing Characteristics would ruin it.

[tesuji]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Part of the beauty of HERO for me is the cross campaign applicability. That a pulp HERO character can run in FH or SH or Champs without any change to his write up. He may not be as effictive' date=' but he uses the same rules. To me, that is a core selling point for HERO, that it is a universal system, rather than a game engine as you describe.[/quote']

 

in a more or less normals pulp level game, flight is a whole lot more effective than in a supers game where flight is common.

 

the effectiveness of armor piercing varies greatly with whether or not the campaign features high defenses or low ones.

 

if a Gm makes it make it so that everything is worth the same, is as effective, regardless of which genre, so that characters can shift between and betwixt without problems, then its not to me really cross-genre... its one genre with a lot of different titles painted on them.

 

Significant differences in genre for games, in the presumtpions that a campaign is built on, alters the effectiveness of the things that are common.

 

All of course imo or imx...ymmv

[tesuji]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

An interesting concept' date=' and certainly fundamental. I suspect it would generally render the game virtually unplayable as every GM would have to create his own costing structure more or less from scratch.[/quote']

 

from scratch? nah. thats what we have 600 pages of rules for.

 

instead of trying to pigeon hole all games to fit one price structure, and pretend water breathing is as valuable in a blue planet game as in a dark sun game, or rather try to convince the Gm to coerce his challenges to make that true, instead provide a variety of examples and guidelines to help each Gm adjudicate the costs for his chosen campaign.

 

in short, strive to have HERO morph to fit the genre and campaign you want to run rather than make the genre or game you want to run morph to fit into hero.

 

have genre books turn away from "how to make these genre element fit/fold/spindle into hero" would be about how you change hero to meet those genre demands and more details and examples and even some pre-fabbed sets of cost structures.

 

the specific setting books would be even more specific on costs for that pre-set setting.

 

sure, its a paradign shift. whacky crazy talk. never gonna happen.

[tesuji]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Changing HERO so that it works differently for different genres or settings would utterly ruin it.

 

changing different genres so they all work the same utterly ruins them.

 

"like supers but in plate mail" does not make it a fantasy genre game.

 

IMO IMX YMMV etc...

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

changing different genres so they all work the same utterly ruins them.

 

I've run 4 or 5 differnt genres with HERO and never found them ruined.

[Shiva13]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Multipowers and Elemental Controls. Get rid of them entirely.

[Vurbal]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Multipowers and Elemental Controls. Get rid of them entirely.

Why? I could see getting rid of Elemental Controls if they still worked like they did in 4th Ed, but I consider both of those frameworks essential to many concepts I want to build.

[Shiva13]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Why? I could see getting rid of Elemental Controls if they still worked like they did in 4th Ed' date=' but I consider both of those frameworks essential to many concepts I want to build.[/quote']

 

The savings of points they bring are far out of balance with the actual limitations, if any, that those two frameworks impose.

[ghost-angel]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'm also heavily in favor of adjusting what is considered superhuman in any genre. Thundarr frequently does feats of impossible STR, mostly leaping and lifting. But he's human. Humans in Thundarr's world are pretty durn strong. Ditto a comic book world. For a pulp detective genre, not so much.

 

Keith "design to fit the world an genre" Curtis

I would say that is covered under adjusting maximum to fit the campaign, covered on 5ER p39 "Characteristic Maxima" where it is discussed that the GM may whish to change the default 20 value for different types of games.

 

 

AFAIC most of these "fundamental changes" people mention are built into the System already. I reference Chapter 7 in Fifth Revised (Chapter 6 in Fifth Ed./FREd).

[Rkane_1]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I provided one example of a game which has adopted a standard "one mechanic to determine success and failure". Are you aware of any other game systems which have a similar "one mechanic determines success or failure" structure? I suspect there are lots out there. Basic Role Playing has the % skill system and uses combat skills to determine whether an atttack hits, and whether it is parried or dodged. Marvel Supers (TSR) used the FEAT chart for everything. WEG Star Wars used the "roll X number of D6's and compare the totals" system. Mayfair's DC Heroes had a universal task resolution which determined success and degree of success in a single roll.

 

 

It could certainly be done. Many games have done it.

 

 

I apologize. I thought you were implying by changing the system to a universal mechanic woulod make it an inferior game system. I am well aware of these other game systems but they lack a number of features that Hero provides. I also think they have some beneficial elements that Hero would do well to emulate. Hero is a WONDERFUL system. I despise D20, so my apologies if I seemed a little insulted and attacksish. My bad.

 

 

 

These strengths are described by some naysayyers as weaknesses. They make the system too math-intensive' date=' they will tell you. Players flounder under the weight of all the options, with no guidance. All that flexibility means there are many broken concepts. You aren't going to get a system - ANY system - which will match everyone's "perfect vision".[/quote']

 

Of course not, but to throw up your hands without attempting to make something better is not something I am resigned to do. You are, of course, welcome to embrace the system as is and play it accordingly. I am not saying anyone who does so is a nerf-herder or a quarble-flogger.....but....c'mon....you've flogged a few quarbles, haven't you? *suspiciously eyes the quarble-flogger Hugh*

 

No need to be sorry' date=' IMO. That is the key difficulty - making a fundamental change whose ripple effects don't cause issues as more more problematic than those they solve.[/quote']

 

But not if done well, with much contemplation, and with serious playtesting. I think opening a discussion on the topic opens eyes and invites positive change. I think 5thEdRev is a positive step in a good solid direction. Do I think that should be the FINAL step? Hmmmm...no. Perfection is a road, not a destination. Pardon me for paraphrasing some old wise Chinese guy.

