What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

[Robyn]

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

 

In Karate, the most common Block is effectively a hard strike against the approaching fist/foot (and attendant limb) to deflect it. That it uses the entire forearm in this process doesn't change that fact. It (IMO) just makes it easier for a beginner to execute -- they're using a much bigger "weapon".

 

From what I can tell, the "more realistic block" you seek comes from the thought that Strength (Power) *should* win out over Skill. Or to put it another way, that in a (pure) contest of Strength vs Skill, Skill looses.

 

As long as you're trying to use Skill as if it were Strength, that's true. It isn't, though; and, if strength always won out over skill, humanity would still be living in the Dark Ages, ruled over by warlords whose sole claim to worthiness was their lifting power.

 

Skill can be used to amplify strength, this is true. (Think of the difference between lifting with your back and lifting with your legs; knowing how to use your strength is exactly where skill comes in.) But skill is also applicable when it comes to using a practical knowledge of pressure points, leverage, angles, inertia, and a dozen other factors that I can't even name without putting a lot more thought into this.

 

Put bluntly, the laws of physics allow us to win even when we aren't stronger in a "all else being equal" contest, by weighting the odds in our favor (provided the other contestants lack the skill to prevent us from gaining/keeping the advantage this way). This may seem like "cheating" since it disrupts the balance of power, but it's also vital to understand that a true "balance" will not easily come from making one single stat the only important factor in related activities (if we wanted that, we'd be playing Amber).

[Robyn]

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

 

Robyn: whisky' date=' tango, foxtrot? Am I missing a hilarious yakuza reference somehwere?[/quote']

 

I assumed you were going with base x/5 because you had five fingers on each hand

[Rkane_1]

[Thread FlashbacRe: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

If the Silverbacks have a Temple' date=' I think we've lost enough realism that maybe blocking his strike isn't that big an addition to make me lose sleep over it. How will the Two Fisted Pulp Heroes be expected to deal with the gorillas?[/quote]

 

Who knows...but if the GM wants it, why not let him have it.

 

How superior? What about a 25 STR streetfighter vs a 5 STR aged Master of Kung Fu? I don't object to the prospect of a variant. However:

 

- I don't see it belonging in the main rules

 

Most rules variants are offered in sourcebook but if it made it there....hey...cool.

 

- I think your basis of "realism" needs to be assessed as a whole' date=' not on a single SFX for a single maneuver[/quote']

 

Then that is something you should pursue. Me...I am happy with my one rule variant.

 

- I don't think this variation is as simple as you seem to make it out to be' date=' but I'm still waiting for your proposal, so maybe you're coming to the same realization.[/quote']

 

Fortunately I don't work on your schedule, thank goodness. I do have other things to do..... such as answering a thread where there is a person who can't accept that other people have ideas and may want to talk about them. And of course the 40 hours a work week to do too and run two games. You seem like quite a demanding taskmaster. Thank goodness I have a free will and can move at my own pace. Thanks, but I will post in my own time. If it has to stand as much unreasonable scrutiny as I have had here for merely suggesting it, then it may be a while. The only realization I've had is that you can't stand someone else having basic freedoms and you want to dictate how to play their game. Me? I just want to offer a Rules Variant. You, you seem to want to demand that nothing change. And demand it of all players of the game. You'd be scary in a position of power. *smile*

 

I'm saying the existing rules are quite adequate for the situations you've described' date=' and that adding a host of options that add little, if anything, to the game is counterproductive. Pick the one you like from UMA and use it.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...no.....I hope I didn't offend you by refusing to obey your dictates but...oh well. For my game, I will do as I please and submit rules to others. Wonderful thing about this board. You can share ideas.....or fight them, if you choose. Keep goin', slugger.

 

I don't recall your stated goal being "make Block less useful' date=' and therefore less common". It was stated as "it's not reasonable that Mary Schoolteacher can block the Hulk's punch". [/quote']

 

I don't recall hiring you to put words in my mouth, but if I did....I'm sorry....you're fired. I can put words in my own mouth, thank you. My intent is to make Block more realistic and offer a rules variant. This is amazing. I am rapidly losing respect for your ability to grasp the argument. I may just abandon hope of arguing this out with you. I think I've pretty much presented my argument and lost all hope of you changing your mind....actually lost hope of that two posts ago, come to think of it.....Why am I talking to you again?

 

 

I didn't say "don't use rules variants". However' date=' I very much dislike making one rules change on the basis of "it's more realistic" if we're not going to revisit the whole framework to fix all rules that are similarly "unrealistic". And there are a lot of rules which are no more realistic than a skilled martial artist being able to prevent a single blow from a powerful adversary from connecting.[/quote']

 

Sure...just name them for me....we can see about addressing them.

Why are you persistantly putting your head in the sand....do you think to address one item in HERO will make it fall apart at the seams? What are you afraid of, Hugh? Its okay....we can talk through it.

 

Once more' date=' I'm saying that, if your goal is to have realism, just changing the Block rules won't cut it. [/quote']

 

My goal is to add a an element of realism. There may be certain elements that I ignore anyway. Maybe I want to add one element but ignore another. Its up to me as a GM.

 

House rules should' date=' in my view, be directed at enhancing some facet of the game. Change for the sake of change is not beneficial.[/quote']

 

In your view.....so....is that the only view that people should have....or should they be able to choose? I choose to make a Rule Variant...but I want you to know....I am COMPLETELY okay if you don't want to use it. Okay?

 

You have stated you're trying to enhance realism with your amendment to the Block rule. I'm saying that' date=' if realism is your goal, it would be best served by a complete review of all the rules to icorporate variances which enhance realism. [/quote']

 

The journey of a thousand steps begins with but one step. Maybe this is just the first step....who knows. Maybe, again, I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE ELEMENT. Are you saying that I shouldn't? That I should just keep my trap shut and play HERO the way its written and LIKE IT!? Well, I do...I also make up rule variants and like them just the same.

 

This is a deviation from Hero's structure of "cinematic wins over realistic"' date=' and would best be presented in a supplement specifically aimed at reducing cinematic effects in favor of realism for those gamers wishing to take that approach.[/quote']

 

I just wanted to put it up here on the web but if you want to finance a supplement, thats mighty nice of you. You should you make the check out to me directly? I can email you my address.

 

In other words' date=' I would rather see a supplement devoted to optional rules to achieve a specific goal - emulate a specific genre; enhance realism; whatever - then a book of optional rules for some mechanic or another (eg. Block; combat maneuvers; whatever) which are presented as options with no context for what they are trying to achieve and how they would best mesh with other optional rules to achieve their objective.[/quote']

 

But not everyone feels the same as you. If they like, they can read and add the variant. If not, then they can ignore it. Whole wonderful thing about Rules variants being optional. Again....feel free to ignore it...as a matter of fact, I invite you to.

 

I can only go from what you have stated. You stated you had a problem that Joe Six Pack could block the Hulk. I discussed that. You complained that "Hero's about more than Supers - I want a more realistic option". Perhaps getting to that discussion was not best served by selecting a comic book supers character that can lift mountain ranges as your SOLE example.

 

Sole example?...again....I wonder if you read these posts before you reply to them....gorillas....vampires.....werewolves......cyborgs......alien pit fighters....etc....etc.... any of those ring a bell? The problem is I have come up with a counterpoint to all your ways of wiggling out of the basic argument about Block. Quit wiggling and just face it. Block, in the game doesn't "realistically" represent a typical Block in martial arts but it does provide a workable functioning mechanic for a more "cinematic" game. People shoulod be able to choose rules variants if they choose and ....well...frankly there is nothing you can do to stop us..... Wow...I feel like I just told off the Hall Monitor. *chuckle*

 

Now we're discussing realism' date=' so I present you with my theory of how best to achieve realism - and it's not "just provide a Block variant", so you're once again not happy.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...I must have missed something. When did you do that? I would be happy to discuss it if you had.

 

If the roll consistently succeeds' date=' maybe she's not so deluded after all.[/quote']

 

Even with good rolls, it shouldn't be available without GM intervention.

 

Would that be the rule that Block (or any other maneuver) has a wide variaety of SFX' date=' not all of which, in the case of Block, are "stick your limb in the way"?[/quote']

 

Possibly some other variants for "Active Dodge" or others would be available as well. If you wanted more granularity of choices, I don't see where that would be a problem. If you wanted to stick with Block and Block only, I don't see as that is a problem.

 

No' date=' it doesn't stand up to YOUR logic, so a game with YOUR predefinitions of the SFX of maneuvers may want a Rules Variant to bring the game, and the actions of the characters within it, more in line with YOUR preconceptions.[/quote']

 

Meanwhile, the current system fits YOUR logic and YOUR preconceptions so you argue your point. Mine is no less valid than yours.

 

It would not be the first time I've disagreed with Steve's comments. If you already have the published rules variant you wanted' date=' why does it need further discussion on this thread? Use it![/quote']

 

I want more detail....um....am I allowed to think for myself or are you going to do that for me....while you are thinking for me, could you please run both games I run too. Its starting to be taxing and I SO would love to play.

 

I'd say taking 10 BOD (12 rolled on a 12d6 attack less 2 = 10) is a pretty frightening effect. Describe it that way and you've got what you wanted.

Yep...purty scary indeed. But that wouldn't be the end of it. more can be done. If you don't like those rules...feel free to ignore them.

 

Much longer, I suspect, but that's just the pot and the kettle exchanging descriptors And I believe you could find genre examples for each of those where Blocks take place. "MA blocks Werewolf" seems very Buffy. And if the MA has that kind of OCV, why shouldn't he be able to grab the Werewolf's wrist and twist under its claws? But let's take that character a bit further with a couple more questions:

 

- Should that MA's blows (let's make them 7 DC, same as that 35 STR) be blockable by another, similar martial artist? Remember, he can shatter bricks with those strikes!