 

I wanted an open discussion for change. I had hoped to have such discussion and asked the crowd who think Hero is perfect as is, to not nbother posting here. We KNOW you like Hero. Its why you are on the board. nIf you thinks its perfect, great. Enjoy the system. If you want to discuss what changes could be made to the system, stick around. *smile*

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

The savings of points they bring are far out of balance with the actual limitations' date=' if any, that those two frameworks impose.[/quote']

 

True.

 

However, it is because without said savings, certain purchases would be vastly _over_ costed.

 

It's not a limitation on the power. If it was, it would be, well, a Limitation, not a power framework.

[SteveZilla]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I would do a couple of things:

 

1. Make Flight cost 3 pts per Inch. It's much more versatile than Running because of one word: Altitude. Turn modes, on the rare occasion a GM uses then, don't offset the benefit.

 

2. Double the cost of everything (and the point returns from disads) so that there is no kludge from having END and COM "cost" a half-point each. Endurance Reserve, being a power, is defined as "spending 1 CP gets you 10 END or 1 REC", so I don't see it as part of the "half-point" problem. After a doubling, it would just be 1 CP gets 5 END or 2 CP gets 1 REC. Or we could keep it uniform and make it 2 CP for either 10 END or 1 REC.

 

In a point based system, there shouldn't be anything that "costs" less than a point as a base value.

[Guest Goradin]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I would not change much of anything game wise. It's worked well for years and is battle tested. The key problems I have had with players in my campaigns over the years (played Champions since maybe 1985) is inability to understand the math involved in the limitations and advantages. Granted, its mainly due to their laziness to read the rules.

 

I would like to see them change some of the metrics to the English System of measurement. I have lived in Europe while in the Army but many of my players have not and they don't know a kilo from their ****.

[tesuji]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I've run 4 or 5 differnt genres with HERO and never found them ruined.

 

I have run three, maybe 4 if you count street level supers as separate from more powerful supers, but in each the gross changes and differences in campaigns "whats permitted" "whats not" and specialty costs to make them work went so far as to basically prevent the cross-genre i have seen mentioned here as the must have or else hero dies criteria.

 

I didn't find hero ruined in the above games, BTW.

 

But even then, the changes weren't enough to move away from the feeling of "like supers, but in plate mail" and i was left feeling it was only about halfway done. That did however, even then seem further than most of the sourcebooks went (3rd and 4th) and was enough to drive off some HERO die hards. (One quit after leanring that when his character voluntarily walked into a "permanent" body drain field (instead of solving how to work around it) and lost body he wouldn't get refunded on the cp worth of body he lost.)

 

As an aside, i have never had or felt the need for having characters move from one game setting to another, never ported "as is" one character to a new game, so the whole "i cannot bring my prehistoric cave man from "land before time" campaign into my "star wars" game without changing a single stat necessity doesn't factor into my concerns.

[SteveZilla]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

It there wasn't a section for falling damage' date=' a zero STR move through is exactly what you'd be doing. It would be like you were flying at that speed and hit an invisible wall. Take all velocity damage with no STR behind it.[/quote']

 

I have to point out that the difference between falling and hitting the ground and doing a Move-Through (regardless of the STR used) -- is control. To execute a move though, one has to be in control of their movement. Falling is because one is not in control of their movement -- gravity is.

 

But if you can do a Move-Though, why not a Move-By?

[Kristopher]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

The savings of points they bring are far out of balance with the actual limitations' date=' if any, that those two frameworks impose.[/quote']

 

Frameworks are not Limitations. Frameworks are mechanisms by which certain concepts are made workable that would otherwise not be workable in comparison to other concepts. In Champions, bricks get their high figured characteristics, martial artists get their maneuvers, energy manipulators and mentalists get their frameworks, etc.

[CBikle]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'd change the movement system so that everything moved on segments instead of phases.

 

Would make how stuff interacts a lot easier to visualize however it'd complicate combat a little more.

[Rkane_1]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I would not be happy only changing one thing.

 

1) I would change all damage to use the same mechanic (as the OP said). I do not think we need to have multiple different ways of handling damage.

 

Thanks. *smile* I think this would actually be a simpler change than people suspect. One of my main interests is to help make it easier for new players to get into the game and this would go a long way. There is really no good reason to have a different method of doing damage. All having the multiple methods of calculating does is make the game more difficult for new-comers to understand.

 

2) I would get rid of figured characteristics and all the characteristics remaining would be streamlined in cost and use.