 

Yes, I would imagine some sort of DC classes add to the Blocks defenses the same way they add to the Strength of a Disarm.

 

- Should that MA be able to block a street punk with a knife (1d6 HKA including STR)? It's the same DC as his own STR' date=' so a variant based on relative STR doesn't change it, but sticking your arm in the way of a knife only really changes the hit location, if we're going by "realism".[/quote']

 

True that, but if both opponents are in the same hex, he could perform an inside block where he blocks the wrist of the attacker which would be more difficult but a lot better than taking a knife to the arm.

 

- Can the MA buy the ability to block a higher STR opponent? How' date=' or alternatively why should that one concept be rejected out of hand?[/quote']

 

It wouldn't...perhaps someone with the equivalent of higher DC would have that ability or some sort of Super-Block for blocking these higher Strengths.

 

To reiterate' date=' if you want "realism", a simple "X STR difference = cannot be blocked" isn't going to do it. You seem to have focused on Block as if it is the only rule where realism might be compromised.[/quote']

 

Oh no...There are others, but you attack one problem at a time and handle the ripple effects and then another one. To try to deal with ALL of them all at once is simply overwhelming. Being attacked by multiple opponents in a combat is very difficult but if you can find a hallway or doorway to restrict them and have them fight you one at a time, then it is more manageable and one man can take on an army. One problem at a time.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I said that' date=' if this relative STR block needs changed in the interests of realism, then DFC also needs changing, as it is at least as unrealistic. I am saying that changing Block and leaving DFC does not serve the interests of realism.[/quote']

 

I'm putting words in your mouth? Gee, what a horrible thing to do. Thank you for sparing me the same fate of having words put in my mouth.

 

But I support the ruling as a way to make Speedsters more "realistic" as well. Its an interesting rules variant I might adopt for a more realistic game.

 

You continually cite them as your examples' date=' then dismiss them when they become inconvenient to you. A very...creative...style of discussion.[/quote']

 

I addressed it quite directly. You were interpreting the artwork of a panel where Reed was remembering something as "wrong because Reed must have messed it up because Cap MUST have angled his shield" while I was maintaining that Reed was simply remembering it as it happened. Then explained that with different writers, different powers and power levels change to the needs of the story. Are you maintaining that even though the panel was clearly illustrated as Cap taking a straight on shot that it could NOT have POSSIBLY been the way it was clearly illustrated because it did not suit YOUR argument?....Yep....a very ......creative.....style of discussion indeed.

 

 

*ring*

 

 

*ring*

 

 

Hello?

 

 

Yes, this is Kettle.

 

 

Oh, Hi, Pot. How are doing?

 

 

What?

 

 

I'm black?

 

 

Oh....thanks for the update! Seeya later.

 

 

*hangs up phone*

 

 

[Thread Flashback]Spider Man beat Firelord. Live with it!![/Thread Flashback]

 

Maybe one day when I'm interested in what this rambling is in relation to, I'll ask about it...but til then, do keep it to yourself.

 

ooo...that hurt! I'm back now!

[Robyn]

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

 

I will post in my own time. If it has to stand as much unreasonable scrutiny as I have had here for merely suggesting it' date=' then it may be a while.[/quote]

 

Perhaps the scrutiny has arisen from your lack of disclosure regarding the system - a lack which, as time continues to elapse, only invites further speculation regarding the details. The key to preventing criticism, not to put too fine a point on it, may very well be the exact provision which you propose a deliberate omission of here.

 

The entire idea, not incidentally, is your own. While we can offer suggestions as to where you might want to discuss it, it is up to you where you do hold these discussions. That you continue to hold them on this thread indicates that you either believe this to be something HERO must fundamentally change, or that expect others to take responsibility for moving your idea to another thread. The former is contradicted by your descriptions of this as a "variant", not a core rule, and the latter is counter-indicated (but not contradicted) by your many complaints about (and protests against) the efforts you perceive to control the conversation, put words in your mouth, and so on.

 

Since both of the obvious possibilities are inconsistent over the thread as a whole, I speculate that your philosophy is harboring a hypocrisy of sorts, a conflict of which you may have been aware but have not yet resolved. I suggest and respectfully request that you consider carefully what thread you want to discuss this in, and why (that thread in particular), before resuming the discussion.

 

Maybe one day when I'm interested in what this rambling is in relation to' date=' I'll ask about it...but til then, do keep it to yourself. [/quote']

 

I must object to this; you are not the only one on this thread, indeed, the issue you have recently been debating so avidly is far from the only matter under discussion here. Were you communicating with Hugh by PM, this would be a reasonable request, but I protest the idea that he should refrain from widely enjoyable humor simply because you do not grasp its amusement value

[Rkane_1]

Re: [Thread FlashbacRe: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system

 

Perhaps the scrutiny has arisen from your lack of disclosure regarding the system - a lack which' date=' as time continues to elapse, only invites further speculation regarding the details. The key to preventing criticism, not to put too fine a point on it, may very well be the exact provision which you propose a deliberate omission of here.[/quote']

So...you can't say something might need consideration before actually providing the consideration already? A problem someone may percieve cannot be discussed unless they already come up with the answer? I sought to have an open discussion. Is this not possible on this board? If I come up with a rushed out system which doesn't take into consideration a lot of variables, all that does is a diservice to the board and open tons of people tearing it apart because it wasn't well thought out. As the continued barrage of near hostile and derisive responses I am getting from this board continue, I am beginning to wonder about HERO players in general. Is this board a place where one can discuss ideas, or isn't it?