 

Do you have any specifics on this? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

3) I would completely get rid of all skills and only use skill levels. Want to do a break fall roll. Make a DEX roll. Characters could then buy skill levels as normal. (In example a character would buy 10: +5 Stealth.) For skills with no defaults (read nuclear physics) I would make it were a character may only attempt the roll if they have the skill. Much like our current everyman skill system a GM would determine which skills are everyman. Most genre books would have it laid out also.

 

Would devices that then gave skill levels automatically give you the base skill? What is the reasoning behind eliminating the 2/3 pt skill base? I am not challenging this but I am curious to what you believe it will solve. I would also make all skills chracteristic based, myself, but that is just me.

 

4) I would fix TK. As it is not I get an EB with continuous' date=' indirect and the bonus power of moving things all for only 50% more than EB! Instead I would divorce the damage aspect of the power and have it only for moving mass, a separate slot would be required for damage. [/quote']

 

This may cause more problems than its worth and make buying the power more complicated. What about just increasing the cost?

 

5) Missile Deflection: Now we would have a Melee Deflection power. (No normal blocks do not allow us to turn the attacks back on our enemies or to others.) and Missile Deflection would be allowed to take AOE.

 

I have always personally thought the maneuver of Block is ridiculous in and of itself. If Ogre, who can uproot trees and toss cars is punching Seeker, how could Seeker, with his normal human Strength, impose a force that would change the course of -OR- halt altogether the force of his blow. Its not very logical (Yes, I know. Its a Super-hero game). I have often thought that a Block machanic that took into consideration Strength would be a better solution and to leave the Uber-Block (the Block Maneuver, as is) as something for Super-Powers where Shang-Chi COULD block the Hulkbecause of some Ancient Chinese secret Block that also left his whites whiter and removed stains.

These mods to Missile Defelction, I like. Though I would also like to see the recommendations for the cost of them.

 

6) I would create a single core power for Defense that would replace the current three.

 

What exactly would you suggest? Are you saying buying defense automatically gives you flash and mental or just a base defense power that has to be purchased for each effect? I am interested in your thoughts here.

 

7) I would Merge Force Wall and Entangle and create a functional way to have them movable like 99% of the force walls I see in cannon.

 

I agree though for my game, I add the Adder "Mobile" for +10 points on my Force Walls. How would you structure the cost of this consolidation of Force Wall, Entangle?

 

8) VV.P.P.s I do not know how' date=' but I would rework the cost of the V.P.P. so as not to make Multipower obsolete. I believe I have tried in my game (with success) making V.P.P. a 5 Points for 1 point in the pool power. Then by default all V.P.P.s were cosmic. From there a player could limit them as they would any other power. [/quote']

 

Please expound more on this. Are you saying the Control Cost is 4 points for every one point in the pool, its auto-Cosmis and the 4 for 1 points can be bought down from there? Interesting. What is then the limiting factor in the Active Point Cost of the Pool? I am interested in hearing more.

 

A few of these are house rules I already use. The funny thing is I think HERO is the best system and have less complaints and/or house rules than any other game I have played.

 

I agree. It is very strong as a Simulationist game but I do wish it had a more Narrative aspect to the game such as Fate Points and what. Yes, I know there is Luck but I was hoping for some other way for Players to help themselves out of a tough bind rather than GM fiat. I have worked with many systems in the past who have one and prefer this.

 

Thanks for your input, Ndreare!

[SteveZilla]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Exactly the reasons I like the idea. Nightshade and I have talked about using this method, but we have yet to try it either.

 

In a way it is and in a way it isn't. It doesn't change the way those rolls work fundamentally, but moving from d6 being the only die used in the system to using a different die for a large number of rolls seems pretty fundamental to me.

 

Wouldn't one also need to change how Skill Roll numbers are calculated? Just doubling everything isn't mathematically correct. For an extreme example, on 3D6, a 3- roll wouldn't translate to a 6- on 3D12.

 

Here's the two charts for comparison:

3D6	##- Roll %		3D12	##- Roll %
----	-----------		----	------------
3	0.462962963		3	0.05787037
4	1.851851852		4	0.231481481
5	4.62962963		5	0.578703704
6	9.259259259		6	1.157407407
7	16.2037037		7	2.025462963
8	25.92592593		8	3.240740741
9	37.5			9	4.861111111
10	50			10	6.944444444
11	62.5			11	9.548611111
12	74.07407407		12	12.73148148
13	83.7962963		13	16.55092593
14	90.74074074		14	21.06481481
15	95.37037037		15	26.15740741
16	98.14814815		16	31.71296296
17	99.53703704		17	37.61574074
18	100			18	43.75
			19	50
			20	56.25
			21	62.38425926
			22	68.28703704
			23	73.84259259
			24	78.93518519
			25	83.44907407
			26	87.26851852
			27	90.45138889
			28	93.05555556
			29	95.13888889
			30	96.75925926
			31	97.97453704
			32	98.84259259
			33	99.4212963
			34	99.76851852
			35	99.94212963
			36	100

 

So instead of 9+STAT/5, to get roughly the same chances, it'd have to be 17+STAT/2.5. That way, a stat of 10 which makes a 11- roll on 3D6 (62.5%) would make a 21- (62.3%) on 3D12. And a stat of 20 would make 13- on 3D6 (83.79%) would become (83.44%). Close enough for government work.