 

I promise I have never met a more hornery group of people in my life. You are all making a newcomer to the boards feel quite welcome. Thanks for your hospitality.

 

The entire idea' date=' not incidentally, is your own. While we can offer suggestions as to where you [i']might[/i] want to discuss it, it is up to you where you do hold these discussions. That you continue to hold them on this thread indicates that you either believe this to be something HERO must fundamentally change, or that expect others to take responsibility for moving your idea to another thread.

Or that I took it for granted that it could be discussed at a later date and would wish to continue to other topics, but others won't let it die. I would be quite content to discuss this on another thread but the responses here will not cease. I respond to posts that are posted to me. If you wish no response, then don't make one. If you wish to continue talking about it, then keep posting. I will be more than happy to answer.

 

The former is contradicted by your descriptions of this as a "variant"' date=' not a core rule, and the latter is counter-indicated (but not contradicted) by your many complaints about (and protests against) the efforts you perceive to control the conversation, put words in your mouth, and so on.[/quote']

Robyn....if you read the beginning of the threads, at first I said it was a Fundamental flaw, but then a few people pointed somethings out to me and I acquiesced to it being possibly best dealt with by a Rules Variant. I changed my mind after valid arguments were made. I am not stomping my feet insisting that I am right about it being a fundamental flaw. What I am aggravated with is the tone that some are taking saying that I seemingly don't have the "right" to offer a rules variant later. Saying that I have to follow the rules as set forth in a game where I am GMing...its not anyone else's right to dictate to me what I do. If I am the GM, I will use what variants I choose. End of story.

 

Since both of the obvious possibilities are inconsistent over the thread as a whole' date=' I speculate that your philosophy is harboring a hypocrisy of sorts, a conflict of which you may have been aware but have not yet resolved. I suggest and respectfully request that you consider carefully what thread [u']you[/u] want to discuss this in, and why (that thread in particular), before resuming the discussion.

I humbly request that you reread the posts before posting on them. I had a LONG time ago stated that it wouild have been best treated with by a Rules Variant and, though relentlessy attacked by Hugh for the audacity of suggesting a Rules Variant, I have persisted that it is my right to use one as GM. I have explained my personal reasons as to why I might use one and advised that nothing says you have to use my Rules variant as they are, by their nature, Optional.

 

I respectfully request of all of you a cessation of this topic until I have prepared said Rules Variant....this would be the third time now I have done so.....and apparently ignored each time. Throwing the Rules Variant out without sufficient thought is illogical and irresponsible in my opinion. There has been another thread started in another thread and I would gladly take any arguments there, so please stop responding to them here.

 

Please also refrain from insinuating hypocrisy as it does sound as if you are making a personal attack. I have done nothing to disrespect you, please do not begin disrespecting me. I came out with an idea. Some people pointed out some items. I acqueised and asked for time to prepare. I have been attacked pretty much relentlessy by Hugh for suggesting it be a Rules Variant. I thus defended my right as a GM to determine what rules I use and do not use in my game, whether they be home brew or otherwise.

 

I sought to have an open discussion. What has been doggedly pursued by others here has gone beyond vociferous attack. The horse is dead, it will not move anymore.

 

If I had the ability to delete all the posts relative to the discussion on both sides.

 

Frankly, I have had a few people make some fairly decent conversations here but the irritation that the badgering and insulting posts have caused, is making me regret investing any money in the new HERO system at all.

[nexus]

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

 

Wow, its been too long since I've been on this forum. This threads taking on the atmosphere I normally expect only from NGD politcal threads.

[Rkane_1]

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

 

For those interested in seeing my proposed variant for Block, please look to this thread:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1080296#post1080296

[Robyn]

Re: [Thread FlashbacRe: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system

 

If I come up with a rushed out system which doesn't take into consideration a lot of variables' date=' all that does is a diservice to the board and open tons of people tearing it apart because it wasn't well thought out.[/quote]

 

If you post an imperfect idea, the feedback from experienced players can help you refine it into an excellent system far more rapidly than it would become one through you working on it alone.

 

As the continued barrage of near hostile and derisive responses I am getting from this board continue' date='[/quote']

 

Your own posts are not exactly saturated in courtesy and respect Inasmuch as you decline to treat others with generosity, you both create within your own perceptions the very hostility you dislike, and give us no reason other than our own generosity to treat you any better.

 

Please also refrain from insinuating hypocrisy as it does sound as if you are making a personal attack.

 

I did not insinuate it, I formulated a very simple logical theory which can be either true or false. Like a quantum waveform, it is neither "both" nor "confused"; it can only be resolved by the direct perception of it, specifically, your own.

 

If you had been pursuing the idea as both an optional variant and a fundamental alteration to HERO, that would have been a sort of hypocrisy. If you had been criticizing others for not giving you the chance to uphold your end of a discussion on your own terms, but expecting them to be the proactive ones in changing the venue of this discussion, that would have been another hypocrisy "of sorts".

 

Your perception has resolved my speculation into a False state. The theory, as they say, has been disproven.

 

If I had the ability to delete all the posts relative to the discussion on both sides.

 

Well, would you?

 

Is censorship the ideal solution?

 

Frankly' date=' I have had a few people make some fairly decent conversations here but the irritation that the badgering and insulting posts have caused, is making me regret investing any money in the new HERO system at all.[/quote']

 

That's dangerously close to an "elitist" attitude . . . when one comes to believe that the value of an idea is lowered by one's own personal, subjective (even aesthetic) judgements of the other people who happen to believe in it, it is hardly a step further to preserve the value of that idea by claiming that anyone who does not meet certain standards cannot possibly believe in the idea - or, in some cases, even exist

 

That some people happen to exist whom you don't like, but they share a love of the system, doesn't reflect poorly on that system. If anything, it should reflect well on those people, for sharing some of your values.

 

Of course, it's your mind, so your reactions are ultimately up to you. Personally, though, I myself prefer to go for the flattering perceptions whenever I can reasonably justify them

[Andrew Cermak]

Re: [Thread FlashbacRe: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system

 

That some people happen to exist whom you don't like, but they share a love of the system, doesn't reflect poorly on that system. If anything, it should reflect well on those people, for sharing some of your values.

 

Well said.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Who knows...but if the GM wants it' date=' why not let him have it.[/quote]

 

All of this is just opinion versus opinion, of course. Mine is that any rules variant (optional or otherwise) increases complexity, making it tougher for a new player or GM to get into the game. I therefore look to variants, or rules changes, and ask whether the added benefit (flexibility, in this case) is adequate to justify the added cost (complexity, page count). Your variant is yet another on already published rules variants on Block. I don't need a checklist of which of the 137 variants and sub-variants of Block are in use in each game. Thus, my opinion is that such an added variant is unnecessary.

 

Given the nature of this thread, I also view proposed variants as being considered worthy of publication, most likely in core rules, but possibly in a supplement, in the nature of a variant that, ultimately, would be of broad enough utility to merit inclusion were the core rules to be revised.

 

I think I've pretty much presented my argument and lost all hope of you changing your mind....actually lost hope of that two posts ago' date=' come to think of it.....Why am I talking to you again?[/quote']

 

Let me know if you figure it out - it's likely to be a good indicator of why I keep posting as well [pure bullheadedness is high on my own list of possibilities, but your reasons may vary from mine ]

 

Sure...just name them for me....we can see about addressing them. Why are you persistantly putting your head in the sand....do you think to address one item in HERO will make it fall apart at the seams? What are you afraid of' date=' Hugh? Its okay....we can talk through it.[/quote']

 

Several noted previously. My interest in a fully realistic game system (Papers & Paycheques?) is inadequate to justify combing the rulebooks for each violation of "realism". If the goal is a more realistic game system (and maybe it's not - I can only read what you post about your reasons, not your mind), then making one change to one maneuver isn't much of a step forward, unless that one item is so seminal to the game, or so unrealistic when compared to the rest of the rules, that the single item alone renders the game markedly less realistic. I don't believe that is the case for Block. Perhaps you do - you haven't actually said one way or another.

 

Sole example?...again....I wonder if you read these posts before you reply to ahem....gorillas....vampires.....werewolves......cyborgs......alien pit fighters....etc....etc.... any of those ring a bell?

 

Absolutely. They finally came out a dozen pages in, when you decided to, at last, offer an example not related to four color supers.

 

The problem is I have come up with a counterpoint to all your ways of wiggling out of the basic argument about Block. Quit wiggling and just face it. Block' date=' in the game doesn't "realistically" represent a typical Block in martial arts but it does provide a workable functioning mechanic for a more "cinematic" game.[/quote']

 

I don't practice Martial Arts. From what I'm seeing posted, however, "Use skill to overcome Strength" is considered a better description of a Block than "Stick a limb in the way and outpower your opponent to prevent his succcessful strike". Your variant seems to focus on the latter.

 

People should be able to choose rules variants if they choose and ....well...frankly there is nothing you can do to stop us.....

 

In your own game, do what you want (and argue with those in your group that consider your own variant unrealistic, or consider other game aspects as, or more, unrealistic). This thread, however, is about changes people believe should, or should not, be made to the system as a whole - not a house rule for one or a few groups tinkering to customize the game.

 

Possibly some other variants for "Active Dodge" or others would be available as well. If you wanted more granularity of choices' date=' I don't see where that would be a problem. If you wanted to stick with Block and Block only, I don't see as that is a problem.[/quote']

 

In don't see a need for a huge number of added maneuvers when the magic of SFX makes what we already have quite adequate. YMMV - and judging by the sheer number of maneuvrs and variants you propose for Block alone in your new thread, apparently does.

 

A lot of the discussion that follows moves into more technical "how would it work" discussion, so I'm not replying here since your new thread is a better venue for that.

 

Maybe one day when I'm interested in what this rambling is in relation to' date=' I'll ask about it...but til then, do keep it to yourself. [/quote']

 

I think after the last thread on the topic (which makes this thread look like a brochure ), there was a tacit agreement to never again have such a thread, but it's easily searched if you are so inclined.

 

And, like you, I have every right to post what I wish on a public forum. If you want only your ideas reflected, use a blog.

 

Robyn has kindly addressed many of the other issues raised in your post, to which I have little to add. Thanks, Robyn!

[nexus]

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

 

I think Hero System could use some simplifying. As it stands there are (just a few IMO) relatively simple abilities that require very complicated structures to pull off and some of them seem more costly than nessecary.

 

I'd also like to modify life support in some fashion, add more granularity. As it stands its cheaper to make a character that is completely immunce to say, cold than it is make a character is more resistant that normal to it.

[Ganesh]

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

 

I assumed you were going with base x/5 because you had five fingers on each hand

 

ah...no, sort of the opposite, really. The system seems built around multiples of 5, probably because of the 5-finger thing. If we all lived in Disneyland, it would probably be multiples of four. I like it when the fundamental unit is 1.

 

Then again, when I don't expect anyone to need to read my math, I like to use dodecimal and, if working with integers, base 3. So I may be a little odd in that respect.

[NinjaGeek]

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

 

I've always thought that the requirement of only using 6 sided dice to be an unneccesary limitation. Other than making the old boxed sets a little cheaper I don't see the reason for it.

 

They came up with a pretty good system using just 6 siders, but I wonder if the game system might have been even better if they had allowed themselves the option of using other types of dice when it made sense.

 

I always cringe when I see random generation charts using multiple d6, for example. It forces a curve when you may not want it. If you want an equal chance of picking one of 8 alternatives, it makes sense to use an 8 sided die instead. Or to use percentile dice if you want exactly a xx% chance of something happening. It seems kind of silly to act as if 6 siders are the only dice in existance.

 

I realize that this isn't a fatal flaw in the game mechanics and a SWAT team won't bust in you door if you use a die with more than 6 sides. But the exclusive use of 6 sided dice does seem like a fundamental assumption in all the Hero rule books, so I'm using this post to pick a nit.

[Rkane_1]

Re: [Thread FlashbacRe: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system

 

*snippage*

 

Robyn....well, said. Simply put, I acqueised a long time ago about it nperhaps not being a Fundamnetal problem as the current Block serves the cinematic system quite well but I desired something more "realistic" for lack of a better term. The entire reason my arguments continued was that it seemed to me the rights of a GM to dictate what rules could and could not be used in his own game was challenged.

 

That is all.

 

 

Is censorship the ideal solution?

 

Only if all parties agreed it was a waste of thread space.

 

That's dangerously close to an "elitist" attitude . *snippage*

 

No...it is a consumers response, plain and simple. If I find a good car that I want to find out more about and go to the Discussion board dedicated to it and find most people who also own the car are rude and abusive, I might choose another car. Thats simple economics. If you have a negative experience in a community, you may not want to hang around it.

 

Fortunately there are some very well-reasoned arguments to the posts I have made that were respectful and well-written. One of the reasons I didn't how up my hands and leave....the good curreently outweighs the bad.

 

That some people happen to exist whom you don't like' date=' but they share a love of the system, doesn't reflect poorly on that system. If anything, it should reflect [i']well[/i] on those people, for sharing some of your values.

 

And yet negatively on my experience, see above.

 

Of course' date=' it's your mind, so your reactions are ultimately up to you. Personally, though, I myself prefer to go for the flattering perceptions whenever I can reasonably justify them [/quote']

 

Well spoken, Robyn. Well spoken. However, I take things at their face value. I try to respect until disrespected and when I fail, I try to apologize when I have wronged someone. Sometimes I have a temper. Sometimes I maintain. But I always try to be honest about the way I feel. Nuff said.

 

And thank you, Robyn for the insightful conversation. I respect your viewpoint. I may not share it, but you have put it forth in very elegant terms.

[Rkane_1]

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

 

Something I think is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with the Hero system...

 

 

 

It causes WAY too many bull-headed arguments on discussion board threads...

 

 

 

Thank God I never participate in those...

 

*RKane_1 stands before you in his satin jckey outfit with his smoking gun held aloft above the corpse of a horse with a hole in its head*

 

I was only trying to wake him up.

 

[Rkane_1]

Re: [Thread FlashbacRe: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system

 

All of this is just opinion versus opinion' date=' of course. Mine is that any rules variant (optional or otherwise) increases complexity, making it tougher for a new player or GM to get into the game. I therefore look to variants, or rules changes, and ask whether the added benefit (flexibility, in this case) is adequate to justify the added cost (complexity, page count). Your variant is yet another on already published rules variants on Block. I don't need a checklist of which of the 137 variants and sub-variants of Block are in use in each game. Thus, my opinion is that such an added variant is unnecessary.[/quote]

 

That I can respect.

 

Given the nature of this thread' date=' I also view proposed variants as being considered worthy of publication, most likely in core rules, but possibly in a supplement, in the nature of a variant that, ultimately, would be of broad enough utility to merit inclusion were the core rules to be revised.[/quote']

 

Me? I was just makin' conversation and brainstorming.

 

Let me know if you figure it out -

 

Will do...but it might take a while.

 

Several noted previously. *snip*

If the goal is a more realistic game system (and maybe it's not - I can only read what you post about your reasons, not your mind), then making one change to one maneuver *snip* I don't believe that is the case for Block. Perhaps you do - you haven't actually said one way or another.

 

*sorry for the snippage*

 

My interest is to add some more realistic elements that can be plugged in or removed and are modular in nature. Again, IMHO, some more realistic elements help with "Suspension of Disbelief" and "Immersion". I believe that changes can be made one variant at a time without changing the entire basis of the system. A Variant is an add-on. If you want it, use it. If not, domn't. All of this, has been previously stated, quite clearly, I might add. So, I have actually said "one way or another"

 

Absolutely. They finally came out a dozen pages in' date=' when you decided to, at last, offer an example not related to four color supers.[/quote']

 

Then, by your own admission, it was not the SOLE example...by the way, When it was asked for by you, I provided it. Funny, I don't read your mind and react to something before its requested. I am working on it, but I'm not quite there yet.

 

I don't practice Martial Arts. From what I'm seeing posted' date=' however, "Use skill to overcome Strength" is considered a better description of a Block than "Stick a limb in the way and outpower your opponent to prevent his succcessful strike". Your variant seems to focus on the latter.[/quote']

 

Perhaps I should have put it more succintly then. I apologize. I believe there are many type of blocks in both "Linear" and "Circular" arts. The former is very direct and uses force and the Blocks usually taught in Karate. The "Circular" arts provide blocks and counters that use an opponents momentum and mass against them and would provide a better "defense" to the blocking limb. Many styles of Kung Fu and Aikido follow this.

 

It is my assertion that a standard, low skill block is a sacrifice of ones limb to interpose itself between the attacker's strike and the intended attack target of the attack. You are trading one hit location which is more resilient to strike (arm, leg, or shoulder) rather than take the damage to one that is less resilient to strike (head, vitals, stomach, and torso). The more deft a martial artist is, the less damage he will take from this imposition to where finally, a masteris so skilled, he will be able to use a small modicum of force to nudge an incoming strike out of the way with an econmy of motion and use this to give himself more of a bonus on his next strike.

 

In your own game' date=' do what you want (and argue with those in your group that consider your own variant unrealistic, or consider other game aspects as, or more, unrealistic). This thread, however, is about changes people believe should, or should not, be made to the system as a whole - not a house rule for one or a few groups tinkering to customize the game.[/quote']

 

Well, gee. I started the thread....when was it that I made you the thread commander? Again....you're fired. I began to speak about Block being fundamentally wrong and then acquiessced LONG ago, Hugh. You were the one beating the dead horse. I was content to say "Yeah, you're right. It should just maybe be a rule variant." and then let it drop. You were the one trying to flog this dead horse across the finish line.....guess what....we're finished. Race is over....K?

 

In don't see a need for a huge number of added maneuvers when the magic of SFX makes what we already have quite adequate. YMMV - and judging by the sheer number of maneuvers and variants you propose for Block alone in your new thread' date=' apparently does. [/quote']

 

Great. *RKane_1 writes it down* Duly noted. You will not be using the Rules Variant. Thanks for comin' out.

 

A lot of the discussion that follows moves into more technical "how would it work" discussion' date=' so I'm not replying here since your new thread is a better venue for that.[/quote']

 

Gak...thanks *sigh*

 

And' date=' like you, I have every right to post what I wish on a public forum. If you want only your ideas reflected, use a blog.[/quote']

 

And you have every right to flog a dead horse. Have at it.

 

Robyn has kindly addressed many of the other issues raised in your post' date=' to which I have little to add. Thanks, Robyn![/quote']

 

Good...can we agree as gentlemen to end this discussion? I will even let you get in the last word, provided that sole last word is "Yes." Other wise.....well.....this could get tedious and boring,

 

Please...oh please say you'll let it drop, Uncle Hugh. I'd be ever so grateful.

[Robyn]

Re: [Thread FlashbacRe: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system

 

It is my assertion that a standard' date=' low skill block is a sacrifice of ones limb to interpose itself between the attacker's strike and the intended attack target of the attack. You are trading one hit location which is more resilient to strike (arm, leg, or shoulder) rather than take the damage to one that is less resilient to strike (head, vitals, stomach, and torso).[/quote]

 

I once began to design a custom combat system with this defensive move, for D&D.

 

And let me clarify. You probably know D&D as "3rd Edition".

 

Before there was 3rd Edition, there was 2nd (AD&D).

 

Before there was 2nd Edition, there was 1st Edition.

 

And before there was 1st Edition, there was D&D.

 

Conversions just wouldn't be the same.

[Rkane_1]

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

 

Still have the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor books in Beige cover... used to have the original 1st Ed books but lost them to vandalism. Had the Monster Manuel with the original red inside cover too. *sigh* Oh well.

 

Aah....memories.

[Dust Raven]

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

 

Something I think is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with the Hero system...

 

 

 

It causes WAY too many bull-headed arguments on discussion board threads...

 

That's not something fundamentally wrong with the Hero System. It's something fundamentally wrong with discussion board threads.

 

[Dust Raven]

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

 

But speaking of the Hero System and fundamental changes... I propose the name of the Hero System's superhero genre, Champions, be changed to Super Hero, and the modern adventure genre, Dark Champions, be changed to Action Hero. So far, these are the only two genres that don't have the word "hero" in the title. Not only that, they both have the word "champions" in the title, even though they are completely different genres. If Champions is about superheroes, then Dark Champions should be about dark superheroes, not police dramas and superspies. There's nothing even "dark" about Dark Champions. Sure, the characters get holes in them when they get shot with real bullets, but that's not dark. That's getting shot with real bullets when you're not a superhero. And none of that "you can simulate the darker, grittier superheroes like the Punisher" crap. The Punisher wasn't a superhero. He was a normal guy who was really good at killing people in creative ways. So was almost all of Arnold Schwarzenegger's characters, especially in all his earlier films. Sure, the Punisher had his own comic book series, but so did Spongebob Squarepants.

 

[/Carlin]

[Rkane_1]

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

 

That's not something fundamentally wrong with the Hero System. It's something fundamentally wrong with discussion board threads.

 

 

Darnit! Where is that rep button?

[nexus]

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

 

But speaking of the Hero System and fundamental changes... I propose the name of the Hero System's superhero genre, Champions, be changed to Super Hero, and the modern adventure genre, Dark Champions, be changed to Action Hero. So far, these are the only two genres that don't have the word "hero" in the title. Not only that, they both have the word "champions" in the title, even though they are completely different genres. If Champions is about superheroes, then Dark Champions should be about dark superheroes, not police dramas and superspies. There's nothing even "dark" about Dark Champions. Sure, the characters get holes in them when they get shot with real bullets, but that's not dark. That's getting shot with real bullets when you're not a superhero. And none of that "you can simulate the darker, grittier superheroes like the Punisher" crap. The Punisher wasn't a superhero. He was a normal guy who was really good at killing people in creative ways. So was almost all of Arnold Schwarzenegger's characters, especially in all his earlier films. Sure, the Punisher had his own comic book series, but so did Spongebob Squarepants.

 

[/Carlin]

 

While I disagree with you on some of the specifics, I can get behind what seems to be the overall point. Dark Champions, IMO, should have been more about Street Level Superheroes.

[Black Rose]

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

 

So...you can't say something might need consideration before actually providing the consideration already? A problem someone may percieve cannot be discussed unless they already come up with the answer? I sought to have an open discussion. Is this not possible on this board? If I come up with a rushed out system which doesn't take into consideration a lot of variables' date=' all that does is a diservice to the board and open tons of people tearing it apart because it wasn't well thought out. As the continued barrage of near hostile and derisive responses I am getting from this board continue, I am beginning to wonder about HERO players in general. Is this board a place where one can discuss ideas, or isn't it?[/quote']

Well, it should be. Misunderstandings are common online, though, and we all need to be a bit more relaxed about stuff like this. I mean, it's not like anyone else's game is going to influence your own without your deliberate permission.

 

And in re: pointing out a problem without having a solution, there actually is a bit of a cultural vibe in the States that bringing up problems with no way to fix them already in mind is, well, defeatist. The assumption, I think, is that being proactive is better, but it does mean that some things get ignored because "I don't have a fix yet".

[Black Rose]

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

 

But speaking of the Hero System and fundamental changes... I propose the name of the Hero System's superhero genre' date=' Champions, be changed to Super Hero, and the modern adventure genre, Dark Champions, be changed to Action Hero. So far, these are the only two genres that don't have the word "hero" in the title. Not only that, they both have the word "champions" in the title, even though they are completely different genres. If Champions is about superheroes, then Dark Champions should be about dark superheroes, not police dramas and superspies. [/quote']

 

This strikes me as a very smart change. It's not all that world-shaking, it's consistant (which is important when trying to explain to those who come later), and it would give a solid feel to the book series.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

I think maybe we're do in for a color sheme change...

 

maybe a nice Safety Orange cover...